bottle or let mature

[mikkey]

hey guys
new to this forum, lots of great info here!
i have abit of a problem, i put down a little creatures pale ale imatation extract brew about 9 days ago hoping to have it all finished by tomorrow as i go on holidays for two weeks.
i tested gravity last night and got 1.010.
its OG was 1.054.
used safole us-05 yeast and has been at a constant 18°c the whole time. (morgans draught, coopers wheat malt extract and 300g dextrose)
i kind of rushed it last night and cold crashed it down to 5°c hoping to bottle tonoght when i get home.

now im worried it didnt hit its real FG, it sounds about right but i didnt have time to test over a period of days.

now the question-
do i bottle tonight and hope for the best, or do i let it sit in the primary fermentor ontop of yeast cake for the two weeks and bottle when i get home, which will make it ~5 weeks in primary fermentor.
also if i leave it in primary should i bring the temp back up and leave it at room temp or 18 or another temp?
i was told that more than 4 weeks and it can start to risk oxidation as its a plastic vat.

thanks guys any help would be awwsome!!!

 

[slym2none]

Leave it cold until you get back, then bottle. No harm, no foul.

 

[ibrewmyown]

1.054 down to 1.010 seems like it's finished to me. What are you trying to get down to? If you're just concerned with it clearing up, it will do that in the bottle and won't be sitting on old yeast and trub.

There are many thoughts on that but I always try to get it off the yeast and trub as soon as it gets to the target final gravity. Sometimes it only takes a week.

 

[mikkey]

thanks for the fast reply guys.
yeh not to sure what i wanted it to get down too.. mainly just till its done fermentong to avoid bottlebombs but since im leaving tomorrow i didnt have time to wait more than a day between hydro readings.
eneded up cold crashing it for 24hrs then botttled it just then, was worrried leaving it on yeast cake for to long.
hopefully its all good and they dont explode or over carb

 

[slym2none]

5 weeks would not have been too long to leave that sitting on the yeast, just for future information.

 

[C-Rider]

1.054 down to 1.010 seems like it's finished to me. What are you trying to get down to? If you're just concerned with it clearing up, it will do that in the bottle and won't be sitting on old yeast and trub.

There are many thoughts on that but I always try to get it off the yeast and trub as soon as it gets to the target final gravity. Sometimes it only takes a week.

2 weeks sitting on trub and yeast will NOT be a problem. I often go 4 weeks or longer.

 

[tagillis]

I agree with slym2 and C-Rid, leaving on the yeast cake for a few weeks doesn't hurt. IMO as a general rule, is better to leave alone for 3-4 weeks to give time for the yeast to clean-up.

 

[RM-MN]

thanks for the fast reply guys.
yeh not to sure what i wanted it to get down too.. mainly just till its done fermentong to avoid bottlebombs but since im leaving tomorrow i didnt have time to wait more than a day between hydro readings.
eneded up cold crashing it for 24hrs then botttled it just then, was worrried leaving it on yeast cake for to long.
hopefully its all good and they dont explode or over carb

I chatted with a brewer who left his beer on the trub for 6 months and he said that still wasn't too long. A couple more weeks would have been like nothing for your beer.

 

[ibrewmyown]

Again there are many thoughts and opinions on what may or may not happen when you let beer sit in the primary for extended lengths of time. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right but in my opinion and what I've found after brewing the last 10 plus years is that I prefer not letting beer sit on something dead (yeast cells) longer than it needs to. My belief is that there's nothing positive that can happen by letting beer sit in the primary longer than it needs to finish.

Among the more obvious thing that can happen is the beer may finish too low for the style ending up drier and higher in alcohol which may likely lead to an unbalanced beer. Some beer styles need the slight residual sweetness that may come from a 1.014 finish verses a 1.006 finish. Heck I've had beer finish near 1.000. I make 12 gallon batches and use to use two 6 gallon carboys. At times one would finish faster than the other and I would leave them both until they last one finished. If the gravity was substantially lower in one carboy (1.004 vs 1.012), you can taste the difference. Now I use a 14 gallon stainless conical so once it finishes (if its a simple ale) I dump the trub and yeast then cold crash it for a day or so which stops fermentation as well as clear the beer a bit, then keg it. If its a lager, when the beer is between 2 - 5 gravity points from my target, I dump the yeast / trub, then I crank the temp to about 70 for a couple days for the diacetyl rest, then start cranking the temperature back down to near freezing for lagering.

