# Fermentation Process



## BKBrews (18/6/16)

Hi everyone,

I'm new around here and finding it hard to figure some things out.

I made my first BIAB batch of IPA last Sunday. I used:

1.4kg Marris Otter
0.1kg CaraMunich I
6g Chinook
6g Galaxy
US-05 Yeast

The OG was 1.074 as I overshot a little bit (calculated a recipe using 70% efficiency but I got closer to about 78%). I was going for a 5L batch so used about 8.1L of water (no sparge).

So my beer appeared to ferment well and the lock stopped bubbling on about Wednesday night/Thursday morning (read that full fermentation with dry yeast can take only 3 days, so not worried). What I'm worried about at the moment is that it appears that there is no gunk left in it at all? The top has very minor bubbles/foam, but other than that, the top looks like a flat lager that's been left out over night. I'm hoping everyone will tell me this is a good thing? It's a lot darker than I thought it would be, but I'm assuming that will just keep clearing.

I'm going to take a gravity reading tomorrow and see where it's at, with an aim to bottling next weekend. Just want to make sure it's on the right track.

Cheers


----------



## danestead (18/6/16)

Sounds right to me.

Relax!


----------



## BKBrews (18/6/16)

Thanks mate - I thought so but a bit paranoid being my first attempt. Never even done an extract brew, just threw myself in the deep end with all grain. 

In regards to bottle conditioning, I used a calculator to work out the dextrose required to carbonate my IPA and it spat out 2.1g per 330ml bottle. Does this sound right? Any chance of bottle bombs with this level?


----------



## stewy (19/6/16)

Carb level seems about right off the top of my head (calculating back from a normal sized batch) but trust the calculator. 

As for bottle bombs, make sure it has finished attenuating fully & you won't have to worry. How long are you leaving in fermenter before bottling? I usually do minimum 2 weeks with a temp rise up to about 21C. Sometimes I leave for 3 weeks... Don't rush it


----------



## Danscraftbeer (19/6/16)

I trust in Carb Drops for bottle fermenting. The variables between 1 drop for 330ml to 375ml.
Or 2 drops for 650 to 750ml bottles are reliable.


----------



## Yob (20/6/16)

Gravity reading is the first port of call, all danger lies in the path of not knowing what that figure is..

12 grams seems a little short for IPA range.. Sure you didn't mean 60? I'd spill 6g while weighing out for an IPA...


----------



## BKBrews (20/6/16)

stewy said:


> Carb level seems about right off the top of my head (calculating back from a normal sized batch) but trust the calculator.
> 
> As for bottle bombs, make sure it has finished attenuating fully & you won't have to worry. How long are you leaving in fermenter before bottling? I usually do minimum 2 weeks with a temp rise up to about 21C. Sometimes I leave for 3 weeks... Don't rush it


I didn't manage to take a reading yesterday, as I'm concerned about my siphon equipment (don't want to attempt it until totally necessary). My plan is to bottle next Sunday, which would be 2 weeks from the brew day. The weather has been pretty stable on the coast, so it's been fermenting at 20 degrees give or take.


----------



## BKBrews (20/6/16)

Yob said:


> Gravity reading is the first port of call, all danger lies in the path of not knowing what that figure is..
> 
> 12 grams seems a little short for IPA range.. Sure you didn't mean 60? I'd spill 6g while weighing out for an IPA...


Yeah - I only used 12g hop pellets total. I thought that was low as well, however the site I used to make my recipe (brewtoad.com) said that I would get an IBU in the 50's with this mix. I did 2g Chinook and 2g Galaxy at 60min, same again at 20min and same again at 10min. I'll see how it goes and adjust for next time if need be


----------



## Ben1 (20/6/16)

I can tell you with confidence that you are not hitting 50ibu with that amount of hops. Most mainstream lagers use more hops than that


----------



## droid (20/6/16)

^5ltr batch so the numbers are right

how much yeast did you use?


Brew Method: All Grain
Style Name: American IPA
Boil Time: 60 min
Batch Size: 5 liters (fermentor volume)
Boil Size: 8.1 liters
Boil Gravity: 1.044
Efficiency: 78% (brew house)


STATS:
Original Gravity: 1.072
Final Gravity: 1.018
ABV (standard): 7.07%
IBU (tinseth): 57.27
SRM (morey): 7.59

FERMENTABLES:
1.4 kg - American - Pale 2-Row (93.3%)
0.1 kg - German - CaraMunich I (6.7%)

HOPS:
2 g - Chinook, Type: Pellet, AA: 13, Use: Boil for 60 min, IBU: 13.88
2 g - Galaxy, Type: Pellet, AA: 14.25, Use: Boil for 60 min, IBU: 15.22
2 g - Chinook, Type: Pellet, AA: 13, Use: Boil for 20 min, IBU: 8.41
2 g - galax, Type: Pellet, AA: 14.25, Use: Boil for 20 min, IBU: 9.22
2 g - Chinook, Type: Pellet, AA: 13, Use: Boil for 10 min, IBU: 5.03
2 g - Galaxy, Type: Pellet, AA: 14.25, Use: Boil for 10 min, IBU: 5.52


----------



## rude (20/6/16)

BKBrews said:


> I didn't manage to take a reading yesterday, as I'm concerned about my siphon equipment (don't want to attempt it until totally necessary). My plan is to bottle next Sunday, which would be 2 weeks from the brew day. The weather has been pretty stable on the coast, so it's been fermenting at 20 degrees give or take.





