Justibone
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many cells that is... slurry can have varying levels of compactness.
Ok ok, hold the phones.
Has this discussion happened already, or am I missing something? From my time here, I've discerned (and I'd venture to say that most others have, too) that Homebrewtalk's overarching narrative is highly supportive of aging beer. Hell, I get my homebrewing information from a number of different sources, and virtually all of them heavily advocate giving beer time to mature. My impression has been that this isn't a theory, but an accepted fact of brewing; I've always assumed that the big breweries can move faster due to some combination of equipment and batch size. Personally, I even noticed some significant positive changes in my first couple beers upon letting them age, and thus my modus operandi became to not even taste them until after aging.
But if that's not true, then why are the vast majority of us wasting our time? Is there a discussion to be had here, or is the aging theory really just some vestigial nonsense?
*Waits for Revvy's rebuttal*
This is something that is typically preached to beginners because no one is going to brew the perfect batch on their first try. Most flaws age out eventually, so even if your first batch isn't very good initially, chances are it will improve greatly with age.
Once you gain some experience and start treating your yeast right (pitching enough yeast at the correct temp, keeping fermentation at the correct temp) then your turn around time is shortened quite a bit. I can have a standard gravity ale (below 1.060 OG) drinkable in 2 weeks if I keg and force carb. I can have that same ale drinkable in 4 weeks if I bottle carb.