NB Belgian Dubbel

[whataboutbob]

Looking for opinions or better suggestions on my plan for this. Directions say 1-2 weeks in primary and 4 weeks in secondary. I planned on only using a primary for 3 weeks than cold crashing for 1 week. Than bottle condition for 2-3 weeks? Sound Ok? Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[dbreienrk1]

sounds good to me...no need for a secondary

 

[whataboutbob]

sounds good to me...no need for a secondary

Thanks!

 

[Draken]

I would disagree. I would go a minimum of 4 weeks in primary and then at least 6 weeks in the bottle. I just bottled this one myself. I left it in the primary for 6 weeks and plan on leaving it for 2 months in the bottle before I even try one. It's a bigger beer so longer is probably better.

 

[dbreienrk1]

why would you go a minimum of 4 weeks?

 

[amc22]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

 

[kh54s10]

I did a partial mash version pretty much the same as NB kits. I did a primary for 3 weeks then transferred to secondary for a week. I bottled on October 8th and tasted one at 2 weeks. It had not carbonated and tasted green to my uneducated palate.

A week later and it was a little better. Now 5 months later they are quite good and in my opinion have gotten better at least until 4 months had passed and maybe still getting better.

I had read on a couple of recipes that the brewers had found that this beer needed at least 3 and up to 6 months of aging to mature properly. I have found the same true for mine.

 

[kh54s10]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

I disagree with this from my own experience but, whatever works for each brewer is what makes brewing an art and not strictly a science.:rockin:

 

[dbreienrk1]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

+1 thank you for being a voice of reason

 

[Draken]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

You need to read more. John Palmer has stated that a long primary is preferred over transferring to a secondary (given exceptions for fruit, oaking or dry hopping) The reasons behind home brewers need for a secondary are no longer relevant. We have much better yeast and with proper pitching amounts yeast aren't stressed. Staying in primary longer also allows for bulk conditioning of the beer and clearing without the need to cold crash. Essentially you can leave it in the primary and skip the secondary step all together. As far as bottling times, yea it may be drinkable after 3 weeks, but a medium beer like this won't peak for at least a couple months. The whole time you let it sit the yeast are working, cleaning up after themselves and making your beer taste better. It's not laziness at all it's looking for the truest brightest flavors possible to a home brewer. So before you come on and spout what you feel is the truth and call others lazy do your research.

 

[homebrewdad]

I'm curious. You're doing a big beer with directions that call for 5-6 total weeks in primary/secondary (and most agree that directions are aimed at the absolute minimum timeframes). You're going to cut that to 4 weeks, right?

Will you have beer? Sure. Will it be as good as it might have been? I think it's getting foggy, now.

The secondary (which can be skipped, unless adding fruit, dry hopping, etc) is for batch aging as well as clarifying. Cold crashing for a week will do the clarifying, but you'll also knock the yeast dormant - which is going to hurt the batch aging process.

You may prefer your big beers to be on the young/green side... if that's the case, go for it. If not, you may want to rethink your plan,or be prepared for a longer than expected period of bottle conditioning for this beer to hit its stride.

 

[homebrewdad]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

Laziness seems a bit harsh and inflammatory. Most of us want beer to be ready as quickly as possible. Long primaries are for better beer, not for an excuse to let the beer just sit there. I doubt that you'll find a single homebrewer who WANTS their beer to take a long time to get ready.

If you're doing an IPA or a wheat beer, by all means, get that sucker in a bottle as quickly as its stable - these beers are best when young.

For big beers, most would agree that aging is a cruicial part of the process. Bulk aging tends to give you better beer quicker than you would get in bottles.

Do some searches, and you'll find multiple threads by those who have split batches in half and checked both. I have yet to read the thread where somebody says "you know, my stout that I bottled early was actually better than the one I let bulk age."

 

[beergolf]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

It is not necessary to do long primary with many styles. Get your wheats and IPA's in bottles soon. But there are styles that do need longer times. The OP is talking about a Belgian and Belgian yeasts do take some time To finish and develop that Belgian flavor. I routinely do 6 weeks for my Belgians and then bottle age them for a long time too.

 

[amc22]

Laziness seems a bit harsh and inflammatory. Most of us want beer to be ready as quickly as possible. Long primaries are for better beer, not for an excuse to let the beer just sit there. I doubt that you'll find a single homebrewer who WANTS their beer to take a long time to get ready.

If you're doing an IPA or a wheat beer, by all means, get that sucker in a bottle as quickly as its stable - these beers are best when young.

For big beers, most would agree that aging is a cruicial part of the process. Bulk aging tends to give you better beer quicker than you would get in bottles.

Do some searches, and you'll find multiple threads by those who have split batches in half and checked both. I have yet to read the thread where somebody says "you know, my stout that I bottled early was actually better than the one I let bulk age."

Harsh and inflammatory? I think you're taking my comments a bit too seriously. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that leaving the beer on the yeast longer than needed is beneficial to the beer at all. If proper brewing techniques are followed, the beer is ready to be bottled as soon as fermentation is complete. Please do show me some scientific proof that says its better to leave the beer on the yeast for 4+ weeks when the beer is done fermenting in 4 days. It does not take the yeast over 3 weeks to "clean up off flavors".

