Beginner with a question...

Hey guys-
I've got my first batch of beer in my primary, and it has been fermenting for 9 days now. I took a sample gravity reading two days ago, and then another one today, and it was the same at 1.013 (OG was 1.048). My question is whether I can bottle it now? I have been reading that once the gravity readings are constant, that fermentation is done, but I've also been reading that people like to leave it in the primary for 2-3 weeks? I'm not going to be putting it into a secondary either. You guys have all been super helpful so far, I appreciate all your help!

Yes, your beer is done fermenting if you've gotten two readings that match. You COULD bottle now, if you're in a hurry. But, it's better to wait 3-4 weeks before bottling. Your beer will have much more time to condition and it will taste much better than if you were to do it now. Even though fermentation is done, the yeast have a lot of work they can do by cleaning up off flavors that may have been created in your brewing process.

My vote is to leave it alone, but knowing that this is your first batch and you're probably anxious to try it, you can bottle know if you don't want to wait.

I agree with everything that Suthrn said. Patience is your friend. Your beer will be cleaner and taste better if you wait awhile longer. Brewing beer is a craft. Something not to be rushed.

NRS

If I were you I would bottle it now and then get your second batch going as soon as possible. That way you can drink the first batch while you are giving the second batch plenty of time to condition. I find once you have the first batch under your belt it is much easier to be patient.

A

Waiting to keg/bottle is still like Christmas Eve to me. I take taste samples as I go along, so by the time it's almost ready to bottle, I know the flavor, though flat and warm, and I get so antsy to taste it cold and carbed...

I too like to give my beer at least a month in primary; this of course is for everything but wheat beers. I always ferment in the 59-61 degree range, so it takes a little more time for my beer to finish. Of course as a new brewer I wanted to taste the fruits of my labor NOW! If you bottle it now you will have good tasting beer in a couple weeks. If you bottle in 2 weeks so long as you have good temp control, you will have better tasting beer in 4 weeks.

Well, looks like I'll wait a bit to bottle then. I can't wait until I have some ready to drink so the waiting becomes a little more bearable!

unionrdr said:

Once I get a stable FG,I give it 3-5 days to clean up & settle out more. I've found that on average,if your ferment temps aren't out of wack,you don't rally need a couple more weeks. 3-5 days seems to work well. Especially when a good amount of hops were used. You don't want them to start degrading (if only a little bit) before they go into bottles for 3-5 weeks to condition. Then you have to count 1-2 weeks fridge time for good head & carbonation. 5 or 6 days was working well,but I discovered that 2 weeks is is way better..

Click to expand...

Odds are his first batch of beer lacked temp control. Let it go for another 2-3 weeks before bottling.

SouthernCross said:

Waiting to keg/bottle is still like Christmas Eve to me.

Click to expand...

I've found that once you start brewing sours, the waiting game isn't such a big deal. Forgetting about a beer for 12-18 months is tough, but it's worth it.

Sheesh. I'm way too *instant gratification* for that... I can barely make a 6-week brew. Heh. I suck.

SouthernCross said:

Sheesh. I'm way too *instant gratification* for that... I can barely make a 6-week brew. Heh. I suck.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too! Usually, two weeks in the fermenter, package and then drink ASAP! Of course, "bigger" beers need more time, like a tripel, and I have a stout that really comes into its own at week 6. But overall, I'd go crazy if I had to wait months to drink a beer I made!

Buy some craft beer and start emptying bottles for when you do bottle

wow you guys drink your beers young. I find my beers really start to meld after about the two or three month mark. This of course means we are brewing 1-2 times a weeks to constantly have a good rotation. Everything we send into to competition though is conditioned for usually 6 months. Then the kegs get purged with C02, and are stored at 48* F until three bottles are sanitized, purged, and counter pressure filled, and sent off to be judged.

[email protected]. on tap: easy virtue blonde, fruity monk belgian wit. primary: American pale ale, American stout, blow your top steam, and heffewitzen

squirrelly said:

wow you guys drink your beers young. I find my beers really start to meld after about the two or three month mark. This of course means we are brewing 1-2 times a weeks to constantly have a good rotation. Everything we send into to competition though is conditioned for usually 6 months. Then the kegs get purged with C02, and are stored at 48* F until three bottles are sanitized, purged, and counter pressure filled, and sent off to be judged.

