F.G. reading is at1.015 in 4 days?

This is my second batch. I checked my readings this morning and was shocked to find that after 4 days it is down to F.G. of 1.015. I am brewing a pale ale with a orginal O.G. of 1.052. Is this normal this quick? I did a 1qt yeast starter using WLP002 yeast. The wort was cooled to 70 deg. prior to pitching the yeast. I had about 1 inch of foam on top for the first 3 days and the airlock was bubbling about every 8-10 seconds for a day or so.

If everything is still the same in a few days should I rack to my secondary?

Yes. Sometimes your beer will finish the primary fermentation in only four or five days. Just check it in a coupe days and make sure it's not moving (the gravity, although if your beer is moving you should post a video.). And remember that your airlock is not a good indicator of the tenacity of your fermentation. Your best friend in this situation is the hydrometer. And a beer.

Jimmyjoe said:

If everything is still the same in a few days should I rack to my secondary?

Click to expand...

sure, but it's just extra work/chance for something to go wrong. just let it sit for a few more weeks and then bottle...

This extra time gives the yeasties something to do now that active fermentation is over such as clean up diacetyl and smooth out the roughness of your beer. I'd let it go for at least three weeks from brew day and then rack it to secondary/keg/bottle depending on the style you're brewing.

Give it a taste. If you like it, bottle it, rack to secondary, whatever.
The 3 weeks thing is only if you screw up a bunch of stuff. If you did everything right, you can drink it much sooner.

wolfman_48442 said:

Give it a taste. If you like it, bottle it, rack to secondary, whatever.
The 3 weeks thing is only if you screw up a bunch of stuff. If you did everything right, you can drink it much sooner.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this at all. Four days in the fermenter is not good enough time to bottle IMO. Sure you can bottle if it's reached it's FG and you will still have a beer but you will likely have off flavors, unexpected biterness, etc. Yes, using a good starter that sat on a stir plate can dramatically decrease the primary fermentation time, but as already mentioned the yeast do cleanup afterward and with no quantifiable amount of sugars left to consume they cleanup rather slowly. I would heed the advice to leave it in the primary for 3 weeks then bottle. Since it's done so fast you can probably bottle it fine after 2 weeks but I certainly would not bottle right now after only 4 days. Professional breweries use far more advanced systems and techniques than homebrewers do so you can't use them as an example.


Rev.

It certainly won't hurt to leave it in primary for a couple weeks. but I have on several occasions brewed on short notice, used WLP002 and served a kegged carbed beer 7-8 days after brew day with no noticiable off flavours. That being said, unless you're getting married in 3 days and plan on serving this beer at the reception (or similar situation) I would let it ride another week or so.

wolfman_48442 said:

Give it a taste. If you like it, bottle it, rack to secondary, whatever.
The 3 weeks thing is only if you screw up a bunch of stuff. If you did everything right, you can drink it much sooner.

Click to expand...

This is definitely NOT the current thinking of most home brewers. Allow the yeast to do ALL the work. Yes, you can rush things but, leave the beer alone - do not even take gravity samples for about 2 1/2 - 3 weeks then check and bottle/keg after 3 -4 weeks. You do not need a secondary unless you want to add ingredients, dry hop or want extra clarity.

Rev2010 said:

Professional breweries use far more advanced systems and techniques than homebrewers do so you can't use them as an example.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't agree with this at all. They use the same techniques as we do, they just have their process nailed, usually because they do the same batch over and over.

This leads me back to saying again if you hit all your numbers and your process was good, you can indeed bottle/keg much sooner than the canonical 1 month that seems to be spoken of in hushed tones by many.

Can I make a great beer in a week (actually 10 days counting forced carb)? Not always, I still screw up stuff, more often that I would like. Have I succeeded? Yes. YMMV.

The moral of all the posts here...let the hydrometer tell you want to do. If your gravity readings are consistent...go ahead and bottle or rack to secondary (what I would do).

It doesn't matter what anyone says...if your gravity readings don't budge for days and are at the expected value...primary fermentation is done...whether it took a week or a month. fermentation time is relative to temperature, strain and volume of yeast pitched, what fermentables were in the bucket etc.

that said, it is a personal preference of mine to have crystal clear sediment free beer so i would at least rack to secondary and let it sit till some solids precipitate out.

kh54s10 said:

This is definitely NOT the current thinking of most home brewers. Allow the yeast to do ALL the work. Yes, you can rush things but, leave the beer alone - do not even take gravity samples for about 2 1/2 - 3 weeks then check and bottle/keg after 3 -4 weeks. You do not need a secondary unless you want to add ingredients, dry hop or want extra clarity.

