Secondary vs Bottle Aging

[jalgayer]

Hey All,

I am wondering what the difference is between secondary vs. bottle aging on bigger beers. I have a Belgian Dubbel going as well as a Belgian Tripel and the recipe calls for about 1 month in secondary for the Dubbel and 2 months in the secondary for the Tripel.

What would be the difference between (for lets say the dubbel):
BOTTLE A - 2 week primary --> 2 week secondary --> 5 weeks in bottle
BOTTLE B - 2 week primary --> 4 week secondary --> 3 weeks in bottle
BOTTLE C - 6 weeks primary --> 3 weeks in bottle

(I know that all of these methods will benefit from more bottle aging in the long run... but that is not what I am looking at. All methods have 9 weeks in them. What would be the differences between bottles A, B and C?)

 

[Potter1]

I think, with my experience, that bulk aging is the better method. It gives the remaining yeasts more of a population density to clean up after themselves. So I would go with option C.

 

[jalgayer]

That makes good sense. Other thoughts?

 

[btprice2001]

I was wondering about this too. I plan on brewing a Belgian dubbel or tripel and a strong Scotch ale for later in the year. I have seen many say that bulk conditioning is better, but I haven't seen anyone say they tested it in any kind of way or found that the same recipe was better one way vs. producing the other.

Potter1, did you try bottle conditioning and it didn't turn out good?

 

[jalgayer]

As far as the secondary goes... should I be moving it to a different temperature to let it bulk age?

The dubbel needs to site for a month.

The triple sits in the secondary for TWO months.

Should either of these be cellared at around 60-65F ish?

Thanks all!
You guys are such a help

 

[boydak]

I rarely use a secondary any more.

 

[jalgayer]

I rarely use a secondary any more.

Yeah... I am moving towards that as well. Just when a beer is gonna be in the carboy for ~10-12 weeks I think a secondary is in order.

Just not sure what temp to store at.

 

[ChshreCat]

In my (albeit somewhat limited) experience, I've found that bulk aging (either primary only or primary/secondary) conditions the beer faster than bottle conditioning. Meaning a beer that I have 2 weeks in the fermenter and 5 weeks in the bottle tastes greener than a beer that I had 4 weeks in the fermenter and 3 weeks in the bottle, even though both beers are 6 weeks old at the time of tasting.

 

[jalgayer]

Sweet, Cat.
That is interesting to hear!

 

[cimirie]

To add to the bulk age vs bottle aging discussion...

You can have great results from bottle conditioning. I have. However, the main thought behind bulk aging comes from consistent flavor profile. Let's assume you decide to bottle condition and you have 52 beers in bottles sitting where ever you decide to keep them. What you have is 52 different micro ecosystems. Maybe the front of your closet is warmer than the back. Maybe the back gets more light. Maybe you accidently elbow the bottles on the right because of tight closet space. All of these things can have an effect on the final product while the beer is still aging (let's be honest, it wouldn't be a huge impact if they are all stored in the same spot, but it very well may be noticeable from bottle to bottle).

If you let the beer fully mature all together in the same vessel, no matter what happens, all of the beer should have the same flavor profile. If you just want beer that tastes good and you'd rather bottle condition, have at it. If you are striving for consistency and the ability to replicate the same flavor profile again and again and again, bulk aging may be the way to go. Just my two cents.

 

[jalgayer]

That is some good points as well.
Wow do I learn a lot.
I love the fact that so often there is no one answer... At first it troubled me... but now I am loving it!

 

[ChshreCat]

That's the thing about home brewing... there are often 16 different ways people do something and most of them are right.

 

[btprice2001]

That's the thing about home brewing... there are often 16 different ways people do something and most of them are right.

+1 on that

Thanks, Cheshire. It's good to hear some one relay actual experience as opposed to conjecture/theory. Thanks, cimirie. Consistency is a good point that I hadn't seen mentioned before. And thanks jalgayer for the OP! This is a good thread.

 

[brewagentjay]

In my (albeit somewhat limited) experience, I've found that bulk aging (either primary only or primary/secondary) conditions the beer faster than bottle conditioning. Meaning a beer that I have 2 weeks in the fermenter and 5 weeks in the bottle tastes greener than a beer that I had 4 weeks in the fermenter and 3 weeks in the bottle, even though both beers are 6 weeks old at the time of tasting.

You been drinking for St Patty's Day Cat? 2+5 = 7 & 3+4 = 7 so what's up with the 6.....

I just having fun...You have helped me so thanks and I say pretty sound advice here more time on yeast seems to make beer more mature...

 

[ChshreCat]

My math is more advanced than yours is all. On the ChshreCat homeworld, 2+5=6.

 

[jjones17]

I think the only difference would be option C would not be as clear as the rest. Thats it! But, I have been, and will be again, wrong about many things. I would be interested to hear the results of your experiment, if you care to try it.

 

[Potter1]

I

Potter1, did you try bottle conditioning and it didn't turn out good?

No, Bottle conditioned beer is fine, for really long aging beers (6 months to a year or more) it's the way to go. I've just found that leaving the beer either a) on the yeast cake in primary for a month, or b) racking into the secondary for an extended time have given me very good results. Little off flavors and VERY consistent bottle to bottle. But whatever you do, it's going to make some damn fine beer.

 

[oceanselv]

I didn't see anyone address the temperature issue. I typically store my ales between 60 and 68 until I am ready to bottle and then I cold crash for 3 days at 35. This gives me a clearer beer. I also use a secondary after 4-6 weeks in the primary. I do so mainly because I only have one primary and don't want to tie it up for 3 or 4 months.

 

[Cliff897]

In Stan Hieronymus' book, he says that the trappists and abbey brewers claim that bottle conditioning is better.

I don't recall him going into why. Why is always a good question to be able to answer when making such assertions.

 

[jmwc95]

In Stan Hieronymus' book, he says that the trappists and abbey brewers claim that bottle conditioning is better.

I don't recall him going into why. Why is always a good question to be able to answer when making such assertions.

Probably to free up tank space for the next batch. They may not admit it is the reason, but it's probably economics.

 

[permo]

For a belgian ale, bottle conditioning, or refermenting in bottle, as they call it, should work just fine. There aren't a ton of hop and malt flavors in most belgian ales that need mellowing/blending for bulk aging..IMO. I am doing a 1.104 strong belgian, I am going 4 weeks primary and straight to bottle with fresh yeast. Same for my tripel. I will then store the bottles at 70 for as long as I can take it.

For strong scotch, I think a long, cool, lager like, secondary period is actually one of the defining elements of the style, smooth, blended malt flavor.

I think these styles work well with extended secondary to let the complex malt and hop flavors blend...YMMV

Barley Wine
Old Ale
Strong Ale
Strong Scotch Ale