Testing long primary

[ChshreCat]

I like how this isn't valid because the competition wasn't big enough and the judges weren't highly enough rated. LOL

Haputanlas: The beer tastes FANTASTIC. Just a little boozy, but it's about 9% abv. I don't even think it's necessarily fusel alcohols he was tasting, or just plain alcohol.

Next time I brew this for a comp, it's still going to have a nice long primary, but I might start it lower in temp and/or possibly forgo the lb of sugar I added to see if that helps the alcoholic flavor that came out in it. Earlier batches didn't seem to have that, or not as pronounced, so it might have just been that batch fermented a bit warmer the first few days.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

I like who this isn't valid because the competition wasn't big enough and the judges weren't highly enough rated. LOL

I'm not saying that it isn't valid. I'm saying that two data points are not enough to establish the overall point. I am not trying to trash what you are doing. I think anything that we can learn from is good. I would just encourage you to enter it into some more competitions to get some more data points.

I am not sure why people get so defensive right away when someone offers constructive criticism? Forums like this offer a peer review process for experiments like you are doing. Otherwise, why would you post about them? Rather than just saying "Awesome experiment man", I am trying to encourage you to take the experiment to its completion and to offer challenges to your hypothesis and results so that we can all learn from them. That's how the scientific process works.

 

[JonK331]

I'm not saying that it isn't valid. I'm saying that two data points are not enough to establish the overall point. I am not trying to trash what you are doing. I think anything that we can learn from is good. I would just encourage you to enter it into some more competitions to get some more data points.

I am not sure why people get so defensive right away when someone offers constructive criticism? Forums like this offer a peer review process for experiments like you are doing. Otherwise, why would you post about them? Rather than just saying "Awesome experiment man", I am trying to encourage you to take the experiment to its completion and to offer challenges to your hypothesis and results so that we can all learn from them. That's how the scientific process works.

The thing is, especially for those of us who already believe in and use the single fermenter method, our own experience coupled with this long term experiment are good enough. I'm not trying to be defensive, just to have a constructive argument. I personally only use glass fermenters and you don't see me knocking the experiment.

 

[bob1852]

2010 Great Arizona Homebrew Competition:

American Brown Ale: Gold Medal (45/50)

Primary in an ale pail for 2 months. Straight to bottle.

 

[Indyking]

Ok, I know this isn't totally scientific because I don't have a control, but it's something.

There are still folks clinging to the concept of autolysis in home brewing and other worries about leaving a beer too long in primary. So, I propose this.

I'm a lazy bastard and I have a beer I brewed in August that's been sitting in primary ever since. It's on my kitchen counter, in a bucket as we speak.

Hey there... we can add to the hysteria. It's been in PLASTIC since August!

So. I'm going to bottle up this beer someday soon when I get off my butt and get around to it. Then, I'm going to send it in as one of my entries for the HBT comp that's coming up in just a short while. Then, I'm going to post the comments I get from all my score sheets in this thead and we'll see if they detect anything that can be blamed on the long time sitting on the yeast cake and/or sitting in plastic all this time.

Not gonna add any yeast at bottling. Not gonna do anything special. Not even going to use oxygen absorbing caps.

Like I said, not totally scientific but maybe revealing nonetheless?

Appreciate the effort, but that may not tell us much as you don't have a control, I'm afraid. I'm doing something similar with an EBA, but what I did was I split the same batch in 2 equal parts. First half was bottled shortly after fermentation was completed (7 days) and the other half will remain in primary in contact with the yeast cake for at least 30-40 days aging until I bottle it. After all carbed, I will drink both in a blind fashion (without knowing which one is which) and see if I can notice a difference. If not clear, I am willing to ship bottles to a volunteer BJCP-certified judge to evaluate them for me. If I can't find a volunteer, I will have the local guys that serve as judge on local completions to evaluate them.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

The thing is, especially for those of us who already believe in and use the single fermenter method, our own experience coupled with this long term experiment are good enough. I'm not trying to be defensive, just to have a constructive argument. I personally only use glass fermenters and you don't see me knocking the experiment.

