Is patience really a virtue?

[hopcop]

I really like this thread. I've been brewing for a year and a half. Been AG for just over a year. I got most of my info on this site while converting it with my setup. Sometimes this site can be very discouraging with skeptical advice. I think I make good beer and I'm always wondering if I need to make changes to my process, aging, when to bottle etc... I then realize that my process is very sound for my setup. I did take into consideration awhile back of leaving my beer in the primary for 3 weeks before I package. Since then my average gravity beers 1.050-1.060 (which is what my range is most of the time) have come out extremely better. Thats 3 weeks primary, 2 weeks DH (if i do and i always do it in the primary) and package. Taste after 1 week, then drink them after the 2nd. I would like to say though, my process, fermentation temperature, yeast control, pitching rates and better understanding of each style also contributed to a wonderful final product. Im always looking to better myself and think about making changes but I realize then why change something that's been working great? So I keep all what I do the same cause it's MY way, MY system and MY beer. I don't like to give advice most of the time cause it's really up to the brewer IMO. I have a DFH 120 clone that's 14.87% and I have enjoyed drinking it every step of the way and it's only 3months since brewed. Most would think I'm crazy to drink them so young. I love tasting the difference from one week to the next. I agree with everybody on here especially the OP. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing cause it works for me.

Great thread. I look forward to keep reading this.

Cheers.

 

[Piratwolf]

I'm all in with the OP. In fact, I sorta gave up on the new brewer forum over this exact issue.

EDIT: sounded more combative than is useful.

Thanks for posting this thread!

 

[RiffMagnum]

I think this is what the OP is saying. Big beers will benefit from extended fermentation and conditioning time.

OP and me are not arguing against that. But for 105x beers you can crank them out in a couple of weeks with kegging.

You don't always have to leave a beer on the cake for three to four weeks.

Gab.

Right, but i think for a new brewer it's better to err on the side of caution and let it sit. I'm not sure what point the OP is really trying to make because it all seems to be in response to stuff he sees in the beginner brewers section. I think getting a stable F.G. then letting it sit a a few more days, just in case, is completely reasonable advice.
I mean how many times do you see people freaking out about their beer after 4 or 5 days? Taking a gravity reading every day, popping the lid, taking pics,etc.
"Set it and FORGET it."

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

Right, but i think for a new brewer it's better to err on the side of caution and let it sit.

That's a really good point. As a beginner it's probably best to be a little patient until you get your process down. Once you're familiar with how a yeast strain is going to perform, you'll have a better idea of what to expect. When you have a solid process, you can turn around beers rather quickly if you choose.

 

[Piratwolf]

That's a really good point. As a beginner it's probably best to be a little patient until you get your process down. Once you're familiar with how a yeast strain is going to perform, you'll have a better idea of what to expect. When you have a solid process, you can turn around beers rather quickly if you choose.

for me, this is the crux of the matter. I infer from many posts here that some brewers simply inherit "1-month primary" as axiomatic and therefore never pay attention to what a strain does at 1 week that's different from 2 weeks, etc. OTOH, threads like this offer a thoughtful (and, I hope, thought-provoking) alternative view.

Sometimes i wonder if having a set rule prevents critical thinking, or if it's just the character of the brewer that makes him myopic or adventurous.

 

[BrewinHooligan]

I too have to agree with the OP. If you are familiar with the yeast, control your pitching rate, and control your fermentation temps extended time in primary isn't necessary. I normally package after week two if I have reached FG and enjoy my beer considerably and I always get good responses from the people that drink them too. Of course my 1.080 OG Baltic Porter is going to sit in the primary a while as the yeast I'm using is slow and it will benefit from aging, but this is not my typical brew.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

for me, this is the crux of the matter. I infer from many posts here that some brewers simply inherit "1-month primary" as axiomatic and therefore never pay attention to what a strain does at 1 week that's different from 2 weeks, etc. OTOH, threads like this offer a thoughtful (and, I hope, thought-provoking) alternative view.

Sometimes i wonder if having a set rule prevents critical thinking, or if it's just the character of the brewer that makes him myopic or adventurous.

