To Secondary or Not? John Palmer and Jamil Zainasheff Weigh In

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.
Oh cool. The primary only vs. primary/secondary fight is spinning up again. Let me grab some popcorn and a homebrew.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
Should you rack your beer to a secondary fermentor after primary fermentation is complete? When is it appropriate to rack to secondary? How long can you leave beer in a fermentor on the yeast cake before all hell breaks loose?

yada yada yada

Many of the arguments you use are also reasons why you do not need to leave your beer on the yeast cake for weeks one end. If you pitch properly and oxygenate well, maintain ideal temperatures, there is no need to leave the beer on the yeast cake (the yeast in the cake are mostly dormant, it is the ones in suspension that do the clean up). Once all of the sugars are consumed, give it a couple of days or a week tops to clean up and package it.

If you had less than ideal conditions, then clean up will take longer.
 
The argument that use of a secondary vessel for settling/cold crashing/adding finings/etc. is one I've taken a special interest in of late. it seems there is a lot of disagreement between brewers on this subject.

Does moving the beer have any effect on the beer's final clarity? Or will the beer end up being as clear as it will be regardless of whether you move it or not?

I've started a parallel thread on this topic at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/what-makes-some-beers-cloudy-clear-463501/

I'd like to invite anyone interested in discussing beer clarity to that discussion.
 
I've never understood the concept of racking to increase clarity, I can't come up with the science behind the concept. The beer has no idea what vessel it is in nor how many times it's been moved. An existing yeast cake has no influence on how the beer above is behaving, at least from a settling/clarity standpoint. Clarity is a function of gravity, not vessel (think commercial unitanks which allow yeast removal, spunding, and clarifying without ever moving the beer).

Winemakers rack several times throughout the aging process, but this is done to get the wine off the lees as they settle over the 12-24 month aging period. It doesn't speed up clarity, it gets the wine off the lees.

Racking beer to secondary does one thing, it gets the beer off the yeast cake, period. If that is your goal/concern then racking makes sense.
 
I just added three books to my library thanks to this thread...

How to Brew: Everything You Need To Know To Brew Beer Right The First Time - Palmer, John J.

Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation (Brewing Elements Series) - Zainasheff, Jamil

For The Love of Hops: The Practical Guide to Aroma, Bitterness and the Culture of Hops (Brewing Elements) - Hieronymus, Stan

Maybe I'll by the Water book to finish the series at a later date...

To rack or not to rack, that is the question. I haven't noticed much difference when I was brewing with buckets, made it nicer on kegging day as there wasn't so much gunk to contend with. With the conical, I dump a quart or two out of the dump valve between day three and day seven to get rid of the trub and any hops that might have made it in there. The batch of IPA in there at the moment received a second dump at the two week mark, but yeast was all that came out. It's been dry hopping for two weeks and I think I'll give it another week. Nothing to loose but Diacetyl! :)
 
I've never understood the concept of racking to increase clarity, I can't come up with the science behind the concept. The beer has no idea what vessel it is in nor how many times it's been moved. An existing yeast cake has no influence on how the beer above is behaving, at least from a settling/clarity standpoint. Clarity is a function of gravity, not vessel (think commercial unitanks which allow yeast removal, spunding, and clarifying without ever moving the beer).

Winemakers rack several times throughout the aging process, but this is done to get the wine off the lees as they settle over the 12-24 month aging period. It doesn't speed up clarity, it gets the wine off the lees.

Racking beer to secondary does one thing, it gets the beer off the yeast cake, period. If that is your goal/concern then racking makes sense.
They did it on Basic Brewing Radio and the results were that it did help with clarity (see pictures here; if that doesn't work, go here and go to the May 24, 2012 episode).

With that said, I seem to remember that after bottling and refrigerating, they both eventually cleared equally, but I'd have to listen to the results again to confirm. So I think at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter.
 
They did it on Basic Brewing Radio and the results were that it did help with clarity

With that said, I seem to remember that after bottling and refrigerating, they both eventually cleared equally, but I'd have to listen to the results again to confirm. So I think at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter.

That's consistent with what Palmer is saying now from what I understand. Cold crashing seems to do the job of clarifying a beer to its maximum potential, regardless of time in a settling tank.

I've about decided that trying for improved clarity is not a valid reason for use of a secondary vessel. It can help reduce sediment in the bottom of the bottle depending on your racking technique. And a secondary vessel is very convenient for cold crashing, for additions of all manner of things including fining agents, fruit, etc., and is probably the best for long-term aging. But final clarity of the beer is determined by a number of other factors which were probably established before the yeast was ever pitched.
 
Cold crashing seems to do the job of clarifying a beer to its maximum potential, regardless of time in a settling tank.

I've about decided that trying for improved clarity is not a valid reason for use of a secondary vessel.

Welcome to the tribe.

Don't worry about the initiation ceremony. It won't hurt too much if you drink enough beer beforehand and the resulting scars are much cooler than tattoos.;)
 
Hi all, new poster to the forum but have spent the last two months spending a good few hours on here each evening reigniting a past interest (which is quickly turning into a love) for homebrewing and have just completed my second batch this month after a four year break since Uni.
I found this whole thread very interesting and the conversation about yeast really got me thinking. This part in particular:

They suggested a possible follow up test of agitating the carboy you didn't rack to see if the mechanical agitation was all that was required to cause the faster clearing. To me, it seems the agitation has to play a key role. Because otherwise it seems to come down to 1) yeast are less likely to settle on a bunch of yeast than they are on a clean carboy floor, which seems like nonsense, or 2) yeast which have previously flocculated are going to decide (term used very loosely, obviously) that they want to hop back up after all, despite their environment being less conducive to activity than it was when they flocculated in the first place. I suppose this is possible, but I'd be quite curious as who what would drive this behavior.

This quote in bold seems quite strange at first glance but having thought about it I see it a bit like being at a buffet. There is plenty of food for everyone at the start, but the hustle and bustle of having to queue and wait for people to move out the way is very frustrating (especially that one person that stands in your way deciding what to have for what seems like an eternity when all you want is one of the delectable chicken on a stick thingys that is just beyond your reach). It is so frustrating that you decide to sit down and come back when the queue has died down a little. Later on the choice of food is a little more scarce (god forbid there might not be any of those chicken sticks left), but anyway you still find picking off the food at that point more stress-free than at the start of the buffet.

Could it be that a portion of the yeast prefer to flocculate and "rest" while their "friends/colleagues" fight over the buffet?
Once their "friends/colleagues" have had their fill the minority "un-flocculate" and revisit the buffet which is now much less stressful even given the increase in alcohol content, reduced PH and reduction in viable fermentables?


Just thinking aloud but I thought it was a point worth revisiting...
 
Could it be that a portion of the yeast prefer to flocculate and "rest" while their "friends/colleagues" fight over the buffet?
Once their "friends/colleagues" have had their fill the minority "un-flocculate" and revisit the buffet which is now much less stressful even given the increase in alcohol content, reduced PH and reduction in viable fermentables?

It just seems counter intuitive to me. There was much more to eat earlier - now it's slim pickins. And yeast don't like a higher alcohol content. JMO.

And welcome to HBT.
 
yeah I agree it doesn't really make sense but you never quite know with living organisms, after all if they all behaved absolutely identically they would all flocculate at the same time leaving no yeast in suspension.
I'm fascinated by this and with very little knowledge on the subject I'm looking forward to reading more and more to try and understand what actually happens in greater detail!
and thanks for the welcome, I've already learnt a great deal over the last couple of months on here!
 
Could it be that a portion of the yeast prefer to flocculate and "rest" while their "friends/colleagues" fight over the buffet? Once their "friends/colleagues" have had their fill the minority "un-flocculate" and revisit the buffet which is now much less stressful even given the increase in alcohol content, reduced PH and reduction in viable fermentables?
Yeast do have genetic and physical traits that cause them react differently, what they don't have is personalities or an intuitive or rational thought process.
 
True
I think the whole buffet analogy was just a way to potentially rationalise the idea posed by BrewKnurd

It would be interesting to speak to a microbiologist to see if they can shed any light on why the secondary clears faster. If there is a particular reason that we don't know about that causes this trait then perhaps it could be utilised in other ways?
 
