Is patience really a virtue?

Whatever works for you. Ive had some beers taste better at one week bottled than 3 or 6 wks.And the exact opposite also.Some beers best over a year-like the first pumpkin i made.There are too many variables like water/yeast/mashing/grain stability? I still notice more of a green/frutiness with a shorter primary as far as sampleing the hydro sample and less of that with a longer primary.
Ive also mad a ordinary bitter which is suppose to be drank like within 5 minutes of making it. Which was horribly sulfur fart/face beer at first.After a few months-not too bad.The only thing i seen wrong i did was overbitter it on the high end and i dont see that having anything to do with the fart-face un-drinkability it had at first.I actually quite enjoy it now after a few months because drinking farts sucks.

scottland said:

Experience with your yeast strain of choice is the single biggest factor to me. Learning how long it takes to ferment, at what temps. Learning at which temps it ferments clean. Learning when to ramp-up the temp. It varies with every yeast.

Once you learn a process that works for you, and your favorite yeast, it becomes much easier to turn beers over faster.

Click to expand...

Fer sher. When I use a strain for the first time, I'm likely to let it ride under temp control for 3 weeks. After that I'll begin playing around with temps and times. Say something like 05 that I use a ton, I'll take a gravity reading on day 6 or 7 and keg it as long as it's stable a day or two later.

New brewers, I highly recommend washing or in some other way reusing the yeasts you find that you like. That way you can experiment with it without the expense.

NordeastBrewer77 said:

New brewers, I highly recommend washing or in some other way reusing the yeasts you find that you like. That way you can experiment with it without the expense.

Click to expand...

+1000, I just started washing yeast after making my California Common and am using the same yeast for my Baltic Porter. I have to say I really enjoy what this one can do and it will be used quite a bit by me.

as a new brewer I'm trying to soak up as much information as I can in a short amount of time. I think that both sides have a lot of common sense to them. after reading a TON of threads you see extremes. you see the guys who sit on a brew for a month, then secondary and then carb for 20 million weeks, and you have the ones who rack to secondary or to bottle after 5 days. from what I've seen many summer beers can be straight to bottle in 2 weeks on primary and then bottle.

I'm going to be brewing a Hefeweizen with a 3068 wyeast strain so I'm estimating that I can bottle in about 10 -14 days in primary since HEFE's are a fast ass brewing beer. (my equipment comes tomorrow the 30th so I'm excited as hell).

Patience - the ability to wait if necessary - is definitely a virtue.

If the waiting is not beneficial, then the waiting itself is not a virtue.

I am also a new brewer so I don't have a ton of experience with different conditions, but if I may be so bold as to venture an opinion: new brewers should be encouraged to take a data-driven approach to their brewing. All this business about fermentation time, to secondary, to not secondary, etc., is really meaningless without observation and data. If you've been brewing a while, you get a "feel" for it so you just know what seems right.

But for new brewers, the stock advice is too absolute. It isn't just about waiting another few weeks or sticking to a time table that generally works. It is about learning the brewing process. New brewers should be encouraged to observe their brews, pay attention to sights and smells and above all take measurements (gravity, clarity, etc.) frequently. Even if I just have a minute or two, I make an observation every day. I may just take a look at the airlock, take a sniff, look at the krauesen, take a close look at the beer. It may look like a cloudy mess, but if you look at it, really really look at it, you can see changes in the conditions in the beer itself. Some days I may take a gravity reading. All info goes in a cheap notebook.

Point is, experienced brewers understand the process and make many little judgements automatically based on what is happening. For those of us who are new, we should be encouraged to figure out how to make those judgements, not just follow some rote instructions. Beer doesn't seem to clear as fast as you want? Well, what other practices can help that along? In what cases can a secondary help clarity? Not sure if fermentation is done? How can I figure that out?

Fermenting longer may work well for some people, but what always works is hydrometer measurements and temperature records and reading (and understanding) the 1-sheet on the yeast strain. All of these techniques like long fermentations, secondaries, etc., are just tools and we should all know how to employ them effectively. I know everyone wants to make a good brew first time out, but in my short time brewing I have come to understand that you have to screw something up pretty badly to not make beer. And if it isn't right? Then you'll have enough data to get better advice and gain more knowledge for your next batch. Anything less is a crapshoot.