Yeah, I kinda get the same thing. For those brewers, the one month primary is probably a good plan of attack.

 

[RiffMagnum]

I too have to agree with the OP. If you are familiar with the yeast, control your pitching rate, and control your fermentation temps extended time in primary isn't necessary. I normally package after week two if I have reached FG and enjoy my beer considerably and I always get good responses from the people that drink them too. Of course my 1.080 OG Baltic Porter is going to sit in the primary a while as the yeast I'm using is slow and it will benefit from aging, but this is not my typical brew.

If you're good with these three things then you're probably not considered a beginner. The OP is "upset" because when he trolls the beginning beer forums he's seeing alot of stock advice on being patient. I think telling someone to leave it alone for 2-3 weeks is much better advice than, "Open up your fermenter every couple days and take a reading, so you can 'learn' from it."
Not really sure why someone would be worried because other brewers aren't "turning" their beer around as fast as they could be? Fermenters are like $25. Just keep adding fermenters till you're brewing and bottling schedule is comfortable for you and you have more beer than you can drink.

 

[BrewinHooligan]

If you're good with these three things then you're probably not considered a beginner. The OP is "upset" because when he trolls the beginning beer forums he's seeing alot of stock advice on being patient. I think telling someone to leave it alone for 2-3 weeks is much better advice than, "Open up your fermenter every couple days and take a reading, so you can 'learn' from it."
Not really sure why someone would be worried because other brewers aren't "turning" their beer around as fast as they could be? Fermenters are like $25. Just keep adding fermenters till you're brewing and bottling schedule is comfortable for you and you have more beer than you can drink.

I only have 8 batches under my belt, half of them all grain. I would still consider myself a beginner, but I agree there are many people in the beginner's area that don't do the proper research and don't have realistic expectations. I would love to add another $15 Ale Pail or two to my brewhouse, but I don't have enough room until I can turn my spare fridge into a fermentation chamber. Until then, I will brew beers that I can go grain to glass in 3.5-5 weeks apart from the occasional big beer.

 

[scottland]

Experience with your yeast strain of choice is the single biggest factor to me. Learning how long it takes to ferment, at what temps. Learning at which temps it ferments clean. Learning when to ramp-up the temp. It varies with every yeast.

Once you learn a process that works for you, and your favorite yeast, it becomes much easier to turn beers over faster.

 

[jonmohno]

Whatever works for you. Ive had some beers taste better at one week bottled than 3 or 6 wks.And the exact opposite also.Some beers best over a year-like the first pumpkin i made.There are too many variables like water/yeast/mashing/grain stability? I still notice more of a green/frutiness with a shorter primary as far as sampleing the hydro sample and less of that with a longer primary.
Ive also mad a ordinary bitter which is suppose to be drank like within 5 minutes of making it. Which was horribly sulfur fart/face beer at first.After a few months-not too bad.The only thing i seen wrong i did was overbitter it on the high end and i dont see that having anything to do with the fart-face un-drinkability it had at first.I actually quite enjoy it now after a few months because drinking farts sucks.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

Experience with your yeast strain of choice is the single biggest factor to me. Learning how long it takes to ferment, at what temps. Learning at which temps it ferments clean. Learning when to ramp-up the temp. It varies with every yeast.

Once you learn a process that works for you, and your favorite yeast, it becomes much easier to turn beers over faster.

Fer sher. When I use a strain for the first time, I'm likely to let it ride under temp control for 3 weeks. After that I'll begin playing around with temps and times. Say something like 05 that I use a ton, I'll take a gravity reading on day 6 or 7 and keg it as long as it's stable a day or two later.

New brewers, I highly recommend washing or in some other way reusing the yeasts you find that you like. That way you can experiment with it without the expense.

 

[BrewinHooligan]

New brewers, I highly recommend washing or in some other way reusing the yeasts you find that you like. That way you can experiment with it without the expense.

+1000, I just started washing yeast after making my California Common and am using the same yeast for my Baltic Porter. I have to say I really enjoy what this one can do and it will be used quite a bit by me.

