Bottle Spunding Trappist Ales

Brewing Processes
1

So after reviewing many of my materials on Trappist Ales, including a re-read of BLAM, The Great Beers of Belgium and Rajotte’s Belgian Ale (among others), I hit upon an application of something I touched upon in a past writeup on bottle spunding.

Here’s what we know:

1.) They all bottle condition with either a specific strain for bottling or their primary yeast.

2.) They all carbonate, on average, to > 3 vol/CO2.

3.) While most filter/centrifuge, they are not brilliantly clear.

One of the things that came up when Bryan used bottle spunding on a Helles was the amount of sediment that accumulated in the bottle. We are not talking a crazy amount (a little more than what you typically see in the Trappist examples) but definitely more than what you want in a Helles, which typically would be crystal clear after conditioning.

Bottling straight off the fermenter with extract left on a Trappist ale would be advantageous for a number of reasons:

1.) You will already have primary yeast in suspension with extract left, eliminating the need to add at bottling.

2.) Natural carbonation to the elevated levels seen in commercial examples.

3.) O2 protection from active yeast.

A forced fermentation test would be important in this application to ensure that you transfer into the packaging vessels at the appropriate time.

The math is pretty simple and we have it in the Low O2 spreadsheet under the Packaging section:

First you would identify a target carbonation level. In this example we’ll use 3.2 vol/CO2.

Say we brew a Tripel with WY3787 following the Westmalle schedule. We ramp to 68 F after the first 3 days. Our residual carbonation would be:

Residual Carbonation  = 3.0378 - (0.050062 * 68) + (0.00026555 * (68)2) = 0.861 vol/CO2

Kai wrote an article for Braukaiser a while back that had as a portion of it’s contents the calculations for using residual extract to carbonate beer. They are as follows:

Each degree Plato of residual extract gives 2 vol/CO2, while each S.G. point of residual extract gives 0.51 vol/CO2.

To determine the carbonation required from residual extract:

Desired Carbonation - Residual Carbonation = 3.2 - 0.861 = 2.34 vol/CO2

Let’s say our FFT gives an AA% of 85% and our Original Gravity for the beer was 1.064. We would expect a final gravity on the order of 1.009. So, our transfer gravity would be as follows:

((2.34/0.51)/1000)+1.009 = 1.0135 = 1.013

There are a few assumptions here:

1.) You have saved some thicker 11.2 or 16 oz. euro bottles.

2.) You assume that by bottling off the fermenter that you’ll get an even distribution of yeast across all bottles.

Given the second assumption, it would be wise to undershoot your carbonation level for the first few times. Better to know that you have margin through empirical observation than to discover you don’t by picking glass and sticky beer off the floor.

2

Interesting idea. Which has me wondering whether spunding in the keg (particularly if you’re already using a keg as your primary fermenter) prior to bottling would confer similar advantages to bottle-spunding, with the added advantage of being able to check your carbonation prior to bottling.

3

You’d lose the advantage of having active yeast to scavenge any O2 picked up during the transfer from keg to bottle.

That said, I personally am too risk adverse for bottle spunding.

4

Thanks for posting, Derek. I have the advantage of being able to do this quite easily since I ferment in kegs. I could bottle a couple off at the same time I transfer to spund in the keg.

5

You obviously have to practice conservatism. There really is no safety concern if you shoot a bit low and use the correct bottles. It’s no different than carbing with sugar at the end of the day. Pressure is pressure no matter what the source.

6

For me, as a bottler, it kills all the right birds with one stone.

7

For anyone interested, here is a little “Special Edition” Lite version of the spreadsheet made by me specifically for doing Trappist beers:

http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Low-O2-Brewing-v5.3-BLAM-Edition.xlsx

8

True, but you can be more confident in your FG in you actually ferment to completion.  It’s a moot point for me anyway as I really don’t bottle anymore.

Have you tried it out yet?

9

There’s a reason people got away from doing this back in the 30s.

10

Not 100% the case unless one knows the recipe like the back of their hand and has brewed it enough times to be confident in the finishing gravity. Heavy bottles sure will help, but still a bit scary IMO. Kegs are good to 120-140psi, a bottle would be much less and vary greatly from style and manufacture.

11

Sadly, no. I’ve been slammed and haven’t brewed in a long time. That will change soon. Bryan tried it on a Helles with good results, although he did it by feel if I remember and over-carbed slightly. That was before I integrated the calcs into the spreadsheet.

12

An FFT will tell you final gravity and conservatism says you undershoot a bit for safety.

13

All the resources, equipment and information are in place to make this as safe as priming bottles with sugar. You still have to use your best judgement and air on the conservative side, as with anything in life. Thicker euro bottles are rated at around 4 vol/CO2 so there should be no issues.

14

Wasn’t this the typical way to condition a Hefeweizen?

