gr8shandini
Well-Known Member
Although I've been brewing for close to 5 years now, I like to read through the beginners forum in the hopes that I can give something back to the HBT community which has helped me out greatly over much of that time. However, I think there is a cadre of very vocal members who are giving misleading advice regarding the "aging" of average gravity ales.
Now, I understand that some errors common to new brewers (underpitching, warm fermentations, etc.) can be "cleaned up" by spending a little more time in the primary. That's helpful advice for someone who has an off-flavor, but I repeatedly see simple questions of "how long does it take?" answered with "at least three weeks in primary, but the longer the better." While that advice won't hurt the beer (much), I think it has the potential to turn off some new brewers, not to mention giving some a crutch to lean on while their process could be improved.
Furthermore, if someone - even a well respected member like Yooper - gives a more realistic answer, it's usually followed by a chorus of "why risk it?", "what's the rush?", or "patience is a virtue". So as some food for thought, I figured I'd supply some rationale for the counter-question of "why wait?"
We can brew faster; we have the technology
It seems that many of the folks who advocate extended fermentations are really just talking about waiting for the beer to clear. While that may take several weeks at normal fermentation temps, you can reduce that to a couple of days - or even overnight - if you cold crash and / or use finings. You can usually find someone unloading an old fridge for free on craigslist, so unless you live in a tiny apartment, there's really no excuse for not having the ability to cold crash. Add in the fact that once you scrounge $40 - $70 for a temperature controller, you have yourself a fermentation chamber that allows you to brew far better beer than in your closet, this is kind of a no-brainer.
Finings are a little trickier subject. Gelatin is cheap, easy to use, and will clear a cold-crashed beer in a matter of hours. But I can understand if one (or one's friends/family) doesn't want animal products used in the production of their beer. There are also vegan alternatives, but I don't know how well they work. If they do their job even half as well as gelatin / isinglass, I don't see any reason not to use them. And before anyone says "Reinheitsgebot", keep in mind that the original didn't even include yeast, so maybe we shouldn't be using 15th century provincial laws to influence our brewing.
Reducing cycle time means that you can brew more often
What's going to help a new brewer more: looking at a fermenter in their basement, or brewing another batch? There's a recent book that posits that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to become truly great at something. But I don't think you can count the time it took Calloway to make your golf clubs or Baldwin to make your piano. Once you pitch your yeast, it's their beer and you might as well move on to something else.
You need less equipment to maintain a pipeline
Depending on the beer and number of other beers I have on tap, it usually takes me about three weeks to kick a keg. Luckily, it takes about three weeks to get a batch ready to serve, so it all kind of works out. If I were to subscribe to the month long primary club, I'd need more kegs and probably more fermenters. And more fermentation chambers. And a place to store more kegs and more fermenters. And god help you if you choose to bottle.
You can drink "seasonally" with less planning
Despite what that glorified rat from Punxsutawney said, we had an early spring this year. I'd hate to be stuck with six more weeks of stouts when what I'm really in the mood for is a cream ale.
You might never get to sample your beer at its peak
While the word is filtering down that Hefes and IPAs are best when they're fresh, the truth is that it's true for most other beer styles as well. Unless you're talking a really big beer, it's going to be at its prime about 3 to 6 weeks after brew day. A good example is a basic Irish dry stout. I've seen folks say that any stout needs several months of conditioning, but that's just ridiculous for a 1.038 Guinness clone. My dry stouts clock in at about 1.042 and exhibit a fantastic silky, malty character that's completely gone if I let one go as far as two months after brew day.
I wanna be like Mike
I'm still one of the many who harbors delusions of going pro. Any brewer who stuck to the schedules advocated by many on this site would go broke in less than a year. Chances are that whatever your dream commercial beer is - the one that makes you say "if I could only brew like that" - it was packaged within three weeks of being brewed. There's no reason you can't do the same thing. And if you do want to turn this hobby into a living, you're going to have to figure out how.
I hope that at least some of these concepts make sense to some folks. I know that I won't be able to change the minds of the most vocal members of the month long primary club, but I hope that the more moderate members of the site might see how there might be valid reasons for sticking to a timely brewing schedule. I'm interested to know how y'all feel.
Now, I understand that some errors common to new brewers (underpitching, warm fermentations, etc.) can be "cleaned up" by spending a little more time in the primary. That's helpful advice for someone who has an off-flavor, but I repeatedly see simple questions of "how long does it take?" answered with "at least three weeks in primary, but the longer the better." While that advice won't hurt the beer (much), I think it has the potential to turn off some new brewers, not to mention giving some a crutch to lean on while their process could be improved.
Furthermore, if someone - even a well respected member like Yooper - gives a more realistic answer, it's usually followed by a chorus of "why risk it?", "what's the rush?", or "patience is a virtue". So as some food for thought, I figured I'd supply some rationale for the counter-question of "why wait?"
We can brew faster; we have the technology
It seems that many of the folks who advocate extended fermentations are really just talking about waiting for the beer to clear. While that may take several weeks at normal fermentation temps, you can reduce that to a couple of days - or even overnight - if you cold crash and / or use finings. You can usually find someone unloading an old fridge for free on craigslist, so unless you live in a tiny apartment, there's really no excuse for not having the ability to cold crash. Add in the fact that once you scrounge $40 - $70 for a temperature controller, you have yourself a fermentation chamber that allows you to brew far better beer than in your closet, this is kind of a no-brainer.
Finings are a little trickier subject. Gelatin is cheap, easy to use, and will clear a cold-crashed beer in a matter of hours. But I can understand if one (or one's friends/family) doesn't want animal products used in the production of their beer. There are also vegan alternatives, but I don't know how well they work. If they do their job even half as well as gelatin / isinglass, I don't see any reason not to use them. And before anyone says "Reinheitsgebot", keep in mind that the original didn't even include yeast, so maybe we shouldn't be using 15th century provincial laws to influence our brewing.
Reducing cycle time means that you can brew more often
What's going to help a new brewer more: looking at a fermenter in their basement, or brewing another batch? There's a recent book that posits that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to become truly great at something. But I don't think you can count the time it took Calloway to make your golf clubs or Baldwin to make your piano. Once you pitch your yeast, it's their beer and you might as well move on to something else.
You need less equipment to maintain a pipeline
Depending on the beer and number of other beers I have on tap, it usually takes me about three weeks to kick a keg. Luckily, it takes about three weeks to get a batch ready to serve, so it all kind of works out. If I were to subscribe to the month long primary club, I'd need more kegs and probably more fermenters. And more fermentation chambers. And a place to store more kegs and more fermenters. And god help you if you choose to bottle.
You can drink "seasonally" with less planning
Despite what that glorified rat from Punxsutawney said, we had an early spring this year. I'd hate to be stuck with six more weeks of stouts when what I'm really in the mood for is a cream ale.
You might never get to sample your beer at its peak
While the word is filtering down that Hefes and IPAs are best when they're fresh, the truth is that it's true for most other beer styles as well. Unless you're talking a really big beer, it's going to be at its prime about 3 to 6 weeks after brew day. A good example is a basic Irish dry stout. I've seen folks say that any stout needs several months of conditioning, but that's just ridiculous for a 1.038 Guinness clone. My dry stouts clock in at about 1.042 and exhibit a fantastic silky, malty character that's completely gone if I let one go as far as two months after brew day.
I wanna be like Mike
I'm still one of the many who harbors delusions of going pro. Any brewer who stuck to the schedules advocated by many on this site would go broke in less than a year. Chances are that whatever your dream commercial beer is - the one that makes you say "if I could only brew like that" - it was packaged within three weeks of being brewed. There's no reason you can't do the same thing. And if you do want to turn this hobby into a living, you're going to have to figure out how.
I hope that at least some of these concepts make sense to some folks. I know that I won't be able to change the minds of the most vocal members of the month long primary club, but I hope that the more moderate members of the site might see how there might be valid reasons for sticking to a timely brewing schedule. I'm interested to know how y'all feel.