 

[wormraper]

as a new brewer I'm trying to soak up as much information as I can in a short amount of time. I think that both sides have a lot of common sense to them. after reading a TON of threads you see extremes. you see the guys who sit on a brew for a month, then secondary and then carb for 20 million weeks, and you have the ones who rack to secondary or to bottle after 5 days. from what I've seen many summer beers can be straight to bottle in 2 weeks on primary and then bottle.

I'm going to be brewing a Hefeweizen with a 3068 wyeast strain so I'm estimating that I can bottle in about 10 -14 days in primary since HEFE's are a fast ass brewing beer. (my equipment comes tomorrow the 30th so I'm excited as hell).

 

[BrewKnurd]

Patience - the ability to wait if necessary - is definitely a virtue.

If the waiting is not beneficial, then the waiting itself is not a virtue.

 

[blakelyc]

I am also a new brewer so I don't have a ton of experience with different conditions, but if I may be so bold as to venture an opinion: new brewers should be encouraged to take a data-driven approach to their brewing. All this business about fermentation time, to secondary, to not secondary, etc., is really meaningless without observation and data. If you've been brewing a while, you get a "feel" for it so you just know what seems right.

But for new brewers, the stock advice is too absolute. It isn't just about waiting another few weeks or sticking to a time table that generally works. It is about learning the brewing process. New brewers should be encouraged to observe their brews, pay attention to sights and smells and above all take measurements (gravity, clarity, etc.) frequently. Even if I just have a minute or two, I make an observation every day. I may just take a look at the airlock, take a sniff, look at the krauesen, take a close look at the beer. It may look like a cloudy mess, but if you look at it, really really look at it, you can see changes in the conditions in the beer itself. Some days I may take a gravity reading. All info goes in a cheap notebook.

Point is, experienced brewers understand the process and make many little judgements automatically based on what is happening. For those of us who are new, we should be encouraged to figure out how to make those judgements, not just follow some rote instructions. Beer doesn't seem to clear as fast as you want? Well, what other practices can help that along? In what cases can a secondary help clarity? Not sure if fermentation is done? How can I figure that out?

Fermenting longer may work well for some people, but what always works is hydrometer measurements and temperature records and reading (and understanding) the 1-sheet on the yeast strain. All of these techniques like long fermentations, secondaries, etc., are just tools and we should all know how to employ them effectively. I know everyone wants to make a good brew first time out, but in my short time brewing I have come to understand that you have to screw something up pretty badly to not make beer. And if it isn't right? Then you'll have enough data to get better advice and gain more knowledge for your next batch. Anything less is a crapshoot.

The worst that could happen is that you have to brew again. Darn

Just my 2 cents....
-b

 

[Homercidal]

I think the OP is on target with some of the points made, but I also feel that the aim of the (rant?) is misplaced.

In many of those cases where people have advocated patience, it's not simply a blanket statement that all beer is better if you let it sit on the yeast for a month. A lot of times in the beginner section people are underpitching, over temp, using old yeast, freaking out, using packaged instructions, etc.

I also think that there is a misunderstanding between "Beer is better if you let it sit on the yeast for 3-4 weeks!" vs "It's ok to let your beer sit on the yeast for 3-4 weeks". And I'm talking about average strength beer. High gravity beer obviously takes a bit more time and can stand an "aging" process better than a medium or low strength beer.

That all said, it certainly is fine to let even an average strength beer sit an extra week or two rather than get bottled before it's fermented out. A lot of the beginner brewers bottle and they may not understand the bottle bomb risk and some of the other factors. in a lot of cases we may not have all of the available information and advising taking some time is better than making assumptions.

I've also noted that in a lot of cases where giving it more time is offered with the other useful advice to take hydrometer readings. Some people can take a ton of advice and run with it. Others may get overwhelmed with the technical details and may need to obtain their experience and knowledge a bit at a time. They will get the feel for things as they continue to brew.

I think the most helpful part of the "give it another week" advice is the sense of relax, don't worry. Some of the people posting in the beginner section have a clear sign of concern emanating from their posts.

 

[gr8shandini]

Wow. I've been "unplugged" for the weekend and I'm surprised to come back to such a reasonable debate. For the record, I'm not advocating that anyone brew faster if it doesn't work well for them. If someone doesn't have the time to brew every couple of weeks, or if it takes them a while to finish a batch, I don't see anything wrong with letting it sit for a while.

I guess what got me going (aside from a few homebrews) was that "wait 3-4 weeks" is becoming a one-size-fits-all answer for pretty much any question that gets asked in the beginner's section. In my opinion, that isn't really being helpful. I remember one post a while back about someone with an off-flavor problem common to all of his beers, one of which spent 8 weeks in primary and another 4 in the bottle. His question still got met with a round of "just wait it out, it's still green." While I recall that it was a little on the strong side (1.065 maybe), pretty much anything short of a massive barleywine should be drinkable in 3 months. Furthermore, some of the more vocal advocates of extended primaries will combat any advice other than "3 weeks minimum" with charges that the poster isn't interested in brewing good beer and just wants to "churn out swill" so they can get drunk. So I figured that I'd point out that there might be some very good reasons for someone who does care about crafting a great beer to want a quicker turn-around.

I think blakelyc got my drift and maybe put it better than I did. The 3 week minimum is just as arbitrary of a rule as the 1-2-3 instructions in a lot of kits. Will it produce a better beer for someone's first time out? Maybe. But it's arbitrary nonetheless. And if you're the type that wants a hard-and-fast rule it's probably as good as any. However, there are also a lot of folks who are more inquisitive and want to tailor their brewing to their equipment, their recipes, and their preferences. So if someone asks about that, we should answer them, not bully them into thinking that there's only one way to do things.

 

[theDeutscher]

Anymore I just pitch a yeast slurry from a gallon starter every time I brew an ale. With a big pitch and ramping the temperature towards the end, I hardly ever get any more attenuation after 5 days. For something like a pale ale or IPA that I'm dry hopping, I like to add the dry hops when fermentation is winding down so that some yeast are still around to scrub any bacteria from the hops. At the same time, when I dry hop too long (over a week) I start to get an overly-grassy taste from the hops... SO I have to have a complete primary at the end of that dry hop phase. I've tried the whole "wait 3-4 weeks for the yeast to drop out" thing. There's always going to be some yeast cloudiness until you carbonate your beer. I think a lot of people are confusing cleaning up the beer with some level of oxidation that they tend to like. Just my opinion.

 

[Soma]

IME every batch of beer is a little different. There are no absolute rules except to pay attention to each batch and respond to their needs. The reason 'be patient' is such a common piece of advice is that it solves many (if not most) of the issues faced by novice brewers.

 

[blakelyc]

IME every batch of beer is a little different. There are no absolute rules except to pay attention to each batch and respond to their needs. The reason 'be patient' is such a common piece of advice is that it solves many (if not most) of the issues faced by novice brewers.

I totally get that.... I think it is the tone of this advice in the beginner forum that the OP is referring to. Saying something like, "oh, your pitching temp was a bit high? yeah, leave it in a week to reduce a few common off flavors." is a bit different than the absolute leave-it-in-X-weeks advice.

The sooner people come to terms with quality brewing as a function of process and environmental conditions rather than focusing so much on clock time, the better.

Brew on! :rockin:

 

[RiffMagnum]

as a new brewer I'm trying to soak up as much information as I can in a short amount of time. I think that both sides have a lot of common sense to them. after reading a TON of threads you see extremes. you see the guys who sit on a brew for a month, then secondary and then carb for 20 million weeks, and you have the ones who rack to secondary or to bottle after 5 days. from what I've seen many summer beers can be straight to bottle in 2 weeks on primary and then bottle.

I'm going to be brewing a Hefeweizen with a 3068 wyeast strain so I'm estimating that I can bottle in about 10 -14 days in primary since HEFE's are a fast ass brewing beer. (my equipment comes tomorrow the 30th so I'm excited as hell).

Of course that's if everything goes perfectly. I just bottled my 3068 Hefe after 20 days in primary because i wanted to let it clean up the sulfur smell i was getting the first week or so. Brewing is alot like baseball and poker, it's very situational, but with many so called "guidelines."