Sorry about the long post. When I get talking about beer sometimes I just cant help myself.

 

[Puddlethumper]

^^^ this

I've spoken with a couple different professional brewers on this topic. Both told me the same thing, as soon as the beer has reached FG it's time to get it off the yeast. I understand there is certainly an economic component to this in their case, but both told me the same thing, leaving the beer on the yeast does little if anything to improve it. When it is done it is done. While leaving it on the yeast probably won't hurt, it does expose the beer to the risks ibrewmyown listed. So IMO there is no point in doing so.

Cheers!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Generally speaking, IMHO - more time is better than less time in nearly all things brewing. Except maybe hop timing.
I learned pretty early on that rushing anything in the process is the best way to ruin success.

 

[slym2none]

ibrewmyown - the OP wasn't even fully sure if the beer was finished (BTW, it's finished when it is finished - if your beer is at 1.014 but could ferment to 1.008 and you bottle at 1.014, you might get bottle bombs!) and he was leaving for a vacation the next day. In this instance, an extra two weeks was not going to hurt his beer, probably only would have helped it. He asked that question and we answered it, that's all.

 

[joshesmusica]

Except that in a professional brewery, there way more pressure on the yeast sitting in the bottom than in a homebrewer's fermenter. That's why they're worried about it. Some of it might be the "time = money" aspect, but a lot of their worry is yeast autolysis. As has been mentioned, that can take a very long time on the homebrewer's scale, granted that the yeast were healthy and that the proper amounts were pitched.

As far the idea that it's sitting on a bunch of "dead" cells, that's a misunderstanding of the way that yeast works. Most of them, nearly all of them, are just dormant. It's why you can take that trub and use it on another batch. It's why there's yeast labs. It's why we don't have to hope for some kind of spontaneous fermentation to happen on every single batch.

One more thing, the yeast are, for the most, part finished with the entire process of fermentation, including the clean-up phase, by around day 9-10. That's for a large majority of yeast strains, and that is, again, taking for granted that the proper amount of healthy yeast were pitched. After that point, it's the beer conditioning, which is mostly due to particles dropping out of suspension - yeast included.

 

[RM-MN]

^^^ this

I've spoken with a couple different professional brewers on this topic. Both told me the same thing, as soon as the beer has reached FG it's time to get it off the yeast. I understand there is certainly an economic component to this in their case, but both told me the same thing, leaving the beer on the yeast does little if anything to improve it. When it is done it is done. While leaving it on the yeast probably won't hurt, it does expose the beer to the risks ibrewmyown listed. So IMO there is no point in doing so.

Cheers!

Both could be wrong. I bottle beer. There is yeast that settles out in the bottom of the bottle every time. Every time the beer improves. I never deal with yeast autolysis from leaving that yeast in my bottles. I leave beer in the bottles for up to two years. Still no autolysis.

 

[RM-MN]

Again there are many thoughts and opinions on what may or may not happen when you let beer sit in the primary for extended lengths of time. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right but in my opinion and what I've found after brewing the last 10 plus years is that I prefer not letting beer sit on something dead (yeast cells) longer than it needs to. My belief is that there's nothing positive that can happen by letting beer sit in the primary longer than it needs to finish.