Click to expand...

I don't think "most" homebrewers go 4 weeks in the primary, although a very vocal minority certainly do.

I think "most" homebrewers go 2 weeks or so total in the fermenter, from the ones I know.

However, longer than 2 weeks certainly won't harm the beer. There just isn't any advantage once the beer has been at FG for at least a few days and the beer has cleared.

^^ Agreed.

Honestly, let your palate be your guide. If it's clear enough for YOU....and taste good to YOU, and the FG is stable for multiple days, do whatever YOU want. Screw other people's opinions. It's your beer...do what you want. I think a few weeks is standard for a lot of home brewers because like myself, I'm still nailing down a process and with my desire to always try different brews, every brew requires a little different variant. I personally would rather wait to help with any mistakes I would have made. Though, if I did it all perfect and it was done within a week and taste good and at the clarity I liked, I'd keg that sucker and call it an awesome FAST brew....period.

First off, ales can, and should, ferment fairly fast. If a 1.052 beer is still fermenting after 7 days, then conditions were not ideal (too cold, underpitched, etc). Bulk aging after fermentation is a good idea and will allow the flavors to mature and give the yeast time to metabolize some of its byproducts. Leaving the beer to do this in primary, or in a secondary is a personal taste choice. Two weeks of bulk aging should be sufficient for a pale ale. If there were some issues with fermentation (too warm, over or underpitched, etc) then the beer will need a longer aging period.

It has been shown that it is the yeast in suspension that are doing the clean up. The role of the settled out yeast cake is very minor in this so there is no reason to leave the beer on the yeast cake for extra time, if clean up is the goal. Now the beer will pick up flavors from sitting on the yeast cake for extra time. Many people do like these extra flavors (many do not), so if that is what you want, that is a reason to leave the beer in primary longer.

If the beer is done fermenting in 4 days it is perfectly fine to go ahead and transfer it to a secondary conditioning vessel.

Concerns about contamination and oxidation are valid reasons to do primary only beers. However with good technique, these issue can easily be dealt with. One might chose to wait until they have more experience to use a secondary if these are your concerns. Once you are comfortable with the brewing routine, then you might want to try a secondary. If you feel you can deal with these potential issues, then by all means, go ahead and use a secondary if you want to. In the end, let your taste buds decide what to do

When the idea of primary only beers was widely announced, the statement was, leaving your beer in primary for extra time will not HARM your beer. This has now been corrupted into YOU NEED TO leave your beer in primary for extra time or your beer will suffer, which is clearly not the case.

In conclusion, one does not need to have the beer sitting on the yeast cake for it to clean up after itself. Plus however you do it, bulk aging is good

thanks for all the replys, I will leave it alone for another week and then transfer to the secondary.

wolfman_48442 said:

With all due respect, I don't agree with this at all. They use the same techniques as we do, they just have their process nailed, usually because they do the same batch over and over

Click to expand...

Same techniques yes, same equipment no. I don't have pressurized fermenters and I don't have filters to pump my beer through.


Rev.

pjj2ba said:

When the idea of primary only beers was widely announced, the statement was, leaving your beer in primary for extra time will not HARM your beer. This has now been corrupted into YOU NEED TO leave your beer in primary for extra time or your beer will suffer, which is clearly not the case.

In conclusion, one does not need to have the beer sitting on the yeast cake for it to clean up after itself. Plus however you do it, bulk aging is good

Click to expand...

This has been my point for years, but I didn't state it so clearly. This is a clear, concise explanation of what I've been trying to say.

There are some very vocal members are the forum that say that beer is always better with a 4 week primary and that "most" brewers do that. I would say that it is really a vocal minority who say and do this, and not a majority at all- for the reasons pjj2ba mentions.

As a food analogy, my spaghetti sauce is always better the next day once the flavors meld. It really is! But since it's "done" and matured, it's not like it's going to be better in a week. By then, maybe it'd even start going "off" a bit if I don't get it in the freezer. The same is true with beer, if you think about it. It's better when conditioned and mature, but a beer that has reached that point isn't going to continue to improve. Once it's peaked, it will lose quality and flavor with time, unless you get it in the cellar (the "freezer" in my analogy).

