The great fermentation debate!! Lol

[joshesmusica]

this is one of the aforementioned types of people i would take guidance from in a discussion like this.
http://brulosophy.com/2015/06/25/pitch-ramp-crash-how-i-ferment/

i think the biggest thing to take away from it isn't the timeline (although that's certainly the next biggest thing), but rather the parameters of being able to make such a claim. you need to be pitching sufficient (maybe even more than just sufficient), healthy yeast in a normal sized beer which is fermented in a temperature controlled environment. If you don't have those three things down to go along with your normal sized beer, it's likely you're not going to get the timeline down. the same factors discussed in the above post.

those are such important factors it's probably often why people don't give such advice to the new brewers. most of us would get so excited about being able to drink the beer sooner, we'd likely skip over that whole condition-of-the-yeast part.

 

[MaxStout]

Gary_Oak is back? Have you read books?

being serious now,

Dr. Yeast, Chris White, founder of White Labs wrote the Life Cycle of Yeast


might help you with the scientific side of things. looks like after 10 days, under ideal conditions (proper pitch, yeast health and all that), most normal-sized beers are ready within 10 days, but there is no down side to letting it sit on the yeast for an additional length of time, within reason & limits of your equipment

Came for the Gary_Oak reference. Leaving satisfied.

 

[brewcat]

Something should be said for bulk aging:

A month in the primary gives that beer that much more time to age. Then when you start drinking after carbonation it already has that age instead of still being a little young.

Either way I'm not too concerned with time in primary whether it is a month or two weeks. I'll usually give my bigger beers more time. Beers that are better young may only get a couple weeks.

I just had a bitter in the primary for almost a month while finishing my kegerator. After carbing one week it basically tasted like it did at the end of bottling the last time I made it. That time I only did two weeks in the primary.

So for me bulk aging is a good reason to primary longer.

 

[Yooper]

All good points . I know there is no rush to remove from primary and I'm not arguing that there is. I was only looking for a reason that almost everyone in these homebrew forums say that it MUST REMAIN IN PRIMARY. . And saying that with absolutely no reasoning behind it except, "I'm not in a rush" well neither am I. Just wanted to know if any experienced Brewers could school me.

One thing that I recommend is to try it yourself. Split a batch in half, and leave half in the fermenter for as long as it takes to reach FG, and then add three days for this "clean up" phase talked about. (In reality, that 'clean up phase' is over within 24 hours after the beer reaching FG, generally). But a couple of extra days for the beer to clear a bit is a good thing. Once it's clear (or clearing), package the beer. Then, leave the other batch for 4 weeks. Keep all things the same- same amount of yeast pitched at the same temperature, and fermented at the same temperature.

They will be different. See which YOU prefer.

My preference is the former; but some prefer the latter.

Basic Brewing Radio had a podcast on this experiment a couple of years ago. The interesting thing was that tasters were about evenly split on their preferences, so some liked the beer with less yeast character imparted by the shorter time in the fermenter, while just as many seemed to prefer the beer out of the lengthy primary.

I really don't think it's at all a majority of brewers who do ultra-long primaries, but they certainly are the most vocal of the folks who advocate one or the other.

 

[shawnbrews1]

That's a great idea and exactly what I will do on the next one! Thank you