Among the more obvious thing that can happen is the beer may finish too low for the style ending up drier and higher in alcohol which may likely lead to an unbalanced beer. Some beer styles need the slight residual sweetness that may come from a 1.014 finish verses a 1.006 finish. Heck I've had beer finish near 1.000. I make 12 gallon batches and use to use two 6 gallon carboys. At times one would finish faster than the other and I would leave them both until they last one finished. If the gravity was substantially lower in one carboy (1.004 vs 1.012), you can taste the difference. Now I use a 14 gallon stainless conical so once it finishes (if its a simple ale) I dump the trub and yeast then cold crash it for a day or so which stops fermentation as well as clear the beer a bit, then keg it. If its a lager, when the beer is between 2 - 5 gravity points from my target, I dump the yeast / trub, then I crank the temp to about 70 for a couple days for the diacetyl rest, then start cranking the temperature back down to near freezing for lagering.

Sorry about the long post. When I get talking about beer sometimes I just cant help myself.

Beer finishes when beer finishes, not because you want a particular FG. You create the conditions for the yeast to use up all the fermentable sugars at the FG you want and pitch the yeast. From then on you are no longer in control, the yeast is. If it finds sugars to eat and brings the FG lower than you want, that is your fault for creating those conditions.

You can get by with trying to stop the fermentation early because you keg and you can control the pressure in your keg. With bottling you definitely need the yeast to be done. Otherwise you get over-carbonation at best or bottle bombs at worst.

 

[max384]

I was just getting ready to post the same thing as RM-MN. Final gravity doesn't depend upon how long a beer sits on the yeast cake. Fermentation will finish when the yeast have consumed all available fermentable sugars in the beer. This depends upon the malts used, any adjuncts, mash temp, and yeast strain. Assuming you give them enough time to finish, leaving the beer longer won't make the FG go any lower. If it did, bottle bombs would be an inevitability.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Both could be wrong.

True enough -- but those on the other side of the argument may be as well. But what does it matter?

I believe most of this is, for all practical purposes, a moot point for home brewers - this discussion is stressing over minutia that probably don't add up to a detectable difference in the final product. A bit of "overthinking" going on here IMO.

But then I could be wrong as well, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. What I am going to do is brew a batch of English Brown this afternoon, move my fermenting beer to brite tank (a sin I know), keg up the batch in brite tank (it is now at FG and I'll let it condition further in the keg), and everyone here will claim I make the best beer they ever tasted. Those who leave their beer in primary for a month or more will also, more than likely, make beer that their friends and family say is the best they ever tasted.

Again, debating minutia is interesting and sometimes informative. But for all practical purposes only truly useful for entertainment when it's raining outside, our fermenters are all full, and we don't have anything else to do.

Cheers!

 

[ibrewmyown]

slym2none: There are many answers to someone's question and some may be wrong, some may be right and some just work no matter how they seem. I didn't see any be all end all answers there. If there was I must have missed it. I just seen a lot of opinions and that's what's great about these forums. You can see what others do and create your own way if you like.

With regards to bottling I stated I never did so referred to the bottlers out there. My main point was letting it sit and dead yeast cells which many do die not just go dormant. The fact that big breweries have the heavy pressure on the trub which may impart the flavor may very likely be true. I was just speaking from my experience and that IMO there's no need to let the beer sit on the trub any longer than it needs to.

I have found that since I have gone to taking the beer off the trub when I hit my target gravity results in better tasting beer overall. Maybe its just me?There is a final gravity "target" that I try to hit. I may not be able to stop the fermentation totally (I never had a reason to check it after I kegged it). I imaging that sticking an ale in a 34 degree freezer likely stops the yeast from doing much at all. I've smacked a smack pack and then couldn't brew for one reason or another and sticking it in my fridge till the next weekend the pack stays flat. Once I take it out and it warms up it blows up like a balloon so... I'm not saying I'm right and there's no other way it should be done. I just offered up an opinion.

Like mentioned, I do keg so I don't have the worry of any bottle bombs if it were to finish further.

 

[ibrewmyown]

"Again, debating minutia is interesting and sometimes informative. But for all practical purposes only truly useful for entertainment when it's raining outside, our fermenters are all full, and we don't have anything else to do."

I like that one....

 

[joshesmusica]

"Again, debating minutia is interesting and sometimes informative. But for all practical purposes only truly useful for entertainment when it's raining outside, our fermenters are all full, and we don't have anything else to do."

I like that one....

