bottling after 10 days

[Piratwolf]

FWIW, I've found that my session beers don't seem to benefit much from three weeks on the trub. Usually about 10-14 days days does the trick and another seven isn't always an automatic, additional, perceivable benefit (depending upon style, of course.

Word.

 

[Brewskii]

Example: 1.045 cream ale brewed, thoroughly aerated and pitched with 750 ml starter of California ale yeast. Kept at 66 F
Active primary done in 4 days
Extended primary for 10 days total.
Not terribly clear but no krausen , bottled
Fully carbed in 10 days ( expect this due to ^ yeast insuspension). Dyacetal nose and mouth feel notably present.
2 days more bottle conditioning -'D note almost completely gone.

That was last night.... It is an exceptionally good ale IMO

 

[Sean]

Example: 1.045 cream ale brewed, thoroughly aerated and pitched with 750 ml starter of California ale yeast. Kept at 66 F
Active primary done in 4 days
Extended primary for 10 days total.
Not terribly clear but no krausen , bottled
Fully carbed in 10 days ( expect this due to ^ yeast insuspension). Dyacetal nose and mouth feel notably present.
2 days more bottle conditioning -'D note almost completely gone.

That was last night.... It is an exceptionally good ale IMO

Wow! you did all that last night? Impressive!

 

[dzlater]

It isn't that difficult for average ales.
Let the beer ferment to FG, how ever long that takes. (really shouldn't be more the 5 to 10 days)
Let it sit another day or two.
No diacetyl then cold crash, or add finings, if you want
Keg or bottle

 

[ayoungrad]

It isn't that difficult for average ales.
Let the beer ferment to FG, how ever long that takes. (really shouldn't be more the 5 to 10 days)
Let it sit another day or two.
No diacetyl then cold crash, or add finings, if you want
Keg or bottle

I don't think anyone is doubting that this is how it should be done if the goal is 10 days to bottle. The question is, should you do it?

I did a 3.5% ABV pale ale that I bottled after 10 days in primary. It scored a 35 in a sizable BJCP competition. I think that's pretty good for such a small beer in such a popular category.

The question is, would it have done better if I let it sit in primary for 3 weeks instead of 10 days? Who knows. Personally, I have no desire to determine for sure if a longer primary on such a small beer is necessary. My gut tells me, as others have said above, that session-strength beers probably do not need a very long time in primary IF conditions are perfect for the short time they are in primary.

 

[Yooper]

The question is, would it have done better if I let it sit in primary for 3 weeks instead of 10 days? Who knows. Personally, I have no desire to determine for sure if a longer primary on such a small beer is necessary. My gut tells me, as others have said above, that session-strength beers probably do not need a very long time in primary IF conditions are perfect for the short time they are in primary.

When I first started brewing, the advice at that time was to "get the beer off of the yeast ASAP!". That mean 3-4 days in primary. I was a winemaker first, so I knew that autolysis wasn't that big of a deal in the short term and I didn't worry too much about it. I'm glad to see that piece of advice is being proven wrong, over and over.

But going to the other extreme isn't necessarily the best practice either. Will a beer be harmed by 4+ weeks in the primary? No. Will it be helped? Probably not. There is a point that once the diacetyl and acetaldehyde is gone where the yeast are doing nothing- although the beer might to continue to clear a bit when using non-flocculant yeast.

I'm pretty relaxed, and tend to package my beer when it's been finished for a few days AND it's clear. With a flocculant yeast and no dryhopping, that might be about day 10. With dryhopping, it might be day 14. But I don't believe in a regiment of "XXXX number of days or your beer will suck".

I submit that the time in the fermenter is not at all one of the "top 5" of making the best beer. Instead, yeast health (proper pitching rate, proper fermentation temperature, good quality yeast), quality ingredients, good water, good sanitation, and good brewing techniques matter far more.