BKBrews said:


> I didn't manage to take a reading yesterday, as I'm concerned about my siphon equipment (don't want to attempt it until totally necessary). My plan is to bottle next Sunday, which would be 2 weeks from the brew day. The weather has been pretty stable on the coast, so it's been fermenting at 20 degrees give or take.


You might as well give it a cc @ 1c or there abouts for a while if you can
will drop a lot out to help clear up the beer


----------



## Ben1 (20/6/16)

@droid I should perhaps read properly before I run my mouth!!! Haha thanks for rectifying. OP please ignore my comments and listen to wiser people like droid ;-)


----------



## droid (20/6/16)

Ben1 said:


> ... and listen to wiser people like droid ;-)


you don't have to dig too deep to see my unwisey-ness


----------



## BKBrews (20/6/16)

droid said:


> ^5ltr batch so the numbers are right
> 
> how much yeast did you use?
> 
> ...


Glad that it came out similar to what I calculated. We'll see how it goes. It's clearing out well and I can still see little bits falling out of suspension.

I used 3g of the dried yeast, as per the brewtoad.com recommendation. I have been told elsewhere this probably isn't enough but it looks to have been doing its job!


----------



## BKBrews (20/6/16)

rude said:


> You might as well give it a cc @ 1c or there abouts for a while if you can
> will drop a lot out to help clear up the beer


Excuse my ignorance, but what is cc?


----------



## brewdjoffe (20/6/16)

BKBrews said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but what is cc?


Cold crash


----------



## BKBrews (20/6/16)

brewdjoffe said:


> Cold crash


Right, so when I'm ready to bottle, just leave the fermenter in iced water for a while prior to moving to my bottling bucket? From my limited knowledge, I thought extremely cold temps "killed" the yeast off? Don't I want the yeast to still do some work while bottle conditioning?


----------



## danestead (20/6/16)

BKBrews said:


> Right, so when I'm ready to bottle, just leave the fermenter in iced water for a while prior to moving to my bottling bucket? From my limited knowledge, I thought extremely cold temps "killed" the yeast off? Don't I want the yeast to still do some work while bottle conditioning?


If you are using a fermenting fridge, set the temperature to near 0 degrees. Leave it for a few days to help the yeast flocculate. This will result in clearer beer in your keg/bottles. Yeast will not be "killed off" if they are kept above freezing (there is a way to freeze yeast successfully, but that is an advanced topic). In fact, this will keep them alive longer, as you have slowed their metabolism down significantly. The yeast won't be doing much in the way of active fermentation at those near freezing temperatures though.

If you don't use a fermenting fridge, don't bother with the "cold crash" (this just means to set your fridge to near zero degrees to chill your beer for flocculation purposes usually).


----------



## BKBrews (20/6/16)

danestead said:


> If you are using a fermenting fridge, set the temperature to near 0 degrees. Leave it for a few days to help the yeast flocculate. This will result in clearer beer in your keg/bottles. Yeast will not be "killed off" if they are kept above freezing (there is a way to freeze yeast successfully, but that is an advanced topic). In fact, this will keep them alive longer, as you have slowed their metabolism down significantly. The yeast won't be doing much in the way of active fermentation at those near freezing temperatures though.
> 
> If you don't use a fermenting fridge, don't bother with the "cold crash" (this just means to set your fridge to near zero degrees to chill your beer for flocculation purposes usually).


Right. Thanks.

Not that far advanced yet and don't have much equipment, so I'm just fermenting in a small glass carboy in my cupboard.

A lot to learn, and we'll see how this batch turns out, but I can sense this is a definite long-term hobby I have come across!


----------



## BKBrews (3/7/16)

Hi guys, quick question. I still haven't bottled as yet due to time constraints and it has been 3 weeks today since brew day. Advice above is that 3 weeks is fine - am I pushing it leaving it any longer?


----------



## Bribie G (3/7/16)

Probably best to do it asap to ensure enough yeasties in the bottles to carbonate, and avoid any possible infection taking hold.

With all grain you'll find that primary often goes alarmingly quickly compared to kit brews.


----------



## BKBrews (3/7/16)

Bottled tonight based on your advice. How will I know if I have a bad batch? Tasted pretty good to me, but I'm fairly new to craft beer and only in the last 6 months decided that pale ales were OK to drink.

FG was 1.011 which is bang on my recipe, so happy with that. Will look at carbonation drops for next brew as measuring out dextrose into each bottle prior to filling was a PITA.


----------



## manticle (3/7/16)

You'll know you have a bad batch by tasting it.
If it doesn't taste bad to you, it isn't bad for you.


----------



## Killer Brew (3/7/16)

Measuring into each bottle is a PITA! Do a search on bulk priming. Once you give it a try you will never turn back.


----------



## BKBrews (4/7/16)

manticle said:


> You'll know you have a bad batch by tasting it.
> If it doesn't taste bad to you, it isn't bad for you.


Hang on, can a bad batch actually be bad for you? Or it will just taste like shit but you can still drink it with no harm? 

I did notice my batch tasted quite alcoholic, but I attributed that to the SG being 1.074 and FG being 1.011.


----------



## BKBrews (4/7/16)

Killer Brew said:


> Measuring into each bottle is a PITA! Do a search on bulk priming. Once you give it a try you will never turn back.


Sounds like that's where I need to be!

Last question - how long should I leave them in my cupboard to prime before chucking them in the fridge?


----------



## dblunn (4/7/16)

No problems other than tasting bad! I believe no pathogens survive in beer so all ok. If it tastes bad leave it to condition a while longer as it may come good.


----------



## dblunn (4/7/16)

BKBrews said:


> Last question - how long should I leave them in my cupboard to prime before chucking them in the fridge?


2 weeks usually does the trick.


----------



## BKBrews (4/7/16)

Thanks everyone. Will come back with an update once we're ready to drink


----------



## manticle (4/7/16)

BKBrews said:


> Hang on, can a bad batch actually be bad for you? Or it will just taste like shit but you can still drink it with no harm?
> I did notice my batch tasted quite alcoholic, but I attributed that to the SG being 1.074 and FG being 1.011.


Depends how you describe harm. Psychological harm maybe but even an infected beer shouldn't kill you or ill you.

By bad for you, I meant bad (as far as you're concerned anyway) because someone else may find faults you don't detect so it's bad for them (or as far as they're concerned). Being your beer, your palate and preference is the first yardstick.

Bad for you = bad to you if that makes sense.


----------



## BKBrews (6/7/16)

manticle said:


> Depends how you describe harm. Psychological harm maybe but even an infected beer shouldn't kill you or ill you.
> 
> By bad for you, I meant bad (as far as you're concerned anyway) because someone else may find faults you don't detect so it's bad for them (or as far as they're concerned). Being your beer, your palate and preference is the first yardstick.
> 
> Bad for you = bad to you if that makes sense.


Haha gotcha. It was a very small batch, so I think me and my mate who I did this one with will be drinking the lot! Any faults will be masked by the "we're awesome" vibe that we created the beer [emoji39]


----------



## BKBrews (6/7/16)

manticle said:


> Depends how you describe harm. Psychological harm maybe but even an infected beer shouldn't kill you or ill you.
> 
> By bad for you, I meant bad (as far as you're concerned anyway) because someone else may find faults you don't detect so it's bad for them (or as far as they're concerned). Being your beer, your palate and preference is the first yardstick.
> 
> Bad for you = bad to you if that makes sense.


Haha gotcha. It was a very small batch, so I think me and my mate who I did this one with will be drinking the lot! Any faults will be masked by the "we're awesome" vibe that we created the beer [emoji39]


----------



## BKBrews (6/7/16)

manticle said:


> Depends how you describe harm. Psychological harm maybe but even an infected beer shouldn't kill you or ill you.
> 
> By bad for you, I meant bad (as far as you're concerned anyway) because someone else may find faults you don't detect so it's bad for them (or as far as they're concerned). Being your beer, your palate and preference is the first yardstick.
> 
> Bad for you = bad to you if that makes sense.


Haha gotcha. It was a very small batch, so I think me and my mate who I did this one with will be drinking the lot! Any faults will be masked by the "we're awesome" vibe that we created the beer [emoji39]


----------



## BKBrews (6/7/16)

manticle said:


> Depends how you describe harm. Psychological harm maybe but even an infected beer shouldn't kill you or ill you.
> 
> By bad for you, I meant bad (as far as you're concerned anyway) because someone else may find faults you don't detect so it's bad for them (or as far as they're concerned). Being your beer, your palate and preference is the first yardstick.
> 
> Bad for you = bad to you if that makes sense.


Haha gotcha. It was a very small batch, so I think me and my mate who I did this one with will be drinking the lot! Any faults will be masked by the "we're awesome" vibe that we created the beer [emoji39]


----------



## BKBrews (6/7/16)

manticle said:


> Depends how you describe harm. Psychological harm maybe but even an infected beer shouldn't kill you or ill you.
> 
> By bad for you, I meant bad (as far as you're concerned anyway) because someone else may find faults you don't detect so it's bad for them (or as far as they're concerned). Being your beer, your palate and preference is the first yardstick.
> 
> Bad for you = bad to you if that makes sense.


Haha gotcha. It was a very small batch, so I think me and my mate who I did this one with will be drinking the lot! Any faults will be masked by the "we're awesome" vibe that we created the beer [emoji39]


----------



## gap (6/7/16)

You seem to have a severe case of the hiccups or these is a great echo happening!!!


