bottling after 10 days

[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.