Cold Crashing and Secondaries

First of all yes, I know that secondaries are evil (jk). I'm still relatively new to brewing, so I'm trying to branch out and slowly experience a variety of brewing techniques. I have a Two Hearted Ale clone I'm planning on dry hopping in the coming week, so I plan on seeing how one of my two new 5 gallong Better Bottles ($15 Black Friday deal!) works as a secondary. Don't worry, the other carboy will soon be put to work with some EdWort Apfelwein soon enough.

The thing is, I like the idea of cold crashing (I've tried it once now). For those of you that use secondaries and cold crash, what is your method like? Do you cold crash the primary only? Secondary only (after dry hop/fruit/whatever)? Both?

Thanks for the input.

I don't use secondary so maybe I'm not right person to answer, but in your place I would cold crash both.
Purpose of c/crashing is to settle yeast on bottom, with that said the more it settle the better, you will still have enough yeast if you are bottle carbonating.

I cold crash both...primary for 3 days (after I drop it slowly below 40) then two days in a secondary. Its nice, you get a really tight ring of trub in the secondary at best and clear beer going into your bottles.

Calichusetts said:

I cold crash both...primary for 3 days (after I drop it slowly below 40) then two days in a secondary. Its nice, you get a really tight ring of trub in the secondary at best and clear beer going into your bottles.

Click to expand...

What temp do you use when calculating priming sugar?

RUNningonbrew said:

What temp do you use when calculating priming sugar?

Click to expand...

You always use the highest temperature your beer was at regardless of cold crashing

Ok, you've done this before with success?

RUNningonbrew said:

Ok, you've done this before with success?

Click to expand...

I do this every time...as I am sure many have here on the site. Think of it this way, cold crashing is really a short term lager. Drop the temp slowly if you use an airlock as there might be some suckback, taking whatever liquid is in the airlock and dropping it into your beer. I've heard some people used sanitize foil around here but I usually just keep the blowoff tube the whole time and avoid any issues

I cold crash my secondary only. My usual process for a standard ale is to ferment in the low 60's until the yeast start to slow their fermentation somewhat (usually 4 days to a week), when I increase temp to high 60's to 70F to allow them to finish primary fermentation. Once FG is reached, I give them about 5 days to a week longer in primary, then transfer to secondary and bring the temp down slowly to around 38F to 40F, where it sits for maybe three days. After that I rack to a bottling bucket and bottle. I get nice clear beer.

You really do not need to cold crash ales with high to very high flocculating yeast. They should be clear with time, patience, gravity, and avoidance of agitation.

Cold crashing an IPA with something like Wyeast 1028 would offer more of a benefit since the beer will still be quite cloudy even after all of the above referenced steps are followed.

bobbrews said:

You really do not need to cold crash ales with high to very high flocculating yeast. They should be clear with time, patience, gravity, and avoidance of agitation.

Click to expand...

Need is relative. Personally, I want to be drinking my hoppy ales before the aroma and flavor start to fade. A well brewed beer can be ready in 2-4 weeks. Cold crashing gets the beer in my glass sooner.

I don't see how cold crashing for 2 weeks, in addition to all of the other steps, can give you a fresher beer that's in your glass sooner.

By time, I'm talking 2-3 weeks in the primary. The added benefit for this time frame is that the yeast are allowed to clean up after themselves thus making a higher quality beer. You are skipping this step if you're cold crashing after only 1 week.

I transfer to secondary, add some isenglass, let it chill down to about 35* and then keg whenever I get an open keg. It's not rocket science, different people do have different methodology though.

bobbrews said:

I don't see how cold crashing for 2 weeks, in addition to all of the other steps, can give you a fresher beer that's in your glass sooner.

By time, I was talking 2-3 weeks in the primary. The added benefit for this time frame is that the yeast are allowed to clean up after themselves thus making a higher quality beer. You are skipping this step if you cold crash after 1 week.

Click to expand...

Agree. If you cold crash for two weeks it's no longer cold crashing, it's cold conditioning. A couple of days is all it takes.

And contrary to myth, it only takes a couple of days after reaching final gravity for yeast to clean up. If it takes longer it's because of poor brewing practices. (pitch rate, yeast health, temperature control . . . )

AnOldUR said:

And contrary to myth, it only takes a couple of days after reaching final gravity for yeast to clean up. If it takes longer it's because of poor brewing practices. (pitch rate, yeast health, temperature control . . . )

Click to expand...

It's not a myth. Many veteran brewers leave their beers in the fermenter for 3-4 weeks for this very reason. Not sure if you're familiar with Homebrew42 and Vikeman over on BeerAdvocate. But they condone this method and I'm pretty sure they're not messing up (pitch rate, yeast health, temperature control . . .)

Anyway, the whole point of my initial post was to say that cold crashing is generally unnecessary for ales with high flocculating yeast. After 2 weeks, you should have a very clear beer. A huge majority of the yeast will drop out of suspension (the whole point of cold crashing by the way). At this point, it's not going to get much clearer.

I like to cold crash when I'm dry hopping with leaf hops to get them to settle to the bottom

bobbrews said:

Not sure if you're familiar with Homebrew42 and Vikeman over on BeerAdvocate. But they condone this method and I'm pretty sure they're not messing up (pitch rate, yeast health, temperature control . . .)

Click to expand...

Nope. I don't follow those guys, but I'd guess that they condone it because it's a safe practice for the noobs reading their website and have no science to back it up.

bobbrews said:

A huge majority of the yeast will drop out of suspension (the whole point of cold crashing by the way).

Click to expand...

Not just yeast. The point of cold crashing is to also drop out hop and break material.

bobbrews said:

It's not a myth. Many veteran brewers leave their beers in the fermenter for 3-4 weeks for this very reason.

Click to expand...

And many don't. Example:

Yooper said:

If it's done fermenting, and it's clear, bottle it. There is no advantage to sitting on the yeast cake once it's been at FG for at least a few days and is clear.

Click to expand...

AnOldUR said:

Nope. I don't follow those guys, but I'd guess that they condone it because it's a safe practice for the noobs reading their website and have no science to back it up.

Not just yeast. The point of cold crashing is to also drop out hop and break material.

Click to expand...

You don't have science to back it up either. But in my experience, and many others, racking a high grav. homebrew after only 7-10 days has created an inferior beer of otherwise the same recipe racked after about 3 weeks. Patience is truly a virtue in that regard. But I can understand there are noobs who can't wait and just wanna get wasted already

By the way, hop and break material should have settled out during the 2-3 weeks of primary fermentation and conditioning. The drop in temp. has nothing to do with that. And to the other poster, cold crashing does not magically sink leaf hops. The drop in temp. has nothing to do with that either.

bobbrews said:

You really do not need to cold crash ales with high to very high flocculating yeast. They should be clear with time, patience, gravity, and avoidance of agitation.

Cold crashing an IPA with something like Wyeast 1028 would offer more of a benefit since the beer will still be quite cloudy even after all of the above referenced steps are followed.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that I don't _need_ to secondary, but I listed my reasons in my original post: dry hopping and gaining experience. This beer will have been in primary for about 21 or 22 days when I rack into secondary, which should be plenty of time (still have to take my first SG reading, that's how patient I've been with this one).

Thank you to everyone for sharing your methods, I love having a place like this to crowd source ideas.

Wow! Hey guys let's calm it down a bit here....

Like I said, everyone has different ways of doing things and if it works for you who cares what someone else does. No need to argue about it.

It's not about a different way. If you have a clear beer after 2-3 weeks using a high floc. yeast, then you have a clear beer. What further science is needed?

I have a three primaries full of clean, pale IIPA in my basement right now. One with 1968, one with WLP001, and one with WLP007. It's been 24 days. The only one that isn't clear is 1968, because it is a low floc. yeast, therefore that is the only one I will be cold crashing. All were dryhopped btw with leaf hops that did not sink.

I've cold crashed countless times and it took awhile before I realized that I was wasting time doing it for my high floc. ales. It was kind of a "duh" moment.

bobbrews said:

It's not about a different way. If you have a clear beer after 2-3 weeks using a high floc. yeast, then you have a clear beer. What further science is needed?

Click to expand...

Dude, I was just asking for everyone else's methods, not what's "right" or "wrong." Just because the city thinks the safest speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 doesn't mean that everyone drives 25mph; plenty of people have different results driving 30 or 35. RDWHAHB, other people don't do things exactly like you, and that's nothing to get bent out of shape over.

And thank you for your input as well, I'm certainly going to add it to my brewing knowledge going forward.

Why do you think that I'm trying to say my way is the only way?

I'm simply telling people to use their eyes (to see clarity) and their common sense (high floc yeasts clear very well & drop quickly).

Cold crashing is not always necessary for these reasons previously explained.

To respond to bob's point, I use a lot of WLP007, it's my go-to strain. And I cold crash it, in spite of the fact that it is a high-flocculating yeast. Is the beer pretty clear without cold crashing? Yes. But I notice a difference in clarity when I cold crash it, and to me it's worth the extra three days. But I also know that there are those who get clear beer without cold crashing. Again there are a variety of methods to achieve a good result. Good for you for trying out several before you pick the one that you'll fight to the death to defend!

jerrodm said:

I use a lot of WLP007, it's my go-to strain. And I cold crash it, in spite of the fact that it is a high-flocculating yeast. Is the beer pretty clear without cold crashing? Yes. But I notice a difference in clarity when I cold crash it, and to me it's worth the extra three days. But I also know that there are those who get clear beer without cold crashing.

Click to expand...

And for clarity purposes, your method is perfectly fine if you are racking around 1-2 weeks, or are not careful with racking, stirring up trub when moving the carboy from place to place, or shaking the fermenter from time to time to excite the yeast. But any increase in clarity will be miniscule at best via a cold crash with a high floc. yeast if you're racking carefully at 3-4 weeks and avoiding agitation. A 3 day cold crash isn't going to do much at all in that case.

I let my beers ferment/condition at counter height, so I never need to move it from place to place. It sits in one spot and 99% of that end clarity is attained from time, gravity, whirlfloc, and whether the yeast is high floc or not.

--- The defensiveness of some of these posts is at an all time high. Not my intention to tell someone they are doing it wrong or that they must do it my way. Just pointing out what I have noticed throughout the years after having had some experience with this topic. Take it or leave it. Just use common sense. There are a lot of people who follow these extra measures with each and every one of their brews just because they have heard it from others, without knowing why, or seeing any measureable end result. Cold crashing is a useful tool... just not all the time. There are other factors that come into play which can affect whether it is necessary or not.

i'm finding that leaving the primary (no secondaries here) sit for 3-4 weeks produces a pretty clear beer.....then again, we're making stouts and brown ales, so "cloudy" is relative... we did try an IPA (Nelson Sauvin hopped) that's certainly cloudy but damn good.... I'm researching filtering but we kind of want to stay away from that for now

I have been reading about cold crashing and wondering what effect it would have on a lager. Isn't lager supposed to have long cool ferment and condition times to increase crispness?

Lagering is essentially cold crashing, you keep it between 30-35 degrees for a month

So from what I read here, you can go from primary to secondary, cold crash, and then bring it out of the cold crash for secondary fermentation..?

I ask because I may have gone to the secondary a few days too soon as the SG of the Secondary changed on me during the cold crash I was doing to it prior to bottling.. All after I thought I was done fermenting.

So thinking of pulling the secondary out and warming it up for a few days till the FG readings stay steady.. but wasn't sure if that was a good idea or not.

bobbrews said:

It's not a myth. Many veteran brewers leave their beers in the fermenter for 3-4 weeks for this very reason. Not sure if you're familiar with Homebrew42 and Vikeman over on BeerAdvocate. But they condone this method and I'm pretty sure they're not messing up (pitch rate, yeast health, temperature control . . .)

Anyway, the whole point of my initial post was to say that cold crashing is generally unnecessary for ales with high flocculating yeast. After 2 weeks, you should have a very clear beer. A huge majority of the yeast will drop out of suspension (the whole point of cold crashing by the way). At this point, it's not going to get much clearer.

Click to expand...

And i am sure these guys don't mess up too often either.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/aging-beer-facts-myths-discussion-84005/

i am with AnOldUR. Great beer can be done in less than three weeks and in as little as two. i took Oktoberfest Champion Brewer with a beer 14 days old. as the post states, it all goes back to good yeast pitch.

CDGoin said:

So from what I read here, you can go from primary to secondary, cold crash, and then bring it out of the cold crash for secondary fermentation..?