----------



## BKBrews (7/7/16)

gap said:


> You seem to have a severe case of the hiccups or these is a great echo happening!!!


Gotta love posting on forums from smart phones!!

So the beers have been bottled for 4 days now... Is it natural to have a milky looking substance sitting at the bottom? I assume it's just dextrose that hasn't completely dissolved or a little bit of yeast poop? It seems to mix in if I gently swirl the bottle. Seems to be carbonating well though.


----------



## wereprawn (7/7/16)

It's normal to have sediment in bottle carbonated beers. RDWHAB.


----------



## BKBrews (7/7/16)

wereprawn said:


> It's normal to have sediment in bottle carbonated beers. RDWHAB.


I wouldn't say it is sediment - it looks more like a milky liquid that hasn't mixed one. A quick swirl and tip upside down and it slowly dissolves into the beer. Will keep an eye on it.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (7/7/16)

BKBrews said:


> Haha gotcha. It was a very small batch, so I think me and my mate who I did this one with will be drinking the lot! Any faults will be masked by the "we're awesome" vibe that we created the beer [emoji39]



While the beer will probably (almost certainly) be carbonated and ready at two weeks, try leaving a bottle or two for at least six months and taste it then. Most likely, you'll find it's even better then.


----------



## BKBrews (7/7/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> While the beer will probably (almost certainly) be carbonated and ready at two weeks, try leaving a bottle or two for at least six months and taste it then. Most likely, you'll find it's even better then.


I probably won't do that for this batch, but I already want to buy a bigger fermenter and try some other things. When you say to do that, do you mean leave to carbonate for 2 weeks then out in a fridge for 6 months? Or do you mean leave out (eg in the cupboard like they are now) for 6 months?


----------



## panzerd18 (7/7/16)

Leave somewhere in a cupboard for 6 months. Beer taste changes with age. A light tasting beer is best consumed quickly while a heavy tasting beer is best left to mature for many months.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (8/7/16)

BKBrews said:


> I probably won't do that for this batch, but I already want to buy a bigger fermenter and try some other things. When you say to do that, do you mean leave to carbonate for 2 weeks then out in a fridge for 6 months? Or do you mean leave out (eg in the cupboard like they are now) for 6 months?



As PanzerD18 says, just leave it in the cupboard.

As a rule of thumb, lighter, milder beers with lower alcohol content are best consumed fairly early on (although I would still maintain mine have tended to improve for at least the first couple of months) while bigger beers with more flavour and higher alcohol levels tend to become better with time. How much time? I have no scientific argument for that but a couple of bottles of one of my early beers which was 7.9% with a pretty big amount of caramalt sat in a cupboard for nearly eight years before I re-discovered it; It was incredible even though most of the hop flavours had long gone. I don't know if I can or would replicate that though haha. 

If I was better at scheduling my brewing, I honestly think I would let all of my bigger beers get 12 months on them before having any. 

And yes, get a bigger fermenter. You'll thank yourself for that. I'd suggest not trying for more than 25litres for a while though as there's a point where the sheer amount becomes unwieldy unless you have a really well thought-out setup. Also, 20-25 litres is a large enough batch that you can enjoy the scale, but not so large that you can't also easily diversify and have more brews going at the same time. I'm sure there are some with a much larger setup who'll disagree with me on that one. :lol:


----------



## BKBrews (8/7/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> While the beer will probably (almost certainly) be carbonated and ready at two weeks, try leaving a bottle or two for at least six months and taste it then. Most likely, you'll find it's even better then.


I probably won't do that for this batch, but I already want to buy a bigger fermenter and try some other things. When you say to do that, do you mean leave to carbonate for 2 weeks then out in a fridge for 6 months? Or do you mean leave out (eg in the cupboard like they are now) for 6 months?


----------



## BKBrews (31/7/16)

Well, finally drank my first batch yesterday and I am super happy with how they turned out. My mate who I did them with was equally as impressed, and him and his brother had done quite a few home brews previously (not all grain).

We decided to do our 2nd brew while sinking the first batch, which has potentially turned into a disaster. In my inebriated state, I pitched the yeast into sanitised water instead of the cooled wort. The brew is fermenting away but pretty worried that it will be infected or just plain bad with sanitised water added!!!

Also, this brew came out at 1.052 SG, which is weird considering it was the same recipe as last time which ended at 1.074, albeit we used more water this time to increase the amount transferred to the fermenter (9.6L this time with 1.5kg grain) compared to 8.3L for the same grain bill last time).

Going to leave this one for one week prior to bottling and then bottle condition for one week, just to see the difference compared to the 3 weeks + 3 weeks we did this time.


----------



## danestead (5/8/16)

BKBrews said:


> I pitched the yeast into sanitised water instead of the cooled wort.


Classic! We've all done something stupid like that before!


----------



## BKBrews (7/8/16)

danestead said:


> Classic! We've all done something stupid like that before!


Haha I won't do it again!!