I'm not knocking the experiment. I don't believe extended time will have much adverse effect either. Eventually you will have some yeast puking out, but I don't think too many people have to worry about it for most normal beers. It really would depend on what strain and how the yeast were treated to begin with. I would just be interested to see if a master or grand master would be able to pick up something that the rest of us normal people wouldn't be able to pick up, like some small oxidation flavors. Before I get flamed---I'm not saying that they are there, I'm saying I am interested in this experiment. I also ferment in buckets as carboys are too much of a pain to deal with. I don't usually leave it sit for more than three weeks, but I still have interest in this experiment.

I would also be interested to see if there were any long term shelf life effects of this method. Keeping a few bottle around for a year and see if there is any oxidation flavors that have developed. Although this would have to take into account oxygen exposed during racking and bottling also.

 

[remilard]

2010 Great Arizona Homebrew Competition:

American Brown Ale: Gold Medal (45/50)

Primary in an ale pail for 2 months. Straight to bottle.

2011 Drunk Monk Challenge
English Mild 40 something out of 50 (I score in the 40s enough to not remember them)
2nd place BOS

Primary for 6 days.

 

[winvarin]

2011 Drunk Monk Challenge
English Mild 40 something out of 50 (I score in the 40s enough to not remember them)
2nd place BOS

Primary for 6 days.

I still think it's a style-by-style thing. An English Mild or Bitter would benefit from a short ferment as you want a lot of the yeast-derived aromatics and flavors. They aren't meant to be "clean" beers so a long primary would push this kind of beer out of the style parameters.

I still think long primaries work great for most American style beers where you want a clean beer.

Belgians (as always) buck the trend because you tend to ferment them warm in order to encourage the esters, phenols and other yeast characteristics. But they would also benefit from a long primary in order to attenuate fully and drive off some of the aromatics that you would associate with "green" beers.

I likely sound like some sort of tree-hugging pacifist (trust me, that's not me at all). But I think there is room in our hobby for both styles.

Some people have been bitten by a bad batch of yeast, or a particular environmental issue that may have caused their yeast to autolyse or in some way impart undesirables to their beers. For them, it offers piece of mind and repeatable results by moving their beers to a secondary or tertiary fermenter.

Others, like me, have been bitten by other badness for pulling their beer off the yeast early. For me, I got hit with acetaldehyde in a couple of batches of lighter beer (a blonde and a cream ale). It was right after I went to temp-controlled ferments. I was used to brewing by calendar. 1 week in the primary, one week in the secondary, then off to the bottle or keg. Brewing at a lower temperature, I was leaving fermentation by products in the beer that would have cleaned up with a warmer ambient temp.

I found on this forum the concept of longer primary fermentations (and skipping the secondary entirely unless I was dry-hopping, aging for extended periods of time, or using some other aging adjunct like oak).

As I do with anything, I tried it to see whether it worked for me. As a result, I found that it worked quite well for the bulk of beer styles that I produce. My beers are mostly moderately to highly hopped American styles that call for standard American ale yeast (1056, us-05) and a clean finish. Leaving my beers in the primary (usually 3-4 weeks) then straight into bottle or keg without a secondary, allows the yeast to clean any of the undesireable by products of fermentation and yields beers that are also free from any off flavors or aromas that a number of brewing texts associate with autolysis.

That works for me, but it may not be for everybody. Case in point, remilard and his English Mild, a beer that just begs to have all of the esters that come with a quick fermentation on a British yeast (cask ales anyone?)

Science, controls, double-blind studies and all of that aside, I think the OP achieved what he set out to accomplish. Could he enter into a competition, a beer that had set on its original yeast cake in primary for an extended period of time, and not only produce a beer that the judges didn't spit out, but one that received respectable scores and showed no flaws that could be directly attributed to the amount of time in primary?

I believe the answer is "yes".

Do I believe that remilard should have aged his mild for a month on the primary cake? Not at all.

Did I score a 38 with a Pliny clone that had sat in its yeast cake for 6 weeks before transfer to a secondary for dry hopping? Youbetcha. And I would have cracked 40 had I not tossed my pellets in without a bag duing the dry hop and wound up with a layer of hop sludge in all my bottles.

In the end, there is only one best way to do things. And that's the process that allows you to brew beer you like to drink and are proud to have others drink as well.

 

[remilard]

Okay, 44 in the first round NHC last year with an IIPA that was in primary 8 days.

I can give anecdotes all day.

My points:

1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.

 

[bob1852]

2011 Drunk Monk Challenge
English Mild 40 something out of 50 (I score in the 40s enough to not remember them)
2nd place BOS

Primary for 6 days.

