Testing long primary

I think this is the most unclear, unspecific debate I see on HBT, so I would hope a few people from the 4-week-primary crowd will specify a few steps in their process. I'm not calling anyone out, so anyone is free to answer.

Above, somone noted that Jamil leaves his beer on the yeast (I think this is easier than calling it a "primary") for no more than about two weeks. I believe that is correct. I've listened to many hours of Jamil's radio shows, and he has said mutiple times, the most important upgrade a brewer can make is going to a full wort boil. The second upgrade should be fermentation control. Not all-grain, not a conical fermenter, not even a wort chiller; fermentation control. The number of days in a primary (be it 10 or 28) barely scratches the surface of a perfect, controlled fermentation.

So:

1.) How do you control fermentation temperature? In other words, do you sit a bucket in a "stable" closet for 4 weeks? Do you drape a wet towel over a carboy? If you can not heat up the carboy/bucket as fermentation slows (I am talking fermentation here, not conditioning), how do you perform a Diacetyl rest? Maybe you ferment in a dedicated fridge. Are you monitoring the air temperature of the fridge, or the temperature of the liquid as fermentation is happening?

2.) How appropriate is your yeast pitch? Is the yeast fresh? Have you followed a yeast pitch calculator? Do you make a starter? If so, is it on a stir plate? Do you use dry yeast? If so, do you rehydrate or just sprinkle on top. Finally, what strain of yeast do you typically use? Does it take 4 weeks to fall out of solution (like US-05), or does it drop like a rock (like WLP007)?

3.) How do you sanitize your equipment? Are you using a bleach and rinse? One-step? PBW for cleaning and Star-san for sanitizing?

It should be obvious that I am trying to conclude that people who advocate the 4+ week primary are following an OUTSTANDING fermentation procedure, creating the best possible scenario to produce award winning beer, and have found that 4 weeks of precisely controlled fermentation/conditioning has yielded better results than a more "commercial style" 7-10 days of precisely controlled fermentaion/conditioning.

.....otherwise, those who question the merits of an extended primary will continue to argue that it is simply a solution to a problem; a problem that could have be avoided had a superior procedure been in place.

For the record, over the past 2 years, I have sat on both sides of the fence - 2 weeks/ 4 weeks, secondary/ no secondary, heat-controlled fermentation/basement floor, and my process is still evolving. The little upgrades and tweaks are the best part of this hobby.

I look forward to your replies, and continuing the conversation.


Joe

jfowler1 said:

I think this is the most unclear, unspecific debate I see on HBT, so I would hope a few people from the 4-week-primary crowd will specify a few steps in their process. I'm not calling anyone out, so anyone is free to answer.

Above, somone noted that Jamil leaves his beer on the yeast (I think this is easier than calling it a "primary") for no more than about two weeks. I believe that is correct. I've listened to many hours of Jamil's radio shows, and he has said mutiple times, the most important upgrade a brewer can make is going to a full wort boil. The second upgrade should be fermentation control. Not all-grain, not a conical fermenter, not even a wort chiller; fermentation control. The number of days in a primary (be it 10 or 28) barely scratches the surface of a perfect, controlled fermentation.

So:

1.) How do you control fermentation temperature? In other words, do you sit a bucket in a "stable" closet for 4 weeks? Do you drape a wet towel over a carboy? If you can not heat up the carboy/bucket as fermentation slows (I am talking fermentation here, not conditioning), how do you perform a Diacetyl rest? Maybe you ferment in a dedicated fridge. Are you monitoring the air temperature of the fridge, or the temperature of the liquid as fermentation is happening?

2.) How appropriate is your yeast pitch? Is the yeast fresh? Have you followed a yeast pitch calculator? Do you make a starter? If so, is it on a stir plate? Do you use dry yeast? If so, do you rehydrate or just sprinkle on top. Finally, what strain of yeast do you typically use? Does it take 4 weeks to fall out of solution (like US-05), or does it drop like a rock (like WLP007)?

3.) How do you sanitize your equipment? Are you using a bleach and rinse? One-step? PBW for cleaning and Star-san for sanitizing?

It should be obvious that I am trying to conclude that people who advocate the 4+ week primary are following an OUTSTANDING fermentation procedure, creating the best possible scenario to produce award winning beer, and have found that 4 weeks of precisely controlled fermentation/conditioning has yielded better results than a more "commercial style" 7-10 days of precisely controlled fermentaion/conditioning.

