Sounds like oxidation,Im really not quite s hure what that is,but i think its a drying tastless effect which i think i may experince sometimes. Because i never get the wet/cardboard ever,however i do get a dried out tasteless effect sometimes which i think but am n0t certain is oxidation. Which may possibly be due to overcarbonation also which ive had a streak of.
Is patience really a virtue?
- Thread starter gr8shandini
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Sounds like oxidation,Im really not quite s hure what that is,but i think its a drying tastless effect which i think i may experince sometimes. Because i never get the wet/cardboard ever,however i do get a dried out tasteless effect sometimes which i think but am n0t certain is oxidation. Which may possibly be due to overcarbonation also which ive had a streak of.
I don't recall anyone saying that the yeast drop out as soon as FG is reached. Obviously they don't, or you'd have a clear beer immediately after fermentation completed. The point we're trying to make is that this whole fallacy of yeast cleaning up is way over stated on these forums. You've kinda got it, those yeasts in suspension will undoubtedly try to continue consuming whatever they can, even after all the fermentables are gone, but this is something that lasts only a few days, not weeks like some of the more outspoken users on this sight claim. I'm not saying leaving your brew longer doesn't have it's benefits, in fact I often leave beers in primary for a month or more and I do see some benefits to it, but those are along the lines of clearing of proteins, development of flavors, maturation, etc., and the beer doesn't necessarily need to be in the fermenter for those things to happen.As far as the bolded statement goes, I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I can't say that I agree with you. Back to the diacetyl. In theory yeast will consume diacetyl to a degree, but if you have a beer that's loaded with it you could leave it on the cake for a year and it wouldn't go away. E.G. I brewed an ESB in February of 2011 with 1968, a known diacetyl producer. The beer got too warm (low 70s) for the first day of fermentation. At the advice of many here I left in on the cake for 5 weeks to clean up. At bottling it tasted like microwave popcorn. After a month of conditioning it tasted like microwave popcorn. Last time I tried one it tasted like microwave popcorn. See the pattern? And I'd be willing to bet my dollars to your doughnuts that if I wasn't enjoying a delicious Weihenstephaner Hefe, I could crack one now and it'd taste like microwave popcorn. I've had beers with a lower level of an off flavor clean up a bit, but to make the claim that leaving your beer one the cake will correct every off flavor in it's entirety is plain nonsense, IMO.
"I've had beers with a lower level of an off flavor clean up a bit, but to make the claim that leaving your beer one the cake will correct every off flavor in it's entirety is plain nonsense, IMO."
Not sure anyone has said that, and I'm certain I didn't. I've gone out of my way on the posts here to indicate the exact opposite. Time will improve on most minor off tastes and make them less pronounced. Time isn't going to fix a big stinky mess.
Sorry about your butterball. I'm sure you are right and your remaining yeast aren't healthy/active enough to clean up the mess. You might have tried "krausening" - pitching some of the krausen and wort from an active batch of clean tasting yeast.
Not sure anyone has said that, and I'm certain I didn't. I've gone out of my way on the posts here to indicate the exact opposite. Time will improve on most minor off tastes and make them less pronounced. Time isn't going to fix a big stinky mess.
Sorry about your butterball. I'm sure you are right and your remaining yeast aren't healthy/active enough to clean up the mess. You might have tried "krausening" - pitching some of the krausen and wort from an active batch of clean tasting yeast.
gr8shandini
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean to say that the yeast suddendly go dormant as soon as you hit FG. Rather, I was saying that there are ways to force them out once they've done their job.
And I agree, a longer conditioning time (which, personally, I don't think needs to happen in the primary) will serve as at least a partial remedy to some rookie mistakes. I'm just saying that if someone is interested in taking off the training wheels, we help 'em out.
Yeah, I did. And I'll continue to say it because it's correct. Obviously, thus the reason I keep telling you that you're wrong.
And apparently, along with regurgitating other things you've read even though you really don't understand them, you've decided to regurgitate my point to make yours. Which is it? I'm guessing it's that you really don't know which it is, that in your short time here you've read some of the more vocal members saying things that just aren't entirely true, and are presenting those 'facts' as your argument. What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems. I know, I know, you've now said it only fixes minor problems (after I posted just that a few times), but your original claim was that it's a cure all.
No need to apologize for my mistake. Learning experience, my man, learning experience. I'm well aware of the more appropriate measures I should've taken with this batch. My point in telling you about it was that I took the advice of others, the same advice you're saying is fact (long primary cleans up all off flavors), and that that claim is just plain nonsense.
![Craft A Brew - Safale BE-256 Yeast - Fermentis - Belgian Ale Dry Yeast - For Belgian & Strong Ales - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [3 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51bcKEwQmWL._SL500_.jpg)
I love this thread, and agree whole-heartedly with its premise.
When I was a new brewer, I came here and saw a vocal minority condescending to the less experienced, implying that they were just foolsh and impatient. Month-long primaries, and 3-12 week bottle conditioning was required at a minimum.
Experience and common sense has taught me otherwise. Kudo's to the OP!
When I was a new brewer, I came here and saw a vocal minority condescending to the less experienced, implying that they were just foolsh and impatient. Month-long primaries, and 3-12 week bottle conditioning was required at a minimum.
Experience and common sense has taught me otherwise. Kudo's to the OP!
When I was a new brewer, I came here and saw a vocal minority condescending to the less experienced, implying that they were just foolsh and impatient. Month-long primaries, and 3-12 week bottle conditioning was required at a minimum.
I too listened to the advice of the vocal minority early in my brewing and have since learned to figure out what works for me (and that certainly isn't month long primaries...). Hell, I even post my experience that is out of line with the month long primary crowd and am immediately told I don't know what I'm talking about. There isn't anything else like valid discussion points being stifled. To be honest, I'm shocked the month long primary crew hasn't popped in here yet.
Just you wait!
But yeah, I think many of us fell victim to that early on. And really, it's not like it makes your beer worse to leave it, so it even made sense. Now, knowing what I've learned, it just seems silly to wait an extra two weeks most of the time.
"What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems. I know, I know, you've now said it only fixes minor problems (after I posted just that a few times), but your original claim was that it's a cure all."
Not sure why you want to lie about what I said. It is right here in the thread for everyone to read. Every single post I wrote says that aging will clear up some, many, most, etc problems. "Cure all" and other such nonsense is being posted only by you.
"What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems."
Again, totally misquoting me. Normal kit instructions that most new brewers are working with call for a week or so in the primary. I wouldn't call suggesting to add ate least a week to that to be a "long primary" before bottling. Personally, I just plan on 2-3 and don't worry about it before then. The longest I've ever let it sit was 4 weeks and that was due to a busy schedule, not design.
For my first batch, I followed the instructions. It called for a week in a primary, a week in a secondary and then bottling. I tasted at 1 week and thought it was a sour apple mess. My wife tasted it and gave me "the look." After a week in the secondary, it was improved but still green. After 2 weeks in a bottle, it was drinkable. A month later, it was actually decent. I wish someone had told me not to bother messing with a 7 day old IPA.
Not sure why you want to lie about what I said. It is right here in the thread for everyone to read. Every single post I wrote says that aging will clear up some, many, most, etc problems. "Cure all" and other such nonsense is being posted only by you.
"What, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, leads you to believe that yeast and a long primary will fix you problems."
Again, totally misquoting me. Normal kit instructions that most new brewers are working with call for a week or so in the primary. I wouldn't call suggesting to add ate least a week to that to be a "long primary" before bottling. Personally, I just plan on 2-3 and don't worry about it before then. The longest I've ever let it sit was 4 weeks and that was due to a busy schedule, not design.
For my first batch, I followed the instructions. It called for a week in a primary, a week in a secondary and then bottling. I tasted at 1 week and thought it was a sour apple mess. My wife tasted it and gave me "the look." After a week in the secondary, it was improved but still green. After 2 weeks in a bottle, it was drinkable. A month later, it was actually decent. I wish someone had told me not to bother messing with a 7 day old IPA.
Huh? 'Cure all' was the term I used to describe what your claiming:
^This^, which isn't entirely true.
Ummmm, that's my quote, not yours. Again, what, in your experience, suggests that what you're saying is fact?
So your experience is that your first batch wasn't great when it was green, but improved as the beer conditioned.....
Wow, whatta novel idea. I had no idea that 'green' or young beer would mature and become good beer.
Really, dude, I think you're just repeating what you've read, presenting that as your knowledge, yet it's quite obvious that you really don't understand what you're saying.
Again, I'll ask, what in your personal brewing experience leads you to believe that you're right? Have you had a beer that you know you screwed up that magically became great when you left it on the cake? Have you experimented and purposely under pitched? Or over pitched? Or fermented too warm? Or too cool? 'Cause personally, man, before I go around telling people things, I like to know them for myself. And in order to know these things, I'd have to had experienced them, right?
My own anecdotes:
fourth batch is fermenting right now. 1.062 OG saison. It's been 13 days and it looked like it finished more than a week ago. Probably bottle Monday or Tuesday. For the first three, I bottled at 16, 29 (fruit in primary after initial fermentation), and 17 days. I guess this is not as short as y'all are talking about, but it's shorter than a month. I've noticed no problems.