I ask because I may have gone to the secondary a few days too soon as the SG of the Secondary changed on me during the cold crash I was doing to it prior to bottling.. All after I thought I was done fermenting.

So thinking of pulling the secondary out and warming it up for a few days till the FG readings stay steady.. but wasn't sure if that was a good idea or not.

Click to expand...

Yes, do this. For futurue batches, consider letting fermentation complete before cold crashing.

homebrewdad said:

Yes, do this. For futurue batches, consider letting fermentation complete before cold crashing.

Click to expand...

Yep.. What happened was I checked the reading three days apart and they seemed to match.. (I think head in the tester may have made the first reading suspect). So I put into secondary and cold crashed. Tested after cold crash to make sure.. and it didn't match the first two I readings.

Again not sure if I misread the hydrometer the first or second time, or if I wasn't done with fermenting. Thus the question.

once krausen drops, you can cold crash to clarify or secondary. but wait until krausen drops

bobbrews said:

It's not about a different way. If you have a clear beer after 2-3 weeks using a high floc. yeast, then you have a clear beer. What further science is needed?

I have a three primaries full of clean, pale IIPA in my basement right now. One with 1968, one with WLP001, and one with WLP007. It's been 24 days. The only one that isn't clear is 1968, because it is a low floc. yeast, therefore that is the only one I will be cold crashing. All were dryhopped btw with leaf hops that did not sink.

I've cold crashed countless times and it took awhile before I realized that I was wasting time doing it for my high floc. ales. It was kind of a "duh" moment.

Click to expand...

I have the exact opposite experience with 1968. That **** floccs like a rock.

Wyeast 1968..

A very good cask conditioned ale strain,this extremely flocculant yeast produces distinctly malty beers. Attenuation levels are typically less than most other yeast strains which results in aslightly sweeter finish. Ales produced with this strain tend to be fruity, increasingly so with higher fermentation temperatures of 70-74°F (21-23° C). A thorough diacetyl rest is recommended after fermentation is complete. Bright beers are easily achieved within days without any filtration.

Origin: Flocculation: Very High Attenuation: 67-71% Temperature Range: 64-72F, 18-22C

InityBrew said:

I have the exact opposite experience with 1968. That **** floccs like a rock.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I read this too, but it was not my experience. I apologize for posting misleading info that it was low floc.

However, I fermented 3 almost identical recipes of the same malt/hops in the low to mid 60s actual wort temp. with WLP001, WLP007, and 1968 separately. The first two were crystal clear (007 was a bit darker) and 1968 was cloudy as a mofo... like light brown murky dishwater. A very ugly color despite the WLP001 version being a vibrant crystal orangish color, and WLP007 looking very similar but a tad darker. None were cold crashed or had any added gelatin. They WLP versions didn't need it. I could read through the glass they were so clear.

I can't say the same for 1968. I noticed that Ninkasi Tricerahops uses 1968 and that it is rather cloudy/murky... Not a clear beer at all.

This was after a week in the primary English ale white labs, never had one that clear before

@RUNningonbrew

...What specific English Ale yeast?

Hockeyhunter99 said:

And i am sure these guys don't mess up too often either.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/aging-beer-facts-myths-discussion-84005/

i am with AnOldUR. Great beer can be done in less than three weeks and in as little as two. i took Oktoberfest Champion Brewer with a beer 14 days old. as the post states, it all goes back to good yeast pitch.

Click to expand...

For Extract and PM, I find you need a little more time for conditioning and refinement of flavor. It's definitely noticeable to me when I drink a very green Extract or PM ale from grain to glass in 1.5 - 2 weeks. Perhaps the yeast find the available sugars more difficult to deal with fully. For All Grain, I've done both (quick grain to glass and extended 3-4 weeks). I prefer the latter method when comparing a side by side, with all other variables such as yeast health, pitch rate, etc. on point. It just tastes smoother and more "quality"... even with the hoppy beers, which I find are not affected aroma/flavor-wise by another 1-2 weeks of conditioning time. I've won homebrew competitions as well, however I would never personally submit any beer that was only 2 weeks green. Fresh is good, but not that fresh. Patience is a virtue. But please, continue to brew as you wish.

bobbrews said:

@runningonbrew

...what specific english ale yeast?

Click to expand...

wlp002