Is it possible to let your beer sit TOO long?

i've always heard be patient with your beer and let it sit for a while to properly ferment, but is it possible to let it sit for too long? By letting it sit too long could it ruin a beer?

Yes home brew beer does go bad faster than commercial brew. Although, this depends on the alcohol content and type of beer. If you leave a hefeweizen around for 5 years it's going to taste like crap... if you leave a barley-wine around for 5 years it will be delicious

Are you talking about in the bottle or in the fermenter?

Letting it sit too long in the fermenter, some will say, will cause problems, but I've heard enough people on hear comment that they leave it for a long time and have no problems.

How long? 3 months? 6 months?

I know a guy who is just plain lazy about the whole bottling process, so he is known to leave his beer on the fermenter for over a year. Personally I would recommend against this, and I don't know if I could wait that long!

I have left a stout in the carboy for almost 6 months and it was my most popular brew.

Now, after you bottle, it really depends on the type of beer.

I read the question too fast, sorry. I was talking about letting it sit in bottles. As for sitting on the fermenter it also depends on style and alcohol content as well, but like dunnright00 said, the amount of time you are talking about is what matters most to answer your question.

There are a lot of posts [here] regarding aging in the primary. From what I've read, with proper sanitation, beer should keep on top of the compacted yeast cake for a while. If it was not that great in the first place, it will be not that great later on.

zach, do a search for aging on yeast cake, or aging in the primary, and you will find lots of into on this topic. the opinions are varied.

some will tell you to just go 1-2-3. one week in primary, two weeks in secondary, and three weeks in the bottle.

i tend to use a more batch specific approach that focuses on the actual status of the beer. if the beer has completed fermentation in the primary (that is, the gravity has reached a fairly steady level), then i let it sit for 2-5 more days for a diacetyl rest. if possible, i like to raise the temp during that rest to about 68 (i normally ferment with the house yeast at 62-64).

once that primary period is over, usually 10-12 days, i'll rack to a secondary. in the secondary, i may let the beer sit for 2 weeks or even a month. this largely depends on two factors: (1) the strength of the beer and (2) how lazy I am about bottling. i brewed a stout that is about 9%, so i needed alot of resting time to work out the booziness. i let it sit in the secondary from the week before thanksgiving until 2 days ago.

that all being said, i've let a beer sit in the primary on the yeast cake for 3-4 weeks, and it was fine. the beer had a yeastiness that needed some extra time to age out, but it came around after a couple months.

I try not to go more than 6 months in primary, switch to secondary if I plan to keep aging it. For most beers I can take them out of primary after 3 weeks and keg/bottle, but I'm lazy at times. Still is award winning beer.

For bottled beers, the type of beer and bottling and storing conditions all play a part. Lighter beers are usually best served young. Bigger beers are very often fine if aged.

Introducing oxygen to the beer at any point past fermentation can lead to eventual oxidation, or a stale or cardboard flavor. (not unwanted in SOME styles) This effect can be accelerated by storing warm.

I think most beer can be kept for well over a year if you practice O2-free bottling techniques and keep the beer cool. Some styles are best served after a year or more of aging to mellow and meld the flavors.

My friend and I made one of our first batches about 12 years ago. He found a 6-pack of them in his basement about 2 months ago. I encouraged him to open a bottle and see how bad it had gotten. He said it smelled fine. He then drank, and spit it out. Said it appeared to still be fine, but with no one else at his house at the time, we agreed that ingesting it was best left to a time when he could be driven to the hospital by someone should the need arise.

Maybe we'll open one up and split it every couple of years for nostalgia.

Then again, I'm not sure my sanitizing techniques were up to the same standards as they are now. I'm sure if it's contaminated, it will be obvious.

Right?

yep

dunnright00 said:

I know a guy who is just plain lazy about the whole bottling process, so he is known to leave his beer on the fermenter for over a year. Personally I would recommend against this, and I don't know if I could wait that long!

I have left a stout in the carboy for almost 6 months and it was my most popular brew.

Click to expand...

I'm one of those lazy guys who hates bottling. I left my last Pale Ale in the primary for 11 months and it was horrid. It had an overly bitter after taste. Soapy hops is the best way I have found to describe it. I'm not sure if its the amount hop material left in the trub or what. I used it to experiment with force carbing. Hopefully in my move to kegs I would leave beer in my closet for that long again.

Beers low in alcohol and hopping rates will tend to spoil faster, especially if they are not sored in a cool environment and shielded from light once they stop carbonating (ie. in the fridge). If you plan on aging a beer in primary or secondary, you have to take the same factors into consideration: if you put your 1.042 pale next to the water heater, you can bet it will go downhill faster than if you put it in a dark cellar at a constant temperature.

On the other hand, unless you are brewing every week and not drinking your brew at the same rate you are brewing, I very much doubt you'll run into problems. You just need to be sensible about your beer's health (ie. not leave a beer 12 months on the yeast cake, being sanitary in everything you do, pitching the right amount of yeast, etc.).

