Making sure it never explodes again

[Pliny Harris]

First off, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum if there isone at all, but since the forum section mentions "other home brewing talk," then I'll assume it is. It's a query on brewing fizzy pop, but I'm sure this question isn't completely alien.

As an introduction I've been brewing for only two months. I'm a student nearing the end of his long holiday, and instead of handing in CVs to every shop within 10 miles of me, I thought home brewing would be a good hobby and opportunity to make money on the side without destroying my soul. A good friend and I have decided to brew fizzy pop, and I'm not sure if that sounds babyish compared to making wines and beers, but independent pop brewing seems widespread in the USA but almost non-existent in the UK, and we don't see why market stalls, delis and bars can't take on interesting pop flavours when real ale's currently so diverse. And again, it's a good hobby and fun to create.

Sadly I was very naïve initially, and even having heard stories I left a few glass bottles of ginger beer around without pasteurising, and the yeast really got going. A few exploded, created a huge mess, wasted a lot of time, a bit of money, and most of all the explosion would've risked my health and dented my confidence a great amount. This was around six, seven weeks ago.

So once my brews are bottled I now do the obvious and release pressure from the caps regularly until the amount of fizz is satisfactory. I'll then do some home pasteurisation by immersing their bottom halves in water over the hob. So far this had worked, all the yeast was killed and the fizz came to a very safe limit each time. It was very rewarding to open a pasteurised bottle and seeing the perfect amount of fizz in the glass.

Then today happened, and I made a test batch of a peach drink. I must have used far too much yeast as the bottles became very fizzy just overnight, so I went straight to pasteurising. One then exploded and I had to clean the entire kitchen. Very grim. But again, nothing matters as much as personal safety and confidence.

However the fact this has happened a second time, while pasteurising it to avoid such an explosion, has really got me down. I've invested a lot of time and money in getting to this, and now it feels like I should quit before summat bad happens. I'm unhurt physically but mentally I've been destroyed.

To go ahead without drastically altering what I do and making everything industrially precise would be completely idiotic. On the other hand I'd only earlier paid a subscription to become a member of the NMTF to sell excess bottles on the market, and will have shelled out a lot of money on nowt but a waste of time if I leave it now.

Does anyone have tips on where to go from here? I really would love to keep it up, but I want to make my brews perfect and risk-free from now on. I want to know exactly what I'm doing. So gutted though.

 

[oldbloke]

Quick check - your bottles are designed for fizzy liquids?

One possibility is to switch to artificial sweeteners for the sweetness and then use exactly the right amount of sugar to get the amount of gas you need.

 

[Algernon]

I would DEFINITELY advise fermenting in an unpressurised container. Use a standard brew-bucket from wilko with an airlock until the specific gravity has been stable over 3 days.
This tells you the yeast has eaten all it can and so will be making no new CO2.
Now you can rack it off and bottle it.
Some people who dislike fizz just rack and bottle, relying on the tiny amounts of unfermented sugars to slowly add a smidgen of fizz over a long time conditioning.
Most people prime when they bottle. Priming involves adding a touch of sugar to the bottles to give the yeast JUST enough to produce the co2 needed for fizz, without making bombs.
You can prime the bottles individually, which is dull and can result in uneven priming if you get sloppy/careless/bored. You can also "batch prime" which involves racking the beverage into a new container. before you do this, calculate how much sugar you will need in total, dissolve it in boiled water and pour into the bottom of your racking vessel. When you decant the beverage into the vessel it should all swirl and mix evenly. Some people like to leave it a half hour or so just to be sure, there is still a risk of unmixed syrup lurking if you didn't mix and swirl on racking.
Hope this helps.
Al

 

[Pliny Harris]

I would DEFINITELY advise fermenting in an unpressurised container. Use a standard brew-bucket from wilko with an airlock until the specific gravity has been stable over 3 days.
This tells you the yeast has eaten all it can and so will be making no new CO2.
Now you can rack it off and bottle it.
Some people who dislike fizz just rack and bottle, relying on the tiny amounts of unfermented sugars to slowly add a smidgen of fizz over a long time conditioning.
Most people prime when they bottle. Priming involves adding a touch of sugar to the bottles to give the yeast JUST enough to produce the co2 needed for fizz, without making bombs.
You can prime the bottles individually, which is dull and can result in uneven priming if you get sloppy/careless/bored. You can also "batch prime" which involves racking the beverage into a new container. before you do this, calculate how much sugar you will need in total, dissolve it in boiled water and pour into the bottom of your racking vessel. When you decant the beverage into the vessel it should all swirl and mix evenly. Some people like to leave it a half hour or so just to be sure, there is still a risk of unmixed syrup lurking if you didn't mix and swirl on racking.
Hope this helps.
Al

Thanks. Normally I do ferment for 1–2 days in a container of 80 or so litres albeit with a cap rather than an airlock, but its tap is four or five litres above its base, so for an experimental run of a few litres that would've been a nuisance, so I went straight from pot to bottle. Hopelessly amateur questions coming up, but how does an airlock tell you the yeast is done?

