So I am tired of hearing people telling newer brewers that they are doing it wrong by putting their beers into secondary after 7-10 days, even though this is what Palmer and Papazian among others tell people to do. I have a hard time believing anyone on this site has as much experience/expertise on the subject next to them.
Papazian and Palmer all wrong?
- Thread starter Swampsn
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
- Status
flowerysong
Well-Known Member
That's nice, dear.
WHo? What? Your Kidding?
Palmer and Papazian,
They put together a very simple set on instructions for new brewers.
What they do is just a method that works for them !
Brewing beer is an "ART" and with any art there are many different methods of achieving the same goal.
I have read their books, there are a few things I do not agree with after brewing for a while, I agree that a secondary is a wasted step for most beers
and to answer your Question about members of this site not have as much experience/expertise, I would say that you are a bit misled.
Look around a bit more, before you pass judgment on what this site has to offer for experience/expertise
Welcome to Homebrewtalk
-Jason
They put together a very simple set on instructions for new brewers.
What they do is just a method that works for them !
Brewing beer is an "ART" and with any art there are many different methods of achieving the same goal.
I have read their books, there are a few things I do not agree with after brewing for a while, I agree that a secondary is a wasted step for most beers
and to answer your Question about members of this site not have as much experience/expertise, I would say that you are a bit misled.
Look around a bit more, before you pass judgment on what this site has to offer for experience/expertise
Welcome to Homebrewtalk
-Jason
Yah most people here are really helpful and such. I know there is a lot of knowledge to pick up on the site.
It just annoys me when people like Revy and Flowerysong post negatively in about 95% of their posts, insulting and such, when you can tell they aren't so bright themselves.
Also, I wouldn't call Palmer's or Papazian's set of instructions "simple".
It just annoys me when people like Revy and Flowerysong post negatively in about 95% of their posts, insulting and such, when you can tell they aren't so bright themselves.
Also, I wouldn't call Palmer's or Papazian's set of instructions "simple".
SourHopHead
Well-Known Member
Less QQ
More Brew Brew
More Brew Brew
Danek
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the site.
The reason Papazian (I've not read Palmer's book) gives for taking beer out of primary quickly is because he suggests autolysis of the yeast will impart off-flavors to the finished product. But we now know autolysis is a much slower process than he suggests, and that you can leave beer on its yeast cake for a month or longer with no ill effects.
Further to that, Jamil Zainasheff, who has won an amazingly large pile of awards for his homebrew, has found that if you take beer off yeast too quickly, the yeast is unable to clear up the less desirable byproducts of fermentation, resulting in a beer that actually tastes less good than one left in primary for longer. He has the awards to back up his claim. On top of that, many people on here have put this to the test and have found that Papazian's suggestion for moving beer out of primary is not the path that gives the best tasting beer.
Don't get me wrong, I love Charlie's book and would recommend it unhesitatingly. It's just that on that one specific point, I think that a wealth of personal experience and homebrewing awards suggests that there is a much better way of doing it. Of course, if you want to stick with his way of doing it, that's fine, and I'm sure you'll get nice beer that way.
The reason Papazian (I've not read Palmer's book) gives for taking beer out of primary quickly is because he suggests autolysis of the yeast will impart off-flavors to the finished product. But we now know autolysis is a much slower process than he suggests, and that you can leave beer on its yeast cake for a month or longer with no ill effects.
Further to that, Jamil Zainasheff, who has won an amazingly large pile of awards for his homebrew, has found that if you take beer off yeast too quickly, the yeast is unable to clear up the less desirable byproducts of fermentation, resulting in a beer that actually tastes less good than one left in primary for longer. He has the awards to back up his claim. On top of that, many people on here have put this to the test and have found that Papazian's suggestion for moving beer out of primary is not the path that gives the best tasting beer.
Don't get me wrong, I love Charlie's book and would recommend it unhesitatingly. It's just that on that one specific point, I think that a wealth of personal experience and homebrewing awards suggests that there is a much better way of doing it. Of course, if you want to stick with his way of doing it, that's fine, and I'm sure you'll get nice beer that way.
Welcome to the site.
The reason Papazian (I've not read Palmer's book) gives for taking beer out of primary quickly is because he suggests autolysis of the yeast will impart off-flavors to the finished product. But we now know autolysis is a much slower process than he suggests, and that you can leave beer on its yeast cake for a month or longer with no ill effects.
