Secondary Fermentation - To Rack or Not to Rack

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.

ryankf

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Location
South Bend
I've got perspectives from both sides of the isle when it comes to using a secondary fermenter. I think i understand the concept - clearing, allowing sediment to fall out, getting the beer away from the krauesen before it settles back in, and getting the beer away from dormant yeast - so now the question is let it finish in the plastic bucket primary fermenter or rack (risk contamination/airation) to a secondary glass carboy for further clearing?

This is my first homebrew, so i'm going for drinkability, not necessarily perfection. I think I have pretty good sanitation throughout and don't see why that wouldn't continue. I'm able to keep the beer at a constant 62 degrees and things seem to be progessing nicely.

Thoughts...?
 
I'd leave it in the bucket. Pop it open after three weeks, then siphon the beer out into a bottling bucket or keg. Beer will still be drinkable, even with haze or cloudiness. For the first brew, skip the secondary.
 
There's been a big shift in brewing consciousness in the last few years where many of us believe that yeast is a good thing, and besides just fermenting the beer, that they are fastidious creatures who go back and clean up any by products created by themselves during fermentation, which may lead to off flavors.

Rather than the yeast being the cause of off flavors, it is now looked at by many of us, that they will if left alone actually remove those off flavors, and make for clearer and cleaner tasting beers.

You'll find that a great many folks, maybe even the majority on here these days, leave their beers in primary for 3-4 weeks, skipping secondary. Many of us even dry hop in primary, and only rack to secondary if we are adding oak or fruit, or had fruit in the boil or primary and left lots of trub behind.

Even John Palmer talks about this in How To Bew;

How To Brew said:
Leaving an ale beer in the primary fermentor for a total of 2-3 weeks (instead of just the one week most canned kits recommend), will provide time for the conditioning reactions and improve the beer. This extra time will also let more sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring. And, three weeks in the primary fermentor is usually not enough time for off-flavors to occur.

This is where the most up to date brewing wisdom and ideas can be found...In fact a lot of stuff has been started on here, and made it into byo or zymurgy or podcasts...in fact BYO DID a piece on no secondary/long primary, along with the BASIC BREWING PODCAST and even they said that there were no issues/harm with doing it and in some beers it did actually improve the flavor and clarity. And I believe that really WAS influenced by the discussion we have had for the last couple years on here.
 
I agree with Revvy.. with my beers I leave in the primary usually for 14 days and then rack. There is some argument that after 14 days there is the chance for off flavors but just to be safe I usually rack to secondary on the 14th day and let it sit in the secondary for another 14 days before I keg it (unless its a quick turn around beer then i just go from the primary after the 14 days straight to the keg)
 
+1 on what Revvy said.
I only use a secondary for additional dry hopping or various additions like fruit etc.

I did use a secondary for a while on all my brews, and I honestly see little difference in my results since moving back to just an extended primary.
 
HOLY ****!

This thread got me curious, it has been 17 days since my beer went into the primary, havent even looked the bucket in a couple of days knowing its in a safe spot at the right temp. i started thinking "maybe today i will bottle" so i went and looked at my bucket.

i also wanted to check the temp with a new sticky strip i just bought because it just seemed like a good idea (wasted 2.30cents)

anyhow - im sitting there watchign the temp lower and lower and lower and all of the sudden i get A BUBBLE

hadnt seen any activity in like 2 weeks until just now

i think i read this can happen.

is this right?
 
yeah like what others are saying. A secondary vessel isn't required nor will it produce better beer. Using a secondary will cost you cleaners, sanitizer, space for extra equipment, time and potential oxidation. Basically lots of us think it's a waste of time. Don't worry about your yeast dying on you.

Keeping your brew in one vessel will allow the yeast to clean up after it self and produce a cleaner tasting beer. Also yeast will settle regardless of what vessel it's in. it's not like yeast in suspension looks down, gets scared and decides not to floculate.

After fermentation has stopped completely and I have reached my FG I leave it alone for a week or so. Then I crash cool (putting the fermenter in a fridge) for another week or so. This will leave you will clear beer.
 
yeah like what others are saying. A secondary vessel isn't required nor will it produce better beer. Using a secondary will cost you cleaners, sanitizer, space for extra equipment, time and potential oxidation. Basically lots of us think it's a waste of time. Don't worry about your yeast dying on you.

Keeping your brew in one vessel will allow the yeast to clean up after it self and produce a cleaner tasting beer. Also yeast will settle regardless of what vessel it's in. it's not like yeast in suspension looks down, gets scared and decides not to floculate.

After fermentation has stopped completely and I have reached my FG I leave it alone for a week or so. Then I crash cool (putting the fermenter in a fridge) for another week or so. This will leave you will clear beer.

I like your advice at the end about a cool crash but I think your first paragraph will\can cause some argument. "nor will it produce better beer" Compared to what?!

Not everyone has the ability or resources to cold crash a beer and that's where racking to a secondary comes into play. Doing so will give you a clearer beer than keeping it in the primary (not cold crashing) and then bottling\kegging. I have tried both racking and not racking and I use both methods regularly. I usually do not rack with a Belgian wit or blond or a beer that is cloudy by style. Everything else (unless I get lazy:drunk:) I do a secondary and believe it is worth the added effort, "risk" and sanitizing cost.
 
I typically only use my secondary when I lager the batch for extended periods. At the present time I only have one primary and lagering in the primary would severely cut into my brewing capacity. I see no reason why you should rack to a secondary. However crash cooling will result in a clearer beer.
 
Not everyone has the ability or resources to cold crash a beer and that's where racking to a secondary comes into play. Doing so will give you a clearer beer than keeping it in the primary (not cold crashing) and then bottling\kegging.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do people come up with some if this stuff?

:rolleyes:

I don't don't EVER cold crash, I leave my beer for a month in primary and I have had judges describe my beer as extremely clear and "jewel like"....AND half the time I forget to add any moss.

Appearance ALWAYS scores high on my beers as well as taste. But there not one contest where a judge doesn't make a comment on the clarity of my beers.

That's precisely why I don't secondary....because my beers are much better than when I secondary.

After a month in primary your beer is crystal clear, very clean and crisp tasting. And when you rack to bottle you leave behind a really dense yeast/trub cake.

Believe me, after three years of doing the long primary/ no secondary I find no need to go back to doing it any other way. The quality of my beers has upped 10 ten fold.

Even John Palmer talks about this in How To Bew;

How To Brew said:
Leaving an ale beer in the primary fermentor for a total of 2-3 weeks (instead of just the one week most canned kits recommend), will provide time for the conditioning reactions and improve the beer. This extra time will also let more sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring. And, three weeks in the primary fermentor is usually not enough time for off-flavors to occur.
 
Well Revvy, maybe not everyone is as "good" at racking off a yeast cake then you...me being one of them! When I do keg straight from primary I get a much cloudier beer with a good amount of yeast residue at the bottom of my keg when it's finished. So for me, the secondary racking makes it much easier for me to get a clearer beer.


WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do people come up with some if this stuff?

:rolleyes:

Where do I come up with it??? From my own experience...Not one thing I said is "wrong" in my eyes. Sorry for disagreeing with your methods oh holy one! :p

As for the JP quote...I would agree that bottling\kegging after a beer has been in the primary for 2-3 weeks is better than after just 1. That's pretty common knowledge. But that says nothing about racking it to secondary and waiting another 1-2 and what happens.

I'm sure the OP wanted a couple of opinions and that's what I was trying to provide...
 
+1 to everything Revvy has said so far. When I started becoming more patient and letting my beer ferment longer, the quality of the beer I was producing increased dramatically. Although smaller, I noticed another jump in quality when I quit using secondaries. It has me believing that the yeast do a better job cleaning up after themselves if left on the yeast cake. I do a 3-4 week primary for almost all of my brews now, and couldn't be happier with the results so far.

As far as clarity goes, I've seen an improvement since I stopped using a secondary, but it could just be that my techniques have improved. Or maybe leaving the beer undisturbed for the entire fermentation and conditioning period allows the yeast to settle out better? IMHO good starch conversion, a good cold break, and careful racking each have at least 10X more of an effect on clarity than using a secondary does. I will say that if you are sloppy when racking that it's less problematic when using a secondary, because there's less stuff to stir up.
 
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do people come up with some if this stuff?

:rolleyes:

I don't don't EVER cold crash, I leave my beer for a month in primary and I have had judges describe my beer as extremely clear and "jewel like"....AND half the time I forget to add any moss.

Appearance ALWAYS scores high on my beers as well as taste. But there not one contest where a judge doesn't make a comment on the clarity of my beers.

That's precisely why I don't secondary....because my beers are much better than when I secondary.

After a month in primary your beer is crystal clear, very clean and crisp tasting. And when you rack to bottle you leave behind a really dense yeast/trub cake.

Believe me, after three years of doing the long primary/ no secondary I find no need to go back to doing it any other way. The quality of my beers has upped 10 ten fold.

Even John Palmer talks about this in How To Bew;

Preach on Brother!!
 
for me, i only have 5 gallon carboys. so i ferment in ale pails, then after 7-10 days transfer to carboy for the duration until kegged. people talk about buckets not being permeable to oxygen, but old wives tale or not.. i KNOW glass is and will last as long as all my stainless equipment, as i handle it correctly to assure safety. now if i ever get 6 gal bb's, ill leave it in (ill trust pete up to 6 mos oxygen free) until keg time.


Yes, Better-Bottle PET carboys are slightly more permeable than glass; however, it would be a mistake to assume that using a glass carboy will guarantee superior results. The traces of oxygen that penetrate Better-Bottle PET carboys are incredibly difficult to measure and insignificant when compared with the amounts of oxygen diffusing through, or leaking past, air locks (especially liquid-filled air locks), stoppers (especially silicone stoppers), most common types of flexible tubing, and the staves of oak barrels. Moreover, oxygen diffuses into, and reacts with, wine and beer so quickly that removing a closure from a carboy, even briefly, for testing and making adjustments can allow a great deal of oxygen to enter. Wine and beer essentially suck up oxygen. And racking from one open carboy to another open carboy with a siphon, a pretty standard approach when glass carboys are used, will add a great deal of oxygen in an uncontrolled manner.
 
I'm sure the OP wanted a couple of opinions and that's what I was trying to provide...

True i did, and i had no idea there would be so many. I think i'm actually more confused now than i was to start with.

I've been going off of Papazian's book, but it seems like it might be a little old/out-of-date based on what i've been reading here. This is the first place i'd heard of yeast essentially cleaning up after itself. Papazian seems to think if left alone for too long it will be the cause of, not solution to, off yeast flavor. Maybe that's only if left in primary for over 4 weeks?

Based on what i've read here and on my local homebrew club forum, MEGA, i'm going to leave it alone for a total of three weeks, and then bottle, regardless of f.g. reading, unless of course it's too high, which i can't imagine happening after that much time.

ryan
 
To avoid fighting, both approaches work.

My own experience:
I use a primary only, but it's glass. Since I do wine as well as beer, I only have 6 gallon carboys. I don't own a 5 gallon carboy anymore(last one broke). I just brew the beer in the 6 gallon carboy as a primary for 3-4 weeks, then keg and/or bottle. Makes clean tasting beer!

Lot's of headspace without CO2 production equals exposure to O2. During active fermenting, a lot of CO2 is given off, and it protects the beer. Keeping the beer in primary the whole time under airlock does that for you. The O2 gets pushed out, while the CO2 blankets the beer. When a secondary is used, typically it's moved while still fermenting(1 week) so that there is still some CO2 production, and into 5 gallon containers so there is less headspace = less O2.

In winemaking, when we go to secondary, which is AFTER almost all fermentation is complete, we "top up" within a couple of inches of the neck(when using carboys). As we sometimes leave the wine in a long time and rack multiple times over several months, we try to minimize O2 exposure as much as possible. Like with beer, O2 is great to get the yeast started, but not good when the yeast are done.

Extra racking can cause more O2 to get into beer. This is one of the several reasons many people have chosen to stay in primary only. It's easier, there is less O2 exposure, there is less cleaning/sterilizing, and it produces good beer. We used to think you needed to do 2-stage to get quality beer. As one who has brewed off and on since the 70's, I've seen many myths get broken and I think this is one. I think perhaps the yeast wasn't as clean back then, and we also didn't leave the beer in long enough (at least I didn't).

But both techniques can produce award winning beer, if one is careful and uses common sense. With single stage, you should leave it in long enough to clear, and rack more carefully off the sediment. With two stage, you need to pay attention to the increased opportunity for O2 exposure due to the extra racking. Good beer is good beer, no matter how you get there.

RDWHAHB,

Rich
 
I stopped racking to secondary in 1989 (about the time I realized that the secret to good beer started with tossing the "instructions" that came with my first beer kit in the trash.) Since then I only go to secondary if the O.G. is over 1.080 or so, and fermentation is taking forever. I have left beers in Primary for 6 or 7 weeks, and they have been some of my best, and clearest. (I also never use moss or other clarifiers.) Don't keg or bottle straight out of Primary though, siphon to a bucket first.
 
What if you are using a bucket for primary fermentation? Would it still be fine to leave it in there the whole time?
 
I use a bucket for primary. It stays in there for 10-14 days or until the gravity is down to where I want it and all the krausen has receded. I then cold crash for 4 or so days. When I siphon, I free hand the siphon keeping the end just under the top level of the beer. This helps to minimize yeast being sucked through. I siphon right on top of my dry hop (usually whole leaf) in the keg. I don't even use bags. I put a stainless steel braid over the end of the dip tube. My beer is crystal clear about a week after kegging and it smells absolutely wonderful. My last IPA with 1 oz Amarillo leaf and 1 oz Cent leaf got me quite a few comments at my brew club meeting.
 
Good news to save money, haha. I'd like to buy some better bottles, but I'd rather buy 2 buckets instead.

The only issues with buckets are if they don't seal good or if you scratch or etch the inside, as they are more prone to harboring nasties than glass. If you treat your equipment good and sterilize properly, I don't believe either is a problem.

I thought about going back to buckets because of the problem of getting whole hops into the carboy for dry-hopping, but my wife came up with a solution for that just yesterday. An improvised funnel made from one of those flexible plastic cutting boards.

Rich
 
Even John Palmer talks about this in How To Bew;


Quote:
Originally Posted by How To Brew
Leaving an ale beer in the primary fermentor for a total of 2-3 weeks (instead of just the one week most canned kits recommend), will provide time for the conditioning reactions and improve the beer. This extra time will also let more sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring. And, three weeks in the primary fermentor is usually not enough time for off-flavors to occur.

This is where the most up to date brewing wisdom and ideas can be found...In fact a lot of stuff has been started on here, and made it into byo or zymurgy or podcasts...in fact BYO DID a piece on no secondary/long primary, along with the BASIC BREWING PODCAST and even they said that there were no issues/harm with doing it and in some beers it did actually improve the flavor and clarity. And I believe that really WAS influenced by the discussion we have had for the last couple years on here.

So what type of analysis was used to conclude this to be true. On this site who is the authority that lead the discussions on the topic Revy? Was A gas spectometer used in any of this so called testing and determination.

The guys doing the podcasts and BYO articles that I am aware of Do Not have degrees from Sibel or UC Davis in brewing science. The brewing science books tell a different tale, so I'm really interested in hearing about the facts of making better beer from leaving the wort on the trub instead of racking it off the crud from the primary fermentation.

