CidahMastah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,201
- Reaction score
- 46
From my experience, not only does bottle aging tend to lend to a more intimate, personal and sophisticated aesthetic, you actually have more yeast in contact with more beer than bulk aging. Some say that bulk aging puts downward pressure on the yeast, suppressing ester release. I don't know if there's enough volume to really make a difference, but I'm unable to actually give you some science behind it.
Bottles = enhanced character / micro oxygenation due to corking. While this is an article on wine, there are many parallels:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814607002282
Happy brewing, friend!
I don't agree with this.
In general any aging after the first 3+ weeks or so the aging process isn't shooting for ester development from yeast, or benefiting from contact with yeast. In fact the main reason for switching it over to a secondary is to remove the beer/cider/wine from a bulk of the lees to prevent the yeast from autolysis, which can produce off flavors.
As for micro oxygenation, the head space you leave in your bottle is more than adequate. I have read that most wine makers prefer using synthetic corks for wines that will be aged and drank before 5 years of life (pretty sure you aren't going to keep your brew around longer than that). Also that only red wines will show any possible benefit from real corks. Synthetic corks don't breathe (real corks breathe a very, very little amount).
Bulk aging by far is my preferred method. I would venture to say that it creates a more uniform end product, is better protected against temperature swings due to its thermal mass, etc.