What should I do???

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

brewkinger

Testing... testing...is this frigger on?
HBT Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
503
Location
NEK
Here is the short version:
Brewed first ever batch of NB Irish Red on Sat. 9/22
Pitched Nottingham yeast (that stuff is a BEAST!)

Fermentation took off within 12 hours and was furious between 24 and 36 hours. (temp. was at the upper end of the spectrum around 70 degrees, so I am told to possibly expect fruity taste, but we will see)

Fermentation slowed and temp dropped into mid to high 60's and now bubbling has slowed to maybe 1 to 2 bubbles per minute.

Instructions say primary ferment for 1-2 wks and I understand that the longer that I leave it, the yeast will alter the taste (in a good way).

But, other threads that I have read and literature (Palmer's How to Brew) seem to lean towards "if the bubbling has slowed, then it is safe to rack to secondary."

I realize that this is only day 4, and I am not thinking of racking to secondary until this Sat or Sun, as that would make 1 week in primary.

What advantage is there in leaving in primary for a second week if most active fermentation is over?
TASTE?

I will leave it at that for now, as I have other questions that need to have this answered first.

Input please......
 
Well, for one thing, bubbling is not an accurate indicator of fermentation activity. The best way is through gravity readings with a hydrometer. Failing that, leave it in the primary fermenter for the recommended period.
 
For most things the secondary is now deemed not needed. Leave it in the primary for two weeks and test, if your reading stay the same for 2 or 3 days bottles it. If I remember right, even Palmer has backtracked on the need for secondary. You would still want it for certain things but for a normal beer you don't need it.
 
I don't bother with a secondary, but you can if you want. I just find it unnecessary. There's plenty of threads on this forum about the topic.

If I were to secondary, I wouldn't do so until fermentation stopped. A secondary is transferring the beer to another vessel and leaving the majority of the yeast behind. If you transfer the beer too early, you're not going to have enough yeast remaining to finish fermentation. My advice would be patience, let primary fermentation run its course. I typically leave my beer on the yeast, in the primary for about 3 weeks, then bottle. It seems like your beer is still fermenting, so I'd let the yeast do there thing. You can take a gravity reading if you like, but I don't typically fool around with my beer this early in the process. Primary fermentation is complete when the gravity reading is stable over a 2-3 day period.

I hope this helps, good luck.
 
Soooo......

Thank you to everyone for getting me realigned.

hotspur: that link was very helpful (LONG, but very helpful and got a little heated there for a few posts)

Things that I remembered and learned from all of this:

1) I need to cough up the dough and get a current edition of Palmer (the free PDF version was cool, but obviously a lot has changed)
2) This brewing thing is part "true" science, part "mad" scientist, and part sheer luck.
3) Good record keeping is a MUST!! If you try something and it works, you can do it again if you took the time to chronicle it.

Thanks again to all (the list from that other post included)
 
I made that same beer. I gave it 2 weeks primary and then 1 week seconday and it was a great beer. It was also the first and last time I used a secondary fermenter. I now allow my beers 3 weeks in the primary and then bottle. I only use secondary for dry hopping and adding flavoring. Some people even dry hop in the primary. Irish Red from Northern Brewer was a very good beer. It took only 2 weeks to carb but was a great beer at 4 plus weeks in the bottle. enjoy.
 
Most people on this forum don't rack to secondary. There are several reasons that I like to do it, but for some it's not worth the effort.

The first for me is comfort; if I am too busy to bottle I can just leave it in my glass carboy for as long as I want without worrying about oxidation from plastic or off flavors from sitting on tons of yeast.

The second is clarity. If you don't care about clarity, then by all means leave in primary for the duration of the fermentation.

Most people will say there is no taste difference. I've never done a comparison batch so I cant speak on it. There is a lot of conflicting information so its more of a personal preference I think.

With any dry yeast that I've used there is a TON of dead yeast on bottom of my primary. If it makes you feel better to rack to secondary, then do it!! That's pretty much why I do it.
 
I will really hate ANOTHER rack to secondary yes or no thread. Not because it has been covered (it was certainly covered) but because it´s a dead end discussion there is some people that will rack to secondary and some people that don´t. I´m just a little tired of the discussion so I´m not giving my opionion on that issue anymore
 
I will really hate ANOTHER rack to secondary yes or no thread. Not because it has been covered (it was certainly covered) but because it´s a dead end discussion there is some people that will rack to secondary and some people that don´t. I´m just a little tired of the discussion so I´m not giving my opionion on that issue anymore

Why did you even post a comment then? I agree with your opinion that some do and some don't and that's that, but your last sentence seems to be a bit superfluous.
 
Why did you even post a comment then? I agree with your opinion that some do and some don't and that's that, but your last sentence seems to be a bit superfluous.

I posted a comment because I wanted to, I wasn´t rude or vulgar language so I posted it and I think I don´t have to explian myself to you, but anyway I do: this kinds of threads tend to go off topic -just like now- I think the OP original question wasn´t should I rack to sencondary or not, my effort was to end a discussion that wasn´t open from the OP and to try to finish a "dead end" discussion so we all can put our different ways to aproach fermentation and actually help the OP. I didn´t say anything else about his questions because they seemed like they were already anwser.
And I´m a superfluos person expect superfluos comments from me or you can always ignore my comments and that´s it.
 
A bit touchy are we? Didn't mean to offend, just asking a question and making an observation.

On topic: I don't use a secondary simply because I'm lazy and I've never really seen a difference in clarity or taste the 2 times I did it. Let the beer sit there long enough and it'll clear itself up nicely (usually). Just have to be careful not to disturb the yeast cake too much.
 
A bit touchy are we? Didn't mean to offend, just asking a question and making an observation.

On topic: I don't use a secondary simply because I'm lazy and I've never really seen a difference in clarity or taste the 2 times I did it. Let the beer sit there long enough and it'll clear itself up nicely (usually). Just have to be careful not to disturb the yeast cake too much.

I probably was sorry about that I think I just pay on you a recent disagreament with my boss (he doesn´t like me getting on HBT jejje) I´m sorry if I was a bit edgy didn´t mean to and I didn´t want to edit the message before a reply it didn´t seems rigth to me. Please accept my apologies
 
I probably was sorry about that I think I just pay on you a recent disagreament with my boss (he doesn´t like me getting on HBT jejje) I´m sorry if I was a bit edgy didn´t mean to and I didn´t want to edit the message before a reply it didn´t seems rigth to me. Please accept my apologies

It's all good. And I know the feeling when you unfairly project your discontent from an unrelated argument onto someone else. I've been there several times with my wife. I'd say RDWHAHB, but seeing how work is involved, that would probably be best left until later.
 
brewkinger said:
acronym help... what is "qft"??

If I venture a guess, I would say Quite F$%^ing True

I thought he was saying brewing is partly quantum field theory.
 
The second is clarity. If you don't care about clarity, then by all means leave in primary for the duration of the fermentation.

WTF do you mean by this? The reason we leave our beers in primary for a month, is because they come out crystal clear.

I don't know why you think we do it, but it's because when you leave the beer alone, the yeast cake compresses and tightens and we get clear beer, without even the need for clarifying agents like moss, or even cold crashing.

If you choose to secondary don't bash the folks that are successful with long primary, making snide comments "if you don't want clear beer" or whatever. And vice versus. Whatever we choose we're not idiots, we wouldn't be doing whatever if it didn't work for us.

I don't like cloudy beer, I wouldn't be doing it if my beer wasn't crystal clear. I don't like to lose contests, I wouldn't be still doing it if I didn't win things, and didn't get great judging comments about my beers that I long primaried.

If these things didn't work we wouldn't be doing it, just like crystal pepsi....if something doesn't work then it's discarded.

5 years ago the idea of long primary was scandelous in the brewing community. It went against everyone's deep set fear of yeast and autolysis. AND those of us who thought maybe there was another way were pretty savagely attacked about their beliefs. Now enough people, including people like Palmer and Jamil, have said they were too hasty in their repeating of those old brewing chestnuts. And that long primaries won't lead to off flavors, and may be beneficial. Places like BYO and podcasts like basic brewing, have had intelligent dicussions and conduct at least rudimentary experiments. Some kit instructions and magazine recipes have reflected this shift. It's an accepted practice by many many brewers now. It's a choice.

