Does the Type of Fermenter Affect Your Homebrew? Bob Sandage and Phil Farrell AHA Conference 2015
Many Thanks to Our Friends Terrence Sullivan and Kimberly Bacigalupo Sierra Nevada Brewing in Chico, CA
Many Thanks to Our Friends Paul Chlup, Katherine Witrick & Troy Montrone. Sweetwater Brewing in Atlanta, GA Katherine Witrick and Troy Montrone.
Many Thanks to Our Friends Daniel Howell Master Judge Indeed Brewing Minneapolis, MN
Many Thanks to Our Friends And of Course Bob, Neal, & Gavin The Wrecking Bar Atlanta, GA
Many Thanks to Man s Best Friend Vinny Willy
Wag More.Bark Less
A Contest So Good It Will Never Die It Only Took: 17 Beer Drinkers A Sitting Governor 1000s of Inquiries And a Rubber Chicken Resumes due 12/31/15 Feb 2016 Wynkoop Brewing Details Soon www.wynkoop.com
TODAY Where Did I Come Up With The Idea? How to Design an Experiment How to Limit Variables What Were the Results? What Do They Mean? What Should You Do As a Homebrewer? Follow On Experiments
Inspiration Grand Rapids 2014 AHA Convention Drew Beechum & Denny Cohn Brewing Experiments at Home Presentation Mention of the Nathan Fermenter and 1927 Commercial Breweries Have Research Volume and Temperature Control Diameter and Cone Angle Column Height I Asked Myself What About Homebrew-Sized Vessels?
Nathan Fermenter Developed in 1927 by Leopold Nathan Patented in 1931 Skeptically Received by Brewers Bad Timing Prohibition Great Depression World War II Brewery Consolidation Tradition over Science Look Familiar?????
Step One Find A Suitable Brewery
The Wrecking Bar Before Built 1901 German Immigrant Engineer Home Then Antique Shop Bob Sandage Homebrewer Engineer Likes Difficult Projects
The Wrecking Bar Before Loved My Graffiti in Basement
The Wrecking Bar Today Special Events Venue Pub & Restaurant Brewery & Beer Garden
The Wrecking Bar Today Rated World Class Beer Advocate & Rate Beer 1 of Only 12 in the World 4 th Anniversary June 19, 2015
How Homebrewers See Brewpub Owners
How They See Themselves
Experiment Design: The Beer Breaking Bob Kӧlsch (Always Been The Name) Brewed Regularly for Several Years Lots of Institutional Experience Recipe Improved as Necessary Great Representative of the Style Unexpected Fermentation Issues Should Stick Out No Post Fermentation Processing (Filtration, Dry Hopping) Wanted to Compare Apples to Apples
Experiment Design: The Beer Breaking Bob Kӧlsch Recipe 62.5% Heidelberg (not Heisenberg!) Malt 37.5% Cologne Malt 18.5 IBUs from Magnum for 60 minutes 2.5 IBUs from Tettnang for 20 minutes WLP029 Kӧlsch yeast Water profile matched closely to Köln Germany.
What to Call the Small Batches?