If you skip taking care of your yeast, then your beer might indeed need more time to age out some off-flavors. But off-flavors don't usually go completely away- you can't age a bad beer into a great beer but you might get a drinkable beer out of a bad beer.

 

[kh54s10]

I've read through this and see 10-14 days opinions and 3-4 weeks opinions.

I have had some avg. gravity beers that didn't stop fermenting until day 10 and others that finished at day 3. So IMO the short time frame advocates are being as closed minded as those that advocate a long time frame.

I have been going by: Bottle it "when I feel my beer has finished fermenting and looks clear enough for me".

I also would not suggest that a new brewer go the 10-14 day route. They probably do not have their processes down well and if there is any advantage of leaving the beer on the cake they should take advantage of that.

I see far more post that "I bottled my beer after 10 days and it tastes awful!" than I do "I left my beer in primary for a month and it tastes awful!"

I feel that neither "short time frame" or "long time frame" is correct. It depends on the beer and the brewer. When the beer is ready and the brewer likes the results it is ready.

I have not been brewing very long so I have been using this site to learn. In this argument I have opted for the middle road and bottle most of mine at about 3 weeks.

As a relative noob I think it is better if you make a topic like this a discussion rather than "You are stupid if you ferment longer than 10 days". Or, you are stupid if you don't ferment for a month" It does not help new brewers learn if topics like this one become a rant for one side or the other.

 

[ayoungrad]

I have bottled in 10 days with good results. If it works for you, carry on!

High gravity beers, on the other hand, do taste better after some conditioning.

Those of us reporting on the shorter time periods are basing our advice on a proper and planned pitching rate (in some cases you may intentionally under-pitch by a degree), proper aeration, and controlled fermentation temperature.

I think brewers need to be educated to to taste as they go and note when the beer stops changing for the better. Then it's time to bottle/keg.

Anything over 1.055 or so, however, does seem to benefit from employing the three-week technique

Pitch enough yeast, and ferment at the right temp, and the beer's not going to have to wait to clean the crap flavors up. It's also going to depend on how big of a beer you're fermenting, and what yeast strain is doing the work.

I'm pretty relaxed, and tend to package my beer when it's been finished for a few days AND it's clear...

I submit that the time in the fermenter is not at all one of the "top 5" of making the best beer. Instead, yeast health (proper pitching rate, proper fermentation temperature, good quality yeast), quality ingredients, good water, good sanitation, and good brewing techniques matter far more.

I feel that neither "short time frame" or "long time frame" is correct. It depends on the beer and the brewer. When the beer is ready and the brewer likes the results it is ready.

As a relative noob I think it is better if you make a topic like this a discussion rather than "You are stupid if you ferment longer than 10 days". Or, you are stupid if you don't ferment for a month" It does not help new brewers learn if topics like this one become a rant for one side or the other.

I think all of these quoted opinions are saying more or less the same thing. IF certain conditions are met, than X can be the best route.

So I think this thread has been helpful in that it has become more of a discussion thread rather than a scolding thread.

I would agree that longer primary is better for anyone starting off. Although this was not always directly stated, I think that this is inferred by the need for optimal conditions which are almost never present with new brewers.

 

[RCCOLA]

I think the reason for this thread is the trend on this site for a few brewers to force-feed their opinion on long primaries rather than try to help the new brewer figure out why their beer isn't good.

I've seen countless threads where the brewer should be educated on proper temp control, sanitization, and pitch rates, but is instead told to "Wait 4 weeks and your beer will be great"

I've subsequently seen the brewers giving this advice say that fermenting at 75-80F is fine and to just leave it on the cake to clean up off flavors--as if longer primaries are a cure-all for improper brewing techniques.

I don't think this is helpful to that brewer and reinforces bad techniques that are easily remedied. We don't need to protect adults from themselves by treating them like they are ignorant. Give them the proper info and let them decide how to deal with it.

