It's drinkable!

[Dutto]

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:

 

[IainM]

It really does depend on the beer. My super-hoppy pseudo-lager spend 4 weeks in the fv and 2 carbonating and then it was at its peak. Four weeks after bottling it was already starting to deteriorate. The Mild I bottled 10 days ago I started drinking after 3 days in the bottle and I doubt it will improve significantly. On the other hand, I try a bottle of the Triple I brewed back in April every month or so, and I don't think it is anywhere close to peaking yet.

 

[MickDundee]

It really does depend on the beer. My super-hoppy pseudo-lager spend 4 weeks in the fv and 2 carbonating and then it was at its peak. Four weeks after bottling it was already starting to deteriorate.

My American Wheat beer was like this. It needs to be out of the fridge for about an hour before drinking now to taste anything like as good as it did at 6 weeks old.

 

[Clint]

Hmmmm...I wonder if much personal enterpretation comes into this..as well as the individual stuff we brew? I'm not expert at judging although I know what I like and if something is crap...my Hopped coopers American pale is definitely getting better at around a month in the bottle and I do like the bitterness aroma and it's fizz ...it won't last long methinks!

Cheers

Clint

 

[TheRedDarren]

Not only does it depend on the style but also the recipe. The Fortunate Islands (hoppy wheat beer) clone was great after only 3.5 weeks from brew day.
Dark beers are supposed to need longer to come into a drinkable state but I've brewed a mild that was great from 2 weeks in the bottle, and Mikkellers Texas Ranger was great after two weeks also.

I've come to think that a good recipe will be good early and a crap recipe will come good eventually.

The only rule of thumb I've found to stay watertight is that low abv beers are good to go early and high abv beers need conditioning time, but even this rule is broken by IPA's.

 

[Clint]

I have the dark stuff lurking in the shed...many months it has been hiding....but come the time of winter......I'll be giving it a hiding!

Cheers

Clint

 

[JFB]

I just really enjoy that the beer changes over its life span. The hop early on and then the malt character later on.
sometimes I'm surprized one way or the other unlike a can of carling...

 

[chimpo]

This has just confused the heck out of me, I was happily going along on the theroy that the longer you matured beer up to a year was a good thing.
:-x

 

[zippy40]

well I would tend to agree with Dutto. My problem is I just cant wait and I love tasting the beer and how it changes taste as it matures. Doing this is fun but my last few beers is usually the best one.

Having said that, I tend to like my porters really young as the caramel/chocolate and coffee flavours are more pronounced then.

I suppose it just depends on what your taste is - some might like it young and some might like it matured.

 

[pms67]

I think the yeast plays a part as well,i had a Coopers kit beer that was drinkable after 5 days in the bottle! Although im convinced they have some turbo nutrient in there (or used to) but generally speaking i usually wait two weeks carbing but don't wait two weeks after that, 2 hours usually in my fridge but i agree the beers get better,more rounded or smoother as time goes by if a little less hoppy.

 

[IainM]

This has just confused the heck out of me, I was happily going along on the theroy that the longer you matured beer up to a year was a good thing.
:-x

If you're doing kits, then that is true for the vast majority of them, but there are exception (e.g. Razorback and Youngs AIPA).

 

[yeastinfection]

i use the 6 weeks process,i dont see it as a race,i do try a sample to see how its going but wouldnt class drinkable a win,

 

[Brewmarc]

I can see whare Dutto is coming from here, The 2+2+2 method is perfect advice for those new & experienced, it's a good benchmark, but it is by no means the only schedule to follow. I totally agree a beer needs time to age & mature, if it's made well most beer will nearly allways improve with some time of maturation period. Long or short only you can decide.
One of the biggest mistakes novis brewers make is to rush the process, the beer kit market doesn't help matters ' Ready to drink in 4 weeks' is often advertised.
This so often instils the idea in people's minds, yes you can drink a beer in 4weeks! It may even be pretty good. But hopefully we are striving to be Zen masters of brewing.
Brewing beer is a science the variables for improving our beer are infinitesimal. This forum is testament to that.
Remember we are home brewers not commercial brewers, so relax don't rush things, leave the beer to do its thing at each stage, & enjoy it. Only you will know when a beer is at its peak.

 

[DoctorMick]

When I say some of my beers are drinkable after 3-4 weeks what I actually mean is they're in really good condition and don't improve much further after that. The style does seem to provide a general rule as to how long it'll take but even that isn't hard and fast so what @TheRedDarren says about good and bad recipes probably holds a lot of weight.

As with all things homebrew, we all need to do what we have found works for us and the 2+2+2 is a really good rule of thumb but it is healthy to have opposing discussions so people have more information, can experiment and then find what works for them.

 

[Sadfield]

When I say some of my beers are drinkable after 3-4 weeks what I actually mean is they're in really good condition and don't improve much further after that. The style does seem to provide a general rule as to how long it'll take but even that isn't hard and fast so what @TheRedDarren says about good and bad recipes probably holds a lot of weight.

Further to this, I think good fermentation control and yeast management plays a key role in shortening the time required for conditioning.


Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

 

[Brewmarc]

Further to this, I think good fermentation control and yeast management plays a key role in shortening the time required for conditioning.


Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Spot on! :thumb:
Furter to this pitching rate & temp is important. Underpitching (or over pitching though less of a problem) puts a lot of stress on yeast resulting in production of other compounds some undesirable, especially in the early metabolism. These ' 'precursors' can effect the flavour much later in the life of our beer:grin:
The most important factor here is controlling fermentation temperature

 

[Covrich]

I think the 2-2-2 is a good base template for any average Joe to work too.. I think most of us know there isn't a one size fits all. I would be lying if I said I waited 6 weeks before trying one of mine, That doesn't mean I go at it in anger but I may try one after a week in the bottle then another ot two a week later

 

[Lord0]

If you're doing kits, then that is true for the vast majority of them, but there are exception (e.g. Razorback and Youngs AIPA).

Why would Razorback be an exception? (I ask because I'm just about to start one).

Does it deteriorate quickly? Because it's relying on hops? Etc etc

 

[IainM]

Why would Razorback be an exception? (I ask because I'm just about to start one).

Does it deteriorate quickly? Because it's relying on hops? Etc etc

Yup, the amazing fresh hop aroma fades over time. You will still have a nice beer after 6 months in the bottle, but it won't be the same.

 

[Dutto]

Why would Razorback be an exception? (I ask because I'm just about to start one).

Does it deteriorate quickly? Because it's relying on hops? Etc etc

Good question ... :thumb: :thumb:

... and I'm waiting on the answer! :whistle: