Author: Jordan Folks
For many homebrewers, one of the best parts of making their own beer is sharing it with others, which for those who prefer packaging in kegs, poses some issues. It’s relatively well accepted that exposure to oxygen has deleterious effects on beer, expediting the staling process and turning what was a delightful pint into an unpleasant mess. As such, numerous manufacturers have created products designed specifically for transferring beer from a keg to secondary packages, such as bottles and growlers, in a way that limits oxygen exposure.
Outside of homemade DIY counterpressure bottle fillers, the Blichmann BeerGun was one of the first purchasable options for homebrewers that promised oxygen-free filling by allowing vessels to be pre-purged with CO2, but reduced foaming and complete preservation of carbonation as well. One oft cited drawback to the BeerGun is that it requires connection directly to the keg, which can be a bit of a hassle considering placement in a keezer or kegerator. Offering a solution to this issue, the Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler connects directly to forward-sealing faucets while offering a similar ability to flush vessels with CO2 prior to filling.
As I started getting more into the competitive side of brewing many years back, I picked up a BeerGun and have used it to successfully bottle hundreds of beers. While I never had any issues with how it works, setting it up and taking it down was a bit annoying, so when I discovered the Tapcooler bottle filler a few years ago, I was intrigued enough to buy one. Since then, I’ve used both products intermittently and have wondered if either does the job more effectively than the other, so I designed an xBmt to see for myself.
| PURPOSE |
To evaluate the differences between a Czech Dark Lager bottled off the keg with either a Blichmann BeerGun or Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler.
| METHODS |
I brewed a simple Czech Dark Lager recipe for this xBmt. Big thanks to F.H. Steinbart for hooking me up with the malt for this batch!
Dr. Darkness
Recipe Details
| Batch Size | Boil Time | IBU | SRM | Est. OG | Est. FG | ABV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 gal | 60 min | 33.2 | 24.9 SRM | 1.048 | 1.014 | 4.46 % |
| Actuals | 1.048 | 1.014 | 4.46 % | |||
Fermentables
| Name | Amount | % |
|---|---|---|
| Barke Vienna Malt | 6 lbs | 46.6 |
| Sladovny Soufflet Czech Pilsen Malt | 6 lbs | 46.6 |
| Carafa Special III | 10 oz | 4.85 |
| Caramunich III | 4 oz | 1.94 |
Hops
| Name | Amount | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saaz | 99 g | 60 min | Boil | Pellet | 1.8 |
| Saaz | 71 g | 40 min | Boil | Pellet | 1.8 |
Yeast
| Name | Lab | Attenuation | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urkel (L28) | Imperial Yeast | 75% | 57.2°F - 51.8°F |
Notes
| Water Profile: Ca 50 | Mg 4 | Na 10 | SO4 14 | Cl 74 |
Download
| Download this recipe's BeerXML file |
After collecting the full volume of water for a single 5 gallon/19 liter batch, adjusting it to my desired profile, and getting it heating up, I milled the grain.
Since this was a classic Czech lager, I decided to perform a step mash with a 45 minute rest at 144°F/62°C, 30 minute rest at 157°F/69°C, and 15 minute rest at 170°F/77°C. I also withheld the roasted grains until the mashout.
During the mash rest, I weighed out the kettle hop additions.
Once the mash was finished, I removed the grains and proceeded to boil the wort for 60 minutes, adding hops at the times listed in the recipe. When the boil was complete, I quickly chilled the wort before taking a refractometer reading showing it was at my target OG.
After transferring the wort to a fermentation keg and allowing it to chill in my chamber to my desired fermentation temperature of 50°F/10°C, I pitched a slurry of Imperial Yeast L28 Urkel into it.
The beers were left to ferment for a week before I began gradually raising the temperature to 62°F/17°C over the following few days for a diacetyl rest. Next, I ramped the temperature down to 31°F/0°C then took a hydrometer measurement confirming FG had been reached.
At this point, I pressure transferred the beer to a CO2 purged serving keg that was placed in my kegerator for a month of lagering, at which point I proceeded to use the Blichmann BeerGun to transfer beer to 12 purged bottles.
Next, I used the Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler to transfer beer from the same keg to 12 purged bottles.