 

[Draken]

Harsh and inflammatory? I think you're taking my comments a bit too seriously. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that leaving the beer on the yeast longer than needed is beneficial to the beer at all. If proper brewing techniques are followed, the beer is ready to be bottled as soon as fermentation is complete. Please do show me some scientific proof that says its better to leave the beer on the yeast for 4+ weeks when the beer is done fermenting in 4 days. It does not take the yeast over 3 weeks to "clean up off flavors".

Yes they were calling other brewers lazy because they are following the most current literature on the subject is both. You want science you set up the experiment, you want proof try it yourself. Split a batch and taste the difference. I did and holy cow the results are extremely noticeable with medium and high gravity beers. The risk of infection and oxidation is not worth racking it to a secondary when you can primary longer and the same or better results. The original reason for doing it is no longer valid anyway. we have better yeast, we know about proper pitching quantities and we brew in such small batches (most of us) that the risk of autoalysis in a six week primary is so small it is virtually non existent. I don't want to brew commercial quality beer in 6 days for .75 cents a bottle. I will save my time and buy that swill. I want to brew craft beers that take time and patience. Beers that you buy a 22 of for 5 plus dollars a bottle. So you are allowed to disagree, but don't call others lazy because they have had better results with other methods. I could say you are impatient for not letting the beer condition properly, but that's not what I really think. I think you just follow a different method (albeit for inferior results).

 

[amc22]

Yes they were calling other brewers lazy because they are following the most current literature on the subject is both. You want science you set up the experiment, you want proof try it yourself. Split a batch and taste the difference. I did and holy cow the results are extremely noticeable with medium and high gravity beers. The risk of infection and oxidation is not worth racking it to a secondary when you can primary longer and the same or better results. The original reason for doing it is no longer valid anyway. we have better yeast, we know about proper pitching quantities and we brew in such small batches (most of us) that the risk of autoalysis in a six week primary is so small it is virtually non existent. I don't want to brew commercial quality beer in 6 days for .75 cents a bottle. I will save my time and buy that swill. I want to brew craft beers that take time and patience. Beers that you buy a 22 of for 5 plus dollars a bottle. So you are allowed to disagree, but don't call others lazy because they have had better results with other methods. I could say you are impatient for not letting the beer condition properly, but that's not what I really think. I think you just follow a different method (albeit for inferior results).

Stop looking for excuses to be argumentative.

I never said anything about a secondary, so please don't twist my words. I said keeping a beer in the primary for weeks after the fermentation is completed is doing nothing at all to make your beer better in anyway at all. Second, I didn't say you were lazy, I said the person that come up with this method and passed it off as fact without any evidence, is lazy. If you are happy with your beer thats fine, but don't pass off misinformation to new brewers just because thats what you do.

 

[gmcastil]

Its only necessary to primary until fermentation is complete, all this nonsense about leaving everything in primary for at least 4 weeks+ needs to stop. The 4 week primary is used out of laziness.

Laziness? Beer doesn't get any easier to bottle after 4 weeks instead of 9 days. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?

 

[amc22]

The risk of infection and oxidation is not worth racking it to a secondary when you can primary longer and the same or better results. The original reason for doing it is no longer valid anyway. we have better yeast, we know about proper pitching quantities and we brew in such small batches (most of us) that the risk of autoalysis in a six week primary is so small it is virtually non existent.

I just wan't to touch on this last part and I'll be done with this, because people on this website get so bent out of shape when you tell them there is a better way to do things that isn't the way they have always done it.

Racking to a secondary is useful for many things, clearing beer to reduce sediment, bulk aging(going to tell me its ok to leave beer in primary for 6 months+ now?), aging on fruit/wood/whatever. You don't have to worry about oxidation or infection if you are following proper brewing techniques. Also, good luck lagering without a secondary, let me know how that one works out for you. You're way of doing things isn't the only way, or even the best way, not even close, get over it and stop getting so bent out of shape about it. Good day!

 

[signpost]

FWIW, I just visited Stone Brewing Co. recently and took their tour (short and to the point, but free tasting afterwards). I'm pretty sure they said they ferment their batches in only 3 days. I'm not sure if they then take it off the yeast and bulk age it at all. I was mostly amped for the free tasting, so I didn't pay attention to all of the details. Anyway, all of this is to say that it isn't just the beer in the 30-packs that gets fermented quickly.

 

[passedpawn]

I just wan't to touch on this last part and I'll be done with this, because people on this website get so bent out of shape when you call them lazy and assert that their methods are nonsense

Corrected that for you. Asserting that people are lazy isn't a way to make friends. Perhaps they are just doing what they believe is the right way to do things. Maybe it's not, but that's how they've been taught on this site and others.

You clearly consider yourself a superior brewer, but brother you know nothing of dealing with people. One of those two things is a very valuable skill.