 

[billl]

I think the general advice to give your first beer(s) some extra time is sound. Nobody does anything perfectly the first time, so there are going to be some flaws in every first batch. The majority of those flaws can be eliminated or minimized with an extra week or 2 in the primary.

Honestly, I think more people quit brewing if their beer just doesn't taste good then quit because it takes to long. For us married guys, you have an additional wife motivation. If I had served her 20 gallons of crap beer while trying to fix my "process", that probably would have been the end of homebrewing at my house.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

I think the general advice to give your first beer(s) some extra time is sound. Nobody does anything perfectly the first time, so there are going to be some flaws in every first batch. The majority of those flaws can be eliminated or minimized with an extra week or 2 in the primary.

Honestly, I think more people quit brewing if their beer just doesn't taste good then quit because it takes to long. For us married guys, you have an additional wife motivation. If I had served her 20 gallons of crap beer while trying to fix my "process", that probably would have been the end of homebrewing at my house.

While I agree with most of what you're sayin', the bolded statement just isn't entirely true. Sure, some minor flaws can smooth or mellow over time, but the vast majority of off flavors related to yeast health or fermentation temps won't just go away. I think many brewers make the mistake of 'green' flavors, which obviously do fade with time, being 'off' flavors. Take a beer laden with diacetyl, for instance. Sure, over time, the diacetyl flavor may fade, as many other beer flavors do with time, but it won't go away. Diacetyl is produced early, during the lag and reproductive phases, then some may be reconsumed by the yeast at the end of active fermentation, thus the diacetyl rest to keep the yeast working longer. After the yeast become inactive, after FG is reached, the yeast aren't doing anything, they're dormant. If any off flavors are reabsorbed by the yeast, it's when they're active, during fermentation or within a few days of reaching terminal. If they were still active, they wouldn't be dormant.
Basically, it's like this; if you want to ensure your beer is free from flaws, pitch enough fresh, healthy yeast, control fermentation temps and be sanitary. Some flaws may be diminished with time, but yeast aren't going to correct every mistake made by the brewer.

 

[wailingguitar]

While I agree with most of what you're sayin', the bolded statement just isn't entirely true. Sure, some minor flaws can smooth or mellow over time, but the vast majority of off flavors related to yeast health or fermentation temps won't just go away. I think many brewers make the mistake of 'green' flavors, which obviously do fade with time, being 'off' flavors. Take a beer laden with diacetyl, for instance. Sure, over time, the diacetyl flavor may fade, as many other beer flavors do with time, but it won't go away. Diacetyl is produced early, during the lag and reproductive phases, then some may be reconsumed by the yeast at the end of active fermentation, thus the diacetyl rest to keep the yeast working longer. After the yeast become inactive, after FG is reached, the yeast aren't doing anything, they're dormant. If any off flavors are reabsorbed by the yeast, it's when they're active, during fermentation or within a few days of reaching terminal. If they were still active, they wouldn't be dormant.
Basically, it's like this; if you want to ensure your beer is free from flaws, pitch enough fresh, healthy yeast, control fermentation temps and be sanitary. Some flaws may be diminished with time, but yeast aren't going to correct every mistake made by the brewer.

:rockin:

 

[billl]

Certainly, yeast don't fix every mistake with time, but they fix some common flaws. eg diacetyl. If a new brewer is following kit instructions, it is highly unlikely that they know anything about a diacetyl rest. "Leave it at room temp for an extra week" beyond the kit instructions will most certainly improve a diacetyl problem. Depending on how bad the problem was, it may not completely resolve, but I don't think there is any arguing that it will be better at 14 days than 7.

I'm certainly not saying that 2 months is a reasonable recommendation, but the vast majority of new brewers are using kits that say to bottle after a week to 10 days. The chances of a brand new brewer hitting all the marks to make that happen are pretty slim. It's fine to say that you should watch the beer and let it go until it is "ready", but a brand new brewer has no idea what "ready" looks like or tastes like. Once you watch the beer go through the whole process a couple of times, take some readings, taste the various stages etc, then we are talking about a whole different level of knowledge to work with. The only way to get there though is to be patient and let it happen a couple of times.

