Bottling ?

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.

jsiesener

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Louis
This is my first brew. It was in the primary for 7 days with a FG of 1.010 (its a cream ale) and then into my secondary. I have learned that there is the big debate on using secondary but I had already transfered it. I know people say to leave in secondary for 1 week but was wondering if I could cut that short to bottle sooner to try and have it ready by the end of Oct.. Suggestions please.
 
The reason we leave our beers in primary or secondary for a period of time, is because it makes it taste better, than when we rush the process. It's really that simple.

I don't know if you're looking for rationalization for you excitement/impatience, but you're going to have to decide that for yourself, whether you want ok beer or great beer. This is really a game of patience.
 
This is my first brew. It was in the primary for 7 days with a FG of 1.010 (its a cream ale) and then into my secondary. I have learned that there is the big debate on using secondary but I had already transfered it. I know people say to leave in secondary for 1 week but was wondering if I could cut that short to bottle sooner to try and have it ready by the end of Oct.. Suggestions please.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the debate of secondary was pretty much squashed a long time ago. Secondary vessels are good for a couple of things, maybe a few more:

Dry hopping
Adding fruit

Most beers can just sit for 3-4 weeks in primary and be nice and clear, and good to go.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the debate of secondary was pretty much squashed a long time ago. Secondary vessels are good for a couple of things, maybe a few more:

Dry hopping
Adding fruit

Most beers can just sit for 3-4 weeks in primary and be nice and clear, and good to go.

He's not really engaging in that discussion here. He wants to know if he can jump the gun and bottle.

Actually to me the minimum time in a secondary is 2 weeks, after two weeks in primary....some combination of a month minimum.

Regardless of whether you secondary or not, it's about not rushing your beer into bottles. If you rack to secondary for 6 weeks, or if you leave it in primary for 6 weeks, you're getting the same overall effect.

But regardless it's not about rushing your beer. If you bottle earlier, you're more than likely STILL going to have to condition your beer, only in the bottles.

You can't escape the fact that beer needs time to come into it's fullness. We're not making coolaid here. And we don't tell folks to wait because we want to jerk the new brewer's chains.....it's because we want you to make good beer.
 
If you bottle too soon, you may get bottle bombs. Sounds like you have a steady FG, so you are probably ok there.

The longer you leave it, the clearer it will be. If you don't care about clarity, no issue bottling.

As far as age, most beers get better and better. (Exceptions are hoppy beers which can lose hop flavor over time, but you are on the short end of the timeline, not the long end. I'm sure there are other beers that can be "overaged" but you don't have to worry about it in this case.) If you think the beer is good enough, bottle it and enjoy it.

Next time, brew it a few weeks earlier so you don't have to wonder how much better it would be:)
 
Revvy said:
But regardless it's not about rushing your beer. If you bottle earlier, you're more than likely STILL going to have to condition your beer, only in the bottles.

You can't escape the fact that beer needs time to come into it's fullness.

Meant to mention this as well. Regardless of primary vs. secondary vs. bottle, there is a minimum conditioning time after brewing and a minimum time in the bottle to become carbonated.

If you are in a big hurry and don't care about anything else, bottle it (assuming steady FG) and let it carb.

I hope that I don't come across as rude, but patience makes things better. Keep in mind, it already has alcohol in it. You could drink it flat and warm out of your secondary, but no one on here is going to suggest it.
 
jsiesener said:
This is my first brew. It was in the primary for 7 days with a FG of 1.010 (its a cream ale) and then into my secondary. I have learned that there is the big debate on using secondary but I had already transfered it. I know people say to leave in secondary for 1 week but was wondering if I could cut that short to bottle sooner to try and have it ready by the end of Oct.. Suggestions please.

Are you saying you measured the FG and got 1.10 or that's just what it's supposed to be?

How long had it been in the secondary? And idk where you heard to leave it in the secondary for one week, the classic mantra is 1 week primary, 2 weeks secondary, 3 weeks bottles. But really i think it should be 3-4 weeks primary, and 4-5 weeks in bottles.

Everyone is impatient their first brew though, especially if you don't have anything else to brew at the time. You can bottle it now, but like said before, the beer won't be ideal, especially a cream ale since it should have a fairly clean flavor.

