SwampassJ
Well-Known Member
Upload them to imageshack and use the direct link option (might need to register )
The first scoresheet calls the beer wine like, or vinous. That is, at least potentially, a sign of oxidation (see the descriptors next to the oxidation tick box on the left of the scoresheet).
I can say with confidence that this was a product of the alcohols and the fruity tartness of the beer. If it was oxidation, I think he would say so (and tick the box)
I think the overall point of this was to prove that a) transferring to secondary is not necessary; and b) that fermenting in plastic will not cause oxidation.
Given that, and that I think we can all agree that this test by Chshre was an extreme example (in longevity), I think the point was proven. While maybe it's not ideal to leave a beer in a bucket on the yeast for ~5 months, 1-2 is certainly not going to hurt anything and may improve the beer. I don't see any reason to nit pick.
I like who this isn't valid because the competition wasn't big enough and the judges weren't highly enough rated. LOL
I'm not saying that it isn't valid. I'm saying that two data points are not enough to establish the overall point. I am not trying to trash what you are doing. I think anything that we can learn from is good. I would just encourage you to enter it into some more competitions to get some more data points.
I am not sure why people get so defensive right away when someone offers constructive criticism? Forums like this offer a peer review process for experiments like you are doing. Otherwise, why would you post about them? Rather than just saying "Awesome experiment man", I am trying to encourage you to take the experiment to its completion and to offer challenges to your hypothesis and results so that we can all learn from them. That's how the scientific process works.
Ok, I know this isn't totally scientific because I don't have a control, but it's something.
There are still folks clinging to the concept of autolysis in home brewing and other worries about leaving a beer too long in primary. So, I propose this.
I'm a lazy bastard and I have a beer I brewed in August that's been sitting in primary ever since. It's on my kitchen counter, in a bucket as we speak.
Hey there... we can add to the hysteria. It's been in PLASTIC since August!
So. I'm going to bottle up this beer someday soon when I get off my butt and get around to it. Then, I'm going to send it in as one of my entries for the HBT comp that's coming up in just a short while. Then, I'm going to post the comments I get from all my score sheets in this thead and we'll see if they detect anything that can be blamed on the long time sitting on the yeast cake and/or sitting in plastic all this time.
Not gonna add any yeast at bottling. Not gonna do anything special. Not even going to use oxygen absorbing caps.
Like I said, not totally scientific but maybe revealing nonetheless?
The thing is, especially for those of us who already believe in and use the single fermenter method, our own experience coupled with this long term experiment are good enough. I'm not trying to be defensive, just to have a constructive argument. I personally only use glass fermenters and you don't see me knocking the experiment.
2010 Great Arizona Homebrew Competition:
American Brown Ale: Gold Medal (45/50)
Primary in an ale pail for 2 months. Straight to bottle.
2011 Drunk Monk Challenge
English Mild 40 something out of 50 (I score in the 40s enough to not remember them)
2nd place BOS
Primary for 6 days.
2011 Drunk Monk Challenge
English Mild 40 something out of 50 (I score in the 40s enough to not remember them)
2nd place BOS
Primary for 6 days.
Okay, 44 in the first round NHC last year with an IIPA that was in primary 8 days.
I can give anecdotes all day.
My points:
1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.
Okay, 44 in the first round NHC last year with an IIPA that was in primary 8 days.
I can give anecdotes all day.
My points:
1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.
I still think it's a style-by-style thing. An English Mild or Bitter would benefit from a short ferment as you want a lot of the yeast-derived aromatics and flavors. They aren't meant to be "clean" beers so a long primary would push this kind of beer out of the style parameters.
I still think long primaries work great for most American style beers where you want a clean beer.
:rockin:My points:
1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.
:rockin:
Can you make a 45 point beer grain to glass in 14 days? Yes. Can you make a 45 point beer leaving it sit for 2 months? Yes. I like the OP's approach and I agree with how he went about it. That being said, can those of you "month long primary" people just lose your arrogance (And you know who you are) that it is the only way to make beer and the rest of us who don't believe the same are just idiots and eventually will come around if we could only just crawl out from under the rock we have been living under for the last 3 years while this was discussed ad nauseum and it was decided that the only way to make good beer was to leave it in the primary for a month by those of us with high post counts who like to smash other peoples opinion if they disagree with them. *yawn*
Totally! I'll turn a beer in 8 days if I'm out of the stuff. I don't think Chshre was saying what you SHOULD do. Just that you CAN.
It's more about saying "look, I can leave the beer on the yeast for quite awhile and autolysis isn't an issue" not "if you don't leave your beer on the yeast for 4 months you suck and I hope your beer dies in a fire."
I was just making a demonstration for folks worried about autolysis. I never said you had to do a long primary to make good beer.
You are right and that is why I tried to be clear that I was not ripping your premise. Thank you for your work. Do you have any of the beer left? I would still be interested to see what a high ranking judge would say about any oxidation character. I have heard some good judges say that most homebrewers are so used to drinking oxidized beer that they can't pick it up any more. Not saying yours is, but I would be interested.
Cool experiment. However, beer doesnt stay in any fermenter at my house much longer than it takes to reach FG. Likewise, it doesnt stay in the bottle much longer than it takes to carbonate, cuz, like, I enjoy drinking beer and stuff. If I can't manipulate the process within fermentation time and cabonation time, its not getting done. It can age in my stomach as far as I'm concerned.
HokieBrewer said:To add to this experiment, I've got a brown ale that's been in primary for 6 months. Plan on kegging it early next week for kicks. I'll give you the run down on flavor once it's carbed.
Yes. The ONLY point of this thread is to try to demonstrate that people don't need to be worried about leaving their beer for a few weeks or a month on the yeast. Do I plan on leaving my beers in primary for 5 months? Hell no! I didn't plan on leaving this one anywhere near this long. Life just got in the way and I never got around to bottling it for a long time.
My first rule of brewing is that it's your own damned beer and you can do whatever the hell you want!
I was just making a demonstration for folks worried about autolysis. I never said you had to do a long primary to make good beer.
StMarcos said:Right, but it does seem that there are some people that think their beers owe some of their greatness to the long cake-sit. That is, the extended primary contributed to the quality of the beer. I've not seen any evidence for this, assuming the beer was brewed properly. The points that revvy says have been beaten to death are those that involve long cake-sits not detracting from the quality of the beer. That's pretty clear. But I haven't seen any experiments that show the long cake-sits change anything.
Experiments:
2-week cake sit, 6-week secondary, one or two month cold condition
vs.
8-week cake sit, one or two month cold condition
Average gravity ale, no dry hopping.
I do long cake-sits often, but not because I think they help, only because I know they don't hurt. However, I do sometimes dump a good chunk out when I want fresh yeast for repitching.
Haputanlas said:Hokie,
How'd this end up?
I didn't read much of this, but I'll add my experience. I've had numerous experimental beers that for whatever reason sat in primary for up to 10 months. From my experience with sampling the beer here and there, the beer seems to get a weird fruity-like flavor after 6 months. It's not like esters from the yeast - I'm guessing it's autolysis? Typically around the 9 month mark it is very noticeable. I've had beers in glass and plastic buckets, same for each. Most of these have been Stouts btw.
Enter your email address to join: