What's their trick?

Reading Brew Like A Monk right now. Very well written book, but I saw something I found quite interesting. They ferment in about 4-5 days. I know that FG can easily be reached in that time, but normally that is only talked about with average sized beers. These are huge beers we are talking about here, and yet they're finished and moving them at 5 days!

I have read so many times on here that strong Belgian styles can take 2-3 weeks just to reach FG, then there's the conditioning time. Or if they do finish up in a normal time frame, that they need to condition at ferment temps for another few weeks. But they're typically moving to a secondary an lagering for 2-3 weeks after the 4-5 day primary. So is that their trick, just to lager the beer for a couple of weeks? I've only really read about lagering lager styles, not big malty beers. Is anybody out there lagering these styles at our scale?

What beer specifically are you talking about? Even a relatively high gravity Belgian ale should be at terminal gravity within a week. If it takes much longer than that you probably have a fermentation issue.

Now, they may be at terminal gravity within a week, but that doesn't mean they are ready to drink. The higher the gravity the longer it takes for the beer to mature. If you read closely it is explained that what is typically referred to as "lagering" by Belgian brewers is actually cold conditioning at about 50°F (10°C) so it is not lagering in the strict sense of the word and allows for some residual activity from the ale yeast.

After bulk cold conditioning many Belgian beers are refermented in the bottle, which is also an important aspect of the maturation process. There's no magic trick going on, the big Belgian beers arguably do not come into their peak until at least 6 months and often longer.

Keep in mind that what commercial brewers with decades of experience, tight process control, and healthy properly handled yeast do is vastly different than what is usually recommended by hobbyists of various skill levels to other novice homebrewers on a homebrewing message board. Yeah, we say leave it in primary for 3 weeks, but that's because you probably just underpitched with a single packet of liquid yeast, didn't even splash aerate, fermented at the wrong temperature, have poor sanitation, are likely to infect the beer if you try to take a sample to check for terminal gravity, and are too lazy to bother with the beer on a set schedule.

orangehero said:

What beer specifically are you talking about? Even a relatively high gravity Belgian ale should be at terminal gravity within a week. If it takes much longer than that you probably have a fermentation issue.

Now, they may be at terminal gravity within a week, but that doesn't mean they are ready to drink. The higher the gravity the longer it takes for the beer to mature. If you read closely it is explained that what is typically referred to as "lagering" by Belgian brewers is actually cold conditioning at about 50°F (10°C) so it is not lagering in the strict sense of the word and allows for some residual activity from the ale yeast.

After bulk cold conditioning many Belgian beers are refermented in the bottle, which is also an important aspect of the maturation process. There's no magic trick going on, the big Belgian beers arguably do not come into their peak until at least 6 months and often longer.

Keep in mind that what commercial brewers with decades of experience, tight process control, and healthy properly handled yeast do is vastly different than what is usually recommended by hobbyists of various skill levels to other novice homebrewers on a homebrewing message board. Yeah, we say leave it in primary for 3 weeks, but that's because you probably just underpitched with a single packet of liquid yeast, didn't even splash aerate, fermented too cold, have poor sanitation, are likely to infect the beer if you try to take a sample to check for terminal gravity, and are too lazy to bother with the beer on a set schedule.

Click to expand...

As mentioned, this is coming from the book Brew Like A Monk, so there's not really one set style guideline for these, Belgian specialty strong ales.

As far as I can remember there was only one that was cold conditioned, the rest were sitting around freezing for 2-3 weeks. At which point they go through a refermentation in the bottle at warmer temps for another two weeks. A lot of the smaller ones are then sending them out to be consumed locally or in their brewpubs. If it wasn't until 6 months that they were actually at their peak, why would they sell them before that point? Granted the bigger ones are being shipped around the world which gives them more time for conditioning, but surely they're being bought and consumed before that peak 6 month mark? And if so, and you as one of those novices knows this fact, then surely the pros know this fact as well? So then it begs the question of why they would allow them to be consumed before they're hitting their peak, especially considering that they're mostly concerned with the quality of the beer they're producing?

I hope the you is in the general sense in the last paragraph?

I suppose I wasn't hoping for a "novice" discussion, but a real discussion on the topic, and especially when it pertains to their temp timeline. I understand most of us are just novices on here, but there are some very experienced guys and gals on here that are very knowledgable on such topics, and could easily be pros.

I meant the last paragraph to try to explain what you have read so many times here.

I recommend you re-read the book more carefully. It has a wealth of knowledge and I think perhaps will answer your questions.

I don't know what you remember about only one and the rest nearly freezing their beer, but in general you can't brew the strongest Belgian styles, for example a Belgian Dark Strong Ale at over 10% abv, and have it ready in 4 weeks.

For example Westvleteren, arguably the producer of the preeminent example of the style (BDSA), ferments for a week, and then cold conditions for 8 to 10 weeks. That's before bottling.

Another example from the book is Duvel, although a bit less in strength. Primary for 5 days, truly lagered below freezing for 3 weeks, 2 weeks bottle refermentation, 6 weeks cold conditioning in the bottle before release. That's 3 months.

If they could afford to warehouse their beer until the peak maturity and then distribute it to every customer always at that peak then I'm sure they would.

You are right, though, that the common practice is to cold condition or even lager the beer to accelerate the maturation, but you are still looking at 10-12 weeks at the minimum. These are beers that aren't necessarily designed to be consumed as fresh as possible and will continue to evolve even over several years. Personally I feel the incorporation of a cold conditioning period benefits many other styles as well. If you have the capability I would recommend sticking to how the Belgians do it to produce a superior homebrewed version as the process also works on our scale.

Achel bruin extra:
7-8 days primary
3-4 weeks at 32*
2-3 weeks bottle referment
6-8 weeks total
And that's for their biggest one, the other two are 2-3 weeks at 32. So 6-7 weeks total.

Chimay red:
4 days primary
3 days at 32
2 weeks bottling refermentation
3 weeks total!

Orval:
4 days primary
3 weeks at 59
Bottle refermentation for 5 weeks because it's at 59f
8 1/2 weeks total

Rochefort 10:
6-7 days primary
2-3 days secondary at 46f
10 days bottle refermentation
18-20 days!

Westmalle tripel:
5-6 days primary
4 weeks at 46f
3 weeks bottle refermentation
8 weeks total
The dubbel is 1 week less of each, so 6 weeks total.

Feuillien tripel:
7 days primary
6 weeks at 32
2 weeks bottle referment
9 weeks total

Bink tripel:
10 days primary
3 weeks ambient
1 week at 36
2 weeks bottle referment
7 1/2 weeks total

Saxo
7-10 days primary
2 weeks at 41
2 weeks bottle referment
5 1/2 weeks total

Nostradamus:
7-10 days primary
2-3 weeks at 41
2 weeks bottle referment
5-6 1/2 weeks total

Tripel karmeliet:
1 week primary
4 weeks at 32
2 weeks bottle referment
7 weeks total

Emperor of the grand cru:
6 days primary
2 weeks at 32
2 weeks bottle referment
5 weeks for an 11%!

St bernardus 12 would've been another example you could've cherry picked. 9-11 weeks total for that one.

That's not even getting into the ones brewed by American breweries.

I see your point that tees will likely get better with some age, but these breweries have to be pushing out a drinkable beer early on one would think?

After brewing a few rare/extinct German beers, I'm finding that allowing them to mature a couple to a few months does improve them in some ways. The character of even the German ales I've brewed changes in 5-6 months. Being fermented with WL029 yeast gives them the unique ability to become a bit more lager-like conditioning for that amount of time, then plenty of fridge time to lager further. It seems likely that even the Germans of old did these same processes to produce higher quality ales to make them more lager-like with the popularity of lagers increasing over time.

Probably they use a ****-ton of yeast. I toured a german brewery and they used a LOT of yeast, harvested from earlier batches. Big metal barrels of liquid yeast slurry.

It makes me think of the one craft brewer over here that in a video showed them storing yeast slurry in lightly pressurized casks. I used the WL029 yeast for the reason that it seems to be a more direct ancestor of the sort of dual-purpose yeasts they used in earlier times, before more specific strains were developed. From my book researches, it seems these older yeast produced an ale or a lager, depending on ferment temps. Then Pasteur came along & changed everything. but I will say this- Using the proper amount of yeast pitched at within 10 degrees of current wort temp & kept in the " sweet spot" temp-wise makes the beer not only finish faster, but come into it's own faster as well with better flavor.

I brew a LOT of quads, they are my favorite beer to drink. The only times that I have had my primary fermentation finish in less than a week(normally closer to 2 weeks @ 70) was when I had them up into the 80's ambient. I still let them sit another week before cold crashing for 4 days and bottling, then sitting for 6 months. They were VERY estery!