What are the negatives of this? Bad flavours? It all looks to be fine with no infection. It looks like a really good colour too, just wish I did it right!!


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (7/8/16)

BKBrews said:


> Also, this brew came out at 1.052 SG, which is weird considering it was the same recipe as last time which ended at 1.074, albeit we used more water this time to increase the amount transferred to the fermenter (9.6L this time with 1.5kg grain) compared to 8.3L for the same grain bill last time).


1074 is ~18 oP, 0.18 x 8.3 x 1.074* = 1.60 kg = 107% yield, obviously impossible.

1052 is ~ 12.9 oP, 0.129 x 9.6 x 1.052* = 1.29kg = 87% yield, also impossible to achieve with an all malt grain bill.

Check your hydrometer technique, it looks like something's wrong.


* Plato is weight for weight, not volumetric. Your 8.3 litres of wort is 8.9 kg, 9.6 l is 10.1 kg.

BTW the ease of doing calculations like these is why brewers use Plato (or Brix).


----------



## BKBrews (7/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> 1074 is ~18 oP, 0.18 x 8.3 x 1.074* = 1.60 kg = 107% yield, obviously impossible.
> 
> 1052 is ~ 12.9 oP, 0.129 x 9.6 x 1.052* = 1.29kg = 87% yield, also impossible to achieve with an all malt grain bill.
> 
> ...


Sorry to be a noob, but that's way over my head.... I've just been using brewing software with mash efficiency set to 70 - 75% and that has all come out with similar numbers as well? 

Is there really a hydrometer technique? I'd imagine it would be hard to mess up. Unless my hydrometer doesn't work?


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (7/8/16)

Before we go too deep: is the grain bill all malt? did you add any extract or sugar?

BTW yes there is hydrometer technique. The most common mistakes are: not allowing enough room between the bulb and the cylinder, reading the wrong level on the meniscus and not applying temperature compensation correctly.

To check for the first, push the hydrometer down a centimetre or two and let it float back up. Take a reading. Pull the hydrometer up a centimetre or two and let it settle again. Take a reading. If the two readings are not the same, the most likely cause is hydraulic resistance between bulb and cylinder. Ideally the inside diameter of the cylinder is at least twice the outside diameter of the bulb, many people scrimp here because they don't like throwing that much beer away.


----------



## danestead (7/8/16)

BKBrews said:


> Haha I won't do it again!!
> What are the negatives of this? Bad flavours? It all looks to be fine with no infection. It looks like a really good colour too, just wish I did it right!!


I'm not sure exactly how it'd affect your brew but I think it'd depend on what your sanitiser actually was (starsan, iodophor etc.) , how strong it was etc. Depending on how much sanitiser you pitched also. I'd maybe taste the brew once fermented and if it tastes wrong, ditch it. I'd also look up the toxicity info on your sanitiser and make a call based on that.


----------



## Lethaldog (7/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> Before we go too deep: is the grain bill all malt? did you add any extract or sugar?
> 
> BTW yes there is hydrometer technique. The most common mistakes are: not allowing enough room between the bulb and the cylinder, reading the wrong level on the meniscus and not applying temperature compensation correctly.
> 
> To check for the first, push the hydrometer down a centimetre or two and let it float back up. Take a reading. Pull the hydrometer up a centimetre or two and let it settle again. Take a reading. If the two readings are not the same, the most likely cause is hydraulic resistance between bulb and cylinder. Ideally the inside diameter of the cylinder is at least twice the outside diameter of the bulb, many people scrimp here because they don't like throwing that much beer away.


all the above, also making sure you collect a clean sample and not what first comes out the tap, run a bit through before you collect the sample to clean it up!

Edit: just to add, when I first started I was told to spin the hydrometer in the sample ( hard like spinning a top) if there is any bubbles etc on the hydrometer then they will release and not effect the reading, I've always done it as habit more than anything!


----------



## BKBrews (7/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> Before we go too deep: is the grain bill all malt? did you add any extract or sugar?
> 
> BTW yes there is hydrometer technique. The most common mistakes are: not allowing enough room between the bulb and the cylinder, reading the wrong level on the meniscus and not applying temperature compensation correctly.
> 
> To check for the first, push the hydrometer down a centimetre or two and let it float back up. Take a reading. Pull the hydrometer up a centimetre or two and let it settle again. Take a reading. If the two readings are not the same, the most likely cause is hydraulic resistance between bulb and cylinder. Ideally the inside diameter of the cylinder is at least twice the outside diameter of the bulb, many people scrimp here because they don't like throwing that much beer away.


Thanks for the tips. 

It was all malt - no extract or sugar added (only dextrose for bottle conditioning).

I've used heaps of different software (brewtoad and now beer smith) and both have put OG around the 1.06 - 1.075 mark for a 5L batch with a ~1.5kg grain bill.