The worst that could happen is that you have to brew again. Darn

Just my 2 cents....
-b

I think the OP is on target with some of the points made, but I also feel that the aim of the (rant?) is misplaced.

In many of those cases where people have advocated patience, it's not simply a blanket statement that all beer is better if you let it sit on the yeast for a month. A lot of times in the beginner section people are underpitching, over temp, using old yeast, freaking out, using packaged instructions, etc.

I also think that there is a misunderstanding between "Beer is better if you let it sit on the yeast for 3-4 weeks!" vs "It's ok to let your beer sit on the yeast for 3-4 weeks". And I'm talking about average strength beer. High gravity beer obviously takes a bit more time and can stand an "aging" process better than a medium or low strength beer.

That all said, it certainly is fine to let even an average strength beer sit an extra week or two rather than get bottled before it's fermented out. A lot of the beginner brewers bottle and they may not understand the bottle bomb risk and some of the other factors. in a lot of cases we may not have all of the available information and advising taking some time is better than making assumptions.

I've also noted that in a lot of cases where giving it more time is offered with the other useful advice to take hydrometer readings. Some people can take a ton of advice and run with it. Others may get overwhelmed with the technical details and may need to obtain their experience and knowledge a bit at a time. They will get the feel for things as they continue to brew.

I think the most helpful part of the "give it another week" advice is the sense of relax, don't worry. Some of the people posting in the beginner section have a clear sign of concern emanating from their posts.

Wow. I've been "unplugged" for the weekend and I'm surprised to come back to such a reasonable debate. For the record, I'm not advocating that anyone brew faster if it doesn't work well for them. If someone doesn't have the time to brew every couple of weeks, or if it takes them a while to finish a batch, I don't see anything wrong with letting it sit for a while.

I guess what got me going (aside from a few homebrews) was that "wait 3-4 weeks" is becoming a one-size-fits-all answer for pretty much any question that gets asked in the beginner's section. In my opinion, that isn't really being helpful. I remember one post a while back about someone with an off-flavor problem common to all of his beers, one of which spent 8 weeks in primary and another 4 in the bottle. His question still got met with a round of "just wait it out, it's still green." While I recall that it was a little on the strong side (1.065 maybe), pretty much anything short of a massive barleywine should be drinkable in 3 months. Furthermore, some of the more vocal advocates of extended primaries will combat any advice other than "3 weeks minimum" with charges that the poster isn't interested in brewing good beer and just wants to "churn out swill" so they can get drunk. So I figured that I'd point out that there might be some very good reasons for someone who does care about crafting a great beer to want a quicker turn-around.

I think blakelyc got my drift and maybe put it better than I did. The 3 week minimum is just as arbitrary of a rule as the 1-2-3 instructions in a lot of kits. Will it produce a better beer for someone's first time out? Maybe. But it's arbitrary nonetheless. And if you're the type that wants a hard-and-fast rule it's probably as good as any. However, there are also a lot of folks who are more inquisitive and want to tailor their brewing to their equipment, their recipes, and their preferences. So if someone asks about that, we should answer them, not bully them into thinking that there's only one way to do things.

Anymore I just pitch a yeast slurry from a gallon starter every time I brew an ale. With a big pitch and ramping the temperature towards the end, I hardly ever get any more attenuation after 5 days. For something like a pale ale or IPA that I'm dry hopping, I like to add the dry hops when fermentation is winding down so that some yeast are still around to scrub any bacteria from the hops. At the same time, when I dry hop too long (over a week) I start to get an overly-grassy taste from the hops... SO I have to have a complete primary at the end of that dry hop phase. I've tried the whole "wait 3-4 weeks for the yeast to drop out" thing. There's always going to be some yeast cloudiness until you carbonate your beer. I think a lot of people are confusing cleaning up the beer with some level of oxidation that they tend to like. Just my opinion.

IME every batch of beer is a little different. There are no absolute rules except to pay attention to each batch and respond to their needs. The reason 'be patient' is such a common piece of advice is that it solves many (if not most) of the issues faced by novice brewers.