.....otherwise, those who question the merits of an extended primary will continue to argue that it is simply a solution to a problem; a problem that could have be avoided had a superior procedure been in place.

For the record, over the past 2 years, I have sat on both sides of the fence - 2 weeks/ 4 weeks, secondary/ no secondary, heat-controlled fermentation/basement floor, and my process is still evolving. The little upgrades and tweaks are the best part of this hobby.

I look forward to your replies, and continuing the conversation.


Joe

Click to expand...

Just a quick note, I have been listening to brew strong every day on my commute the last couple weeks and I disagree that JZ said he only ferments on the yeast for 2 weeks, pretty sure both he and Palmer stated within the last couple shows I listened to that they are both closer to a month, more out of laziness than anything else though, IIRC.

If needed I can probably figure out which shows those were, but both were yeast related titles I believe.

I think my point was missed.

For the record, turn to pages 66-69 of JZ's yeast book. Let me know which phase of fermentation day 28 falls under.

I am sure that JZ and Palmer have let a primary go for more than 10 days. In fact, I just listened to Palmer on Brewstrong talk about his freezer breaking, and how he was still unable to pitch over a week later. Because he did it, does not mean it is what he suggests doing.

If you have really listened carefully to the BN, tell me how many times Tasty McDole uses the phrase "of coarse our clone is fresher, it was under fire 9 days ago" (or something along those lines...but I am almost sure he always says "under fire _ days ago", and the number is never over 10).

I am quickly losing my point - I would still like to hear the details in a brewer's fermentation process who preaches the necessity of a four week fermentation. Specifically, fermentation temperature control, yeast health and handling, and sanitization.

Joe

i think my point was missed.

For the record, turn to pages 66-69 of jz's yeast book. Let me know which phase of fermentation day 28 falls under.

I am sure that jz and palmer have let a primary go for more than 10 days. In fact, i just listened to palmer on brewstrong talk about his freezer breaking, and how he was still unable to pitch over a week later. Because he did it, does not mean it is what he suggests doing.

If you have really listened carefully to the bn, tell me how many times tasty mcdole uses the phrase "of coarse our clone is fresher, it was under fire 9 days ago" (or something along those lines...but i am almost sure he always says "under fire _ days ago", and the number is never over 10).

I am quickly losing my point - i would still like to hear the details in a brewer's fermentation process who preaches the necessity of a four week fermentation. Specifically, fermentation temperature control, yeast health and handling, and sanitization.

Joe

Click to expand...

amen brotha!!!

jfowler1 said:

If you have really listened carefully to the BN, tell me how many times Tasty McDole uses the phrase "of coarse our clone is fresher, it was under fire 9 days ago" (or something along those lines...but I am almost sure he always says "under fire _ days ago", and the number is never over 10).

Click to expand...

And when he says that, how many times does he say "Man, I wish we could have let it go longer... and we will next time we brew it... but we had to make the deadline for the show" and comment on how it would be better otherwise.

Once.

IIRC, it was the Black Butte Porter Clone, and they were drinking it roughly 7 days after brew day, and it was fermented with a huge scoop (plus extra vials) of top cropped WLP002 from the Magic Hat #9 he was also fermenting. Add in the time it took to force carb and get to the show, you are talking about racking in 5 days. I agree, 5 days is probably not enough time to allow the yeast to complete a conditioning phase.

Regardless, this is still getting away from the point of my question. Would somebody please give me some more details about their fermentation procedure?

If we can, can we just get away from the whole debate all together? I'm just wanting to send this in and post my score sheets and not get into all the chest puffing and bumping. It's been beat to death as Revvy says.

I left a brown ale in the primary for 2 months. It scored a 45/50 at a BJCP statewide competition.

/debate

jfowler1 said:

Would somebody please give me some more details about their fermentation procedure?

Click to expand...

Same as any beer I do...

Chill through the CFC, aerate by pouring between two buckets, pitching liquid yeast that's been on a starter for ~24hrs, maintaining ambient temp ~60*F, wait two months, bottle, and collect gold medals.

maintaining ambient temp ~60*F, wait two months, bottle, and collect gold medals.

Click to expand...

What yeast strain is that? 60*F is a little cold to ferment an ale isn't it?

AZ_IPA said:

Same as any beer I do...

Chill through the CFC, aerate by pouring between two buckets, pitching liquid yeast that's been on a starter for ~24hrs, maintaining ambient temp ~60*F, wait two months, bottle, and collect gold medals.

Click to expand...

Ambient temp?