Further to that, Jamil Zainasheff, who has won an amazingly large pile of awards for his homebrew, has found that if you take beer off yeast too quickly, the yeast is unable to clear up the less desirable byproducts of fermentation, resulting in a beer that actually tastes less good than one left in primary for longer. He has the awards to back up his claim. On top of that, many people on here have put this to the test and have found that Papazian's suggestion for moving beer out of primary is not the path that gives the best tasting beer.
Don't get me wrong, I love Charlie's book and would recommend it unhesitatingly. It's just that on that one specific point, I think that a wealth of personal experience and homebrewing awards suggests that there is a much better way of doing it. Of course, if you want to stick with his way of doing it, that's fine, and I'm sure you'll get nice beer that way.
The yeast are still working in secondary though aren't they? The ones still working would seem to be the ones that get transfered with the beer.
SourHopHead
Well-Known Member
You really do not want to pick a fight here.
lol please.
heinz57
Well-Known Member
I still haven't seen a post about All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing.
Why not just send the accused parties a PM with your concern rather than dragging it into a public forum?
Why not just send the accused parties a PM with your concern rather than dragging it into a public forum?
Pelikan
Well-Known Member
The information offered by CP and Palmer is designed so that new brewers can get a decent beer in the quickest amount of time possible. If a lot of new brewers were told "you're looking at 6-8 weeks minimum before you can drink it," they'll be turned off. But if you tell them "3 weeks start to finish," then their interested is piqued.
Beyond that, I've conducted my own experiments, and can tell you that from my experience, leaving brew in the primary -- on the cake -- for around 3 weeks has noticeable/tasteable advantages (ie: we're not talking armchair expert stuff, but practical benefits).
This is because after primary fermentation is complete, the yeast are still active (contrary to popular/assumed belief). They begin feeding on the waste products of fermentation, thus cleaning up after themselves and giving your brew a crisper and less muddied flavor profile.
That said, you're free to do whatever you want. You can take it out of the primary after two days, ten days, etc, but just because that works for you, doesn't make it right. Indeed, most people skip the secondary entirely for a standard brew. A longer primary time has more or less displaced the secondary for most styles save heavy barleywines (which require bulk aging) and dry-hopped brews (or others that require post-ferment additions). In other words, the secondary isn't so much a vessel for conditioning of your average brew as it is a tool to improve upon more complex/advanced examples. And even with those styles where a secondary is to be used, I always keep it in the primary for 3 weeks first.
Where the average brew is concerned, you're better served by keeping it in the primary for three weeks and bottling (ie: no secondary). It makes the whole process easier, and introduces fewer vectors for failure -- while also offering improvements over the standard 1-2-3 methodology.
Bear in mind that home brewing is a fairly new phenomena (30-40 years). Hell, you go back more than about 20 years and you'd have a hard time finding a microbrew pretty much anywhere. The point is, craft brewing is not an ancient art form, at least not as it's currently understood and practiced -- it's a new and developing arena where methods and philosophies are constantly being refined.
Case in point: the extended primary is a very new technique, but one that has seen widespread use and appeal because, guess what, it works!
Beyond that, I've conducted my own experiments, and can tell you that from my experience, leaving brew in the primary -- on the cake -- for around 3 weeks has noticeable/tasteable advantages (ie: we're not talking armchair expert stuff, but practical benefits).
This is because after primary fermentation is complete, the yeast are still active (contrary to popular/assumed belief). They begin feeding on the waste products of fermentation, thus cleaning up after themselves and giving your brew a crisper and less muddied flavor profile.
That said, you're free to do whatever you want. You can take it out of the primary after two days, ten days, etc, but just because that works for you, doesn't make it right. Indeed, most people skip the secondary entirely for a standard brew. A longer primary time has more or less displaced the secondary for most styles save heavy barleywines (which require bulk aging) and dry-hopped brews (or others that require post-ferment additions). In other words, the secondary isn't so much a vessel for conditioning of your average brew as it is a tool to improve upon more complex/advanced examples. And even with those styles where a secondary is to be used, I always keep it in the primary for 3 weeks first.
Where the average brew is concerned, you're better served by keeping it in the primary for three weeks and bottling (ie: no secondary). It makes the whole process easier, and introduces fewer vectors for failure -- while also offering improvements over the standard 1-2-3 methodology.
Bear in mind that home brewing is a fairly new phenomena (30-40 years). Hell, you go back more than about 20 years and you'd have a hard time finding a microbrew pretty much anywhere. The point is, craft brewing is not an ancient art form, at least not as it's currently understood and practiced -- it's a new and developing arena where methods and philosophies are constantly being refined.
Case in point: the extended primary is a very new technique, but one that has seen widespread use and appeal because, guess what, it works!
Danek
Well-Known Member
There will of course be some yeast transferred to secondary - enough to carbonate bottles later - but not enough to do an effective job of cleaning up after themselves.
If you're really curious about this, why not do a side-by-side comparison of two beers, one racked to secondary after 7-10 days, and one bottled straight from primary after several weeks? That'd resolve it once and for all.
Yah I do want to try that eventually.
flowerysong
Well-Known Member
Nah, it's more like 50% for me. I don't recall ever purposefully insulting someone here, though it's certainly possible. And Revvy's just crotchety.
Well, comparatively speaking they are. They cover a subset of the huge range of possibilities when it comes to brewing (and rightfully so, as overwhelming new brewers with excess detail is contraindicated). Can you limit yourself thusly and still make great beer? Sure. But that doesn't mean that nothing outside of the subset is helpful, or that people who do things differently aren't allowed to hold and express opinions. Also, brewing is not a static field, and what's viewed as best practice is affected not just by personal preference, but also by new discoveries and other passing winds of fancy.
yeoldebrewer
Well-Known Member
Swampsn, There's a world of brewing expertise on this forum. Lurk and learn.
EvilTOJ
Well-Known Member
Wow, you're kind of a dick, aren't you? Revvy and Flowerysong do more to help n00bs than you or I or 10 other people put together. Calling them dumb and negative isn't a great way to make friends.
Now, to actually answer your question, many new brewers want to tinker and feel like they're 'doing something' to help the process along. Racking to secondary is a great way to do that. It's mostly harmless, it does help with clarity, and it's good practice. I used to secondary beers all the time, but in my experience leaving it in the primary for 3 or 4 weeks does the same (or almost exactly the same) thing. So that's what I do. It's not 'wrong' per se, it's just a different way to do things. That's the beauty of homebrewing, is except for sanitation, there's no real 'wrong' way to make your own beer.
Jonnio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 10
Exactly - I like to primary at around 80 degrees, I find it much faster, also, if I bottle after about 4 days, they are usually carb'd and ready to go by day 6.
I guess my point is, despite the fact I don't want to feed the troll, there are ways to make drinkable beer, and ways to make great beer. Do whichever you like if it makes you feel good. I don't however recommend calling helpful people stupid to make yourself feel better. My mom told me that it wasn't nice.
Brew-boy
Well-Known Member
Sounds like my teenager kid....
flyangler18
Well-Known Member
Welcome to HBT!
I really debated with myself for a while, deciding whether it would be prudent to reply to your trollish remarks; perhaps I'll regret this later but I feel compelled to make a few clarifications:
The body of knowledge (and practical experience) is in flux and revision as new processes and methodologies are explored and fleshed out in practice; Palmer 'How to Brew' is in its 3rd (?) edition to make adjustments to the information contained therein in light of recent discoveries. Likewise, Papa Charlie has abandoned some of his earlier recommendations regarding blow-off. He had earlier written that krausen is full of compounds that would contribute to off-flavors and should not be pushed back into the beer; it has since been demonstrated that krausen is full of yeast cells that should be back in the beer! Some yeast strains are so vigorous that they beach themselves on the wall of the fermenter; those who adhere to Papazian's earlier statements would leave these on the wall, fearing off-flavors, and potentially stall out the fermentation.
I don't use a secondary myself (which should be more properly called a 'bright tank') for easily 90% of the beers that I make, but I don't malign those who choose to do so- provided that they fully understand why they are using them.
Hobbies run a real risk of becoming ossified when people repeat mindlessly information without an understanding of why it exists in the first place; some LHBS written about here recently are an indication that there's lots of dated information regarding brewing procedure and practice still being repeated and passed on to new brewers.
I won't even dignify your abrasive comments about Revvy and flowersong's intelligence with a response- except to say your mean-spiritedness makes you the worst kind of troll.
I really debated with myself for a while, deciding whether it would be prudent to reply to your trollish remarks; perhaps I'll regret this later but I feel compelled to make a few clarifications:
The body of knowledge (and practical experience) is in flux and revision as new processes and methodologies are explored and fleshed out in practice; Palmer 'How to Brew' is in its 3rd (?) edition to make adjustments to the information contained therein in light of recent discoveries. Likewise, Papa Charlie has abandoned some of his earlier recommendations regarding blow-off. He had earlier written that krausen is full of compounds that would contribute to off-flavors and should not be pushed back into the beer; it has since been demonstrated that krausen is full of yeast cells that should be back in the beer! Some yeast strains are so vigorous that they beach themselves on the wall of the fermenter; those who adhere to Papazian's earlier statements would leave these on the wall, fearing off-flavors, and potentially stall out the fermentation.
I don't use a secondary myself (which should be more properly called a 'bright tank') for easily 90% of the beers that I make, but I don't malign those who choose to do so- provided that they fully understand why they are using them.
Hobbies run a real risk of becoming ossified when people repeat mindlessly information without an understanding of why it exists in the first place; some LHBS written about here recently are an indication that there's lots of dated information regarding brewing procedure and practice still being repeated and passed on to new brewers.
I won't even dignify your abrasive comments about Revvy and flowersong's intelligence with a response- except to say your mean-spiritedness makes you the worst kind of troll.
IBTL. 
Let me know when your book comes out and I'll give it a read and compare. Until then, please keep such mean-spirited comments to yourself (at least for your own good) otherwise you'll be looking for a new forum to find information; which won't hold a candle to HBT.
Let me know when your book comes out and I'll give it a read and compare. Until then, please keep such mean-spirited comments to yourself (at least for your own good) otherwise you'll be looking for a new forum to find information; which won't hold a candle to HBT.
Many long time brewers have been guilty of being wrong. Holy Ship, really, humans make mistakes? I'm sure just as many HBT'ers have spouted off recommendations based on things they've heard or read without having the practical experience to back it up. I'm guilty of that too. However, until you've tried what you're so adamantly bitching against, STFU.
Emian
Well-Known Member
I don't know that anyone is saying that it's "wrong" in the literal sense. It's just not essential to do it.
You can keg a beer at 4 days direct from the primary if you want - especially if you use Safeale 05 dry yeast or Nottingham. It will be beer, and taste OK - at least one well known microbrewery in Oregon does that. It wont' be particularly clear beer - but it will taste just fine.
I've done the same beer both ways - 15 days in the primary, and 7 - 14 in a primary and secondary, and the main difference is clarity. I still use a secondary - but I usually have several beers going at any one time, and the secondary carboys are cheaper and I can fit more in my fermenting cupboard or my lagering fridge - so that's my main reason.
As for having a hard time believing that this site doesn't have as much experience - well, that's just simple math - there are dozens of brewers on this site who have brewed as much or more than published authors, who are willing to share their experiences with you. There is a tremendous amount of experience on this site and you will learn a lot if you take the time to look through it all. Don't blow off the knowledge you find here just because it isn't in a printed book.
Ian
You can keg a beer at 4 days direct from the primary if you want - especially if you use Safeale 05 dry yeast or Nottingham. It will be beer, and taste OK - at least one well known microbrewery in Oregon does that. It wont' be particularly clear beer - but it will taste just fine.
I've done the same beer both ways - 15 days in the primary, and 7 - 14 in a primary and secondary, and the main difference is clarity. I still use a secondary - but I usually have several beers going at any one time, and the secondary carboys are cheaper and I can fit more in my fermenting cupboard or my lagering fridge - so that's my main reason.
As for having a hard time believing that this site doesn't have as much experience - well, that's just simple math - there are dozens of brewers on this site who have brewed as much or more than published authors, who are willing to share their experiences with you. There is a tremendous amount of experience on this site and you will learn a lot if you take the time to look through it all. Don't blow off the knowledge you find here just because it isn't in a printed book.
Ian
Swampsn - if you were trolling in this thread, don't do it again. If not, I suggest you find a more eloquent way of making your points than going on the offensive.
Thread closed for personal attacks. We have always forbid that sort of thing here at HBT.
Thread closed for personal attacks. We have always forbid that sort of thing here at HBT.
- Status
Similar threads