My aim is always to get that healthy amount of crisp fizz that you get in any pop from Fentiman's to Pepsi. Plenty of it though the head goes quickly.

I did read an article on priming (hbd [dot] org/brewery/library/YPrimerMH.html) but the "volumes" talk puzzled me a bit, and the article focused on beer. Am I right though in thinking that it's a method that doesn't require pasteurisation afterwards, because that touch of sugar will always give that healthy amount of fizz?

I've realised I don't think I rack. I boil water with sugar over a hob, then add the ingredients as it cools finishing with the yeast when it's down to R.T. I then strain it into my container to ferment, which still leaves substantial sediment. After that I decant it into bottles. And that's very basically how I brew! I suppose I should be racking it into my current container?

Thanks for the prompt help. I'm sure my questions sound facile right now, but it's all about learning, hey.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Quick check - your bottles are designed for fizzy liquids?

One possibility is to switch to artificial sweeteners for the sweetness and then use exactly the right amount of sugar to get the amount of gas you need.

Since it's still new to me, I think I need to get to know what amounts of yeast and sugar do what and I'd say the amount of yeast I used to a small run of 10 or so bottles was almost asking for trouble. Feel like I need to know some precision on ingredients and timing. I measure to the best of my knowledge all my ingredients but it's done more on a "to taste" basis.

My bottles are designed for fizzy liquids. To be honest I could see the threat—the tops of the plastic caps I use were swelling.

Thanks for your help.

 

[chrig]

you seem to be brewing the opposite to most wines or beers... the general plan is to use the yeast to convert all the fermentable sugar to alcohol and then add a little "priming sugar" once teh yeast has finished to produce the co2 for the fizz / carbonation.

 

[bobsbeer]

I'd say the amount of yeast I used to a small run of 10 or so bottles was almost asking for trouble.

Yeast are a living thing and when active in a brew will divide and keep dividing until there is a concentration of yeast in the brew and die off as the food supply diminishes. So it is difficult to put too much or too little in initially. Too much and you get a vigorous ferment from the off. Too little and it takes a while for the colony to establish, but will get there on it's own.

What are you actually making? You mention pop, but as it is a fermented brew I presume you mean alco pop? You seem to be using yeast as a source of co2 rather than as a source of alcohol. So why not use co2 from a bottle to carbonate to your required level without the yeast? At least you get consistency. If you wanted the slightly brewed product you could always stabilise the brew as in wine making, then re carbonate. Many beer makers do this (not kill the yeast), when putting their beer in kegs to reduce the trub of secondary fermentation and keep the beer bright.

 

[Algernon]

Thanks. Normally I do ferment for 1–2 days in a container of 80 or so litres albeit with a cap rather than an airlock, but its tap is four or five litres above its base, so for an experimental run of a few litres that would've been a nuisance, so I went straight from pot to bottle. Hopelessly amateur questions coming up, but how does an airlock tell you the yeast is done?

My aim is always to get that healthy amount of crisp fizz that you get in any pop from Fentiman's to Pepsi. Plenty of it though the head goes quickly.

I did read an article on priming (hbd [dot] org/brewery/library/YPrimerMH.html) but the "volumes" talk puzzled me a bit, and the article focused on beer. Am I right though in thinking that it's a method that doesn't require pasteurisation afterwards, because that touch of sugar will always give that healthy amount of fizz?

I've realised I don't think I rack. I boil water with sugar over a hob, then add the ingredients as it cools finishing with the yeast when it's down to R.T. I then strain it into my container to ferment, which still leaves substantial sediment. After that I decant it into bottles. And that's very basically how I brew! I suppose I should be racking it into my current container?

Thanks for the prompt help. I'm sure my questions sound facile right now, but it's all about learning, hey.

