Bottling and conditioning

[Galena]

Having just received GW's book today I note that he says "All beer destined for bottling should be matured for a time in a cask. Bottling straight from the fermentation vessel is bad practice and should be avoided" he doesn't say why it is bad practice unless he is concerned about the risk of bottle bombs because he adds "A bottle is a tightly sealed container, and the volatile products of fermentation have no way of escape"
Having spent some time researching bottling I have not seen this mentioned before, so any thoughts on this? I don't intend to cask condition though I will decant into a bottling bucket.

 

[obscure]

I have a foundness for GW books, and use his recipes regularly. However some of the suggestions stated as absolute fact I.e. a dislike of top drawing Pressure barrels or the above I personally disregard. I have always transferred directly from primary to the bottle, as long as fermentation is complete I cannot see any danger of bottle bombs. You can use a bottling bucket, useful if you intend to batch prime, thigh I tend to individually prime bottles and transfer straight from the fermentor to the bottle.

 

[bobukbrewer]

I brewed on Monday, pitched the yeast at 2 pm, and today, Thursday, 2 pm I bottled [with no priming sugar] Two bottles are 1 litre PET so they act as pressure gauges. For 45 years I have fermented for 3 to 7 days then bottled.

 

[Galena]

I brewed on Monday, pitched the yeast at 2 pm, and today, Thursday, 2 pm I bottled [with no priming sugar] Two bottles are 1 litre PET so they act as pressure gauges. For 45 years I have fermented for 3 to 7 days then bottled.

Wow that is quick, though I can see the technique would work to replace the need for priming sugar, but what would you do if a PET indicates the pressure is too high?
What is your bottle conditioning procedure?

 

[bobukbrewer]

I would open the bottles outside in the garden to preserve marital bliss - or chill them for 3 hours - it is very rare to have a problem if you open a 500 ml bottle and have two 4 litre jugs ready.............

 

[An Ankoù]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll hijack @Galena's:
Among those who bottle, how long do you leave it in the bottle before considering it to be conditioned. I see some books suggest as little as two weeks, but my beer has rarely eaten its way through the priming sugar in two weeks, let alone come together to be at its best. I'm finding six weeks in the bottle to be the norm, with some beers taking longer. I don't even go near a lager until three months have passed. What are your experiences?

 

[obscure]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll hijack @Galena's:
Among those who bottle, how long do you leave it in the bottle before considering it to be conditioned. I see some books suggest as little as two weeks, but my beer has rarely eaten its way through the priming sugar in two weeks, let alone come together to be at its best. I'm finding six weeks in the bottle to be the norm, with some beers taking longer. I don't even go near a lager until three months have passed. What are your experiences?

I have rarely had a beer properly carbonated in less than four weeks the difference between two weeks and four weeks tends to be quite marked. So I would go with your six week minimum for bottled beer.

Kegged beer on the other hand even when primed with sugar seems to come together a lot quicker, and I have found if I keg it Bitter for example can be ready to drink at two weeks.

 

[cushyno]

I agree. While some are drinkable in a couple of weeks I almost always find beers take on a change in flavour during weeks 3-4 and only really begun to come together after 5-6 weeks.

The approximation of 1 week conditioning for each 10 points of OG is worth considering. Bigger beers usually take longer to condition. I also find dark beers take longer to come together because of the roasted/toasted malts.

 

[Galena]

Well I think we need to define the difference between carbonating and conditioning, for me it is two separate processes. I find using a PET bottle as guidance that it is always up to pressure in about 5 days, but I leave the bottles in a warm place for 14 days, then it goes into the cool garage for 'conditioning' which I believe is supposed to be at cellar temperature. I leave it here for a minimum of two weeks but prefer at least a month before sampling.
Most beers seem to taste better after at least a month of cellar conditioning, and some (my English IPA) was not that great until about 3 months, now it is an enjoyable drink.
I have a 7.5% Broadside clone that I hope to leave at least 6 months before drinking, though will probably sample one bottle after a month.

 

[obscure]

Well I think we need to define the difference between carbonating and conditioning, for me it is two separate processes. I find using a PET bottle as guidance that it is always up to pressure in about 5 days, but I leave the bottles in a warm place for 14 days, then it goes into the cool garage for 'conditioning' which I believe is supposed to be at cellar temperature. I leave it here for a minimum of two weeks but prefer at least a month before sampling.
Most beers seem to taste better after at least a month of cellar conditioning, and some (my English IPA) was not that great until about 3 months, now it is an enjoyable drink.
I have a 7.5% Broadside clone that I hope to leave at least 6 months before drinking, though will probably sample one bottle after a month.

That slightly surprises me how quickly your beers carbonate as mentioned I find it tends towards four weeks before my beer is carbonated.

At that stage I move to the garage for a couple of weeks or more for conditioning, depending on the style four weeks in the house to carbonate followed by two weeks in the garage is enough but other beers take much longer.

While I do use kegs for a lot of my beer one of best things about bottles is how easy it is to see how a beer evolves over time.

 

[Galena]

That slightly surprises me how quickly your beers carbonate as mentioned I find it tends towards four weeks before my beer is carbonated.

At that stage I move to the garage for a couple of weeks or more for conditioning, depending on the style four weeks in the house to carbonate followed by two weeks in the garage is enough but other beers take much longer.

While I do use kegs for a lot of my beer one of best things about bottles is how easy it is to see how a beer evolves over time.

I'm not saying it has necessarily completed carbonation in 5 days, which is why I always leave it a full 14 days, but the pressure in the PET bottle is certainly up by then, maybe like primary fermentation it still has some work to do.

 

[An Ankoù]

Having just received GW's book today I note that he says "All beer destined for bottling should be matured for a time in a cask. Bottling straight from the fermentation vessel is bad practice and should be avoided" he doesn't say why it is bad practice unless he is concerned about the risk of bottle bombs because he adds "A bottle is a tightly sealed container, and the volatile products of fermentation have no way of escape"
Having spent some time researching bottling I have not seen this mentioned before, so any thoughts on this? I don't intend to cask condition though I will decant into a bottling bucket.

GW has softened his tone.
In his book "Home Brewing" 1993, he says on p. 107, "The barbaric home-brew practice of bottling straight from the fermentation vessel should be avoided if at all possible.... etc etc". He does give reasons which includes (in my words) the yeast clean up after main fermentation including diacetyl rest. I think he means some home brewers bottle as soon as the beer begins to look a bot brighter- 5 to 7 days. Most of use use a secondary fermenter or leave the beer on the yeast for a much longer period so that these operations can take place. But for it to be real ale, he likes this to take place in a horizontal cask. Good old Wheeler. You should see what he's got to say about PETs.
This is a great book if you can get hold of a second-hand copy.
This one:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Camra-Guid...ds=Home+Brewing+Wheeler&qid=1617264448&sr=8-1

 

[Burtsbeets]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll hijack @Galena's:
Among those who bottle, how long do you leave it in the bottle before considering it to be conditioned. I see some books suggest as little as two weeks, but my beer has rarely eaten its way through the priming sugar in two weeks, let alone come together to be at its best. I'm finding six weeks in the bottle to be the norm, with some beers taking longer. I don't even go near a lager until three months have passed. What are your experiences?

I have found some variation in yeasts with regards to carbonation times and how floculant it is has been an issue before. Particularly, USO4 which needed a bit of a shake every now and again.

Generally though, 3 weeks minimum for carbonation and another 3 weeks for it to condition. So like you with the 6 week norm.

 

[jeg3]

Most of my ales are primed to 1.5 vols CO2 so if they are warm (say 18-20 degC) it will carbonate in a few days. Kegs I'll leave for 2 weeks, bottles 4 weeks at least. I've had some paler ales condition within a week in the keg, and taste awesome, some beers take weeks or months. I find that even if a beer carbonates in say a week, another couple of weeks allows the CO2 to dissolve fully and make for a better pour and greater head retention.

 

[Sadfield]

There's conditioning and there's conditioning. Letting yeast finish it's process and leaving off flavours that shouldn't be there to begin with, to discipate.

I think homebrewers tend to approach things in the wrong order. Ferment, carbonate, condition, in a way that removes most of the yeast early on. In the commercial world, bottle conditioned beers usually get 2 weeks to carbonate and then they are out of the door. The conditioning is done in bulk tanks prior to this, likely with more of the primary yeast available to clear up. Which is probably what GW was getting at, bottling green beer straight from the fv, without allowing it to condition.

For my money, the masters at bottled beer are the Belgians. Here's the process of Sint Bernardus, who brew one of the highest rated, high abv beers in the world. The whole process completed in less time than I often see many homebrewers claim it their takes low abv pales to 'come good'.

https://www.sintbernardus.be/en/brewery

 

[An Ankoù]

There's conditioning and there's conditioning. Letting yeast finish it's process and leaving off flavours that shouldn't be there to begin with, to discipate.

