[RPIScotty]

I think so too.

It just caught me off guard.

I remember the first time I used 3787 (this is the 3rd) I had disastrous results: first AG batch, terrible ferm temp management, etc. You know the deal.

2nd time was lights years ahead of the first. Better ferm temp management but long lag and almost 2 weeks to reach FG. I believe I used 0.75 as a pitch rate  target.

This time I aerated better, pitch a bit more (1 whole smack pack aiming for 1 M/mL/P), and tried to keep the temps under control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[denny]

What do you guys typically ferment at? I was trying to keep it mid 60s for 3-4 days but didn't get the chance!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pitch at 63.  After maybe 5-7 days, raise temp to 70 or so.  When it hits FG, I crash at 33.

[RPIScotty]

What do you guys typically ferment at? I was trying to keep it mid 60s for 3-4 days but didn't get the chance!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pitch at 63.  After maybe 5-7 days, raise temp to 70 or so.  When it hits FG, I crash at 33.

That is what I aimed for Denny but I seemed to have spiked from 65-69 °F over about 24 hrs between Sunday afternoon and Monday night (~28 hours).

No obvious or offensive flavors right now and I'm going to crash tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[narcout]

Personally, I would let it hang out at the current temperature for another few days (I would probably go a week) before crashing it. 

It may have reached FG, but that doesn't mean the yeast are finished cleaning up.

[RPIScotty]

Personally, I would let it hang out at the current temperature for another few days (I would probably go a week) before crashing it. 

It may have reached FG, but that doesn't mean the yeast are finished cleaning up.

That's a good point. I may hold at 72 for a few more days before crashing.

[dilluh98]

Every time in the past that I've tried to push a Belgian beer (low or high gravity) in terms of packaging - I didn't like the results. I won't even think of bottling until 3 weeks have passed now, regardless of how quickly I get to FG.

[RPIScotty]

Every time in the past that I've tried to push a Belgian beer (low or high gravity) in terms of packaging - I didn't like the results. I won't even think of bottling until 3 weeks have passed now, regardless of how quickly I get to FG.

What temp do you typically rest at to allow the yeast to "clean up"?

This is only the 3rd time I've used 3787 after using 1214, 1762 and 3522 on other occasions.

[dilluh98]

Low to mid-70s. I mostly use saison yeasts and find no need to push the temps any higher than that to get the attenuation/character I want out of it.

[HoosierBrew]

I just leave it in the low 70s (where I ramped to). It'll clean up nicely. I agree with leaving it in primary for 2 or 3 weeks. A month in primary for quad for me.

[RPIScotty]

Low to mid-70s. I mostly use saison yeasts and find no need to push the temps any higher than that to get the attenuation/character I want out of it.

Interesting.

The other thread going on now about finishing Belgian beers has me thinking...

Let's totally disregard any flavor impacts from using bottling yeast.

Does introducing yeast at bottling time serve to "clean up" the beer in addition carbonating it?

Many of the Trappists outline a pretty strict and pretty short total fermentation schedule followed by short conditioning phases and bottle conditioning.

Now I agree that as homebrewers we have the ability to take our time and "damn the cost" so to speak. I know that many don't re-yeast in the bottle but primary for longer.

Is bottle conditioning by introducing fresh yeast doing more than just carbonation? Does it offer an equivalent method of cleaning the beer up as opposed to doing a longer primary?

[dilluh98]

I've never observed a difference in flavor between a beer I left in primary for 3 weeks, bottled vs one I've left in primary 3 weeks, crashed, added bottling yeast (neutral champagne yeast), bottled. Maybe you gain a little on how quickly it carbonates but that's a huge maybe.

I think what you're getting at is could we leave the beer in primary for 1.5-2 weeks, crash, add bottling yeast, bottle and get the same product? Never tried it. If that idea holds, it's still going to take some time in the bottle at ~RT to clean up so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[RPIScotty]

I've never observed a difference in flavor between a beer I left in primary for 3 weeks, bottled vs one I've left in primary 3 weeks, crashed, added bottling yeast (neutral champagne yeast), bottled. Maybe you gain a little on how quickly it carbonates but that's a huge maybe.

I think what you're getting at is could we leave the beer in primary for 1.5-2 weeks, crash, add bottling yeast, bottle and get the same product? Never tried it. If that idea holds, it's still going to take some time in the bottle at ~RT to clean up so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

You kind of touched on my premise.

As an example, let's discuss fermentation of Chimay Premiere (from pg. 37 of BLAM). I understand that the differences in scale play a role but let's have a thought experiment:

Primary: 4 days

Secondary (i.e. Cold conditioning): 3 days at 32°F

Temp rises fairly high during primary. They centrifuge it twice (after primary and cold conditioning) dose it with sugar and yeast and then bottle. Total time is about 1-1.5 weeks until bottled.

Chimay makes great beers and granted, they have great fermentation practices, but they don't take that long to ferment and package. I'm thinking that the travel time overseas helps condition and clean up the beers.

What do you guys think?

[dilluh98]

I think you'd really have to have a good handle on how your yeast behaves if you're going to significantly shorten the time in primary both in terms of flavor profile and in terms of leaving fermentable sugars when crashing. Being able to bottle condition a not fully attenuated (or cleaned up) beer and getting consistent 3.0 vol. CO2 sounds tricky at the homebrew level. Not saying it couldn't work but I'm not sure if the payoff is worth the effort. If you feel that this processing technique is what gives a beer a particular flavor profile you like then maybe it's worth trying out. If you do, keep us informed, I'd love to hear how it turned out.

[denny]

Interesting.

The other thread going on now about finishing Belgian beers has me thinking...

Let's totally disregard any flavor impacts from using bottling yeast.

Does introducing yeast at bottling time serve to "clean up" the beer in addition carbonating it?

Many of the Trappists outline a pretty strict and pretty short total fermentation schedule followed by short conditioning phases and bottle conditioning.

Now I agree that as homebrewers we have the ability to take our time and "damn the cost" so to speak. I know that many don't re-yeast in the bottle but primary for longer.

Is bottle conditioning by introducing fresh yeast doing more than just carbonation? Does it offer an equivalent method of cleaning the beer up as opposed to doing a longer primary?

Nope.  There's so little fermentation going on that it does pretty much nothing but produce CO2.

[denny]

You kind of touched on my premise.

As an example, let's discuss fermentation of Chimay Premiere (from pg. 37 of BLAM). I understand that the differences in scale play a role but let's have a thought experiment:

Primary: 4 days

Secondary (i.e. Cold conditioning): 3 days at 32°F

Temp rises fairly high during primary. They centrifuge it twice (after primary and cold conditioning) dose it with sugar and yeast and then bottle. Total time is about 1-1.5 weeks until bottled.

Chimay makes great beers and granted, they have great fermentation practices, but they don't take that long to ferment and package. I'm thinking that the travel time overseas helps condition and clean up the beers.

What do you guys think?

I don't think it does.  My turnaround on Belgian beers can be very quick and they don't exhibit any signs of needing more time.