Beating a dead horse..secondary or not?

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.
OP: With regards to your comparison to Revvy's pictures, perhaps you missed the part where he intentionally stirs up the yeast so that there is plenty of it in the bottles for conditioning. So in other words, that comparison is useless.

I addressed that
 
Yooper, respectively, I'd like to see anyone rack five gallons without agitating the liquid enough to stir up the yeast from where out had previously descended to in the primary. I don't think you're racking it incorrectly, but if you're racking to a secondary in any manner, you're mixing the contents no matter how well or how gently it is done.

I agree wine and mead do need a secondary (and further vessels beyond) as they both are usually aged in bulk and sit in vessels for many months to years. I'm talking beer.

Jamil and Chris White PhD literally wrote the book on yeast and dispelled the myths about secondaries as a standard procedure in brewing. They have more than the needed credentials to define the best procedure for handling yeast.

Would you question your Sony TV manual? No, they manufactured it, the know what they are talking about. Why would you question Chris White then?
 
Dann,

Yooper and many others cold crash primaries so the yeast are settled out the same during a 10-14 day primary as they are during a 3-4 week primary.

As most have said. Both ways work.

:mug:
 
I agree both ways work. My original and continued argument was not against the use of secondaries or people who use them but rather the myths that get tossed around like they clear beer faster or more effectively, which just aren't true!
 
I agree both ways work. My original and continued argument was not against the use of secondaries or people who use them but rather the myths that get tossed around like they clear beer faster or more effectively, which just aren't true!

Agreed. :mug:

Let's all keep making great beer.
 
The biggest advantage to using a secondary is simply less stuff in the beer to bottle. I've done it both ways, both ways are fine, they really are. The difference for me is when I fill the bottling bucket. When using the primary, I have to be really really careful not to suck up yeasty stuff into the bottling bucket. When I use a secondary, I don't worry about the racking to bottling bucket.

At bottling I notice more stuff in the bottling bucket when only using a primary. Considerably more stuff. Also my bottles tend to have that yeast ring on the bottlom. while I know it doesn't hurt the beer, when your sharing with nonbrewers, it's an explaination and a half.

But I agree, do it how you like it. I've done both and when I can or need to I will use a secondary. but it's has more to do with bottling than anything else.
 
I secondary because I brew every two weeks and want to reuse the yeast. I do agree that I don't think it makes beer any more clear than a long primary. Most of the arguments about primaries/secondaries pertaining to beer clarity are irrelevant because after the beer is refrigerated for more than a few days the sediment and yeast drop anyway
 
Perhaps I've treated "no secondary" all wrong; I've always gone primary-only, for about 30 days (including dry hop time, although I'll sometimes shift to secondary for that) directly to keg/bottle. It would seem the argument is for leaving things on the yeast longer, which I admit I've done (out of laziness more than anything else), but don't make it standard practice. I usually find a month to be long enough for the yeast to do all that it plans to.
 
This argument is like the special olympics, even if you win you're still........

I think of this phrase everytime this agrument or "discussion" starts up. Bottom line, sometimes we see both sides of the arguement presented as "facts" or perpetuating myths...my only concern with this is that some things we are telling beginners (on both sides) things that they will take as facts when really its opinions.

Can we close these threads yet or do we have to do this every 48 hours?
 
I think of this phrase everytime this agrument or "discussion" starts up. Bottom line, sometimes we see both sides of the arguement presented as "facts" or perpetuating myths...my only concern with this is that some things we are telling beginners (on both sides) things that they will take as facts when really its opinions.

Can we close these threads yet or do we have to do this every 48 hours?

But it's so much FUN! Can't we do it every 24 hours instead? Can we can we can we? :fro:
 
I've never been to the special Olympics. Are they as awesome are the non special Olympics?
 
Look at your primary on day 10. The top is much clearer than the bottom half. When you rack to a secondary you impede the progress of it clearing by mixing it all up again.

I get this. The top half of the beer is getting pretty clear by the end of week 2, while the bottom half is cloudier. Even without picking up the sediment on the bottom, when you rack you are re-mixing the cloudier stuff from further down, with the clearer stuff near the top.

I never really thought of that, but it makes sense. Now all of that stuff that was already halfway down the container has to start flocculating all over again!
 
I like to ferment in the secondary, then move to the primary after 17 days. It's called a primary because it is of chief importance, and should be the last brewing step. Hell, if carboys weren't so heavy, I would carb and drink out of the primary.
 
Back
Top