Page 3 of 4
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:42 pm
by RickBeer
Gymrat wrote:Kealia said a mouthful there. Over the years I have found tidbits from John Palmer himself to not be correct. I have learned to try what various people advise and see what works for me.
Said another way, You can ask the questions 50 different ways and you'll get 75 answers. The more you ask, the more answers you'll get.
Experience is the best teacher.
Edit - and it's really, really hard to screw up beer.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:51 pm
by BeerRust
RickBeer wrote:Gymrat wrote:Kealia said a mouthful there. Over the years I have found tidbits from John Palmer himself to not be correct. I have learned to try what various people advise and see what works for me.
Said another way, You can ask the questions 50 different ways and you'll get 75 answers. The more you ask, the more answers you'll get.
Experience is the best teacher.
The questions are just as good as the experience. Nothing wrong with more knowledge.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:57 pm
by Gymrat
I couldnt agree with you more beerrust
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:01 pm
by BeerRust
Gymrat wrote:I couldnt agree with you more beerrust
thank you for the help!
Also without the questions the Borg would be a pretty boring place!
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:08 am
by mashani
Kealia wrote:Now you're asking three questions that are very divisive in the homebrewing community:
1) Is it OK to leave beer on the trub for more than 3 weeks?
2) Is a secondary really neccesary?
3) Is bottle conditioning any better/worse than bulk conditioning in a fermenter?
All three of these questions have people on both sides of the fence that believe their way works for them. So I won't say that there is a "right" answer to any of them. There is only what is right for you.
For example, I have no issues leaving my beer on yeast for 4-5 weeks if my schedule gets crazy. There are those that have left their beer on for months without issue. The threat of autolysis is believed to be somewhat of a myth at this point given the homebrew scale. But there are still those that believe that anything more than 3 weeks is bad and that's how they brew. And it works for them so who can say they are right or wrong?
I don't believe that secondaries are needed unless there are major additives like fruit, or unless you need to age/lager for months at a time. The 'need' for a secondary is related to the above point(s). Again, there are some that use secondaries and make great beer, along with those of us that don't and believe that we too make great beer.
Finally, some believe that aging in bulk provides more benefits that aging in bottles. I disagree. I've tried both and not noticed any difference at all. The argument for aging in bulk is somewhat based on the claim that more yeast = better aging. But to me that doesn't make sense because once you bottle you dilute both the yeast and the volume of beer but the ratio (in my mind) between the two stays relatively the same.
So that's a long winded way of saying that these are answers you'll have to come to on your own young Padwan. While there are some absolutes in brewing (like sanitizing being critically important), there are far more grey areas that each brewer must investigate on his/her own to learn what works for them to produce beer that they like.
I can tell you that even though Gymrat and I disagree on a few process things (like time on the yeast cake), I have a lot of respect for him as a brewer and have no doubts that he produces stellar beer (you'll find him to be quite knowledgeable). It simply means that we each use different processes that work for us.
Cheers.
edit: multiple typos
FWIW, I am mostly in agreement with Kealia here on things. I've left stuff some big beers in my primary fermenters for 4-5 weeks too, and had no issues whatsoever.
I would just say that RE: "Bulk Aging" it depends on how you define that. I find that leaving my beer in my LBK/LBC until the fermentation created off flavors/compounds such as acetaldehyde and diacetyl are cleaned up to be something that works faster/better then relying on this to happen in the bottle. I find the big yeast cake does a better job of that. But this is NOT secondarying, and not what most folks refer to as "Bulk Aging", and not "equal in proportion"... its not really what Kealia is referring to here I think, I think he's talking about bulk aging in an actual secondary for a month. I'm talking about leaving it for a few extra days or a week on the original yeast cake from when the fermentation is done from a FG standpoint. Like Kealia says, this is not always needed, it just depends on what you brewed, what yeast you used, pitching rate, temps, other things. This goes back to that "when is it done" conversation, in some cases my hydro may say it's done in 5 days but I don't' bottle it until 10+ days, or 14 or whatever fits my schedule best. I don't stress about how long it sits too much.
One thing to always keep in mind is that much of the early homebrew wisdom was based on how it was done in big Macro breweries. But you do not own a floor to ceiling fermenter in your warehouse that puts tremendous pressure on the yeast cake. If you did, then yes, leaving it on the yeast cake could be a very bad thing. Same concept for HSA, you are not pumping hot wort through hundreds of feet/yards of pipe. Stuff like that matters in the scope of things, and lots of us have found that at our scale these things do not really matter as much.
