• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Cellaring FAQ

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Just wanted to clarify that all corks are porous. Even champagne corks have shown loss of dissolved CO2 due to diffusion across the membrane. Oxygen will enter bottles of beer, regardless of the pressure of the CO2 in the bottle (Dalton's Law).

Source here and here

So if your beer is corked and dependent on environmental conditions, chances are oxygen is entering and CO2 is leaving the bottle.

As far as I know it's just sunlight that has really detrimental effects. Light can speed up some chemical reactions, but I don't think it's clear a priori whether that would be good or bad.

Regardless, I've never seen any information on this from any source that I would trust. I'll ask the one contact I have who might know.

Visible light skunks beer, so I'd assume it has effects on other compounds within the beer too.
 
Finally got my beer fridge this week. Prior, I was storing my beer in an ambient temperature cooler.

During the occasional heatwaves of the first two months I've lived in my house, I had the desperate idea to put a bag of ice into the cooler to keep it from getting too much above 70. All seemed well, but when I went to transition the bottles from the cooler to the fridge, I realized that one of the bags had broken at some point and there was water on the bottom of the cooler. Some of the bottles developed mold on the side. Is my **** ruined? I know storing in humid conditions is a no no, but is it more of a long term no no or does any short term exposure compromise my stash?
 
Some of the bottles developed mold on the side. Is my **** ruined? I know storing in humid conditions is a no no, but is it more of a long term no no or does any short term exposure compromise my stash?

Normal crown caps (metal bottle caps) are not permable to mold. Corks can be, depending on how long and how moldy they got.

If it's just on the side of the bottle, you are probably fine. Clean the bottles and enjoy your fridge!
 
Normal crown caps (metal bottle caps) are not permable to mold. Corks can be, depending on how long and how moldy they got.

If it's just on the side of the bottle, you are probably fine. Clean the bottles and enjoy your fridge!
Phew, I suspected it probably wasn't a huge issue. Vast majority of the mold was on the sides of bottles (weirdly mostly the Russian River bottles).
 
Phew, I suspected it probably wasn't a huge issue. Vast majority of the mold was on the sides of bottles (weirdly mostly the Russian River bottles).

That has happened to me before as well (when had 3 mini fridges as my "cellar"). The only explanation I can think of is that the mold is either in the labels or the bottles/labels themselves are a better substrate for mold growth.
 
GREAT POST!! Only thing I don't agree on is how to store your bottles. Corked and caged bottles should be stored laying down so the liquid can contact the cork to keep the cork from drying. Metal capped bottles should never be layed down for more than a few days(shipping). The liquid in contact with metal is NOT a good thing and will give metallic notes and can promote rusting issues. Also a good tip but kinda a pain in the ass to do, is to store your growlers upside down (if it has a good seal of course)to keep carb from escaping.

CHEERS and once again GREAT POST!!!
 
GREAT POST!! Only thing I don't agree on is how to store your bottles. Corked and caged bottles should be stored laying down so the liquid can contact the cork to keep the cork from drying. Metal capped bottles should never be layed down for more than a few days(shipping). The liquid in contact with metal is NOT a good thing and will give metallic notes and can promote rusting issues. Also a good tip but kinda a pain in the ass to do, is to store your growlers upside down (if it has a good seal of course)to keep carb from escaping.

CHEERS and once again GREAT POST!!!

I've laid bottles with metal caps on their side for years and never had metallic flavors or rust issues.

Isn't that lining on the inside of caps there for a reason?
 
I've laid bottles with metal caps on their side for years and never had metallic flavors or rust issues.

Isn't that lining on the inside of caps there for a reason?


Laying em down like that is a huge gamble. Your placing a relatively acidic liquid on a metal cap. Yes there are linings on SOME caps but not all. Also bottles have a much greater chance of breaking laying on there side. Overall it's your beer and age as you please. Just a lil info on aging your beers with the best possible outcome. They're are many arguments in how to "properly" age brews but all in all it comes down to the bottle holders choice and palate.

CHEERS.
 
Laying em down like that is a huge gamble. Your placing a relatively acidic liquid on a metal cap. Yes there are linings on SOME caps but not all. Also bottles have a much greater chance of breaking laying on there side. Overall it's your beer and age as you please. Just a lil info on aging your beers with the best possible outcome. They're are many arguments in how to "properly" age brews but all in all it comes down to the bottle holders choice and palate.

CHEERS.
Unless your beers are already old, they have a lining on the cap. Even the absolute cheapest, worst caps you see nowadays (looking at you Cantillon) have a lining on them. I just do not think this is an issue at all.
 
I've never seen an actually unlined cap -- caps have to be lined with something, since something compressible needs to be between the glass and the metal or it cannot form a seal.

You can see the cork disk used in the original patent illustration:

21310346018_028f82723b_b.jpg
 
I've never seen an actually unlined cap -- caps have to be lined with something, since something compressible needs to be between the glass and the metal or it cannot form a seal.

You can see the cork disk used in the original patent illustration:

21310346018_028f82723b_b.jpg
I think on some of the old ones the lining was just bad, so it would corrode with time. Modern ones are some kind of polymer so I don't think they'll be too chemically active.
 
Corked and caged bottles should be stored laying down so the liquid can contact the cork to keep the cork from drying. Metal capped bottles should never be layed down for more than a few days(shipping). The liquid in contact with metal is NOT a good thing and will give metallic notes and can promote rusting issues. Also a good tip but kinda a pain in the ass to do, is to store your growlers upside down (if it has a good seal of course)to keep carb from escaping.

1. The 100% humidity inside a bottle will keep a cork moist in perpetuity. This is not a reason to keep liquid in contact with the cork. There may be others, but moisture is not one.

2. All metal caps sold in the last 30 years have a lining that will keep liquid from ever touching the cap. There may be other reasons to store them upright but your reasoning is not one of them.

3. Growlers upside down to keep the carb in? WTH. Is CO2 can escape the cap, CO2 will escape is the cap is wet or dry. This isn't how science works.
 
1. The 100% humidity inside a bottle will keep a cork moist in perpetuity. This is not a reason to keep liquid in contact with the cork. There may be others, but moisture is not one.

2. All metal caps sold in the last 30 years have a lining that will keep liquid from ever touching the cap. There may be other reasons to store them upright but your reasoning is not one of them.

3. Growlers upside down to keep the carb in? WTH. Is CO2 can escape the cap, CO2 will escape is the cap is wet or dry. This isn't how science works.

It's already been pointed out that most caps have a lining. And corked bottles should be laid down. co2 will escape no matter what but it wants to travel upwards. If the cap is under 30+ oz of liquid it's much harder to escape!!!! I never said anything about growler caps being wet or dry!
So I guess my question is what's the point of the 1.2.3??? You just want to say I'm wrong on something we both agree on.

giphy.gif
 
It's already been pointed out that most caps have a lining. And corked bottles should be laid down. co2 will escape no matter what but it wants to travel upwards. If the cap is under 30+ oz of liquid it's much harder to escape!!!! I never said anything about growler caps being wet or dry!
So I guess my question is what's the point of the 1.2.3??? You just want to say I'm wrong on something we both agree on.

giphy.gif

I don't think he agrees with a single thing you wrote. You said to lay corked beer on the side to keep the cork from drying out. He says that's false. You say to not lay capped bottles on the side because beer will contact the metal and not all caps have lining. He says that every cap in the last 30 years has a lining and there is no reason to worry about contact between beer and metal. You say to put growlers upside down to prevent CO2 from escaping. He says that makes no sense and tries to think of some reason you would even make that claim. Being under 30 oz. of liquid has nothing to do with how the gas will move inside a sealed container. So...yeah, I don't see any agreement, nor do I see a basis for any of the claims you made about storing beer.
 
I don't think he agrees with a single thing you wrote. You said to lay corked beer on the side to keep the cork from drying out. He says that's false. You say to not lay capped bottles on the side because beer will contact the metal and not all caps have lining. He says that every cap in the last 30 years has a lining and there is no reason to worry about contact between beer and metal. You say to put growlers upside down to prevent CO2 from escaping. He says that makes no sense and tries to think of some reason you would even make that claim. Being under 30 oz. of liquid has nothing to do with how the gas will move inside a sealed container. So...yeah, I don't see any agreement, nor do I see a basis for any of the claims you made about storing beer.


Man you guys got a flame under your ass for this one!!!! Look man in one of my post I said its your beer and do as you please. Hell if you want do as stated above and lay your metal cap bottles side ways and stand up your corked bottles up.go right ahead. It's YOUR brew. But anyone with a lil common sense can see that if you want best possible results for brews you plan on aging for a significant amount of time you wouldn't wanna gamble with a acidic liquid on metal cap with a thin plastic liner or dried out corks. Especially with the price of brews these days. Even if you only got 20 bottles cellaring were still talking near 600$ with some quality lambics.
CHEERS!!!!!!!
 
Not sure if this has been posted already, but thought this was a good article on aging (also not sure if another thread is more appropriate to post this in):

http://beerandbrewing.com/VgV-yB0AAOAAUuRh/article/barrel-aged-beer-to-cellar-or-not-to-cellar

Edit: Is Patrick Dawson on here? I know he was active on BA but not sure if he posts here at all.

pdawson, but I don't think he stops by regularly. I'm seeing him tomorrow so I'll see if he can swing in and chat.
 
So, at the recommendation in another thread I picked up Dawson's Vintage Beer, and I have to say that so far I am incredibly unimpressed and pretty disappointed. I should probably finish the book and do a whole review, but I don't think the last half of the book (which doesn't cover the science of aging) will change my mind appreciably.

Let's start with what's good. The book is definitely well written. It's engaging, it's well organized, the pictures are nice (though on kindle that's of muted benefit), it's just really well done. He's either a skilled editor or he has one, which is shockingly uncommon.

That said, there are some serious flaws. The biggest thing, as someone who has spent a nontrivial amount of time as a science instructor, is that he doesn't use science to illuminate, just to describe. Is it nice to know the various chemical species involved with reactions? Yeah, sure. And one of the few things that I think is valuable that I've learned is that alpha acids oxidize into trans-2-nonal, which could actually be handy (though, in general, who is aging beers high in alpha acids?). But most of the reactions are just "this chemical with these flavors turns into this chemical with these flavors" and frankly adding in the names of the chemicals isn't actually teaching anything, it's just zoology. It kind of feels like you gave someone with an appreciable-but-not-overwhelming knowledge of aging beer an intro to O-Chem book and told him to go nuts.

For instance, he mentions activation energy, and how that explains the temperature ranges you want to cellar in (which is great), but then doesn't mention the activation energies for any reactions. What's the point of even bringing it up then? The discussion about cellar temperature makes an interesting assertion, that cellar temperatures should be kept around fermentation temperatures, but doesn't really back it up, and he tacks on "10 degrees lower" to get the ~65 fermentation temperature down to the classic 55 without any good reason at all.

I don't know anything about this guy, but I'm strongly inclined to think that he was not at any point trained in science, and it shows. For instance, the (brief) discussion about bottle formats is horrible. He repeats the completely unjustified "the ratio of headspace to volume is lower in bigger bottles" schtick, which could make sense if it were true, but even a cursory inspection of various formats available at a beer store will show that it's probably not! Second, if the point of aging is controlled oxidation, why the hell does limiting the amount of oxidation matter? It should be functionally irrelevant if you're controlling the pace of the reactions, unless the amount is drastically different and the ratio of volumes is just not going to be more than a factor of two or so off, which shouldn't make a huge difference in rates. Especially since molecular oxygen doesn't oxidize anything, a fact that he doesn't ever mention, though his use of the term "reactive oxidation species" implies it if you already know it, if you don't it won't be meaningful. And, frankly, that's a concise demonstration of my biggest problem with the book, the jargon just doesn't add to understanding, it's either neutral or inhibits it.

Another example is his justification for higher alcohol being necessary for aging, which is basically "it slows down some reactions". But he doesn't say which ones or why or, frankly, why that matters. My impression had always been that lower ABV beers tend to age less well just because there's less "stuff" in there to age, so the flavors develop more "quickly" in that they're perceptible sooner and fade faster. It's not actually related to the ethanol except that they tend to correlate. Or, to relate it to a metaphor he uses a lot about cooking meat "low and slow" (another thing I'm ambivalent about, since these are pretty different processes), higher ABV beers are more forgiving because they have more stuff going on. Similarly, it's a lot easier to cook a pork butt than a brisket, it's a more forgiving cut of meat. I've had an amazing 25-year-old Duvel from Kulminator, but if I tried to replicate it myself (unless I used my beer fridge) it probably wouldn't work because my cellar isn't perfect. Those two things had been my understanding. If the thing about ethanol is true it would be interesting, but there's nothing in the text that explains it other than in a hand-waving way, which is deeply unsatisfying.

Finally, he mentions the classic "IPAs were hopped to survive the trip to India", which at this point I'm not totally sure if it's a myth or not but shouldn't be in a ******* book either way.

If anyone wants me to I could do a full review after I finish it I can, but I don't think it'll change very much. I had really high hopes for this book that have been mostly busted. It's especially frustrated since I just finished reading Proof: The Science of Booze which was an incredibly informative book*. Maybe that gave me unrealistic expectations for Vintage Beer, because Proof was clearly researched and written over a very long period of time, while Vintage Beer seems more like "this magazine feature was well received, let's extend it into a book". But, IMO at least, the book on aging beer has not been written (or at least it's not this one). If you're someone who's been aging beer a while and are pretty savvy, you will probably learn a thing or two. But I m deeply ambivalent about recommending this book for a neophyte, since while it has a lot of good information, it also seems to have a lot of bad information.



*This is an aside, but this book contained one fascinating thing about aging alcoholic drinks that I hadn't read anywhere else, which is that over time ethanol molecules tend to clump together, which lessens the perception of them while you drink. I've really wanted to dig into this, because AFAIK the standard line was that, besides fusels, perception of heat don't go down over time. It would be really interesting if, in fact, it did.
 
*This is an aside, but this book contained one fascinating thing about aging alcoholic drinks that I hadn't read anywhere else, which is that over time ethanol molecules tend to clump together, which lessens the perception of them while you drink. I've really wanted to dig into this, because AFAIK the standard line was that, besides fusels, perception of heat don't go down over time. It would be really interesting if, in fact, it did.
Well written and thorough feedback. I wish I had more of a science background to dive into this, so it actually sounds like the book would be about as surface level as I could get without some serious reading.

The last bit, I thought the "heat subsides over time" was about as common as the IPA myth that you mentioned earlier. I didn't put much faith into it, but I've heard it a lot. It would be interesting if that was scientifically true.
 
Well written and thorough feedback. I wish I had more of a science background to dive into this, so it actually sounds like the book would be about as surface level as I could get without some serious reading.

The last bit, I thought the "heat subsides over time" was about as common as the IPA myth that you mentioned earlier. I didn't put much faith into it, but I've heard it a lot. It would be interesting if that was scientifically true.
I mostly see people ridiculing the idea on here. I actually read that not long after a few people on here were mocking the idea that the new Rare would mellow with time. It was interesting, and I really wanted to dive into it more, but the book doesn't have footnotes (just a bibliography). Maybe I'll e-mail the author and ask about it.

I was going to try to link the passage (I highlighted in on my kindle) but Amazon's app is being a buttface and I can't log in. Maybe when I get home.
 
*This is an aside, but this book contained one fascinating thing about aging alcoholic drinks that I hadn't read anywhere else, which is that over time ethanol molecules tend to clump together, which lessens the perception of them while you drink. I've really wanted to dig into this, because AFAIK the standard line was that, besides fusels, perception of heat don't go down over time. It would be really interesting if, in fact, it did.

Given that water, which interacts with itself in a way that's qualitatively similar to ethanol, forms and breaks its local bonds with its neighbors something on the order of 10^15 times per second, I find it unlikely that liquid ethanol has a considerably different structure after being allowed to sit over a timescale of years.

That said, I suppose it could be binding to something or metabolized in some way, or whatever, but that would still make the explanation incomplete at best. In other words, citation needed.
 
Given that water, which interacts with itself in a way that's qualitatively similar to ethanol, forms and breaks its local bonds with its neighbors something on the order of 10^15 times per second, I find it unlikely that liquid ethanol has a considerably different structure after being allowed to sit over a timescale of years.

That said, I suppose it could be binding to something or metabolized in some way, or whatever, but that would still make the explanation incomplete at best. In other words, citation needed.
Finally got the stupid Amazon kindle program working, wouldn't sign me in when I tried before. Here's the text:
The liquid in the barrel even changes its essential molecular structure. Ethanol molecules cluster together when they come into contact with water. The number of clusters increases over time, and their presence can reduce the perception of ethanol in the final product. They can also stick to some volatile molecules, effectively making them less volatile and reducing their presence in the aroma of the spirit. When people call a drink “smooth,” this might be what they’re tasting.
There's a bibliography, but it's not organized at all so I have no idea where to look for it. I could try to contact the author to see what he has to say about it, could be ********.
 
Finally got the stupid Amazon kindle program working, wouldn't sign me in when I tried before. Here's the text:

There's a bibliography, but it's not organized at all so I have no idea where to look for it. I could try to contact the author to see what he has to say about it, could be ********.

That'd be cool if you do.

It sounds like he's talking about micelles. I suppose Ethanol has a more polar end and a less polar end, but it's such a short chain that the OH moiety pretty well makes it polar all over, and ethanol's overall dipole moment is much more like water's than a similarly-sized alkane. I'd be surprised if the energies that would bind ethanol micelles together were high enough to avoid being pretty well thermalized at room temperature. I could be wrong, though, so I'd be pretty curious to see what the reference is and what it has to say.
 
That'd be cool if you do.

It sounds like he's talking about micelles. I suppose Ethanol has a more polar end and a less polar end, but it's such a short chain that the OH moiety pretty well makes it polar all over, and ethanol's overall dipole moment is much more like water's than a similarly-sized alkane. I'd be surprised if the energies that would bind ethanol micelles together were high enough to avoid being pretty well thermalized at room temperature. I could be wrong, though, so I'd be pretty curious to see what the reference is and what it has to say.
I'll try to figure out how to shoot him an e-mail. But damn you for only replying to this near my bedtime!
 
That'd be cool if you do.

It sounds like he's talking about micelles. I suppose Ethanol has a more polar end and a less polar end, but it's such a short chain that the OH moiety pretty well makes it polar all over, and ethanol's overall dipole moment is much more like water's than a similarly-sized alkane. I'd be surprised if the energies that would bind ethanol micelles together were high enough to avoid being pretty well thermalized at room temperature. I could be wrong, though, so I'd be pretty curious to see what the reference is and what it has to say.

200.gif
 
Back
Top