 

[lud]

As a well read new brewer, I never took the recommendations of a longer primary to mean that is "the cure-all for any brewing inadequacies" I simply took the advice as a way to make possibly better beer, and to not freak out about not having a chance to move to keg or bottle...i.e...fear of the non-existant autolysis monster.

 

[jonmohno]

I think as a new brewer sees its ok to go 10 days primary then bottle. If they happen to only see that statement but not understanding the importance of yeast pitch and temp along with many other things, then they come back saying it doesnt taste right or something.Then its setting them up for disappointment.Looking at the amount of noob threads that something doesnt seem right.9 times out of 10 it seems they are just trying them too young.


I almost bottled my english bitter @ 2 wks with a 1.04 og.But my grain shipment was later than expected .Plus i would like a longer dry hop anyway.I dont do the cosecutive hydrometer readings over three days thats another reason i do at least 2 wks. for assurence of complete fermentation.Im shure its done fermenting around 5 days.The times i have bottled before three weeks i have noticed an appely green taste (hydro sample)to them and bottleing a few at 4 wks have noticed a significant taste differnece in hydrometer sample before bottleing.
I normally do 3 wks because my first few beers bottleing them early was a disapointment probably because of my ferm temps, i didnt know really, the instructions say to cool wort to below 80-thats what i did and got a super estery first few beers that reminded me of wine more than beer,at first,that was disapointing.
I was also a bit blindly led by some HOw to youtube videos,doing a 20 min boil which not knowing that i just hop flavored my extract beer. Using willamette and amarillo for the next batch, along with over 70 deg,temps- they were pretty fruity/estery.

 

[Baldy_Beer_Brewery]

I keg most of my beer at 14 days and everything works out just fine for me. I believe the issue is certain highly vocal members of the forum are almost militant in the way they force their practices on others and view alternatives as poor technique. As a result they continue to regurgitate (read: copy and paste) their rants whenever anyone posts a question. This translates into the majority of the user base seeing these answers pop up time and time again and view it as being fact...

I think there is a lot of truth to this. IMHO, brewing is one of those "many ways to skin a cat" type of things.

I don't want to come across knocking this site or any of these vocal members, but it is kind of like politics. If you only read or watch CNN you are going to have a different opinion of things than if you read and watch only FOX News. I read this site mostly, but also a couple of others from time to time, subscribe to BYO and enjoy a book or some other resource. But the main thing is to enjoy the hobby.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

If you're going to bottle in 10 days, you need to just leave it in the primary the entire time and skip the secondary. Only 4 days is not long at all.

Not to be argumentative, but this is also incorrect. One very typical fermentation schedule is to dump yeast and trub (racking to "secondary" for us homebrewers) after 3/4 of the fermentables are consumed. This provides a cleaner environment for the suspended yeast to finish fermenting then condition the beer without contact on the dead cells and organic matter. This topic is beyond this thread, but I had to step in to say this is also not a scientific or universal brewing process. Again, you are not going to be in trouble leaving your beer on the trub for 4 weeks or so (I do it occasionally too, when I am busy, bored, or otherwise), there is just no real benefit in it 90% of the time for me.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

I think the real debate hear is brewing science versus anecdotal evidence. All of what we are arguing over is more or less rpoven by the scientific evidence found in actual brewing texts and biology books. If you really care, read some books and decide for yourself.

 

[mrgstiffler]

Not to be argumentative, but this is also incorrect. One very typical fermentation schedule is to dump yeast and trub (racking to "secondary" for us homebrewers) after 3/4 of the fermentables are consumed. This provides a cleaner environment for the suspended yeast to finish fermenting then condition the beer without contact on the dead cells and organic matter. This topic is beyond this thread, but I had to step in to say this is also not a scientific or universal brewing process. Again, you are not going to be in trouble leaving your beer on the trub for 4 weeks or so (I do it occasionally too, when I am busy, bored, or otherwise), there is just no real benefit in it 90% of the time for me.