[email protected]. on tap: easy virtue blonde, fruity monk belgian wit. primary: American pale ale, American stout, blow your top steam, and heffewitzen

Click to expand...

To each their own. On the one hand I've got a RIS that's going to be in the fermentor for 6 months before bottling. On the the other hand, some beers are meant to be consumed as fresh as possible, either because they spoil quickly (like low gravity belgian wits) or because their aromatics fade (like a good IPA/IIPA). If all your beers are conditioned for the same length of time for simplicity sake, I can understand that, but not all beers are created equal.

Buy another primary fermenter or 2 or 3... Get another one started. I started July 1 and am now working on 3 brews (a bit green) and will try the fourth soon at 2+ weeks in bottle. The fifth batch is in primary, a Belgian Dubbel, my first partial mash. I don't expect a taste of that until Dec.

I agree fully. My house beer is a double IPA which sits in primary for 6 weeks before a dry hop. My Heffewitzen and wit, however are in kegs within 3 weeks.

My wife brews a lot of big stouts and scottish wee heavies which really benefit from conditioning. We have consumed these young, but the flavors really come together about the six month mark. Of course this is only done with ideal conditioning temps at 59*.

My IPA seems to be best about the three month mark. There is still a nice hop aroma followed by a balanced malty backbone. This beer is 1.085 with 95 IBUs, so I like to try to get it to attenuate down to about 1.015 which gives it a really nice dry finish.

You are absolutely right about to each is own. I don't care for residual sweetness in my beers even when the style guidelines say it's appropriate. Given enough healthy yeast, good temp control, and plenty of O2 at pitching, I get that dry finish I love.

Because of this we now have 6 fermenters and a couple chest freezers to ferment and condition. We found that by brewing 1-3 times a week, we were fighting for space.

That's what I love about this hobby. No brewer is really right or wrong in his or her practices; if you find a system that works for you, and you are making good beer it sounds like a success to me.

bigbeergeek said:

On the the other hand, some beers are meant to be consumed as fresh as possible, either because they spoil quickly (like low gravity belgian wits) or because their aromatics fade (like a good IPA/IIPA).

Click to expand...

I'd like to know what you're definition of "spoils quickly" is. I've had belgian wits in the bottle for over a year that still tasted great.

Belgian wits won't spoil any faster that a typical pale ale, or other low gravity beers. The reason they're typically bottled sooner is because the yeast is a big part of the finished beer. Using a secondary, or aging the Wit (or any wheat beer really) will allow the yeast to settle out more leaving you with a clearer beer.

As long as the beer has hops, it's not going to spoil very fast.

If you bottle now, at least treat yourself to a pint or two before you add priming sugar. In a sanitary way, of course.

Suthrncomfrt1884 said:

I'd like to know what you're definition of "spoils quickly" is. I've had belgian wits in the bottle for over a year that still tasted great.

Belgian wits won't spoil any faster that a typical pale ale, or other low gravity beers. The reason they're typically bottled sooner is because the yeast is a big part of the finished beer. Using a secondary, or aging the Wit (or any wheat beer really) will allow the yeast to settle out more leaving you with a clearer beer.

As long as the beer has hops, it's not going to spoil very fast.

Click to expand...

I had a feeling someone would get hung up on the word "spoil." Wits have lower hopping rates, high percentages of wheat and often lower alcohol than pale ales. All three of these factors contribute to staling of the beer. Do a search on shelf life of wheat beers and wits and you'll see there's a lot of agreement on the subject. A typical American pale ale will have a significantly longer shelf life than a wit because the style allows for more alcohol by volume and has significantly higher hopping rates (average IBUs for wits and American pale ales are 15 and 39 respectively, according to BJCP).

bigbeergeek said:

I had a feeling someone would get hung up on the word "spoil." Wits have lower hopping rates, high percentages of wheat and often lower alcohol than pale ales. All three of these factors contribute to staling of the beer. Do a search on shelf life of wheat beers and wits and you'll see there's a lot of agreement on the subject. A typical American pale ale will have a significantly longer shelf life than a wit because the style allows for more alcohol by volume and has significantly higher hopping rates (average IBUs for wits and American pale ales are 15 and 39 respectively, according to BJCP).

