Sugar Wash - PH Buffering Calcium Reactor

[Salt Must Flow]

I have always noticed when looking inside my fermenter full of sugar wash, the vast majority of the ‘fizzing’ and bubbles are coming from directly above the sack of Calcium Carbonate (Crushed Oyster Shells or Marble Rock/Chips). I recently noticed one fermenter buffered ph better with a larger sack of Marble Rocks. This makes perfect sense, there was just more exposure to the Calcium Carbonate in that sugar wash than the other. That got me wondering if there would be a benefit if the sugar wash were slowly pumped THROUGH a cylinder of Calcium Carbonate rather than just a sack of Calcium Carbonate dangling inside of a sugar wash. I’m not talking about aeration or massive recirculation here. Just a relatively slow flow continually passing through from the moment the yeast was pitched until fermentation is complete then removed.

This is what I’m thinking about making. I’m considering using 4” PVC sewer pipe because it doesn't have to be thick and sewer pipe is cheap. Likely some kind of PVC flange so it is wider at the base for stability. Likely a threaded cap or plug with many holes drilled through. I’ll fill it with Marble Rocks/Chips . I'm guessing at least one gallon of rocks, maybe closer to 1-1/4 gal so it's not too big. I'll likely connect a nylon chain to it with a floating bobber so it can be easily retrieved.

Then comes pump sizing. I've read that aquariums generally suggest a 'turnover rate' of 4 times the volume when it comes to pump sizing. I typically do 50 gal sugar washes, so I'm considering a 200 gal per hour pump. I'm totally guessing here. A pump rated for 200 g/h will likely pump a bit slower, especially once connected this Calcium Reactor. I already have a small pump, but it's rated for 1,500 lph (400 gph). I think I'll start with a smaller pump and see how it goes.

I currently don't have ph "problems", but I have a suspicion that a 'Calcium Reactor' of sorts would be able to more effectively and more consistently buffer ph by providing significantly more contact with the Calcium Carbonate in comparison to a sack dangling in the fermenter. I could be wrong, but that's the idea anyway. I'll be comparing two identical sugar washes side by side. One with a Calcium Reactor and one with an identical volume of Marble Rocks just dangling inside the fermenter.

Any criticism or discussion is welcome. Even if you think it's a stupid idea.

[acfixer69]

PH problems are mostly self inflicted by backset or dunder being over added by newbs thinking its the answer to great flavor. There is no need to induce this much expositor. Don't over add the acid and you won't need to neutralize it.

[Salt Must Flow]

PH problems are mostly self inflicted by backset or dunder being over added by newbs thinking its the answer to great flavor. There is no need to induce this much expositor. Don't over add the acid and you won't need to neutralize it.

But the ph drops on its own. That's what the Calcium Carbonate is for, to buffer that falling ph. Without it, the ph drops out of control. It's not acid being added that is causing the ph to drop as fermentation progresses. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.

[greggn]

I currently don't have ph "problems", but I have a suspicion that a 'Calcium Reactor' of sorts would be able to more effectively and more consistently buffer ph

If you don't have pH problems then, technically, you don't need a process that is "more effective." It's already effective enough.

One possible issue that your reactor may encounter: yeast buildup within the pipe may restrict flow and damage the pump.

[Saltbush Bill]

I don't see the need to complicate something so simple.....but each to there own.....hand full of shells in a paint strainer works well enough for me.

[acfixer69]

PH problems are mostly self inflicted by backset or dunder being over added by newbs thinking its the answer to great flavor. There is no need to induce this much expositor. Don't over add the acid and you won't need to neutralize it.

But the ph drops on its own. That's what the Calcium Carbonate is for, to buffer that falling ph. Without it, the ph drops out of control. It's not acid being added that is causing the ph to drop as fermentation progresses. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.

as it is suppose too.

[Salt Must Flow]

I currently don't have ph "problems", but I have a suspicion that a 'Calcium Reactor' of sorts would be able to more effectively and more consistently buffer ph

If you don't have pH problems then, technically, you don't need a process that is "more effective." It's already effective enough.

One possible issue that your reactor may encounter: yeast buildup within the pipe may restrict flow and damage the pump.

We sure don't want to be accused of doing something "better". As I said before, the wash that had more Marble Rocks buffered noticeably "better" than the other one. Logically increased exposure should equal better buffering.

I don't foresee yeast being an issue at all. The rocks are too jagged to get clogged. Plenty of openings for flow.