So what i'm hearing is the higher the alcohol content the longer you let it sit? and if it's a lighter beer move it along at the standard 1-2-3 pace. That about right?

I just had a beer from belgium not too long ago, it tasted like absolute garbage. I checked the bottling date, 2003.

YES you can let them sit for too long! har har har

-Zach- said:

So what i'm hearing is the higher the alcohol content the longer you let it sit? and if it's a lighter beer move it along at the standard 1-2-3 pace. That about right?

Click to expand...

No, because there's no standard pace. I was told to go by the 1-2-3 method when I started but I felt it wasn't right. There's no way 1-2-3 can account for the huge amount of variables homebrewers have to juggle with every brew, namely lag times, gravity of starting wort, yeast strain, fermentation temperatures, pitch rate, etc. You can most certainly ballpark it, but you have to use the hydrometer wisely to insure proper rests and not getting the beer off the yeast at too fast a pace.

The opposite is also true. I see a lot of people preaching the 4 weeks minimum rule. I might not have the experience that many of those who use this method possess, but I do know that it is as dogmatic as the 1-2-3. Some styles do not age well and would benefit from earlier bottling time. Plus, the time losses can be significant and can mean a hole in the pipeline, wich usually means buying commercial stuff. And that's not very nice.

What I do is religiously sample and check for gravity. The beer will tell you once it's ready to go into the bottles. Yes, that can mean bottling at 10 days or at 6 months.

nhanimator said:

my friend and i made one of our first batches about 12 years ago. He found a 6-pack of them in his basement about 2 months ago. I encouraged him to open a bottle and see how bad it had gotten. He said it smelled fine. He then drank, and spit it out.

Click to expand...

alcohol abuse!!!

Yeah, you're right. Might as well have dropped the bottle.

-Zach- said:

So what i'm hearing is the higher the alcohol content the longer you let it sit? and if it's a lighter beer move it along at the standard 1-2-3 pace. That about right?

Click to expand...

i like the relaxed attitude. don't get too worked up and play it out as it goes. get a thief and take some samples as you check your gravity.

relax, don't worry....

If you arbitrarily move your beer, like to follow the silly 1-2-3 rule (or instructions that say move after a week or when bubbles slow down), you will often interrupt fermentation. Because sometimes the yeast won't even begin to ferment your beer until 72 hours after yeast pitch, so if you rush the beer off the yeast on day 7 then you are only allowing the yeast a few days to work. The problem is that yeast don't know how to read so they seldom follow the instructions. They dance to their own tune and its seldom 4 x 4 Time.

This often leads to stuck fermentation because you have removed the beer from the very stuff you need to ferment your beer. The yeast....It can often lead to the same off flavors one gets if they undrpitch their yeast.

Besides, fermenting the beer is just a part of what the yeast do. If you leave the beer alone, they will go back and clean up the byproducts of fermentation that often lead to off flavors. That's why many brewers skip secondary and leave our beers alone in primary for a month. It leaves plenty of time for the yeast to ferment, clean up after themselves and then fall out, leveing our beers crystal clear, with a tight yeast cake.

We have multiple threads about this all over the place, like this one https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/ignore-instructions-do-not-bottle-after-5-10-days-78298/

If you leave the beer alone, they will go back and clean up the byproducts of fermentation that often lead to off flavors. That's why many brewers skip secondary and leave our beers alone in primary for a month. It leaves plenty of time for the yeast to ferment, clean up after themselves and then fall out, leveing our beers crystal clear, with a tight yeast cake.

This is the latest recommendation, it is the same one many of us have been giving for several years on here.

John Palmer said:

Tom from Michigan asks:
I have a few questions about secondary fermentations. I've read both pros and cons for 2nd fermentations and it is driving me crazy what to do. One, are they necessary for lower Gravity beers?
Two, what is the dividing line between low gravity and high gravity beers? Is it 1.060 and higher?
Three, I have an American Brown Ale in the primary right now, a SG of 1.058, Should I secondary ferment this or not?
Your advice is appreciated, thanks for all you do!

Allen from New York asks:
John, please talk about why or why not you would NOT use a secondary fermenter (bright tank?) and why or why not a primary only fermentation is a good idea. In other words, give some clarification or reason why primary only is fine, versus the old theory of primary then secondary normal gravity ale fermentations.

Palmer answers:
These are good questions – When and why would you need to use a secondary fermenter? First some background – I used to recommend racking a beer to a secondary fermenter. My recommendation was based on the premise that (20 years ago) larger (higher gravity) beers took longer to ferment completely, and that getting the beer off the yeast reduced the risk of yeast autolysis (ie., meaty or rubbery off-flavors) and it allowed more time for flocculation and clarification, reducing the amount of yeast and trub carryover to the bottle. Twenty years ago, a homebrewed beer typically had better flavor, or perhaps less risk of off-flavors, if it was racked off the trub and clarified before bottling. Today that is not the case.