I too am always amazed at the monks that only have a week of primary.

There is a lot of info on the westy 12 clone thread by CSI. I believe he is onto something about the viability of the yeast, and has seen major differences when only using top-cropped yeast. He has a sweet contraption setup that helps to do this from a starter.

I think the viability of our yeast, even with starters must be lower than the top-cropped stuff the monks are using. In Brew-Like-A-Monk each brewery says they use top-cropped yeast from another active batch. That yeast is super healthy and ready to chew through a brick wall when they pitch, and thus it does so in what we consider an insanely quick amount of time.

ok so beyond the quality control they have on their yeast, and all their equipment, how much of an impact do you think either lagering or cold conditioning has on the product? is it simply speeding up the conditioning time in the bottle?

i guess i really only thought of lagering pilsners, lagers, any kind of clean, clear, crisp ale or lager. i never really thought of doing it for any kind of malt forward beer. so i guess that's what i'm getting at with the original questioning. how much of an impact will lagering a malt forward beer have? also is there anybody lagering, or cold-conditioning, or cold-crashing their hops forward beers for longer than a few days?

joshesmusica said:

ok so beyond the quality control they have on their yeast, and all their equipment, how much of an impact do you think either lagering or cold conditioning has on the product? is it simply speeding up the conditioning time in the bottle?

i guess i really only thought of lagering pilsners, lagers, any kind of clean, clear, crisp ale or lager. i never really thought of doing it for any kind of malt forward beer. so i guess that's what i'm getting at with the original questioning. how much of an impact will lagering a malt forward beer have? also is there anybody lagering, or cold-conditioning, or cold-crashing their hops forward beers for longer than a few days?

Click to expand...

First things first with the Trappists:

1.) They have extremely healthy yeast. Westmalle (Achel and Westvleteren use their yeast and by extension their facilities), Chimay and Rochefort all have pretty sophisticated breweries and laboratories. Their yeast is healthy and predictable and produce stable, repeatable results. This helps their beers to finish consistently.

2.) Most of the Trappists are cold crashing or centrifuging for clarity and to drop the yeast out of suspension. They are all going to re-yeast in the bottle anyway so they desire a clarity even in their dark beers. Take a look at the Chimay Grande Reserve, Rochefort 6 and 8 or the Westmalle Dubbel. Amazing clarity for such dark beers.

3.) If i'm not mistaken, they are not cold conditioning the primed and re-yeasted bottles. Correct me if i'm wrong, but most of the Trappist are bottle conditioning in warmer conditions so that they can get the product out the door. Most people like to think of these monasteries as small operations but they are HUGE businesses with amazing philanthropic and socially conscience principles in tow. Chimay grosses something like 54 million a year.

HausBrauerei_Harvey said:

I think the viability of our yeast, even with starters must be lower than the top-cropped stuff the monks are using.

Click to expand...

+1 to this. I think I remember reading in BLAM that some of the Trappists are underpitching on purpose. Their yeast is extremely viable so they can predict with incredible results how it will perform.

Derek1985 said:

First things first with the Trappists:

1.) They have extremely healthy yeast. Westmalle (Achel and Westvleteren use their yeast and by extension their facilities), Chimay and Rochefort all have pretty sophisticated breweries and laboratories. Their yeast is healthy and predictable and produce stable, repeatable results. This helps their beers to finish consistently.

2.) Most of the Trappists are cold crashing or centrifuging for clarity and to drop the yeast out of suspension. They are all going to re-yeast in the bottle anyway so they desire a clarity even in their dark beers. Take a look at the Chimay Grande Reserve, Rochefort 6 and 8 or the Westmalle Dubbel. Amazing clarity for such dark beers.

3.) If i'm not mistaken, they are not cold conditioning the primed and re-yeasted bottles. Correct me if i'm wrong, but most of the Trappist are bottle conditioning in warmer conditions so that they can get the product out the door. Most people like to think of these monasteries as small operations but they are HUGE businesses with amazing philanthropic and socially conscience principles in tow. Chimay grosses something like 54 million a year.

Click to expand...

As stated, beyond their facilities and yeast handling, what's their trick? It can't be just those two things alone that produced such a quality beer faster. Yes there are many homebrewers who don't give as much **** about the process and equipment and yeast handling as those guys, but there are just as many great homebrewers as there are **** ones. Then you have everyone with differing levels in between.

