Quantcast

leaving ales in the primary more than 10 days

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

xbabyboy4021x

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincoln, NE
every time i post a question about how long to let my beer sit in the primary the responses from this forum always seem to be in the 3-5 week range for best results, after reading through about 1/4 of "The Complete Joy of Homebrewing" by Charlie Papazian, he seems to put some emphasis on the fact that leaving an ale in the primary once it has reached its specified FG and the gravity does not change for 2-3 days really has no benefit whatsoever and that the ONLY reason to ever leave beer in the primary for more than 10 or so days is if it is a lager and being stored at cooler temps. so why does everybody always say to leave my beers in the primary so long when Charlie Papazian seems to think that its going to have no effect on my ales that i brew?
 

Parker36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
24
Location
Lesotho
Not exactly what Charlie P has to say on secondaries, so maybe he just means its ok to transfer at that time.

In either case, even when FG has been reached and is constant, does not mean that the yeasts are done. They will still work on "cleaning up" the beer as time goes on, which is why bulk aging is good in many cases.
 

blackwaterbrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
704
Reaction score
7
Location
virginia beach
i like to primary for 10-14, secondary for 10-14, and keg condition for 10-14. that is for ales, which is mostly what i brew. once the krausen has dropped, the beer will become more and more clear over the next few days. at this point, take a hydrometer reading. wait 3 days and take another hydrometer reading. if it is the same, wait another 3-4 days before racking to the secondary clearing carboy. that is how i do it.
 

VTBrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
847
Reaction score
6
Location
South Burlington, VT
I don't secondary ale's. I don't bother taking a reading for a while. On an OG 1.062, which I made today, I won't check for three weeks, and I'll do so on a Friday night. If its the same Sunday morning I bottle. If not, I bottle the next Saturday.

While there may be no benefit to letting it sit on the yeast cake when fermentation is complete, I do not believe that there is any detriment to letting it do so. I err on the side of caution. I will however boil to belly a wheat beer in about 20 days.

This is one of those questions where the rule of "ask 10 brewers get 10 answers" applies.
 
OP
X

xbabyboy4021x

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincoln, NE
i just started brewing (just brewed my 6th batch) and my first 2-3 batches i let sit in primary for 7 days then bottled and let sit for 2-4 weeks and then they were gone but now that ive got a few batches under my belt im getting a little more patient and my kolsch that i brewed a while back sat in the primary for about 18 days before being bottled and has now been in the bottle for 15 days (although now its st pattys day and this would be a great beer to put food coloring in due to the very light color so some will be gone after tonight) i also have a Classic English Pale Ale thats been in the primary for 8 days now and will probably sit for about 6 more days then be bottled for 2-4 weeks
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
I like many of us leave our Ales in 3-4 weeks....

One thing to remember is that Papazian, as wonderful as it is, was written 30 years ago...and a lot of "science" or "common wisdom" that he as an author tapped into has evolved....all authors face this issue with their work.

Charlie Papazian said it But he might not necessarily say it now....see the difference?

His basic info is timeless....how to brew beer, figure out recipes, etc...but some of the info is just a reflection of the "opinions," or prevailing wisdom of the times, and may not even reflect his current beliefs...There's a podcast with Papazian from a year or so ago, where he talks about just having started using rice hulls in his mash ton...so if he doesn't update the book again, or write a new one, unless you've heard the podcast or read it on here, you won't KNOW about it.

Here's a good example John Palmer basically admits that what he wrote about IBU's in How to brew, was esentially "wrong" or at least outdated in light of new science...

March 20, 2008 - What Is an IBU . . . Really?
John Palmer, author of How to Brew, shares information from a conference that challenged his concept of what defines an International Bitterness Unit (IBU).

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr03-20-08ibu.mp3
I cite that podcast as an example of how the knowlegebase shifts so fast in this hobby because of places like this or podcasts...A book is a snapshot of the author's body of knowlege and the "common wisdom" at the time the author wrote the book, which may mean 3 years before it was even published. Papazian's book is 30+ years old. The basic knowlege is good, but brewing science and experience has progressed to where some things an author believes or says at that time may no-longer be valid...even to the author.

Most of the time when someone "revises" a book they don't necessarilly "re-write" the entire thing...and unless they annotated the changes, often all a "revised" edition has to make it up to date is a new introduction, and maybe the addition or removal of some things. But Rarely is a revision in a book a serious comb through of the entire book.