Of course, a 3.6% ABV mild peaks at a far earlier time than a 9.9% barley wine, and that must be taken into consideration. I would never keep a mild in a primary more than about 7-10 days, and would probably never keep a barley wine in primary less than that! That's an extreme example, but I hope my point is made. Using words like "keep the beer in primary a minimum of three weeks!) is silly, for that reason.

Yooper said:

Of course, a 3.6% ABV mild peaks at a far earlier time than a 9.9% barley wine, and that must be taken into consideration. I would never keep a mild in a primary more than about 7-10 days, and would probably never keep a barley wine in primary less than that! That's an extreme example, but I hope my point is made. Using words like "keep the beer in primary a minimum of three weeks!) is silly, for that reason.

Click to expand...

This is definitely some of the best advise for the OP to heed. Each beer needs it's own attention based on the aspects and style of that beer and when it's done with primary fermentation. The general message would be to ferment until primary is complete, then understand that most beers get better when the yeast is allowed to clean up a little bit after primary fermentation, and that total time varies based on a number of different details such as starting gravity (ABV) as Yooper points out.

I've got an RIS of 1.093 that hit 1.021 in four days. Not all that unusual if you pitch the right amount of healthy yeast, I think. That being said, I have definitely found time is your friend when it comes to better beer. Whether it's in primary, secondary or bottles may be individual preference, but even though I've also had beers that "had no off flavors" after 10 days, they were soooo much better after a month or two!

Question?? Does mash temp impact fermentation time? I've been mashing in the 154 range, but did a 1.070 IPA mashed at 149 F and it only took 3 days of vigorous ferm to drop to 1.011 using US-05.

coastwx said:

Question?? Does mash temp impact fermentation time? I've been mashing in the 154 range, but did a 1.070 IPA mashed at 149 F and it only took 3 days of vigorous ferm to drop to 1.011 using US-05.

Click to expand...

No, it shouldn't affect the time of fermentation, although it will change the fermentability of the wort, at least a bit. A stout mashed at 158 may stop at 1.020, while a cream ale mashed at 147 may stop at 1.006. But they shouldn't really ferment any faster or slower, based on mash temp.

One thing that makes a big difference in the final beer is taking care of the yeast- this may translate to a quicker fermentation, but only indirectly as one of the causes of a sluggish fermentation is underpitching the yeast.

Pitching the correct amount of yeast (most homebrewers underpitch by just buying a "smack pack), controlling fermentation temperatures, and using quality ingredients means a healthy fermentation. If you provide optimum conditions for the fermentation, there wouldn't be many "off flavors" for the yeast to "clean up".

One of the things that happens is that a poorly made beer WILL get a bit better with some time. That's not really due to conditioning, it's due to the flavors getting some time to fade. But a poorly made beer with off-flavors will never turn into a great beer. Some esters may fade a tiny bit, "hot" fusels may mellow, too much roastiness may fade, and so on. But the easy solution is to make the beer correctly with proper techniques and not have to give the beer time to be drinkable. A month in the primary won't make a crap beer a good beer, no matter what.

Yooper said:

No, it shouldn't affect the time of fermentation, although it will change the fermentability of the wort, at least a bit. A stout mashed at 158 may stop at 1.020, while a cream ale mashed at 147 may stop at 1.006. But they shouldn't really ferment any faster or slower, based on mash temp.

One thing that makes a big difference in the final beer is taking care of the yeast- this may translate to a quicker fermentation, but only indirectly as one of the causes of a sluggish fermentation is underpitching the yeast.

Pitching the correct amount of yeast (most homebrewers underpitch by just buying a "smack pack), controlling fermentation temperatures, and using quality ingredients means a healthy fermentation. If you provide optimum conditions for the fermentation, there wouldn't be many "off flavors" for the yeast to "clean up".

One of the things that happens is that a poorly made beer WILL get a bit better with some time. That's not really due to conditioning, it's due to the flavors getting some time to fade. But a poorly made beer with off-flavors will never turn into a great beer. Some esters may fade a tiny bit, "hot" fusels may mellow, too much roastiness may fade, and so on. But the easy solution is to make the beer correctly with proper techniques and not have to give the beer time to be drinkable. A month in the primary won't make a crap beer a good beer, no matter what.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Did not know if more fermentation made for a more efficient environment for conversion. I figured the FG would be different, but must have just pitched a better lot of yeast or something last time. Plan to start doing more with yeast this year in terms of making starters, etc.