No they aren't simply cold crashing to get clear beer. It doesn't take 3 weeks for that to happen. Especially not when a lot of these guys selected strains that not only attenuate really well but also flocculate just as well. There's gotta be more reasoning behind essentially lagering their beers than clearing it out. Unless I'm understanding lagering wrong; does it happen after carbonation? I was under the impression that the typical lagering step looks just like what these breweries in that book are talking about.

And still nobody's got an answer to my main question haha:
Is there anybody doing any lagering beyond the typical lager-style beers?

joshesmusica said:

As stated, beyond their facilities and yeast handling, what's their trick? It can't be just those two things alone that produced such a quality beer faster.



Is there anybody doing any lagering beyond the typical lager-style beers?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly it. Proper yeast handling means that the yeast will ferment well, and quickly, and predictably. That's about it.

"Lagering" means "to store". Lots of people cold condition (ie lager) their beers, even ales.

Yooper said:

Yes, that's exactly it. Proper yeast handling means that the yeast will ferment well, and quickly, and predictably. That's about it.



"Lagering" means "to store". Lots of people cold condition (ie lager) their beers, even ales.

Click to expand...

My yeast handling is about as good as it gets for now. It's not the best in the world I'm sure, but I'm still making really good beers. I'm just wondering if my malt forward beers could get a little push from some lagering, as right now, I'm only cold crashing and gelatin for a few days.

When a fellow homebrewer responds with a request for more in depth info, it's our duty to provide, "Attention for an update!" "Ready!":

joshesmusica said:

As stated, beyond their facilities and yeast handling, what's their trick?

Click to expand...

I'd have to dig around in my garage for a few days but I have the trick written down somewhere out there. I'll send it to you.

All jokes aside, it's not the yeast handling. Yeast handling, to me, implies the care taken to be sanitary and clean with your yeast. The monasteries, Chimay and Westmalle in particular, have next level, research college type yeast laboratories on site. They groom it and cultivate it for properties desired in their beer such as flocculation, attenuation, etc.

joshesmusica said:

It can't be just those two things alone that produced such a quality beer faster.

Click to expand...

Why not?

joshesmusica said:

No they aren't simply cold crashing to get clear beer. It doesn't take 3 weeks for that to happen.

Click to expand...

Your right. Some of them centrifuge the beer to clear it. Remember though, the reason Westvleteren takes so long to condition is because they don't cold crash or centrifuge the beer. It can take 2.5 months for Westy 12 to clear naturally.

joshesmusica said:

Especially not when a lot of these guys selected strains that not only attenuate really well but also flocculate just as well.

Click to expand...

If these guys refers to your fellow homebrewers, then let's clear the air: just because you can buy WY3787 or WLP530 doesn't mean your getting the Westmalle yeast. Remember, the monks and their brewery employees are like yeast scientists. They are testing and strengthening and improving the yeast beyond what is available to any homebrewer. Not to say that available yeast are not exceptional, they just aren't the stuff that has you all worked up.

joshesmusica said:

Unless I'm understanding lagering wrong; does it happen after carbonation?

Click to expand...

You are. And No. As I stated in a previous post, most bottle conditioning happens at elevated temperatures.

joshesmusica said:

I was under the impression that the typical lagering step looks just like what these breweries in that book are talking about.

Click to expand...

They use the term loosely in BLAM to refer to a period of cold conditioning in the secondary.

joshesmusica said:

And still nobody's got an answer to my main question haha:
Is there anybody doing any lagering beyond the typical lager-style beers?

Click to expand...

Again, your confusing cold conditioning with lagering.

Derek1985 said:

When a fellow homebrewer responds with a request for more in depth info, it's our duty to provide, "Attention for an update!" "Ready!":



I'd have to dig around in my garage for a few days but I have the trick written down somewhere out there. I'll send it to you.

All jokes aside, it's not the yeast handling. Yeast handling, to me, implies the care taken to be sanitary and clean with your yeast. The monasteries, Chimay and Westmalle in particular, have next level, research college type yeast laboratories on site. They groom it and cultivate it for properties desired in their beer such as flocculation, attenuation, etc.



Why not?



Your right. Some of them centrifuge the beer to clear it. Remember though, the reason Westvleteren takes so long to condition is because they don't cold crash or centrifuge the beer. It can take 2.5 months for Westy 12 to clear naturally.



