Age in primary or bottles?

[Ale to the Chief]

I've got a batch of beer sitting in the primary right now that I can tell will be good eventually but will definitely require some aging to get there. My question is, should I leave it in the primary for a longer period or bottle it and let it age in bottles? Where does beer do a better job of "refining" its taste?

Thanks!

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

I prefer to leave most of my beers (depends on style) in primary for 4 weeks. Some have gone longer, but I don't like to push it past 6 weeks for fear of off-flavors. I then bottle or keg and allow it to sit for a few months before trying.

 

[Jpeverini]

interesting Surthrncomffrt. What is your aging schedule with the belgian dubbel, I ask because I have a belgian dubbel going that has been primary for 2 weeks. Was going to switch to secondary for 3 then bottle for 2 months. What do you think about that?

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

It's really all a matter of personal preference. With my dubbel, I'll be leaving it for probably 4 weeks. I'll taste it at that point, then bottle it if it's ready.

I usually only use secondary on bigger beers above 1.090. Bottle conditioning is close to the same thing, aside from the fact that you're not bulk aging on the yeast cake.

As far as yours goes.... you could get away with doing the same thing. Secondary fermentation is really only useful for letting the yeast drop out of suspension and adding things to the beer. If I'm doing a chocolate stout or a cherry wheat, I'll use secondary.

 

[Jpeverini]

good to know. I'm still very green to brewing, so I think I will use the secondary on my first couple batches, then switch to no secondary. Then start doing 1/2 batch no secondary, 1/2 batch with secondary to see what I really prefer. Thanks for the advice!

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

You might be interested in an article written in BYO magazine a few issues ago. I'll try to dig it up for ya. It basically was a comparison of using primary for an extra few weeks vs. secondary vs. primary as normal and bottling.

The conclusion was that it really didn't matter much, but using primary for extended periods helped slightly with aging. I've gotten to the point where secondary is a waste of time and effort unless I absolutely need it.

 

[permo]

The conclusion was that it really didn't matter much, but using primary for extended periods helped slightly with aging. I've gotten to the point where secondary is a waste of time and effort unless I absolutely need it.

I am nearing this point as well. I am thinking about leaving my beers on the yeast cake until I bottle, but not using a plastic bucket. Glass Only. No extra racking or possible contamination and the primary yeast cake gets to take care of business.

My protocol for me next big ale will be as follows:

1 liter yeast starter - I ALWAYS use a starter..

2 weeks in primary

if dry hop necassary add hops after two weeks and wait 2 more weeks to bottle

if no dry hop or fruit/flavoring addtion I think 3-4 weeks on primary before bottling would make for fantastic beer....also I know that they say 2 weeks in the bottle is enough...I personally would vote for 4 weeks... I have found that, especially for hoppy beers, that it takes at least 4 weeks for the true hop flavor to develop and lose its sharp edge.

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

All great points. More time = better beer in most cases. As far as glass vs. plastic...that's a whole different argument. I use plastic because it's easier access and much easier to move. I use glass if I ever need to secondary. I've had no issues either way.

 

[rico567]

I am moving in the direction of primary-only. I've already done a few of the moderate OG beers (hefeweizens, etc.) that I make regularly that way, with no discernible bad results.

I suppose I'm most sensitive to this issue with beers that I know are going to require considerable aging / conditioning, the question being: do you condition in one 5 gal. batch, or 50 12 oz. batches? There are those out there, with whom I tend to agree, who say that better uniformity is obtained by the bulk-aging method, but I have no actual personal experience to back this up.

 

[Suthrncomfrt1884]

I am moving in the direction of primary-only. I've already done a few of the moderate OG beers (hefeweizens, etc.) that I make regularly that way, with no discernible bad results.

I suppose I'm most sensitive to this issue with beers that I know are going to require considerable aging / conditioning, the question being: do you condition in one 5 gal. batch, or 50 12 oz. batches? There are those out there, with whom I tend to agree, who say that better uniformity is obtained by the bulk-aging method, but I have no actual personal experience to back this up.

I also agree that bulk aging tends to be better. BUT, with the amount of yeast that actually makes it into secondary, it's not much different that bottles.

The only reason I would suggest secondary other than additions and huge beers is for impatient people. You have to think... "yes I bottles, but it's not done yet" or you'll end up drinking them early and be dissappointed. If you're the type of person who wants to dive into your batch as soon as its carbonated....then use a secondary.