I think homebrewers tend to approach things in the wrong order. Ferment, carbonate, condition, in a way that removes most of the yeast early on. In the commercial world, bottle conditioned beers usually get 2 weeks to carbonate and then they are out of the door. The conditioning is done in bulk tanks prior to this, likely with more of the primary yeast available to clear up. Which is probably what GW was getting at, bottling green beer straight from the fv, without allowing it to condition.

For my money, the masters at bottled beer are the Belgians. Here's the process of Sint Bernardus, who brew one of the highest rated, high abv beers in the world. The whole process completed in less time than I often see many homebrewers claim it their takes low abv pales to 'come good'.

https://www.sintbernardus.be/en/brewery

That's very interesting. The conditioning is done cold and looks very much like lagering. My pilsners get at least 6 weeks in secondary before bottling. On the other hand, another Belgian brewer, Duvel, seems to ferment at low temperature and then condition at high temperature.

I hijacked this thread on behalf of another member who I felt was being more than a little hasty in trying and judging his bottled beers. But I'm glad I did as it's made me think again. The first DPBC recipe I made was for Simmonds (Reading) bitter and I left that in secondary for 6 weeks. Indeed, all of their beers seem to be bulk conditioned. While I'm reluctant to leave my beer on the primary cake for longer than necessary, I'm considering racking a bit earlier and leaving it longer in secondary- perhaps a proper maturation period- before bottling. So there might be something in what GW is getting at.
Effectively, then, my milds and bitters will all be lagers.
I also note that there are quite a number of threads where a brewer has not been able to bottle his beer "on time" and is in a panic as to whether it is still any good or whether he / she should chuck it. Maybe a rethink is needed.

 

[Sadfield]

That's very interesting. The conditioning is done cold and looks very much like lagering. My pilsners get at least 6 weeks in secondary before bottling. On the other hand, another Belgian brewer, Duvel, seems to ferment at low temperature and then condition at high temperature.

I hijacked this thread on behalf of another member who I felt was being more than a little hasty in trying and judging his bottled beers. But I'm glad I did as it's made me think again. The first DPBC recipe I made was for Simmonds (Reading) bitter and I left that in secondary for 6 weeks. Indeed, all of their beers seem to be bulk conditioned. While I'm reluctant to leave my beer on the primary cake for longer than necessary, I'm considering racking a bit earlier and leaving it longer in secondary- perhaps a proper maturation period- before bottling. So there might be something in what GW is getting at.
Effectively, then, my milds and bitters will all be lagers.
I also note that there are quite a number of threads where a brewer has not been able to bottle his beer "on time" and is in a panic as to whether it is still any good or whether he / she should chuck it. Maybe a rethink is needed.

Lagering or storing bottles in the cellar/garage/shed, I think the objective is the same, conditioning at a temperature lower than that of fermentation.

I think the reality lies inbetween GW and commercial breweries, that the maturation or conditioning stage needs moving to post fermentation, pre-bottling, whether it be in a primary or secondary vessel.

 

[jeg3]

Interestingly my recently bottled Tin Miner's Ale was bottled straight from the FV and five weeks later is one of the finest beers I have made in 50 AG brews. It had no conditioning prior to bottling but did spend 14 days in the FV.

 

[Hanglow]

Depends on the beer, but for example my last bitter type beer I brewed on Feb 20th, bottled Feb 25th, it had conditioned (for me this means carbed up and dropped bright) by the 3rd March and I have been drinking it since. I expect to finish it in a couple of weeks and I can't see how it can improve in flavour since when I first started drinking it. The only thing that really improved since then is the head, which got a bit tighter.

Now that was with a flocculant yeast, so for another example a kolsch/golden ale type beer I made back in the summer took an age for the yeast to drop (K97) and I didn't really consider it properly conditioned until it did. Probably 6 weeks for that one. I don't like using secondary finings for a few reasons - KISS, oxidation, keeping it veggie friendly etc but If I ever used that yeast again I would definitely consider it.

 

[BradleyW]

Interesting stuff. Besides this forum the only brew stuff I've read is James Morton's book. He's pretty against using a secondary fermentation vessel and advises "leaving it on the yeast". Which seems to be the exact opposite of what GW says!!! All very confusing