If these guys refers to your fellow homebrewers, then let's clear the air: just because you can buy WY3787 or WLP530 doesn't mean your getting the Westmalle yeast. Remember, the monks and their brewery employees are like yeast scientists. They are testing and strengthening and improving the yeast beyond what is available to any homebrewer. Not to say that available yeast are not exceptional, they just aren't the stuff that has you all worked up.



You are. And No. As I stated in a previous post, most bottle conditioning happens at elevated temperatures.



They use the term loosely in BLAM to refer to a period of cold conditioning in the secondary.



Again, your confusing cold conditioning with lagering.

Click to expand...

i really do appreciate your responses. i'm either horrible at communicating, or horrible at written communication, or i'm bad at writing in a way that you, in particular, understand what i'm attempting to communicate. because you keep answering my questions by not actually answering my questions and somehow interpreting them as the opposite of what i'm meaning:

i'm not just talking about trappist beers, as the book itself doesn't simply talk about trappist beers.

as far as yeast handling: yes i know they are very meticulous in their yeast handling, but according to the book, most of them are simply top-cropping at high krausen.

as to they why not answer to that it can't be just that, it has to do with one of the comments that i took directly from the book. all of them are either cold-conditioning or lagering for 2-3 weeks. there has to be something to that as well, i would think. otherwise, why would it be such a standard practice.

just like the first guy that responded, you're taking only westvleteren as an example, when i provided many more that are cold-conditioning/lagering for much shorter time and are not centrifuging their beers.

the these guys that i was referring to were in fact the breweries and not the homebrewers. i'm actually really confused how you inferred homebrewers out of that context.

as far as my understanding of lagering, i'm not confused. when you said:
"If i'm not mistaken, they are not cold conditioning the primed and re-yeasted bottles. Correct me if i'm wrong, but most of the Trappist are bottle conditioning in warmer conditions so that they can get the product out the door."
this made me think that you were under the impression that i believed cold-conditioning/lagering was after bottle conditioning occurred, something i never said in any of my posts. all of them are either cold-conditioning/lagering for at the very least 2 weeks, after primary fermentation, and before bottle refermentation.

they don't use the term loosely as some of the breweries cold-condition (around 45-50F), but a lot of them are lagering (around freezing temps).

so, again, i'm not confusing cold-conditioning and lagering. i want to know if there's anybody else lagering malt-foward beers on the homebrew scale and noticing any differences.

I apologize if I misconstrued your original post. It seemed to me as if you were interested in how they got their beers ready for sale and distribution so fast. My apologies. Let me go through your last post:

joshesmusica said:

i'm not just talking about trappist beers, as the book itself doesn't simply talk about trappist beers.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But, they are the foremost purveyors of the style and their breweries are among the most advanced in the country. Their commercial beer making methods and standards are up there with the other big names in Belgian beer like Moortgat and the like. When people say "Belgian", i'd be willing to stake a considerable amount on the fact that they mean Trappist. Just my 2 cents and disregard if you feel it adds nothing to the conversation.

joshesmusica said:

as far as yeast handling: yes i know they are very meticulous in their yeast handling, but according to the book, most of them are simply top-cropping at high krausen.

Click to expand...

This is true. I'd venture again to say that it is short sighted to think they simply top crop and throw it in and Voila! They analyze it as well. I'd say that even the Belgian abbey breweries and other regional breweries that may not have the facilities that the big names and the Trappist have are still very meticulous about their house yeast and it's performance. Again, still not addressing your question so disregard if you don't feel it adds anything.

joshesmusica said:

it has to do with one of the comments that i took directly from the book. all of them are either cold-conditioning or lagering for 2-3 weeks. there has to be something to that as well, i would think. otherwise, why would it be such a standard practice.

Click to expand...

I'll start with an excerpt from a post by Kaiser on this forum:

"The miracle of lagering is done by the yeast which is still active even at near freezing temps. There they slowly finish the remaining extract and other compounds that are found in young beer. To achieve that, the brewer has to be careful not to lower the temp to quickly as this may shock the yeast into dormancy. Such a shock happens if you crash the yeast to make it settle out quicker."

He is talking about lager but I think the last 2 sentences accurately sum up why these Belgian (not just Trappists) breweries are cold crashing or conditioning at typical lagering temperatures. Ale yeast is going to "crash", die or fall out of suspension at these low temperatures. It is no longer contributing any activity in the way of "cleaning" up the beer. They are simply doing this to clear the beer and get all particles, living or otherwise, to fall out of suspension. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong here. I do not claim to be an expert, I have just had good luck with these methods and getting a few clear Belgian beers out of it.

joshesmusica said:

just like the first guy that responded, you're taking only westvleteren as an example, when i provided many more that are cold-conditioning/lagering for much shorter time and are not centrifuging their beers.

Click to expand...

I think the point was, and is, that Westvleteren was taken as an example to accentuate the process. These breweries are trying to clear their beers. Some do it faster with centrifuging and cold conditioning and some don't.

joshesmusica said:

the these guys that i was referring to were in fact the breweries and not the homebrewers. i'm actually really confused how you inferred homebrewers out of that context.

Click to expand...

After re-reading your post I agree. Let's take a look:

"No they aren't simply cold crashing to get clear beer. It doesn't take 3 weeks for that to happen. Especially not when a lot of these guys selected strains that not only attenuate really well but also flocculate just as well. There's gotta be more reasoning behind essentially lagering their beers than clearing it out."

I have personally never brewed 170 barrels of beer at one time like say, Westmalle does. With all due respect to you and everyone on this forum, I doubt they have either. I don't know how long 170 barrels worth of beer takes to clear up. I'd have to disagree with your statement that, ".....It doesn't take 3 weeks for that to happen......", based purely on the fact that I can't speak from experience. It might not take you or I 3 weeks to clear a 5 gallon batch of beer, but 170 barrels is probably a whole different story.

joshesmusica said:

this made me think that you were under the impression that i believed cold-conditioning/lagering was after bottle conditioning occurred, something i never said in any of my posts.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I must have responding to another post.

joshesmusica said:

they don't use the term loosely as some of the breweries cold-condition (around 45-50F), but a lot of them are lagering (around freezing temps).

Click to expand...

If you review BLAM closely, you'll notice a trend: Most of the breweries (i'm talking all of them mentioned in the book and not just the Trappists) who have a pale, blond or a Tripel are doing secondaries at lagering temperatures. I'd venture to say that this isnt a coincidence and has nothing to do with flavor but rather clarity. Granted, you will find outliers in the book where darker beers are in the secondary at those temperatures as well, to which i'll say that they are clear as hell to.

joshesmusica said:

so, again, i'm not confusing cold-conditioning and lagering. i want to know if there's anybody else lagering malt-foward beers on the homebrew scale and noticing any differences.

Click to expand...

I have not noticed any taste difference in my 4 Belgians. I do it for the clarity and it has worked so far.

I think the advantages that lagering offers when making lagers is lost in ales due to the yeast not being able to survive and thrive in the lower temps.

I apologize for the long winded posts. I just really enjoy discussing Belgian beer as it is by far my favorite style group.

Good luck and Cheers!

As far as lagering or cold conditioning ales is concerned, I think getting the ales very clear in these ways allows the true character of the beer to shine. And with ales where yeasts like WL029 are concerned, a bit of lagering does seem to smooth out the rough edges, so to say. My kottbusser had less of the saison-like barnyard thing on the back & displayed more of that tart character the beer was known for with a bit of a lager-like balance. So cold conditioning ales at a temp where the yeast consume by-products more slowly does benefit the beer to a smaller extent. Maltier beers, like my PM Irish red seem to develop more subtleties in the malt complexities side of the equation. So flavors can benefit from cold conditioning or lagering.

Interesting discussion. I love BLAM and have about worn out a copy re-reading it often.

A couple of things come to mind. Each of the breweries mentioned have been brewing the same beer for many, many. years. They know the beer, their equipment and the yeast they use. So they do have it dialed in.

I think trying to compare processes at the home brew level and the commercial level is like comparing apples to oranges. Things like fermenter geometry can totally change a brew and the fermentation process. Our fermenters are nothing like theirs. There is a big section of the book about fermenter geometry.

They have been handling their house yeast for so long that they know exactly what to expect. They also have in house yeast labs to check their yeast. So, yes they can probably push the limits and get it to finish quickly. Can we as home brewers do that? Yes, but not always. Maybe if we brewed the same beer over and over we could know from experience exactly when the brew is done. So trying to duplicate their timeline at home probably will just not work

So taking a process that works on the commercial level for a brewery that has been brewing for many years and trying to get the same results at our home brew level is just not going to happen.

beergolf said:

So taking a process that works on the commercial level for a brewery that has been brewing for many years and trying to get the same results at our home brew level is just not going to happen.

Click to expand...

I guess I still just have to ask, why not?

is it just due to this particular style?

because most of the homebrew beer i've tasted out-competes commercial brews pretty easily.

Derek1985 said:

... I just really enjoy discussing Belgian beer as it is by far my favorite style group.

....

Click to expand...

Really interesting stuff there. It's great to read/hear someone speaking about a topic they clearly have a passion for. It comes across very clearly in your posts. Nicely done.

Makes me want to buy a copy of BLAM.

joshesmusica said:

I guess I still just have to ask, why not?

is it just due to this particular style?

because most of the homebrew beer i've tasted out-competes commercial brews pretty easily.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that we cannot make very good Belgian style beers at home. We can. I love Belgians and have made some excellent ones.

I was just referring to the fact that we cannot always expect the timelines that work for the commercial breweries and their equipment to work for us. But we can adjust to fit our equipment and make great exaples of the style.

Gavin C said:

Really interesting stuff there. It's great to read/hear someone speaking about a topic they clearly have a passion for. It comes across very clearly in your posts. Nicely done.

Makes me want to buy a copy of BLAM.

Click to expand...

Brew Like A Monk is a revelation for 2 very distinct reasons:

1.) It explores the history of Belgian beer culture, the Trappists in particular, by exposing you to how important the way of life is in not only the monasteries but in the big cities and countryside as well. This is a big driver behind how process and product came about and have flourished.

2.) It does not coddle and spoonfeed the reader with hard numbers and ingredients. In fact, I don't recall one straight ahead recipe in the whole book. It exposes you to all the building blocks of brewing Trappist and Abbey beers and allows you to strengthen this knowledge with further reading.

My only regret is that I bought it in an electronic version. I'll be rectifying that soon enough.

Gavin C said:

Really interesting stuff there. It's great to read/hear someone speaking about a topic they clearly have a passion for. It comes across very clearly in your posts. Nicely done.

Makes me want to buy a copy of BLAM.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I appreciate the comment.

Brew Like A Monk is a revelation for 2 very distinct reasons:

1.) It explores the history of Belgian beer culture, the Trappists in particular, by exposing you to how important the way of life is in not only the monasteries but in the big cities and countryside as well. This is a big driver behind how process and product came about and have flourished.

2.) It does not coddle and spoonfeed the reader with hard numbers and ingredients. In fact, I don't recall one straight ahead recipe in the whole book. It exposes you to all the building blocks of brewing Trappist and Abbey beers and allows you to strengthen this knowledge with further reading.

My only regret is that I bought it in an electronic version. I'll be rectifying that soon enough.

Sorry about the double post. Still getting used to the mobile app.

joshesmusica said:

I guess I still just have to ask, why not?



is it just due to this particular style?



because most of the homebrew beer i've tasted out-competes commercial brews pretty easily.

Click to expand...

With a healthy, multi-stepped starter, I turned around my recent BDSA, from fermentor to glass in 5 weeks. It tasted young but delicious and could use some more time, but it's possible.

The point here is that homebrewers don't have the time constraints that commercial breweries do. We can afford the extra time. The commercials breweries can't. That doesn't mean they sacrifice quality, it just means they have their process down to a point where speed is a byproduct.

Derek1985 said:

That doesn't mean they sacrifice quality, it just means they have their process down to a point where speed is a byproduct.

Click to expand...

I'll disagree as I think that's a misconception running through this thread. Breweries are businesses and they need to optimize, among a number of other factors, quality and turnaround time. Turnaround time is a major factor in the decisions they make and quality is not necessarily the biggest one. For homebrewers on the other hand it is (usually) all about quality. The Trappist breweries make good and often great beer, but that doesn't mean it's the best they could possibly make given infinite time and resources.

I think there are two key points in this great thread.

Commercial breweries have the best yeast, the best labs, and homebrewers cannot compare their process to that. Not to say homebrew can't be just as good, it's just going to be sub-optimal compared to commercial (especially trappist) settings.

Second, few homebrewers have the learning curve experience of these brewers. They have brewed hundreds, probably thousands, of batches on their system. I know some of the most award winning homebrewers have brewed a particular beer many many times, but it is not comparable experience wise.

So, lessened time fermenting is a benefit of their experience. We are simply fortunate that we can make comparable / exceptional beer despite the benefits a trappist brewery has. We can propagate yeast, temperature control fermentation, temp control bottling, etc., but top tier quality beer in the shortest time entails an experience level few homebrewers have.

orangehero said:

I'll disagree as I think that's a misconception running through this thread. Breweries are businesses and they need to optimize, among a number of other factors, quality and turnaround time. Turnaround time is a major factor in the decisions they make and quality is not necessarily the biggest one. For homebrewers on the other hand it is (usually) all about quality. The Trappist breweries make good and often great beer, but that doesn't mean it's the best they could possibly make given infinite time and resources.

