liquid carbon

[alan]

Iv just finished runing two 25ltr batches of 48 turbo. one i added liquid carbon to the other i didunt cleared both with turbo klar then ran as normal, ifilterd both through a home made filter filled with 1/2kg granulated carbon, iv tasted both and to me there seems to be no differance in the taste, do we realy need to use the liquid

carbon i only used 6kgs of sugar in each batch came out at 14% ended up with 7ltrs

of 55% spirit from each one

[Phantom]

Well, judging from the price that \"thebrewshop\" seem to charge for it, then it could be a big saving.......
my local HBS charges £3.25 for the SS triple distilled turbo (14% from 6kg in 7 days) and £1 for the carbon that goes with it.
Oh, and you might not notice any difference in taste, but you might feel the difference in the level/quality of the hangover......

[Jimmy]

I never use it now, but I would guess it does have an effect - depends on how easy it is to get hold of and how much you value it I guess. For my money, running it through more carbon at the end seems more cost efficient.

[umpa]

I only used it once, well twice if you count the fact that I re-used the yeast. I found it did not clear as good as non carbon yeasts, so when in the still I was boiling spent carbon, and figured it can\'t be good for me or the still.

[Phantom]

I only used it once, well twice if you count the fact that I re-used the yeast. I found it did not clear as good as non carbon yeasts, so when in the still I was boiling spent carbon, and figured it can\'t be good for me or the still

The whole point being that you clear it down when the ferment has finished, so all the carbon is in the sediment. If you then try and re-use the yeast, it will already have the carbon in it - how successful that would be, I don\'t know.
My point being, that you\'d probably be better off using a high alcohol wine yeast (about £1 a pack) and getting a pack of tronozymol for the nutrients (£3 t £4 a pack - which will do a number of batches) - there might be a bit of a "lag phase" and it takes a day or so to start fermenting, but I\'d still use a pack of liquid carbon.
IMO, anything that might affect the quality of the wash (positively of course) shouldn\'t be left out.
If the carbon is £1, yeast £1 and maybe 50p or so of nutrient, it\'s still nearly a £2 saving on buying turbo yeast packs etc.
As far as I can see, turbo wash is all about purity and quality, so there\'s no reason to have any unpleasant flavours in it when you come to add the flavouring/essence.
Plus, trying to cut corners in the way discussed above, is very hit and miss.........
that\'s my 2 pence worth, if "it" works for you, then what the hell, go for it....

[umpa]

The whole point being that you clear it down when the ferment has finished, so all the carbon is in the sediment. If you then try and re-use the yeast, it will already have the carbon in it - how successful that would be, I don\'t know.

That’s my whole point - it did not clear as well as a normal turbo. I re-used the yeast and it was a success fermenting 5kg of sugar down to 990, it just took 30 days lol.
I have found out that you don’t need to use a full turbo in your wash anyway, it will ferment a 5Kg wash with just a quarter of a pack. I do use young’s super wine yeast and found that to work just as well too, its all about the time it takes that’s all.
Now I am looking into yeasts that flocculate better rather than speed or attenuation, some beer yeasts seem to be ok for this, as is a few wine (which is more preferable). Of course you do need to add nutrients or it sticks.
I’m also messing with fermenting backset in the wash - so far the results look very promising its almost as good as a full pack of turbo.

[Phantom]

That’s my whole point - it did not clear as well as a normal turbo. I re-used the yeast and it was a success fermenting 5kg of sugar down to 990, it just took 30 days lol.
I have found out that you don’t need to use a full turbo in your wash anyway, it will ferment a 5Kg wash with just a quarter of a pack. I do use young’s super wine yeast and found that to work just as well too, its all about the time it takes that’s all.
Now I am looking into yeasts that flocculate better rather than speed or attenuation, some beer yeasts seem to be ok for this, as is a few wine (which is more preferable). Of course you do need to add nutrients or it sticks.
I’m also messing with fermenting backset in the wash - so far the results look very promising its almost as good as a full pack of turbo.

Well I\'m obviously being really thick.......
So you re-used some yeast that had been used for a ferment but with liquid carbon
Had you used finings to clear the first batch of wash?
So when you used it again, it didn\'t clear naturally or with finings
Did it ferment all the way down ok or did you have to add more nutrient???
As for not using a whole packet, well that would make sense, but there\'s the "lag phase" to consider because they yeast would be trying to multiply on the level of nutrient and sugar that\'s available to it - hence I\'d guess if it worked it would take longer....
As for wine yeasts etc, if they\'ll ferment to 14%, a la turbo, then there\'s no reason why they shouldn\'t work well with the appropriate nutrient. As for flocculation issues, there doesn\'t seem to be such good info on a lot of the yeasts, but the makers of the Lalvin range, Lallemand, publish extensive information about their products, including the flocculation abilities of the various yeasts.....
I\'d have thought that ale yeasts might not produce such a high level of alcohol as they\'re bred more for flavour than alcohol level tolerance...they might flocculate well but ain\'t gonna "do the business" as far as making ethyl alcohol for distilling......
I\'d love to hear about your experiment of fermenting some backset in the wash, that sounds interesting, though I can\'t for the life of me, think of why you\'d be doing that. The backset is water with lower alcohol levels and logic would dictate that if anything, adding alcohol could cause a ferment to stick - albeit, alcohol at a lower level than distilled spirit. It might cause the yeast to "poop out" early, leaving some residual sugar...........
Or have I entirely missed the point and am approaching this idea from the wrong angle/direction/whatever ?