The only way is to experience it for yourself. Like everything else there's different ways to do things, and they both work.

Regardless of whether you secondary or not, it's about not rushing your beer into bottles. If you rack to secondary for 6 weeks, or if you leave it in primary for 6 weeks, you're probably getting the same overall effect. (Though some of us think yeast contact improves the beer overall.)

Heck if your fermentation is complete in one week, yet you sit it in primary for another week and then secondary for 2 weeks or a month, you still are probably getting the same yeast contact/cleanup time, whether you rack it or not (we can only speculate.) If I do secondary to add fruit or something, I still leave it at least 2 weeks before moving it.

But we wouldn't be doing it for years now if it didn't work.
 
With any dry yeast that I've used there is a TON of dead yeast on bottom of my primary. If it makes you feel better to rack to secondary, then do it!! That's pretty much why I do it.

Actually, contrary to what you might believe, the yeast at the bottom of the fermenter (regardless of whether it is liquid OR dry yeast) is DORMANT not dead. And even if it were dead, dead yeast and autolyzed yeast are two different things.

This is a misoconception that so many people have, autolysed yeast and dead yeast are NOT the same thing. And folks need to grasp this, and quit worrying about autoysis. It's just not an issue for us....

Autolysis is to yeasts what peritonitus is to humans, it's a specific condition. Everyone who dies doesn't have their intestines rupture and rotten bacteria dump into their bloodstream.

NOR does every yeast cell that dies dump the contents of IT'S cells into the beer. If that were the case every beer we ever make would autolysize...

Autolysis is not the inevitable end of healthy yeast. It is the unnatural end that is a product of yeast health...like peritinitus or even cancer in us....it is an abberation....UNHEALTHY AND STRESSED yeast autolyse... but rarely do we have unhealthy yeast these days, most of the yeast we pitch is fresh...and unless we are making a huge beer, even underpitching will not NECESSARILY produce stressed out yeast. Or stressed out yeast that will automatically autlolyse....

Most yeast that folks call dead, is actually dormant. Like most of what's in the bottom of the fermenter when fermentation is complete. And the yeast is indead dead, a lot of it is canibalized by the living yeast. And the rest, if the yeast was healthy to begin with, is just dead....think of it as natural causes, it's not necessarily spilling it's "intestinal" goop into our beer.

As Palmer and Jamil have said it is a RARE occurance these days that yeast actually dies anymore, let alone actually autolyses. It just goes dormant when the job is done and waits for the next round of sugar (much like when we pitch on top of the old yeast cake- which even some commercial brewers do for multiple generations.) The cells rarely rupture and die off.

It's not like 30 years ago (when most of those opinions that you espouse about autolysis originated from) when our hobby was still illegal, and there wasn't a lot of FRESH yeast available to us. The yeast used in hobby brewing was usually in cake form, which came from Germany and England in hot cargo ships and may have sat on a store shelf for a long time....or the brewer just used bread yeast.

Palmer even said this in the broadcast I quote from above-

So the whole health and vitality of yeast was different back then compared to now. Back then it made sense. You had weaker yeast that had finished fermentation that were more susceptible to autolysis and breaking down. Now that is not the case. The bar of homebrewing has risen to where we are able to make beer that has the same robustness as professional beer. We've gotten our techniques and understanding of what makes a good fermentation up to that level, so you don't need to transfer the beer off the yeast to avoid autolysis like we used to recommend.

Yeast in the 21st century is much healthier to begin with, and is less prone to have issues like their cells autolysing....just like our own health tends to be better these days.

If you're going to throw the various arguments for and against around, you might want to get them right first.
 
There was a statement earlier about racking before fermentation has finished and not having enough yeast to finish fermentation?
I question this and ask for vets response.
In my thinking (and wrong as it may be)
1. a fair amount of active yeast is in suspension and will be transfered along with the beer.
2. yeast reproduce themselves and will continue to ferment until there are no fermentable sugars left as long as temperature is kept in range.
True or not?
That said I only transfer to add things to the batch or for long term storage.
 
In my thinking (and wrong as it may be)
1. a fair amount of active yeast is in suspension and will be transfered along with the beer.
2. yeast reproduce themselves and will continue to ferment until there are no fermentable sugars left as long as temperature is kept in range.
True or not?
That said I only transfer to add things to the batch or for long term storage.

1) The slowest, least performing yeast is left...sort of like asking the third string varsity high school team to play the 4th quarter of the superbowl for a team down by 12 points.


2) Yeast reproduce themselves FIRST, before fermentation gets going...they're not going to grow enough to finish a job once you've moved them.
 
So, I started this post and I have learned so much more than I thought I would by asking what I thought was a simple question (BOY O BOY was I mistaken)

Being a scientist I have decided to obtain my own evidence. I have a second Irish Red Kit ready to go and I plan on making it this weekend.

Batch #1 is going to stay in primary for 4 weeks (2 in primary + 2 secondary suggested by NB)
Batch #2 is going 2 in primary and 2 in secondary
As difficult as it might be to not drink them as soon as they are ready, I will let them bottle condition for 2 weeks each.

The only difference that I can foresee would be taste based on possible ester production (the Nottingham stayed around 70* during the initial heavy ferment)
Scientifically speaking I should try and duplicate the exact conditions for true comparison, but I am not willing to do that, as it is clear from this forum that that yeast likes it a little cooler.

I suspect that they will taste pretty much the same.
 
I would actually do one in only the primary (4 weeks) and one 2 weeks in primary and 2 weeks in secondary (or one week in primary and 3 weeks in secondary)

That way you can test to see if the secondary makes a difference (for better or for worse), the majority consensus on here is that a secondary is an unnecessary risk for oxidation/infection.
I can't say either way, but I'd be interested to know how it turns out.
 
Actually, I must have been unclear with my explanation, I am doing exactly that with the first batch that I made. Entire 4 wks in primary (it is already there, so why move it?)

I think I confused ya with the 2+2 thing in parentheses.

batch #1 gets 4 wks in primary, bottled and sits for 2 wks

batch #2 gets 2 primary, 2 secondary and 2 bottled.
 
Oh yeah, i see now... My bad. That sound like a good test. And some delicious beer either way. Irish red is on my pipeline somewhere down the road.

Let us know how it turns out, and pictures of the clarity would be helpful too.

Also, I've heard 3 weeks in bottles can be helpful. But that decision can be made after you crack one open at 2 weeks.
 
Great Matt:
In addition to my own test, you are going to test me by getting me to post pics on this forum. Guess that you will be hearing from me in a month or so asking how to post pics.
 
I know this has been hashed and rehashed but...

Why oh why would anyone think that sucking beer out of the primary fermenter and putting it into another vessel will either speed clarification or allow the beer to become more clear?

From the moment the yeast run out of food they begin to go dormant. When that happens they no longer keep themselves suspended in the beer. That means they start to sink. The top layer of beer will clear first and the line of clarity will move down while the yeast from the very top fall all the way to the bottom. It can take a while, like a few weeks. To get a few days into that process and then mix the solution back up while transferring to a secondary does nothing but set you back a couple of days. The yeast don't fall out of suspension faster or more completely in the secondary. If anyone actually believes they do I'd like to hear why you think that. What is it about the secondary vessel that causes gravity to pull the yeast down more?

I think one of the best things people could do for clarity is to cold crash and leave cold (around 35F) for several days before kegging/bottling. The second best thing is to just leave the beer alone in the primary for a longer period of time.
 
@brewkinger - I think that's a great test for a new brewer to perform. Good luck, and please let us know the results. I'd try to do several blind tasting, even a triangle tasting (2 of one beer and one of the other) and see if you can taste the one that's not like the other.

A word of caution though, the instructions that come with these kits are guidelines. Yeast do not follow arbitrary timelines for fermentation. Let the gravity readings, the taste of the sample, etc. be your guide. After a few batches, you'll begin to understand the particular yeast strain and its behavior.