----------



## BKBrews (7/8/16)

danestead said:


> I'm not sure exactly how it'd affect your brew but I think it'd depend on what your sanitiser actually was (starsan, iodophor etc.) , how strong it was etc. Depending on how much sanitiser you pitched also. I'd maybe taste the brew once fermented and if it tastes wrong, ditch it. I'd also look up the toxicity info on your sanitiser and make a call based on that.


Fingers crossed. I knew it was dumb, just didn't think it would matter *too* much.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (7/8/16)

BKBrews said:


> Thanks for the tips.
> 
> It was all malt - no extract or sugar added (only dextrose for bottle conditioning).
> 
> I've used heaps of different software (brewtoad and now beer smith) and both have put OG around the 1.06 - 1.075 mark for a 5L batch with a ~1.5kg grain bill.



1075 is 18.2 oP, in 5 litres that's 0.182 * 5 * 1.075 = 0.98 kg extract. To get that from 1.5 kg of grain requires between 65% and 66% extraction, on the low side of normal.

In your post above you said you got those levels of OG in batches of 8.3 and 9.6 litres with the same grain bill. That cannot be correct.

The various software programs can be quite good, I use Beersmith myself to save time but like anything else on a computer GIGO applies: it's easy to put the wrong figure in somewhere and get a bad result. If you have an idea of how the results get there it's much easier to catch.


----------



## BKBrews (7/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> 1075 is 18.2 oP, in 5 litres that's 0.182 * 5 * 1.075 = 0.98 kg extract. To get that from 1.5 kg of grain requires between 65% and 66% extraction, on the low side of normal.
> 
> In your post above you said you got those levels of OG in batches of 8.3 and 9.6 litres with the same grain bill. That cannot be correct.
> 
> The various software programs can be quite good, I use Beersmith myself to save time but like anything else on a computer GIGO applies: it's easy to put the wrong figure in somewhere and get a bad result. If you have an idea of how the results get there it's much easier to catch.


Sorry mate, I'm new to this and probably getting my terms wrong and all of that.

I'm doing BIAB with no sparge, so when I said 8.3L and 9.6L I was referring to the Mash water used, not the batch size. Hopefully that clears it up?

I should also note that the first batch was done on a gas stove with a nice rolling boil, while the second batch was on electric, just maintaining a 100 degree Celsius boil.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (7/8/16)

OK, that explains a lot.

I've never done BIAB nor brewed without sparging so I'll leave this to those who are familiar with those techniques.


----------



## BKBrews (7/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> OK, that explains a lot.
> 
> I've never done BIAB nor brewed without sparging so I'll leave this to those who are familiar with those techniques.


Haha no worries. Thanks for the input anyway!


----------



## BKBrews (9/8/16)

OK, so I decided to dry hop the brew I currently have in the fermenter. It has been fermenting for 10 days prior to the hop addition, but I didn't take a gravity reading as it's too hard with my current setup and I don't want to contaminate it (using a siphon in glass carboy etc). It's been in for about 3 hours and the pellets have already turned to mush. My concern is that there now seems to be a lot of yeast activity in there (bubbles coming up the sides). Does this mean that potentially the fermentation hasn't completed? I read somewhere to wait until FG prior to dry hopping as yeast can cause off flavours. My last brew went from 1.074 to 1.011 in 14 days, so I assumed 10 days would have fermented out. Doesn't matter now - can't undo it - just interested to hear what you all think the bubble activity might be.


----------



## manticle (9/8/16)

The hops (or any particulate matter) provide nucleation points for carbon dioxide coming out of solution. Likely normal, use educated smell and taste as your guide.*

*for sensing infection - fermentation should be worked out with an hydrometer
Not hard, not expensive. Maybe get a wine thief.


----------



## BKBrews (10/8/16)

That looks like a good toy, but sounds like it won't fit in my current carboy.

I'm not worried about this batch having an infection, I was more just making sure I hadn't dry hopped too early. I'll see how this one goes and might let the next primary ferment for 14 days prior to 3 days dry hopping (with Galaxy) prior to bottling. 

For some reason I thought the hop pellet matter would fall to the bottom, but it's just sitting on the top. Bottling on Saturday will be very interesting.


----------



## GalBrew (10/8/16)

You are going to find brewing a mystifying process of you can't/won't take gravity samples before/during/after fermentation.


----------



## BKBrews (10/8/16)

GalBrew said:


> You are going to find brewing a mystifying process of you can't/won't take gravity samples before/during/after fermentation.


I have been taking my FG reading only when bottling. I know this will need to change, but I've only done a few brews so far and I haven't had any yeast getting stuck (using solely US-05 yeast). 

I plan on getting a grainfather and a brewtech bucket or conical, so that will make it easier to take readings. Hopefully do that early 2017, but like I said, I'm really just making sure I stick with this hobby before I spend too much cash (I am indeed already hooked though).

Just checked on my brew and it's still bubbling away. There's lots of hop matter floating around and on top, but hopefully this all settles. Problem is, the siphon I use stirs this stuff up a bit when bottling, as you need to pump it a few times to get the vacuum. Smells really good though so I'm excited to see the difference compared to the last batch with the same ingredients, minus the dry hop. 

