IainM
Landlord.
You can always force carb it in a corny. Don't forget the heading agent to help with the head retention. I bet many would be hard pressed to pick it out from Fosters in a triangle test.
It's drinkable!
- Thread starter Dutto
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
You can always force carb it in a corny. Don't forget the heading agent to help with the head retention. I bet many would be hard pressed to pick it out from Fosters in a triangle test.
I quite often recommend the "2+2+2" approach as the minimum time required to get a decent brew ... :thumb:
... and almost every time, someone comes forward and tells me that their brew is "drinkable" in much less time.
In view of this, I would like to point out that:
1. Urine is "drinkable". It may not taste very nice but, if you are ever in a lifeboat or a desert without a source of drinking water, I recommend drinking urine as a way of prolonging your life.
2. I am of the opinion that, after fermentation is completed, both beer and cider take time to reach a plateau of excellence which they will maintain for a varying length of time before starting to deteriorate. Personally, I have yet to brew anything where this "plateau of excellence" has been reached within four weeks; and in some cases deterioration hasn't started until well after twelve months.
3. I consider the Forum to be a place where we try to help each other to improve what we brew and I have never considered brewing a beer or a cider to be some kind of race. As a young man I was always taught that "Coming first doesn't always mean that you have won." and if you don't believe me I suggest that you check this saying out with your wife or girlfriend. :lol: :lol:
Please feel free to discuss. :thumb: :thumb:
I disagree!
I note from other posts you've made that you've been brewing for 50 years. I doff my cap to your experience; I've only been at it for a mere 40 years. I too started out with Boots kits and made some drinkable beers as well as some complete hounds.
Over the years I worked to make my process better and better. I've invested in an education of all things brewing. I've listened to many opinions, and I've tried many different methods side-by-side with my own. I'm always willing to learn, because that means I end up with better beer.
If anyone asks me about brewing, I happily pass on whatever knowledge I can because I enjoy the process and I'm sure other people will too. If they don't want to listen, then fair play. It's their beer. I've tried a few things that other people swear by and I didn't like the outcome. To me they're not wrong. It's just not what I want.
One of the biggest improvements to my beer has been patience. Interestingly, one thing |I try to impress on newer brewers (and some older ones) is the importance of letting the brew process take its own time.
For example, I'll never even touch a beer for a minimum of three weeks. I won't look or open the FV or anything like that. I just let it get on. Come the three weeks I'll gently lay my hand on the FV lid and if the pressure pushes a bubble through the airlock I know the wort isn't reabsorbing the CO2 so I'll leave it another week.
If I intend to dry hop, I'll rack the beer and do it at this point. If I don't, this is the first time I'll open the FV and take a sample. I'll test the FG and taste the sample. If all seems well, I'll repeat a few days later. If it seems to need more time (i.e. it's green, sharp, yeasty, cloudy or still showing signs of conditioning) I'll shut it down for another week or two.
The 2+2+2 process has been quoted as a 'Golden Rule', but aside from the odd internet forum I've never seen it anywhere as a rule, not in 40 years of brewing. Not every fermentation is the same, and the way to make the best beer is to know your process, your wort and your yeast. I tend to get a feel for when things are ready, and it's never uniform and most certainly fermentation is never complete in 2 weeks.
I am pretty much certain that you could brew two identical beers, one using the 2+2+2 theory and another with longer times and a better understanding of the beer, and the latter would be a better beer. A much better beer.
Now, some people might reply that beers being made using the 2+2+2 method are drinkable, but might I remind you that:
1. Urine is "drinkable". It may not taste very nice but...
Pope
Regular.
I'm brewing my first porter, which Ill end up bottling next Friday. From what I read darker beers need longer to be conditioned...which will be difficult for me because I'm running low in my stocks...I've seen people mention 6 months or longer! That'll take some self-restraint!
Cwrw666
Landlord.
My only regret with my brewing technique is that I take hydrometer readings by chucking the sanitized hydrometer into the FV to take a reading rather than drawing off a sample of wort. So the first time I get to drink my brew is at bottling, when I usually drink 1 to 2 pints of flat, warm beer. Which I have to say is very nice indeed. After that there's a lul while I have to wait for the bottles to pressure up.
