Drinking Homebrew Young or Early

[Golddiggie]

Of course you could do that with homebrew as well, but I know I'm not at the level of consistency yet where I could guarantee that one batch didn't just come out better than the other.

That's where having a good brew log comes into play. Taking good notes during each part, where you need to, helps to repeat a recipe later... Even going so far as to note the actual final temp when you're done mashing, and how long you sparged for. This way, X months, or even years, down the road, you have a solid shot at making the brew again, pretty damned close to how it was the last time. Or, correcting what went wonky the first time.

For lagering, I believe that's where having real tight temperature control comes into play. You could do a few weeks from grain to bottle/keg (not saying glass since that depends on if your bottling or kegging it up)...

Different brew styles lend themselves to different methods/processes for fermenting and any aging... Some will be best with more brief fermentation times, and ready to drink as soon as they are carbonated (~2-3 weeks from bottling/kegging)... While others will benefit from longer primary fermentation times, with aging after that, before being bottled up... There are those that are really not best for several months from when they are actually started.

It really is a case of the brew being ready when it's going to be ready. Us wishing for them to be ready sooner/faster won't make it happen. So depending on what you're brewing, it will be done when it's done.

Hence the importance of having a decent pipeline... I figure that I can have one large brew going at any given time, and still keep my pipeline going (brewing every two weeks, something that is grain to glass in ~6-8 weeks). I have two batches in bottles, one was bottled almost a month ago, with the other just over two weeks ago now. I'll be bottling another batch (or two) this weekend, with one of them being ready in 2-3 weeks. Not sure about the other, since it might need more time to carbonate (1-3 months from what I read/hear)... I'm brewing again in two weeks (2/26) which should be ready for bottles in 2-3 weeks (a cream ale)...

Now that it's also been mentioned by others, I'm probably going to start hunting for the different brews in stores. Things that I've not had before, but are in line with what I'm brewing (or the style is from the same region)... I am starting to make a list of brews I want to try, so that I can then see if I want to clone them or not...

 

[SC_Ryan]

What about lagering? Is everyone also saying lagered beer turnaround can be done in two weeks? Lagered beers - lagers, pilsners, etc, seem to be the most common on the market, so since we're talking about 2 weeks grain to glass do you all still feel it's easy to do with lagers?


Rev.

We are talking about ales. I've never seen anyone suggest that lagers can be rushed along in two weeks. I think the "Two weeks from grain to glass" is mostly being brought up by the folks that are sticking to the 6 weeks is minimum rule.

What I am suggesting is that not all beers need to be aged 6-8 weeks to achieve their best flavor. I have recipes that do improve with some age and others that do not. When I put my three week old brown ale on tap it wasn't out of impatience. I had several "aged" beers that I could have put on tap. This particular recipe hasn't shown benefit from aging in the past. This beer wasn't rushed it was finished so I tapped it. Like I said the second half of the batch I have on gas right now isn't any better.

When I was new to homebrewing aging helped every one of my beers. Now that I have a firm grasp on pitch rate and steady and appropriate fermentation temps, I find that some of my beers are optimum sooner. Ramping up temp toward the end of fermentation has helped with this. Some beers improve with age, not all.

 

[phasedweasel]

I, too, am really curious what the "green beer" the aging advocates talk about tastes like. Can you describe it, or point to exaggerated examples? I don't care if I bottle in 2 weeks or 2 months, I have a fat pipe, but I am trying to understand my process better. I've had several beers that tasted delicious early, and I did not like how they tasted as much two months later. Let's leave aside the extreme examples of hefeweisen, spiced and high gravity beers.

 

[remilard]

What I am communicating is that I am skeptical that there exists some mystical art that can make green beer taste good, and that just maybe we all have different taste thresholds. Nothing wrong with that.

Just to be clear you are saying that the BJCP judges who sent three of my beers that were 4 or 5 weeks old (the 5 week old ones were lagers) to the second round of the NHC last year simply lack your discerning palate?

I guess that is it.

 

[remilard]

What about lagering? Is everyone also saying lagered beer turnaround can be done in two weeks? Lagered beers - lagers, pilsners, etc, seem to be the most common on the market, so since we're talking about 2 weeks grain to glass do you all still feel it's easy to do with lagers?


Rev.

4 weeks for standard gravity lagers with no decoction is pretty easy. They may get better after that but if you know what you are doing they are better than 90% of homebrew lagers at that point.

 

[Golddiggie]

I, too, am really curious what the "green beer" the aging advocates talk about tastes like. Can you describe it, or point to exaggerated examples? I don't care if I bottle in 2 weeks or 2 months, I have a fat pipe, but I am trying to understand my process better. I've had several beers that tasted delicious early, and I did not like how they tasted as much two months later. Let's leave aside the extreme examples of hefeweisen, spiced and high gravity beers.

From what I've tasted, 'green' beer (not beer designed to be green for the holiday) is still harsh when it's not supposed to be. Or has off flavors in it, that you did not expect, or were not by design. Of course, there are commercial beers out there that pass those things off as what they intended to do (probably not the case the first time or two, but they shipped anyway and now it's their 'style')... I find that ales that have aged a little longer, or matured, are smoother in the right places, and still stick out where they're supposed to... Sort of like a good woman... :rockin: Good body, smooth, but strong enough to lay you out if you have too much of her. Personally, I don't like high IBU brews, so I'm not into tarts either.

 

[gr8shandini]

I, too, am really curious what the "green beer" the aging advocates talk about tastes like. Can you describe it, or point to exaggerated examples? I don't care if I bottle in 2 weeks or 2 months, I have a fat pipe, but I am trying to understand my process better. I've had several beers that tasted delicious early, and I did not like how they tasted as much two months later. Let's leave aside the extreme examples of hefeweisen, spiced and high gravity beers.

Same here. If you read the books, you get answers like this one from "How to Brew"

Acetaldehyde
A flavor of green apples or freshly cut pumpkin; it is an intermediate compound in the formation of alcohol. Some yeast strains produce more than others, but generally it's presence indicates that the beer is too young and needs more time to condition.

I've never once experienced that, but then again, I've only brewed ales and never tried tasting one prior to a week after pitching. A lot of the "what does green beer taste like" threads come back with answers like "yeasty," but that just means you have yeast in suspension. You can take care of that in 24 - 48 hrs with a cold crash and finings. I don't see any reason to wait 6 weeks to clear a beer.

 

[Indyking]

This discussion is so pointless. The only folks who are in position to discuss which method is better are the ones who already compared them in the real world.

For me, I found out that longer fermentation periods combined with longer kegging/bottling results on anything from slight to way better beer, usually 2 months from grain to glass is my minimum. You have to make the experiment yourself if you want to prove anything.

If you think your 2-3 weeks beer is great but you never tried the same product aged, how would you know it is actually better?

Oh, BTW, don't use competition results as examples to prove aging because perhaps the same beer aged would have done even better! Unless you have results of the competition showing the very same beer getting a higher score compared to it's aged version in the very same competition, competition results cannot be used as arguments.

Thing is ... There are very good beers but also there are excellent outstanding beers and not everyone's palate is able to clear distinguish them.

 

[IffyG]

I, too, am really curious what the "green beer" the aging advocates talk about tastes like. Can you describe it, or point to exaggerated examples?

The most blatant example of 'green beer' I experienced was my pale ale that tasted extremely astringent and almost soapy when I force carbed a 20ounce bottled with my carbonator cap. Over 4 weeks in the keg, it faded away and it's now one of the best beers I've brewed.

 

[tjp68]

4 weeks for standard gravity lagers with no decoction is pretty easy. They may get better after that but if you know what you are doing they are better than 90% of homebrew lagers at that point.

Really?

 

[SC_Ryan]

Oh, BTW, don't use competition results as examples to prove aging because perhaps the same beer aged would have done even better!

You are looking at it wrong. He used competition results as proof that you don't need to age your homebrew in order to make fantastic and award winning beer.

 

[remilard]

Really?

Maybe. But when they are good enough to score 40+ I think they are good enough to be free from you criticizing them from your armchair.