Okay, 44 in the first round NHC last year with an IIPA that was in primary 8 days.

I can give anecdotes all day.

My points:

1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.

Well played, sir.

 

[JonK331]

Okay, 44 in the first round NHC last year with an IIPA that was in primary 8 days.

I can give anecdotes all day.

My points:

1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.

Totally! I'll turn a beer in 8 days if I'm out of the stuff. I don't think Chshre was saying what you SHOULD do. Just that you CAN.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

I still think it's a style-by-style thing. An English Mild or Bitter would benefit from a short ferment as you want a lot of the yeast-derived aromatics and flavors. They aren't meant to be "clean" beers so a long primary would push this kind of beer out of the style parameters.

I still think long primaries work great for most American style beers where you want a clean beer.

Esters and yeast flavors are formed at the beginning of fermentation. Leaving the beer on the yeast would have nothing to do with it being "clean."

If by "clean" you mean off flavors mellowing from a less than ideal ferment, then yes, it would help.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

My points:

1. Anecdotes are stupid.
2. Rules about always doing month long primaries are stupid.
3. I can make a 10% barleywine that is clean, dry hopped and free of fusel alcohols in 3 weeks. If you can't and wonder why, the answers are here buried in a sea of zombie posts about month long primaries.

:rockin:

Can you make a 45 point beer grain to glass in 14 days? Yes. Can you make a 45 point beer leaving it sit for 2 months? Yes. I like the OP's approach and I agree with how he went about it. That being said, can those of you "month long primary" people just lose your arrogance (And you know who you are) that it is the only way to make beer and the rest of us who don't believe the same are just idiots and eventually will come around if we could only just crawl out from under the rock we have been living under for the last 3 years while this was discussed ad nauseum and it was decided that the only way to make good beer was to leave it in the primary for a month by those of us with high post counts who like to smash other peoples opinion if they disagree with them. *yawn*

 

[bob1852]

:rockin:

Can you make a 45 point beer grain to glass in 14 days? Yes. Can you make a 45 point beer leaving it sit for 2 months? Yes. I like the OP's approach and I agree with how he went about it. That being said, can those of you "month long primary" people just lose your arrogance (And you know who you are) that it is the only way to make beer and the rest of us who don't believe the same are just idiots and eventually will come around if we could only just crawl out from under the rock we have been living under for the last 3 years while this was discussed ad nauseum and it was decided that the only way to make good beer was to leave it in the primary for a month by those of us with high post counts who like to smash other peoples opinion if they disagree with them. *yawn*

Good rant.

The point of these "long primary" threads are not to pursuade people that it's the only way to make good beer. Rather, it's to help people who read old stuff that says "you need to get your beer of the yeast ASAP or autolysis sets in and your beer will taste like Satan's anus."

It's more about saying "look, I can leave the beer on the yeast for quite awhile and autolysis isn't an issue" not "if you don't leave your beer on the yeast for 4 months you suck and I hope your beer dies in a fire."

 

[remilard]

Totally! I'll turn a beer in 8 days if I'm out of the stuff. I don't think Chshre was saying what you SHOULD do. Just that you CAN.

Yeah, it is just as wrong to say that primarying for a month will result in off flavors as it is to say that primarying for 4 days will result in off flavors. In either case there may be off flavors and if there are you can probably fix them without dramatically changing the length of the primary.

I'd just like to see more original thought and criticism than parroting mantras. The month long primary mantra is as valuable as the 1-2-3 mantra was. That is to say, not at all valuable.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

It's more about saying "look, I can leave the beer on the yeast for quite awhile and autolysis isn't an issue" not "if you don't leave your beer on the yeast for 4 months you suck and I hope your beer dies in a fire."

I agree. I just want the people who say a long time sitting on the yeast is the only way, to stop telling the rest of us we are idiots for not doing it and our beer is full of off flavors because we pulled it off the yeast too fast. And yes, there are many people like that on this forum.

 

[ChshreCat]

Yes. The ONLY point of this thread is to try to demonstrate that people don't need to be worried about leaving their beer for a few weeks or a month on the yeast. Do I plan on leaving my beers in primary for 5 months? Hell no! I didn't plan on leaving this one anywhere near this long. Life just got in the way and I never got around to bottling it for a long time.