Soma said:

IME every batch of beer is a little different. There are no absolute rules except to pay attention to each batch and respond to their needs. The reason 'be patient' is such a common piece of advice is that it solves many (if not most) of the issues faced by novice brewers.

Click to expand...

I totally get that.... I think it is the tone of this advice in the beginner forum that the OP is referring to. Saying something like, "oh, your pitching temp was a bit high? yeah, leave it in a week to reduce a few common off flavors." is a bit different than the absolute leave-it-in-X-weeks advice.

The sooner people come to terms with quality brewing as a function of process and environmental conditions rather than focusing so much on clock time, the better.

Brew on! :rockin:

wormraper said:

as a new brewer I'm trying to soak up as much information as I can in a short amount of time. I think that both sides have a lot of common sense to them. after reading a TON of threads you see extremes. you see the guys who sit on a brew for a month, then secondary and then carb for 20 million weeks, and you have the ones who rack to secondary or to bottle after 5 days. from what I've seen many summer beers can be straight to bottle in 2 weeks on primary and then bottle.

I'm going to be brewing a Hefeweizen with a 3068 wyeast strain so I'm estimating that I can bottle in about 10 -14 days in primary since HEFE's are a fast ass brewing beer. (my equipment comes tomorrow the 30th so I'm excited as hell).

Click to expand...

Of course that's if everything goes perfectly. I just bottled my 3068 Hefe after 20 days in primary because i wanted to let it clean up the sulfur smell i was getting the first week or so. Brewing is alot like baseball and poker, it's very situational, but with many so called "guidelines."

I think the general advice to give your first beer(s) some extra time is sound. Nobody does anything perfectly the first time, so there are going to be some flaws in every first batch. The majority of those flaws can be eliminated or minimized with an extra week or 2 in the primary.

Honestly, I think more people quit brewing if their beer just doesn't taste good then quit because it takes to long. For us married guys, you have an additional wife motivation. If I had served her 20 gallons of crap beer while trying to fix my "process", that probably would have been the end of homebrewing at my house.

billl said:

I think the general advice to give your first beer(s) some extra time is sound. Nobody does anything perfectly the first time, so there are going to be some flaws in every first batch. The majority of those flaws can be eliminated or minimized with an extra week or 2 in the primary.

Honestly, I think more people quit brewing if their beer just doesn't taste good then quit because it takes to long. For us married guys, you have an additional wife motivation. If I had served her 20 gallons of crap beer while trying to fix my "process", that probably would have been the end of homebrewing at my house.

Click to expand...

While I agree with most of what you're sayin', the bolded statement just isn't entirely true. Sure, some minor flaws can smooth or mellow over time, but the vast majority of off flavors related to yeast health or fermentation temps won't just go away. I think many brewers make the mistake of 'green' flavors, which obviously do fade with time, being 'off' flavors. Take a beer laden with diacetyl, for instance. Sure, over time, the diacetyl flavor may fade, as many other beer flavors do with time, but it won't go away. Diacetyl is produced early, during the lag and reproductive phases, then some may be reconsumed by the yeast at the end of active fermentation, thus the diacetyl rest to keep the yeast working longer. After the yeast become inactive, after FG is reached, the yeast aren't doing anything, they're dormant. If any off flavors are reabsorbed by the yeast, it's when they're active, during fermentation or within a few days of reaching terminal. If they were still active, they wouldn't be dormant.
Basically, it's like this; if you want to ensure your beer is free from flaws, pitch enough fresh, healthy yeast, control fermentation temps and be sanitary. Some flaws may be diminished with time, but yeast aren't going to correct every mistake made by the brewer.

NordeastBrewer77 said:

While I agree with most of what you're sayin', the bolded statement just isn't entirely true. Sure, some minor flaws can smooth or mellow over time, but the vast majority of off flavors related to yeast health or fermentation temps won't just go away. I think many brewers make the mistake of 'green' flavors, which obviously do fade with time, being 'off' flavors. Take a beer laden with diacetyl, for instance. Sure, over time, the diacetyl flavor may fade, as many other beer flavors do with time, but it won't go away. Diacetyl is produced early, during the lag and reproductive phases, then some may be reconsumed by the yeast at the end of active fermentation, thus the diacetyl rest to keep the yeast working longer. After the yeast become inactive, after FG is reached, the yeast aren't doing anything, they're dormant. If any off flavors are reabsorbed by the yeast, it's when they're active, during fermentation or within a few days of reaching terminal. If they were still active, they wouldn't be dormant.
Basically, it's like this; if you want to ensure your beer is free from flaws, pitch enough fresh, healthy yeast, control fermentation temps and be sanitary. Some flaws may be diminished with time, but yeast aren't going to correct every mistake made by the brewer.

