Aging beer: Facts, myths, and discussion

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I agree. But how difficult is it to tell a new brewer that you need 200B cells (according to mrmalty) to make a 1.060 brew? Wyeast says you only need one packet for that same batch... A lot of kits give you even less, not to mention that the 200B rate assumes young, healthy, viable yeast in the best of circumstances. The whole thing is confusing when starting out. I made ok beer, but it took 6 or 7 batches to realize I was way underpitching by following what I thought was sound advice. Why the big discrepancy? Starters are easy to do, or at the very least, buying an extra packet of yeast and letting a new brewer make BETTER beer if not great beer from the start would keep many more coming back. And I have seen a BIG difference after those first batches by changing nothing more than the pitch rate.
 
So you're saying you think the kits should at least give the new brewer the proper amount of yeast to start with, thereby allowing the new brewer to make better beer? If so I agree. Otherwise trying to explain to a new brewer how to make a yeast starter to get the proper amount of yeast would possibly turn someone off.
 
Exactly. Not to mention getting a new brewer used to just how much yeast is needed to work appropriately. It still escapes me why the difference exists between the wyeast recommendation of 1 pack (100B cells in an ideal packet), and the mrmalty calculator. Wyeast says 1 packet is sufficient for a 1060 ale, whereas mrmalty estimates more than twice that number of yeast cells is needed....
 
Alright, I read the entire thread and liked it, however, the question that caused me to read the thread wasn't answered. (or I missed it) Either way, here goes

First off, I keg my beer.

I am going to be brewing an October fest and a Russian imperial stout soon and will be aging both of them in kegs.

Is it better to carbonate them THEN age them, or age them and then carbonate them?
 
Alright, I read the entire thread and liked it, however, the question that caused me to read the thread wasn't answered. (or I missed it) Either way, here goes

First off, I keg my beer.

I am going to be brewing an October fest and a Russian imperial stout soon and will be aging both of them in kegs.

Is it better to carbonate them THEN age them, or age them and then carbonate them?[/QUOTE

Some people bottle then age, other age then bottle. Either way is fine, I believe the bottle aging method is a bit newer so don't be surprsed if you get some folks against it :)
 
I make beer all the time with a fast turn around... I can have it in a keg ready to drink in 8 days... but thats only for my belgian wit.. since its cloudy who cares about againg... drink up. Every thing else I make takes time.
 
I agree with that statement.. sometimes I just mix a bunch of **** together... Some times I say just go with it.. I usually dont have a brew that is that bad... worst case scenro I get drunk.
 
Alright, I read the entire thread and liked it, however, the question that caused me to read the thread wasn't answered. (or I missed it) Either way, here goes

First off, I keg my beer.

I am going to be brewing an October fest and a Russian imperial stout soon and will be aging both of them in kegs.

Is it better to carbonate them THEN age them, or age them and then carbonate them?

i just bottled a RIS that I primaried for 1.5 months and secondaried for 7 months. it's pretty good.
 
I am going to be brewing an October fest and a Russian imperial stout soon and will be aging both of them in kegs.
Is it better to carbonate them THEN age them, or age them and then carbonate them?

I would (at the very least) add a few shots of CO2 and then release the valve a bit after shutting off the CO2. This way you purge the keg's head space of oxygen. I don't have a better answer to your question about aging beer in a keg.
 
I have just brewed my 86th beer, almost all all grain and I have noticed a peculiur thing... That is no matter how long I condition a beer (cold or celler temp) I notice an appreciable change in the beer about a week after kegging. I find it particularly noticiable with porters and stouts where again about a week after kegging the beer is crisper and overall noticably better. This is true whether I brewed the beer 3 weeks ago or aged the beer for 2 months with cold conditioning prior to kegging. Any ideas or I am crazy?

Stumped and displaced in NOVA
 
k2 I dont think you are crazy. I even notice this with bottles. Letting it sit in the primary or secondary for weeks/months only gets you so far. Once in the keg or bottle, the true conditioning starts and, like you said, a crispness and refinement begins. I have brewed the same beer twice. Once i left it in the fermentor 3 weeks then bottled and once i left it in the fermentor 7 weeks. I think, 3 months after brewing, the one that was in the fermentor longer lacked the level of character that the other beer displayed. And its not just stouts. the aforementioned beer was a Belgian Strong Ale.

