Bottle Conditioning Barleywine

[cklages]

Im brewing a barleywine this friday, i like the idea of just bottle aging the beer to ensure carbonation. What do you think of the idea leaving it in the primary for 6-8weeks and around week 7 add the champaign yeast then bottleing the following week with priming sugar and all? I will be using 16oz flip top bottles....long story short primary 7weeks add champaign yeast for a week then bottle condition for another 6-8weeks

The one thing that I might worry a little about is the seal on those flip tops when long term aging. If I was going long term I would definitely want crown caps, and it might be worth considering O2 absorbing caps.

 

[Gordzilla]

the barleywine i got has a champaign yeast included with it, i was thinking leaving the barleywine in the primary for roughly 6weeks let those yeasties do their job. After which i would transfer to a secondary to allow for some clearing of the beer i would also be adding the champaign yeast at this time, i would only have the beer in the secondary (i might even use my botteling bucket for this) for about a week add the priming sugar and bottle. Im not worried about bottle bombs i will be using 16oz fliptop bottles so it would need ALOT of pressure to blow one of those off. Your thoughts?

 

[cklages]

I wouldn't be worried about the flip tops blowing off, more that the rubber gaskets are exposed to the air on the outside. If you want to keep some bottles for a few years, I would be concerned that the rubber could crack, and that you could lose your seal. I personally love flip tops for things that age for a few months, but those gaskets don't last forever.

I've never personally lost a bottle due to a cracked gasket, and maybe this wouldn't happen, but I worry about lots of silly things.

 

[Gordzilla]

do you think the fermenting process im thinking about will work alright though? 6weeks primary 1week secondary w/ champaign yeast then bottle with priming sugars?

 

[cklages]

do you think the fermenting process im thinking about will work alright though? 6weeks primary 1week secondary w/ champaign yeast then bottle with priming sugars?

Of that I have no doubt, although a secondary that short is barely worth doing IMHO, I would either go longer or not at all. It won't mess anything up though. You could probably also skip the extra yeast if you wanted to, but adding it won't hurt anything, also IMHO.

 

[Gordzilla]

the kit came with the campaign yeast which is suppose to be a high ABV yeast but the starter yeast i mad was a combination of white labs california ale and a white labs high ABV yeast...i just want to get total fermentation out of this barleywine....thinking maybe ill just pitch the campaign during the 7th or 8th week then rack to a bottling bucket and be good from their....hopefully

 

[winvarin]

I wouldn't be worried about the flip tops blowing off, more that the rubber gaskets are exposed to the air on the outside. If you want to keep some bottles for a few years, I would be concerned that the rubber could crack, and that you could lose your seal. I personally love flip tops for things that age for a few months, but those gaskets don't last forever.

I've never personally lost a bottle due to a cracked gasket, and maybe this wouldn't happen, but I worry about lots of silly things.

Not that it would be feasible with flip tops, but I have toyed with an idea for longterm aging of big beers. My LHBS sells colored wax pellets that most people seem to use for wine I think. You melt the pellets and dip the capped or corked bottle in them to form a wax cap over the already sealed bottle opening.

I am not a patient man so I always seem to forget to put back some of my big beers for really longterm aging. If I can ever force myself to do it, I have thought about using this cap and wax method on a barley wine or RIS. I figure it would reduce the chances of any oxygen transfer during aging.

My question about oxygen absorbing caps is which way do they absorb?

Do they pull oxygen that might have been in the bottle at filling and purge it? (In which case, sealing with wax might be counter productive)

Or do they trap oxygen that tries to enter the bottle from the outside (in which case waxing might be a secondary backup to the O2 caps). If this is the case, I could see them working well together for longterm aging. The wax keeps out the majority of the air. The cap absorbs the rest. Combine that with transferring under CO2 and the only O2 you'd have to worry about is the O2 that was in the bottle when you filled it.

I guess that is a lot of speculation since I am still not 100% clear on how the caps work.

 

[cklages]

First I would like to apologize to the OP for the hijack, although I think his question did get answered, and this is all barleywine related right?

I think great minds must think alike, as I recently purchased some wax to put over the crown caps on some bottles of barleywine I want to age for a few years. I don't know if it will help but it can't hurt, right?

There is precious little information on those O2 absorbing caps, and pretty much everything I found was pretty subjective.

In those that noted a difference, it seems like it was in beers that were aged a year or more, and it seemed relatively slight. It also seemed that oxidative damage from a bad process could not be repaired by these caps, only possibly prevented from being caused by the O2 in the headspace.

As far as how do they work, here is a reference to a paper related to O2 absorbers in food storage that might help.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471440264.pst570/pdf

I used O2 absorbing caps in my barleywine simply because they weren't that much more expensive and I figured they couldn't hurt. That being said, maybe they could hurt. I mean seeing some of the compounds that could be impregnated into the polymer in the lid, some of those have to taste awful.

here's a short list from the referenced document

Sulfites
Boron
Glycols and sugar alcohols
Unsaturated fatty acids and hydrocarbons
Palladium catalysts
Enzymes
Yeast
Ferrous-iron
Organometallic ligands
Photosensitive dyes
Polydiene block copolymers
Polymer-bound olefins​

Aromatic nylon

Now these things have been around long enough with few enough complaints that I presume the o2 absorbers are pretty benign. Some people even swear by them, and that's good enough for me. We are going to need some HBTers to do some blind taste testing though, and my palate isnt nearly good enough for this sort of work.