If you dump the yeast and trub after 4 days, I doubt you'll be ready to bottle on day 10 though. And if you do, they'll probably need more time in the bottle to come around.

 

[Malticulous]

No. It's not very uncommon for an ale to be finished in four days.

 

[ayoungrad]

Not to be argumentative, but this is also incorrect. One very typical fermentation schedule is to dump yeast and trub (racking to "secondary" for us homebrewers) after 3/4 of the fermentables are consumed.

I have not heard about this technique. Where can I read about it?

From what I have read, the most prevalent techniques have only about 1% of fermentable sugars present after primary fermentation and before moving to a conditioning tank. Not 25%.

 

[Yooper]

I have not heard about this technique. Where can I read about it?

From what I have read, the most prevalent techniques have only about 1% of fermentable sugars present after primary fermentation and before moving to a conditioning tank. Not 25%.

If you have a conical, it's very common to dump the trub before fermentation is completely finished. You're not racking at that time, but simply dumping the trub. You can also repitch this yeast into another beer, and that's commonly done at breweries. The beer is moved to the conditioning tank after it IS completely done.

But for experienced homebrewers, racking is sometimes done while the beer is still fermenting. I know that BK has long advocated that, and I do that for my winemaking. The only issue is if you're inexperienced and dealing with highly flocculant yeast, the fermentation can stall as a result.

In winemaking, it's just "known" that you rack to secondary when the wine is at 1.020-.1010, or about 3/4 finished. That way it continues to ferment in the secondary, providing some protection from oxidation because it's still fermenting and releasing c02. I still do that for wine, but not for ales.

 

[ayoungrad]

But assuming that it is a common technique, it is interesting. Granted, there really is no reason in homebrewing to dump yeast (there is only small amount of pressure on the flocculated yeast in homebrewing because of the size of the vessels used) but I guess it says that the flocculated yeast becomes essentially irrelevant. Only the suspended yeast finishes off the fermentation after 75% of the fermentables are gone?

 

[ayoungrad]

Sorry. Posted while Yooper was posting. So, it can be used to re-use yeast then. I have not had the need for that but it is interesting.

 

[rritterson]

I think the real debate hear is brewing science versus anecdotal evidence. All of what we are arguing over is more or less rpoven by the scientific evidence found in actual brewing texts and biology books. If you really care, read some books and decide for yourself.

Amen.

I am a yeast biologist, but not an expert on brewing science (we use yeast for different purposes than brewing). But, what I know tells me:

-you'd need a TLC (thin layer chromotography), or, better yet, an HPLC/MS machine to really quantify the difference between 10 days and 4 weeks. But, unless you are in a field like I am, you don't have access to $500,000 instruments, and, even if you do, you aren't going to waste your time unless you're a scientist for a megabrewery. So all of the evidence we have on our own brews is anecdotal.

-I absolutely positively guarantee that any beer that sits in the primary for 4 weeks is going to be different from 10 days. Not only is there a big genetic variation among the yeast (simply due to statistics-- trillions of cells!) which is going to cause unique variations among various small byproducts-some yeast are going to be slow, some fast. Even if the yeast are mostly inactive, they are still alive, and will do whatever they can to survive until the beer is unsurvivable. There are also spontaneous chemical reactions that occur, and they will have gone further at 4 weeks than 10 days. (Many of these same reactions will also occur in the bottle too, but not all of them)

But, here is the important part: some of you will prefer the taste of a given brew after 10 days in the fermenter, or even less, while others like the way it tastes after 4 weeks. I bet a bunch of us (myself probably included) can't taste the difference. So this entire argument is moot.

The only thing that does matter is the question: "X is wrong with my beer, how do I fix it next time" and whether the time on the primary is one of the answers.

 

[BierMuncher]

Amen.

I am a yeast biologist, but not an expert on brewing science (we use yeast for different purposes than brewing). But, what I know tells me:

-you'd need a TLC (thin layer chromotography), or, better yet, an HPLC/MS machine to really quantify the difference between 10 days and 4 weeks. But, unless you are in a field like I am, you don't have access to $500,000 instruments, and, even if you do, you aren't going to waste your time unless you're a scientist for a megabrewery. So all of the evidence we have on our own brews is anecdotal.

-I absolutely positively guarantee that any beer that sits in the primary for 4 weeks is going to be different from 10 days. Not only is there a big genetic variation among the yeast (simply due to statistics-- trillions of cells!) which is going to cause unique variations among various small byproducts-some yeast are going to be slow, some fast. Even if the yeast are mostly inactive, they are still alive, and will do whatever they can to survive until the beer is unsurvivable. There are also spontaneous chemical reactions that occur, and they will have gone further at 4 weeks than 10 days. (Many of these same reactions will also occur in the bottle too, but not all of them)

But, here is the important part: some of you will prefer the taste of a given brew after 10 days in the fermenter, or even less, while others like the way it tastes after 4 weeks. I bet a bunch of us (myself probably included) can't taste the difference. So this entire argument is moot.

The only thing that does matter is the question: "X is wrong with my beer, how do I fix it next time" and whether the time on the primary is one of the answers.

Damn, you beat me to it.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

I hear ya brutha. Or if you dislocate your elbow.

Wait, is that an EdWort *and* Biermuncher* sighting?!?!

 

[gr8shandini]

. . .
The only thing that does matter is the question: "X is wrong with my beer, how do I fix it next time" and whether the time on the primary is one of the answers.

Exactly. 10-14 days in the primary works for me and I really couldn't care less if other brewers want to park it there for longer. But it drives me up the wall when people - especially new brewers - ask for advice on how to eliminate a certain off-flavor and the only responses they get are "it's just green" and "time heals all wounds." That's not really helping anyone, especially when the problem is something like fusels which probably aren't going to age out. If you think your beer improves with a little age, fine. But I would hope that we can all agree that if your beer tastes like weasel piss after two weeks in the primary, it's probably not ever going to be tasty.

And so long as I'm ranting, I'm also a little annoyed whenever certain members of the month-long-primary club respond to someone mentioning a shorter turn-around with something along the lines of "I guess you're just looking to get drunk faster" or "it's OK if you're just looking for some swill, but if you cared about your beer . . ." There are many other reasons why you might not want to take two months to make a beer. Not the least of which is that I intend to go pro someday soon and want to learn to make quality beer in an economical time frame.

 

[Yooper]

Wait, is that an EdWort *and* Biermuncher* sighting?!?!

Oh, my, and an Ohiobrewtus sighting, too!!!!!!



I think a discussion is always valuable, while an argument is never helpful. I think we are all intelligent adults and can discuss the merits of our methods without ever criticizing others.

Discussing the rationale being a longer (or shorter) length of time in the fermenter is helpful, while ranting about others' techniques is not. I have enjoyed this thread, actually, since we're seeing other's points of view and other brewers have a voice in the reasoning behind doing what they do.

One of the things I like about the brewers I've met at various NHCs is that they explain why they do certain things and not just that they do them. "I do a diacetyl rest at 75% of the way to FG because........" and so on. That's how we learn, especially for us non-scientists! When I hear someone with a background in brewing science explain a theory to me, I listen!

 

[biestie]

I'm pretty relaxed, and tend to package my beer when it's been finished for a few days AND it's clear. With a flocculant yeast and no dryhopping, that might be about day 10. With dryhopping, it might be day 14. But I don't believe in a regiment of "XXXX number of days or your beer will suck".

I submit that the time in the fermenter is not at all one of the "top 5" of making the best beer.

Here here. I don't get wrapped around the axle over this either. When my beer is finished and it's clear two things dictate when I package. I need an empty keg, and I need the time. That can be anywhere from 10ish days to a month and I don't care which. The beer will be great because I do everything else right.