Click to expand...

:rockin:

Certainly, yeast don't fix every mistake with time, but they fix some common flaws. eg diacetyl. If a new brewer is following kit instructions, it is highly unlikely that they know anything about a diacetyl rest. "Leave it at room temp for an extra week" beyond the kit instructions will most certainly improve a diacetyl problem. Depending on how bad the problem was, it may not completely resolve, but I don't think there is any arguing that it will be better at 14 days than 7.

I'm certainly not saying that 2 months is a reasonable recommendation, but the vast majority of new brewers are using kits that say to bottle after a week to 10 days. The chances of a brand new brewer hitting all the marks to make that happen are pretty slim. It's fine to say that you should watch the beer and let it go until it is "ready", but a brand new brewer has no idea what "ready" looks like or tastes like. Once you watch the beer go through the whole process a couple of times, take some readings, taste the various stages etc, then we are talking about a whole different level of knowledge to work with. The only way to get there though is to be patient and let it happen a couple of times.

billl said:

Certainly, yeast don't fix every mistake with time, but they fix some common flaws. eg diacetyl. If a new brewer is following kit instructions, it is highly unlikely that they know anything about a diacetyl rest. "Leave it at room temp for an extra week" beyond the kit instructions will most certainly improve a diacetyl problem. Depending on how bad the problem was, it may not completely resolve, but I don't think there is any arguing that it will be better at 14 days than 7.

I'm certainly not saying that 2 months is a reasonable recommendation, but the vast majority of new brewers are using kits that say to bottle after a week to 10 days. The chances of a brand new brewer hitting all the marks to make that happen are pretty slim. It's fine to say that you should watch the beer and let it go until it is "ready", but a brand new brewer has no idea what "ready" looks like or tastes like. Once you watch the beer go through the whole process a couple of times, take some readings, taste the various stages etc, then we are talking about a whole different level of knowledge to work with. The only way to get there though is to be patient and let it happen a couple of times.

Click to expand...

First off, as I said before, yeast will only clean up so much diacetyl. If you make a butter bomb, no d-rest and no yeast, and especially no set amount of time is going to clean it all up. Same goes for esters, phenolics, fusels, etc. It's just not true that the yeast will just do away with these things for you if you leave the beer on the cake for a magic number of days after terminal.
The reason many of us suggest that new brewers leave the beer longer is to ensure that fermentation is complete and that the beer is beginning to clear, not because some magic yeast fairly will come over on night 28 and fix their flawed beer. If a new brewer asks me how to eliminate something like say, fusel alcohol in their beer, the last thing I'm gonna talk to them about is leaving the beer on the cake. I'm gonna tell them to consult a pitch rate calc, make a starter and ferment cool.
Patience is a brewers best friend........ if their process is solid. But no amount of patience will make up for a poorly brewed beer.

billl said:

Depending on how bad the problem was, it may not completely resolve, but I don't think there is any arguing that it will be better at 14 days than 7.

Click to expand...

If you change that to "there's no arguing that it won't be any worse at 14 than 7" then I would pretty much have to agree. But I think there's plenty of room to argue the blanket statement that every diacetyl problem will be better at 14 days vs 7. Many primary fermentations are done consuming sugar in 3-4 days. 3 days past active fermentation, and your yeast are most likely done reprocessing any diacetyl they're gonna get to.

Anyways, not advocating bottling at seven days, so please don't take it that way. More arguing a technicality.

As a new brewer, I can only share my anecdotal experience, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion. My first beer was a kit given to me for Christmas and bought from Amazon. My guess is the two biggest mistakes I made were the kit itself, which almost certainly had very old ingredients and oxidizing as I bottled. I left it in primary for three weeks and bottled without a secondary. The result was a drinkable beer but certainly not great. However, as the weeks and months have now gone on, I've found it to be almost undrinkable. It has definitely gotten progressively worse the longer it has been in the bottles, even with three weeks in primary. Now maybe it would have been undrinkable from the start had I not left it in primary for three weeks, but certainly it seems to me there are flaws/mistakes that can't be covered up by longer primary.

I don't think I have any fundamental disagreements with most of the posters here, but I think the idea that yeast suddenly drop out of suspension after you hit FG is being highly oversold. Obviously, a lot of them do of you wouldn't have a big yeast cake. Equally obviously, a lot are still left in suspension doing their thing or their wouldn't be such a thing as bottle carbonation. There is a fair amount of ongoing activity as long as their are any consumable compounds in the brew.

It would be great if every brewer got to start off brewing with an experienced homebrewer. Baring that, you need some written steps for people to follow. The general kit instructions seem to assume the new brewer is going to hit their o2, temps and yeast counts accurately. If you screw those up and bottle after 7 days, you stand a good chance of getting something undrinkable. If you wait 3 weeks, you have a better shot of getting something drinkable even if it is flawed. Patience isn't a replacement for good technique, but it can make some of your mistakes more palatable while you work on it.

jkendrick said:

As a new brewer, I can only share my anecdotal experience, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion. My first beer was a kit given to me for Christmas and bought from Amazon. My guess is the two biggest mistakes I made were the kit itself, which almost certainly had very old ingredients and oxidizing as I bottled. I left it in primary for three weeks and bottled without a secondary. The result was a drinkable beer but certainly not great. However, as the weeks and months have now gone on, I've found it to be almost undrinkable. It has definitely gotten progressively worse the longer it has been in the bottles, even with three weeks in primary. Now maybe it would have been undrinkable from the start had I not left it in primary for three weeks, but certainly it seems to me there are flaws/mistakes that can't be covered up by longer primary.

Click to expand...

Sounds like oxidation,Im really not quite s hure what that is,but i think its a drying tastless effect which i think i may experince sometimes. Because i never get the wet/cardboard ever,however i do get a dried out tasteless effect sometimes which i think but am n0t certain is oxidation. Which may possibly be due to overcarbonation also which ive had a streak of.

jonmohno said:

Sounds like oxidation,Im really not quite s hure what that is,but i think its a drying tastless effect which i think i may experince sometimes. Because i never get the wet/cardboard ever,however i do get a dried out tasteless effect sometimes which i think but am n0t certain is oxidation. Which may possibly be due to overcarbonation also which ive had a streak of.

Click to expand...

The flavor is, what I assume to be, the homebrew "twang." It was there initially, but has grown with bottle aging.

billl said:

I don't think I have any fundamental disagreements with most of the posters here, but I think the idea that yeast suddenly drop out of suspension after you hit FG is being highly oversold. Obviously, a lot of them do of you wouldn't have a big yeast cake. Equally obviously, a lot are still left in suspension doing their thing or their wouldn't be such a thing as bottle carbonation. There is a fair amount of ongoing activity as long as their are any consumable compounds in the brew. .

Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone saying that the yeast drop out as soon as FG is reached. Obviously they don't, or you'd have a clear beer immediately after fermentation completed. The point we're trying to make is that this whole fallacy of yeast cleaning up is way over stated on these forums. You've kinda got it, those yeasts in suspension will undoubtedly try to continue consuming whatever they can, even after all the fermentables are gone, but this is something that lasts only a few days, not weeks like some of the more outspoken users on this sight claim. I'm not saying leaving your brew longer doesn't have it's benefits, in fact I often leave beers in primary for a month or more and I do see some benefits to it, but those are along the lines of clearing of proteins, development of flavors, maturation, etc., and the beer doesn't necessarily need to be in the fermenter for those things to happen.
As far as the bolded statement goes, I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I can't say that I agree with you. Back to the diacetyl. In theory yeast will consume diacetyl to a degree, but if you have a beer that's loaded with it you could leave it on the cake for a year and it wouldn't go away. E.G. I brewed an ESB in February of 2011 with 1968, a known diacetyl producer. The beer got too warm (low 70s) for the first day of fermentation. At the advice of many here I left in on the cake for 5 weeks to clean up. At bottling it tasted like microwave popcorn. After a month of conditioning it tasted like microwave popcorn. Last time I tried one it tasted like microwave popcorn. See the pattern? And I'd be willing to bet my dollars to your doughnuts that if I wasn't enjoying a delicious Weihenstephaner Hefe, I could crack one now and it'd taste like microwave popcorn. I've had beers with a lower level of an off flavor clean up a bit, but to make the claim that leaving your beer one the cake will correct every off flavor in it's entirety is plain nonsense, IMO.