I also just bought one of the 5L kegs from the group buy, so will be good to transfer my brews straight from the fermenter to the keg.


----------



## BKBrews (11/8/16)

I'm doing everything that they tell you not to do at the moment. Can't help but keep checking it, thinking every little bubble is an infection!! Hurry up Saturday morning so I can bottle!!


----------



## BKBrews (12/8/16)

OK I just took a gravity reading. It appears to be at 1.015 - 1.016 and is tasting quite foul. No infection, but very bitter and acidic. I want to still bottle it obviously and see what happens, but do you think I should wait for it to ferment out further? WILL it ferment out further? I was going to cold crash it overnight and bottle around 11am tomorrow. Should I skip the cold crash and see if it comes down overnight at all? After pulling the bung out, siphoning a sample and replacing the bung, the airlock is bubbling again (once every 20 seconds), so maybe it's still going?

Could the acidic taste come from me using sanitised water to pitch my yeast?

View attachment 90611
View attachment 90612


----------



## BKBrews (12/8/16)

PS I'm wanting to bottle tomorrow because I've planned a brew day and only have one carboy!


----------



## gilligan_87 (13/8/16)

The only way to know for sure is to take reading over a couple of days. If it hasn't moved, it's safe to bottle.


----------



## BKBrews (13/8/16)

Going to hold off until tomorrow for my brewday then. If it hasn't changed from 1.015, I will bottle and see where we end up. Thanks.


----------



## BKBrews (15/8/16)

Checked the gravity again last night and it hadn't moved, so I decided to bottle it. Tasted the gravity sample again and it was better than I thought, so I think it will be fine. I primed each bottle separately, which was a PITA again, but hopefully it's the last time I have to do that as I have gone in on the 5L Mini Keg Bulk Buy.

Going to try a Stone and Wood Pacific Ale/Balter XPA Clone next.


----------



## BKBrews (19/8/16)

Pretty bummed tonight. Just finished a very long brew day and it's turned out terrible.

1. Missed SG (1.042 instead of 1.046)
2. The fermenter is about 1/3 cold break!!!
3. Wort is uber cloudy
4. Couldn't get a rolling boil, so boiled for 90 min instead of 60. Temp was consistent at 100 degrees though.
I can't figure out where I'm going wrong. I chilled the wort down to 25 degrees and then whirlpooled with my paddle. It didn't actually appear to do that much and I could see a lot of the cold break still mixed in to the wort. Once I'd transferred, I realised just how much was in there.

What am I doing wrong? This was a 5L batch. Mashed with 8.4L of water @ 66 degrees. Probably got about 3.5 - 4L wort into the fermenter (including cold break). 

Recipe made with brew smith. 630g pale malt and 430g terrified wheat for a total grain bill of 1.05kg.


----------



## BKBrews (19/8/16)

Pics of the cloudiness, SG and cold break in fermenter


----------



## BKBrews (19/8/16)

This is going from bad to worse. What have I done?


----------



## OliverWM (19/8/16)

Hi BKBrews, I would suggest whirlpooling before chilling. Whirlpooling is done to collect all the kettle break, hops etc. together, and chilling beforehand would counteract this process.

At this stage your best bet would be to let your main fermentation occur, then, if you can, move to a secondary. Personally I prefer not to use a secondary, but in this case it will help shift the clearer wort off the trub.

Edit: nice work on taking an OG reading tho. I wouldn't worry too much about 4 points.


----------



## BKBrews (20/8/16)

OliverWM said:


> Hi BKBrews, I would suggest whirlpooling before chilling. Whirlpooling is done to collect all the kettle break, hops etc. together, and chilling beforehand would counteract this process.
> 
> At this stage your best bet would be to let your main fermentation occur, then, if you can, move to a secondary. Personally I prefer not to use a secondary, but in this case it will help shift the clearer wort off the trub.
> 
> Edit: nice work on taking an OG reading tho. I wouldn't worry too much about 4 points.


Thanks mate. I figured I had done it the wrong way around, but I couldn't really get a straight answer by searching. A lot of the info I found seemed to talk about no chill and whirlpooling.

I should also mention that I used a whirfloc tablet, which I had never done before as well. 

This also brings up another question for me - what is the difference between a flameout hop addition and a whirlpool hop addition? Wouldn't I start whirlpooling as soon as I turn off the boil? I thought best practice was to chill ASAP, so shouldn't I turn off the boil, whirlpool, then get the kettle straight into an ice bucket?


----------



## BKBrews (20/8/16)

It's now incredibly clear in the middle with a crap load of trub and cold break at the top and bottom. Can a moderator change the title of this to 'BIAB Rolling Journal with Questions"?


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (20/8/16)

That's fascinating, looks like the early fermentation gas has performed a floatation clarification for you. If you have a second vessel and a siphon available, you could take advantage of that to give you a nice clean wort to ferment.


----------



## wessmith (20/8/16)

Looks to me like a "blue mash" result. Was an iodine test done to prove conversion?