[Wildcats]

I like your thinking in this my self. If nothing else I think it would do what you intend it to do... buffer the pH. It also makes me think it would be useful in other applications if the parts and pipe were high alcohol tolerant. Like maybe for infusion. Just thinking out loud.
Clearly not PVC as it would have low wines flowing through it if used in the way I imagine it. Copper pipe and tubing. But I guess a pump that would work for it would probably be very expensive. If they even make one??
I still just dump crushed shells in the bottom of my fermenter. I do want to try the larger rocks like you've been using.
Maybe you could make one that is inline, like a filter that the wash flows thru... That way you could keep it out of the fermenter.... I do like this line of thought. Will be interested to see/hear your results, if you pursue this.
Nothing wrong with experimenting.

[Salt Must Flow]

I like your thinking in this my self. If nothing else I think it would do what you intend it to do... buffer the pH. It also makes me think it would be useful in other applications if the parts and pipe were high alcohol tolerant. Like maybe for infusion. Just thinking out loud.
Clearly not PVC as it would have low wines flowing through it if used in the way I imagine it. Copper pipe and tubing. But I guess a pump that would work for it would probably be very expensive. If they even make one??
I still just dump crushed shells in the bottom of my fermenter. I do want to try the larger rocks like you've been using.
Maybe you could make one that is inline, like a filter that the wash flows thru... That way you could keep it out of the fermenter.... I do like this line of thought. Will be interested to see/hear your results, if you pursue this.
Nothing wrong with experimenting.

I definitely considered that. Only the pump and return line would be submerged and it could hang on the side of the fermenter. I like to keep the lid on my fermenters to keep the flies & little gnats out though. That's why I settled on just submerging the whole thing. The power line would pass through the 3/4" hole in the lid of the drum. I drill a hole through a rubber stopper and split it down the side. Once compressed, it creates an air-tight seal for the power cord to pass through the plugged hole. It's not necessary for it to be air-tight, but it works.

[shadylane]

Don't know how well the gizmo will work for pH control.
But a 200 gal per hour pump should keep the fermenter agitated.
Make sure the pump is up to environment you're going to use it for.

I'm thinking a 200 gal per hour pump and a big amount of CC is going to cause problems.
As in too much calcium, that gets in the way of yeast ability to uptake magnesium.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... .tb00958.x

[Salt Must Flow]

Don't know how well the gizmo will work for pH control.
But a 200 gal per hour pump should keep the fermenter agitated.
Make sure the pump is up to environment you're going to use it for.

People have always said that yeast in sugar washes do best when temp and ph is stable. What I've proposed is just one way to 'try' to make ph as stable as possible. At least in my estimation.

The flow rate of the pump at this point is just a guess. I searched this site and it doesn't appear that anyone has tried this before. It is entirely possible that a significantly shorter chamber could be used. Perhaps a 12" long cylinder. Don't know. Haven't tried it. I totally realize it's easy to shit on this idea. I'm just willing to try it with a $20 pump, some pipe, some fittings and log the daily ph readings in compared to an identical sugar wash with just a sack hanging.

[shadylane]

I'm not trying to talk you out of experimenting.
Just offering a few ideas.

[NZChris]

Don't forget to build in a safety net. CC only behaves like a buffer if you don't do something stupid. If you have a lot surface area combined with a high flow rate and don't have a lab assistant monitoring it, you might have to design and build a PID for pH control to keep the pH under your desired top limit.

[GrumbleStill]

Interesting idea SMF. Not sure about the use of sewer pipe though, something in the dark reaches of my memory is telling me there’s some nasty shit in it that doesn’t go in the version that can be used for water supply.

[bunny]

Hi SMF

I have a few questions if you don't mind.

1) Do your sugar washes regularly finish at close to the same pH each time?

2) Do they produce about the same amount of ETOH each time?

3) Do they consume approximately the same amount of CaCO3 each time?

4) Do you plan to put that amount, or more, or less CaCO3 in your devise?


If you answered yes to 1,2, and 3, I believe you have become restless and are in need of a project.
Other than keeping track of time and temperature I recommend you don't look inside your fermenters until their scheduled finish times.
I don't think this project is worth your skills and abilities.
I see very little or any product gain by an optimization of CaCO3 addition.