To @Gameface, I agree. I don't completely understand the logic behind secondaries. I don't think the yeast in suspension in the secondary are saying to themselves, "Oh yeah, it's less crowded at the bottom of the carboy, now I'll finish up and go dormant."
 
@pieman: I understand what you are saying, and planned on testing gravity and seeing when it stays the same for 2-3 days as an indicator (I assume that it is also a good time to sample the brew.)
My thought is this... each time I open the brew to test is another chance for infection, so what timeline do i use for sampling?
If the grav stays constant, is that the indicator that I am looking for (scientist in me needs quantitative)
Taste is subjective in my mind, I might think it tastes good, but you might not. (qualitative)

Do I wait until roughly 2 week point before testing?

Should I have tested already at day 5?
 
@pieman: I understand what you are saying, and planned on testing gravity and seeing when it stays the same for 2-3 days as an indicator (I assume that it is also a good time to sample the brew.)
My thought is this... each time I open the brew to test is another chance for infection, so what timeline do i use for sampling?
If the grav stays constant, is that the indicator that I am looking for (scientist in me needs quantitative)
Taste is subjective in my mind, I might think it tastes good, but you might not. (qualitative)

Do I wait until roughly 2 week point before testing?

Should I have tested already at day 5?

Yes, a constant gravity over a several day period (2-3 days) indicates the beer has reached its terminal gravity.

When to begin sampling? Everyone probably has a slightly different take on this. I personally don't fool around with taking measurements until about 2-3 weeks. I do this because I plan on leaving the beer in the primary for about 3-4 weeks anyway, so I don't find the need to know any measurements beforehand. To answer your question, there's not really a set timeline to take gravity readings (5 days or two weeks), IMO. It's good that you understand the risks and that you're thinking the process through. Your beer is going to be just fine.

It's not wrong to take samples earlier in the fermentation process though, I did this during my first few batches to learn the taste of the beer as it ferments and to track attenuation. Now that I've done that, I just wait and test it when I think the beer is done.

Typically the beer will reach terminal gravity sometime between a few days and 2 weeks. As mentioned by others, and I agree, I prefer the taste of my beer when I give it a few more weeks in the primary, usually 3-4 weeks total, with the last few days being used for cold crashing. You could probably get a similar taste with a secondary vessel provided you let the beer ferment completely, I personally just find my method easier and that's why I do it. It's less to clean and less risk of anything going wrong during the transfer.
 
UPDATE:
Tested beer (Northern Brewer Irish Red) today at 1 week mark (about 6 hours short of 1 week)
OG: 1.044
Gravity now: 1.010
So, 4.6% abv

This is the FG that Northern Brewer said to expect, so I am leaving it in primary for the entire next week. Will check again next week or since I plan on leaving it in primary for 3-4 weeks (thank you to all the input on this matter, I decided to not take a chance and infect the beer and it seemed like the thing to do) should I just wait and check it then?

As far as taste, (pardon my newbie terminology, it will get better as I learn more)
It has a sharp bite on the front end, I guess alcohol bite.
Good beer taste, and it has a dry finish.

So.... comments at this point?
 
Your beer it´s fine just green, that sharp bite can be alcohol or yeast actually search for "yeast bite" and see if you can extrapolate that to your batch.
Don´t be so worried about infections yet, been your first beer is very hard to f**k it up, beer can be a lot more resistant than we think. It´s ok to be constant with your cleaning and sanitizing procedures but don´t be concern about it.
 
WTF do you mean by this? The reason we leave our beers in primary for a month, is because they come out crystal clear.

I don't know why you think we do it, but it's because when you leave the beer alone, the yeast cake compresses and tightens and we get clear beer, without even the need for clarifying agents like moss, or even cold crashing.

If you choose to secondary don't bash the folks that are successful with long primary, making snide comments "if you don't want clear beer" or whatever. And vice versus. Whatever we choose we're not idiots, we wouldn't be doing whatever if it didn't work for us.

I don't like cloudy beer, I wouldn't be doing it if my beer wasn't crystal clear. I don't like to lose contests, I wouldn't be still doing it if I didn't win things, and didn't get great judging comments about my beers that I long primaried.