Yes, beer improves with keeping. Then it slowly deteriorates. What's your point? (referring to the OP)
If you're drinking 40 bottles of the stuff each bottle will be somewhere on the curve.
Yes, beer improves with keeping. Then it slowly deteriorates. What's your point? (referring to the OP)
If you're drinking 40 bottles of the stuff each bottle will be somewhere on the curve.
I'm planning on testing something similar but the other way, I was going to do a "quick brew" and bottle as soon as I can, carb quickly and compare it against a beer done using the 2+2+2 "rule". I might now expand this to also include a beer that has been given a month in the FV and see how the results compare. My gut feel is that for a lot of beers it doesn't need anywhere near 6 weeks from start to peak but I'll gladly prove myself wrong!
strange-steve
Quantum Brewer
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,027
- Reaction score
- 5,798
I agree with this, there are some beers which are at their best as soon as they're carbed. A hefeweizen doesn't improve with aging and as others have said hoppy pale ales go down hill fairly quickly. I once made a galaxy APA which was at its best about a week after bottling.
I'd agree with that point. However, a beer fresh after conditioning and carbing is very different to a beer that has been 'fermented' in two weeks. I'll drink IPAs and Weissbiers soon after packaging, but they still take longer to ferment.
With a four week ferment I figure around two weeks turning sugar to alcohol; yep, that's beer alright, but it could be better. Another week allowing the yeast to clean up their by-products. Yep, that's still beer, but with less crud and off-tastes in the background. Another week for things to settle and drop out, plus some margin for error.
Then carb and condition as suits the style; you'll definitely have a better result.
IainM
Landlord.
My take on young beer is this: some low-ish abv all-grain beers can be drunk young and don't improve massively. They are enjoyable and near-peak straight away, at least to my palate. When pungent large-dose dry-hopping is added to the mix, the beers are best served as soon as they are carbonated, as the aroma fades and can fade fast (for instance, look at this xmbt). This is something I've noticed in my own beer and the difference between 40 and 50 years of brewing experience is irrelevant, because the American-style super-aromatic pale ales for which this is an issue did not exist 30 years ago. Apart from this specific style of beer, I would agree. Even weak English pales improve after a month conditioning, although they don't benefit as much as their darker and stronger counterparts. As advice for newbies doing kits or extract, or any stronger beer, the 2+2+2 rule is a reasonable rule of thumb to get decent beer, and although it can be drunk earlier, should be considered a minimum. A 'minimum' rule that served me better when I was kit brewing, that I also read on the forums, is the '1 week conditioning per 10 gravity points in the OG' rule.
In an attempt to get the best of both worlds, I'm currently bulk conditioning a 7.5% ABV black IPA. After a month cold conditioning I'll dry hop and bottle. Hopefully the greener notes of a young strong beer will have mellowed, and I'll still have lots of fresh hops.
In an attempt to get the best of both worlds, I'm currently bulk conditioning a 7.5% ABV black IPA. After a month cold conditioning I'll dry hop and bottle. Hopefully the greener notes of a young strong beer will have mellowed, and I'll still have lots of fresh hops.
Good topic Dutto,just shows how much individual prefrences differ.
Er ... I'm not quite sure with what you are disagreeing. Sorry.
The very first line of my original Post is ...
"I quite often recommend the "2+2+2" approach as the
MINIMUM TIME required to get a decent brew ..."
MINIMUM TIME required to get a decent brew ..."
I think you will find that the words "minimum time" correlate exactly with what you go on to state. :thumb:
Sorry, I still disagree. Any beer that is properly fermented, and that includes the conversion phase and allowing the yeast to clean up and fully flocculate, is not going to be at its optimum after two weeks. Even with a disclaimer that it's a minimum time it's not a realistic time period if you want good beer rather than drinkable beer (or urine).
There are stages of drinkability, as you point out in your opening post. You despair for those that ferment too quickly and advise that the 2+2+2 formula is the minimum time. You state that beer will be better if the formula is followed.