John was speaking as in a new brewer being able to use an "ALE" type yeast and getting away from having to rack the wort into a secondary fermenter for three weeks. He mentions nothing about making better ber that way.

The stuff the internet forums come up with is mostly BS, with no real scientific data behind it.


Pro Brewers come on the those brew-talk shows, and tell the brewers to get the wort off the yeast and transfered to a secondary as soon as primary fermentation slows!
Hmmm they only are graduates from UC Davis or Siebel with a degree in brewing science.

That's Like..HDPE isn't permeable.. Take a wiff of a dill pickle bucket after emptied and washed.
 
Pro Brewers come on the those brew-talk shows, and tell the brewers to get the wort off the yeast and transfered to a secondary as soon as primary fermentation slows!


Hmm, have you listened to Basicbrewingradio lately? Have you read the discussion on long primary and on the experiment conducted by many many brewers working together between Basic Brewing radio AND BYO magazine, that backed up what many many many of us have saying on here for 3 or more years, pal? It may be new to you in your 3 months...but not to us.

The results were about two issues back, and BYO wouldn't be suggesting it, if THEY felt it didn't have merit, would they?

Maybe YOU'RE a little behind the times as to what the "pro" brewers are saying. :rolleyes:

It's your choice to think it's BS or not, but many of us have plenty of anecdotal evidence and even JUDGING sheets that bear this out. This discussion may be NEW to you, but it's been an ongoing discussion on here for at least three years, with more and more folks trying it and having similar results as the rest of us.

There's 1,000's of threads on here with folks discussing this, and not just ME having success with it....more and more each day, and including some pretty serious brewers that probably brew more than the "pros" do.

A "pro" is just someone who takes a paycheck for doing it, many of us have a bigger passion, and perhaps even a bigger knowledge base but just do it because we love it, and wouldn't do it for pay.

It doesn't mean folks are idiots.

Take Kai, who's been on many podcasts, or Brewpastor who was just on Brewstrong, or Biermuncher who's been in BYO magazine...Plenty of folks on here breaking ground and getting recognition, by the same podcasts you talk about the "pros" being on.

And that's perhaps WHY BYO magazine, AND Basic Brewing Radio, and more and more "pros" are beginning to think "Hey maybe those hobbyiests on HBT who have been doing this for years, MIGHT actually know something that we don't know, and haven't tried, but they have, 'cause THEY don't have a lot to lose, they are willing to risk it to try it out, maybe we should re-evaluate things ourselves."

Rather than scoffing, why don't YOU give it a try and see for your self, you might be surprised. ;)

We've been debating and discussing it on here for nearly 3 years, so it's nothing new to us, and we no longer debate it with any noobs who are stuck in hero worship for what the "pros" say.

We've heard the same line that you just spewed before.....though it's been awhile, since things are changing and more people are trying it for themselves.

And don't even know WHAT the pros' may be saying today as opposed to what they said in a book or something that was writted 3-5 years ago.

Think John Palmer still believes what he wrote in how to brew about IBUs??? Nope.

Ideas change with science, and science changes all the time. Here's a good example John Palmer basically admits that what he wrote about IBU's in How to brew, was essentially "wrong" or at least outdated in light of new science...

Basic Brewing Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:30 PM
John Palmer, author of How to Brew, shares information from a conference that challenged his concept of what defines an International Bitterness Unit (IBU). Click to listen, MP-3

I cite that podcast as an example of how the knowlegebase shifts so fast in this hobby because of places like this or podcasts...A book is a snapshot of the author's body of knowledge and the "common wisdom" at the time the author wrote the book, which may mean 3 years before it was even published. Papazian's book is 30+ years old. The basic knowlege is good, but brewing science and experience has progressed to where some things an author believes or says at that time may no-longer be valid...even to the author...

Hell, Papazian just discovered the joys of rice hulls about 3 years ago. So who says an old dog, can't learn something new?