Wes


----------



## BKBrews (20/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> That's fascinating, looks like the early fermentation gas has performed a floatation clarification for you. If you have a second vessel and a siphon available, you could take advantage of that to give you a nice clean wort to ferment.


Hoping to pick up another fermenter to do secondarys in the next week or so, but unfortunately don't have one at the moment.


----------



## BKBrews (20/8/16)

wessmith said:


> Looks to me like a "blue mash" result. Was an iodine test done to prove conversion?
> 
> Wes


What's a blue mash? Too cold? Checked my temps every 5 - 10 min right through different spots of the mash and stayed pretty consistent. It was a brand new thermometer too, so should be ok. I also had heaps of hot break from the wheat, so I thought the mash was fine.

What is the iodine test?


----------



## manticle (20/8/16)

Mash where unconverted starch remains


----------



## BKBrews (20/8/16)

manticle said:


> Mash where unconverted starch remains


And that's figured out by the iodine test?

Can you have a blue mash but still hit your target SG?


----------



## manticle (20/8/16)

Iodine test will show unconverted starch as dark blue or purple.

Potentially you could get expected og without converting everything but unconverted starch should not add gravity points.


----------



## Hpal (21/8/16)

BKBrews said:


> Thanks mate - I thought so but a bit paranoid being my first attempt. Never even done an extract brew, just threw myself in the deep end with all grain.
> 
> In regards to bottle conditioning, I used a calculator to work out the dextrose required to carbonate my IPA and it spat out 2.1g per 330ml bottle. Does this sound right? Any chance of bottle bombs with this level?


When I bottled my stout the other day, I used about 1.5g of caster sugar per 330ml bottle, 1/3 tsp. When using carb drops I have found 1 is enough for a 750ml or 500ml bottle but I only use half of one for a 330ml and I get the right carbonation for me.


----------



## BKBrews (21/8/16)

manticle said:


> Iodine test will show unconverted starch as dark blue or purple.
> 
> Potentially you could get expected og without converting everything but unconverted starch should not add gravity points.


What would cause that to happen if my temps were all correct? Could that be caused by temps being a little high? Or low? I was very fastidious in checking the temps regularly - I didn't just get it to heat, add the grain and then leave it for an hour. This was my first time using wheat as well, but I got a really good hot break, so I thought everything was going well.

I'm pretty sure my issue this time was cooling before whirlpooling, which stirred it all in.


----------



## stewy (21/8/16)

My guess would be cooling before whirlpooling. Time should see it clear up for you. Don't stress. If it doesn't clear up drink it out of plastic cups!


----------



## Tony121 (21/8/16)

It will clear up. Looks like my first few AG brews before I learnt not to put too much trub from the kettle into the fermenter.


----------



## BKBrews (1/9/16)

Just took a gravity reading 13 days after pitching and it's only got down to 1.015 (expected of 1.009). I dunno what's going wrong with my processes, but ******* bring on the grainfather and my new ferm fridge and temp control. Also goodbye siphon!!!


----------



## MHB (1/9/16)

You have nearly 40% unmalted wheat in the recipe, you haven't done a Glucanase or Protease rest which could contribute to a lot of haze.
As Wes said if your conversion wasn't really finished (blue mash) that to could be adding its own collection of problems.
As could stirring late, I think you have a lot of Hot break in the fermenter, see pick post #71, what you are seeing in the next picture post #72, that mutated jellyfish looking thing is cold break.

On the theme of measuring the temperature, what are you using and how confidant are you that it is telling the truth?
Mark


----------



## BKBrews (2/9/16)

> You have nearly 40% unmalted wheat in the recipe, you haven't done a Glucanase or Protease rest which could contribute to a lot of haze.
> As Wes said if your conversion wasn't really finished (blue mash) that to could be adding its own collection of problems.
> As could stirring late, I think you have a lot of Hot break in the fermenter, see pick post #71, what you are seeing in the next picture post #72, that mutated jellyfish looking thing is cold break.
> 
> ...


I think I've definitely determined that there is a shit load of cold break in the fermenter. That's a given at this point.

I have just been using a thermometer that is probably used for coffee milk. But it read exactly 100 degrees on the boil, so I thought it was pretty accurate.

The wheat I bought is Bairds Soft Red Wheat Malt (Torrified Wheat)... Is that not malted? I'm confused.

It's really not hazy at all any more, it's clear as. Looks very thin though, almost too clear and light coloured.

My main concern at this stage is that it's stuck at 1.015, exactly like my last beer. My first one went from 1.074 to 1.011 with ease and none of my beers since have been even close to that gravity.

Anyway, like I said, bring on the grainfather and temp controlled ferm fridge


----------



## BKBrews (4/9/16)

So I ended up stirring all the yeast and trub and cold break back into suspension, as I was quite prepared to tip this batch if it didn't work out. Looks like there is now a layer of yeast on the bottom, then cold break and trub and now a fresh layer of yeast on top of that, so hopefully it drops a few more points and I'll just bottle it.


----------

