Bottom sludge of primary might of went in secondary. Will this affect taste?

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.

Wulfman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
326
Reaction score
22
Location
Sacramento
I started a clone of fat tire from H B Magazine, i just racked to secondary using siphoning cane and i got a lil amount to sludge in my carboy. This made it a lil coudy, but starting to settle. Will this affect my final beer taste.

Thank you,

Gabe
:tank:
 
Getting a little in the transfer is part of the learning curve. With a few more brews, you'll get better and better with racking to the point where you'll leave more and more behind. If you brew enough to offset what you lose due to trub, then you'll get full 5 gallon batches (into bottles/kegs)...

If you let the brew stay in primary long enough, the trub will compact more so that there's less chance of picking up any when you transfer. I would say that unless you're actually racking in order to add flavor elements, or to place the brew into something else for aging, you can leave it in primary for the entire ferment time. I didn't know any better for my first two brews, so I racked to secondary since I thought it was going to make for a better brew... I've since learned different. :mug:
 
I thought there is a chance of the trub to contaminate the brew if left with dead yeast?
 
Nowadays since many of us don't secondary at all and leave our beer in primary for a month, and THAT doesn't affect the taste, it should let you realize that getting some in secondary ain't gonna matter either. :mug:
 
Revvy beat me to the reply... :tank:

I've left a brew in primary for a month without ill effects. If anything it's better with the longer time on the cake. As also mentioned, the yeast isn't dead (it's dormant) after even a month. I don't recall exactly how long it would take for the yeast to actually die off enough to effect the brew, but I can't see us going that long.

Personally, I'm leaving brews in primary for a minimum of 2-3 weeks, with some going a month (or longer). Racking only to add flavor elements and/or harvest the yeast cake.

The entire 'need to rack to secondary' discussion is rather lengthy. From my understanding, a decade (or more) ago, it was advised due to poor yeast and other elements making it a good thing. These days, with improvements in yeast (especially liquid yeast) and other things, it's really not needed. If anything, your brew will improve with more time in primary.
 
After reading Chris White's book I'm not even sure it is dormant. Flocc'ing is simply the yeast clumping together. That is how it forms the Krausen. Certainly we don't think of the Krausen as dormant. Flocc'ing/clumping makes it heavier and more prone to sinking. Nowhere in his book does he say the yeast is dormant just because it flocced out. If it truly all went dormant then there would be no such thing as autolysis.


Revvy beat me to the reply... :tank:

I've left a brew in primary for a month without ill effects. If anything it's better with the longer time on the cake. As also mentioned, the yeast isn't dead (it's dormant) after even a month. I don't recall exactly how long it would take for the yeast to actually die off enough to effect the brew, but I can't see us going that long.

Personally, I'm leaving brews in primary for a minimum of 2-3 weeks, with some going a month (or longer). Racking only to add flavor elements and/or harvest the yeast cake.

The entire 'need to rack to secondary' discussion is rather lengthy. From my understanding, a decade (or more) ago, it was advised due to poor yeast and other elements making it a good thing. These days, with improvements in yeast (especially liquid yeast) and other things, it's really not needed. If anything, your brew will improve with more time in primary.
 
After reading Chris White's book I'm not even sure it is dormant. Flocc'ing is simply the yeast clumping together. That is how it forms the Krausen. Certainly we don't think of the Krausen as dormant. Flocc'ing/clumping makes it heavier and more prone to sinking. Nowhere in his book does he say the yeast is dormant just because it flocced out. If it truly all went dormant then there would be no such thing as autolysis.

You do realize how long you'll need to leave the brew on the yeast before you get autoysis to happen, these days??

Eventually, yeast will go dormant in the fermenting wort, once all the sugars for it to feed on are gone, and there's nothing left for it to munch (or do)... Only chance you have of really 'killing' yeast is to put it into a high enough ABV solution that exceeds it's tolerance level. With beer, that's not easy to do (with modern/current yeasts)... You can get it to happen in mead/wine where the yeast will keep going until it's made enough alcohol that it's beyond it's capacity to survive...

If you're really paranoid about autolysis, then you can always cold crash the brew after a few weeks, or month, and then rack off if you want to age it longer.

There are plenty of people (posting on these boards) that have left their brews fermenting for several weeks (or longer) without any ill effects... Perhaps this is another benefit from going all grain, over extract brewing (just a thought)...

Bottom line, a little yeast hitching a ride over to secondary won't be the end of the world for the brew. If you're REALLY concerned, then give it a week (or two) and rack it again, being sure to leave any traces of the yeast cake behind.
 
You do realize how long you'll need to leave the brew on the yeast before you get autoysis to happen, these days??

Eventually, yeast will go dormant in the fermenting wort, once all the sugars for it to feed on are gone, and there's nothing left for it to munch (or do)... Only chance you have of really 'killing' yeast is to put it into a high enough ABV solution that exceeds it's tolerance level. With beer, that's not easy to do (with modern/current yeasts)... You can get it to happen in mead/wine where the yeast will keep going until it's made enough alcohol that it's beyond it's capacity to survive...

If you're really paranoid about autolysis, then you can always cold crash the brew after a few weeks, or month, and then rack off if you want to age it longer.

There are plenty of people (posting on these boards) that have left their brews fermenting for several weeks (or longer) without any ill effects... Perhaps this is another benefit from going all grain, over extract brewing (just a thought)...

Bottom line, a little yeast hitching a ride over to secondary won't be the end of the world for the brew. If you're REALLY concerned, then give it a week (or two) and rack it again, being sure to leave any traces of the yeast cake behind.

I simply stated that the yeast at the bottom may not be dormant according to my understanding of Chris White's book. That is why leaving it on the cake is now considered the right thing to do.
 
Thanks, I will just keep it in secondary fro a few more weeks then bottle. Is the 123 rule good to do for this brew?
 
I also kept some starter yeast from my first batch. How can i feed this to keep it growing FOREVER or more to make bread and more beer out of it? I added a lil of the beer to feed but i dont know what else.

Thanks again Forum!
 
Is the 123 rule good to do for this brew?

The one two three rule should NEVER be followed...especially the "1" part. And you have no control over the 3 part either fermentation and bottle conditiioning are processes that are out of your hands, they are done when they are one. The yeast have their own timeframe and everyting else, like how long a beer will need to ferment or bottle condition is not arbitrary, the yeast dance to their own tune, and don't know how to read, so they don't know what the 1-2-3 rule is or what your instructions say. They finish when they finish.

You can only control how long you choose to let a beer secondary or long primary, NOT how long it's gonna take to ferment or carbonate... So toss out the 1-2-3 rule and read this.

If you arbitrarily move your beer, like to follow the silly 1-2-3 rule (or instructions that say move after a week or when bubbles slow down), you will often interrupt fermentation. Because sometimes the yeast won't even begin to ferment your beer until 72 hours after yeast pitch, so if you rush the beer off the yeast on day 7 then you are only allowing the yeast a few days to work. The problem is that yeast don't know how to read so they seldom follow the instructions. They dance to their own tune and its seldom 4 x 4 Time.

This often leads to stuck fermentation because you have removed the beer from the very stuff you need to ferment your beer. The yeast....It can often lead to the same off flavors one gets if they undrpitch their yeast.

Besides, fermenting the beer is just a part of what the yeast do. If you leave the beer alone, they will go back and clean up the byproducts of fermentation that often lead to off flavors. That's why many brewers skip secondary and leave our beers alone in primary for a month. It leaves plenty of time for the yeast to ferment, clean up after themselves and then fall out, leveing our beers crystal clear, with a tight yeast cake.

If you leave the beer alone, they will go back and clean up the byproducts of fermentation that often lead to off flavors. That's why many brewers skip secondary and leave our beers alone in primary for a month. It leaves plenty of time for the yeast to ferment, clean up after themselves and then fall out, leveing our beers crystal clear, with a tight yeast cake.

You'll find that more and more recipes these days do not advocate moving to a secondary at all, but mention primary for a month, which is starting to reflect the shift in brewing culture that has occurred in the last 4 years, MOSTLY because of many of us on here, skipping secondary, opting for longer primaries, and writing about it. Recipes in BYO have begun stating that in their magazine. I remember the "scandal" it caused i the letters to the editor's section a month later, it was just like how it was here when we began discussing it, except a lot more civil than it was here. But after the Byo/Basic brewing experiment, they started reflecting it in their recipes.
 
Thank you for the info. I actually let the brew sit for ten days total and the airlock started firing after good whithin 14 hours, so a total on 9 days fermenting. I hope its works out. I will NOW stop using a secondary and finish in my primary. So should i use a glass carboy for fermenting or a bucket? And what about the starter yeast i saved? how can i feed it to grow? Thanks
 
Thanks, I will just keep it in secondary fro a few more weeks then bottle. Is the 123 rule good to do for this brew?

Relax. You didn't ruin your beer. The '123 rule' was used for a long time and became a 'rule' because it worked well enough. It's hard for new brewers to not rush the process. We now have evidence that it may not be optimal but probably more in a sense of aging. Your beer may taste green for a longer period of time. If it is your first, you will drink it anyhow and be happy with it. :D To paraphrase a little saying I created on the telescope making list, "Brew more, worry less".
 
Wulfman I'm afraid you ruined it bro, dont listen to these guys. Send it to me and I'll dispose of it :)
 
SOunds good, Im about to brew another batch soon but not sure yet. Any ideas? (Not ready for all grain yet...i think)And thanks Eric I will send it today!!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top