You seem to have a very efficient 3" column.
Maybe you could work on a different type of head for it?
I would like to see your ideas on a liquid mgt head.

bunny

[Salt Must Flow]

Don't forget to build in a safety net. CC only behaves like a buffer if you don't do something stupid. If you have a lot surface area combined with a high flow rate and don't have a lab assistant monitoring it, you might have to design and build a PID for pH control to keep the pH under your desired top limit.

That's a very good point, I didn't consider that. For some reason I was just assuming that the CC would buffer only as needed. I never considered if it is possible for the ph to get higher than desired. I suspect it wouldn't. If I do test this, I'd be monitoring the ph likely twice per day to keep record of what the ph is doing. If I recall correctly, I think my sugar washes finish at 4 ph. During fermentation, especially during the first few days ph can dip down into the 3s. I figured inducing flow directly through the CC would likely maintain 4 ph steady throughout fermentation.

[Salt Must Flow]

Hi SMF

I have a few questions if you don't mind.

1) Do your sugar washes regularly finish at close to the same pH each time?

2) Do they produce about the same amount of ETOH each time?

3) Do they consume approximately the same amount of CaCO3 each time?

4) Do you plan to put that amount, or more, or less CaCO3 in your devise?


If you answered yes to 1,2, and 3, I believe you have become restless and are in need of a project.
Other than keeping track of time and temperature I recommend you don't look inside your fermenters until their scheduled finish times.
I don't think this project is worth your skills and abilities.
I see very little or any product gain by an optimization of CaCO3 addition.

You seem to have a very efficient 3" column.
Maybe you could work on a different type of head for it?
I would like to see your ideas on a liquid mgt head.

bunny

1) Do your sugar washes regularly finish at close to the same pH each time?
Yes, usually at 4 ph if I recall correctly.

2) Do they produce about the same amount of ETOH each time?
I believe so.

3) Do they consume approximately the same amount of CaCO3 each time?
I never bothered to weigh it.

4) Do you plan to put that amount, or more, or less CaCO3 in your devise?
GOOD question. I've been considering actually using less in the cylinder. I assume continuous flow and increased contact shouldn't require as much CC. I actually already have a PVC pipe with bottom cap that's 3-3/4" ID x 12" tall. That's 0.57 gal.

I totally get what you're saying. In the past I was using Crushed Oyster Shell and it never seemed like I was using enough. I had a hard time finding that fine of a mesh bag to put it in. I had some fine net material to put it in and tied the top closed. Pain in the ass. Switched to Marble Rocks with a larger net bag and it worked much better. More rock buffered even better. I just thought that if I put some Marble Rock in a cylinder with a tiny, cheap pump, it would make ph perfectly stable. It's not really all that outlandish of an idea, at least not to me. Also PVC pipe isn't going to rip, tear or need replaced like those net bags. I don't know ... we'll see.

[jonnys_spirit]

Rule # 1 - “Don’t Stress the Yeasties”

If this can reduce pH swings and maintain a better environment for the yeasties then they will likely produce less objectionable product.

Worth some experimenting!

Cheers,
jonny

[Demy]

Your initial idea makes sense but perhaps the procedure is complicated. My thought is that multiple bags of material could be used instead of one large one, perhaps inserted in the middle of the fermenter.

[Salt Must Flow]

Your initial idea makes sense but perhaps the procedure is complicated. My thought is that multiple bags of material could be used instead of one large one, perhaps inserted in the middle of the fermenter.

I totally get it. More exposure/contact = better buffering. I just don't mind trying a $10-$15 little pump flowing through a smaller amount of CC. Inducing continuous flow, more thorough contact and increased exposure in a tidy little package sounds great to me. It would just need rinsed off/out and set aside.

I don't do 5, 10 or 15 gal sugar washes. I do 100 gallons (two 50 gal batches) so something like this doesn't seem ridiculous, at least not to me. Especially if such a little cylinder (3.75" x 12") holds ph rock steady. I'd say that's actually an improvement. Similar to people who bring water up to temp for brewing/mashing. No you don't need a kettle with an element & PID controller, with alarm, but it's damn nice. You don't need anything more than a basic, variable controller, nicer controllers don't affect the quality of the product, but are damn appreciated. At least what I'm considering may aid in fermentation, may improve quality, but the purpose is to see if it holds ph rock steady. The most common issue with sugar washes appear to be ph. Maybe this could be helpful for some.

[bunny]

but the purpose is to see if it holds ph rock steady. The most common issue with sugar washes appear to be ph. Maybe this could be helpful for some.

OK, "rock steady", at exactly what ph do you think is perfection?