But like he said, we all do what makes beer that we like, and if something seems to make beer that you like better then by all means do it.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:15 am
by FedoraDave
Do I use a secondary?
Yes and no, and it depends.
With my LBK batches, I don't.
With my fivers, I was, then I stopped, and now I'm doing it again, for the most part, and always if I've got a late addition, such as dry hop.
Kealia brings up some interesting thoughts in my mind. Many homebrewers swear by their process. Obviously, since it's the method they use, they trust it, and they're pleased with the results.
But I wonder how many times it's a matter of misinterpreting the results. Here's an example of what I mean:
Joe Homebrewer finds a recipe for a Pale Ale. He brews it, and really likes it. He doesn't rack to a secondary, and he bottles after 2 weeks. Six months later, he decides to make that recipe again, but in the meantime, he's read that he should rack to a secondary after two weeks, and bottle it after 3, and extend his conditioning time by two more weeks. So he does, and he decides this batch tastes better than he remembers the first one tasting.
So he attributes that to his new process, and he decides to "improve" every batch of beer by racking to a secondary after two weeks, bottling after 3, and extending his conditioning time by two more weeks.
But are these things the only contributing factor? I can think of many other possibilities.
1 -Maybe his ingredients were fresher or otherwise superior the second time around.
2 - Maybe a change in his water chemistry, if he uses tap water.
3 - Maybe changes in temperature during the fermentation period.
4 - Maybe his tastes have changed slightly, and he prefers this style/recipe more than he did the first time around.
5 - Maybe his memory is faulty, and his anticipation of improvement due to new processes set his expectations higher, and he's fooling himself a little, without even knowing it.
As Kealia pointed out, though, unlike good sanitation procedures, certain aspects of the process are flexible and individual, and are neither "right" or "wrong", but fall under the heading of personal choice.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:20 am
by FedoraDave
As far as IPAs tasting better young, I was referring to the conditioning time. Highly hopped beers begin to lose the pungency and bite after time, and preserving the aroma and the initial kick that IPA drinkers love so much is a delicate balancing act.
Maltier beers can improve with time (and I mean four or six months or longer). The flavors blend and mellow with age, and the beer becomes more mature and complex. IPAs are more volatile, as they rely on the hop oils and esters for their character, and those fade with time. Don't get me wrong; an aged IPA will still be good. But it will have a very different character than when it was young and brash.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:10 am
by RickBeer
BeerRust wrote:RickBeer wrote:Gymrat wrote:Kealia said a mouthful there. Over the years I have found tidbits from John Palmer himself to not be correct. I have learned to try what various people advise and see what works for me.
Said another way, You can ask the questions 50 different ways and you'll get 75 answers. The more you ask, the more answers you'll get.
Experience is the best teacher.
The questions are just as good as the experience. Nothing wrong with more knowledge.
I totally agree. My point was echoing what Kealia, Gymrat and now Dave have said. There are diverse opinions, and as Dave noted often drawn from incorrect conclusions. That's why the Borg focuses on 3-4, because it seems to be the guideline that most agree with. Can it go 4 weeks? Yes. Can it go 5 weeks? Yes. Can it go 2 weeks? Yes. Can it go 1 week? Yes? Add in "it depends", "in my experience", "except when", ...
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:33 am
by Brewbirds
BeerRust wrote:philm00x wrote:The hydrometer will tell you when the beer is done. The tripel I just bottled went 3.5 weeks in the LBK. A week ago it was close to terminal at 1.014, and then in the course of that week, it finished finally at 1.011.
I have tripel going on right now, and I was thinking 4 possibly 5 weeks in the fermentor. I also have a big wheat beer going to , it's a week behind the tripel . If I let that go 3 weeks I will have to bottle both at the same time.
Can longer in the fermentor effect anything ? I am not sure I want to bottle both on the same day.
Your are getting the wisdom that is what makes the Borg the wonderful forum it is.
Now the specific issue on bottling two batches on the same day, as you see from the posts, is that you shouldn't ever HAVE to. Adding a day or so won't hurt and if you cold crash that would also seperate them by a few days.
I would add that as long as you have put together a well balanced recipe and had no brew day issues the biggest risk for off flavors are going to be infection and temperature problems.
So that being said your personality type will play a role in how your brewing process evolves. For example Mashani is often pressed for time but is still able to brew some very complex beer styles because he developed a brewing process that fits his schedule. At the same time Fedora Dave has a process that while still being geared to his schedule allows him to spend time with/on his batches. His brewing/bottling days are "me time" if that makes sense. BB2 and I can brew any time or day we feel like it and since our process involves different chores for each of us we might decide to wait a day or move it up a day.