Whilst I will concur that 2+2+2 will give better beer than a shorter time frame, it will not give the best beer. It will give 'drinkable' beer, but not the best. The statement that it's a minimum doesn't change that fact. The initial 2 will never yield the best results. The rest is too elastic to qualify.
Just as I disagree that a kit can deliver its best product in 10 days, I disagree that 2+2+2 is viable as even a minimum! I also disagree with the idea that any formulaic approach makes the best beer, because that defies all the laws of microbiology, which is what we're dealing with here.
I think the consensus here is that we all disagree with each other! :lol:
Do people EVER read the Posts before they leap in to argue?
In my original Post I said:
My main bone of contention was (is) that quite a few people on the Forum leap in and tell me that their brew is "drinkable" after a matter of "days" and not "weeks" or "months" as I recommend.
With regard to what is and is not a "Golden Rule", let me say that the "2+2+2" is MY Golden Rule:
o I don't open up the FV until TWO WEEKS after pitching the yeast. At this stage I check the SG to ensure that fermentation is where I expect it to be.
o I don't expect a brew to be anywhere near carbonated until a minimum of TWO WEEKS after adding the sugar and resting in a warm dark place.
o I would't dream of opening a bottle to taste it until after it has been sat on a shelf for a minimum of TWO WEEKS (after carbonation is completed) in order to clear and condition.
Obviously, with a "critical mass" of beer available I can and do leave my brews for longer if I think that is required but a few of them (Fulstows AG Recession Session for instance) taste so good after the 2+2+2 that they just don't last for very long thereafter.
At the moment I am drinking a bottle of Fulstows AG Marsh Mild. Bottled on the 15th January this year it has yet to start deteriorating; but unfortunately it appears to be my last bottle (discovered hiding at the back of another brew) so until I start my next Marsh Mild in December I will just have to savour the memory! :thumb:
PS
I also can't remember EVER saying that a kit (extract I presume) delivers anything better than an AG brew!
My Mum always reckoned that some people could argue with their own shadow and suggested that I didn't become one!
I try! Believe me, I try! :thumb: :thumb:
In my original Post I said:
"Personally, I have yet to brew anything where this "plateau of excellence"
has been reached within four weeks;
and in some cases deterioration hasn't started until well after twelve months."
has been reached within four weeks;
and in some cases deterioration hasn't started until well after twelve months."
My main bone of contention was (is) that quite a few people on the Forum leap in and tell me that their brew is "drinkable" after a matter of "days" and not "weeks" or "months" as I recommend.
With regard to what is and is not a "Golden Rule", let me say that the "2+2+2" is MY Golden Rule:
o I don't open up the FV until TWO WEEKS after pitching the yeast. At this stage I check the SG to ensure that fermentation is where I expect it to be.
o I don't expect a brew to be anywhere near carbonated until a minimum of TWO WEEKS after adding the sugar and resting in a warm dark place.
o I would't dream of opening a bottle to taste it until after it has been sat on a shelf for a minimum of TWO WEEKS (after carbonation is completed) in order to clear and condition.
Obviously, with a "critical mass" of beer available I can and do leave my brews for longer if I think that is required but a few of them (Fulstows AG Recession Session for instance) taste so good after the 2+2+2 that they just don't last for very long thereafter.
At the moment I am drinking a bottle of Fulstows AG Marsh Mild. Bottled on the 15th January this year it has yet to start deteriorating; but unfortunately it appears to be my last bottle (discovered hiding at the back of another brew) so until I start my next Marsh Mild in December I will just have to savour the memory! :thumb:
PS
I also can't remember EVER saying that a kit (extract I presume) delivers anything better than an AG brew!
My Mum always reckoned that some people could argue with their own shadow and suggested that I didn't become one!
I try! Believe me, I try! :thumb: :thumb:
Dutto,i have a sneaky feeling you are enjoying this........... ðŸËâ¹
Dutto, maybe you should have listened to your mother:lol:
So not 2+2+2 then?
Hang on...:whistle:
So not 2+2+2 then?
Hang on...:whistle:
