Just curious as to how many of you are still measuring FG. Over the past year, I’ve realized trying to measure alcohol content when doing fruit additions, etc. is impossible using an FG measurement, and I learned from this list that by measuring the final conditioned bottled beer SG and doing a brix, we can calculate alcohol content using NB’s online calculator. I also condition my beers (ales) in secondary for at least 4 weeks after a week in primary which is way passed the end of fermentation for my ales. I find that the beers are much more clear and that there’s a lot less sediment in the bottle while still having plenty of viable yeast for carbonation in the bottle with priming sugar.
I also have been basing the amount of priming sugar used on Palmer's chart. I don't measure it by volume anymore. I weight it out like he advised and vary that weight based on the type of beer I'm brewing. I realized 3/4 of a cup is oftentimes not enough, and I have found my beers to be much better carbonated now. So I can no longer use Papazian's calculation based on OG and FG plus 0.5% for the priming sugar. So I figured that I would just figure alcohol content via the NB calculator method for now on and not bother risking contaminating my beers with repeated measurements to find my FG.
What else would FG tell us besides alcohol content and that the beer is done fermenting? How fermentable the wort was? Is it more important when lagering? Please enlighten me if FG is still a useful measurement. Thanks.
FG is certainly a useful measurement, for reasons that you recognize: figure out your ABV, and when fermentation is finished. I don’t always measure FG… but I do 99% of the time. Do you have to? No. Is it usually a good idea? Yes. If you don’t care, do you need to? No. But if you bottle, beware the gushers and bombs. If you keg, it’s really no biggy.
Always. I like to know where my beer is at, how my brewing process is doing, and if anything went wrong. I know some people don’t take readings, but I’m not so relaxed in my brewing. I’m pretty detail oriented.
Same here. There are times where I’ll have a dark beer finish at 1.014, then the next one I make will finish at 1.022. WTF?!?!?! That kinda stuff pisses me off.
Ok, got it! I’ll keep doing it. Next question: can an accurate SG be taken from the beer that’s left at the bottom of primary after racking to secondary or will any level of sediment affect either the hydrometer or brix readings? Again, I’m looking to minimize the times when I expose my beer to contamination. Thanks.
If you do it after you rack and it’s not finished, then what? Your not going to contaminate your beer by taking a sample unless your sloppy about it.[/quote]
+1 I don’t ‘secondary’ but I wouldn’t rack to a keg without knowing it’s finished fermenting. Can’t know that without taking a few SG readings in a row to see if they’re stable.
If you do it after you rack and it’s not finished, then what? Your not going to contaminate your beer by taking a sample unless your sloppy about it.[/quote]
I always rack to secondary for reasons I stated above. It works for me to rack to secondary. I take sanitation very seriously, and I know the risk is low, but every time I open up that carboy, there is risk, no matter how small, right? So I thought that if I took one of those SG readings from the beer at the bottom before I threw it out and cleaned the primary carboy, and then took some readings during secondary, I exposed my beer to one less opportunity for bacteria to get in there, right? Since I always rack to secondary, and if beer is not finished fermenting, what’s the harm? I’m not bottling it for another 4 plus weeks. I’ll have other opportunities to test the SG for completion of fermentation.
If you do it after you rack and it’s not finished, then what? Your not going to contaminate your beer by taking a sample unless your sloppy about it.[/quote]
I always rack to secondary for reasons I stated above. It works for me to rack to secondary. I take sanitation very seriously, and I know the risk is low, but every time I open up that carboy, there is risk, no matter how small, right? So I thought that if I took one of those SG readings from the beer at the bottom before I threw it out and cleaned the primary carboy, and then took some readings during secondary, I exposed my beer to one less opportunity for bacteria to get in there, right? Since I always rack to secondary, and if beer is not finished fermenting, what’s the harm? I’m not bottling it for another 4 plus weeks. I’ll have other opportunities to test the SG for completion of fermentation.[/quote]
If you rack to a secondary and fermentation is not complete I think you may risk stalling fermentation. Racking to a secondary should be done after fermentation is complete. Unless you plan on adding more yeast. I know some of your yeast will be racked over but will it be enough. Sure you can do it and it may work. Just my opinion for what it’s worth.
brewdvm- if that dvm means what I think it does, then scavenge a 12" section of IV tubing, connect it to a 35 or 60cc syringe, starsan the whole thing, and draw your sample for SG out of the airlock. Minimal risk of contamination. The starsan will eventually affect the rubber in the plunger but they generally last 6 months for me until I have to get a new syringe.
Yes, it most certainly means what you think it does! Glad to hear from a fellow member of the profession! Actually, I have used a set up very similar to what you're describing. I attach a red rubber feeding tube to a catheter tip 60cc syringe. I too find the starsan affects the rubber of the syringe, and I have wondered if using a full plastic syringe (no rubber plunger) would last longer. I've contemplated using IV line as it's thinner and transparent allowing for visual inspection for cleanliness. I'll give it a try next time. If I find a large enough full plastic syringe, I'll give it a try and let you know how it holds up. Thank you.
Holy Cow! There is a thing called a wine thief…. I use faithfully, especially when wanting to Cask[keg] condition a HOME BREW….I need to know I’m close to a known final so I can transfer and let it naturally finish AND carbonate…. Yes FG to me is needed, not so as find ABV, yet to know as I brew, what have I done right or wrong with the malts…. you know, some malts bring fermentables and others don’t…. I need to know my final product, tweaking, then to be able to replicate… Sneezles61 :cheers:
Thanks for your post. Yep, it certainly does sound like FG can be used to troubleshoot inconsistencies, and I look forward to using it in the future for that and other reasons listed above. I guess I never got a thief because I see it as just that, something that steals a lot of beer. But seriously, I got a $30.00 ATC brix refractometer from ebay over a year ago. It works very well and is always dead on when I go to calibrate it with distilled water. I just use the NB online calculator to convert to SG. I really like it because it only takes a drop or two of wort / beer to get my answer instead of a whole test jar full. If you take an OG and let's say 2 to 3 FG's with a test jar and hydrometer, I bet you're out close to a quart of beer. Sure I used to drink that, and it was good, but I'd rather drink that quart of beer cold and carbonated as the finished product instead. So I was trying to figure out a way to sample a small volume, and a tube and syringe seemed to do just the trick. People who ferment in buckets can easily get a sample through that small grommet in the lid without taking the lid off. I use glass carboys, and I can sample through my carboy bung with just the airlock removed. I do pull up at least 5 to 10cc just to make sure any leftover starsan in my tube doesn't cause dilution of the sample and an inaccurate reading. For me, it's also about efficiency as I only have enough time to brew 6 to 7 batches a year, so every drop counts! So the more beer I get in the bottle, the more rewarding it is.
This list is definitely challenging us in all sorts of ways, and it has convinced me to not rack to secondary the next time I brew and see for myself if the whole yeast autolysis thing is a myth, at least to see if it's a myth over the course of a month's period of time. If it works, and sounds like it will, I'm sure I can get even more beer bottled out of my batches since I probably lose a few bottles every time I rack off sediment. Thanks again for everybody's responses.
After a bit of a hiatus I did a batch of all grain last week. I didn’t take any readings as I don’t currently have a hydrometer. Everything went well and I trusted in the process and had fun!
I don’t have any immediate plans to get a replacement hydrometer unless I use a yeast I’m not familiar with or decide to make a Belgian. I used US05. It’s kind of a liberating feeling!