If an author plans to devote months to an extensive revision, they more than likely would just write a new book anyway.

And it's usually done for money or simply to get it back into the marketplace after a long lag..Sometimes a revised edition is simply a new cover or a different shaped book (like a trade paperback.) With a new intro and conclusion tagged on...

So there's really no way to know too much how updated the book was..I mean my copy is the 2002 edition iirc, and the photos are still pretty much have the look of bygone times.

I mean I look at my own writings, including my E-book on spirituality, it was written back in 1999-2000, and a lot of my beliefs and ideas have shifted about things in the 8 years...I am not the same person that I was when I wrote it....And neither is Charlie Papazian the same brewer he is now...like I said, he just discovered rice hulls last year.

In that Podcast, Palmer basically contradicts in some was what he wrote in HTB...and I bet it will be reflected in his subsequent writings, but if he doesn't go back and revise HTB, and people don't read or listen to anything by him after, than they won't realize that the knowlegebase has already shifted...

In terms of long primaring, back then, yeah autolysis WAS the big fear at the time of Papazian, someone said this week it may have been a reflection of the oldier and crappier yeasts in the pre-prohibition days.....

Also what is of concern to commercial brewers of light lagers (by the way to lager means to store for a great length of time) or lager brewers in general doesn't necessarily apply to ales...or doesn't apply for a few weeks (or even a couple months of a healthy yeast cake.)

But things, like science, and even the yeasts themselves have changed, and we by our OWN experience have witnessed how much better our beer is when we've left it alone in primary for 2-4 weeks.

Rememeber Papazian was writing his book from right around that time period, when yeasts cake in dry cakes and may not have even been stored properly, and many people just placed towles and cookie sheets on their ceramic crock pot fermenters.

It is podcasts and forums like this where you will find a lot more state of the art, or current views, and even scientific information...I mean if Jamil, John Palmer or Papazian even farts on a podcast, one of us beergeeks are going to start a thread on it within 10 minutes.

Speaking of Palmer...Here's what HE says on the subject...

Leaving an ale beer in the primary fermentor for a total of 2-3 weeks (instead of just the one week most canned kits recommend), will provide time for the conditioning reactions and improve the beer. This extra time will also let more sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring. And, three weeks in the primary fermentor is usually not enough time for off-flavors to occur.

So hope this helps you understand that no author, even Papazian exists in a vacuum..ANd what he wrote relfected HIS and many beliefs at the time of writing. Bit NOT necessarily the prevailing wisdom or knowlege today...No boo, (ahem0 Not even the Bible, is etched in stone.

:D
 
OP
X

xbabyboy4021x

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincoln, NE
my book is the 3rd edition copyright 2003 it says "Fully revised and updated" but i guess your right, that doesnt mean that the WHOLE book has had every single detail picked through and revised
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
my book is the 3rd edition copyright 2003 it says "Fully revised and updated" but i guess your right, that doesnt mean that the WHOLE book has had every single detail picked through and revised
2003 is still six years ago buddy...Just think of all the tehnological changes in the last 6 years, and you'll realize that knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum....Just look at this place....the "culture" and ideas shifts over time...like I said, places like this, we, you and me and everyone else here, are the cutting edge of brewing....

a year ago, let alone 6 years ago...noone had the idea to use a pasta maker to mill grain..https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/using-pasta-maker-mill-grain-75784/index2.html...And now? :mug:

The more you read, the more you experience yourself...you will see what is right for you...many of us discovered the long primary by accident and found out how much better our beers were for doing it...either you will, or you won't, either way..you will still make beer.

:mug:
 
OP
X

xbabyboy4021x

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincoln, NE
as for now im doing somewhere in between, i cant seem to wait more than 2 weeks to bottle my beer and let it sit about 2 weeks before trying one and about 3-4 weeks before actually drinking a batch, mainly because i am still a new brewer and im always really curious as to how the different recipes will taste and also because i only have 1 fermenter and the capacity to bottle 10 gal at a time, but im sure once i have mulitple fermentors and much more bottle space i will be much more inclined to let my beer sit longer to produce better beer
 

blackwaterbrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
704
Reaction score
7
Location
virginia beach
to xbabyboy4021x, keep tasting it. get an idea of what beer tastes like at its different stages of life. why not? you aren't in a contest, this is fun!! any way you can gain knowledge from experience is better than 1,000 pages read. time is a teacher and patience is a virtue. all you have to do is not drink too much that you don't remember!
 

karmabrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
111
Reaction score
2
Location
Stephens City, VA
Prost! This is a good thread! A lot of interesting points being made. I've been leaving my beers in the primary for 2 weeks. :)
 

spriggan486

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
122
Reaction score
1
Location
Atlanta, GA
I just bottled an ale that was in primary for 4 1/2 weeks. It is definitely the clearest brew I have made thus far, and from what I could tell from the samples I tasted it is my best tasting.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Prost! This is a good thread! A lot of interesting points being made..:)
Uh....not really...it's just a cut and paste of my answer from every time someone brings up "well Papazian says this..." (or Palmer says that)

In just about every "wave" of new brewers someone brings this up (we're at the tail end of the "I just got my kit for Christmas Wave" Next comes "tax rebate wave")....the only difference is, xbabyboy4021x is open minded...some in the past have been positively trollish when some of us (mostly me) has "dared" to contradict "St. Charlie."

:D

(But I'm not really contradicting him, I'm just saying the info doesn't necessarily match the wisdom of this time period..not that it is wrong, or will ruin your beer to follow it.)
 

Bert

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
Southbridge
2003 is still six years ago buddy...

a year ago, let alone 6 years ago...noone had the idea to use a pasta maker to mill grain..https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/using-pasta-maker-mill-grain-75784/index2.html...And now? :mug:


:mug:
Everything old is new again.

HOMEBREW Digest #782 Mon 16 December 1991

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 12:55:48 -0800
From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu
Subject: grainmill idea?

I just had a stray thought... Has anyone tried rigging a hopper above the
rollers on a cheap hand-cranked pasta machine to crack grain?
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Yeah, BUT..A lot of the sites, like that and on the Italian one (yes we've seen it) have remained conjecture, or were shot down, or only a few people attempted it...This is the first time it seems, that a large number of people have been exploring it at the same time, and refining it...And a LARGE NUMBER of people are looking at it, and being infected by the idea of the possibility that there is more than a corona or a barley crusher out there....

Neener neener neerner....:D


:mug:
 

xinunix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
I just brewed my first batch, a smoked porter which I started up in late Jan. I followed the directions on the kit I got from my LHBS verbatim. I still made a ton of mistakes and figured I had ruined my beer. I was also extremely impatient too so I went 1 week in primary, 1 week in secondary then to bottle and took no SG readings. After 7 days in the bottle I could wait no longer so I tried one out. It really sucked, it was thin, watery, sweet, poorly carbonated and had some funky flavors. I just knew I was going to be faced with the decision of either choking down 5 gallons of this stuff or dumping it, I was totally bummed.

After reading this forum (especially Revvy and Yooper's posts, many, many, many times over) I decided to let the rest sit and age in the bottle.

I did however try 1 every week throughout just to see how it was progressing.

Much to my amazement the beer improved significantly with every week that passed. In fact I am having one now and it is actually getting close to tasting like a beer I would have again (may just have to go get another one right now). It has a decent head, good retention, creamy, smokey and fairly rich and balanced taste. A world away from where it was 3 weeks ago.

I had low expectations for my first batch and I know I have a lot of things to improve in my process (which is now my primary focus, dialing in my process). This beer is not the best beer I have ever had but it is definitely the best I have ever made! From all of this (and mostly from the people on this forum) I have learned 3 valuable lessons:

1. Process over product, especially as a beginner
2. It is really, really hard to screw up a beer so bad that you would need to dump it
3. If you think you are the exception to rule #2, wait a week and try again

For my second batch (an Irish Red) it has been in the primary for 2 and 1/2 weeks. I tasted it last night taking a hydrometer reading and it tasted really, really good. Probably won't bother going to a secondary, will let it sit another week, bottle and let it sit for at least 2 or 3 more.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
3. If you think you are the exception to rule #2, wait a week and try again

That is the best advice/line ever!!!!!!!!!

For some reason some new brewers read all the stuff on here...and still think they are unique..that their first batch is somehow different than all the other's brewed in the last 5,000 years...:D

It's not...trust me...it's just as fine as all the others....

:mug:
 

cuinrearview

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
7
Location
Delton, MI
I have a hefe that I should have bottled two weeks ago and I'm still waiting for the stars to align with SWMBO and the kids. It's four weeks in primary. Gotta wash the yeast from this batch as well because I'm out but I gotta get jars first.
 

steelerguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
482
Reaction score
14
Location
Stony Brook, NY
Other than not wanting to secondary, risk contamination or you just don't have time, there is no reason to leave your beer on the yeast for 3-5 weeks. Once the beer has reached final gravity you can move it to secondary. There will still be A LOT of yeast in the beer and it will condition it and then drop out in secondary. Then there will still be plenty of yeast to carb your beer if you bottle condition.

If you are brewing a lager or have too much diacetyl in your ale, the beer can benefit sitting on the yeast for a few days. After that, you only risk autolysis, which I admit isn't much of a problem in 4 weeks until your temps are high.

Wyeast recommends getting the beer off the cake once you hit final gravity unless you are doing a diacetyl rest. All the professional brews I have talked to recommend the same procedure. We are not pro's so do what works for your schedule, equipment, and situation.
 

HSM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
460
Reaction score
9
Location
McMurray, PA
Yeah, BUT..A lot of the sites, like that and on the Italian one (yes we've seen it) have remained conjecture, or were shot down, or only a few people attempted it...This is the first time it seems, that a large number of people have been exploring it at the same time, and refining it...And a LARGE NUMBER of people are looking at it, and being infected by the idea of the possibility that there is more than a corona or a barley crusher out there....

Neener neener neerner....:D


:mug:
Yeah BUT, Yeah BUT....

There has been plenty of discussion about pasta makers on rec.crafts.brewing throughout the years and most of it supportive.

Your point that more people are exploring ideas and implementing them is true, but directly correlates with the freedom readily available information on the internet.

These ideas were being tossed around bulletin boards and usenet when most didn't even have internet service.

So more people have access to information, more people share their information.
 

JuanKenobi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
384
Reaction score
5
Location
Martha's Vineyard
Off topic, I know, but has anyone ever used the grain mill attachment for a kitchen aid mixer? They mention beer brewing in the promotional video on the website. I think it's like $120. Sounds like a good alternative to a barley crusher for the price if you happen to have the mixer already and it works well.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Other than not wanting to secondary, risk contamination or you just don't have time, there is no reason to leave your beer on the yeast for 3-5 weeks. Once the beer has reached final gravity you can move it to secondary. There will still be A LOT of yeast in the beer and it will condition it and then drop out in secondary. Then there will still be plenty of yeast to carb your beer if you bottle condition.

If you are brewing a lager or have too much diacetyl in your ale, the beer can benefit sitting on the yeast for a few days. After that, you only risk autolysis, which I admit isn't much of a problem in 4 weeks until your temps are high.

Wyeast recommends getting the beer off the cake once you hit final gravity unless you are doing a diacetyl rest. All the professional brews I have talked to recommend the same procedure. We are not pro's so do what works for your schedule, equipment, and situation.
Actually there's LOTS of information including from Palmer, plus several hundreds thread with anecdotal evidence by US on how our brews have improved, and more so with prolonged primary insted of secondary..if you do a search for long primary or no secondary you will find them..there's no need to re-hash it here..there is even a long pasage in palmer that supports it, for example look fo rthe "hold the butter thread" there's support for leaving it on to clean up diacetyl among other things (even for ales.).....it's spread on this forum ad-nauseum...we don't need to re-invent the argument here...it's been covered..heck, almost daily....I've even posted my experience with BJCP judges and contest entries....This has been covered enough before....including shooting down the autolysis boogyman

Palmer sums it up pretty well in How to brew...

As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis.
Not to mention the one from him I quote earlier...

Leaving an ale beer in the primary fermentor for a total of 2-3 weeks (instead of just the one week most canned kits recommend), will provide time for the conditioning reactions and improve the beer. This extra time will also let more sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring. And, three weeks in the primary fermentor is usually not enough time for off-flavors to occur.
We've hacked this to death, it's your choice not to do it, or to do it, noone really cares...but there's enough of us including a few new brewers who posted in this very thread who have cited the benefits of a long primary.