 

[Indyking]

You are looking at it wrong. He used competition results as proof that you don't need to age your homebrew in order to make fantastic and award winning beer.

I did not say his award winning beer was not good... it surely was... what I said was that perhaps if he allowed the same beer to ferment longer and age in the bottle, it would have got better scores... anything beyond that is out of scope here...

What is in discussion in the OP is:

Aging is a myth or not?

The issue: "can quickly made beers taste great and win awards" is a totally different story!

 

[Rev2010]

We are talking about ales. I've never seen anyone suggest that lagers can be rushed along in two weeks. I think the "Two weeks from grain to glass" is mostly being brought up by the folks that are sticking to the 6 weeks is minimum rule.

All fine and well, but the original post made no distinction about any one specific category of beer that can be done in 2 weeks grain to glass turnover, it simply said "homebrew".


Rev.

 

[tjp68]

Maybe. But when they are good enough to score 40+ I think they are good enough to be free from you criticizing them from your armchair.

I haven't criticized anything in this thread. I've acknowledged that some recipes can be turned around quickly. You haven't acknowledged that it is ever appropriate to age a beer, unless of course the brewer is an inexperienced noob who obviously introduced off flavors through poor technique.

 

[remilard]

I haven't criticized anything in this thread. I've acknowledged that some recipes can be turned around quickly. You haven't acknowledged that it is ever appropriate to age a beer, unless of course the brewer is an inexperienced noob who obviously introduced off flavors through poor technique.

Yes you have. You have quite clearly stated that anyone who thinks a beer younger than 6 weeks is very good lacks your own discerning palate.

As for me acknowledging that it is ever appropriate to age a beer, I was never asked to make that acknowledgment and I never said otherwise.

 

[SC_Ryan]

What is in discussion in the OP is:

Aging is a myth or not?

The issue: "can quickly made beers taste great and win awards" is a totally different story!

Actually what the OP discussed is whether it is a myth that homebrew needs to be aged.

I read an article, can't recall where, last fall that talked about they "myth" that homebrew needed to age.

I would say that based on the fact that you can make fantastic and award winning beer without aging that you clearly don't need to age your homebrew. Myth dispelled.

[thread/]

 

[Indyking]

Yes you have. You have quite clearly stated that anyone who thinks a beer younger than 6 weeks is very good lacks your own discerning palate.

As for me acknowledging that it is ever appropriate to age a beer, I was never asked to make that acknowledgment and I never said otherwise.

Just curious... have you actually ever tried to compare quickly-made vs. longer fermented/bottled conditioned versions of the same recipe of yours?

 

[Indyking]

Actually what the OP discussed is whether it is a myth that homebrew needs to be aged.



I would say that based on the fact that you can make fantastic and award winning beer without aging that you clearly don't need to age your homebrew. Myth dispelled.

[thread/]

It depends... Like I said before:

There are very good beers but also there are excellent outstanding beers and not everyone's palate is able to clear distinguish them.

 

[SC_Ryan]

Yes you have. You have quite clearly stated that anyone who thinks a beer younger than 6 weeks is very good lacks your own discerning palate.

tjp68 and a couple other posters also went on to suggest that those who do not age their beer out further were lazy and impatient.

 

[SC_Ryan]

It depends... Like I said before:

There are very good beers but also there are excellent outstanding beers and not everyone's palate is able to clear distinguish them.

For the sake of our argument, I will side with the developed and trained palates of BJCP certified judges.

 

[remilard]

Just curious... have you actually ever tried to compare quickly-made vs. longer fermented/bottled conditioned versions of the same recipe of yours?

Yes. I've given a great deal of thought to my process and always test process changes.

 

[Indyking]

tjp68 and a couple other posters also went on to suggest that those who do not age their beer out further were lazy and impatient.

For the record, I never suggested that! Heck, some lagers are even able to score really well in national competitions without even being lagered, did you know that?

What I can tell from experience is that, I tested 3-4 of my recipes for quick production vs. aging and the results varied from slight to way better always in benefit of the aged one...

So, based on my experiments, I would say: aging is not a myth... Anyone else that has not tried the same experiment cannot respond resolve the issue accurately!

 

[curlyfat]

Wow. This thread went downhill fast.

I will state, you can make outstanding beer in 2 weeks. But you have to be on your game: Pitch tons of yeast, oxygenate a lot, temp control precisely, monitor it daily to know when it's cleaned up. It also will only work certain styles. My pale ale slowly goes downhill after about 3 1/2 weeks. The bright fresh hops just slowly fade and it starts to taste like a commercial pale ale that's been on the shelf awhile (perhaps that's what some folks are shooting for). You couldn't do this with a lager. You couldn't do this with a lot of ales.

But, once again, I only "pushed it" twice, only as a challenge to see if I could do it. I like to challenge myself sometimes. Most of my beer sits in the primary for at least 3 weeks, then another week on gas. Personally, I've rarely noticed beer getting better as it sat in the keg week after week. Only the big ones seem to improve. What some call "mellowing" comes through as losing some of the flavors I was trying for. Perhaps over the eight years and hundreds of batches, I've slowly come to design things for quicker consumption?

The bottom line is that after you brew for awhile, you'll figure out what works for you. Try aging, try "pushing" it, you'll find out what works. Just try to avoid fooling yourself into thinking your beer tastes better old because that's what you want to believe, or thinking it's better young because that's what you want to believe. If it needs time, give it time. If it doesn't, then drink the darn thing!

/rant

 

[remilard]

It depends... Like I said before:

There are very good beers but also there are excellent outstanding beers and not everyone's palate is able to clear distinguish them.

My score on the BJCP exam tasting portion was 87 on the first (and last as my overall score was 91) try. You must have an outstanding score to feel confident enough to tell the whole word that you are a better beer judge than me in bold type twice.

 

[Indyking]

For the sake of our argument, I will side with the developed and trained palates of BJCP certified judges.

But unless you have the very same recipe of the very same aged beer judged by the very same judges, the results are utterly pointless for the argument!

 

[Indyking]

My score on the BJCP exam tasting portion was 87 on the first (and last as my overall score was 91) try. You must have an outstanding score to feel confident enough to tell the whole word that you are a better beer judge than me in bold type twice.

Very same response applies, sorry...

Above...

 

[Indyking]

My score on the BJCP exam tasting portion was 87 on the first (and last as my overall score was 91) try. You must have an outstanding score to feel confident enough to tell the whole word that you are a better beer judge than me in bold type twice.

Was it a gold medal or just second round? Men, it does look like a excellent beer, congratulations, but have you ever thought if you allowed it to age, you could have won the first place with it? Bummer!

 

[tjp68]

Yes you have. You have quite clearly stated that anyone who thinks a beer younger than 6 weeks is very good lacks your own discerning palate.

As for me acknowledging that it is ever appropriate to age a beer, I was never asked to make that acknowledgment and I never said otherwise.

Not true...you are looking for a fight if that's what you believe I said. I never suggested that I have a more discerning palate. I said that not everyone tastes beer (or food, or oxygen) the same. To each her own.

I never once said or suggested that all beer is unpalatable prior to aging. Just about everything is drinkable young, but it tends to get better. In my experience.

I am asking you now...is there any standard beer that almost always gets better with age? How about a RIS? How about dopplebock? Barleywine?

Are these all two weeks from grain to glass?

 

[SC_Ryan]

For the record, I never suggested that! Heck, some lagers are even able to score really well in national competitions without even being lagered, did you know that?

Thanks for the lesson

What I can tell from experience is that, I tested 3-4 of my recipes for quick production vs. aging and the results varied from slight to way better always in benefit of the aged one...

So, based on my experiments, I would say: aging is not a myth... Anyone else that has not tried the same experiment cannot respond resolve the issue accurately!

I brew in 10 gallon batches. Every batch of beer that I brew, one half of the batch gets drank before the second half in varying frequencies. I guess that makes me qualified to disagree with you... More often than not it is the older keg that doesn't taste as good as the first.

