aging beer; in the carboy or the bottle?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Walker

I use secondaries. :p
HBT Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
10,982
Reaction score
122
Location
Cary
Any patient folks out there have an opinion on whether it makes any difference whether a beer is alowed to age in the carboy or in the bottles? If there is a difference, which do you suggest (ie; which one is better for the overall flavor?)

I'd like to try and pe patient and age a couple batches, but I really don't want to leave my secondaries occupied for really logn stretches of time.

-walker
 
I'm for aging in the bottle. I'm not sure why but I just think the outcome is better. Wow, this is a terrible response, but it's too late now to give up so, here it is.
 
there are no terrible responses. This is a discussion forum... say what you want :)

Have you actually aged both ways before, or is this a hunch?

-walker
 
I'm not really one for aging beers, but I would go with bottles if I was going to do it. Seems like less chance of oxidation, better chance of viable yeast for carbonation (which could be overcome), and it would keep carboys free. It seems like outside of the carbonation process the aging would be the same in terms of the flavors.
 
Truble said:
would flavors develop the same if the beer was/wasn't saturated with CO2?

That I don't know, and therefore mentioned 'outside of the carbonation process'. I know some form of aging will occur as people do buy 'big' beers and cellar them for years sometimes, but how that compares to how it would age in a fermenter, I don't know.
 
I have been told from professional brewers that bulk aging is best for big beers but I think its impractical to store carboys as BeeGee mentioned. I find it easier to lose a six-pack or two in the back of my closet for a couple of years.

Wild
 
I personaly use carboys because I always need bottles and can hold off brewing if there is no carboy to fill but if their is an empty carboy I have a feeling of must brew must brew must brew. I also let it sit in the bottles for a good 4 weeks.
 
Walker said:
there are no terrible responses. This is a discussion forum... say what you want :)

Have you actually aged both ways before, or is this a hunch?

-walker

Not really. I think the longest I've ever had a beer in a secondary is like a month or so. I've got two recipes in bottles now that have been aging for over a year. I just like the idea of bottle aging (at least for long periods of time, i.e. 8 months or more) b/c that's how it's done for wine and the Westvletern monks do it that way.
 
I'd have to vote for bottle aging. Let me say up front that I've never been one to age beer. I use the Natural Selection process of aging. The ones that I don't drink first get older every day. I'd think that aging in the bottle would have a much bigger effect than the carboy. There is no carbonation in the carboy. As your beer ages in the bottle, the bubbles multiply and get smaller daily. Given time, your beer has millions, Nay, billions of tiny bubbles in it. All the while, the flavor is changing and improving. Could it possibly get 'mo betta than that ?
 
Well... I opted for aging in the bottles. I just can't bring myself to dedicate a carboy to it. I bottled up my stout last night and stuck it in the closet. I'll test the first one in December and hold the rest until the new year at least. I had to use all 12oz bottles, because I didn't want my flippies occupied for that long either.

This is the only time I have bottled a full batch in 12oz bottles. (well.. I take that back, there is one 20oz'er and one 32oz'er in addition to the mountain of 12oz'ers.)

What a time consuming process.

-walker
 
Back
Top