Click to expand...

Agreement from homebrewers or professional brewers? I brew for a living and can tell you that I've never had a concern about the shelf life of Wits. Yes, they're better young...but that's not what I'm trying to point out. Spoilage isn't the reason people drink them young... the style requires yeast, and bottling them young helps the yeast stay in suspension.

I'd also like to know how wheat contributes to staling... since I've never heard such a thing.

Suthrncomfrt1884 said:

Agreement from homebrewers or professional brewers? I brew for a living and can tell you that I've never had a concern about the shelf life of Wits. Yes, they're better young...but that's not what I'm trying to point out. Spoilage isn't the reason people drink them young... the style requires yeast, and bottling them young helps the yeast stay in suspension.

I'd also like to know how wheat contributes to staling... since I've never heard such a thing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure from where the "blame the wheat" concept originates -- wheat germ oil oxidizing or something to that effect? I don't rub elbows with professional brewers, so I have no idea what they could contribute to the conversation. It's a theory I've heard touted by many a homebrewer. I'm glad we're at least in agreement on one undeniable fact: wheat based beers are best as fresh as possible.

Suthrncomfrt1884 said:

Agreement from homebrewers or professional brewers? I brew for a living and can tell you that I've never had a concern about the shelf life of Wits.

Click to expand...

So have I, I still consult, and I have a significant concern about the shelf life of Wit. A professional wants his product to be the best it can possibly be. Hell, I have a concern about the shelf stability of ALL my products!

Yes, they're better young.

Click to expand...

Aaaaaaand there you have the reason for concern! A professional does not want substandard product on the shelf. If you're not concerned about shelf stability, you're either a brewpub brewer or your professional priorities are out of whack; a brewpub brewer doesn't really need to worry unless he's got beer in the off-premise stream in bottles, and the latter attitude is horribly irresponsible.

Fact is, for one reason or another, Witbier as a style does not age well. In the case of my very traditional Wit, I suspect it's because of the extremely low hops rates (<10IBU). Flavor degrades after only a few weeks in the bottle. And who wants a clear Witbier? Not me! We used to pull Wit back after three months in distribution, because by that point it was too "Meh" for us to be proud of it.

Traditional Wit brewers in Belgium and North America report the same problem (short shelf life), so that tells me it's the style.

As for wheat being involved in staling, I have no idea where that homebrewer myth comes from. One word: Wiezenbock.

Relatively low-gravity ales containing wheat have shelf-stability problems, but I don't think it has anything to do with wheat other than coincidence (i.e., the grists have wheat in them). The styles are meant to be consumed as fresh as possible (I like my Wit straight out of the fermenter!), and the longer they stay in package the more "Meh" they become. That's a freshness issue, not a grist-ingredients issue.

Bob

AndrewNSachs said:

Hey guys-
I've got my first batch of beer in my primary, and it has been fermenting for 9 days now.

Click to expand...

If you care about having a clean beer then waiting is paramount. It will help if you can refrigerate (cold crash) for the next 2 weeks, which will help more stuff drop out. Also, one thing I do with beers where I care about clarity is to add gelatin 2 days before kegging/bottling.

This is my basic gelatin process

Suthrncomfrt1884 said:

Agreement from homebrewers or professional brewers? I brew for a living and can tell you that I've never had a concern about the shelf life of Wits.

I'd also like to know how wheat contributes to staling... since I've never heard such a thing.

Click to expand...

Bob said:

Traditional Wit brewers in Belgium and North America report the same problem (short shelf life), so that tells me it's the style.

As for wheat being involved in staling, I have no idea where that homebrewer myth comes from.

Click to expand...