 

[Indyking]

Not true...you are looking for a fight if that's what you believe I said. I never suggested that I have a more discerning palate. I said that not everyone tastes beer (or food, or oxygen) the same. To each her own.

I never once said or suggested that all beer is unpalatable prior to aging. Just about everything is drinkable young, but it tends to get better. In my experience.

I am asking you now...is there any standard beer that almost always gets better with age? How about a RIS? How about dopplebock? Barleywine?

Are these all two weeks from grain to glass?

I agree about aging... it does make a difference for me, and I don't think my palate is even close to the sharp ones from BCJP judges, but still the difference is noticeable enough...

And by aging I mean longer fermentation periods and loger bottle carbonation/conditioning.

 

[remilard]

I agree about aging... it does make a difference for me, and I don't think my palate is even close to the sharp ones from BCJP judges, but still the difference is noticeable enough...

And by aging I mean longer fermentation periods and loger bottle carbonation/conditioning.

But I am a BJCP judge, and a reasonably high ranking one, and you have reiterated three times that your palate is superior to mine so now I am confused.

 

[SC_Ryan]

But unless you have the very same recipe of the very same aged beer judged by the very same judges, the results are utterly pointless for the argument!

Once again, you are framing your argument around whether it is possible for beer to get better as it ages. The thread topic is whether it is necessary to age all homebrew.

 

[tjp68]

tjp68 and a couple other posters also went on to suggest that those who do not age their beer out further were lazy and impatient.

You invented that out of whole cloth. Pot stir much?

 

[tjp68]

But I am a BJCP judge, and a reasonably high ranking one, and you have reiterated three times that your palate is superior to mine so now I am confused.

Untrue. You simply enjoy arguing. RDWHAHB.

When you are a high ranking BJCP judge, do you get a badge?

 

[Indyking]

Thanks for the lesson .

You are very welcome!

I brew in 10 gallon batches. Every batch of beer that I brew, one half of the batch gets drank before the second half in varying frequencies. I guess that makes me qualified to disagree with you... More often than not it is the older keg that doesn't taste as good as the first.

No it does not. You are missing the point. Your 10 gallons all had the same period of fermentation time, right?

Aging in the bottle is not nearly as 20% of how you can fine tune your beer... there is fermentation time and temp, lagering time and temp, duration of diacetyl rest and again temp, carbonation time and guess what: temp, cold conditioning in bottles or keg... geez, I'm just getting warmed up here ... you don't know much about aging a beer, do you?

 

[remilard]

Untrue. You simply enjoy arguing. RDWHAHB.

When you are a high ranking BJCP judge, do you get a badge?

No it is true. He posted in bold twice that if you think a beer under 6 weeks old was good, you lack the palate to tell otherwise. Then a third time he said "the advice above still applies".

When you are a high ranking judge you get to shake your head when you are told that you are incapable of correctly describing your own experiences with beer.

 

[Indyking]

But I am a BJCP judge, and a reasonably high ranking one, and you have reiterated three times that your palate is superior to mine so now I am confused.

I have told you my palate is superior to yours? Men, I can't help you, I give up.

 

[remilard]

I have told you my palate is superior to yours? Men, I can't help you, I give up.

I am only one man.

I think a reasonable person would interpret your post #58 as a claim that ryan_sc and I have palates so poor that we mistakenly think we have had a good beer less than 6 weeks old.

Perhaps it is poor communication on your part. Are you saying that you believe me when I say that many of my beers are excellent and in fact peak prior to the 6 week point? I thought you were saying that if I thought that it meant I had failed to try other approaches or that I was incapable of drawing the correct conclusion from my experiments.

 

[SC_Ryan]

No it does not. You are missing the point. Your 10 gallons all had the same period of fermentation time, right?

NOPE!!! Two seperate fermenters. Same batch of beer. The perfect control for such an experiment.

Aging in the bottle is not nearly as 20% of how you can fine tune your beer... there is fermentation time and temp, lagering time and temp, duration of diacetyl rest and again temp, carbonation time and guess what: temp, cold conditioning in bottles or keg... geez, I'm just getting warmed up here ... you don't know much about aging a beer, do you?

Once again... Thanks for the lesson