Click to expand...

I agree that's the way most breweries operate. But I have to disagree about that in regards to the trappists (and possibly other abbey breweries). It even stated in the book that the head monk guy (who only oversees the monastery, but might not have any direct involvement in the brewery) has to approve whether or not they can produce more beer than they are. They limit how much they are allowed to produce because it's a monastery with a brewery, not a brewery with a monastery. Yes they're after some money, but they're not after the big bucks. They're not driven by capitalist greed like most other businesses out there. For the trappists, their pride comes from the quality of the beer, not the quantity.

joshesmusica said:

I agree that's the way most breweries operate. But I have to disagree about that in regards to the trappists (and possibly other abbey breweries). It even stated in the book that the head monk guy (who only oversees the monastery, but might not have any direct involvement in the brewery) has to approve whether or not they can produce more beer than they are. They limit how much they are allowed to produce because it's a monastery with a brewery, not a brewery with a monastery. Yes they're after some money, but they're not after the big bucks. They're not driven by capitalist greed like most other businesses out there. For the trappists, their pride comes from the quality of the beer, not the quantity.

Click to expand...

I agree.

To tie back in to the original thread starter posting, there is no trick. Experience here is invaluable. Quality, healthy yeast is incalculably important. Temperature control of fermentation and mashing for attenuation are also paramount.

orangehero said:

The Trappist breweries make good and often great beer, but that doesn't mean it's the best they could possibly make given infinite time and resources.

Click to expand...

I'll in turn have to disagree with you on this one. The law of diminishing returns applies here in that infinite time and resources does not equal infinitely better quality beer. Or any product for that matter.

There comes a point, I agree with you, where a decision is made that any increase in quality will come at the cost of product turnaround and other business related aspects, but in the case of the Trappists I'd wager that the increase in quality gained from more time and resources would be negligible.

With that said, I stand by my original statement of speed of turnaround being a byproduct of the adherence to and mastery of their process.

So, to take away from this, what I think might be an issue is yeast numbers and health as being the main issue that moderately experienced brewers see differences to the monks;

1. Higher gravity beers have much more sugar concentrated in their sample. It ***MIGHT*** benefit to add additional nutrient, especially since many recipes call for candi sugar, which has no additional nutrient - just sugar.

2. Yeast count - I think the monks use an excess of yeast in their brews, this might hit #1 too - that additional yeast will have dead yeast (and thus nutrient) in it.

3. Oxygenation... some monk places use open-top fermentors for at least the start of fermentation - again increasing cell count and health of yeast.

Then, the rest is just fermentation temps, secondary temperature, and sanitation, which the moderately experienced shouldn't have a problem with.

I have a fascination with decreasing drinkability time, and if you head over to the BOMM mead page, there is some interesting info that might be reflected with higher gravity beers, especially belgians.

IJesusChrist said:

So, to take away from this, what I think might be an issue is yeast numbers and health as being the main issue that moderately experienced brewers see differences to the monks;

1. Higher gravity beers have much more sugar concentrated in their sample. It ***MIGHT*** benefit to add additional nutrient, especially since many recipes call for candi sugar, which has no additional nutrient - just sugar.

2. Yeast count - I think the monks use an excess of yeast in their brews, this might hit #1 too - that additional yeast will have dead yeast (and thus nutrient) in it.

3. Oxygenation... some monk places use open-top fermentors for at least the start of fermentation - again increasing cell count and health of yeast.

Then, the rest is just fermentation temps, secondary temperature, and sanitation, which the moderately experienced shouldn't have a problem with.

I have a fascination with decreasing drinkability time, and if you head over to the BOMM mead page, there is some interesting info that might be reflected with higher gravity beers, especially belgians.

Click to expand...

welcome to the convo....

I agree with 1 and 2. 3 might be true but not because of open fermentors. That isn't a common theme among trappist breweries. They do however have some of the most top of the line equipment. So i could certainly believe they're oxygenating way better than the average homebrewer.

secondary temps was part of my discussion. most of them are done with primary after 5 days. then their secondary was lagering temps. not sure if that's what you meant.

I just mean temperature control... Some people don't know the slow up rramp of temp