My first rule of brewing is that it's your own damned beer and you can do whatever the hell you want!

I was just making a demonstration for folks worried about autolysis. I never said you had to do a long primary to make good beer.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

I was just making a demonstration for folks worried about autolysis. I never said you had to do a long primary to make good beer.

You are right and that is why I tried to be clear that I was not ripping your premise. Thank you for your work. Do you have any of the beer left? I would still be interested to see what a high ranking judge would say about any oxidation character. I have heard some good judges say that most homebrewers are so used to drinking oxidized beer that they can't pick it up any more. Not saying yours is, but I would be interested.

 

[russbaker]

Cool experiment. However, beer doesnt stay in any fermenter at my house much longer than it takes to reach FG. Likewise, it doesnt stay in the bottle much longer than it takes to carbonate, cuz, like, I enjoy drinking beer and stuff. If I can't manipulate the process within fermentation time and cabonation time, its not getting done. It can age in my stomach as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ChshreCat]

You are right and that is why I tried to be clear that I was not ripping your premise. Thank you for your work. Do you have any of the beer left? I would still be interested to see what a high ranking judge would say about any oxidation character. I have heard some good judges say that most homebrewers are so used to drinking oxidized beer that they can't pick it up any more. Not saying yours is, but I would be interested.

I do have more, but don't think I'll be entering any comps in the near future. Money suddenly got tight here. Although, this stuff ages well (I have a few bottles about 1.5 years old that I'm still drinking from another batch) so I could save some for some other time.

Cool experiment. However, beer doesnt stay in any fermenter at my house much longer than it takes to reach FG. Likewise, it doesnt stay in the bottle much longer than it takes to carbonate, cuz, like, I enjoy drinking beer and stuff. If I can't manipulate the process within fermentation time and cabonation time, its not getting done. It can age in my stomach as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sorry... beer doesn't age once it enters your body. It gets transformed within the digestive tract and kidneys and exits as Coors Light.

 

[HokieBrewer]

To add to this experiment, I've got a brown ale that's been in primary for 6 months. Plan on kegging it early next week for kicks. I'll give you the run down on flavor once it's carbed.

 

[Haputanlas]

To add to this experiment, I've got a brown ale that's been in primary for 6 months. Plan on kegging it early next week for kicks. I'll give you the run down on flavor once it's carbed.

Hokie,

How'd this end up?

 

[StMarcos]

Yes. The ONLY point of this thread is to try to demonstrate that people don't need to be worried about leaving their beer for a few weeks or a month on the yeast. Do I plan on leaving my beers in primary for 5 months? Hell no! I didn't plan on leaving this one anywhere near this long. Life just got in the way and I never got around to bottling it for a long time.

My first rule of brewing is that it's your own damned beer and you can do whatever the hell you want!

I was just making a demonstration for folks worried about autolysis. I never said you had to do a long primary to make good beer.

Right, but it does seem that there are some people that think their beers owe some of their greatness to the long cake-sit. That is, the extended primary contributed to the quality of the beer. I've not seen any evidence for this, assuming the beer was brewed properly. The points that revvy says have been beaten to death are those that involve long cake-sits not detracting from the quality of the beer. That's pretty clear. But I haven't seen any experiments that show the long cake-sits change anything.

Experiments:

2-week cake sit, 6-week secondary, one or two month cold condition
vs.
8-week cake sit, one or two month cold condition

Average gravity ale, no dry hopping.

I do long cake-sits often, but not because I think they help, only because I know they don't hurt. However, I do sometimes dump a good chunk out when I want fresh yeast for repitching.

 

[winvarin]

Right, but it does seem that there are some people that think their beers owe some of their greatness to the long cake-sit. That is, the extended primary contributed to the quality of the beer. I've not seen any evidence for this, assuming the beer was brewed properly. The points that revvy says have been beaten to death are those that involve long cake-sits not detracting from the quality of the beer. That's pretty clear. But I haven't seen any experiments that show the long cake-sits change anything.

Experiments:

2-week cake sit, 6-week secondary, one or two month cold condition
vs.
8-week cake sit, one or two month cold condition

Average gravity ale, no dry hopping.

I do long cake-sits often, but not because I think they help, only because I know they don't hurt. However, I do sometimes dump a good chunk out when I want fresh yeast for repitching.