It's just a shift in the culture, it doesn't mean that beer won't be made either way...someday some enterprising brewer from here or using forums as a reference is going to write the NEXT brewing bible, and talk about long primary. and it' gonna be "beery canon" for a number of years, or it will end up as an article in Zymurgy or BYO, and people on places like this will be quoting from that for awhile...then the culture will shift from that idea...
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Off topic, I know, but has anyone ever used the grain mill attachment for a kitchen aid mixer? They mention beer brewing in the promotional video on the website. I think it's like $120. Sounds like a good alternative to a barley crusher for the price if you happen to have the mixer already and it works well.
Yes there even threads about that on here.....there's 4 that I know of all with kitchen-aid in the title...
 

RedIrocZ-28

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
850
Reaction score
31
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Off topic, I know, but has anyone ever used the grain mill attachment for a kitchen aid mixer? They mention beer brewing in the promotional video on the website. I think it's like $120. Sounds like a good alternative to a barley crusher for the price if you happen to have the mixer already and it works well.
$120? How does $26.50 sound? ;)

My "pasta-mill" has under $35 in it for all materials for the hopper and purchase of the pasta maker itself (which was $26.50)
 

Pappers_

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
17,555
Reaction score
4,034
Location
Chicago
Hi BabyBoy, how's things in Lincoln? I'm a former Cornhusker now in the big city . . . :mug:

In general, it seems to me that if you choose to brew heavier beers (higher O.G.) or use certain yeast strains you need to primary longer.

As for me, I don't usually brew higher gravity beers. Usually, I leave it in the primary for 7 - 10 days, then in the secondary for another 7 - 14 days, so anywhere from two to three weeks total before bottling.

All that being said, yesterday I brewed up my first bier de garde and it will take quite a bit longer, I suspect. Its a little higher gravity (1.065) and I used the WLP011 European Ale yeast, which has been reported to be a little pokey. Fermentation took off right away (was noticeable in four hours!) I expect it will need more time in primary . . .

Cheers!

Jim
 

steelerguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
482
Reaction score
14
Location
Stony Brook, NY
Actually there's LOTS of information including from Palmer, plus several hundreds thread with anecdotal evidence by US on how our brews have improved, and more so with prolonged primary insted of secondary..if you do a search for long primary or no secondary you will find them..there's no need to re-hash it here..there is even a long pasage in palmer that supports it, for example look fo rthe "hold the butter thread" there's support for leaving it on to clean up diacetyl among other things (even for ales.).....it's spread on this forum ad-nauseum...we don't need to re-invent the argument here...it's been covered..heck, almost daily....I've even posted my experience with BJCP judges and contest entries....This has been covered enough before....including shooting down the autolysis boogyman

Palmer sums it up pretty well in How to brew...



Not to mention the one from him I quote earlier...



We've hacked this to death, it's your choice not to do it, or to do it, noone really cares...but there's enough of us including a few new brewers who posted in this very thread who have cited the benefits of a long primary.

It's just a shift in the culture, it doesn't mean that beer won't be made either way...someday some enterprising brewer from here or using forums as a reference is going to write the NEXT brewing bible, and talk about long primary. and it' gonna be "beery canon" for a number of years, or it will end up as an article in Zymurgy or BYO, and people on places like this will be quoting from that for awhile...then the culture will shift from that idea...
Diacetyl rest takes a couple of days and is usually not needed for ales. All your "evidence" only says that it is okay to leave in primary for a few weeks, not that it makes better beer. I agree with this, I have not had any problems with a beer left in primary for 3 weeks. That is not saying that the beer would have been any worse if moved to a secondary fermenter. There is still working yeast in suspension, it will condition your beer, and it gets the beer off the flocculated yeast and the layer of proteins and other junk in the bottom of the primary fermenter. I think you misread me saying you CAN move a beer to secondary a couple days after it hits terminal gravity to you MUST move it to secondary. I am not saying this, I am saying you can get great beer either way because the yeast and protein in the cake is not the thing making the difference, the active yeast in suspension is.

I have also learned over the years to not just take the common dogma of an Internet forum as truth. You would believe some really wacky things if you did that! Always do your own research and do what works best for you.
 

HenryHill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
13
Location
Perry, MI
I was told by pros to ferment as cool as is practical (low 60's), when FG has been reached, crash it to mid to high 30's, and leave it be for 4 weeks. After that period of time has passed, rack to keg, DH if desired.

I was told by other pros that for open fermenting, that times may be somewhat shorter, crash, then DH at low 60's, then crash and keg.

ALL of my local HB buds primary ales for at least 4 weeks, with never a detrimental experience. FG is NOT the only consideration to finishing a beer. The yeast take time to clean up after themselves, and doing this primary and obsoleting secondary is completely acceptable.

If you can't wait 6 weeks for a home brew, you should not homebrew.

Names of brewers and breweries available on confidential request.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Meh..we've covered Diacytel in ales before as well...

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/pr...d-butter-please-70438/index2.html#post1080693

Revvy said:
I just dug up some more info on diacetyl that backs this thread up, along with the benefits of letting a beer sit on the yeast cake a bit longer.

I found this article;

"THE ROLE OF DIACETYL IN BEER
By Moritz Kallmeyer"

The Abstract begins...

Diacetyl as a product of fermentation is more characteristic of ales than lagers. Diacetyl is produced early in the fermentation, and then most of it is reabsorbed by the yeast and reduced to flavourless compounds later on. Yeast strains differ markedly in their diacetyl reduction ability. Some ales and a few lagers (such as the famous Pilsner Urquell) contain perceptible amounts of diacetyl, but as a rule modern brewers consider it as a fault. This is because certain bacterial infections and other errors in brewing technique will increase diacetyl levels resulting in unacceptable beer aroma and flavour profile. This parameter thus serves as a quality check. However, it is important to remember that diacetyl flavour is a natural by-product of yeast fermentation, and in some beer styles it is an optional or even required flavour component in low amounts.
From here....


Drayman's Brewery and Distillery

There's two methods of rests listed in the Kallmeyer article...one for ales and warmer beers....interesting.

Maturation of beer flavour requires the presence of yeast as a catalyst. There are many methods of finishing that have the sole objective of prolonging the contact of beer with yeast after primary fermentation is completed. I want to emphasize that a diacetyl rest with most of the yeast lying at the bottom of the tank and not enough in suspension is of no use. Most lager breweries, especially those that use Weinhenstephan 308 or similar “diacetyl producing yeast’s” employ a long diacetyl rest, in order to minimize diacetyl in the finished beer.

Method 1
If a very cold primary fermentation was used it involves allowing the beer temperature to rise from the controlled primary fermentation temperature of about 10°C to 15-18°C when the primary fermentation is coming to an end. Normally, the time is determined by the attenuation of the beer. If, for example the wort starting gravity was 1050 and the expected terminal gravity is 1010, then the diacetyl rest would be commenced when the beer has attenuated to about SG 1023 when two-thirds of the total fermentable material in the wort has been consumed. The diacetyl rest normally lasts for 48-72 hours, until primary fermentation is over and secondary fermentation is under way. At this time the temperature is lowered when the more traditional method is followed, probably 1°C per day until the lagering temperature of 0-1°C is reached.

Method 2
If a warmer primary fermentation temperature was used for ale or lager the diacetyl rest involves either lowering the beer temperature 2 or 3°C at the end of primary fermentation or keeping it constant for up to 6 days. In lager yeast strains with low diacetyl production it is common practise nowadays to employ a short diacetyl rest followed by centrifuging to remove excess yeast and then crash cooling to 0°C. When brewing ales, that should have very low diacetyl levels especially German Ales like Alt and Kölsch, the implications are to not use highly flocculent yeast and to allow an extended primary fermentation, albeit at cooler temperatures until sufficiently low diacetyl levels are reached. Yeast that settles in the cone is still removed on a daily basis.
Interesting for ALES one of the recomendations is to LOWER the temps a bit...or leave them at the same temp for 6 days...learns something new everyday...I'm going to have to try the cool rest.

It also backs up the idea of leaving beers on the yeastcake for awhile longer to allow the yeasts to clean up after themselves.

:mug:
Like I said Steelerguy...we've debated it and discussed it to death..no need to go on with it....choose to brew how you want.

The OP wanted to know why Pappa Charlie said one thing, and so many of us do it differently....I answered it..

I've said all I have to say on this subject in this thread...
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
RedIroc lets see a picture... im interested in making one
plenty of pics here

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/using-pasta-maker-mill-grain-75784/index2.html

Just pointing out that it's similarly priced to Barley Crusher.
Hmmm.....really? 150.00 + shipping and handling for a crusher is the same as 20 bucks (or whatever the sale price of the pasta maker, which I have already, btw) and whatever scraps you may have in the basement or 40 dollars max for parts and the pasta maker? Wow, I thought I was bad in math. :D

We figure that's at least 100.00 savings we could use for ingredients, and the satisfaction of making something ourself.
 