"I've had beers with a lower level of an off flavor clean up a bit, but to make the claim that leaving your beer one the cake will correct every off flavor in it's entirety is plain nonsense, IMO."

Not sure anyone has said that, and I'm certain I didn't. I've gone out of my way on the posts here to indicate the exact opposite. Time will improve on most minor off tastes and make them less pronounced. Time isn't going to fix a big stinky mess.

Sorry about your butterball. I'm sure you are right and your remaining yeast aren't healthy/active enough to clean up the mess. You might have tried "krausening" - pitching some of the krausen and wort from an active batch of clean tasting yeast.

billl said:

. . . I think the idea that yeast suddenly drop out of suspension after you hit FG is being highly oversold. . . .

It would be great if every brewer got to start off brewing with an experienced homebrewer. Baring that, you need some written steps for people to follow. . . . Patience isn't a replacement for good technique, but it can make some of your mistakes more palatable while you work on it.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say that the yeast suddendly go dormant as soon as you hit FG. Rather, I was saying that there are ways to force them out once they've done their job.

And I agree, a longer conditioning time (which, personally, I don't think needs to happen in the primary) will serve as at least a partial remedy to some rookie mistakes. I'm just saying that if someone is interested in taking off the training wheels, we help 'em out.

billl said:

"I've had beers with a lower level of an off flavor clean up a bit, but to make the claim that leaving your beer one the cake will correct every off flavor in it's entirety is plain nonsense, IMO."

Not sure anyone has said that, and I'm certain I didn't.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did. And I'll continue to say it because it's correct.

I've gone out of my way on the posts here to indicate the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Obviously, thus the reason I keep telling you that you're wrong.

Time will improve on most minor off tastes and make them less pronounced. Time isn't going to fix a big stinky mess.

Click to expand...

And apparently, along with regurgitating other things you've read even though you really don't understand them, you've decided to regurgitate my point to make yours. Which is it? I'm guessing it's that you really don't know which it is, that in your short time here you've read some of the more vocal members saying things that just aren't entirely true, and are presenting those 'facts' as your argument. What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems. I know, I know, you've now said it only fixes minor problems (after I posted just that a few times), but your original claim was that it's a cure all.

Sorry about your butterball. I'm sure you are right and your remaining yeast aren't healthy/active enough to clean up the mess. You might have tried "krausening" - pitching some of the krausen and wort from an active batch of clean tasting yeast.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize for my mistake. Learning experience, my man, learning experience. I'm well aware of the more appropriate measures I should've taken with this batch. My point in telling you about it was that I took the advice of others, the same advice you're saying is fact (long primary cleans up all off flavors), and that that claim is just plain nonsense.

I love this thread, and agree whole-heartedly with its premise.

When I was a new brewer, I came here and saw a vocal minority condescending to the less experienced, implying that they were just foolsh and impatient. Month-long primaries, and 3-12 week bottle conditioning was required at a minimum.

Experience and common sense has taught me otherwise. Kudo's to the OP!

g-star said:

When I was a new brewer, I came here and saw a vocal minority condescending to the less experienced, implying that they were just foolsh and impatient. Month-long primaries, and 3-12 week bottle conditioning was required at a minimum.

Click to expand...

I too listened to the advice of the vocal minority early in my brewing and have since learned to figure out what works for me (and that certainly isn't month long primaries...). Hell, I even post my experience that is out of line with the month long primary crowd and am immediately told I don't know what I'm talking about. There isn't anything else like valid discussion points being stifled. To be honest, I'm shocked the month long primary crew hasn't popped in here yet.

IffyG said:

To be honest, I'm shocked the month long primary crew hasn't popped in here yet.