Do you expect more ETOH from the same amount of sugar? How much more than your current process?

Do you think your production will be noticeably quicker than your current process?

I suppose you will have to follow through with this as ideas like this are all but impossible to dismiss once they have taken hold.

It's good that you are not easily dissuaded.

bunny

[Salt Must Flow]

but the purpose is to see if it holds ph rock steady. The most common issue with sugar washes appear to be ph. Maybe this could be helpful for some.

OK, "rock steady", at exactly what ph do you think is perfection?

Do you expect more ETOH from the same amount of sugar? How much more than your current process?

Do you think your production will be noticeably quicker than your current process?

I suppose you will have to follow through with this as ideas like this are all but impossible to dismiss once they have taken hold.

It's good that you are not easily dissuaded.

bunny

What ph do you think is "perfection"? I'd rather say ideal. I don't know. It appears that the ph behaves differently depending on how much exposure to CC the wash has.

I've always followed what was recommended. Add Citric Acid to adjust starting ph to 5.2-5.6. Pitch yeast and add CC. Very quickly ph drops, can dip into the 3s and typically finishes fermentaion in the 4s. I'd be curious if the ph remains in the 5s or dips into the 4s. Maybe it will go from 5s to 6 and I'll have to pull the plug. Maybe it dips into the 3s and finishes in the 4s. Don't know. I've read if the ph is too high then bacteria is not inhibited. If the ph gets too low then the yeast will be inhibited. 5s sound ideal to start, perhaps ideal to maintain if it is possible and automatic without complicating it with a ph controller.

Of course you can't get more more ETHOH from the same amount of sugar.

I don't know exactly what it would do. I expect to see how the ph behaves in comparison to the traditional method. I couldn't find anything in my searches that would indicate that anyone has tried and shared the results. All I need is a tiny little pump and I can find out. I recently had a mishap and spilled 1-1/2 to 2 gal of AZEO because I left the darn bottom drain valve open so I may start another sugar wash within the week.

[shadylane]

For some reason I was just assuming that the CC would buffer only as needed. I never considered if it is possible for the ph to get higher than desired. I suspect it wouldn't.

Just guessing.
It depends on the water used and how active the fermentation is.

With my water.
During the period that yeast is going crazy. 18 - 24 hours with SSS.
Having lots of available CC and agitation would be good.

After the yeast slows down and is making less Co2.
Agitation and CC would be degassing faster than Co2 is being made.
It's possible to have the pH rise too high.
Bacteria would love that, plus the possibility of having blue stripping runs.

[Salt Must Flow]

For some reason I was just assuming that the CC would buffer only as needed. I never considered if it is possible for the ph to get higher than desired. I suspect it wouldn't.

Just guessing.
It depends on the water used and how active the fermentation is.

With my water.
During the period that yeast is going crazy. 18 - 24 hours with SSS.
Having lots of available CC and agitation would be good.

After the yeast slows down and is making less Co2.
Agitation and CC would be degassing faster than Co2 is being made.
It's possible to have the pH rise too high.
Bacteria would love that, plus the possibility of having blue stripping runs.

Thanks for that warning. I will absolutely take ph readings twice per day. I have well water and use a RO unit (Reverse Osmosis). I have been doing SSS for quite a while now. It's a great recipe. Yeah a good amount of pitching yeast, equal amount of boiled yeast The recipe I used to use was nearly identical to SSS, but it used mostly boiled yeast and less pitching yeast. I really had an internal struggle with boiling/killing off that much good yeast just for nutrient. Anyways ... after all SSS ingredients are in, my starting ph is always right at 7. I do add Citric Acid to lower the ph and the target is usually 5.2 - 5.6 as I've read.

On a side note, I recently did a 50 gal SSS wash with 1-1/2 gallons of Marble Rock and accidentally reduced the starting ph to 4.45. I rolled with it. This fluctuated the least if I recall correctly. This was the most CC I've ever used.
Day 1 - ph 3.82
Day 2 - ph 3.97
Day 3 - ph 4.1
Day 4 - ph 4.16
Day 5 - no record
Day 6 - ph 4.2
Day 7 - Thoroughly degassed and cleared with Bentonite Clay
Day 8 - Stripped it

I just look forward to trying something different. Who knows, maybe just having a sack and a tiny pump for agitation would be more stable. Don't know.

[shadylane]

I have well water and use a RO unit (Reverse Osmosis).

Most likely, yeast would prefer the well water.
Pure water doesn't have near as many nutrients as water from a well.