Except for, again, we don't dictate when the fermentation is finished. You keg. Great. Give whatever advice you want about when you move your beer and how it works for you to the people that keg.

This guy is bottling. By telling him that he should be bottling as quick as possible is, in fact, a big mistake. It's not just minutia. If it's down to 1.012, and you were expecting that, but you did something a bit off in the process and made that FG actually able to drop to 1.008, you're going to have bottle bombs on your hands. So now, not only is it likely a ruined batch, it's actually a dangerous situation.

Opinions are great. Facts are better. What you were doing was presenting facts that were false. It wasn't just opinion.

Although most fermentations should be done by day 9-10, if he's a bit inexperienced, which he seems to be, he might not have controlled all of the fermentation parameters as best as should be done. In which case, it very well might not be completely finished by day 9. If it's not finished, and he's bottling, as I said, this isn't minutia. The fact is that he shouldn't have bottled, and between the two options he presented, the best advice was to wait until he got back.

The minutia part about the cells being dormant or dead was indeed minutia. But it still wasn't opinion. It was false information. Most of the cells in the trub are not dead, they're dormant. There are likely some dead cells in there, but it's a small portion. If they were dead, then I wouldn't be able to take a commercial bottle of beer, that's likely been sitting on the shelf for a few months, and make a step-up starter out of the dregs. But, alas, I can do that, and many people do that.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Except for, again, we don't dictate when the fermentation is finished.
You are correct.

This guy is bottling. By telling him that he should be bottling as quick as possible is, in fact, a big mistake. It's not just minutia. If it's down to 1.012, and you were expecting that, but you did something a bit off in the process and made that FG actually able to drop to 1.008, you're going to have bottle bombs on your hands. So now, not only is it likely a ruined batch, it's actually a dangerous situation.

This is where the discussion slipped away from logic to the fringes of hysteria. The OP told us early-on that the beer had dropped to 1.010. I've seen very few fermentations finish below that number (except for some ciders) so, IMO ibrewmyown gave good council here. Even if the beer might have eventually dropped to 1.008 (which is highly unlikely) the difference would certainly not have resulted in bottle bombs.

But for some reason you chose to change the 1.010 (fact) to 1.012 (???). Twisting the numbers to create a dramatic point is fine for Hollywood and MSNBC newscasts, but I don't think it serves this discussion all that well.

Opinions are great. Facts are better. What you were doing was presenting facts that were false. It wasn't just opinion.

I completely agree. In this case ibrewmyown gave him his opinion based on the available facts. (see above)

Just sayin'

 

[joshesmusica]

This is where the discussion slipped away from logic to the fringes of hysteria. The OP told us early-on that the beer had dropped to 1.010. I've seen very few fermentations finish below that number (except for some ciders) so, IMO ibrewmyown gave good council here. Even if the beer might have eventually dropped to 1.008 (which is highly unlikely) the difference would certainly not have resulted in bottle bombs.

But for some reason you chose to change the 1.010 (fact) to 1.012 (???). Twisting the numbers to create a dramatic point is fine for Hollywood and MSNBC newscasts, but I don't think it serves this discussion all that well.



I completely agree. In this case ibrewmyown gave him his opinion based on the available facts. (see above)

Just sayin'

Wow this was hysteria to you? Incredible.

Nobody changed it for drama's sake. It was called "giving an example."

You've never had a beer drop below 1.010. Awesome anecdote. I regularly brew beers under 1.010.

I never said I had a problem with opinion. It's presenting opinion as fact that drew a few of us into the discussion. A drop from 1.010 to 1.008, plus, again, if the OP happens to be fairly new to the game and adds a bit too much priming sugar (for example, if he got bad advice elsewhere from someone saying, "Oh, I just add x amount of priming sugar to every beer," which happens a lot on here.), then it could easily become bottle bombs. Even if he added the right amount, that 2 point drop could still lead to gushers, which is a scenario I presented when I said "it's not only likely it's a ruined batch."