I just happened to crack open my copy of Brewing with Wheat by noted brewing author Stan Hieronymus. In the wit section of the book he details a conversation with (the highly successful professional) brewer Gordon Strong regarding the wit style. Under the heading of "Flaws and Misconceptions" in the wit section Strong states: "[One common flaw is] Not serving it fresh enough. Most wheat beers don't store well" (184). In a subsequent section on common flaws found in hefeweizens, Strong reiterates: "Not fresh enough. Hefeweizens are notorious for going downhill quickly; drink them when they are young" (188).

So apparently this "homebrewers' myth" has crept into the ranks of the most successful professional brewers in the US.

What's your point? Correlation does not even imply - it certainly doesn't prove - causality.

Show me where Mr Strong (or anyone else, for that matter) proves through experimental means that a specific compound(s) or property(ies) imparted by wheat causes staling issues. I am unaware of any brewing-science paper addressing this issue. For all you or I know, staling could be the result of relatively low original gravity, a yeast-strain issue, or any number of things or combination thereof.

"Most wheat beers don't store well" and "drink them when they are young" are the important statements there, and neither of them address the homebrewer's myth, which concerns what causes those statements to be objectively true. We don't know. The unsophisticated intellect can make a causal leap based on correlation, but making that leap doesn't prove anything.

Cordially,

Bob

Bob said:

If you're not concerned about shelf stability, you're either a brewpub brewer or your professional priorities are out of whack; a brewpub brewer doesn't really need to worry unless he's got beer in the off-premise stream in bottles, and the latter attitude is horribly irresponsible.

Click to expand...

I am a brewpub brewer, but I still worry about quality just as much as the next guy. When I say I'm not concerned about shelf life, it's more in a homebrew aspect. I rarely bottle beers other than my homebrew. I've had Wits taste fine after a year in the bottle when properly stored. Other than a little less yeast character, they seem to age well enough. Obviously drinking them fresh is still the best bet, since it does taste "odd" without the fresh yeast/wheat flavor.

My original statement was just to point out that wheat isn't neccessarily the reason why people drink wheat beers sooner than later.

Bob said:

What's your point? Correlation does not even imply - it certainly doesn't prove - causality.

Show me where Mr Strong (or anyone else, for that matter) proves through experimental means that a specific compound(s) or property(ies) imparted by wheat causes staling issues. I am unaware of any brewing-science paper addressing this issue. For all you or I know, staling could be the result of relatively low original gravity, a yeast-strain issue, or any number of things or combination thereof.

"Most wheat beers don't store well" and "drink them when they are young" are the important statements there, and neither of them address the homebrewer's myth, which concerns what causes those statements to be objectively true. We don't know. The unsophisticated intellect can make a causal leap based on correlation, but making that leap doesn't prove anything.

Cordially,

Bob

Click to expand...

+1. There's nothing in those statements that says WHY wheat causes a beer to go stale early. It only suggests that you drink them young.

Bob said:

The unsophisticated intellect can make a causal leap based on correlation, but making that leap doesn't prove anything.

Click to expand...

Heh. Me unsophisticated. Me has bad brains.

I'm not convinced that there is something in the makeup of wheat that makes wheat beers drop off quicker than other styles -- certainly wheat wine can stand p to years of aging. My point was -- and still is -- that traditional wheat ales are formulated for fresh consumption. The fact that they are drinkable after a year doesn't have much to do with what I'm talking about. If there isn't some aspect of the wort produced by wheat that makes it more prone to staling, so be it. Correlation is not causation, to be sure. Why is this such a contentious issue with you guys?

If my implication that wheat itself causes beer staling is ruffling feathers, I'll happily redact it. It wasn't in any way central to the subject of conversation.

It's a contentious issue because I for one get really, really tired of common homebrew myths continuing to recirculate over and over and over. Like hot-side aeration and yeast management and "secondaries" and... It gets tiresome when one is well-informed and armed with facts, and is confronted with barely-informed, at best semi-factual, but nonetheless doggedly held brewing dogma.

Thus have I next to no patience when discussing such issues. I'm sorry my lack of patience may have put you off/out.

Cheers!

Bob