Is patience really a virtue?

[pericles]

I guess my big objection to the "patience" argument is that it has no clear end point. None of the patience-people ever says "four weeks is the perfect amount of time, no longer, no shorter." Instead, they say "four weeks MINIMUM." One poster on this site even told me that his favorite beers are the IPAs that he aged for three years before drinking.

I suppose that makes sense if you believe that beer only ever gets better with time—but most people don't. On the contrary, every craft-beer owner is manic about getting old kegs and bottles off the shelves, and even MBC have vigorous quality control programs that pull older cases out of gas-stations and grocery stores across the country after just a few weeks.

If your palette is such that you really enjoy three year old IPAs, then more power to you: grab some bottles, throw 'em in a basement, and forget about 'em! But don't confuse new brewers with your idiosyncratic tastes.

 

[gr8shandini]

That raises an interesting question, pericles. I wonder if a lot of the folks who like to "age" their beer are just used to drinking stale commercial beer? I will say that on the rare occasions one of my kegs lasts a few months, it does taste more like a typical commercial example (unless you're buying straight from the brewery or a shop that has really good turnover).

 

[pericles]

Sure could be—Heinekin in the US tastes VERY different than it does in Germany. If you're used to the taste of cardboard in your IPAs then you might grow to like it.

 

[befus]

One more thought/question in the long interesting thread. What about the temp of the bottle conditioning. Often times we used to read two weeks in primary, two weeks in secondary, two weeks (or three) to carbonate, and two weeks to cold condition under refrigeration. Almost all the discussion here addresses bottle conditioning at room/cellar temps if I read it right. Do some still adhere to the two weeks at ambient and two under refrigeration, or is a couple days in the cold to hold the carb enough in today's brewing?

 

[KISS Brew]

Do some still adhere to the two weeks at ambient and two under refrigeration, or is a couple days in the cold to hold the carb enough in today's brewing?

I don't usually see an improvement from beer that's been in the fridge for a couple of days to beer that's been in there for a couple of weeks.

I usually aim for three weeks at ambient, but YMMV.

 

[julioardz]

I was recently on vacation. Some bottles of a Blonde Ale I made stayed in the fridge for 3 weeks while the rest stayed in the cabinet where I keep all of my beer that is bottle conditioning at room temperature, which is 77-80 degrees this time of year. I have drank from both since returning home and I cannot tell a difference in flavor or aroma. The ones that stayed in the fridge for that time poured perfectly clear while the ones from the cabinet had a slight haze after I chilled them overnight. This recipe is about 10% wheat and is always slightly hazy, unless I chill it for some days before drinking. I also use this grain bill with a Saison yeast and I get the same haze and the same clear beer after days in the fridge, but I don't notice a difference in taste when it's left to condition in the fridge with the Saison either.

Either way though, I feel every beer and everybody is different. I have noticed slight improvements in a stout that I left in the fridge for a long time over one that I quickly chilled just to have something to drink. Also, some people are more sensitive to those subtle changes in flavor than others. For me however, it's not worth cold conditioning an entire batch when I barley perceive a difference, if there even is one to begin with. I'd rather use my fridge space for something else (in other words, that's all the fridge space my wife allows for beer). Kidding! I just rather keep the bottles in the cabinet and stock the fridge as needed.

 

[KISS Brew]

For me however, it's not worth cold conditioning an entire batch when I barley perceive a difference, if there even is one to begin with.

Agreed. More importantly, if you chill all the bottles, you'll stop all aging. Most of my beers improve with age right up until they're gone.

Of course, IPAs are a notable exception. Drink them fresh!

 

[pjj2ba]

Agreed. More importantly, if you chill all the bottles, you'll stop all aging. Most of my beers improve with age right up until they're gone.

Of course, IPAs are a notable exception. Drink them fresh!

Aging most certainly continues in chilled beers. I brew a lot of lagers and most receive at least 2-4 weeks of lagering. I can readily taste a difference in the 2 week vs the 4 week lagered beer. I believe there is a plateau to aging in that once it is mature, then the flavors will not change for a period of time (style dependent of course) whether they are warm or cold.

As to the OP, I have no problem with a quick turn around (my normal procedure) and I have no problem with letting it ride in primary and dealing with it when one feels like it (I certainly have no problem with being lazy!). I however do not like it when folks say it must be done one way or the other, or make blanket statements that one is better than the other. This is strictly a personal decision

 

[hepcat]

GREAT thread!! I have soooo been wondering why so many experienced brewer's beers take so loooooong to finish (based on comments/advice/their own personal brewing experiences)!! I'm thinking WTH is wrong with these people, LOL.

I have only three batches under my belt so far.

Brewed my first batch, BIG braggot/barley wine style (OG ~1.098), and SG stopped moving after only 6 days, so I waited two more days, checked SG and it had not moved so I declared it done, bottle conditioned it for only 6 days at room temp. at which time I could clearly see sediment in the bottles at day six so couldn't stand it any more, chilled one for a couple hours, tried it and it was delicious!! And the two friends I shared some with loved it too. And (it was 5 gallons) it's long gone and fondly remembered, LOL!!

My second batch, another braggot(looks like a pale ale), ~3.25 gallons, was finished fermenting in only 5 days. But I waited two more days, SG had not moved so declared it done after only 7 days and bottled it. It's been conditioning for only three days now and I could clearly see sediment in the bottles as of yesterday and it's also already looking crystal clear so think it's already ready to drink!!:rockin:
So WTH, think I'm gonna share a couple with a friend tomorrow and give it a try.

My third (~5 gallon) batch is still fermenting, started two days ago....excited to see how it turns out, shouldn't be long before I'll know, cheers!!

 

[onthekeg]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread...

 

[bobbrews]

For my brewing style, recipes, system, etc... yes, patience is a virtue.

That is not to say that other homebrewers cannot pump out a very similar beer in 2 weeks less time than me... Mine will just taste better

 

[hepcat]

Is that right.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

For my brewing style, recipes, system, etc... yes, patience is a virtue.

That is not to say that other homebrewers cannot pump out a very similar beer in 2 weeks less time than me... Mine will just taste better

Hmmm, I'd like to see something other than a home brewer saying that 'more time = better beer' in all cases. Sure it applies to bigger beers and complex recipes that need some aging, but in general it's a bunch of poppycock. I regularly turn out decent sized beers like IPA that spend maybe ~2 weeks in the fermenter, including dry hop time. I took some bottles of a recent IPA I made camping with me over the weekend, OG around 1.07, spend 12 days in the fermenter and ~3 weeks in bottles. I also took a hefe that spent all of a week in the fermenter and ~1-2 weeks in bottles. The guys in the two sites next to mine were accomplished all grain brewers (one's an employee at Midwest), so we obviously shared our beers. All three of them kept commenting on how good my beers were, asked questions about times and temps, yeast used, etc., which was followed by a long conversation about proper temps and pitch rates being infinitely more important that 'leaving your beer for a month or two for clean up'. The idea of doing something like that was sort of laughed at. I know that a few on this site regularly post about month long primaries being the 'be all and end all' of making good beer, I myself even bought into that when I first started out, but it's definitely not the common practice amongst the brewers (pro and home) that I've spoken with. Hate to say it, but if you're needing a month or more for you average sized beers to taste right, you're doing something wrong.

 

[bobbrews]

Hmmm, I'd like to see something other than a home brewer saying that 'more time = better beer' in all cases. Sure it applies to bigger beers and complex recipes that need some aging, but in general it's a bunch of poppycock.

This is a topic with no definite answer for everyone. Individual palates, brewing processes, and knowledge can differ greatly amongst homebrewers. The book, Brewing: Science and Practice, does break it down a little more scientificially if you're interested in reading up on exactly why more time is better for a number of reasons.

My take is that if you're satisfied with the way things turn out for you, then that's great. Whether it be 4 days in the primary or 24... That is your choice. And it's not a matter of having the beer turn out just "right", but about having the beer turn out excellent. And "excellent" is very subjective.

 

[MotorcycleMatt]

I had a belgian stout that i primaried for 5-6 weeks, and they have been in the bottle for 2 months and they are just starting to get to the point of me enjoying them.

I have an all galaxy pale ale that i just brewed, and im cold crashing it at day 13.

The 3-4 week advice is great for n00bs who are just getting their feet wet. I would assume most would learn more about the process and refining theirs and start knowing what is going on in the fermentation.

 

[hepcat]

I said earlier I have only made three batches so far, I meant beer/ale home brew. I started this home brew adventure this past January and started out making mead so learned alot from that experience about home brewing in general. I've now made a total 15 batches of home brew (the first twelve were meads) since this past January so already had all the home brew gear to make stove top, partial boil, extract/specialty grain ales. So making beer was really no mystery for me and it seemed a natural segue to make a couple of braggots first, to begin brewing with extracts and grains (and honey). So since I really prefer beer over wine but do like both, I'm glad I finely started making ale style beers.
And the other reason I'm really glad I started making beer/ale is because it's ready to drink SO FAST compared to all the mead I've been making!! LOL, cheers!!

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

This is a topic with no definite answer for everyone. Individual palates, brewing processes, and knowledge can differ greatly amongst homebrewers. The book, Brewing: Science and Practice, does break it down a little more scientificially if you're interested in reading up on exactly why more time is better for a number of reasons.

My take is that if you're satisfied with the way things turn out for you, then that's great. Whether it be 4 days in the primary or 24... That is your choice. And it's not a matter of having the beer turn out just "right", but about having the beer turn out excellent. And "excellent" is very subjective.

Careful, last time I suggested someone read a book I was called a bully by several members here.
Really though, I'm familiar with that book and with the reasons people say to leave beer longer. And I get it, the old school was to remove the beer from the yeast before FG was reached because of the autolysis boogeyman, and that now with modern yeast cultures and the knowledge of yeast heath (pitch rates, temps, etc.) that we're safe to leave our beer on the yeast for as long as we please w/o ill effects. What that doesn't translate into (for me, at least) is that all beers benefit from extended aging on the cake. Sure, when I've brewed some bigger beers, I've left them on the yeast for months, and they benefit from that. But for my typical brews, I normally have a clear, tasty beer and a compact yeast cake after ~2 weeks, and that combined with a stable FG is how I judge when most beers are done.
Trust me, I've done the long primary thing, I've done the package as soon as you hit FG thing, and I've come to realize that there's a happy medium between those two.

 

[julioardz]

Well said Nordeast. Most of the beer I make are pretty average gravity blondes, pale ales, IPA's, hefes, and Belgians. I focus more on pitch rate, fermentation temperature, hydrometer readings, the style of beer, and what my plans are for the beer. I pay little attention to timelines. It's done fermenting when I judge that it's done. I have a hefe/wheat in primary right now that I'm testing out with WB-06. I purposefully underpitched into poorly aerated wort without rehydrating. My intention was to stress the yeast and force out more flavors from it. It went from 1.054 to 1.009 in 3 days and tastes great right now, on day 4. I'm cold crashing it and will bottle once it doesn't look so milky from all the yeast that is still in suspension. I want to be able to drink it with all those nice clove, banana, and citrus flavors before they fade in time. That's the case for this beer. My next one will be different and may or may not require a much longer primary and conditioning. Again, it all comes down to the beer and the brewer's preference.

 

[CBXBob]

No- conditioning time is conditioning time whether it happens in a bucket, carboy, keg or bottle. What IS important, though, is temperature. Beer ages faster at room temperature. For a beer that needs some aging, room temperature is great. For a beer that is absolutely perfect the way it is, it's good to slow down the aging so cellaring or even cold storage is preferable.

In an unfiltered beer, there are hundreds of billions of yeast in suspension. Nothing "magical" happens to the beer by sitting on top of flocculated yeast, so the actual conditioning is done by the yeast in suspension anyway.

Now this is great advice. I don't have to keep my primary's tied up. Once FG is stable, I can bottle, then sample weekly until they taste the way I wanted them to. Yes, I know that won't fix a bad batch.
But I have a Moose Drool clone that at 2 months is tasting just exactly the way I wanted it to. At 2 weeks, eh!, 4 weeks, um!. 6 weeks, umm! 8 weeks, DAMN! That's good beer
If it had tasted this good at 2 weeks, I'd already have made another batch

 

[mikemet]

I love this forum for a lot of reasons. Brewing beer gives me time to prepare for the current batch, the next batch and future batches.

Upon reading enough of the 3-3 or 2-1-2 or 4-2 OMG my head was going to explode. Primary no secondary...secondary to free up space....forget that- rack from primary- clean and brew again...

So I thought about a week ago (currently at day 13 in my first batch)- Id be one of those 4 week primary guys. That was it. Thats what im going to do and thats it. Came across this thread and it got me re-thinking again.

If I've done it all right- why wait? Its an ale. I fermented at a great temp. My yeast looked like it was awesome- my kreusen did its thing- im stoked!


I have a long coming weekend out of state- from Thursday - Tuesday- I think I will take a fg reading tomorrow- and one again on tuesday- if they are the same. I will dry hop in primary for one more week- then rack to bottle. Not quite a month but close- Could have been sooner but no worries- I guess tomorrow I will get to study my beer sample in the hydrometer - and have a taste- wish me luck

 

[BrewinHooligan]

I know that a few on this site regularly post about month long primaries being the 'be all and end all' of making good beer, I myself even bought into that when I first started out, but it's definitely not the common practice amongst the brewers (pro and home) that I've spoken with. Hate to say it, but if you're needing a month or more for you average sized beers to taste right, you're doing something wrong.

THIS!!!! I couldn't agree more

 

[befus]

Excellent commentaries throughout. It really does come down to what pleases the individual. Brewers are like most folks and if they do something one way and the beer turns out great they are likely to brew with that method/technique again, really never knowing what exactly what it was that influenced the superior result. Might have been time on cake, temp, mash, pitching rate, but they will want to repeat the success and will do all steps identically to the original. That is one reason for so many opinions. Lots of ways to make good beer and most are probably as good as the next. To each his own is a good motto for home brewers.

 

[normzone]

I was searching "pipeline + planning" and stumbled into this post.

I have been spending far too much money on the gourmet IPAs that I love.

I'm trying to get my home pipeline flowing so that I can cut that cost by 2/3.

I have transitioned from consuming a month before bottling to spending two weeks before kegging. I don't feel that it's ideal but when the pipeline is full of drinkable hop bombs then I can back it off a bit and determine where in the middle ground the sweet spot lies.

Thanks for all your help -

 

[BronxBrew]

Spot on IMO. What else is there to say but he is right. There are such things as 4 week turn around beers out there that we can make. With today's yeast and techniques . I'm seeing fermintation ending a lot sooner. Sometimes my bottles only sit in the fridge a couple hours because people gobble them up. I've even had them drink it warm with no fridge conditioning lol. No matter what I tell them about bottle conditioning there like WTF this is good !

Unless your entering some kind of competition . Is there really any point to hit all the score points ? My s??ity first batch was better than anything I could buy in the store.