Point being, do things right every time. Don't skimp on proper practices, and you'll be able to consistently create good beers. Try to rush things just because you're going out of town gives one a greater chance to come out with a subpar batch. Leaving the beer on the fermenter for the time he's gone, out of the options OP presented, was the better of the two options to give as advice to a seemingly newer brewer.

 

[m00ps]

AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHH! hysteria! mayhem! the beer is sitting on the yeast cake for longer than 2 weeks!!! We're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Horseshoot]

True enough -- but those on the other side of the argument may be as well. But what does it matter?

I believe most of this is, for all practical purposes, a moot point for home brewers - this discussion is stressing over minutia that probably don't add up to a detectable difference in the final product. A bit of "overthinking" going on here IMO.

But then I could be wrong as well, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. What I am going to do is brew a batch of English Brown this afternoon, move my fermenting beer to brite tank (a sin I know), keg up the batch in brite tank (it is now at FG and I'll let it condition further in the keg), and everyone here will claim I make the best beer they ever tasted. Those who leave their beer in primary for a month or more will also, more than likely, make beer that their friends and family say is the best they ever tasted.

Again, debating minutia is interesting and sometimes informative. But for all practical purposes only truly useful for entertainment when it's raining outside, our fermenters are all full, and we don't have anything else to do.

Cheers!

^THIS!

Mike

 

[slym2none]

So, in this thread, we've had a kegger come into a thread about bottling and espouse the virtues of kegging?

*takes a drink*

 

[Horseshoot]

I bottle and keg. And agree with Puddlethumper. I am not saying that it is "urgent" to get off the yeast cake this quickly. But, good beer can be made this quickly. And based on the OPs reported FG, I think (from 15 years plus experience) that bottle bombs are unlikely. Same for gushers.

Mike

 

[RM-MN]

AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHH! hysteria! mayhem! the beer is sitting on the yeast cake for longer than 2 weeks!!! We're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you should now consider yourselves dead because I once left a beer on the trub for 9 weeks. One of the smoothest beers I have made. If I wasn't short on patience I would do it more often.

 

[McKnuckle]

Normally I would have said: When in doubt, ride it out.

But perhaps some of you missed this detail:

"...i was told that more than 4 weeks and it can start to risk oxidation as its a plastic vat."

Avoiding an extended stand might have been wise in this situation.

 

[max384]

"Again, debating minutia is interesting and sometimes informative. But for all practical purposes only truly useful for entertainment when it's raining outside, our fermenters are all full, and we don't have anything else to do."

I like that one....

Except that your advice was blatantly false, and could be dangerous. I don't know why it is so difficult to just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[m00ps]

Except that your advice was blatantly false, and could be dangerous. I don't know why it is so difficult to just admit you were wrong and move on.

u even internetz br0?

 

[Puddlethumper]

OK fellas...it's time for everyone to take a Zanax or drink a couple of homebrews and chill out. We have several very experienced brewers here who have had a lot of experience at bottling and probably kegging as well. They believe most any beer that has dropped to 1.010 after a couple of weeks in the fermenter can be safely bottled. This, my friends, is simply providing the OP and anyone else following the thread the benefit of their opinion which, as with all opinions, should be considered and then used or discarded at the reader's discretion. Claiming such advise from seasoned and experienced brewers is dangerous, flawed or outright deceiving is, IMO, irresponsible and somewhat hysterical.

What I am going to do at this point is stop following the thread because it has degraded to this point. Just please keep one thing in mind fellas, even you may not know everything at this point. I'm an old fart and can plainly tell you that it's the stuff I learned after I thought I knew all the answers that really have helped me in life.

Cheers to all and happy brewing!

 

[joshesmusica]

:es:

:rockin:







:bear:



ipe:

 

[slym2none]

I wonder how many bottle bombs those experienced guys got when they thought the beer was done at 1.010, but it kept fermenting lower.

 

[joshesmusica]

I wonder how many bottle bombs those experienced guys got when they thought the beer was done at 1.010, but it kept fermenting lower.

None...

They were all racked to kegs.

 

[slym2none]

 

[slym2none]

I'm an old fart

I don't equate age with higher intelligence or wisdom. I know many stupid old people.