I think it's worth noting that flocculation is not the same thing as dropping out of suspension.

Flocculation is the formation of floccs, where yeast groups together. The groups inevitably drop out because of the increased mass. Lager yeast, for example, is not very flocculant, although it has the tendency to drop out of suspension and is referred to as "bottom fermenting" for that reason. It's powdery on the bottom, not grouped together as much as you see with more flocculant strains.

The reason I say this is because I think the question is basically, "can yeast ever go from settling out back to in suspension." I'm not sure how feasible it is, but it's even less feasible when that yeast has flocculated and created a mass.
 
True
I think the whole buffet analogy was just a way to potentially rationalise the idea posed by BrewKnurd

It would be interesting to speak to a microbiologist to see if they can shed any light on why the secondary clears faster. If there is a particular reason that we don't know about that causes this trait then perhaps it could be utilised in other ways?

I would argue that it doesn't necessarily.
 
I would argue that it doesn't necessarily.

I agree with Denny on this one. Also there is a good quote from the book "Yeast" That also mentions that a beer will not clear faster in the secondary. Think about it. The yeast has been slowly dropping to the bottom, but has not all dropped. Then when you rack to the sexondary you mix up any yeast that is still in suspension and it has to start from the top all over again.

“The second theory, that beer clears faster after transferring, also is illogical. Unless flocculation somehow increases after transfer, the time it takes for the beer to clear should increase, not decrease. Transferring”“remixes the particles that were slowly drifting down through the beer. If anything, this slows the process of clearing the beer.”

Excerpt From: White & Jamil Zainasheff. “Yeast.” Brewers Publications, 2010. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
 
Damned one good read. I only read the first 11 pages or so and am on my 4th 20 ouncer or so. Good read I guess I will leave my 8 % Porter o n primary for 3 or 4 weeks maybe more if my keggerator allows it. Thanks for the sharing of information when it was more difficult to do so.:mug:
 
Wow, that's a long read. I took a 3 week trip to Asia recently, and decided to skip secondary - since I wouldn't be around to transfer. I honestly don't think there's any discernible difference in my beer. The yeast was all tightly packed at the bottom, no loose trub to necessarily kick around hitting it with the racking cane, nothing really popped up - it was nicely settled to the bottom.

I'm going to be paying more attention to clarity, etc, as I drink this, but It looks great to me so far. And no off flavors.

If I kick out secondary with no discernible downside (and many actually post an improvement) this greatly simplifies the process.

Now I'm considering getting rid of my glass carboy.
 
Hi. I left my primary on the yeast for a year and 4 months. The beer ant too bad tasting. Is it drinkable? Its priming in bottela now l expect it to be a little better after cold and carbonated...
 
Hi. I left my primary on the yeast for a year and 4 months. The beer ant too bad tasting. Is it drinkable? Its priming in bottela now l expect it to be a little better after cold and carbonated...
Aside from priming sugar, did you add some fresh yeast to your bottling bucket?
If not, it may take a long, long time to carbonate, if at all. Most suspended yeast will have sunk to the bottom and autolyzed during all that time.

What kind of beer is it, and what does it taste like now? Some notes of liver or vegemite perhaps?
 
Haha not vegemite hehe, it just really has very strong alcohol and barely wine qualities to it. Also it is tasting sort of like a brown ale...
 
It is an IPA brewers best style recipe with some different hops I had laying around I think. I did not add any yeast, so I better crack these growlers and add it hu. Thank you! Glad I made an account! haha.
 
so I better crack these growlers and add it hu.
Watch out, you can't carbonate in growlers. They can't handle the pressure, they'll bust. There's too much volume for the surface area. And too large a bottom.
It is an IPA brewers best style recipe with some different hops I had laying around I think.
it just really has very strong alcohol and barely wine qualities to it. Also it is tasting sort of like a brown ale...
The miracles of oxidation at work.
 
Glad I made an account!
You've come to the right place, welcome to HBT!
I left my primary on the yeast for a year and 4 months.
To stay on topic for this thread, you did not use a secondary. No Vegemite flavor after leaving it on the yeast for 16 months.
What temps was that kept at?
Did your airlock ever dry out?

And why not package it sooner?
 
I have growlers that I bought beer in from micro-breweries... am I safe to carbonate in these?

I Kept it at about 57 deg F. No secondary. Yes I found my airlock dried out. I redid it six months ago.
Not sure why it took so long to bottle, I won't do that do again.
 
I have growlers that I bought beer in from micro-breweries... am I safe to carbonate in these?
I wouldn't.
Use proper bottles (glass or plastic) made to endure the pressure of carbonation.
Or keg it.

@Denny can you elaborate which growlers can be safely used for bottle carbonation?
 
Heavy ones! Ones that look like large Grolsch bottles are what Ive used with success.
Ah, those heavy ones with the metal handles and the wide mouth with the gasketed Grolsch-like lid/stopper. That makes sense. Thanks!

The "cheap" ones with the screw lids you buy at most microbreweries and growler fill places are definitely not safe for bottle conditioning/carbonating. I had one of those explode in a cooler I had left in the car overnight. It was no warmer than 60-70F.
 
Well, I use my fruit in the primary after it has already crashed. Then I go to secondary. Maybe secondary is not necessary but I like the way it turns out. Why fix it if it aint broken? I'm going to continue doing things the way I have been because I sure do get a lot of compliments on my beer. One of the compliments I got on my Old Peculiar clone keg was "You should bottle and sell this stuff". And I live in Colorado where there are tons of microbreweries. So there is that.
 
Well, I use my fruit in the primary after it has already crashed. Then I go to secondary. Maybe secondary is not necessary but I like the way it turns out. Why fix it if it aint broken? I'm going to continue doing things the way I have been because I sure do get a lot of compliments on my beer. One of the compliments I got on my Old Peculiar clone keg was "You should bottle and sell this stuff". And I live in Colorado where there are tons of microbreweries. So there is that.

Adding more fermentables is one of the few situations where a secondary can be a good idea.
 
Adding more fermentables is one of the few situations where a secondary can be a good idea.
That!^

The newly added fermentables will kick up fermentation, so the yeast can scavenge any O2 that got unintentionally or inevitably incorporated during the transfer. Best is performing "closed" (O2 free) transfers or as close to that as possible. Then the following CO2 production will push out whatever air is in the headspace. Therefore, secondary headspace should always be kept as small as possible.

Except, that's not what @coonmanx is doing. He racks/transfers to a secondary after the fruit was added to the primary, and already crashed:
Well, I use my fruit in the primary after it has already crashed. Then I go to secondary.
 
Last edited:
I brew 3 gallons at a time. I use 5 gallon carboys for primary, 3 gallon carboys for secondary. I pretty much secondary everything, but I don’t think of it as a secondary fermentation. Because fermentation is pretty much finished before I transfer. I think of the extra step as a settling tank or clearing tank. I notice there is still plenty of junk that settles out to the bottom of the 3 gallon after transfer. So if I didn’t do this step, all that junk that settled out after transfer would still be in my beer, right? I guess I’m “old school”.
 
Last edited:
I brew 3 gallons at a time. I use 5 gallon carboys for primary, 3 gallon carboys for secondary. I pretty much secondary everything, but I don’t think of it as a secondary fermentation. Because fermentation is pretty much finished before I transfer. I think of the extra step as a settling tank or clearing tank. I notice there is still plenty of junk that settles out to the bottom of the 3 gallon after transfer. So if I didn’t do this step, all that junk that settled out after transfer would still be in my beer, right? I guess I’m “old school”.
Next time you brew, leave the beer in the primary for the same time as you would normally leave it in the secondary. Why would you think it's going to be any less clear? Whatever sediments out will be the same, provided you don't rouse the yeast/trub cake, no?

That brings me to the 2nd part.
When siphoning from your (now) primary into your keg or bottling bucket, don't stick that siphon all the way down into the trub! Start halfway between the trub layer and the beer surface, then lower the siphon/cane as the level drops, tilting the fermenter toward the end to keep the well of beer you're siphoning from as deep as possible. As soon as you're starting to suck up trub, stop the transfer, without sucking air by pinching the racking hose or pulling it off your keg or out of the bucket.

Make sure to use one of those "flow inverter" tippies on the bottom of the siphon/cane.
 
Back
Top