[umpa]

No not thick, you just haven\'t understood. I\'m on my iPhone and can\'t reply in any great depth, but I will try again tonight

[Jimmy]

Backset is used for flavour - it\'s a key part of making a sour mash whiskey. It also helps to keep flavour constant over a number of batches, by continuously re-using backset each time. In the old days, the acidity of it also used to help kill bacteria.

[Phantom]

Backset is used for flavour - it\'s a key part of making a sour mash whiskey. It also helps to keep flavour constant over a number of batches, by continuously re-using backset each time. In the old days, the acidity of it also used to help kill bacteria.

I remembered that mid-morning.....I seem to recall reading that there\'s something in the federal regs in the US that the wash/mash has to be a certain percentage before it can be called "sour mash"....
I just didn\'t get the rest of it...

[umpa]

Hi, phew what a busy few days I have had !!
Well I figured I would address each comment individually.

So you re-used some yeast that had been used for a ferment but with liquid carbon
Had you used finings to clear the first batch of wash?
So when you used it again, it didn\'t clear naturally or with finings
Did it ferment all the way down ok or did you have to add more nutrient???

Here’s what I did, I made up the triple distil yeast and carbon in the usual way, added turbo clear, it did clear but like most washes it was not crystal, the was slightly grey, that grey being the carbon and that carbon was going in the still.
So I then chucked in 5Kg of sugar and water stirred it up and in 30 days time it was clear (with grey tint) once again, I did not add any finings this time as it was no more or less cloudy than last time. I concluded that whilst it does work - saving 4 quid was not worth the long ferment time.

As for wine yeasts etc, if they\'ll ferment to 14%, a la turbo, then there\'s no reason why they shouldn\'t work well with the appropriate nutrient. As for flocculation issues, there doesn\'t seem to be such good info on a lot of the yeasts, but the makers of the Lalvin range, Lallemand, publish extensive information about their products, including the flocculation abilities of the various yeasts.....

I\'d have thought that ale yeasts might not produce such a high level of alcohol as they\'re bred more for flavour than alcohol level tolerance...they might flocculate well but ain\'t gonna "do the business" as far as making ethyl alcohol for distilling......

Now I am looking into yeasts that flocculate better rather than speed or attenuation , some beer yeasts seem to be ok for this, as is a few wine (which is more preferable). Of course you do need to add nutrients or it sticks. (I never said they would be high alcohol) its a test that’s all.

I\'d love to hear about your experiment of fermenting some backset in the wash, that sounds interesting, though I can\'t for the life of me, think of why you\'d be doing that. The backset is water with lower alcohol levels and logic would dictate that if anything, adding alcohol could cause a ferment to stick - albeit, alcohol at a lower level than distilled spirit. It might cause the yeast to "poop out" early, leaving some residual sugar...........

Well I ran the still using cheap electric to get most of the alcohol out, as jimmy has said its a known method, Jack Daniels uses it for their sour mash, but cooked yeast is a very good nutrient, my plan is to use this backset purely for the nutritional value – if it adds a nice flavour all the better, if not it’s not the end of the world. It might be that the extra carbon required to clean up the spirit might negate any benefit from doing it,
but one thing is for sure......
After reading a few books, and other forums I am beginning to see the same regurgitated information repeated verbatim, the trouble is that although some of it may be good correct information it’s not necessarily the ONLY way to do things, if you read the same thing that seems to come from several independent sources then people seem to think that it’s a solid fact and set in stone, when really it’s one man’s way from one book.

Its the same with advice about not leaving stills running, in its day that was very sound advice, but with today’s electric stills it’s not much of a problem, in fact I run the Smart Still on a timer, and the reflux on a 12 hr strip run at night on economy 7 – and I feel quite comfortable doing so too. I have not needed to adjust the water and get ¾ of a demijohn @ 85% every time, its cost less to make and seems to be very clean to the smell and taste – so its happy days.

In my past I have been flooded out 3 times, and had a 100G fish tank leak, so 22L or 4L of wash on the kitchen floor is a walk in the park for me.

[Phantom]

Ok, I get it (like British Rail........eventually ;-D).
For wine yeast that flocculates well, then I\'d probably suggest Lalvin EC-1118. It\'s a champagne yeast so will ferment dry, and it\'s also got an alcohol tolerance of 18% ABV so you could probably get away with making a batch of wash a bit stronger.
Yeast hulls would be good, but I\'d still be adding a bit of general purpose nutrient as well, as it\'s got a lot more than just DAP (Di-ammonium phosphate) in it (well the better ones, like the hard to get Lalvins Fermaid-K or the readily available Tronozymol).
I\'m not sure how much of a lag phase you\'d get from EC-1118 but I don\'t see why it should take much more than a normal turbo pack to ferment...