MachineShopBrewing said:

What yeast strain is that? 60*F is a little cold to ferment an ale isn't it?

Click to expand...

For ambient air tempt it's about right for me. I try to hit 62-65 wort temp and 60 is pretty close to that after the fermentation heats it up a bit. My temp control is trying to keep ambient air at about 60-62 for the first week or so. Once the SG is down I let it rise. More due to convenience than anything. It's not always comfortable to have the room AC that low...

Now that I have a temp controller and insulated chamber I'll probably try to measure the wort temp instead of air temp and hit the numbers more precisely, with a slow rise over several days.

Even without a temp controller, my beer has DEFINITELY been better since keeping it low as well as I can. It's not always easy to keep it within a 5 degree window with a swamp cooler or AC.

Just another anecdote, but when I brought one of my beers that had sat in the primary for 5-6 weeks to a homebrew club meeting at least 2 people immediately guessed after tasting it that it had sat in the primary too long. Slightly high fermentation temps may have added to this, but it was true, the beer had a light soy sauce finish.

Threw one in after just a week to monitor progress and cracked it open just now. It's a bigger ABV beer so I knew it would need more time to carbonate, but it's getting some nice fizz to it already. So, there's a strike against the "My beers been in primary for 2 months so I'll have to add yeast to make it carb" worry some folks seem to have.

And it tastes wonderful.

I have to say that the one BIG plus about a long primary is right there. Sure, you can ferment and bottle quick, but most beers need some conditioning time before they taste right. If you do a long enough primary, they're perfect as soon as they carb up.

ChshreCat said:

Threw one in after just a week to monitor progress and cracked it open just now. It's a bigger ABV beer so I knew it would need more time to carbonate, but it's getting some nice fizz to it already. So, there's a strike against the "My beers been in primary for 2 months so I'll have to add yeast to make it carb" worry some folks seem to have.

And it tastes wonderful.

I have to say that the one BIG plus about a long primary is right there. Sure, you can ferment and bottle quick, but most beers need some conditioning time before they taste right. If you do a long enough primary, they're perfect as soon as they carb up.

Click to expand...

My 5.5 month porter didn't need extra yeast either. It carbed up beautifully. I just did like I did for all my long primaries and rubbed the bottom of my autosiphon along the bottom.

While I appreciate people trying things and posting them, I don't know what has been learned here. Yes, it seems this beer came out fine, but we knew it probably would. Unless you split the batch, bottled one at 4 weeks and one at 8 weeks for instance, then maybe we could learn something (even then it would be hard to absolutely duplicate everything). But otherwise, there are too many variables. If the point of all this talk on HBF is that your yeast won't die at 3 weeks automatically, then ok. But you can't simply brew a batch, and say that came out great, so it was because of any one variable.

Yes, bulk ageing is important and a month is probably a minimum for all but the smallest beers. But, there are several ways to do it. Many people come on here and say they just primary. But then they are kegging, and the beer is sitting in the keg for weeks. That is simply duplicating what moving to a secondary does. So, I don't know why they are telling newbies that secondaries do nothing (whether they do or not, they are doing them, just not in a glass carboy).

I'll now get off my soapbox and say, "Happy New Year"

Many people come on here and say they just primary. But then they are kegging, and the beer is sitting in the keg for weeks. That is simply duplicating what moving to a secondary does. So, I don't know why they are telling newbies that secondaries do nothing (whether they do or not, they are doing them, just not in a glass carboy).

Click to expand...

The one big difference that you left out of this is that we who keg are drinking this beer while it is sitting there in the keg. Those sitting in carboys are not drinking it. Also, cold conditioning is completely different than leaving a beer sitting in a carboy at room temp. You are not coagulating tannin/polyphenols or proteins and helping them drop to the bottom at room temp like you are at cold temps. There is something to be said about having a good week cold conditioning after fermentation. Usually I am doing this conditioning while the beer is carbing up with the gas hooked to it and when it is ready to drink the cold conditioning has done its work.

Revvy said:

My 5.5 month porter didn't need extra yeast either. It carbed up beautifully. I just did like I did for all my long primaries and rubbed the bottom of my autosiphon along the bottom.

Click to expand...

I didn't even do that! I transferred very carefully and made sure not to disturb the yeast cake and it's carbing up just fine. In fact, the yeast cake was so compact that I found it difficult to disturb!

pkeeler said:

While I appreciate people trying things and posting them, I don't know what has been learned here.

Click to expand...

