I am wondering what the difference is between secondary vs. bottle aging on bigger beers. I have a Belgian Dubbel going as well as a Belgian Tripel and the recipe calls for about 1 month in secondary for the Dubbel and 2 months in the secondary for the Tripel.
What would be the difference between (for lets say the dubbel):
BOTTLE A - 2 week primary --> 2 week secondary --> 5 weeks in bottle
BOTTLE B - 2 week primary --> 4 week secondary --> 3 weeks in bottle
BOTTLE C - 6 weeks primary --> 3 weeks in bottle
(I know that all of these methods will benefit from more bottle aging in the long run... but that is not what I am looking at. All methods have 9 weeks in them. What would be the differences between bottles A, B and C?)
__________________
Regards,
Jason
BOTTLED / DRINKING
Mad-Elf Inspiration, Graff
SECONDARY
Flander's Sour Red {1 Year Old on July 28, 2011}
I think, with my experience, that bulk aging is the better method. It gives the remaining yeasts more of a population density to clean up after themselves. So I would go with option C.
__________________
Primary 1 Traditional Porter
Primary 2 Kentucky Common
Primary 3 air
Primary 4 Air
Secondary 1 air
2 air
3 air
4 air
Kegged
Fall Amber, Sparkling Cider, Cream Soda, Gum Bleeder II, Dunkel
Damn big drinkin' weekend
I was wondering about this too. I plan on brewing a Belgian dubbel or tripel and a strong Scotch ale for later in the year. I have seen many say that bulk conditioning is better, but I haven't seen anyone say they tested it in any kind of way or found that the same recipe was better one way vs. producing the other.
Potter1, did you try bottle conditioning and it didn't turn out good?
In my (albeit somewhat limited) experience, I've found that bulk aging (either primary only or primary/secondary) conditions the beer faster than bottle conditioning. Meaning a beer that I have 2 weeks in the fermenter and 5 weeks in the bottle tastes greener than a beer that I had 4 weeks in the fermenter and 3 weeks in the bottle, even though both beers are 6 weeks old at the time of tasting.
__________________
"Science + beer = good!"
-Adam Savage
To add to the bulk age vs bottle aging discussion...
You can have great results from bottle conditioning. I have. However, the main thought behind bulk aging comes from consistent flavor profile. Let's assume you decide to bottle condition and you have 52 beers in bottles sitting where ever you decide to keep them. What you have is 52 different micro ecosystems. Maybe the front of your closet is warmer than the back. Maybe the back gets more light. Maybe you accidently elbow the bottles on the right because of tight closet space. All of these things can have an effect on the final product while the beer is still aging (let's be honest, it wouldn't be a huge impact if they are all stored in the same spot, but it very well may be noticeable from bottle to bottle).
If you let the beer fully mature all together in the same vessel, no matter what happens, all of the beer should have the same flavor profile. If you just want beer that tastes good and you'd rather bottle condition, have at it. If you are striving for consistency and the ability to replicate the same flavor profile again and again and again, bulk aging may be the way to go. Just my two cents.
Secondary vs Bottle Aging
Linear Mode