 

[max384]

OK fellas...it's time for everyone to take a Zanax or drink a couple of homebrews and chill out. We have several very experienced brewers here who have had a lot of experience at bottling and probably kegging as well. They believe most any beer that has dropped to 1.010 after a couple of weeks in the fermenter can be safely bottled. This, my friends, is simply providing the OP and anyone else following the thread the benefit of their opinion which, as with all opinions, should be considered and then used or discarded at the reader's discretion. Claiming such advise from seasoned and experienced brewers is dangerous, flawed or outright deceiving is, IMO, irresponsible and somewhat hysterical.

What I am going to do at this point is stop following the thread because it has degraded to this point. Just please keep one thing in mind fellas, even you may not know everything at this point. I'm an old fart and can plainly tell you that it's the stuff I learned after I thought I knew all the answers that really have helped me in life.

Cheers to all and happy brewing!

All of the discussion spawned from this statement:

"Among the more obvious thing that can happen is the beer may finish too low for the style ending up drier and higher in alcohol which may likely lead to an unbalanced beer. Some beer styles need the slight residual sweetness that may come from a 1.014 finish verses a 1.006 finish. Heck I've had beer finish near 1.000. I make 12 gallon batches and use to use two 6 gallon carboys. At times one would finish faster than the other and I would leave them both until they last one finished. If the gravity was substantially lower in one carboy (1.004 vs 1.012), you can taste the difference. Now I use a 14 gallon stainless conical so once it finishes (if its a simple ale) I dump the trub and yeast then cold crash it for a day or so which stops fermentation as well as clear the beer a bit, then keg it. If its a lager, when the beer is between 2 - 5 gravity points from my target, I dump the yeast / trub, then I crank the temp to about 70 for a couple days for the diacetyl rest, then start cranking the temperature back down to near freezing for lagering."

How can you intelligently defend this? I understand that maybe you don't like the arguing, but, as a community, it is our duty to point out bad information... and the above is simply bad information that most certainly can be dangerous. To dismiss dangerous advice solely because it was doled out by an experienced brewer, and call it hysterical or irresponsible is, well, irresponsible.

 

[Puddlethumper]

All of the discussion spawned from this statement:


How can you intelligently defend this? .

Thank you very much. We appreciate the fact that you are diligently looking after all of our best interests.

 

[slym2none]

Your interpretation of some posts is highly erroneous.

Not to mention you offered an opinion that because "some experienced brewers say when a beer gets to 1.010, it's ready to bottle" as your personal "THE ONLY RIGHT VIEW AND PROCEDURE", that the rest of us are wrong.

If you didn't mean it that way, then you see how we feel when you say the same thing.

 

[joshesmusica]

Personally, I haven't had experiences that support his comments but I defend his right to put them out there.

I do accept the fact that there are risks to bottling too early and there are risks to bottling too late. Whether you accept his point on this or not is your call. Some would argue to leave the beer in primary for weeks after FG is reached. Others, based on the views of professional brewers will argue that the beer may be packaged as soon as it has reached FG. That argument will go on ad-nauseum and will not be satisfied in this discussion.

These two quotes highlight where you began to misunderstand.

1) Of course anybody has the right to make comments on this forum (as long as they're not completely offensive, and deserving of being reported). But he also has the right to be corrected when spreading misinformation.

2) Nobody argued that it should be left for weeks after it's hit FG vs. right when it hits FG. EVERYBODY pointed out the fact that he kegged it when he felt like it. When it hit his FG. Everyone was arguing the point that it should hit FG first before packaging. No matter how long one was to wait until packaging after it hit FG.

If it was the opinion of packaging right away vs. leaving it for a few weeks, then yes, absolutely it was an opinion and he should freely share his opinion. Stating something as fact and the only way to do it because some brewers at a commercial brewery told him so is not ok, and will be corrected. The point is, every beer should be left to hit FG, for sure, every time one is bottling. The way to be sure is to do a couple of gravity tests a couple of days apart.