It may have something to do with the amount of impurities each beer is exposed to in the fermentor versus small amounts in the bottle or keg or it may be related to carbonation. Hell, we both may just be insane.

I would love to hear thoughts on this.
 
I appreciate the feedback, because all of the literature was telling me that there really should not be much change after carbonation if you correctly and adequetely age/condition the beer prior to kegging:mug:
 
It all depends on the yeast, the best beer I have brewed to date was out of the primary and in the keg at 7 days.. The worst beer I made was in primary/secondary for 8 months... Typically my beers are in a primary for roughly 3 weeks then transferred to the keg.
 
My best beer was kegged, carbonated, and then left at room temperature for 1 month before cooling and serving. It was an APA. I think it was only in primary for 2 weeks. (I'll have to check my notes to be sure on that one.)
 
Don't get me wrong normally my beers are in primary for three weeks. But this IPA I did fermented out at 3 days and was extremley clear at 6, so I kegged at 7 and forced carbed it was amazing!! Obvioulsy it was an exceptionj to the rule.
 
I love this thread. Thanks for getting the discussion going Yuri.

It never made sense to me how the pro brewers could make great beer with such a short turnaround time, while so many in the homebrew community follow the old 123 rule or the newer 1 month primary rule. It seems to me the big difference is temp control and pitching rate. Since I've started keeping both closely monitored, my beer has improved immensely both in the end quality and the time it takes to achieve that quality. Now if that darn 1.116og barleywine would just hurry up and age.... ; )
 

The colder you go the better because you get less esters and a much cleaner beer. Use a refrigerator 1 time with a digital controller and you will be convinced!

I just did my first controlled fermentation, and I cannot agree more with this statement. I just tasted my milk stout after two weeks for kicks and I cannot believe how delicious it is already!
 
Most beers are ready in about a week to two weeks. However I let it sit in primary for about three to let it clear. I'm sure I could get away with about a week if I had a fancy filtration system like the big boys do.
 
I have something to say about aging IPAs. My american IPA (real hoppy- 6 oz in kettle, 3 oz dry hop) was really good 1 week after bottling. But for two weeks after that, real dry, bitter, and little flavor. at the 3 week mark, hops are back with a vengeance, and it's my hoppiest, most flavorful IPA to date.

I'm not sure why this happens, but it's not the first time I've noticed this "dip" in flavor after bottle conditioning. (bottle-shock? )
Also, the Tap a draft never had the "dip" and was hoppy right away- but it's not as good as the bottle versions.

Not sure what to make of all these findings yet...
 
I parrot this thread constantly, link to it often as well. Great info when used with some thought and understanding.

Good to see people still reading and learning based on info here!
 
I didn't read through this thread, but like 80% of my beers are 9%+ ABV and are keg stored in my basement for a minimum of 6 months before I touch them. Most come out awesome, IMHO.
 
Pitch a lot of yeast, and pitch it right. As long as you're brewing a style that doesn't call for esters, fusels, or other yeast-produced flavors, give the yeast a little help. With liquid yeast, make a big starter. Step it up to nearly one gallon (for a five gallon batch), decant the starter beer, and pitch the slurry. Always rehydrate dry yeast in clean water, and pitch a little extra if you have it (I've been using 15g of S-04 or US-05 per six gallon batch). Pitch the yeast into wort that is within 5°F of the intended fermentation temperature. Note that I've mentioned nothing about aeration. That's because I don't worry about it. I just pitch lots of healthy yeast so they won't have to reproduce much. It works...I promise.

Are you saying that you don't aerate any of your beers at all? I know that pitching a lot of yeast will reduce the length of the lag phase of fermentation but does this really produce the same quality beer in the end (good attenuation, flavor, etc.) compared to those that were well aerated? Just curious to hear from those who don't aerate their wort.

I'd love to be able to simplify my brewing process by skipping the aeration... but I hesitate to test this out on a real batch of brew that I spent time and money making.
 
Are you saying that you don't aerate any of your beers at all? I know that pitching a lot of yeast will reduce the length of the lag phase of fermentation but does this really produce the same quality beer in the end (good attenuation, flavor, etc.) compared to those that were well aerated? Just curious to hear from those who don't aerate their wort.

I'd love to be able to simplify my brewing process by skipping the aeration... but I hesitate to test this out on a real batch of brew that I spent time and money making.

I don't aerate other than a few seconds of shaking, if I remember at all. Have not seen any negative effect for this on "normal sized" beer (<1.070 OG).


I have a RIS going now that wasi at 1.100 OG that I didn't aerate either but pitched onto a yeast slurry from a APA brewed 2 weeks before it. Fermentation took by 48 hours (the soonest I checked it) and I'll see where it is this weekend (2 week mark).

What I do make sure to do it make an appropriate starter, sometimes larger than what is suggested by Mr. Malty.

I have no doubt that dissolved oxygen is required by yeast for reproduction. What I'm unsure about is what that requirement looks like when you've bypassed "in-wort" yeast reproduction (at least to a certain extent) by making a big starter.

I understand the "it can't hurt" motivation behind wort oxygenation and if using it makes people feel better about their fermentation, then go for it. For me, I think the CRITICAL thing is getting the proper amount of yeast cells for the OG into the beer, early in the game (first 24 hours of making the wort).
 
For me, I think the CRITICAL thing is getting the proper amount of yeast cells for the OG into the beer, early in the game (first 24 hours of making the wort).

Proper amount of healthy yeast cells for the OG. Oxygenating helps tremendously with this. What's the purpose of culturing an adequate number of yeast if they're going to be stressed and have diminished viability?
 
PseudoChef said:
Proper amount of healthy yeast cells for the OG. Oxygenating helps tremendously with this. What's the purpose of culturing an adequate number of yeast if they're going to be stressed and have diminished viability?

I brewed a high gravity Saison 2 weeks ago with a starting gravity of 1.084. I wasn't thinking and realized 10 minutes before pitching the yeast that I forgot to make a starter. I aerated, and I had vigorous fermentation by the next morning and finished at 1.008. There's no doubt in my mind that aeration works.
 
Ideally you want to pitch 25% of the total yeast needed to do the fermentation. 50% of the culture are daughter cells (as long as you don't pitch more than 50%.) The amount of O2 used for reproduction will very with the pitch rate, extra will get scrubbed out by CO2. I don't see any reason to not aerate. I think brewers that have huge improvements form using pure O2 were not aerating very well.
 
The last couple of batches I have brewed have been more yeasty than normal. I have not changed up my technique much (even though I experiment often - which I do not consider a change since I do this often) I was reading in a different post that water could possibly cause this?
I have been using bottled water until recently and realized this is one of few things I have changed. Is this likely the problem?
Do you most people use tap or bottled water?
If using tap does the process take longer and I am not being patient?

Anyone have any input?

All suggestions and input greatly appreciated.
 
The last couple of batches I have brewed have been more yeasty than normal. I have not changed up my technique much (even though I experiment often - which I do not consider a change since I do this often) I was reading in a different post that water could possibly cause this?
I have been using bottled water until recently and realized this is one of few things I have changed. Is this likely the problem?
Do you most people use tap or bottled water?
If using tap does the process take longer and I am not being patient?

Anyone have any input?

All suggestions and input greatly appreciated.

Well if you are a follower of John Palmer, he believes the composition of tap water is vital to the outcome of the beer. That is why Ireland can make such amazing stouts but couldnt produce a world-class Pale Ale and why a Belgian stout would be frowned upon. He recommends for tap water users to get their city Water Report and look at chlorine, magnesium, saline and many other levels and to add countermeasures accordingly. Read his How to Brew online (i think its on his site at BYO.com). It reads like a chemistry textbook but theres method in that madness. For myself, I just buy the bottled and brew away.
You may also consider that you might be bottling too soon, with active yeast still at work or that your yeast starters are under developed.
Good luck.:mug:
 
The last couple of batches I have brewed have been more yeasty than normal. I have not changed up my technique much (even though I experiment often - which I do not consider a change since I do this often) I was reading in a different post that water could possibly cause this?
I have been using bottled water until recently and realized this is one of few things I have changed. Is this likely the problem?
Do you most people use tap or bottled water?
If using tap does the process take longer and I am not being patient?

Anyone have any input?

All suggestions and input greatly appreciated.

How long did the beer ferment? Did you use a secondary? What was your fermentation temperature?