Click to expand...

Just you wait!

But yeah, I think many of us fell victim to that early on. And really, it's not like it makes your beer worse to leave it, so it even made sense. Now, knowing what I've learned, it just seems silly to wait an extra two weeks most of the time.

"What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems. I know, I know, you've now said it only fixes minor problems (after I posted just that a few times), but your original claim was that it's a cure all."

Not sure why you want to lie about what I said. It is right here in the thread for everyone to read. Every single post I wrote says that aging will clear up some, many, most, etc problems. "Cure all" and other such nonsense is being posted only by you.


"What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems."

Again, totally misquoting me. Normal kit instructions that most new brewers are working with call for a week or so in the primary. I wouldn't call suggesting to add ate least a week to that to be a "long primary" before bottling. Personally, I just plan on 2-3 and don't worry about it before then. The longest I've ever let it sit was 4 weeks and that was due to a busy schedule, not design.

For my first batch, I followed the instructions. It called for a week in a primary, a week in a secondary and then bottling. I tasted at 1 week and thought it was a sour apple mess. My wife tasted it and gave me "the look." After a week in the secondary, it was improved but still green. After 2 weeks in a bottle, it was drinkable. A month later, it was actually decent. I wish someone had told me not to bother messing with a 7 day old IPA.

billl said:

Not sure why you want to lie about what I said. It is right here in the thread for everyone to read. Every single post I wrote says that aging will clear up some, many, most, etc problems. "Cure all" and other such nonsense is being posted only by you.

Click to expand...

Huh? 'Cure all' was the term I used to describe what your claiming:

Every single post I wrote says that aging will clear up some, many, most, etc problems.

Click to expand...

^This^, which isn't entirely true.

"What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems."

Again, totally misquoting me.

Click to expand...

Ummmm, that's my quote, not yours. Again, what, in your experience, suggests that what you're saying is fact?

For my first batch, I followed the instructions. It called for a week in a primary, a week in a secondary and then bottling. I tasted at 1 week and thought it was a sour apple mess. My wife tasted it and gave me "the look." After a week in the secondary, it was improved but still green. After 2 weeks in a bottle, it was drinkable. A month later, it was actually decent. I wish someone had told me not to bother messing with a 7 day old IPA.

Click to expand...

So your experience is that your first batch wasn't great when it was green, but improved as the beer conditioned.....

NordeastBrewer77 said:

I think many brewers make the mistake of 'green' flavors, which obviously do fade with time, being 'off' flavors.

Click to expand...

Wow, whatta novel idea. I had no idea that 'green' or young beer would mature and become good beer.


Really, dude, I think you're just repeating what you've read, presenting that as your knowledge, yet it's quite obvious that you really don't understand what you're saying.
Again, I'll ask, what in your personal brewing experience leads you to believe that you're right? Have you had a beer that you know you screwed up that magically became great when you left it on the cake? Have you experimented and purposely under pitched? Or over pitched? Or fermented too warm? Or too cool? 'Cause personally, man, before I go around telling people things, I like to know them for myself. And in order to know these things, I'd have to had experienced them, right?

My own anecdotes:

fourth batch is fermenting right now. 1.062 OG saison. It's been 13 days and it looked like it finished more than a week ago. Probably bottle Monday or Tuesday. For the first three, I bottled at 16, 29 (fruit in primary after initial fermentation), and 17 days. I guess this is not as short as y'all are talking about, but it's shorter than a month. I've noticed no problems.

That said, my first was a porter that tasted significantly better after four weeks of bottle conditioning than three. The second was a wit that was not very good after two weeks of bottle conditioning, but was a hit after three. Both relatively low OG (1.045 to 1.050). I guess if you folks are kegging, this isn't relevant, and patience may not be a virtue. But my limited experience has definitely put me on the three-week (or more) bandwagon for bottle conditioning.

TarVolon said:

My own anecdotes:

fourth batch is fermenting right now. 1.062 OG saison. It's been 13 days and it looked like it finished more than a week ago. Probably bottle Monday or Tuesday. For the first three, I bottled at 16, 29 (fruit in primary after initial fermentation), and 17 days. I guess this is not as short as y'all are talking about, but it's shorter than a month. I've noticed no problems.