If you do decide to bottle it soon, i would try top cold crash it for 2 days to clear it up a bit. And it might just have to condition in bottles longer before it really becomes good.
 
He's not really engaging in that discussion here. He wants to know if he can jump the gun and bottle.

Ahh, true. Skimmed right over his real question.

The beer probably could be bottled now, but like Revvy said, it's still going to need time to condition and carbonate. At any rate, I say you'd be better served by letting the beer sit in the fermenter longer so the trub has a chance to become more compact. Less trub in your bottling bucket, less trub in your bottles.

My 2 cents :D
 
Yes. For most normal beers (and now regardless of bottling OR kegging) I plan out about 8 weeks from grain to glass, for normal/average gravity beers. Some beers just take longer.

I'm not really trying to rush things in a way. But I had a party come up and was wondering if I could have a drinkable beer by then. I still need to figure out what is the route I need to take with using secondaries if I am not adding anything. I guess what everyone is saying is personsal preference. My next brew will be a Belgian Witbier, is there a difference with types of brews that yes you should use a secondary or no you can just leave in the primary for longer. I do understand the theory of leaving in primary for longer and then bottle to reduce the risk of contamination and oxygenation.
 
The thing to realize too is, if you're bottling, it's going to take AT LEAST three weeks for the beer to carb if the beer is above 70 consistently....that puts it at Oct 30th anyway....
 
I'm not really trying to rush things in a way. But I had a party come up and was wondering if I could have a drinkable beer by then. I still need to figure out what is the route I need to take with using secondaries if I am not adding anything. I guess what everyone is saying is personsal preference. My next brew will be a Belgian Witbier, is there a difference with types of brews that yes you should use a secondary or no you can just leave in the primary for longer. I do understand the theory of leaving in primary for longer and then bottle to reduce the risk of contamination and oxygenation.

I would say that anything that has a lot of added "stuff" would be a good candidate for secondary. Pumpkin ales, brews with coffee grounds or chocolate, etc.
 
jsiesener said:
I'm not really trying to rush things in a way. But I had a party come up and was wondering if I could have a drinkable beer by then. I still need to figure out what is the route I need to take with using secondaries if I am not adding anything. I guess what everyone is saying is personsal preference. My next brew will be a Belgian Witbier, is there a difference with types of brews that yes you should use a secondary or no you can just leave in the primary for longer. I do understand the theory of leaving in primary for longer and then bottle to reduce the risk of contamination and oxygenation.

Logically, what benefits would you see from putting it in a second container? I don't want this to become another secondary or not thread.

Yeast and trub will settle out the same in the primary container as they do in the secondary, and as long as you're not aging longer than 3 or 4 months, then you'll see no harm from leaving the beer in the original container.
 
Are you saying you measured the FG and got 1.10 or that's just what it's supposed to be?

How long had it been in the secondary? And idk where you heard to leave it in the secondary for one week, the classic mantra is 1 week primary, 2 weeks secondary, 3 weeks bottles. But really i think it should be 3-4 weeks primary, and 4-5 weeks in bottles.

Everyone is impatient their first brew though, especially if you don't have anything else to brew at the time. You can bottle it now, but like said before, the beer won't be ideal, especially a cream ale since it should have a fairly clean flavor.

If you do decide to bottle it soon, i would try top cold crash it for 2 days to clear it up a bit. And it might just have to condition in bottles longer before it really becomes good.

I am getting my information straight from the kit directions, and also trying to read forum questions and answers and piece things together.
 
I am getting my information straight from the kit directions, and also trying to read forum questions and answers and piece things together.

Kits are notorious for having bad/poor instructions with them. They will very often rush you through the process and include dated methods (racking to secondary for no valid reason). IME/IMO, you're better off skipping racking to secondary for the vast majority of brews. I typically go with a long primary (2-12 weeks is my range currently) and then go to bottle/keg. I do have two batches aging with wood in them, that did get transferred to aging vessels (25L sanke kegs) many months ago. That was after enough time had passed for the yeast to finish doing what it would/could.

IF you're really looking to get brews to glass faster, you can shave some time off of the process by kegging. Then it depends on which carbonation method you go with. Personally, I use the two weeks at serving pressure method, so only shaving a week off of normal brews. The advantage really comes about when you keg bigger brews. Ones that could take many weeks, or even months, to bottle carbonate will take the same ~2 weeks at serving pressure/temperature to carbonate in keg. You can then bottle from keg (different methods available there) to give some away.
 
jsiesener said:
I am getting my information straight from the kit directions, and also trying to read forum questions and answers and piece things together.

I didn't mean that to come off like i doubted you, sorry if it sounded short. I know that there is a lot of information out there, some of it is good, some of it is bad. So i just wanted to give you the normal example from kits/out dated books. And then also give you the advice that I've learned from a few brews and a ton of reading.

But as to your original question. If you'd like to bottle it and have it ready sooner, do it. But be aware that it might be pretty green, it might not even be fully carbed by then. But if it's not you can just leave it in the bottles and let it condition for a few more weeks. although leaving it in the fermenting vessel will help it clear up more, and also probably clean up the flavors faster.
 
I read in one post on this forum that I cannot specifically recall, but someone used a small plastic bottle (those weird new coke 8 oz'ers would work) to bottle with each batch. It allowed them to determine carbonation level by how firm the plastic bottle was. I thought that was an ingenious way to decide whether the beer was carb'd enough to crack open! Unfortunately I completely forgot to do it for my last batch.
 
That's actually how Mr. beer kit does it, you can buy just those bottle for pretty cheap on Amazon. I prefer just opening one a week and drinking it though :) it helps me learn the changes the beer goes through over time too.
 
That's actually how Mr. beer kit does it, you can buy just those bottle for pretty cheap on Amazon. I prefer just opening one a week and drinking it though :) it helps me learn the changes the beer goes through over time too.

That's true, but those are large bottles. At least with the little plastic bottle you won't be wasting a large amount of beer. I don't mind the wait a week, wait another method, either.
 
I didn't mean that to come off like i doubted you, sorry if it sounded short. I know that there is a lot of information out there, some of it is good, some of it is bad. So i just wanted to give you the normal example from kits/out dated books. And then also give you the advice that I've learned from a few brews and a ton of reading.

But as to your original question. If you'd like to bottle it and have it ready sooner, do it. But be aware that it might be pretty green, it might not even be fully carbed by then. But if it's not you can just leave it in the bottles and let it condition for a few more weeks. although leaving it in the fermenting vessel will help it clear up more, and also probably clean up the flavors faster.

I appreciate all of the advice, and I also did not try to make it sound like you came across short. I know that I have a long way to go, but am excited to get there. It is frustrating to read the directions and then hear all of this other info and try to figure out the best procedure.
 
I appreciate all of the advice, and I also did not try to make it sound like you came across short. I know that I have a long way to go, but am excited to get there. It is frustrating to read the directions and then hear all of this other info and try to figure out the best procedure.

The answer is pretty simple, generally speaking kit manufacturers, especially kit an kilo manufacturers, are concerned with selling more and more kits NOT with the brewer making the best beer possible. They know that if they say in the instructions to wait, they may loose some people to hobbies that have more instant gratification.

They also know that the time that a homebrewer will remain buying kits is relatively short...they know that after a few kits, the brewer will either give up, start brewing extract batches from recipes in books and places like this, formulate their own recipes, or go all grain...so they want to sell as many kits as possible to the new brewer before he moves on to bigger and better things.

SO they know that even their beer will taste better if you leave it longer...but they know that in the time you wait you will be reading and learning and be less likely to buy another kit...They can sell three or four kits to you if you follow their directions in the same time frame that listening to us and waiting a month and bottle conditioning for another 3-4 weeks.

You can follow their timeframe and directions, and maybe the beer will turn out "OK." Or it might not...but by just slowing the process down, and giving the yeast a chance to help, you can take that same beer which might have been just ok, and make it great.
 
The reason we leave our beers in primary or secondary for a period of time, is because it makes it taste better, than when we rush the process. It's really that simple.

I don't know if you're looking for rationalization for you excitement/impatience, but you're going to have to decide that for yourself, whether you want ok beer or great beer. This is really a game of patience.

Man, I must have sucky beer! I just kegged ten gallons of beer yesterday, that I brewed on 10/1/12.

No disrespected intended at all, of course. But a well made beer doesn't need to be left in a fermenter (whether primary or a clearing vessel) for extended times. Saying that it will taste better may or may not be true.

Generalizations are tough, because sometimes they are true. In some cases, yes, a little longer in the fermenter may mean a better beer. But also, sometimes, this is not true. It's probably not going to be worse, of course, but I would argue that it would be "better".

Normally, a properly made beer will have the correct amount of yeast pitched at the correct temperature and fermented at the correct temperature. If that is the case, the beer will often be at FG within 3-5 days. Allowing 2-3 days after active fermentation ends for the "clean up" phase is important. Longer won't hurt, but I don't think it's really necessary. Once the beer is done fermenting, as had a few days to finish up the clean up process, and it is clear, it is ready to be packaged.
 
Normally, a properly made beer will have the correct amount of yeast pitched at the correct temperature and fermented at the correct temperature. If that is the case, the beer will often be at FG within 3-5 days. Allowing 2-3 days after active fermentation ends for the "clean up" phase is important. Longer won't hurt, but I don't think it's really necessary. Once the beer is done fermenting, as had a few days to finish up the clean up process, and it is clear, it is ready to be packaged.

But this is the point that you seem to be missing....go back WAAAAAYYYYY BAAAACk to your few batches of beer, before you knew about the "correct amount of yeast pitched at the correct temperature and fermented at the correct temperature." When you just believed that the instructions were gospel, that there was enough yeast in that tube or packet to do the job, when there was NO MENTION about what temps were optimal not to prevent ester production and off flavors. When you thought the airlock was the be all and end all of fermentation indicators, and a hydrometer was something scary, complicated to understand, and might even infect your beer?

Remember those days?

It's all well and good to know that you and I and the folks with a few batches under their belt and a deeper understanding of the brewing process can go much faster. We know which grav beers can be quickly turned over. We know from experience and from learning all those great tips and tricks from on here what we need to do to get that beer in the keg fast.

But those aren't the people asking theses sorts of questions are they?

MOST of the folks coming on like the OP or the new brewers coming in nearly every day ASKING US when to do something, usually haven't heard of ANY of those things yet either, and are brewing their first few kits, as is, with no extra oxygen, underpitched possibly even stale yeast at god knows what temperature.....

You think that beer can be rushed? You think that beer will be ok as is?

There's a big difference between the beer you could put in the keg when you did, and THESE first few batches that they're making, just like we made back in the day, (when we started threads like "My grommet fell into my fermenter is my beer ruined?" ;) )

And I think it's VERY important to make that distinction when answering these types of questions, this is the "beginner's beer forum." And the questions are USUALLY first batch questions.

I don't think I'm the one making generalizations about the beer as much as you are.

Your quick beer, and this first batch are more than likely NOT the same animals.
 
But those aren't the people asking theses sorts of questions are they?

I don't think I'm the one making generalizations about the beer as much as you are.

Oh, Michael, you know that I actually agree with you. For newer brewers, for people who don't have temperature control, people who underpitch, etc- for that I agree that rushing the beer to bottle compounds flavor issues.

But my point is not to disagree with you- as I agree with the premise. What I disagree with is the blanket statements like "if you leave the beer in the fermenter longer, it will be better". That isn't true.

Maybe what IS true would be "if you leave THIS beer in the fermenter for longer, it make the beer better, hopefully, and it certainly can't hurt!" That is my point.

I think it's easy to take a blanket statement and apply it as Gospel truth. Because you are well respected, I think some brewers might take it to heart, and then repeat it as a mantra- "leaving the beer in the primary for a month is required if you want drinkable beer". While it's not untrue, it's also not completely correct when taken to such an extreme. I've seen people on this forum repeat this, based on hearing it and not on personal experiences.

I think the only generalization I'm guilty of is saying "A well-made beer does not need an extended length of time in the fermenter". That's something I say often enough, I guess. :D
 
Back
Top