FWIW, I'm in your camp. I think there are a lot of "rules" to brewing that are based on questionable tribal knowledge and anecdote that I don't follow at all.

 

[amc22]

Corrected that for you. Asserting that people are lazy isn't a way to make friends. Perhaps they are just doing what they believe is the right way to do things. Maybe it's not, but that's how they've been taught on this site and others.

You clearly consider yourself a superior brewer, but brother you know nothing of dealing with people. One of those two things is a very valuable skill.

FWIW, I'm in your camp. I think there are a lot of "rules" to brewing that are based on questionable tribal knowledge and anecdote that I don't follow at all.

I didn't "assert" anything, and I called their methods lazy. Truth hurts. And you're right, I am terrible with people that don't know me. I have plenty of friends and am not really looking to make any more, I'm here because I like to share ideas. My delivery might be a bit crass, but people are a little too sensitive sometimes.

 

[homebrewdad]

I didn't "assert" anything, and I called their methods lazy. Truth hurts. And you're right, I am terrible with people that don't know me. I have plenty of friends and am not really looking to make any more, I'm here because I like to share ideas. My delivery might be a bit crass, but people are a little too sensitive sometimes.

What idea did you share... that other brewers here are somehow lazy for letting their beers age?

Also, please note that my advice had nothing to do with cleaning up off flavors. I would agree that you don't need three weeks to do that. My point was the big beers need time to age in order for the flavors to mature, and that it will happen faster with bulk aging than it would in bottles.

You ask for science, for evidence, and I point you to the search feature (and another brewer posted his own results) about splitting batches, bottling half early, leaving the other half to bulk age. 100% of the threads I have ever read here come to the conclusion that big beers mature faster when bulk aged.

I also have to agree with the PP that pointed out that bottling in nine days is the same amount of labor as bottling in four weeks.

Do I care if the OP bottles in four weeks? Not one bit. I don't have some burning desire to correct what I perceive as someone "doing it wrong". If he's happy with the beer, good for him. If he's not, it honestly doesn't affect me one bit.

He asked for opinions, and I gave one that had fact-based evidence to back it up. I have yet to call a name or talk down to other brewers in some effort to act superior to them. The same can't be said for everyone in this thread, can it?

 

[whataboutbob]

I appreciate everyones input and ideas. It appears everyone has a way of doing things which are neither right or wrong, just different. Thanks again for all the input. This is my first brew and just wanted to ask what thoughts were on it. I have a lot to learn and I thank the members here for the great info. I appreciate ALL the opinions and suggestions given.

 

[whataboutbob]

I'm curious. You're doing a big beer with directions that call for 5-6 total weeks in primary/secondary (and most agree that directions are aimed at the absolute minimum timeframes). You're going to cut that to 4 weeks, right?

Will you have beer? Sure. Will it be as good as it might have been? I think it's getting foggy, now.

The secondary (which can be skipped, unless adding fruit, dry hopping, etc) is for batch aging as well as clarifying. Cold crashing for a week will do the clarifying, but you'll also knock the yeast dormant - which is going to hurt the batch aging process.

You may prefer your big beers to be on the young/green side... if that's the case, go for it. If not, you may want to rethink your plan,or be prepared for a longer than expected period of bottle conditioning for this beer to hit its stride.

The instructions said 1-2 weeks in primary and add an additional week if no secondary is used. I was hoping 3-4 weeks would be sufficiant but thats why I asked for thoughts on this. Thanks for your comments

 

[homebrewdad]

Best of luck with your brew! The good thing is that if your actual berew process is solid (good sanitation, follow your steps properly), if you pitch enough healthy yeast, and if you keep your termeratures under control, the worst you'll have to do is wait for your good beer to mature into great beer.

Let us know how it goes!

 

[whataboutbob]

Best of luck with your brew! The good thing is that if your actual berew process is solid (good sanitation, follow your steps properly), if you pitch enough healthy yeast, and if you keep your termeratures under control, the worst you'll have to do is wait for your good beer to mature into great beer.

Let us know how it goes

Will do, thanks for your help!

 

[Draken]

The instructions said 1-2 weeks in primary and add an additional week if no secondary is used. I was hoping 3-4 weeks would be sufficiant but thats why I asked for thoughts on this. Thanks for your comments

Its your first brew. I would primary/secondary with whatever advice you feel like following. Do yourself a favor though once its bottled, "lose" a sixer or two of it in your bottling closet and try them after 4 months. See if you can tell a difference.

 

[whataboutbob]

Its your first brew. I would primary/secondary with whatever advice you feel like following. Do yourself a favor though once its bottled, "lose" a sixer or two of it in your bottling closet and try them after 4 months. See if you can tell a difference.

absolutely!

 

[whataboutbob]

Update: This beer has been in bottles for 3 weeks. I tasted 1 at 2 weeks and was not nearly ready. Very low carb, estery, and a little boozy (fusels?) Maybe I'll try another this weekend. I'm in no rush to drink these so I've put them in a corner of the basement for a while, Time will tell.