Bottle conditioned beer = no diacetyl?

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.

Piotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
463
Reaction score
7
Location
Poland, EU
I've heard a rumour that once you bottle-condition your beer (with yeast), it is impossible to have any diacetyl, because yeast in the bottle will eventually eat it up completely.
True or false?
 
I've heard a rumour that once you bottle-condition your beer (with yeast), it is impossible to have any diacetyl, because yeast in the bottle will eventually eat it up completely.
True or false?
I've never heard that but it doesn't mean it's not true. Makes sense.

Diacetyl is more of a problem in lagers that ferment at cooler temperatures and require a diacetyl rest (raising the fermentation temps higher for several days).

Of course whether it's bottle conditioned beer or kegged...all beer contains yeast in the final product. The question is whether there is sufficient yeast to clean up after themselves or not.

As long as you pitch healthy yeast in sufficient amounts, diacetyl will not likely be a problem in any of your ales.
 
I don't believe this to be true. If it were then no homebrewer entering a comp would ever read complaints about excessive diacetyl in their beers.

I will concede that the potential is reduced but I don;t see how bottle conditioning will eliminate the problem.
 
Hmmm never heard it either...I tend to think it's not possible, not for any reason than judges in contests will still pick up on it in contests and pimp you for it...But that could also be because those were entered in the contests and where it was discovered were still relatively young beers...

I firmly believe in sometimes sticking bottled beers away if they have flaws and letting the yeasties do some more work on them...I've had two beers come out fantastically that I thought were potentially dumpers...

But I've never heard specifically about Diacetyl....but I believe anythings possible...the only way to know would be to set some beer that you knew had that flavor aside and test one a month for 6 months or so and see...
 
Some yeast are poor diacetyl reducers, they will always produce beer with some detectable diacetyl.

Also yeast aren't the only organism that can produce diacetyl in beer.

Diacetyl reduction is going to occur on the order of ln(t) (logarithmic with respect to time) so if you have detectable diacetyl a week after active fermentation is finished you are probably going to have it until you die even if the yeast continue to reduce it.

IME, diacetyl just gets worse over time and beers with diacetyl should probably be drunk young.
 
Very often I`ve got diacetyl hint in my young ales when I use S-04 and ferment my beer in low temperatures (about 16C). I need to mature this beer for at least two weeks. After this time I`ve never noticed butterscotch in my beer. So i think everything depends what yeast strain you use.
 
Strain is big part of it I think. But I also believe you are mostly correct. I stewarded a competition a week ago and I distinctly remember one of the judges noticing excessive diacetyl in a beer and checking to see if it was bottle conditioned (had a yeast layer at the bottom). It was not.
 
I have an evidence of 8 weeks old weizen, with strong presence of diacetyl. Bottle conditioned of course.

So bottle conditioning helps with diacetyl, but it is not a 100% solution.
 
It would help if you had hint of diacetyl not a butter bomb. Yeast are lazy anyway, they need comfortable environment, and they don`t like hard work. :)
 
Sounds like they are in a union. :cross:

Yeah, bottle conditioning to remove diacetyl doesn't work for me. I think you need the full yeast cake for that, and a strain that doesn't develop it.

Yeast are lazy anyway, they need comfortable environment, and they don`t like hard work. :)
 
I know this is an old thread, but... I have a diacetyl bomb pale ale on my hands, bottled for 5 weeks and no improvement from week 3. Is there any way to salvage it (I only ask cus folks are saying it will get worse rather than better, which goes against the 'time will heal all beers' rule)? I originally bottled on day 17 after a 7 day dry hop. It didn't taste funky going into the bottles, but it's slimy and nasty now. The head is sparse and looks like soap bubbles. It's odd. Thoughts?
 
I know this is an old thread, but... I have a diacetyl bomb pale ale on my hands, bottled for 5 weeks and no improvement from week 3. Is there any way to salvage it (I only ask cus folks are saying it will get worse rather than better, which goes against the 'time will heal all beers' rule)? I originally bottled on day 17 after a 7 day dry hop. It didn't taste funky going into the bottles, but it's slimy and nasty now. The head is sparse and looks like soap bubbles. It's odd. Thoughts?

That doesn't sound like diacetyl. That sounds like an infection. "Slimy" sounds like pediococcus, off of the tip of my head. Diacetyl flavor can come from a pedio infection, too, if you're having some diacetyl notes in the beer now.
 
That doesn't sound like diacetyl. That sounds like an infection. "Slimy" sounds like pediococcus, off of the tip of my head. Diacetyl flavor can come from a pedio infection, too, if you're having some diacetyl notes in the beer now.

Thanks for the tip. I guess I'll just wait it out and see what happens. :mug:
 
In "Brew Like a Monk," Stan Hieronymus says that the Trappist and Abby monks prefer to bottle condition - that it's better.
He does not however, explain why.
 
Thanks for the tip. I guess I'll just wait it out and see what happens. :mug:

Update: It's definitely an infection. I even pinpointed the source because of something I did differently in the bottling process for the beer that got infected.

I guess just have a butterscotch dessert beet on my hands :D
 
I gained some interesting experience during last year:

I made a Pilsener and I sent it to a competition when the beer was 3 months old. On the scoresheet I got comment "strong diacetyl".

Now, after another 3 months in bottles, I gave a sample to a professional taster, and he didn't found any trace of diacetyl in the beer.

Hence, I may say: yeast keep on reducing diacetyl in bottle conditioned beer, and given enough time they may reduce it completely.
 
I have been in the brewing business since 2004. With my experience obviously some yeast aren't as quick at cleaning up diacetyl. Higher temps at the end of fermentation can reduce this product. In reference to bottle conditioning the product will clean up some diacetyl, however it also depends on the priming method. Priming with speise will dramatically reduce this attribute. In closing bottle conditioning at ambient/high temps will reduce the attribute, but not completely.
 
+1 with tunistrasse

Just for clarity, yeast can clean up diacetyl, but only when there are fermentables. Natural carbing, whether in a bottle or keg, will let the yeast clean up a little, but not very much.
 
Germans traditionally reduced diacetyl by rekrausening in the bottle (i.e. pitching fermenting wort at bottling), which is almost the same as what the OP is asking about. Tunistrasse alludes to this process in his post 2 up from this.
 
Back
Top