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

Certainly, yeast don't fix every mistake with time, but they fix some common flaws. eg diacetyl. If a new brewer is following kit instructions, it is highly unlikely that they know anything about a diacetyl rest. "Leave it at room temp for an extra week" beyond the kit instructions will most certainly improve a diacetyl problem. Depending on how bad the problem was, it may not completely resolve, but I don't think there is any arguing that it will be better at 14 days than 7.

I'm certainly not saying that 2 months is a reasonable recommendation, but the vast majority of new brewers are using kits that say to bottle after a week to 10 days. The chances of a brand new brewer hitting all the marks to make that happen are pretty slim. It's fine to say that you should watch the beer and let it go until it is "ready", but a brand new brewer has no idea what "ready" looks like or tastes like. Once you watch the beer go through the whole process a couple of times, take some readings, taste the various stages etc, then we are talking about a whole different level of knowledge to work with. The only way to get there though is to be patient and let it happen a couple of times.

First off, as I said before, yeast will only clean up so much diacetyl. If you make a butter bomb, no d-rest and no yeast, and especially no set amount of time is going to clean it all up. Same goes for esters, phenolics, fusels, etc. It's just not true that the yeast will just do away with these things for you if you leave the beer on the cake for a magic number of days after terminal.
The reason many of us suggest that new brewers leave the beer longer is to ensure that fermentation is complete and that the beer is beginning to clear, not because some magic yeast fairly will come over on night 28 and fix their flawed beer. If a new brewer asks me how to eliminate something like say, fusel alcohol in their beer, the last thing I'm gonna talk to them about is leaving the beer on the cake. I'm gonna tell them to consult a pitch rate calc, make a starter and ferment cool.
Patience is a brewers best friend........ if their process is solid. But no amount of patience will make up for a poorly brewed beer.

 

[BrewKnurd]

Depending on how bad the problem was, it may not completely resolve, but I don't think there is any arguing that it will be better at 14 days than 7.

If you change that to "there's no arguing that it won't be any worse at 14 than 7" then I would pretty much have to agree. But I think there's plenty of room to argue the blanket statement that every diacetyl problem will be better at 14 days vs 7. Many primary fermentations are done consuming sugar in 3-4 days. 3 days past active fermentation, and your yeast are most likely done reprocessing any diacetyl they're gonna get to.

Anyways, not advocating bottling at seven days, so please don't take it that way. More arguing a technicality.

 

[jkendrick]

As a new brewer, I can only share my anecdotal experience, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion. My first beer was a kit given to me for Christmas and bought from Amazon. My guess is the two biggest mistakes I made were the kit itself, which almost certainly had very old ingredients and oxidizing as I bottled. I left it in primary for three weeks and bottled without a secondary. The result was a drinkable beer but certainly not great. However, as the weeks and months have now gone on, I've found it to be almost undrinkable. It has definitely gotten progressively worse the longer it has been in the bottles, even with three weeks in primary. Now maybe it would have been undrinkable from the start had I not left it in primary for three weeks, but certainly it seems to me there are flaws/mistakes that can't be covered up by longer primary.

 

[billl]

I don't think I have any fundamental disagreements with most of the posters here, but I think the idea that yeast suddenly drop out of suspension after you hit FG is being highly oversold. Obviously, a lot of them do of you wouldn't have a big yeast cake. Equally obviously, a lot are still left in suspension doing their thing or their wouldn't be such a thing as bottle carbonation. There is a fair amount of ongoing activity as long as their are any consumable compounds in the brew.

It would be great if every brewer got to start off brewing with an experienced homebrewer. Baring that, you need some written steps for people to follow. The general kit instructions seem to assume the new brewer is going to hit their o2, temps and yeast counts accurately. If you screw those up and bottle after 7 days, you stand a good chance of getting something undrinkable. If you wait 3 weeks, you have a better shot of getting something drinkable even if it is flawed. Patience isn't a replacement for good technique, but it can make some of your mistakes more palatable while you work on it.