I seem to recall hearing of some British companies bottling this way way back when as well. (Don’t quote me on that, I haven’t re-checked.)

15

I’d be concerned about 1) potential infections taking the gravity even lower than the FFT and 2) reusing bottles, regardless of what kind, can result in potentially compromised bottles.

Exploding bottles are a scary thought.

If you’re that concerned about 02 ingress/damage maybe it’s time to invest in kegs?

I assume the problem with regular bottle conditioning is the initial exposure to 02 upon bottling, since the beer isn’t actively fermenting.  Is that it?  Sorry, I don’t really have the time to get into the weeds of all the posts on 02.

16

I thought of the infection argument at first, but then decided it isn’t all that valid as it would apply to regular bottle primed beers as well. I guess an infection wouldn’t be evident in an FFT, but it likely wouldn’t be in “standard” practice either.

17

From my (limited) experience, if I bottle condition normally (let it ferment out, rack on top of primings in the bottling bucket, etc.) I have beers that stay fresh longer than if I keg. I’m wondering if you bottle promptly after the end of fermentation, but before the yeast have all dropped out…if those greater numbers of still almost-active yeast help.

If done properly, sounding in the bottle is no different than a regular bottling process from a bottle bomb risk standpoint. Even traditional methods can result in an infection. The problem lies in the accuracy of the measurements, but I don’t see that being an issue. I could see a test batch to find FG (In my limited experience a FFT isn’t that precise) then use that data to spund a second batch.

18

1.) Given how robust the bottles from Westmalle, Chimay and Rochefort are, I can’t see carbing them repeatedly at volumes well below their limit introducing any defects to the glass. I’m pretty sure Westvleteren and others actually give you a discount if you return the bottles to the Abbey.

2.) I’m with Phil in that this method introduces no new failure mechanisms over standard bottle priming. The key is a.) conservatism, b.) FFT and c.) calculating residual carbonation with the correct temperature.

3.) Bryan’s method for conducting an FFT seems like the best I’ve seen: pull a sample of the actual batch, that way you have the exact same wort and yeast.

4.) Joe, you are exactly right with the O2 exposure. Actively fermenting beer will be devoid of oxygen and they will scrub any pickup from racking. The other thing to remember is that I’m proposing mimicking the Trappist method of adding primary yeast at bottling without the extra step. It’s like conducting a monastic “refermentation” in the bottle and naturally carving in one step.

19

Derek, I’ve got a co-worker who is big into brewing Belgian beers, especially ones with Brett. He swears by those green cap-able champagne bottles whenever carbonation levels could get extreme. I forget the max volume he quoted me, but it was over 5 volumes. Might not be a bad investment for those starting out. I’ve got a brett saison bulk aging in secondary, I’ve been planning on buying some for that beer.

20

I’ve got about 2 cases each of Westmalle, Chimay and Rochefort bottles, which at 14 bottles per batch, is plenty good to get the job done. I have quite a few W 16 oz bottles as well.

This thought process is leading up to a Belgian run I’m planning using Low Oxygen. The goal is to create a set of beers that takes advantage of the malt flavor intensity from Low Oxygen cara malts and gets away from syrups and exotic sugars. I’m thinking as follows:

Malts - Looking at the Weyermann Malt Color Wheels I’ve identified the following as an ideal set of malts to craft all 4 beers: Pilsner, Pale Ale, CaraMunich II, CaraBohemian, CaraAroma, Carafa Special III and Sauermalz.

Yeast - I like 3787 and would like to do a run where I get comfortable with what it’s capable of.

Hops - Saaz, Styrian and Magnum.

Sugars - Table sugar, Turbinado and Dark Brown.

“Monk” - A Trappist Single with a Pils/Pale blend, a smidgen of CaraMunich II, enough Sauermalz to get to 5.2, Sweet Orange Peel and Coriander. 1.049 OG, around 5 SRM and around 30 IBU.

“Two Monks” - A Dubbel with the same base blend, CaraBohemian, CaraAroma, a smidgen of Carafa Special III for color and enough Sauermalz to get to 5.2. This will get a sugar blend of Turbinado and Dark Brown. 1.064 OG, around 17 SRM and around 24 IBU.

“Three Monks” - A straightforward Tripel with base malt blend, a smidgen of CaraMunich II, enough Sauermalz to get to 5.2 and Table sugar. 1.076 OG, around 5 SRM and around 36 IBU.

“Four Monks” - A Dark Strong with the same base blend, CaraBohemian, CaraAroma, a smidgen of Carafa Special III for color and enough Sauermalz to get to 5.2. This will get a sugar blend of Turbinado and Dark Brown as well, with the ratio being heavier towards Dark Brown for color. 1.088 OG, around 22 SRM and around 29 IBU.

Sorry to unload all that but I was planning on it anyway and this seemed like the right thread. I guess.