Many folks have a belief that if you leave your beer more than a week or two on the yeast cake will cause you to have issues caused by autolysis that lead to horrible flavors and smells among other issues. I plan on posting results from bjcp judges on a beer that has spent months in primary, to try to quell some worries.

Anyone ever notice the people who are anti long primary want others to do the split batch to test it but will then denounce it as crap?

Many folks have a belief that if you leave your beer more than a week or two on the yeast cake will cause you to have issues caused by autolysis that lead to horrible flavors and smells among other issues. I plan on posting results from bjcp judges on a beer that has spent months in primary, to try to quell some worries.

Click to expand...

Really? I've read thousands of posts here and have never read one that said beer will autolyze in a few weeks. However, when people do ask legitimate secondary container questions (such as for harvesting yeast, adding fruit, dry hopping, et al), I do see many people ignore the question and proselytize about not needing secondary fermenters.

Anyone ever notice the people who are anti long primary want others to do the split batch to test it but will then denounce it as crap?

Click to expand...

Interesting that you see it as a belief or ideology rather than simply science. If someone on here came on and said, "I racked my beer to a secondary and it came out clearer after bottling so secondary is best", I'd say the same thing. Without a control batch you can't know anything besides that one beer came out good. You can't even know if that beer came out the best it could have.

The Church of Long Primary people have to chill out and have a beer. ;-)

The one big difference that you left out of this is that we who keg are drinking this beer while it is sitting there in the keg. Those sitting in carboys are not drinking it. Also, cold conditioning is completely different than leaving a beer sitting in a carboy at room temp. You are not coagulating tannin/polyphenols or proteins and helping them drop to the bottom at room temp like you are at cold temps...

Click to expand...

True, although sometimes I keg the beer and let it sit in the cellar because I have more kegs than room in the fridge. You are just making my point, and a previous poster's point, that there are a lot of ways to do this. Too many variables to simply brew a batch, say that came out, and draw conclusions about all beer batches from it.

I agree that bulk aging is important for some length of time. I think 4 weeks is a minimum for most recipes, but I don't care how people do it. From what I've experienced, read, and heard, it is the time and stable temps, not the containers that matter. It is all very liberating from conventional wisdom of 20 years ago. Sometimes I leave stuff in the primary with no worries but other times there are practical reasons to move it.

The other side of the coin is that people use to assert that racking to a secondary would oxidize the beer. This also doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any downside to racking or leaving it. This should be the message. I think there are practical reasons for moving some beers to a secondary sometimes. That there is not one answer for everyone's beer all the time.

pkeeler said:

Really? I've read thousands of posts here and have never read one that said beer will autolyze in a few weeks. However, when people do ask legitimate secondary container questions (such as for harvesting yeast, adding fruit, dry hopping, et al), I do see many people ignore the question and proselytize about not needing secondary fermenters.

Click to expand...

Really. you missed out on how John Palmer pretty much brought this whole old fear into the fore-front with the online edition of how to brew, and the countless posts of folks so sure that if you didn't move your beer on day 8 your might as well just dump it because it was gorilla poop, and the endless panic threads, where people were quoting the passage by palmer, or rehashing various derivation of just when the beer would go bad????? And the endless arguments that people were so sure that those of us who were doing it couldn't didn't know what beer shoud tasting like and were burying our head in the sand.....and the pretty nasty threads, where a few even got closed????

Maybe you need to look into the HISTORY of this discussion....Just go back 3 years or so to see them....Where there were maybe a half dozen of us being pummelled by a bunch of naysayers who never even tried it to begin with, just being a bunch of a$$hat armchair quaterbacks, "opinioning" how this is bad for the beer, or how it does no good for the beer.

The funny thing is, there has been a shift as more and more folks do it....it's become accepted.....

But that's also way like Chesire, most of us are sick and tired of the same rephased old arguments you nay sayers and the trolls use....we've heard them before, and we've countered them, we've provided quotes, source material, thounsands of anecodatal information...everything to counter the BS that gets spwed....and more very day as more established brewing things like podcasts and BYO magazine start to reflect thsi new trend....and like we said, the funny thing is how many of the most virulent nay-sayers of the old days, are now the biggest "evangelists" of the BENEFITS of long primary...they cite improvements their beers by doing it as well....

That's why we say that nothing you say hasn't already been said by countless people who came back at some point down the line after actually trying it to apologize, and say we were right...

Maybe you need to look into the HISTORY of this discussion....Just go back 3 years or so to see them....Where there were maybe a half dozen of us being pummelled by a bunch of naysayers who never even tried it to begin with, just being a bunch of a$$hat armchair quaterbacks, "opinioning" how this is bad for the beer, or how it does no good for the beer.

Click to expand...

I think you are agreeing with me, that for at least three years (what is that 90,000 posts?), nobody has said your beer will turn to sulfur goo at day 15. Maybe you were ridiculed, you seem to have been traumatized, sorry about that. Wasn't me. I do long primaries, long secondaries, short primaries, short secondaries; it all depends.

Instead of getting so upset at constructive criticism and calling people trolls (you didn't seem to like it when you were getting it), maybe you should open your own mind. If I heard the same criticism over and over, I would probably take a step back and wonder if I was missing something. Brewing science is really quite young still and new things are being learned. For instance, this Kaiser guy is showing new things about RA, which itself is a relatively new concept.

pkeeler said:

Interesting that you see it as a belief or ideology rather than simply science. If someone on here came on and said, "I racked my beer to a secondary and it came out clearer after bottling so secondary is best", I'd say the same thing. Without a control batch you can't know anything besides that one beer came out good. You can't even know if that beer came out the best it could have.

The Church of Long Primary people have to chill out and have a beer. ;-)

Click to expand...

Then feel free to do the testing since you are the more vocal one between the two of us and the one saying it is useless. If your going to stand behind the scientific method then do your own work instead of expecting others to do it for you.

This S#!t is getting old.

Sorry Chshre. I really want to know how this turns out.

I'm with you. Can we just stop the argument in here? It's all been said! Brew how you want! Long primary, short primary, whatever works for you! I'm just doing this demonstration to dispel some fears people have when they go long.

ChshreCat said:

I'm with you. Can we just stop the argument in here? It's all been said! Brew how you want! Long primary, short primary, whatever works for you! I'm just doing this demonstration to dispel some fears people have when they go long.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and it is a fine demonstration for showing that long primary is not a bad thing, but I don't see anyone here (certainly in this thread) saying a long primary is detrimental to a beer, only that a secondary can work just as well when done properly.

pkeeler said:

I agree that bulk aging is important for some length of time. I think 4 weeks is a minimum for most recipes, but I don't care how people do it. From what I've experienced, read, and heard, it is the time and stable temps, not the containers that matter. It is all very liberating from conventional wisdom of 20 years ago. Sometimes I leave stuff in the primary with no worries but other times there are practical reasons to move it.

The other side of the coin is that people use to assert that racking to a secondary would oxidize the beer. This also doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any downside to racking or leaving it. This should be the message. I think there are practical reasons for moving some beers to a secondary sometimes. That there is not one answer for everyone's beer all the time.

Click to expand...

Excellent post. Very non-confrontational, unlike others...

Six_O_Turbo said:

Absolutely, and it is a fine demonstration for showing that long primary is not a bad thing, but I don't see anyone here (certainly in this thread) saying a long primary is detrimental to a beer, only that a secondary can work just as well when done properly.

Click to expand...

If you look around, you'll see lots of threads from folks worried about autolysis or that their beer won't carb right and many other unnecessary fears. That's all I'm trying to curb here. Don't want to force anyone to change what they do. Just trying to kill some bogeymen. Don't know why folks can't just let it be. If you don't like doing a long primary, then don't. No need to come onto a thread and start a fight.

Anxious to see the results here!

As to all the constant fighting about the process, that's part of the evolution of how new ideas and methods are formed. It's a pain to read and see for some of us, but if you start a thread about the subject people are going to jump in and get it going no matter what you do, short of closing the thread.

ChshreCat said:

If you look around, you'll see lots of threads from folks worried about autolysis or that their beer won't carb right and many other unnecessary fears. That's all I'm trying to curb here. Don't want to force anyone to change what they do. Just trying to kill some bogeymen. Don't know why folks can't just let it be. If you don't like doing a long primary, then don't. No need to come onto a thread and start a fight.

Click to expand...

I see those "autolysis" posts occasionally from new brewers who may have got some advice from old school brewers or LHBS owners who haven't cracked open a book in 10 years, but can't say I've seen it from anyone who is (at least semi) up to date on current practices and yeast.

Where's the fight? I didn't realize I was trying to start a "fight". In fact, I thought I agreed with what you were doing in your experiment to show a long primary is often not detrimental to a beer. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.

Sorry if you felt that was directed at you. It was more of a general "you" towards the world.

We should just put a hold on this thread and let ChshreCat update us when he actually has something to update.

On the lighter side of things:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f45/caption-picture-contest-214773/index3.html

Not reading the entire thread here but just thowing my thoughts/experience out there.

I don't think anyone who hasn't done both and compared results should comment or make statements as fact on this issue. I started brewing and transfered to secondary for the first 5 or 6 brews as some kits state this in the instructions. Then I tried the 3 week primary and have done this every since. 40 + brews with great results (most of which were dry hopped pale ales & IPAs all dry hopped in the primary)

The only problem I see with the argument is that I get the idea that many who argue for secondary have not tried primary only. It's my guess that the majority of those who now advocate the extended primary method once secondaried at least a few of their beers .......... You can get sparkling crystal clear beer without transferring to a secondary.

If theres any people out there who started out secondary, did primary only for awhile and didn't like it, then switched back to secondary I would be interest to hear from them.

yeast_infection said:

If theres any people out there who started out secondary, did primary only for awhile and didn't like it, then switched back to secondary I would be interest to hear from them.

Click to expand...

Sure, just not here.

AZ_IPA said:

Same as any beer I do...

Chill through the CFC, aerate by pouring between two buckets, pitching liquid yeast that's been on a starter for ~24hrs, maintaining ambient temp ~60*F, wait two months, bottle, and collect gold medals.

Click to expand...

I'm somehow left thinking of Christopher Walken on the Cowbell skit...

"Easy guys, I put my pants on just like the rest of you, one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on I make gold records."

So i have a Chinook single hop IPA OG 1.078 with over 150+ ibu's and i think i am going to do an extended primary why not.. Looking for suggestions for how long is long enough?

So far my longest primary was 15 days and shortest was 7 the short one was only due to i wanted the esb ready for Christmas which it was and it was gone within 6 days..lol Too much family and friends in town..

I think part of the fear of autolysis issue is related to which handbook you choose to start your homebrew education. I started with charlie... and although it got me there.. I wish I had started with how to brew. Charlie talked about autolysis.. and that may be why so many new brewers are freaked about it, but his book in general seems a little less "sciency," and seems to have more outdated info (dunno.. maybe I just like the style of Palmer's book).

That said, It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be an end to this debate anytime soon (since nobody is really coming to the table with any new OBJECTIVE information.. just the same old anecdotal info, quotes, opinions, etc.). What would change that (possibly) is a double blinded, random-controlled-trial... preferably lots of them. This would be hard in the brewing world because there are sooo many variables to control. One of these is yeast, which is notoriously hard to keep consistent (even for the pros). So, until someone comes up with a good study design, it seems like a waste of time to continue arguing this point, especially since people on both sides have had good success, each with their own method (primary, secondary, long, short).


Maybe we can agree to disagree, or at least to agree that neither side is going to "convince" the other that their way is right (at least without some hard evidence). But, does it really matter who is right???

I think we are losing sight of the point. I believe its to make good beer, no?

How about we instead pool our knowledge and resources to look into just what is the ideal time to keep a batch in primary before bottling or kegging? I think C-cat's little trial is a start in this direction, mostly because it involves some blinding (in the form of judges).

I like secondary because I get to handle my beer one more time (yes, Im still an idealistic newbie, obsessive about "the process"), but im intrigued, and I want to learn more about this "one vessel fermentation;" How long is too long? What is the ideal time to keep a batch in the fermenter.. aka, at what point, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks? is the benefit not worth waiting any longer to get on to the drinking?

maybe we stop bickering and move forward.

C-cat, sorry to jack a little, im just tired of rumination and of picking through these threads where it seems only one in ten posts actually have NEW information in them.

ok, im done.....carry on.

oh, and happy new year everyone.

Ok. I didn't forget about this thread and my promise. I just got my score sheets and it's time to see the results.

The test was to see how a couple of BJCP judges would react to my beer that sat for months on the yeast in a plastic bucket. Specifically, to see if there would be any mention of autolysis or oxidation in the beer. It would be a blind test as they would have no idea I was using them to test the long primary and the would simply report what they detected in the beer.

The recipe was for my BBD Saison Furtif. You can find it at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f71/bbd-saison-furtif-155009/.

I planned on typing in the comments, word for word... but since Yooper and the other fine folks taking care of things had them scanned, I can actually show you the results in the judges own handwriting.

Here are the score sheets:




Comments?

I made a bigger set of images, but the forum doesn't seem to want to allow me to edit them into the previous post, here they are:





edit: and it seems that HBT doesn't like people posting images large enough to be readable.