 

[cockybitz]

I brewed a beer that was 1.135 OG and fermented down to 1.035. I brewed on a yeast cake and bottled after 2 months. I added NO additional yeast and this 12% monster carbonated quite quickly. Why the extra work?

 

[Reno_eNVy]

I brewed a beer that was 1.135 OG and fermented down to 1.035. I brewed on a yeast cake and bottled after 2 months. I added NO additional yeast and this 12% monster carbonated quite quickly. Why the extra work?

Well first, not all of us dump onto yeast cakes.

Second, I wouldn't really call it "extra work." Just forgetting about it until a few months later and deciding to bottle... seems easy to me

 

[BOBTHEukBREWER]

I think folks on here are over scared of bottles exploding. I brew for 4 to 7 days and bottle immediately. I have had one bottle explode in 45 years, and that was a St Peters Brewery bottle with thin green glass shaped like a medecine bottle. Yes I have had the odd fire extinguisher type eruption, but I now bottle 3 1 litre PET bottles in every brew so I can feel the pressure. Should I get concerned, I would open the bottles into a clean bucket and re-bottle.

 

[scottlindner]

Over scared is incorrect. I have had bottle bombs before.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

I think folks on here are over scared of bottles exploding. I brew for 4 to 7 days and bottle immediately. I have had one bottle explode in 45 years, and that was a St Peters Brewery bottle with thin green glass shaped like a medecine bottle. Yes I have had the odd fire extinguisher type eruption, but I now bottle 3 1 litre PET bottles in every brew so I can feel the pressure. Should I get concerned, I would open the bottles into a clean bucket and re-bottle.

Did you do 4-7 days and then bottle a barleywine?? Seven days is not enough time for the yeast to work though and then clean-up a beer that is usually OG 1.090 or higher. That's asking for bombs.

And having to re-bottle is just adding an unnecessary step that can possibly result in infection. Why not just wait a couple extra weeks?

 

[cockybitz]

Well first, not all of us dump onto yeast cakes.

Second, I wouldn't really call it "extra work." Just forgetting about it until a few months later and deciding to bottle... seems easy to me

True, indeed. But in the beer itself you have an amount of yeast that is sufficient to finish the fermentation to carbonate. You also have yeast that are tolerable to the high ABV, and able to function at that ABV. By adding new yeast, they are not acclimated to that environment and it would seem that any benefit would be negligible. No?

 

[Veinman]

I used O2 absorbing caps in my barleywine simply because they weren't that much more expensive and I figured they couldn't hurt. That being said, maybe they could hurt. I mean seeing some of the compounds that could be impregnated into the polymer in the lid, some of those have to taste awful.

Now these things have been around long enough with few enough complaints that I presume the o2 absorbers are pretty benign. Some people even swear by them, and that's good enough for me. We are going to need some HBTers to do some blind taste testing though, and my palate isnt nearly good enough for this sort of work.

I'm doing just that right now. I bottled my BarleyWine on December 29th and like you I figured for the extra $2 I might as well use the oxygen absorbing caps just in case they helped at all, but I also bottled 6 bottles with standard caps to compare I'm going to do a side by side tasting at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and maybe (though unlikely) 3 years to see if there is any noticable difference between the two.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

True, indeed. But in the beer itself you have an amount of yeast that is sufficient to finish the fermentation to carbonate. You also have yeast that are tolerable to the high ABV, and able to function at that ABV. By adding new yeast, they are not acclimated to that environment and it would seem that any benefit would be negligible. No?

That's actually very true. But another issue that can arise is the fact that the yeast are (and I apologize for making them anthropomorphic) pooped from the hefty fermentation. They are living organisms and can only metabolize and reproduce so much

But it appears you are savvy to the fermentation behind-the-scenes and are aware of what can occur... and at this point it really comes down to preference.

 

[Teacher]

That's actually very true. But another issue that can arise is the fact that the yeast are (and I apologize for making them anthropomorphic) pooped from the hefty fermentation. They are living organisms and can only metabolize and reproduce so much

That's true. I once brewed a bw with either US-05 or Notty (don't remember which), and it got to the desired FG very nicely. However, I primed with 4 oz of sugar and bottled, and most bottles, even after nine months, had virtually no carbonation. Only a few bottles carbed up; I figure some especially tolerant cells had made their way into those bottles (I stirred well and frequently during bottling).

 

[amrmedic]

I just brewed my barleywine. I plan on adding yeast when bottling. If I use a dry yeast like Notty, will that affect the flavor of my beer? Or will the small amount of fermentation not have any affect at all?
I am using Wyeast Old Ale blend for primary fermentation

 

[heywolfie1015]

I just brewed my barleywine. I plan on adding yeast when bottling. If I use a dry yeast like Notty, will that affect the flavor of my beer? Or will the small amount of fermentation not have any affect at all?
I am using Wyeast Old Ale blend for primary fermentation

Even if it does, the amount of extra flavor will be negligible. I believe the common wisdom is to use around 1/3 of a pack for bottle conditioning.