If these things didn't work we wouldn't be doing it, just like crystal pepsi....if something doesn't work then it's discarded.

5 years ago the idea of long primary was scandelous in the brewing community. It went against everyone's deep set fear of yeast and autolysis. AND those of us who thought maybe there was another way were pretty savagely attacked about their beliefs. Now enough people, including people like Palmer and Jamil, have said they were too hasty in their repeating of those old brewing chestnuts. And that long primaries won't lead to off flavors, and may be beneficial. Places like BYO and podcasts like basic brewing, have had intelligent dicussions and conduct at least rudimentary experiments. Some kit instructions and magazine recipes have reflected this shift. It's an accepted practice by many many brewers now. It's a choice.

The only way is to experience it for yourself. Like everything else there's different ways to do things, and they both work.

Regardless of whether you secondary or not, it's about not rushing your beer into bottles. If you rack to secondary for 6 weeks, or if you leave it in primary for 6 weeks, you're probably getting the same overall effect. (Though some of us think yeast contact improves the beer overall.)

Heck if your fermentation is complete in one week, yet you sit it in primary for another week and then secondary for 2 weeks or a month, you still are probably getting the same yeast contact/cleanup time, whether you rack it or not (we can only speculate.) If I do secondary to add fruit or something, I still leave it at least 2 weeks before moving it.

But we wouldn't be doing it for years now if it didn't work.

Although you present "facts" in a rude manner, you seem to know the basics about brewing yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae/Saccharomyces pastorianus) and autolysis. In addition, you are mostly correct when assuming that leaving beer in a fermentor for weeks won't cause off characteristics from autolysis.

In case there are new brewers who are interested in the topic and perhaps want a better understanding of autolysis (the degradation and solubilization of cellular components released by the degradation of the cell wall), I will provide a little more information without the attitude.

During autolysis, the release of large molecules (e.g., proteolytic enzymes) from yeast has a detrimental effect on several beer characteristics, including taste, mouthfeel, color, and foam quality. These effects are usually mediated indirectly through the destruction of proteins and polypeptides, with the concomitant release of peptides and amino acids.

The effects of yeast autolysis are not entirely negative.

Release of those small molecules (especially nucleotides) may impact positively on beer taste and mouthfeel in some circumstances. Scientific studies have already proven that added 3'- and 5'-deoxyribonucleotides have "enhanced" sparkling wines in those areas.

In addition, the food industry uses autolysates as flavor enhancers in many applications. Given its wide spread usage, you would imagine a lot is known about the subject, but the biochemical changes that occur during this process are not completely understood. Degradation of proteins has received the most study, but changes to other cell components such as nucleic acids have been examined to a lesser extent.

...now

So what does all that mean for the average home-brewer? Well, your probably familiar with glycogen (a carbohydrate) in yeast. Basically it's the main energy source for yeast and essential for the synthesis of Ergosterol (sterols in the yeast cell wall that allow it to uptake metabolites, they deplete rapidly during fermentation)

When yeast doesn't have an energy source to "feed" on (after fermentation), it begins to use those glycogen reserves. The rate of glycogen metabolism is increased in warm temperatures, during agitation, and the presence of trub (fat/protein/inactive yeast). If yeast relies on energy from glycogen for too long, it will start to degrade and autolysis occurs.

This can be a problem if your thinking about re-pitching a yeast after letting it sit in a primary for a month+

So should you rack to a secondary fermentor? I believe from the data presented to me, you should if your going to age it in a fermenter for over 5 weeks and less if your brewing a high-gravity beer. If your re-pitching yeast, I wouldn't even let it sit that long. Even a small amount of cells going through autolysis (<3%) may affect your beer's taste and characteristics.

If there's any other professionals in Food Sci/Microbiology that can add to my brief description, or have differing opinions on max primary fermenter times, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. In the future I plan on performing a lab study that measures the rate of autolysis in a "home-brew" fermenters by measuring yeast DNA/RNA mass changes over time. Any procedural suggestions would be welcomed.
 
Back
Top