Airlocks are a guide more than an indicator, as fermentation vessels often leak gas round the edges. Really the airlock is there to make an exciting sound you can listen to and enjoy as the yeast goes to work. Also, if the lid DOES seal tightly, the airlock lets the pressure out.
Most things ferment in a week at minimum, although they can go faster in warm weather, but certainly with beer that can lead to dodgy flavours. I have no experience making anything else. I would allow at least a week, then carefully sample it for gravity. Give it another 48 hours and sample again. If the gravity readings are similar, there is barely any sugar left.
Priming. Volumes. Basically, priming is feeding the yeast a smidgen of sugar to allow it to produce a controlled(ish) amount of CO2. Volumes is a way to describe how much CO2 is in each bottle. For ales, you don't want too much, maybe 1.5 volumes to 2.5 which is on the fizzy side for ale. This means if you shook it up and made all the fizz come out, you'd get a lump of foam around 1.5 to 2.5 times the size of your bottle. Some beers require more than that, wheat beers need around 4 volumes of CO2 to keep them creamily fizzy to the end. This requires more sugar. I know from my own experience that around a teaspoon of granulated in a 500ml bottle makes for a pretty fizzy beer, around the fizz you are describing. To get that fizz into the beer, i leave it for 2 weeks (one week minimum, 2 seems better) in the warm (around 20c). I then pop it in the cool fridge for a day or two to allow the gas to dissolve - unlike solids, gases dissolve better in cold liquids.
If you want to reduce the amount of sediment in the bottles, try crash cooling your brew before bottling. This encourages the yeast to drop to the bottom of the vessel, meaning less in eah bottle. Takes a little longer to carbonate once primed, obviously, but produces less yeast in the bottles.
Good luck.

 

[calumscott]

a query on brewing fizzy pop

So naturally carbonated sodas?

I thought home brewing would be a good hobby and opportunity to make money on the side

So long as you keep the ABV under 1.2% then that would be fine. Hit 1.3% and you have "made wine" which is dutiable under the Alcohol and Liquor Duties Act 1979 and as such...

without destroying my soul

...it'll be your bank balance/freedom/future prospects that would take the hit rather than your soul.

Lots of stuff...

I think what you need to do is go right back to the theory and think this through a bit further. To get a decent fizzy pop you are going to need:

1) Something sweet and fruity
2) Fizz

...and you intend to use yeast to give the fizz. Given that yeast will, as far as they can before some limit comes into play, convert as much sugar as they can into alcohol. This causes you two problems:

1) You may well create more than 1.2% ABV.
2) You may well (as you know) create bombs.

And the trouble is, without some pretty advanced tech you aren't going to be able to do what you suggest you are trying to do with any degree of confidence in what is actually in your bottle.

There is a very good reason why manufacturers of sodas gave up on the natural carbonation route many many years ago.

The safest way for you to make pop is to get some good recipes, a cornelius keg, a CO2 bottle, a regulator and a Blichmann beer gun.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Bumping this thread because I've been on my jollies.

you seem to be brewing the opposite to most wines or beers... the general plan is to use the yeast to convert all the fermentable sugar to alcohol and then add a little "priming sugar" once teh yeast has finished to produce the co2 for the fizz / carbonation.

Airlocks are a guide more than an indicator, as fermentation vessels often leak gas round the edges. Really the airlock is there to make an exciting sound you can listen to and enjoy as the yeast goes to work. Also, if the lid DOES seal tightly, the airlock lets the pressure out.
Most things ferment in a week at minimum, although they can go faster in warm weather, but certainly with beer that can lead to dodgy flavours. I have no experience making anything else. I would allow at least a week, then carefully sample it for gravity. Give it another 48 hours and sample again. If the gravity readings are similar, there is barely any sugar left.
Priming. Volumes. Basically, priming is feeding the yeast a smidgen of sugar to allow it to produce a controlled(ish) amount of CO2. Volumes is a way to describe how much CO2 is in each bottle. For ales, you don't want too much, maybe 1.5 volumes to 2.5 which is on the fizzy side for ale. This means if you shook it up and made all the fizz come out, you'd get a lump of foam around 1.5 to 2.5 times the size of your bottle. Some beers require more than that, wheat beers need around 4 volumes of CO2 to keep them creamily fizzy to the end. This requires more sugar. I know from my own experience that around a teaspoon of granulated in a 500ml bottle makes for a pretty fizzy beer, around the fizz you are describing. To get that fizz into the beer, i leave it for 2 weeks (one week minimum, 2 seems better) in the warm (around 20c). I then pop it in the cool fridge for a day or two to allow the gas to dissolve - unlike solids, gases dissolve better in cold liquids.
If you want to reduce the amount of sediment in the bottles, try crash cooling your brew before bottling. This encourages the yeast to drop to the bottom of the vessel, meaning less in eah bottle. Takes a little longer to carbonate once primed, obviously, but produces less yeast in the bottles.
Good luck.

I probably haven't explained myself well enough, or my methods are deceptively simplified, but by making pop I mean I'm brewing the sugary stuff with minimal alcohol. The stuff the pop van would deliver a generation or two ago. So I'm not sure if priming fits into this because in the fermentation I aim not to give the brew its alcohol content but to quickly fizz it up, while keeping it very sweet (much sweeter than the average beer, anyway). So I want to keep most of the sugar!

Still genuine thanks for your post. Can't rule out not making beer in the distant future anyway, and crash cooling defo sounds worth adopting.

I'd say the amount of yeast I used to a small run of 10 or so bottles was almost asking for trouble.

Yeast are a living thing and when active in a brew will divide and keep dividing until there is a concentration of yeast in the brew and die off as the food supply diminishes. So it is difficult to put too much or too little in initially. Too much and you get a vigorous ferment from the off. Too little and it takes a while for the colony to establish, but will get there on it's own.

What are you actually making? You mention pop, but as it is a fermented brew I presume you mean alco pop? You seem to be using yeast as a source of co2 rather than as a source of alcohol. So why not use co2 from a bottle to carbonate to your required level without the yeast? At least you get consistency. If you wanted the slightly brewed product you could always stabilise the brew as in wine making, then re carbonate. Many beer makers do this (not kill the yeast), when putting their beer in kegs to reduce the trub of secondary fermentation and keep the beer bright.

Depends what you call alcopop. Course it contains alcohol, but my successful runs have kept it low enough for the sugar to finish me long before the alcohol does. I think now that it's not worth putting in lots of yeast to speed things up, but better to be conservative with it and wait a bit longer. There seems to be little lit' out there that teaches you to brew fizzy pop especially from Blighty, so I've taken ideas from many disparate sources, which mostly deal in providing a nice little brew of three or so litres to have as a family picnic.

I'm obviously a newb, and am starting to think I've been having wild misconceptions of brewing lo-ABV fizzy pop with yeast as a bid to give it a classy, traditional, "real" edge. Using CO2 is starting to tempt me for a few reasons . . .

Will look up brew stabilising. Thanks.

a query on brewing fizzy pop

So naturally carbonated sodas?

If we're going into semantics then yes.

I thought home brewing would be a good hobby and opportunity to make money on the side

So long as you keep the ABV under 1.2% then that would be fine. Hit 1.3% and you have "made wine" which is dutiable under the Alcohol and Liquor Duties Act 1979 and as such...

[quote="Pliny Harris":47u9x639]without destroying my soul

...it'll be your bank balance/freedom/future prospects that would take the hit rather than your soul.[/quote:47u9x639]

Fair dos and ta. Home truths appreciated!

I think what you need to do is go right back to the theory and think this through a bit further.

My thoughts exactly.

To get a decent fizzy pop you are going to need:

1) Something sweet and fruity
2) Fizz

...and you intend to use yeast to give the fizz. Given that yeast will, as far as they can before some limit comes into play, convert as much sugar as they can into alcohol. This causes you two problems:

1) You may well create more than 1.2% ABV.
2) You may well (as you know) create bombs.

And the trouble is, without some pretty advanced tech you aren't going to be able to do what you suggest you are trying to do with any degree of confidence in what is actually in your bottle.

There is a very good reason why manufacturers of sodas gave up on the natural carbonation route many many years ago.

The safest way for you to make pop is to get some good recipes, a cornelius keg, a CO2 bottle, a regulator and a Blichmann beer gun.

Considering what you've posted so far sounds right it sounds worth me investing in all this if I give it a big think, although it sounds like I won't have much choice if I want to continue making pop on a sizable scale. My feeling was that yeast would be one part of making a more complex brew that appeals to the taste buds on a different level to 7up and the like.

I've looked up bits on the heavy tech you've mentioned and it looks like I'll be asking for one or two of them for birthday presents. Not to say it doesn't seem like I'd need all of them for any of them to be worth buying though. Jesus though, costs.

It seems you have a process in mind for the fermenting and bottling in all that apparatus you mention. Can we have tête-à-tête over what you'd recommend be done if I brewed pop in this way? Not being a lazy researcher as much of this is on Google but of course there are a few differences in dealing with this equipment if I'm making pop rather than good old alcoholic bevs.



Cheers for all your responses, takes a bit of patience when it's me you're dealing with!

 

[godfrey]

yeast will generally die from one of two reasons

the first from starvation with no more fermentable sugars
the second from alcohol poisoning

different strains have different tollerance to alcohol

perhaps there is a strain with a very low tolerance ?
that may be a more suitable strain for fizzy pop

 

[Duncs]

My 2p worth.

You will need to make each batch consistent, you'll need to work out a stable temperature, a little warm and the yeast will ferment faster, a little cooler and the yeast won't ferment as fast. You'll also need the correct amount of yeast, pitching too much or too little yeast will affect how fizzy the drink is.

You may also have problems with HMRC unless you can prove you're under 1.3% abv. Have you got a very accurate hydrometer?

I wish you all the best with your endeavour, you never know, we may all be drinking Pilny Pop soon :drink:

 

[Ken L]

I have so many alarm bells going after skimming through the opening post it's untrue.
There's the big legal questions about producing any alcoholic beverage for sale.
There's the food hygiene issues if you're producing commercially.
There's the risk of being sued and bankrupted if a customer is injured by an exploding bottle.
There's the question of costs when you have to pay for not only the ingredients but the manufacturing, the distribution and the bottles & caps as well and still sell the product at a profit.