JuanKenobi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
384
Reaction score
5
Location
Martha's Vineyard
Hmmm.....really? 150.00 + shipping and handling for a crusher is the same as 20 bucks (or whatever the sale price of the pasta maker, which I have already, btw) and whatever scraps you may have in the basement or 40 dollars max for parts and the pasta maker? Wow, I thought I was bad in math. :D

We figure that's at least 100.00 savings we could use for ingredients, and the satisfaction of making something ourself.
I was asking if anyone had any insight into the comparison of 2 specific devices. The actual "grain mill" attachment for the Kitchen Aid mixer that they mention home brewing in the promo for (and use the term grist) on their website is ~$120 which is about the same as the 7# Barley Crusher if you buy it direct.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,308
Reaction score
3,662
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Again, I was asking if anyone had any insight into the comparison of 2 specific devices. The actual "grain mill" attachment for the Kitchen Aid mixer that they mention home brewing in the promo for (and use the term grist) on their website is ~$120 which is about the same as the 7# Barley Crusher if you buy it direct.
Thought you were talking about the pasta machine mod NOT the kitchen ade version (since you were quote redroc talking about his pasta mill), sorry...You are right...it ain't a good comparison...besides who would wanna risk a 400.00 kitchenade motor (on top of the 150 attachment)

That's been discussed as well...

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/search.php?searchid=3479974
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,377
Reaction score
230
Location
State College
OK, I'll stir the pot a little. The oft stated phrase is that "leaving your beer in primary for an extended time will not result in off flavors" What this fails to convey is that this does not exclude the production of flavors that are not necessarily considered off. Yes, there is maturation and the cleaning up of "green" flavors. At the same time, new flavor compounds are being produced. The more yeast around, the more these flavors will develop. I'm not talking strong flavors here, I'm talking subtle flavors. The kind that make the difference between a good beer and a very good beer. I find beers that I make using a secondary have a much cleaner taste, allowing the malts and hops to really shine through (Obviously this would be different for Hefe's and Belgians).

Just to stir it a little more. Ask any microbiologist what happens to the bugs they are growing after the stationary phase of growth has been reached (fermentation complete). The answer will be autolysis. Once the food has been used up, the bacteria, yeast, etc. will start dying and the cells will lyse. If you maintain your temperatures well, this can be slow, but it is occuring, it is a fact a microorganism life. This will produce flavors, but not the wild nasty ones people think - as long temperatures are kept under control and there is no contamination - that is when you get the strong, easily noticible flavors. I find beers left in primary for an extended time will have a subtle yeasty/bready flavor that I personally find out of place in many of the styles I like. Like many others, I'm my own worst critic.

I think a big key is temperature control, which I believe is what Jamil Z. says is a huge key to brewing very good beers. If you have well maintained and COOL temperatures the effect is minimal (note, not non-existent). I'm a little suspicious that one advantage of a secondary is that the temperature has less effect since there is less yeast around. If you don't have a good system to control the temperature, then I think this is the situation when I would seriously consider using a secondary.
 

flyangler18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
5,559
Reaction score
43
Location
Hanover, PA
Just to stir it a little more. Ask any microbiologist what happens to the bugs they are growing after the stationary phase of growth has been reached (fermentation complete). The answer will be autolysis. Once the food has been used up, the bacteria, yeast, etc. will start dying and the cells will lyse. If you maintain your temperatures well, this can be slow, but it is occuring, it is a fact a microorganism life. This will produce flavors, but not the wild nasty ones people think - as long temperatures are kept under control and there is no contamination - that is when you get the strong, easily noticible flavors. I find beers left in primary for an extended time will have a subtle yeasty/bready flavor that I personally find out of place in many of the styles I like. Like many others, I'm my own worst critic.


Hooray for you, sir!
 

steelerguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
482
Reaction score
14
Location
Stony Brook, NY
Meh..we've covered Diacytel in ales before as well...

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/pr...d-butter-please-70438/index2.html#post1080693



Like I said Steelerguy...we've debated it and discussed it to death..no need to go on with it....choose to brew how you want.

The OP wanted to know why Pappa Charlie said one thing, and so many of us do it differently....I answered it..

