I've come to the conclusion that carbonation is just an on-going process

[DavidDetroit]

All other processes being done correctly, yeast can't continue to carbonate.
I have never having a bottle bomb or gushers except for one time and I know the cause was a fruit addition.
I've had stable carbing even with beer after two years.
I have primed based on temperature and ignoring temp (sugar difference wasn't big anyway) and there was no real change.
Maybe since I don't cold-crash, that's why I haven't gotten unpredictable results.

 

[sifty]

Isn't conditioning and carbonation separate ?

Yes I think so. I had used conditioning when I meant carbonation in my post, since edited...
Cheers.

 

[chthon]

Yes that's obviously the right thing to do. I just seem to like the same carbonation level in most of the styles that I brew. I don't do lagers or wheat beers. I stick with English, American and Belgian styles. I'm not into the very low carb levels that Real Ale is meant to have, or the mega fizz that some beers have. That swirling chaos. Carbonation improves a beer in my eyes, so I want some but not too much. I do go a bit higher for Belgians actually, but not a lot. 6g/L instead of 5g/L. The BJCP would kick me into the long grass. But I kicked them there first.

For Belgian beer I use 7.5g/l, for something Duvel-ish even 8g/l.

 

[moto748]

It's an interesting take to compensate for those issues instead of trying to fix them.

Is anyone doing or saying that? I don't think so; I think you assume rather a lot.

Anyway, I take it from that that you do not accept the basic premise of the thread header, then, Dorst?

 

[Dorst]

Is anyone doing or saying that? I don't think so; I think you assume rather a lot.

Anyway, I take it from that that you do not accept the basic premise of the thread header, then, Dorst?

To answer your first question it was you proposing to lower the priming dosage to compensate. Right here:

I agree with all that, Richard. I may try in future to reduce the priming on say, half a dozen bottles of a batch, mark them accordingly, and leave until last.

and also here:

I've not seen anything to dissuade me from my origin premise, but beyond that, I see two possible options. One is to use a lower level of priming for a proportion of the batch, marking the bottles accordingly, and aim to leave them for a good couple of months or so. The other is to try leaving a proportion under air-locks for an extra week or so past the point where I would normally be bottling, and apply the same amount of priming, and see if that makes any difference.

I am trying Plan B now, and will try Plan A in future.

And indeed I do not underwrite your conclusions or premise in your opening post. If yeast adds more co2 than calculated it simply consumed more sugar than what you added during priming (assuming you did not add too much sugar or distributed your sugar unevenly)

1. You have bottled your beer before fermentation was done and FG was stable
2. You have used a yeast that is a diastaticus or the beer contains an enzyme that converts more complex sugars into more simple ones (this can happen with hop creep for example)
3. You have an infection with a wild yeast / bacteria / diastaticus

I do think based on this post and your earlier posts that there is a very real possibility you have a wild yeast infection. But that would be me assuming a lot.

 

[dad_of_jon]

The last of my orange abbots brewed on 10/06/2020 having done 1 and a bit summers down the shed are lively but easily pourable and as clear as a bell. The early drinking ones if left this long would have been foam bombs. So all I can advise is that adjusting the priming works well for me. I always keep 12 of a batch of beers that can mature over 12 months+ They become part of my xmas stock so I can drink a variety of aged beers. I don't age my wheats or most ipa's as they usually go within a few months.

 

[Richard_H]

You have used a yeast that is a diastaticus or the beer contains an enzyme that converts more complex sugars into more simple ones (this can happen with hop creep for example)

This is a very interesting point that I had never really considered until now, currently have a dark winter saison that fits this profile. No infection, bottled after 4 weeks and at a reading of 1.001, primed with an average amount of sugar for an English style ale and was bottled back in July. I have plenty still left due to being nearly 8% and while they are miles away from being gushers they all produce a very thick head that almost refuses to go down. Holding it to the light shows plenty of bubbles but nothing crazy.

I need to do my homework on diastaticus yeasts with saison being one, every day is a school day

 

[Dorst]

This is a very interesting point that I had never really considered until now, currently have a dark winter saison that fits this profile. No infection, bottled after 4 weeks and at a reading of 1.001, primed with an average amount of sugar for an English style ale and was bottled back in July. I have plenty still left due to being nearly 8% and while they are miles away from being gushers they all produce a very thick head that almost refuses to go down. Holding it to the light shows plenty of bubbles but nothing crazy.

I need to do my homework on diastaticus yeasts with saison being one, every day is a school day

In all fairness there is not that much residual sugars left at 1.001.. perhaps 2 points to go down to. The saison style is supposed to be very high in carbonation so perhaps you made it very style appropriate ;-)

Lallemand recently released a non-diastatic Saison hybrid. I have a satchet in my fridge but too many other brewing ideas.