That said, my first was a porter that tasted significantly better after four weeks of bottle conditioning than three. The second was a wit that was not very good after two weeks of bottle conditioning, but was a hit after three. Both relatively low OG (1.045 to 1.050). I guess if you folks are kegging, this isn't relevant, and patience may not be a virtue. But my limited experience has definitely put me on the three-week (or more) bandwagon for bottle conditioning.
fourth batch is fermenting right now. 1.062 OG saison. It's been 13 days and it looked like it finished more than a week ago. Probably bottle Monday or Tuesday. For the first three, I bottled at 16, 29 (fruit in primary after initial fermentation), and 17 days. I guess this is not as short as y'all are talking about, but it's shorter than a month. I've noticed no problems.
That said, my first was a porter that tasted significantly better after four weeks of bottle conditioning than three. The second was a wit that was not very good after two weeks of bottle conditioning, but was a hit after three. Both relatively low OG (1.045 to 1.050). I guess if you folks are kegging, this isn't relevant, and patience may not be a virtue. But my limited experience has definitely put me on the three-week (or more) bandwagon for bottle conditioning.
I don't think anyone'll argue with you that 3 weeks is a good guideline when you're starting out. I used to leave everything for a minimum of 3 weeks before bottling, and it always produced good beer for me. Now, I just go 'til the beer tells me it's done. I brewed a honey wheat a week ago, krausen dropped today and I took a reading, if the gravity's the same this weekend, I'll bottle because I want to drink this beer young. Conversely, I have a RIS that'll have been in some type of FV for 8+ months before I bottle, not because it'll take that long, it's been at FG since day 11, but because that beer will get much better with age on it.
Basically, to be safe, leave it. Once ya get your teeth cut, and know more what to look, smell and taste for, it'll be easier to know when it's 'done'.
theDeutscher
Well-Known Member
I'm sensing a poll. No right or wrong answers.
Great discussion!
Looking through my brew log, all my fermentation has been 7 - 14 days before bottling. My OG has ranged from 1.048 - 1.063, which I think is a pretty normal range, no double, triple, imperial anything for me. I go by my hydrometer readings and when I have the free time to bottle. My worst beer was one of the ones I bottled in 7 days, but I added too much lemon zest and fermented warmer than I should have. That may have benefited from letting it sit longer to clean up. The one I fermented for 14 days is a vanilla oatmeal stout. I bottled once it had the vanilla flavor I wanted. It's been in the bottle for 6 weeks. The flavor is good but it is still way too flat. There's little carbonation because I was short on the priming sugar. My best beers fermented 9-12 days before bottling, but more importantly they had just the right amount of yeast and temperature control during fermentation, which I think was primary reason they came out tasting so good. Again, my decision for when to bottle those was based on my hydrometer readings and when I had the free time to bottle. I've been doing this since my very first beer. It may be easier to follow set time frames for some people or even to set and forget it until you have the time to come back to it. For me though, once it has fermented for 5-6 days and I see less activity or that the krausen has dropped, I'll start taking daily hydrometer readings. I'd rather let each batch tell me when it's ready to bottle, so to speak.
Looking through my brew log, all my fermentation has been 7 - 14 days before bottling. My OG has ranged from 1.048 - 1.063, which I think is a pretty normal range, no double, triple, imperial anything for me. I go by my hydrometer readings and when I have the free time to bottle. My worst beer was one of the ones I bottled in 7 days, but I added too much lemon zest and fermented warmer than I should have. That may have benefited from letting it sit longer to clean up. The one I fermented for 14 days is a vanilla oatmeal stout. I bottled once it had the vanilla flavor I wanted. It's been in the bottle for 6 weeks. The flavor is good but it is still way too flat. There's little carbonation because I was short on the priming sugar. My best beers fermented 9-12 days before bottling, but more importantly they had just the right amount of yeast and temperature control during fermentation, which I think was primary reason they came out tasting so good. Again, my decision for when to bottle those was based on my hydrometer readings and when I had the free time to bottle. I've been doing this since my very first beer. It may be easier to follow set time frames for some people or even to set and forget it until you have the time to come back to it. For me though, once it has fermented for 5-6 days and I see less activity or that the krausen has dropped, I'll start taking daily hydrometer readings. I'd rather let each batch tell me when it's ready to bottle, so to speak.
wailingguitar
Well-Known Member
I've not looked at this in days, but just wanted to chime in and say that my experience at all scales mirrors what Nordeast is saying...
tennesseean_87
Well-Known Member
I'm a new brewer who is just coming around to realizing that I can get by with quicker fermentations on some of my lower OG ales. Fermenting in buckets and being scared of opening them for infections sake kept me from learning just how quickly krauzen rises, fall, and the beer is ready. I tended to leave things long early on, but now I'm a bit more into getting things bottled at 2 weeks, if the beer can handle it. My BDSA won't get that treatment, I'll probably leave it 4 before bottle conditioning another 4 before the first taste. <1.05 I'm starting to package in 1.5-2 weeks, with stable hydrometer over 2-3 days.
I haven't read the whole thread here, just page 1, but I can testify that OP is right.
I recently brewed an Irish Red Ale (basic 1.055 ale with enough crystal in it for it to turn a lovely red color), I shortened the mash and boil down to 30 minutes or something (each), and it was done fermenting (at FG, 1.010 or so) by day 3, I cold crashed for a day and then bottled, it was mildly carbed by day 8 and I was drinking them.
Since that time it's maintained a very similar flavor, maybe a bit better now than early on, but overall it's always had rave reviews from friends "That's a great beer, I love it!", and it was the fastest beer I've ever turned out.
Had I kegged it and force carbed, it would have been done and drinkable (and pleasant!) by day 5.
I recently brewed an Irish Red Ale (basic 1.055 ale with enough crystal in it for it to turn a lovely red color), I shortened the mash and boil down to 30 minutes or something (each), and it was done fermenting (at FG, 1.010 or so) by day 3, I cold crashed for a day and then bottled, it was mildly carbed by day 8 and I was drinking them.
Since that time it's maintained a very similar flavor, maybe a bit better now than early on, but overall it's always had rave reviews from friends "That's a great beer, I love it!", and it was the fastest beer I've ever turned out.
Had I kegged it and force carbed, it would have been done and drinkable (and pleasant!) by day 5.
whitehause
Well-Known Member
For me it's all about style of beer. Some should sit some should wait. Good practices make good beer. I've had IPA's were the hydro sample was great, and ended up being a great beer. I've also had pale ales early in my brewing when my technique wasn't as honed that were so-so tasting from the hydro, and got a little better, but never were great.
pericles
Well-Known Member
I guess my big objection to the "patience" argument is that it has no clear end point. None of the patience-people ever says "four weeks is the perfect amount of time, no longer, no shorter." Instead, they say "four weeks MINIMUM." One poster on this site even told me that his favorite beers are the IPAs that he aged for three years before drinking.
I suppose that makes sense if you believe that beer only ever gets better with timebut most people don't. On the contrary, every craft-beer owner is manic about getting old kegs and bottles off the shelves, and even MBC have vigorous quality control programs that pull older cases out of gas-stations and grocery stores across the country after just a few weeks.
If your palette is such that you really enjoy three year old IPAs, then more power to you: grab some bottles, throw 'em in a basement, and forget about 'em! But don't confuse new brewers with your idiosyncratic tastes.
I suppose that makes sense if you believe that beer only ever gets better with timebut most people don't. On the contrary, every craft-beer owner is manic about getting old kegs and bottles off the shelves, and even MBC have vigorous quality control programs that pull older cases out of gas-stations and grocery stores across the country after just a few weeks.
If your palette is such that you really enjoy three year old IPAs, then more power to you: grab some bottles, throw 'em in a basement, and forget about 'em! But don't confuse new brewers with your idiosyncratic tastes.
gr8shandini
Well-Known Member
That raises an interesting question, pericles. I wonder if a lot of the folks who like to "age" their beer are just used to drinking stale commercial beer? I will say that on the rare occasions one of my kegs lasts a few months, it does taste more like a typical commercial example (unless you're buying straight from the brewery or a shop that has really good turnover).
pericles
Well-Known Member
Sure could be—Heinekin in the US tastes VERY different than it does in Germany. If you're used to the taste of cardboard in your IPAs then you might grow to like it.
One more thought/question in the long interesting thread. What about the temp of the bottle conditioning. Often times we used to read two weeks in primary, two weeks in secondary, two weeks (or three) to carbonate, and two weeks to cold condition under refrigeration. Almost all the discussion here addresses bottle conditioning at room/cellar temps if I read it right. Do some still adhere to the two weeks at ambient and two under refrigeration, or is a couple days in the cold to hold the carb enough in today's brewing?
I don't usually see an improvement from beer that's been in the fridge for a couple of days to beer that's been in there for a couple of weeks.
I usually aim for three weeks at ambient, but YMMV.
