Belgian quad conditing question...

[Mikey_Dawg]

I brewed up a belgian quad almost two weeks ago and had a question regarding the conditioning process. I am planning on letting this one condition for about 2 months total. My question is, how long should I let the beer sit in the primary on the yeast?

I believe I have read to never leave a beer on the yeast cake for over a month (or at least that it is not recommended). The beer has been in the primary for also two weeks... is now a good time to move to secondary and just set the beer aside for another 1.5 months?

Any suggestions on what the ideal temp would be for the conditioning process? I will eventually keg the beer (and then bottle some off my keg once carbonated) so I woud feel like 2 months of secondary conditioning prior to kegging is needed since big belgians are typically bottle conditiond for optimal flavor. Any other suggestions for those with experience? Thanks.

 

[Warped04]

Well. It's time to move the beer over when it's done ferementing (ie. take gravity readings).

If you are going to age the beer in the kegs, I'd just rack it to secondary to clean it up for a bit for a 2 weeks or so then age it in the kegs. If you really wanted to you could probably just rack it to the kegs and then let it age.

Also, beers that are bottle conditioned are done with yeast in the bottle. You could do that with the kegs and naturally carbonate them if you want.

 

[Mikey_Dawg]

Well. It's time to move the beer over when it's done ferementing (ie. take gravity readings).

If you are going to age the beer in the kegs, I'd just rack it to secondary to clean it up for a bit for a 2 weeks or so then age it in the kegs. If you really wanted to you could probably just rack it to the kegs and then let it age.

Also, beers that are bottle conditioned are done with yeast in the bottle. You could do that with the kegs and naturally carbonate them if you want.

Thanks for the response... I dont always use a secondary so I dont really follow the idea of "move the beer when it is done fermenting". However, since I plan to condition this beer longer than my normal process, I realize that I must use a secondary (get the beer off the yeast cake). However, I thought I have read that letting a belgian condition on/with the yeast is part of where the beer derives it's flavor. Bottom line, just trying to make sure I am following the proper steps to keep this brew as true to style as possible... i might be overthinking it...

 

[Warped04]

Thanks for the response... I dont always use a secondary so I dont really follow the idea of "move the beer when it is done fermenting".

Sorry, I should probably use the proper terms. It's why we have them right? Ok...So after you take your gravity readings and your beer is done ferementing, If you want you can rack the beer to the secondary. By done fermenting I mean you've reached your scheduled FG or had two consective gravity readings close to your FG.

However, since I plan to condition this beer longer than my normal process, I realize that I must use a secondary (get the beer off the yeast cake). However, I thought I have read that letting a belgian condition on/with the yeast is part of where the beer derives it's flavor.

There is still yeast in the beer. There are lots of reasons why the beer get's it's flavor, type of yeast, ingredients, brewing techniques, fermentation temperatures, etc. And traditionally Belgian beers are bottle conditioned through natural carbonation.

The way I look at it, you have some options. You can naturally carbonate bottles then then age it, you can force carbonate a keg and age it (but not typical for "traditional" belgian beers), or you can combine the techniques, and naturally carbonate a keg and age it, which is what I would do if it was my beer.

Bottom line, just trying to make sure I am following the proper steps to keep this brew as true to style as possible... i might be overthinking it...

The best thing to do is research. I have a couple of books on Belgian Beers that I find as great reads. IMO it's impossible to brew the "perfect beer" on the first attempt, so you have to research and build on it. Try out different techniques and so forth. It's what I do when I cook and brew. Take good notes and keep on trucking.

-Wally

 

[Mikey_Dawg]

When you say "naturally carbonate"... do you mean using priming sugars or the like? I've obviously done it that way when I used to bottle but never heard it called the "natural" method.

Also, are you suggesting that a conditioning process AFTER the beer is naturally carbonated is better than just letting the beer condition uncarbonated in a secondary for a few months?

 

[Warped04]

Yes, it's (and now you have me all nervous) called natural carbonation with priming sugars because the yeast naturally carbonate the beer vs. force cabonation where you add c02 and force the beer to carbonate.

I'm not suggested one is better than the other. I think they are different. There is a movement on this forum that says secondary "fermentation" is unnessacary. So I give both options for you to decide. I usually "secondary" my beers to allow things to mellow. But I also see that in a keg without a secondary you can accomplish the same thing.

Is one right or wrong...I'm sure the debate will now pick up in this thread (which is why I was vague), but the bottom line, it's on you the brewer to decide what you want to do. If this beer we were talking about was a Heffe which is drunk young, I would say for sure no secondary. If you do one or another you aren't going to screw up your beer. People will tell you one is better than the other, but have you tasted their beers? That's why I suggested brewing a beer more than once and testing out different methods. It truly is the best way to learn.

 

[Mikey_Dawg]

Yes, it's (and now you have me all nervous) called natural carbonation with priming sugars because the yeast naturally carbonate the beer vs. force cabonation where you add c02 and force the beer to carbonate.

I'm not suggested one is better than the other. I think they are different. There is a movement on this forum that says secondary "fermentation" is unnessacary. So I give both options for you to decide. I usually "secondary" my beers to allow things to mellow. But I also see that in a keg without a secondary you can accomplish the same thing.

Is one right or wrong...I'm sure the debate will now pick up in this thread (which is why I was vague), but the bottom line, it's on you the brewer to decide what you want to do. If this beer we were talking about was a Heffe which is drunk young, I would say for sure no secondary. If you do one or another you aren't going to screw up your beer. People will tell you one is better than the other, but have you tasted their beers? That's why I suggested brewing a beer more than once and testing out different methods. It truly is the best way to learn.

Thanks for the advice. I am probably part of the "movement" you've referred to that is getting away from using a Secondary unless you have a specific reason like your brewing a fruit beer or in this case, I want to age my beer for a while and think it probably isnt ideal to leave the beer on the yeast for multiple months.