I've said all I have to say on this subject in this thread...
I actually thought you were already done going on with it, I was just giving a rebuttal because I don't think you read my post very well. I actually don't think you read it very well again, because you just repeated what I said basically...do what works best for you.

OK, I'll stir the pot a little. The oft stated phrase is that "leaving your beer in primary for an extended time will not result in off flavors" What this fails to convey is that this does not exclude the production of flavors that are not necessarily considered off. Yes, there is maturation and the cleaning up of "green" flavors. At the same time, new flavor compounds are being produced. The more yeast around, the more these flavors will develop. I'm not talking strong flavors here, I'm talking subtle flavors. The kind that make the difference between a good beer and a very good beer. I find beers that I make using a secondary have a much cleaner taste, allowing the malts and hops to really shine through (Obviously this would be different for Hefe's and Belgians).

Just to stir it a little more. Ask any microbiologist what happens to the bugs they are growing after the stationary phase of growth has been reached (fermentation complete). The answer will be autolysis. Once the food has been used up, the bacteria, yeast, etc. will start dying and the cells will lyse. If you maintain your temperatures well, this can be slow, but it is occuring, it is a fact a microorganism life. This will produce flavors, but not the wild nasty ones people think - as long temperatures are kept under control and there is no contamination - that is when you get the strong, easily noticible flavors. I find beers left in primary for an extended time will have a subtle yeasty/bready flavor that I personally find out of place in many of the styles I like. Like many others, I'm my own worst critic.

I think a big key is temperature control, which I believe is what Jamil Z. says is a huge key to brewing very good beers. If you have well maintained and COOL temperatures the effect is minimal (note, not non-existent). I'm a little suspicious that one advantage of a secondary is that the temperature has less effect since there is less yeast around. If you don't have a good system to control the temperature, then I think this is the situation when I would seriously consider using a secondary.
Agree with you completely and it is one of the reason I try to get my beer into the secondary when fermentation is done. Strangely enough, I also got my BS in molecular and cellular biology and worked with brewers yeast quite a bit in college. You learn that organisms under stress make mistakes and die, this is usually not a good thing. :)

Regardless, it is not my intent to offend or insult people who prescribe to the long primary. I just don't think it does any good once fermentation is done and really can only do bad if left long enough. I think people sometimes forget that there are billions of yeast cells still in the beer when you move to secondary but since you can't see them but you can see the cake, it must be the cake performing the conditioning magic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HSM

ChickenSoop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
190
Reaction score
2
Location
Winnipeg
Is it possible to leave it in the primary/secondary too long?

I have a cream ale, OG: 1.04, FG 1.008, made with 7 lbs LME.
All went to plan, 2 weeks in primary, 2 weeks in secondary.
Then I bottled it. It was a kit, and they supplied 8 oz of corn sugar for priming - I probably only should have used 5 oz. I have plastic bottles, so no worry on bottle bombs.

I was very patient and waited 6 weeks after bottling.

On week 6, I put one in the fridge for 3 days for testing. I tested it - expecting a nicely finished beer, but instead it was sour green apples.

Did I leave it on the primary too long and maybe too much yeast dropped out?

:(
 

Sharkeydude

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
81
Reaction score
2
Location
In the Mountains
Well, I gotta say, after doing the the St.Charlie (good way to name him Revvy) way for so many years and then reading HTB, brewing my first batch in 12 years last weekend and getting re-confirmation here, I am at ease that the Cream Ale I've got in the primary will be fine for at least 3 weeks. It's still a bit cloudy after only 11 days but, it will settle eventually.

I do worry about the Better Bottle it sits in. A huge sin according to St. Charlie to brew in plastic but, I've popped a couple of the glass ones...not pretty.

I do have a question, can I just siphon into my corny and let it age for another 2-3 weeks with no problems? It seems the same as a secondary and I can just blow off the residual yeast on my first couple of pours right?

It seems a lot easier and less hassle to primary for 3 and then keg till aged for 3 to me.
 

JuanKenobi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
384
Reaction score
5
Location
Martha's Vineyard
Yup. I go from primary to corny all my basic ales and let them sit in the cellar for anywhere from 1 - 3 weeks before carbing. I think you'll find it common place these days to ferment in plastic. I use plastic 'ale pails' for some and glass for some.
 
Top