The risk inherent to any beer transfer, whether it is fermenter-to-fermenter or fermenter-to-bottles, is oxidation and staling. Any oxygen exposure after fermentation will lead to staling, and the more exposure, and the warmer the storage temperature, the faster the beer will go stale.

Racking to a secondary fermenter used to be recommended because staling was simply a fact of life – like death and taxes. But the risk of autolysis was real and worth avoiding – like cholera. In other words, you know you are going to die eventually, but death by cholera is worth avoiding.

But then modern medicine appeared, or in our case, better yeast and better yeast-handling information. Suddenly, death by autolysis is rare for a beer because of two factors: the freshness and health of the yeast being pitched has drastically improved, and proper pitching rates are better understood. The yeast no longer drop dead and burst like Mr. Creosote from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life when fermentation is complete – they are able to hibernate and wait for the next fermentation to come around. The beer has time to clarify in the primary fermenter without generating off-flavors. With autolysis no longer a concern, staling becomes the main problem. The shelf life of a beer can be greatly enhanced by avoiding oxygen exposure and storing the beer cold (after it has had time to carbonate).

Therefore I, and Jamil and White Labs and Wyeast Labs, do not recommend racking to a secondary fermenter for ANY ale, except when conducting an actual second fermentation, such as adding fruit or souring. Racking to prevent autolysis is not necessary, and therefore the risk of oxidation is completely avoidable. Even lagers do not require racking to a second fermenter before lagering. With the right pitching rate, using fresh healthy yeast, and proper aeration of the wort prior to pitching, the fermentation of the beer will be complete within 3-8 days (bigger = longer). This time period includes the secondary or conditioning phase of fermentation when the yeast clean up acetaldehyde and diacetyl. The real purpose of lagering a beer is to use the colder temperatures to encourage the yeast to flocculate and promote the precipitation and sedimentation of microparticles and haze.

So, the new rule of thumb: don’t rack a beer to a secondary, ever, unless you are going to conduct a secondary fermentation.

Click to expand...

THIS is where the latest discussion and all your questions answered.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/secondary-not-john-palmer-jamil-zainasheff-weigh-176837/

We basically proved that old theory wrong on here 5 years ago, and now the rest fo the brewing community is catching up. Though a lot of old dogs don't tend to follow the latest news, and perpetuate the old stuff.

The autolysis from prolong yeast contact has fallen by the wayside, in fact yeast contact is now seen as a good thing.

All my beers sit a minimum of 1 month in the primary. And I recently bottled a beer that sat in primary for 5.5 months with no ill effects.....

You'll find that more and more recipes these days do not advocate moving to a secondary at all, but mention primary for a month, which is starting to reflect the shift in brewing culture that has occurred in the last 4 years, MOSTLY because of many of us on here, skipping secondary, opting for longer primaries, and writing about it. Recipes in BYO have begun stating that in their magazine. I remember the "scandal" it caused i the letters to the editor's section a month later, it was just like how it was here when we began discussing it, except a lot more civil than it was here. But after the Byo/Basic brewing experiment, they started reflecting it in their recipes.

A rough guide to how long the fermentation process & life of worth
https://www.midwestsupplies.com/blogs/bottled-knowledge/how-long-is-the-fermentation-process

Jan 2, 2011

Some questions need to age for a while before I'm ready to drink. Oh, wait...

Haven’t seen @Revvy for a while. Maybe drank too many of those stouts left in primary for 5 months.

I left an imperial stout in primary with some oak chunks for 5 months once a couple years ago. I cannot report that the results were good. Tasted a bit like soy sauce.

InspectorJon said:

Haven’t seen @Revvy for a while. Maybe drank too many of those stouts left in primary for 5 months.

I left an imperial stout in primary with some oak chunks for 5 months once a couple years ago. I cannot report that the results were good. Tasted a bit like soy sauce.

Click to expand...

Definitely autolysis.

Brewed a couple strong ones just before shoulder surgery 2 days ago. They'll be fine in a long primary probably 2 months.

One thing can be too long: dry hopped DIPA wants to be consumed fresh, but fermentation of these strong beers may continue while hop aromas are fading. Something of a balancing act that makes me consider more aggressive yeast.

hotbeer said:

Jan 2, 2011

Click to expand...

... and don't overlook (in #20) ...

Maybe we're supposed to be upset that a certain online home brew store would, in 2019, still recommend using secondary.

I love home brewing. Ask any question and the answers will very greatly. Everyone has a story to back up their response and some can even can hostile with folks who disagree.
Yet after reviewing all the answers to almost any question the most common, most thought-out, fact filled answer is still the majority of times....
"It depends"


Merry Christmas folks!