Since I have never "aged" a beer, I am trying to avoid making a mistake in regards to letting the beer sit on the yeast cake too long or letting it age at too high of a temp too long, etc.

I guess I will check the FG and then move to secondary bottle and let it condition un-carbed for a few months so I dont tie up a cornie keg for 2-3 months. After I keg and carb, I still plan to bottle some 22oz off the keg for longer storage to see how it tastes after 6 months and a year. Should be a fun learning experience regardless...thanks for the advice.

 

[Warped04]

NP. It's what we are here for. The beer sitting on the yeast cake for too long causes autolysis (sp is horrible). And I'm sure there is a time frame where it begins to happen. I'm sure there is some brewing science paper that describes it. I usually don't worry about it, but then I don't usually leave my beers on the cake for more than a couple of weeks.

 

[hahnderosa]

If you want to get fancy, try SPUNDING. Of course, it's too late for this batch, probably, since you need to transfer from primary to keg before all 'primary' fermentation is complete. In other words, rack into a keg while you still have fairly active fermentation (3 to 4 days after pitching). This process will not only give you natural carbonation without adding extra sugars, but it will leave a little yeast cake in the bottom of the keg (be sure to cut 3/4 to 1" off the dip tube for this reason) to add flavor to the quad. Let it sit for 8 weeks then transfer it to another keg before serving.

I've found that this technique adds to the fruity characteristics of Belgian style ales without any off flavors from autolysis. Don't worry about stuck fermentation (I can already hear the nay-sayers typing a flaming response) since to eek-out the last ounce of fermentation from the drunk yeast, you should agitate the keg 3 times a day for the first week after transfer anyway. Even if you don't try spunding, I recommend agitating any HG beer during its last week of fermentation (as you approach the FG). I had this suggested to me when I did my first big beer and I was able to reach 18% ABV without champagne yeast, just a double-pitched Belgian strain.

 

[Houblon]

I brewed up a belgian quad -
-how long should I let the beer sit in the primary on the yeast? .

#1 How big are you talking?
#2 I would leave the beer in primary 1 month, take a gravity check, then force cabonation in keg.

Age as long as you want at that point, I like to lager most beers before serving.

 

[norsk]

I have a triple which has been in the primary for 6 weeks getting ready to bottle as soon as I find the time. Once bottled I'll stash it away for 4-6 months...maybe longer...until it tastes just right. Never been tempted to keg a Belgian.

Tasting bottled Belgians every couple of weeks or so is a great way to develop ones palate and to observe the maturation/transformation of the beer over time. This can be done with all beers of course...Belgians are just more transformative IMO. Good luck.

 

[Matteo57]

Is there a reason why a lot of belgian breweries do NOT keg their beers and only bottle? Theorically bottle aging and keg aging should get the same result shouldn't it if done in the same type manner?

 

[Jboggeye]

My guess is the presentation being a big part of it, as well as high levels of carbonation.

With Bottle conditioning in belgian bottles, you can have 3-4 volumes of Co2. The natural carbonation in bottles is what balloons up the corks to seal them well.
If one were to carb in keg, and bottle from keg, there would be no pressure to create the nice belgian "mushroom cork."
I for one love it when I crack open one of my Belgian homebrews and get a nice pop, something I couldn't achieve by simply filling already carbed beer.


There may be other reasons, but esthetics and tradition definitely play a part.

 

[sweetcell]

Is there a reason why a lot of belgian breweries do NOT keg their beers and only bottle? Theorically bottle aging and keg aging should get the same result shouldn't it if done in the same type manner?

not many bars want to carry belgian on draft, so there is less demand for kegs.

also, belgian beer tends to be more expensive. you might splurge for a $120 keg of sierra, but will you spring for a $260 keg of abbey ale? you might, but there aren't many who will... again, less demand.

 

[Jboggeye]

good call about the keg prices.

Even American made belgian style beers are more expensive than the standard APA

 

[StMarcos]

My guess is the presentation being a big part of it, as well as high levels of carbonation.

With Bottle conditioning in belgian bottles, you can have 3-4 volumes of Co2. The natural carbonation in bottles is what balloons up the corks to seal them well.
If one were to carb in keg, and bottle from keg, there would be no pressure to create the nice belgian "mushroom cork."
I for one love it when I crack open one of my Belgian homebrews and get a nice pop, something I couldn't achieve by simply filling already carbed beer.


There may be other reasons, but esthetics and tradition definitely play a part.

The corks don't 'balloon up.' They are compressed down in the neck of the bottle. It's this compression that seals the bottles, not the pressure in the bottle. If transferred from keg to bottle correctly, there is no reason why you can't have the same level of carbonation in force-carbed and bottle conditioned beers.

 

[Jboggeye]

In my experience, without pressure pushing the cork up against the wire cages, (thus creating the mushroom) the corks don't seal perfectly, and beers get oxidized quicker.

But I guess one could easily keg-carb a beer to high levels and then bottle with regular caps.

That's not as fun as exploding a cork out like champagne

 

[Matteo57]

How about using the small belgian 330ml bottles? Those work OK don't they? I.e. small chimay or duvel bottles..

 

[Jboggeye]

They work as well, and can be quite useful.

 

[RichFellows]

not many bars want to carry belgian on draft, so there is less demand for kegs.

also, belgian beer tends to be more expensive. you might splurge for a $120 keg of sierra, but will you spring for a $260 keg of abbey ale? you might, but there aren't many who will... again, less demand.

Don't know about you but most of my party guests wouldn't really like/appreciate it. Definitely no demand from me for kegs of it. Just enough bottles for me.....and normal stuff for guests. Not swill but not Belgian.