[charles1968]

A beer as strong as Duvel needs a lot of ageing and certainly won't taste any good at end of fermentation. I'm not convinced any mistakes have been made. Unless is tastes seriously foul, I would let it age.

[majorvices]

A beer as strong as Duvel needs a lot of ageing and certainly won't taste any good at end of fermentation. I'm not convinced any mistakes have been made. Unless is tastes seriously foul, I would let it age.

That's not really true. They don't age Duvel for extended periods.

If you have to age a beer for three months to get it to taste right you are on the wrong path.

[ethinson]

I'm not sure about the fusels, but in my Belgian beers they usually start out with a smokey type phenol (Westmalle yeast) and a hot burning alcohol and both of those age out with bottle conditioning.  I use long bottle conditioning (9 months to a year) for my Belgian Dark Strong. 

I would say it *might* age out.  Personally, I would bottle it and see how it turns out.  Beers can be way different cold and carbonated than they are from a hydrometer jar sample.  Bottling is a hassle, and so is dumping them later, but I would give it the best shot to "do it's thing" and then if it's still awful you can dump it.

I try not to dump anything that's even remotely drinkable.. bad beer is a learning experience.  Of course if it's gushing and infected don't drink it.. but if it's just "off" maybe you can figure out why.

[MattyAHA]

i decided to just let it age in the carboy for a while then then im gonna keg it instead of bottle, if its stays crappy at least it was just one vessel to clean and sanitize, i really want to avoid dumping it so im gonna give it a chance to mellow out for a month or 2 if its still crap then down the drain she goes..again thanks for all the replies

[charles1968]

A beer as strong as Duvel needs a lot of ageing and certainly won't taste any good at end of fermentation. I'm not convinced any mistakes have been made. Unless is tastes seriously foul, I would let it age.

That's not really true. They don't age Duvel for extended periods.

If you have to age a beer for three months to get it to taste right you are on the wrong path.

I think the question of ageing is more complicated than that. It depends on the style of beer, packaging method and abv. If you're making hoppy American pale ale or IPA, it's best drunk fresh. If you're force carbonating a keg, again the lifespan of the beer is limited. If you're bottle conditioning, any beer needs at least 3 weeks. Lagers and Belgians usually need a lot longer. My bottle conditioned lagers can take 3 months to hit their stride. In contrast, a Citra-dry-hopped golden ale is ready in 3 weeks.

There's also a US Vs British cultural divide when it comes to making craft beer. American brewers pretty much all believe fresh is best. British brewers allow a bit more ageing. When it comes to beers that are heavily dry hopped, I fully agree with you.

I'm not sure how long belgian breweries condition beers, but most of them do bottle condition for an extended period and the beer isn't considered drinkable until this second fermentation is finished.

[majorvices]

A beer as strong as Duvel needs a lot of ageing and certainly won't taste any good at end of fermentation. I'm not convinced any mistakes have been made. Unless is tastes seriously foul, I would let it age.

That's not really true. They don't age Duvel for extended periods.

If you have to age a beer for three months to get it to taste right you are on the wrong path.

I think the question of ageing is more complicated than that. It depends on the style of beer, packaging method and abv. If you're making hoppy American pale ale or IPA, it's best drunk fresh. If you're force carbonating a keg, again the lifespan of the beer is limited. If you're bottle conditioning, any beer needs at least 3 weeks. Lagers and Belgians usually need a lot longer. My bottle conditioned lagers can take 3 months to hit their stride. In contrast, a Citra-dry-hopped golden ale is ready in 3 weeks.

There's also a US Vs British cultural divide when it comes to making craft beer. American brewers pretty much all believe fresh is best. British brewers allow a bit more ageing. When it comes to beers that are heavily dry hopped, I fully agree with you.

I'm not sure how long belgian breweries condition beers, but most of them do bottle condition for an extended period and the beer isn't considered drinkable until this second fermentation is finished.

I make a Belgian Tripel that has won numerous awards that is not aged longer than a couple weeks after fermentation. Check #8 on this link https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/36-of-the-best-belgian-tripels-blind-tasted-and-ra.html

While it does age well, it does not need long conditioning times to turn out very nice.

[tommymorris]

A beer as strong as Duvel needs a lot of ageing and certainly won't taste any good at end of fermentation. I'm not convinced any mistakes have been made. Unless is tastes seriously foul, I would let it age.

That's not really true. They don't age Duvel for extended periods.

If you have to age a beer for three months to get it to taste right you are on the wrong path.

I think the question of ageing is more complicated than that. It depends on the style of beer, packaging method and abv. If you're making hoppy American pale ale or IPA, it's best drunk fresh. If you're force carbonating a keg, again the lifespan of the beer is limited. If you're bottle conditioning, any beer needs at least 3 weeks. Lagers and Belgians usually need a lot longer. My bottle conditioned lagers can take 3 months to hit their stride. In contrast, a Citra-dry-hopped golden ale is ready in 3 weeks.

There's also a US Vs British cultural divide when it comes to making craft beer. American brewers pretty much all believe fresh is best. British brewers allow a bit more ageing. When it comes to beers that are heavily dry hopped, I fully agree with you.

I'm not sure how long belgian breweries condition beers, but most of them do bottle condition for an extended period and the beer isn't considered drinkable until this second fermentation is finished.

I make a Belgian Tripel that has won numerous awards that is not aged longer than a couple weeks after fermentation. Check #8 on this link https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/36-of-the-best-belgian-tripels-blind-tasted-and-ra.html

While it does age well, it does not need long conditioning times to turn out very nice.

Nice list!

[charles1968]

A beer as strong as Duvel needs a lot of ageing and certainly won't taste any good at end of fermentation. I'm not convinced any mistakes have been made. Unless is tastes seriously foul, I would let it age.

That's not really true. They don't age Duvel for extended periods.

If you have to age a beer for three months to get it to taste right you are on the wrong path.

I think the question of ageing is more complicated than that. It depends on the style of beer, packaging method and abv. If you're making hoppy American pale ale or IPA, it's best drunk fresh. If you're force carbonating a keg, again the lifespan of the beer is limited. If you're bottle conditioning, any beer needs at least 3 weeks. Lagers and Belgians usually need a lot longer. My bottle conditioned lagers can take 3 months to hit their stride. In contrast, a Citra-dry-hopped golden ale is ready in 3 weeks.

There's also a US Vs British cultural divide when it comes to making craft beer. American brewers pretty much all believe fresh is best. British brewers allow a bit more ageing. When it comes to beers that are heavily dry hopped, I fully agree with you.

I'm not sure how long belgian breweries condition beers, but most of them do bottle condition for an extended period and the beer isn't considered drinkable until this second fermentation is finished.

I make a Belgian Tripel that has won numerous awards that is not aged longer than a couple weeks after fermentation. Check #8 on this link https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/36-of-the-best-belgian-tripels-blind-tasted-and-ra.html

While it does age well, it does not need long conditioning times to turn out very nice.

Looks nice. Is it bottle conditioned? My beers always need at least 3 weeks to get fully carbed, but some are certainly drinkable at two though flatter.

Beers that have off flavours can take longer to iron out though. By "off flavours", I don't mean a serious infection that renders the beer undrinkable - there's no cure for that.

[majorvices]

No it is not bottle conditioned and I agree that bottle conditioning can take some time for conditioning. But IME if you manage fermentation correctly and have a decent recipe you won't have any off flavors that need conditioned out.

[Robert]

I stopped bottle conditioning many years ago for the very reason that I could not control or monitor changes in flavor during bottle fermentation.  I decided I wanted to bring the beer to the state I was looking for, and then package it such that it would largely remain in that state.

[charles1968]

No it is not bottle conditioned and I agree that bottle conditioning can take some time for conditioning. But IME if you manage fermentation correctly and have a decent recipe you won't have any off flavors that need conditioned out.

Maybe not, but not many people brew perfect beer every time. Especially for lagers, a long conditioning period can get rid of diacetyl, sulphur, astringency, haze & ensure a dry finish (from or a point or so of extra attenuation), while improving carbonation. If you filter/fine and keg you can shortcut some of these process, but if you bottle it pays to be patient. If you've fermented properly and bottling a beer that's cleared, the yeast count in the bottle is very low and it takes a while for the yeast to build up sufficiently to consume the sugar & other secondary metabolites that might be hanging around. This is why lagers were traditionally lagered. Not essential these days but that's not to say people shouldn't do it. As for Duvel - the Duvel brewery says it takes 90 days to make in total, including primary fermentation. I don't know how much of that is bottle conditioning.

Belgians are normally very highly carbonated. Bearing in mind the high abv, it can take longer to bottle condition them than for normal beers. If you're kegging, you can skip that step, but need to be sure you've given the yeast time to clear up. Once you've separated the yeast from the beer and kegged, presumably there's no secondary fermentation in the keg and any off flavours will persist?

[majorvices]

No it is not bottle conditioned and I agree that bottle conditioning can take some time for conditioning. But IME if you manage fermentation correctly and have a decent recipe you won't have any off flavors that need conditioned out.

Maybe not, but not many people brew perfect beer every time. Especially for lagers, a long conditioning period can get rid of diacetyl, sulphur, astringency, haze & ensure a dry finish (from or a point or so of extra attenuation), while improving carbonation. If you filter/fine and keg you can shortcut some of these process, but if you bottle it pays to be patient. If you've fermented properly and bottling a beer that's cleared, the yeast count in the bottle is very low and it takes a while for the yeast to build up sufficiently to consume the sugar & other secondary metabolites that might be hanging around. This is why lagers were traditionally lagered. Not essential these days but that's not to say people shouldn't do it. As for Duvel - the Duvel brewery says it takes 90 days to make in total, including primary fermentation. I don't know how much of that is bottle conditioning.

Belgians are normally very highly carbonated. Bearing in mind the high abv, it can take longer to bottle condition them than for normal beers. If you're kegging, you can skip that step, but need to be sure you've given the yeast time to clear up. Once you've separated the yeast from the beer and kegged, presumably there's no secondary fermentation in the keg and any off flavours will persist?

It's true that not all brewers brew perfect beer every time but if you educate yourself and manage it properly you should get close to brewing perfect beer. My disagreement was with the talk that high gravity Belgians need extra long periods of conditioning. If brewed properly, they shouldn't. And if you are having to age a beer three months to make it drinkable I'm going to argue that there is no way it is the best beer it can be and it will still have flaws.

Obviously if you aren't fining you are going to need time to clear the yeast ... but why not fine and get a jump on the process? And no argument about lagers needing diacetyl rests and bottle conditioning needing extra time. Agree, but if your lager is kicking out tons of diacetyl and you have to age it for extra months to get the diacetyl to go away or driving a couple extra points down ... you are simply doing it wrong.

[Robert]

+1

[charles1968]

No it is not bottle conditioned and I agree that bottle conditioning can take some time for conditioning. But IME if you manage fermentation correctly and have a decent recipe you won't have any off flavors that need conditioned out.

Maybe not, but not many people brew perfect beer every time. Especially for lagers, a long conditioning period can get rid of diacetyl, sulphur, astringency, haze & ensure a dry finish (from or a point or so of extra attenuation), while improving carbonation. If you filter/fine and keg you can shortcut some of these process, but if you bottle it pays to be patient. If you've fermented properly and bottling a beer that's cleared, the yeast count in the bottle is very low and it takes a while for the yeast to build up sufficiently to consume the sugar & other secondary metabolites that might be hanging around. This is why lagers were traditionally lagered. Not essential these days but that's not to say people shouldn't do it. As for Duvel - the Duvel brewery says it takes 90 days to make in total, including primary fermentation. I don't know how much of that is bottle conditioning.

Belgians are normally very highly carbonated. Bearing in mind the high abv, it can take longer to bottle condition them than for normal beers. If you're kegging, you can skip that step, but need to be sure you've given the yeast time to clear up. Once you've separated the yeast from the beer and kegged, presumably there's no secondary fermentation in the keg and any off flavours will persist?

It's true that not all brewers brew perfect beer every time but if you educate yourself and manage it properly you should get close to brewing perfect beer. My disagreement was with the talk that high gravity Belgians need extra long periods of conditioning. If brewed properly, they shouldn't. And if you are having to age a beer three months to make it drinkable I'm going to argue that there is no way it is the best beer it can be and it will still have flaws.

Obviously if you aren't fining you are going to need time to clear the yeast ... but why not fine and get a jump on the process? And no argument about lagers needing diacetyl rests and bottle conditioning needing extra time. Agree, but if your lager is kicking out tons of diacetyl and you have to age it for extra months to get the diacetyl to go away or driving a couple extra points down ... you are simply doing it wrong.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the quick method or the long method. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's not for me or anyone else to tell other brewers they're doing it the wrong way.

However, you did say above that belgians don't need ageing and Duvel isn't aged, so how do you account for their 90-day process? Assuming they aren't cold-fermenting, a lot of that must be conditioning mustn't it?

[Robert]

^^^^
Reports I've read give the following schedule for Duvel:  6 days primary warm fermentation in split batch with 2 different strains followed by blending and 3 days secondary at cold temperature; 4 weeks cold conditioning;   filter, dose with one of the 2 strains and prime, held two weeks to carbonate before release.