NOTE – EVERYTHING I AM ABOUT TO SAY IS MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ONLY. ANY ATTEMPT TO CONNECT THIS REPLY TO ACTUAL SCIENCE WOULD BE ILL ADVISED

All that being said, I have had a couple of beers flawed with Acetaldehyde and the only real difference between the flawed beer and an identical recipe without the flaw is the amount of time spent on the yeast cake. I got bit by the Acetaldehyde bug twice in a row right after I started doing temperature controlled primary fermentation. I had always been a brew by the calendar guy for my ales. One week in primary, rack to secondary for a second week, then into the bottle for 3 weeks or so and start testing for carbonation. However, I had also been making most of those beers at room temperature (70-72F more or less).

Then I got a fermenting fridge and a temperature controller and thought, “great, one more variable I can control”. So I made a pale ale and fermented at 63F with my old schedule (1 week primary, 1 week secondary, into the bottle). The beer smelled and tasted of hops and green apples.

Then I made a blonde. Same fermentation temp. Same schedule. Again, green apples.

Then I read on HBT about long primaries. Common sense told me that yeast are biological organism and that many biological processes slow down at colder temperatures. Then I read that Acetaldehyde is actually produced as a matter of course during fermentation, but is later broken down into something else that we find less objectionable when we drink the beer (again, I make no claims to have studied chemistry much beyond high school).

So I made the same pale ale again. The gravity and finishing volume were spot on from my previous attempt. Same size yeast starter. This time I went 63F, but I did a 3 week primary and straight into the bottle. No green apples. It may have been anecdotal, but the beer seemed to condition faster. Not carbonate faster. But it tasted less green and more mature after 3 weeks in the bottle. It had a similar flavor and aroma at 3 weeks in the bottle that previous attempts had taken 5-6 weeks or more to obtain.

Since it haven’t had it hurt my beers, and it seems like it MIGHT have helped, I have gone routinely to a minimum 3 week primary (4 or 5 for bigger beers) and only using a secondary for dry hopping or other advanced aging. I have been happy with my results. YMMV.

I hate to open up another can of worms, but it’s at least related to the thread. For those whose concern is autolysis with long primaries, I have always wondered about bottle conditioning. I have had bottle conditioned beers (mine, others, and commercial beers) sit on the yeast sediment for a year or more show none of the characteristics associated with autolysis. If yeast going dormant and eventually dying and spilling their guts is a potential problem with a large yeast cake on 5 gallons, why do we not have the same concern with an eighth inch or so of yeast sediment in a 12 ounce bottle? Not flaming anyone for their opinions. It’s just something I have always been curious about.

 

[HokieBrewer]

Hokie,

How'd this end up?

I went back to my notes, its actually been almost a year. I tried a gravity sample. Crystal clear, nagging Belgian off flavor I've been fighting, but no autolysis. And trust me, I know the smell and taste.

 

[KYB]

I didn't read much of this, but I'll add my experience. I've had numerous experimental beers that for whatever reason sat in primary for up to 10 months. From my experience with sampling the beer here and there, the beer seems to get a weird fruity-like flavor after 6 months. It's not like esters from the yeast - I'm guessing it's autolysis? Typically around the 9 month mark it is very noticeable. I've had beers in glass and plastic buckets, same for each. Most of these have been Stouts btw.

 

[Sir-Brews-Alot]

I didn't read much of this, but I'll add my experience. I've had numerous experimental beers that for whatever reason sat in primary for up to 10 months. From my experience with sampling the beer here and there, the beer seems to get a weird fruity-like flavor after 6 months. It's not like esters from the yeast - I'm guessing it's autolysis? Typically around the 9 month mark it is very noticeable. I've had beers in glass and plastic buckets, same for each. Most of these have been Stouts btw.

That kind of makes sense. It's been my experience that roasty beers in general tend to develop dark fruit flavors with age, that I believe are more related to oxidation, than autolysis.

As a side note, I just read through this whole thread. Very interesting debate. When I started brewing in 2009, the general consensus was to go with long primaries and no secondary so that is what I have always done. Works great for me, but mostly because I'd rather not rack my beer to a secondary (except for lagers). I've always looked at that as one more way to introduce oxygen. The question is, can one get away with a short primary? Say 8-10 days in primary only, then to bottle. I'm guessing the final product would be pretty yeasty, though.