The filled bottles were labeled and stored in my 45°F/7°C kegerator for 7 weeks before they were ready for evaluation.
| RESULTS |
A total of 24 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of beer that was bottled with the Blichmann BeerGun and 1 sample of the beer that was bottled with the Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 13 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 8 did (p=0.58), indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Czech Dark Lager that was bottled from a keg with a Blichmann BeerGun from one bottled from the same keg with a Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler.
My Impressions: Out of the 5 semi-blind triangle tests I attempted, I correctly identified the odd-beer-out 3 times. While I though I perceived a subtle difference in mouthfeel between these beers, my own performance indicates it may have been a function of bias. In the end, I felt both of these beers were similarly crisp and clean with pleasant caramel and light roast notes, while neither had any signs of oxidation despite how long they were stored.
| DISCUSSION |
Bottling beer that’s been carbonated and conditioned in a keg for transport poses a few issues, namely oxygen exposure and the potential for reduced carbonation. Gear manufacturers have created products intended to minimize these risks, with two popular options being the Blichmann BeerGun and the Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler, the former of which gets connected directly to the keg while the latter is attached to the faucet. Interestingly, tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Czech Dark Lager that was bottled from a keg with a Blichmann BeerGun from one bottled from the same keg with a Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler.
Cursorily, this comparison might seem moot, as both bottling products offer the options to purge bottles of oxygen with CO2 prior to filling as well as gently fill from the bottom up. However, there are some distinct differences, for example the beer bottled from the Tapcooler traveled through however much beer line is between the keg and the faucet, which some believe could impact carbonation. Still, these results suggest there was no meaningful perceptible difference in aroma, flavor, or mouthfeel; curiously, in samples that were left out for just about a minute, I did notice a slight difference in head retention.
Personally, I see value in both of these products, and these results encouraged me to really think about which I prefer. Whereas the BeerGun allows for more rapid filling of bottles, the Tapcooler is less of a hassle to use because it connects to the faucet. Ultimately, I feel the Tapcooler is an ideal choice for quickly filling a few bottles, but I’ll be sticking with the BeerGun for larger bottling runs or when packaging for competition.
If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
8 thoughts on “exBEERiment | Bottling Method: Blichmann BeerGun vs. Tapcooler Counter Pressure Bottle Filler In A Czech Dark Lager”
For larger bottling runs with the Tapcooler counter pressure filler, we recommend using the Handsfree Magnetic Mount, either with an extension tube to the tap, or with the keg connector with beer valve.
A lighter beer might be better at revealing oxygen issues.
Great to see a comparison on these two awesome products. Perhaps an analogous exbeeriment on an IPA would really put these bottle-fillers to the test, since IPA is much more sensitive to oxidation than dark lager.
Have had a tapcooler for years. In terms of simplicity, this wins hands down. Easy to fill, takes 20 sec to setup and 20 sec to clean. There are no ball valves that are hard to operate when you are holding a bottle.
I performed this triangle test last year using a fresh hop hazy IPA and served samples to my homebrew club. I let the bottles sit in my garage for a couple weeks before the test to allow for more potential oxidation. Results were insignificant as well! My preference is to use the Tapcooler because it’s less work to set up, clean, and I get far less foaming.
How bad is your water that you have to add 75ml of lactic acid for the mash? Also, why in the world go to the trouble of a step mash; what, you are using floor malted pilsner? That said, I have not bottled a single beer in 4 years as my buds just get kegs or growlers from me anyway. I do have a Grifo Deluxe capper, 5,000 bottle caps and 18 wooden cases of 20oz brown bottles sitting around gathering dust.
My apologies for the typo- it was 75ml of [5.5% strength] Weyermann Sauergut. We’ll fix that in the post. I did use an undermodified malt – but I always step mash my lagers anyway (as I’m trying to balance fermentability and malt flavor/depth). With my Clawhammer system, it’s really no trouble at all!
I’ve used both, and they are both great. Each works pretty well at minimizing O2 ingress during bottling. With the Tapcooler, gotta in mind that the inside of a tap faucet of a typical homebrewer’s kegerator is microbiologically filthy. Ideally, one should clean/scrub/sanitize the inside of the faucet before connecting the (sanitized) adapter, or else the beer is sure to pick up unwanted microbes. That said, if the beer is kept cold post-bottling, the cold will suppress growth and the flavor won’t be affected. But perhaps head foam will? Bacteria love to chew on proteins in beer. Perhaps the observed difference in head foam in this experiment was because of bacteria picked up from the inside of the faucet.