 

[Carter1932]

I have a barelywine I am ready to bottle after aging 6 months in the secondary. This beer had an OG of 1.104 and FG of 1.030. The apparent attentuation seems a bit low for the London 1028 yeast I used, however the SG has only dropped by 2 points since May, 2011. It taste great as is and I'm ready to bottle.

So my plan is to prime, add yeast and bottle, however I am debating best method of adding bottling yeast.


First, I guess I could just use Notty, but am concerned whether it will survive the high alcohol environment.

Second, I considered bottle harvesting some 1028 from the parigyle batch of porter I made from same grist.

Third, I was wondering if I can/should rack and prime the barleywine and then harvest some of the yeast cake and use that for my bottling yeast. Has anyone tried this method? I figured this yeast would best handle the high alcohol environment.

 

[CTownBrewer]

I would think any yeast you attempt to harvest after fermenting a barleywine would be pretty stressed.

I would use dry yeast mixed in your priming solution after it's cooled. That way you'll rehydrate it & get your priming sugar done in one step. Then rack onto it in your bottling bucket to mix it with your beer.

A word of caution from bottling my barleywine after aging 8 months...my dry yeast never mixed in well with my priming solution like it typically would, so I think it dropped to the bottom when bottling. Mine have been sitting for an additional 3 months since they weren't carbed initially after about a month. I think I got some bad yeast or something. Use Notty or Safale US-05 to be safe. I've had good results carbing my Red EisPA using this method with US-05.

Sent from my iPhone using HB Talk

 

[Carter1932]

I would think any yeast you attempt to harvest after fermenting a barleywine would be pretty stressed.

Sent from my iPhone using HB Talk

Based on someone else's advise I thought that the yeast that survives the barleywine secondary would be more acclimatized to the high alcohol environment and therefore more effective for bottling.

hmmmmm.......

 

[lazybean]

Based on someone else's advise I thought that the yeast that survives the barleywine secondary would be more acclimatized to the high alcohol environment and therefore more effective for bottling.

hmmmmm.......

From my experience, thats true as far as primary fermentation. Using the yeast from one high grav to the next, the second one takes off and ferments strong.

But after the long haul of secondary fermentation, 3 months in my case, they are too warn out. The one time i try to use them for bottle conditioning it was slow slow slow. took almost 4 months for them to carb and clean up all the priming sugar. Since that batch i always pitch a vial of WPL001 in my bottling bucket.

 

[Hooligan]

Scott, I have noticed that the Champagne yeast does add a winey flavor to the batch (I have had it do so when I did a big grain bill brew in the past), but it is greart for getting the numbers up! just to put that out there for you in case you do use it. Good luck I hope you get it right & don't end up with beer gernades Lol!

 

[Carter1932]

I ended up priming my barleywine with yeast I cultivated from a bottle of Porter ale that had the same London 1028 yeast. My Porter ale was the second batch from the barleywine partigyle session.

I made one small starter of about 200 ml and then pitched it into 4.5 gallons (9.8% ABV) of barleywine for priming. I tried one of the barleywines about 3 weeks after priming and its almost fully carbonated so I think I can safely recommend this technique to others.

 

[ao125]

Going back to the initial post, is Wyeast suggesting a smack-pack into the secondary right before bottling should be enough to carb up and condition a high gravity barleywine?

I have one that is just starting week 2 of primary. Moving to secondary on 1/20/12.

I'm sorta new to the whole bottling thing. I've always just force-carbed my kegs.

 

[Butter]

Glad I found this thread as my girlfriend and I are brewing our first barleywine in a couple weeks. It's a clone of Midnight Sun Arctic Devil from AH. I believe we got Wyeast 1728 Scottish Ale with the kit. Will be doing a starter, primary for 1-2 wks, secondary for 2-4 wks with a dry hop for a week, then bottling with a fresh smack pack of the same yeast. Hopefully it'll work!

 

[IMNOTL8]

So I have attempted a Dogfish Head Olde School Barelywine clone... My attempt was taken loosely from what I have read on their site and different descriptions of the beer. They wouldn't give me nothing when I emailed them! I didn't think they would...

Anyway... This beer had been brewed, gone through primary and secondary and is bottled for aging. It tasted VERY similar to the Olde School and is VERY high ABV. It was 13% when I put it into the secondary on figs and dates and then when crazy for three or four days... My calculations were to have had it reach 15-17%!

SO... I have never brewed anything that high gravity and was wondering how long this beast is going to take to bottle condition. I did not add any yeast at bottling and did add some DME for bottling (not sure if I really needed to or not).

Do I need to store this at the warmest temp I can? It's been in the bottles maybe 2 weeks.... My plan was to let sit for months.

Any thoughts?

 

[cockybitz]

It will take months. The warmer the temperature, the faster it will condition.