If it was warmer, this can promote some yeasty flavors, particularly if a longer primary was used.
 
I would like credit for having read through this entire thread, beginning to end.

Meanwhile, I didn't find discussion about what brought me here to begin with. And that is this: What, exactly, is happening when beer ages?

What are the mechanisms by which flavors change, mellow, combine, etc.? What are the processes underway that make an Old Peculier clone so good after 3 months in the bottle when it tasted like musty vinegar after two weeks in the bottle? Anyone know what's actually going on in there?
 
I would like credit for having read through this entire thread, beginning to end.

Meanwhile, I didn't find discussion about what brought me here to begin with. And that is this: What, exactly, is happening when beer ages?

What are the mechanisms by which flavors change, mellow, combine, etc.? What are the processes underway that make an Old Peculier clone so good after 3 months in the bottle when it tasted like musty vinegar after two weeks in the bottle? Anyone know what's actually going on in there?

Many complex chemical reactions are taking place, and the process isn't fully understood from what I have read. What I've noticed is this: over time, hop bitterness fades and specialty malts dull and blend. When I taste a big beer after two weeks, the elements are competing. For example, with old ale, you might have 70 IBUs fighting with a couple pounds of caramel/chocolate/whatever. After a while, the IBUs decrease and the various ingredients come together in harmony.

I've noticed all my big beers taste better after a few months, except for tripel. Pretty easy to guess why; tripel is all yeast flavor, no specialty malts that need to mellow.
 
Its kinda like how left overs taste better the second day. Fresh, all the flavors are still bright and bold. The molecules in one are stronger than others and, mind you this is a very cude and not scientific jogron correct, "break down" and mix similar to how osmosis works with water leaving and entering the cells. The strong bold flavors take over abd spread out through the rest making them less prominant over time allowing the milder flavor to appear.
 
Hopefully my post won't get lost in this very long running, and interesting, discussion, but here goes...

I agree that very good beers can be brewed in relatively short periods of time, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that "big" beers can benefit, at least have interesting changes in character, from aging. (See Papazian and Mosher for more authoritative references).

So, with that in mind... My brewing season is coming to an end (it's time to go sailing) and I am planning brew up an IPA and leave it to condition/age while we are gone (about 6 months). My current version of the recipe (using BrewSmith), has an OG of 1.068, IBU of 55.8, and estimated ABV of 7.0%.

I suppose I could be really historically authentic and put the keg aboard to condition while we're out cruising, but I think I will leave it at home in more controlled conditions (I'm planning to hold the temp at about 60F).

I have not experimented with longer conditioning times before, so I am most interested in observations from those who have -- specific experiences with IPA's would be great.


Thanks,

Curtis
 
So, with that in mind... My brewing season is coming to an end (it's time to go sailing) and I am planning brew up an IPA and leave it to condition/age while we are gone (about 6 months). My current version of the recipe (using BrewSmith), has an OG of 1.068, IBU of 55.8, and estimated ABV of 7.0%.

I have not experimented with longer conditioning times before, so I am most interested in observations from those who have -- specific experiences with IPA's would be great.

IPAs are best consumed fresh. See the label for the famous Pliny the Elder here where they state the same.

If you age an IPA it will allow the hop character to diminish greatly over time. Perhaps while you're away it would be better to age a stout or a brown or a Belgian instead?
 
"IPAs are best consumed fresh."
Somewhat ironic since the historical lore seems to indicate that IPAs were developed for their long term preservation properties.
 
"IPAs are best consumed fresh."
Somewhat ironic since the historical lore seems to indicate that IPAs were developed for their long term preservation properties.

Tastes have changed, as as well there is a recent belief that the classic tale of IPAs being sent to India is at least "probably" not entirely accurate.

I like a fresh IPA, but a hoppy big beer can also improve with aging as long as the hops aren't the focal point. Case in point, a Belgian Golden Strong I brewed which was a 1/2 batch, but I accidentally boiled with the full batch amount of hops. Took a while, but the hops actually mellowed out nicely after 1.5 years.
 
"IPAs are best consumed fresh."
Somewhat ironic since the historical lore seems to indicate that IPAs were developed for their long term preservation properties.

Go ahead and age your IPAs if that's what gives you the best results. My personal experience has been in line with what others have said about the hop character diminishing over time.
 
Back
Top