Home Brew help needed :)

Welease

Hi,

Hoping someone can help here.. Seems to be a few threads about home brew..

I bought one of the starter kits and a tin of the cider concentrate a couple of weeks ago.. Followed all the instructions, and it has been fermenting for 9 days now..

The instructions say it should take about 7 days to reach a 998 gravity.. I am on day 9 and still about 1004 gravity. My concern is that i didnt really mix the brew up sufficiently.

The temp is about 24 degrees so that should be ok..
The gravity is edging closer to 998 but very slowly. At this pace it would probably take another week or so.
The brew doesnt seem to be infected..

So my question is, is it fine to open up the bucket (it has a airtight lid on it) and give it a good swirl around to mix it up and hopefully kickstart the process again? Or would the introduction of large amounts of oxygen cause issues?

Any help appreciated.

oblivious

Your grand, the gravity is fine. The one given by the manufacture are just approximate one.

I would give it another week or so and it will drop down, cider generally finish out dry, in fact a couple of extra gravity points will leave some flavor behind:D

If you do feel the need to rouse the yeast sterilize what ever you plan to mix the yeast up and do it very gently as to don't want to oxidize the cider

Welease

ok thanks

Having read some of the previous posts i realise i haven't really used the equipment correctly although hopefully it wont cause an issue.

I was sent 2 large buckets with lids. I used the one with the solid lid.. However, i now realise I should have used the one with the hole in the lid and put the plug and airlock on it. Would have made it eaiser to test the brew, instead of having to open the lid and take out a measurement jug full (which have all been sterilised).

Any idea why the second bucket has a solid lid? Is this normally used if I am not going to bottle?

Many thanks for your help.

azzeretti

There are a couple of issues there!

Firstly, the solid lid can be used for primary fermentation but also secondary. When using the solid lid in primary fermentation, the CO2 released from the yeast-sugar breakdown will most likely force the solid lid up slight releasing the CO2. The lid with the hole for the airlock/bubbler does exactly the same except you can see the CO2 bubbling and get an indication of how the fermentation is going. I have used both types for primary fermentation without any problems, I wouldn't worry about it.

I would recommend you invest in a turkey baster, that way you can sterilse the baster and open the lid to take a sample. Don't worry about opening the lid to take a sample, it has to be done. I would just take care about opening it too often as there is a slight change of infection.

Just so I don't confuse you....secondary fermentation is sometimes used by brewers after the initial primary stage. There is some debate about its importance and often depends on the style you are brewing. I mostly rack to secondary to let the yeast settle out and clear before bottling but its fine to go from primary to bottling too. If you ever get to making lager, it is usually recommended to perform the lager stage in a cold (near freezing) room in secondary.....hope this doesn't confuse you too much.

One final point....the term infection is often used in brewing but doesn't always imply undrinkable results. Using the word infection in real terms might imply rank, scummy brew with horrid smell/taste. While this sometimes can be the case, sometimes infected brews are still drinkable and won't have any effect to the person drinking it. In fact, some brews are purposly infected over time by controlled means to create a certain taste. The reason I bring this up is that when I started the word infected frightened the bejaysus out of me:) This doesn't mean you can't get off tastes from infection, just means it won't kill you!

oblivious

azzeretti wrote: »

One final point....the term infection is often used in brewing but doesn't always imply undrinkable results. Using the word infection in real terms might imply rank, scummy brew with horrid smell/taste. While this sometimes can be the case, sometimes infected brews are still drinkable and won't have any effect to the person drinking it. In fact, some brews are purposly infected over time by controlled means to create a certain taste. The reason I bring this up is that when I started the word infected frightened the bejaysus out of me:) This doesn't mean you can't get off tastes from infection, just means it won't kill you!

There a massive difference in produce something intentionally like a lambic, Flanders ale or orval that producing something due to poor sterilization. Even those that intentionally sour the brew do so in under very control conditions and some add the souring bacteria/yeast after primary with a standard brewing yeast.

There are a few cheap and easy methods to sanitize out there, as one commercial brew said brewing is really a different from of cleaning!

azzeretti

oblivious wrote: »

There a massive difference in produce something intentionally like a lambic, Flanders ale or orval that producing something due to poor sterilization. Even those that intentionally sour the brew do so in under very control conditions and some add the souring bacteria/yeast after primary with a standard brewing yeast.

There are a few cheap and easy methods to sanitize out there, as one commercial brew said brewing is really a different from of cleaning!

All I was trying to point out was that the term infection might put an image in a new home brewers head of a mutant beast crawling out of the FV. Not so. Some infections can go completely unnoticed, others with just a tad "different" taste. While I agree than sanitation is both easy and very nessacary, I still think, in my opinion, that brews are pretty hardy and can take a bit before being undrinkable.

Regarding lambic beer.....many home brewers can successfully create these without the same controlled conditions that a brewery may have and, as I know you know, although take a few years to ready, the sourness can still be attributed to wild yeast infections.

One last thing......I didn't mean to question your thoughts/advice, I have been listening/reading your advice for some time on this forum and others and would have been completely lost without it:)

oblivious

azzeretti wrote: »

All I was trying to point out was that the term infection might put an image in a new home brewers head of a mutant beast crawling out of the FV. Not so. Some infections can go completely unnoticed, others with just a tad "different" taste. While I agree than sanitation is both easy and very nessacary, I still think, in my opinion, that brews are pretty hardy and can take a bit before being undrinkable.

Yep, don't get over stressed about sanitation but a little fear is good, but its is a technique that worth homing down. But i do think an infection give enough time will be noticeable,that been said it doesn't mean its not drinkable

azzeretti wrote: »

Regarding lambic beer.....many home brewers can successfully create these without the same controlled conditions that a brewery may have and, as I know you know, although take a few years to ready, the sourness can still be attributed to wild yeast infections.

There is a trend with some homebrew if they get off or funky aromas, probably indicating an infection to rename the beer as a Belgian sour. Furthermore there is a little bit of wishful thinking with lambics, even though they do exposed the wort to the air the is a good proportion of the bugs and wild yeast are present in-house in the barrels and building structure (cobwebs) and such. Although there maybe hundreds of species active in this steady community and yeast they are wild yeast and bugs present but not the same as poor sanitation.

azzeretti wrote: »

One last thing......I didn't mean to question your thoughts/advice, I have been listening/reading your advice for some time on this forum and others and would have been completely lost without it:)

Thank you very much and there is nothing wrong with questioning as we are all still learning;)

Welease

Thanks for the responses.. Much appreciated.. The gravity had held solid for the last couple of days, so I am going to bottle today. Fingers crossed, and thanks again.

Oh and while i have you attention and experience.. There is sediment at the bottom of the barrel, should i not bottle the last few litres and just dump that.. or will it disappear/lessen when bottled? Thanks again.

oblivious

If you can transfer it to a fresh vessel to bottle, as this will allow you to get the maximum volume. If not don't worry as if if you get a bit if sediment it will settle out over time, especially if you refrigerated it before serving

Welease

Sorry Oblivious, can you be a bit more explicit.. I think i am getting old and thick

By "transfer it to a fresh vessel to bottle", would that be transfer it from bucket A to bucket B and then bottle it? or something else..
If it is this, do i transfer the full amount, and if so what would cause the the sediment to lessen.. I think its the "maximum volume" bit that confuses me..

Thanks again.

oblivious

Sorry, when I bottle (rarer these days;)) I sypion the beer/cider to a bottling bucket to take it of the trub that left in the primary.The bucket can can be an ordinary food grade plastic bucket or one with a tap.

You can bottle from the primary but you will take up a lot of the trub and will have to leave a bit of the brew behind, thus the max volume. Is this of help?

Mr Magnolia

Folks,

If people want to advertise on boards.ie they can contact an admin or post in the Helpdesk for info. A discrete link in a signature is permitted under boards sigpo rules (available in Feedback). We've been fairly leniant about what's been permitted and would like this to be able to continue please.

Post deleted.

Welease

Thanks Oblivious.. Much clearer now.. I bottled last night, so having done it once now, its all a lot clearer

The cider looked and smelt excellent.. can't wait for the second stage to be done.. Have a batch of larger brewing in the other bucket while i wait

Many thanks for the help on here.. It's nice to get reassurance that everything is going OK, as i would hate to wait the 3-4 weeks and get rubbish out the other end

oblivious

Did you prime it or are you going to leave it still?

Also it you or other find it a little dry or acid you can mix a bit of apple juice with it, and a nearly 6% a bit of apple juice should allow to have a few with out been recked

Welease

Added 1 teaspoon of lactose per bottle.. So fingers crossed it should turn out nice.. Still looks flat in the bottle, but i will be leaving it for another week in the hotpress then a week or two out in the garage..

oblivious

Lactose is a non fermentable sugar

Welease

Heheh not too sure.. was recommended to order it on the site I bought the stuff from.. from subsequent reading, it sounds like a waste of money and normal white sugar is just as good.

http://thehomebrewcompany.ie/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_91&products_id=260

"BrewBuddy 40pt Cider
€14.99
This kit makes a choice of 2 great tasting ciders: Make 40 pints of lighter, sparkling country style cider with an ABV of 5%. Make 32 pints of stronger, sparkling traditional cider with an ABV of 7%.

This kit requires the addition of 1kg sugar.

For the best results, we recommend using 1kg glucose (Brewing sugar) with some lactose depending on how sweet you would like it. We recomend the addition of around 300g of lactose to produce a medium range of sweetness Lactose (1 x 500g Bags). "

Used the glucose for the initial fermentation, and added spoons of lactose for the bottling.. I know lactose is a type of sugar, but i am worried now that i may have done this wrong..

oblivious

Yea lactose is sometimes added to give body, it not really that sweet. It added to a style of stout called milk stout Mackeson's is an example.

I find cider best when dry or with a little sweetens. It wont make it bad but if could be a still cider but that not a bad thing either:)

Welease

hmm would it be worth opening the bottles and adding a teaspoon of proper sugar.. just to carbonate it.. or would the lactose be sufficient?

azzeretti

Welease wrote: »

hmm would it be worth opening the bottles and adding a teaspoon of proper sugar.. just to carbonate it.. or would the lactose be sufficient?

Well, the lactose won't cause any carbonation. Because its a non fermentable sugar the remaining yeast in the bottles won't be able to consume it. If it can't consume it it won't be able to create its by-product, CO2, which causes carbonation in the bottle.

Apart from being a nightmare to open all the bottle and add some sugar it would, strictly speaking, not be the wisest to add sugar at this stage as it won't not be sanitised. (Having said that, I have added sugar many times directly to each bottle and it turned out fine....I now, if bottling, use another bucket for priming)

Welease

ahh bugger I would much prefer a sparkling cider.. i think i might risk adding some sugar.

oblivious

Welease wrote: »

hmm would it be worth opening the bottles and adding a teaspoon of proper sugar.. just to carbonate it.. or would the lactose be sufficient?

You can if you want, but remember that brewer yeast cant ferment lactose but bacteria can. You could get some bottle bombs if it get infected due to the over priming.

Welease

hmm ok so it sounds like the best idea to leave it.. and have still cider..

One more question, so i do better next time

So next time, I should mix it up in the barrel leave to ferment for the week, check the gravity and when fine, add sugar (not lactose) into the bottles and leave for another couple of weeks.. this would produce sparkling cider? or am i missing something in the process..

Sorry for all the questions, but you guys have been a massive help.. I have read a lot of the guides, but they use a lot of non beginner terminology or assume the same equipment is being used..

Many thanks again..

oblivious

Welease wrote: »

So next time, I should mix it up in the barrel leave to ferment for the week, check the gravity and when fine, add sugar (not lactose) into the bottles and leave for another couple of weeks.. this would produce sparkling cider? or am i missing something in the process.

Yep will work fine

If you find your self brewing more a good investment is a plastic with a spigot/tap, as you can transfer the cider/beer of the yeast/trub material and have less yeast in you bottles. Also you can batch prime with the sugar instead of each bottling and its also much easer to bottle with the spigot/tap

Enjoy:)

Welease

Yeah i might invest in one of those.. Although with the help of the misses, when i syphoned off the cider from the bucket, we managed to leave the trub undisturbed on the bottom, so the cider was pretty clear already

Well i decided to throw caution to the wind today (primarily as I had some lager brewing also which is coming along nicely), so i opened 18 of the 24 bottles of cider (screw on caps) and added sugar to them. Will keep an eye on them and see what happens

No initial reaction (they had been bottled for about 2 days already). As still cider the small taste i had was very drinkable, but i would rather it was carbonated..

Fingers crossed..

airliebeach

hey oblivious
when i added the yeast to my beer brew, i didnt stir it in, just left it sitting on top.....its been fermenting 6 days now.....should i stir it in now or leave it.....
thanks a mill

oblivious

airliebeach wrote: »

hey oblivious
when i added the yeast to my beer brew, i didnt stir it in, just left it sitting on top.....its been fermenting 6 days now.....should i stir it in now or leave it.....
thanks a mill

It should dissolve in it self, its sounds like its grand.:D

Best practices is to hydrate the yeast in 100ml or so of sanitized water ( boiled and cooled ). As the adding of dry yeast directly to surgery wort can kill or reduce yeast number by osmotic pressure

airliebeach

thanks ob

azzeretti

oblivious wrote: »

As the adding of dry yeast directly to surgery wort can kill or reduce yeast number by osmotic pressure

Can you explain this? I can't imagine how yeast on its own would have any different effect on the concentration of the water used to rehydrate it than it would on the concentration of the wort, if added directly. Personally, I rehydrate when I can but I have added directly to the wort at times too. I often wonder why some yeast packages (Danstar, for example) usually don't advise rehydrating and other do.

oblivious

azzeretti wrote: »

Can you explain this? I can't imagine how yeast on its own would have any different effect on the concentration of the water used to rehydrate it than it would on the concentration of the wort, if added directly.

The yeast membrane are very preamble when in the dry from and the can't control the passive of a water across the membrane. the can end up with a good percentage of the cells dieing. Allowing the to metabolic activate in a low osmotic environment give a higher percentage of viable yeast

azzeretti wrote: »

Personally, I rehydrate when I can but I have added directly to the wort at times too. I often wonder why some yeast packages (Danstar, for example) usually don't advise rehydrating and other do.

The commercial 500g packs of breweries will all advice rehydrating the yeast, some don't do it for home brewers as they think its too much of an extra step and may put them off