long primary versus bottle conditioning,any difference?

[martinworswick]

i was just reading another thread which deviated into a long primary discussion and it got me thinking-
is the yeast in suspension doing all the cleaning up/conditioning work? if so is there any conditioning difference to the beer sitting in the primary or sitting in the bottles for the same length of time?

 

[BeNNeS]

Not the same because when its in the bottle its a closed area so pressure can build up and make the fizziness of your brew. So primary is important and bottle conditionning too. Make sure you let it all ferment in the primary and add just enough dextrose for bottle conditioning or else you can get bottle bomb(Because of the excess of fermentable sugar pressure can make your bottle explode).

 

[martinworswick]

Not the same because when its in the bottle its a closed area so pressure can build up and make the fizziness of your brew. So primary is important and bottle conditionning too. Make sure you let it all ferment in the primary and add just enough dextrose for bottle conditioning or else you can get bottle bomb(Because of the excess of fermentable sugar pressure can make your bottle explode).

i realise all that,i'm normally primary up to about a month,sometimes a little longer,sometimes shorter but what i'm asking is would there be any appreciable difference in flavour in two 12 week old beers,1 primaried for 3 weeks and bottled for 11 and the other primaried for 8 weeks and bottled for 4?
are the remaining yeast in the bottles doing the same as the yeast in the primary?

 

[BeNNeS]

I would say that its better to remove it from the primary as soon as the fermentation is over because that the big trub at the bottom can give some off flavour to your beer if left for too long in contact with. But maybe this flavour could give some impredictable character to the beer that can be good.

On my part i prefer to remove it from the primary after a week and put it in a carboy(clarifying tank) to let it age or ferment some sugar left(Maybe add fruit, or dryhop) and bottle it when in the mood. i get more consistent result that way!

 

[dcp27]

i realise all that,i'm normally primary up to about a month,sometimes a little longer,sometimes shorter but what i'm asking is would there be any appreciable difference in flavour in two 12 week old beers,1 primaried for 3 weeks and bottled for 11 and the other primaried for 8 weeks and bottled for 4?
are the remaining yeast in the bottles doing the same as the yeast in the primary?

yes, the longer primaried beer will be better. I bottled part of a barleywine after 5 weeks and let the rest bulk condition for 3 more months, the bulk aged stuff is considerably better

I would say that its better to remove it from the primary as soon as the fermentation is over because that the big trub at the bottom can give some off flavour to your beer if left for too long in contact with.

absolutely not true. more time on the yeast cake allows it to clean up after itself much better than in a bottle or secondary.

 

[WortMonger]

I concur with dcp27!!! The longer you leave the yeast with the beer, the more and faster they clean things up. There is no reason to remove the beer fast other than to free up "that" vessel for another beer. If you have to... you have to, but if you can let it be. See my signature link, I leave mine for a long time and even have "keg conditioned" beer upon serving. This last beer I produced is being served right off the yeast. Leave your beer, it is old knowledge to remove it earlier... and even those people that wrote to do so are now advocating leaving it longer. Palmer for instance is a convert to this new process vs. what he initially wrote to do in How To Brew ver.1. People used to write what breweries were doing into homebrewing theory. The only reason breweries do it is to have the space I was talking about earlier for another beer. Heck, breweries even have a way to instantly condition a beer with an enormous amount of yeast inline in a special chamber. The filter the beer past the yeast for clean-up and then filter the beer prior to packaging. Homebrewer's don't have that luxury, but we do have time. Time is your friend!

 

[BeNNeS]

Thanks for thoses details ill have to look into it!

 

[samc]

The best way to know is, split a batch and see what happens. Some beers behave differently and some drinkers prefer different tastes in the beer. With age flavors often meld together and that may not be what you want your beer to do. Is contact time with the yeast the determining factor or is it temperature dependent?

Each method has pros and cons - whatever works can only be decided by the brewer.

 

[kegtoe]

the whole pirmary vs bottle cond thing is 2 very different questions. Generally most people believe that the longer (up to a certain point) that a beer sits in a bottle the better it will be. I guess if you are assuming the same time period all the time I would suggest leaving your beer in bottles for the longer period of time.

Typically my beer sits in containers for 1 month before i bottle than another month before i open them. It's easier for me 'cause my supply chain is full. If you are a new brewer it is hard to wait a long time for your beeer to truly be ready. i know, i drank plenty of green beer before its time.

 

[kegtoe]

also, i think 8 weeks for a primary is a long time, depending on the beer. Sometimes i leave mine in primaries for a month and have thought that is a long time. But then i secondary for more clarity.

 

[Golddiggie]

I was brewing off the old info/methods initially... Now, I'm going more in line with what people are doing here.

I have one brew in primary now (at three weeks today) that will be getting racked into secondary so that I can rack onto flavor elements (bourbon soaked vanilla bean). I'll be pulling the yeast cake out of the primary in order to wash it for future use.

I have another brew that's been going since December 20th. While I don't see any airlock activity, I'm going to leave it alone until the 3 week mark. At that point, I'll test it to see where it's at. That one will probably go another week past that point and then either go into bottles, or maybe get racked to secondary for a couple more weeks (not sure just yet, will let the brew decide).

Time to ferment has a lot to do with the what kind of beer you're making, what yeast you're using, the temperatures your fermenting at, etc... Also, if you have less trub in the fermenter (primary or secondary) then you should be able to leave it there longer without issue.

I made my last brew using the BIAB partial mash method. I put the hops into a mesh bag too. The brew had very little trub in it (especially compared with the previous batch). If you do a good job of filtering the trub/crap before you put the wort into primary, then you'll have less issue (and less need to go to secondary).

I suspect that there will be more than a few brews coming up (for me) that won't need secondary to help clear them up. I do see the desire to use secondary fermenting for flavor additions though. Especially if you plan to use more than one element post primary. Being able to rack off of those elements is a good way to halt their contribution to the profile of the brew.

 

[martinworswick]

thanks for the replies guys,

i'll have to try splitting a batch and trying it for myself,i don't really have a set time to primary,it depends on how much i've got in stock/how bothered i can be but i don't often make the same beer twice so unless i split a batch i don't really have a comparison.

cheers again

 

[Hermit]

I always thought/read that yeast floc'ed out because it was done working. Seems floccing is simply them clumping together according to Chris White's book. I don't remember him saying they go dormant at that point. In fact, krausen is just the yeast floccing according to him. That stuff on the bottom may not be as dormant as we once believed.

 

[shoestealer17]

In my opinion, leaving the beer in the primary more than three weeks is not a good idea, the beer still has yeast in it that can continue to complealy ferment the beer and produce the flavors your looking for once it is in a secondary. Taking it off the trub is a good idea beacuase at first there is a large amount of active yeast which produce alot of waste. When most of the yeast run out of food (fermentable sugar) they sart to eat there own waste (the trub). Getting the beer off that trub is a good idea otherwise the yeast will feed off of it and produce off flavors in your beer. The arguments above are valad about leaving it in contact wit the yeast for as long as possible, but that is still accomplished in a secondary

 

[dcp27]

Getting the beer off that trub is a good idea otherwise the yeast will feed off of it and produce off flavors in your beer.

Unless you have actually experienced this, autolysis is best considered a myth. People here have left it for months (like Revvy for nearly half a year) without any off-flavors. Unless you harvest yeast, for the most part a secondary is unnecessary. Not saying theres anything wrong with using one, but I'd rather 'forget' its there than tease myself racking it just to wait longer if I was aging it.

 

[Steelers77]

My method:

Primary 7-21 days (or whenever I get a chance to rack)
Dryhop in primary (3-5 days, if dryhopping)
Keg (unless it is a big beer that will be bottled then I bulk age for a month or two)

I use to worry about this same issue a lot, then I left an IPA in primary for 5-6 weeks tasted fine so I continued leaving my beer in primary (usually 3-4 weeks) and skipping secondary for the most part. I do try to get them off in a month but that’s mostly to free up some fermenting real estate.

I use to rack to dryhop, then I got lazy one day and just threw my hop bag (sanitized of course) in to the primary, tasted fine.

 

[Hermit]

Unless you have actually experienced this, autolysis is best considered a myth. People here have left it for months (like Revvy for nearly half a year) without any off-flavors. Unless you harvest yeast, for the most part a secondary is unnecessary. Not saying theres anything wrong with using one, but I'd rather 'forget' its there than tease myself racking it just to wait longer if I was aging it.

Someone posted results of a blind taste test on this. One person was able to correctly able to identify autolysis with the longer primary. I found that interesting.

 

[dcp27]

I haven't read this word for word, but it seems while people do believe in it, they haven't experienced the usual meaty/bready flavors associated with it
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f14/autolysis-101230/index6.html

 

[petep1980]

I've only really experimented with lagers, and I like to get them off the yeast as soon as d-rest is done, which is usually within a week of pitching.

 

[WortMonger]

Read Jamil and Chris's book! Secondary is not needed, but comes in handy if you need the fermenter space. Or... Revvy could always show up and write out a full length post about why it isn't needed . Then maybe people will listen. I will only add that conditioning in a bottle is needed when you don't have a keg system that can fill bottles with carbonated beer, or you are trying to produce a bottle conditioned beer. It is not necessary to mature the beer, only to carbonate the bottle.