In that Podcast, Palmer basically contradicts in some was what he wrote in HTB...and I bet it will be reflected in his subsequent writings, but if he doesn't go back and revise HTB, and people don't read or listen to anything by him after, than they won't realize that the knowlegebase has already shifted...

And well probably start seeing long primary mentioned in more and more books in the future.


So believe what you want, but I won't debate you, we've been doing this for a long time, with great success, we're just providing the information.

:mug:

Oh yeah...and you don't KNOW wtf my background in brewing is do you? Maybe I studied at siebel, or maybe I didn't but maybe 15 years ago I almost opened one of the first brewpubs in Michigan, and DID study a lot about brewing, but my brother and partner in it DIED, and maybe I lost passion for brewing, and sought other careers, and then a few years back got back into it as a hobby/passion, and remembered all the learning I did back then.

That's the funny thing about the internet...we really don't know who is behind the AVATAR and nickname, do we?????

Hell, for all YOU knoe maybe I really AM Charlie Papazian.

Edit---But I'm really Chuck Norris. :D
 
And interesting I believe he DID say improved beer...

Leaving an ale beer in the primary fermentor for a total of 2-3 weeks (instead of just the one week most canned kits recommend), will provide time for the conditioning reactions and improve the beer. This extra time will also let more sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring.

WOW.
 
motivator60a926462eacb60f9920663677.jpg
 
Wait, I thought we all knew Revvy was Chuck Norris, did I miss a thread?

Long primaries with no secondary will definitely hit some new brew books, if it hasn't already. I don't read them anymore, I read HBT instead.
 
for me, i only have 5 gallon carboys. so i ferment in ale pails, then after 7-10 days transfer to carboy for the duration until kegged. people talk about buckets not being permeable to oxygen, but old wives tale or not.. i KNOW glass is and will last as long as all my stainless equipment, as i handle it correctly to assure safety. now if i ever get 6 gal bb's, ill leave it in (ill trust pete up to 6 mos oxygen free) until keg time.

What about all of the oxygen exposure from the transfer? I know it can be done with very minimal exposure, but most brewers are going to get more oxygen exposure from the transfer than they will through the bucket for 3 weeks.
 
And interesting I believe he DID say improved beer...

WOW.

Improves compared to what? Keeping in the primary for 1 week (as opposed to 2-3 weeks) and then bottling\kegging? I asked that in my other post and never got an answer. In that little JP quote it doesnt refer to the secondary at all! Obviously if you are not using a secondary, letting it set 2-3 weeks instead of 1 week will improve a beer...maybe that's what JP was referring to.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone or their methods as I have not done any tests myself...
 
What about all of the oxygen exposure from the transfer? I know it can be done with very minimal exposure, but most brewers are going to get more oxygen exposure from the transfer than they will through the bucket for 3 weeks.

If everything is sanitary you have little to worry about racking to a secondary fermenter after primary fermentation has settled some. The best way is to transfer while there is still some fermentation going on. The beer has alcohol and some co2 in the head space.

Getting it off the trub and letting it sit and finish up on the cleaner yeast sediment is better then sitting in the break fats for extended periods.

Keeping the tubing in the bottom corner and not splashing the siphoning wort, will keep it from oxygen.

I flood the bottom of the secondary with co2 from my tank before racking. Just need a little.
 
Improves compared to what? Keeping in the primary for 1 week (as opposed to 2-3 weeks) and then bottling\kegging? I asked that in my other post and never got an answer. In that little JP quote it doesnt refer to the secondary at all! Obviously if you are not using a secondary, letting it set 2-3 weeks instead of 1 week will improve a beer...maybe that's what JP was referring to.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone or their methods as I have not done any tests myself...


Exactly.. He is comparing the leaving it for a couple to three weeks with leaving it for 1 week then bottling.

He is not comparing primary fermention then secondary fermention, to just primary then bottle.
 
Getting it off the trub and letting it sit and finish up on the cleaner yeast sediment is better then sitting in the break fats for extended periods.