That said, my first was a porter that tasted significantly better after four weeks of bottle conditioning than three. The second was a wit that was not very good after two weeks of bottle conditioning, but was a hit after three. Both relatively low OG (1.045 to 1.050). I guess if you folks are kegging, this isn't relevant, and patience may not be a virtue. But my limited experience has definitely put me on the three-week (or more) bandwagon for bottle conditioning.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone'll argue with you that 3 weeks is a good guideline when you're starting out. I used to leave everything for a minimum of 3 weeks before bottling, and it always produced good beer for me. Now, I just go 'til the beer tells me it's done. I brewed a honey wheat a week ago, krausen dropped today and I took a reading, if the gravity's the same this weekend, I'll bottle because I want to drink this beer young. Conversely, I have a RIS that'll have been in some type of FV for 8+ months before I bottle, not because it'll take that long, it's been at FG since day 11, but because that beer will get much better with age on it.
Basically, to be safe, leave it. Once ya get your teeth cut, and know more what to look, smell and taste for, it'll be easier to know when it's 'done'.

I'm sensing a poll. No right or wrong answers.

Great discussion!

Looking through my brew log, all my fermentation has been 7 - 14 days before bottling. My OG has ranged from 1.048 - 1.063, which I think is a pretty normal range, no double, triple, imperial anything for me. I go by my hydrometer readings and when I have the free time to bottle. My worst beer was one of the ones I bottled in 7 days, but I added too much lemon zest and fermented warmer than I should have. That may have benefited from letting it sit longer to clean up. The one I fermented for 14 days is a vanilla oatmeal stout. I bottled once it had the vanilla flavor I wanted. It's been in the bottle for 6 weeks. The flavor is good but it is still way too flat. There's little carbonation because I was short on the priming sugar. My best beers fermented 9-12 days before bottling, but more importantly they had just the right amount of yeast and temperature control during fermentation, which I think was primary reason they came out tasting so good. Again, my decision for when to bottle those was based on my hydrometer readings and when I had the free time to bottle. I've been doing this since my very first beer. It may be easier to follow set time frames for some people or even to set and forget it until you have the time to come back to it. For me though, once it has fermented for 5-6 days and I see less activity or that the krausen has dropped, I'll start taking daily hydrometer readings. I'd rather let each batch tell me when it's ready to bottle, so to speak.

I've not looked at this in days, but just wanted to chime in and say that my experience at all scales mirrors what Nordeast is saying...

wailingguitar said:

I've not looked at this in days, but just wanted to chime in and say that my experience at all scales mirrors what Nordeast is saying...

Click to expand...

Funny thing..... mine too.

I'm a new brewer who is just coming around to realizing that I can get by with quicker fermentations on some of my lower OG ales. Fermenting in buckets and being scared of opening them for infections sake kept me from learning just how quickly krauzen rises, fall, and the beer is ready. I tended to leave things long early on, but now I'm a bit more into getting things bottled at 2 weeks, if the beer can handle it. My BDSA won't get that treatment, I'll probably leave it 4 before bottle conditioning another 4 before the first taste. <1.05 I'm starting to package in 1.5-2 weeks, with stable hydrometer over 2-3 days.

I haven't read the whole thread here, just page 1, but I can testify that OP is right.

I recently brewed an Irish Red Ale (basic 1.055 ale with enough crystal in it for it to turn a lovely red color), I shortened the mash and boil down to 30 minutes or something (each), and it was done fermenting (at FG, 1.010 or so) by day 3, I cold crashed for a day and then bottled, it was mildly carbed by day 8 and I was drinking them.

Since that time it's maintained a very similar flavor, maybe a bit better now than early on, but overall it's always had rave reviews from friends "That's a great beer, I love it!", and it was the fastest beer I've ever turned out.

Had I kegged it and force carbed, it would have been done and drinkable (and pleasant!) by day 5.

For me it's all about style of beer. Some should sit some should wait. Good practices make good beer. I've had IPA's were the hydro sample was great, and ended up being a great beer. I've also had pale ales early in my brewing when my technique wasn't as honed that were so-so tasting from the hydro, and got a little better, but never were great.