I was recently on vacation. Some bottles of a Blonde Ale I made stayed in the fridge for 3 weeks while the rest stayed in the cabinet where I keep all of my beer that is bottle conditioning at room temperature, which is 77-80 degrees this time of year. I have drank from both since returning home and I cannot tell a difference in flavor or aroma. The ones that stayed in the fridge for that time poured perfectly clear while the ones from the cabinet had a slight haze after I chilled them overnight. This recipe is about 10% wheat and is always slightly hazy, unless I chill it for some days before drinking. I also use this grain bill with a Saison yeast and I get the same haze and the same clear beer after days in the fridge, but I don't notice a difference in taste when it's left to condition in the fridge with the Saison either.
Either way though, I feel every beer and everybody is different. I have noticed slight improvements in a stout that I left in the fridge for a long time over one that I quickly chilled just to have something to drink. Also, some people are more sensitive to those subtle changes in flavor than others. For me however, it's not worth cold conditioning an entire batch when I barley perceive a difference, if there even is one to begin with. I'd rather use my fridge space for something else (in other words, that's all the fridge space my wife allows for beer). Kidding! I just rather keep the bottles in the cabinet and stock the fridge as needed.
Either way though, I feel every beer and everybody is different. I have noticed slight improvements in a stout that I left in the fridge for a long time over one that I quickly chilled just to have something to drink. Also, some people are more sensitive to those subtle changes in flavor than others. For me however, it's not worth cold conditioning an entire batch when I barley perceive a difference, if there even is one to begin with. I'd rather use my fridge space for something else (in other words, that's all the fridge space my wife allows for beer). Kidding! I just rather keep the bottles in the cabinet and stock the fridge as needed.
Agreed. More importantly, if you chill all the bottles, you'll stop all aging. Most of my beers improve with age right up until they're gone.
Of course, IPAs are a notable exception. Drink them fresh!
Aging most certainly continues in chilled beers. I brew a lot of lagers and most receive at least 2-4 weeks of lagering. I can readily taste a difference in the 2 week vs the 4 week lagered beer. I believe there is a plateau to aging in that once it is mature, then the flavors will not change for a period of time (style dependent of course) whether they are warm or cold.
As to the OP, I have no problem with a quick turn around (my normal procedure) and I have no problem with letting it ride in primary and dealing with it when one feels like it (I certainly have no problem with being lazy!). I however do not like it when folks say it must be done one way or the other, or make blanket statements that one is better than the other. This is strictly a personal decision
hepcat
Well-Known Member
GREAT thread!! I have soooo been wondering why so many experienced brewer's beers take so loooooong to finish (based on comments/advice/their own personal brewing experiences)!! I'm thinking WTH is wrong with these people, LOL.
I have only three batches under my belt so far.
Brewed my first batch, BIG braggot/barley wine style (OG ~1.098), and SG stopped moving after only 6 days, so I waited two more days, checked SG and it had not moved so I declared it done, bottle conditioned it for only 6 days at room temp. at which time I could clearly see sediment in the bottles at day six so couldn't stand it any more, chilled one for a couple hours, tried it and it was delicious!! And the two friends I shared some with loved it too. And (it was 5 gallons) it's long gone and fondly remembered, LOL!!
My second batch, another braggot(looks like a pale ale), ~3.25 gallons, was finished fermenting in only 5 days. But I waited two more days, SG had not moved so declared it done after only 7 days and bottled it. It's been conditioning for only three days now and I could clearly see sediment in the bottles as of yesterday and it's also already looking crystal clear so think it's already ready to drink!!:rockin:
So WTH, think I'm gonna share a couple with a friend tomorrow and give it a try.
My third (~5 gallon) batch is still fermenting, started two days ago....excited to see how it turns out, shouldn't be long before I'll know, cheers!!
I have only three batches under my belt so far.
Brewed my first batch, BIG braggot/barley wine style (OG ~1.098), and SG stopped moving after only 6 days, so I waited two more days, checked SG and it had not moved so I declared it done, bottle conditioned it for only 6 days at room temp. at which time I could clearly see sediment in the bottles at day six so couldn't stand it any more, chilled one for a couple hours, tried it and it was delicious!! And the two friends I shared some with loved it too. And (it was 5 gallons) it's long gone and fondly remembered, LOL!!
My second batch, another braggot(looks like a pale ale), ~3.25 gallons, was finished fermenting in only 5 days. But I waited two more days, SG had not moved so declared it done after only 7 days and bottled it. It's been conditioning for only three days now and I could clearly see sediment in the bottles as of yesterday and it's also already looking crystal clear so think it's already ready to drink!!:rockin:
So WTH, think I'm gonna share a couple with a friend tomorrow and give it a try.
My third (~5 gallon) batch is still fermenting, started two days ago....excited to see how it turns out, shouldn't be long before I'll know, cheers!!