Dude, you and SOB can believe what you want. You can harken back to your fear of the yeast days all you want. The thing is that's old school thinking. Like I said, we've been doing this for upwards of three years with great results. Including judging scores, and comments from BJCP judges. And heard all the armchair arguments from people just like you.

Often those same people end up being converts to it once they try.

Like I said, I'm not going debate it, I'm not gonna try to convert you. My brewing cajones won't get any bigger dueling with you guys, who are only now hearing about this stuff.

There's nothing you have said that hasn't been brought up when people first starting talking about it. And yet three years later, noone's had f'ed up beer from skipping secondary, noone's reported autolysis or off flavors or anything else you guys are so sure is/will be happening because we dared challenge the old way of thinking.......

If you really care as more that a bashing exercise, because it challenges something you hold sacred, then do a search and wade through the countless discussions about it....but I ain't into flame wars about it.

Because I've even said there's not a right way or a wrong way to do things, that using a secondary or doing a long primary both work. And like so much stuff in brewing, it's up to the brewer to decide what works best for THEIR OWN PROCESS.

And we're still gonna share the info with the noobs who ask about it, no matter what you may think, and believe.

So stay warm in your convictions, that this doesn't work, that it makes the beer worse....while I'll keep racking in the awards in bjcp contests, and keep getting comments from the judges, some of them the very "pros" you worship, which describe the appearance of my beers as "jewell like" and use words like "Crisp" and "Clean" to describe the taste.....that's all the proof I need that it works. The fact that my contests scores have gotten significantly higher since I started doing this.

Hell the very first contest where I entered multiple beers, and 50% of them were beers that I secondaried, the ones that I long primaried scored higher.

I have done over 300 gallons this way, everything from barleywines to light lagers, and in fact one of my awards this summer was for a lager that I had left in primary for a month, and then racked and lagered. And you would think if there were any issues with off flavors from a month in primary, you would think it would be there.

But you don't really care what anyone says...no one's gonna convince you.

You can keep waxing about it til you're blue in the face about how it doesn't work......and we'll keep doing what we've been doing.

And watching as more and more of your "pros" and more and more of your podcast guests, and more and more authors, start to generate more buzz about it. Because if they are truly professionals then they will be more open minded to new things that MAY improve their beers, rather than clinging to old ways of doing things.

If they are truly professionals that is, and not egocentric posers....who would rather be "right" than be informed.

The OP asked for some information and I provided it, and I cleared up some misconcetion about the absolute NEED to cold crash in order to do long primaries.....like I said, I don't cold crash and my beer after a month is crystal clear.

So hopefully the OP has enough info to art least try one beer with a secondary, and one in long primary, and will then make HIS OWN DECISION.

:mug:

*unsubscribe*
 
I was never trying to argue with anyone and it didnt sound to me like anyone was trying to argue except for you Revvy...starting a reply with "WRONG WRONG WRONG" isn't the best way to have a nice chat about a topic!

I stated it before that I have not done enough of my own testing to tell whether it is better or not. I had a few questions with your logic so I raised a few points. TO EACH THEIR OWN! It looks like you and other have major success with no secondary and that's great. I like my methods, consistently get great results with no infections or problems, so I will stick to them. Like I said, I sometimes do not use a secondary but it depends on the style of beer.

OP, I hope these different points of view have helped!

:mug:
 
for what it's worth I'm a member of "ditch the secondary club" too.

Less chance for infection, less hassle, less money invested and 1 less carboy or bucket to clean.

More importantly though, I think keeping it in primary is making for better beer according to the numerous amounts of people having success with it.
 
After reading this thread, I'm gonna try the extended primary fermentation. I've been racking into a carboy after 8-10 days cuz thats what they told me to do at my LHBS 2 years ago when I started. I wish I had read this thread a few days ago, I just racked my first AG batch to the secondary. Oh well, guess I have to brew again soon...darn!!!!
 
Back
Top