Point is there are few a things that are absolute dos or don'ts but for the most part you are free to experiment with a lot of the brewing process, keep what you like and toss what you don't.
This is a hobby and should be fun; you can buy a lot of cheap brew gear on Craig's List from people who never figured that out.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:46 am
by BeerRust
FedoraDave wrote:As far as IPAs tasting better young, I was referring to the conditioning time. Highly hopped beers begin to lose the pungency and bite after time, and preserving the aroma and the initial kick that IPA drinkers love so much is a delicate balancing act.
Maltier beers can improve with time (and I mean four or six months or longer). The flavors blend and mellow with age, and the beer becomes more mature and complex. IPAs are more volatile, as they rely on the hop oils and esters for their character, and those fade with time. Don't get me wrong; an aged IPA will still be good. But it will have a very different character than when it was young and brash.
Thank you for the great info and insight of both. I have not tried an IPA recipe yet (if you have good extract recipe please send it my way!
) I think I would time that out so it's ready to drink when the weather starts to turn a little warmer and consumption increase, since they are better "younger".
Also I have noticed the aging after conditioning on some maltier brews too. I have saved one bottle from each batch to compare at a later time.
Thanks again!
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:28 pm
by FedoraDave
@BeerRust, unfortunately, I'm not much of an IPA drinker (although my tastes are changing, and I'm appreciating them more and more). The only recipe I have is an original AG recipe. Hopefully, someone will see this post and give you a good extract recipe. Or you could do an internet search for one. I'm sure that will yield results. Good luck!
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:24 pm
by BeerRust
FedoraDave wrote:@BeerRust, unfortunately, I'm not much of an IPA drinker (although my tastes are changing, and I'm appreciating them more and more). The only recipe I have is an original AG recipe. Hopefully, someone will see this post and give you a good extract recipe. Or you could do an internet search for one. I'm sure that will yield results. Good luck!
Haha, I had you pegged as an IPA guy. Anyway thanks for all the info you have been providing. I did some reading yesterday. There are so many differing opinions on this, it good to know that it does not have to be a hard and fast rule on what to do.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:22 pm
by Brewbirds
BeerRust wrote:FedoraDave wrote:@BeerRust, unfortunately, I'm not much of an IPA drinker (although my tastes are changing, and I'm appreciating them more and more). The only recipe I have is an original AG recipe. Hopefully, someone will see this post and give you a good extract recipe. Or you could do an internet search for one. I'm sure that will yield results. Good luck!
Haha, I had you pegged as an IPA guy. Anyway thanks for all the info you have been providing. I did some reading yesterday. There are so many differing opinions on this, it good to know that it does not have to be a hard and fast rule on what to do.
BINGO!!! Give this man a home brew.
Great thread BeerRust we love the philosophical stuff (read: babbling about brewing) more than most.
As for IPAs, or APAs for that matter there are so many hop varieties out there that you could probably brew nothing else for years and still not try them all. Point being is don't go anti hops too early in your brewing. Think of it as Baskin Robbins' selection, you don't want to decide you don't like ice cream after the first cone someone offers you.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:36 pm
by BeerRust
Brewbirds wrote:BeerRust wrote:FedoraDave wrote:@BeerRust, unfortunately, I'm not much of an IPA drinker (although my tastes are changing, and I'm appreciating them more and more). The only recipe I have is an original AG recipe. Hopefully, someone will see this post and give you a good extract recipe. Or you could do an internet search for one. I'm sure that will yield results. Good luck!
Haha, I had you pegged as an IPA guy. Anyway thanks for all the info you have been providing. I did some reading yesterday. There are so many differing opinions on this, it good to know that it does not have to be a hard and fast rule on what to do.
BINGO!!! Give this man a home brew.
Great thread BeerRust we love the philosophical stuff (read: babbling about brewing) more than most.
As for IPAs, or APAs for that matter there are so many hop varieties out there that you could probably brew nothing else for years and still not try them all. Point being is don't go anti hops too early in your brewing. Think of it as Baskin Robbins' selection, you don't want to decide you don't like ice cream after the first cone someone offers you.
Thanks man! I'll take that homebrew!
I not anti hops at all. I have used hops in all my brews except one so far. Used Centential, Casade , and recent Amarillo. I love the aroma of cascade and amarillo , wasn't that crazy about Centential. Just have done an IPA yet, so I am looking into it.
Re: How long does it Really take?
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:48 pm
by BeerRust
From chapter 10 "How to Brew"
As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis. Autolysis is not inevitable, but it is lurking.
And the debate continues.......