RO water would be better for blending.

[Salt Must Flow]

I have well water and use a RO unit (Reverse Osmosis).

Most likely, yeast would prefer the well water.
Pure water doesn't have near as many nutrients as water from a well.

RO water would be better for blending.

I've honestly never been a big chemistry buff. I know that water chemistry is a big rabbit hole people go down with regard to brewing and such. I do recall the time when my wife had twins and we went to a routine checkup with a doctor. She asked me a series of questions including what water we drink. I told her we ONLY drink and cook with RO water. She did not hesitate to offer us a lifetime supply of free Fluoride capsules for our whole family. Interesting don't you think?

People don't get the required nutrients from the water they drink, they get them from the food they consume. Well water is a vague term. Considering that there isn't a single 'Tried and True Recipe' here on this forum (at least not that I've seen) that lists any specific water chemistry ... wouldn't that infer that most any water should work reasonably well without unnecessary Arsenic, Nitrates, Phosphates, Fluoride, Chlorine, iron, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), pesticides, herbicides, etc...? Some well water smells like iron. Some smells like rotten eggs. Are we talking about hard water or soft water? So many variables. If someone used RO water which can be from 0-5 TDS (total dissolved solids) meaning damn near completely pure of any contaminants and a PH of approx 6.0 – 6.5? Distilled water has a TDS of 0. My well water happens to be 253 TDS. 253 TDS of what? Yeast has not thrown a fit, at least not that that I can tell using RO water for every ferment I've ever done. I'd ask how just how you could you tell? I'd ask if yeast requires any variable amount of Arsenic, Nitrates, Phosphates, Fluoride, Chlorine, Iron, VOCs, pesticides, herbicides, etc... in order to thrive? In my estimation, I'd say they'd probably prefer a cleaner environment and YOU provide them with what nutrients they need as well as a proper temp and ph. Is that not what Shady's Sugar Shine does? Doesn't it list required nutrients? What water chemistry is more or less ideal? I'd say it's variable upon ever single variable data point.

There are way too many variables and data points with water chemistry which is probably why you (nor anyone else) has not specified any water chemistry with their recipes. That's why I personally only drink, cook and distill with RO water. I don't mean to seem like I'm coming down hard on you. I just suspect that you only get out what you put in. Clean in, cleaner out. You could argue that most of that nasty shit doesn't come over through distillation, but I'd also argue why that shit needs to be in the fermentation to begin with.

[shadylane]

I've honestly never been a big chemistry buff. I know that water chemistry is a big rabbit hole people go down with regard to brewing and such.

Those are the same folks that use RO water.

[bunny]

Here is something to think about:

I admit to trying anything to make my process simpler and faster as long as I can't tell the difference with doing it the more complicated and slower way.

Now, you have stated you only ever used RO water.
Does your well water smell or taste bad before the RO process?
If no, great.
Otherwise have you tried an inline GE type cartridge carbon filter?

Okay. assuming your well water isn't unfit to drink before RO, I'm begging you to try a batch of your favorite sugar wash using your well water straight from the tap.
Your TDS of 253 is high enough you may not need any additional CaCO3.
Do not add any. No shells, no powder, no slabs.

Many of our brothers, including wineo, have been successful without adding any CaCO3 to their sugar washes.
It seems to be only us poor devils with low TDS that have to suffer through this inconvenience.

Wineo's recipe is /was great until some people had stalled ferments that usually had pH around 3.2 or less.
It took a while before the problem was defined that related mostly to sugar washes.
Grain based ferments almost always provide enough buffering without any additional CaCO3.

Please try a batch.

bunny

[Wildcats]

Last time I checked my tap water it was in the 300's TDS.
But I still follow the recipe (Shadys Sugar Shine) and add the shells. Never had a stalled ferment yet (knock on wood).
I also use tap water for my All Bran and UJSSM. When I first started I'd buy distilled water. Then I found this site and read that I could've been using tap water. No problems yet with my water.

[bunny]

Last time I checked my tap water it was in the 300's TDS.
But I still follow the recipe (Shadys Sugar Shine) and add the shells. Never had a stalled ferment yet (knock on wood).
I also use tap water for my All Bran and UJSSM. When I first started I'd buy distilled water. Then I found this site and read that I could've been using tap water. No problems yet with my water.

It's great you never had a stall.
What is your finish sugar wash ferment pH?

Have you tried a sugar wash without adding shells?