Experiment Design: The Brewery Wrecking Bar Brew Pub Wort Goes Straight to Unitank Small Vessel Wort Drawn After Yeast Pitch Cool Room for Small Vessels With Temperature Control All Transfers Done Within Hours of Each Other Time On Yeast As Identical As Humanly Possible Bottling, Tasting Trials & Contest On-Site from Draft
Al
Al
Experiment Design: The Process Transfers Kept to a Minimum Duplicates of Each Fermenter For Murphy-Proofing Everything Mimics Handling of Commercial Portion of Batch Fining With Gelatin Only Post Fermentation Task 6 Common Homebrew Vessels/Lock Combinations Used Plastic Bucket (Poppet Lock) Carboy (Both Poppet Lock & Blow-Off Tube) Cornelius Keg (Blow-Off Tube) 12.7 Gallon SS Conical Unitank (Both Poppet Lock & Blow-Off Tube)
Experiment Design: The Process (cont) All Small Batches Kegged at Same Time All Beer Bottled at Same Time Bottles Hand Carried to Sweetwater for Testing Bottles Overnight Shipped to Sierra Nevada Minimal Time In Transit Cold Packs and Insulated Shipping Container Single Container to Save Cost
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Similar to the Observer Effect How Do We Observe Without Affecting The Beer? Accepted Premise Bottled Versions Would Be Slightly Different
Human Trials Blind Triangle Testing Subjects Were Mix of: BJCP Beer Industry Pub Patrons 3 Samples in Opaque Cups 2 are the Same Only 1 Sample is Different Much More Powerful than A/B Testing Twice the reliability with half the samples Much easier to determine if there is discrimination between samples More Breaking Bob Available to Test Against
Blind Trial Discrimination 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percent Correct Bucket Carboy Pop Carboy Tube Corny Keg Conical Pop Conical Tube Commercial Unitank
Blind Trial Breaking Bob 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percent Correct Bucket Carboy Pop Carboy Tube Corny Keg Conical Pop Conical Tube
Lessons Learned Blind Triangle Testing Worked The Beers Were Different But Only Slightly Many Tasters Couldn t Tell Minimize Waste Breaking Bob versus Small Fermenters Use Smaller Pitchers Uptick in Discrimination Due to Temperature Opaque Cups Critical Forces Discrimination to Aroma, Flavor & Mouthfeel Small Batch Clarity Issues
Human Trials BJCP Flight 8 Beers 6 Homebrew Variations Breaking Bob Kӧlsch Reissdorf Kӧlsch Checklist Scoresheets GABF Medal/BJCP Mini-BOS 8 Samples in Numbered Cups All Present at Same Time Pick 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd and HM
Human Trials BJCP Judges Master and Grand Master 3 National Judges 6 Certified 14 Total Other Qualifications 4 with Pro Brewing Experience 7 Media 6 With Industry Experience 18 Total Judges/9 Teams
Results Scores Highest 45 Lowest 26 Highest Variance (Top/Bottom) 15 Lowest Variance 7 5 Pts Total Average Difference (1-8) Analysis Non-BJCP had 2 Highest Variances Average Variance was 10 There WAS a Difference But Only Slight
Results First Round Breaking Bob 6 th by Average Score 2 nd by 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd Points Score Winner Carboy Tube Bob Point Winner Conical Pop Bob Reissdorf 2 nd by Score 6 th by Points Second Round Conical Tube Bob 1 st 3 of 9 Times Bob Beat Reissdorf 6 of 9 Times Breaking Bob Was 3 rd Bucket Bob Had Lowest Finish But It Did Win Once
rth level Fifth level Lab Results
Lab Results Breaking Bob Standard ABV 4.79% SG 1.007 4.48 SRM IBU 25.85 ph 4.39 Haze 156 Schraderbrau SG was 1 or 2 Gravity Points Higher Except for Conicals Gravity Tracked With Alcohol ph All Normal No Micro Contamination (Yeah) One Sample Haze/Color (My Bad)
Diacetyl Levels (ppb) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Free Diacetyl Precurser Total Diacetyl 5 Gallon 11 Gallon Conical 30 BBL Unitank
Total Diacetyl (ppb) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Total Diacetyl (ppb) Bucket Carboy Pop Carboy Tube Corny Keg Conical Pop Conical Tube Commercial Unitank
Total Pentanedione (ppm) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Total Pentanedione (ppm) Bucket Carboy Pop Carboy Tube Corny Keg Conical Pop Conical Tube Commercial Unitank
Conclusions Biggest Difference Flat Bottom vs Cone 5 Gallon vs Larger Batches (The Cone) Slight Difference Flat Bottom vs Hemispherical Poppet vs Blow-off Tube Mitigation Strategy Homebrew Transfer to Secondary Higher Pitching Rate? Agitation? Think Stir Plate
Caveats & Future Experiments Single Ale Yeast Strain English Ale Styles? Belgian Ale Styles? What About Lagers? Standard Gravity High Gravity? Low Gravity? Geometry 5 vs 11 Gal Repeat w/ss Conical Fermenters 7, 14, 27 & Commercial 30 bbl Answers Once and For All Geometry vs Size Question (For That Yeast)
The End Questions???