Does anyone WHIRLPOOL when transferring to secondary???

I asked this question with the word "aerate" instead of "whirlpool", but that was a clear mistake.

What I consider whirlpooling seems like aerating, but it's obviously not. There's a difference.

Sooo... anyway....

My beer tastes best when I whirlpool....

- when I boil
- when I whirlpool after boil
- when I shake the carboy up BEFORE pitching
- when I shake the carboy up AFTER pitching
- when I am mixing in priming sugar
... and I just started a new experiment of
- turning bottles upside down once or twice, since no more oxygen can be added into a sealed bottle cap (we'll see how this last one worked, but I doubt it could do any harm, probably won't help an incredible amount either, tho)

Now I'm left wondering if anybody whirlpools **AFTER** racking from primary to secondary??? I could hardly see any disadvantage, since there is no trub... and since it works when whirlpooling with the priming sugar....

BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO IT??

The difference between my buddy who started us down this homebrew path is that he never wanted to disturb the beer, but I want to whirlpool it every chance I get (not introduce bubbles thru splashing, however!). It's all about an even solution, imho. Anybody else see this??

Sure temp is likely more important, but I think whirlpooling is another function that creates consistent brews.

It's not as much about introducing bubbles, but rather about increasing the contact area between the top of the beer and the air in the top of the fermenter. I don't think you understand the transfer of O2 into a solution, but that is all you're going to do if you whirlpool while racking to secondary. Many people don't even bother with racking to secondary unless the style or recipe specifically calls for it because of the increased risk of off-flavors due to oxygenation by merely splashing just a little bit. The only thing that I see happening is you oxidizing the hell out of your beer.

I've only been here since the END of March, so it's really like 2 & 1/2 months I've been here, but who's counting??? (edit: hmm... looks like I was off by a couple weeks, so obviously I haven't been counting)

I've already brewed 6 batches, because my friend already had the equipment... but he was having problems with consistency. I have solved his problems with my "even solutions" solution.

Just wondering if I'm the only person who has considered this??? I've seen a number of people who believe that oxygenation is not something that's as serious as others here make it out to seem.

Again, I get a MAD whirlpool going on when racking to the bottling bucket.

WHY??

Because of my friend's experience. He didn't want to stir the priming sugar in, because John Palmer told him not to. I never read Palmer's book, and I'm thankful I didn't. I could see that maybe 1/3rd of my friend's bottles were over-carbed, another 1/3rd were under-carbed, and the last 1/3rd were just right??? He must have done dozens of batches without me, while away at college, and he never thought to stir...

I've now seen other people who whirlpool in bottling bucket... and, surprisingly, even people who turn their bottled beers upside down a couple times (search my posts).

I've yet to see somebody say they whirlpool in secondary, however. Sure, you don't like secondary. That's for another thread.

But we like doing secondary!! We get the beer off the bulk of the trub, and we can wash the yeast for later storage. We have plenty of yeast, so we can use some of the older yeast in a boil as yeast nutrient

Anyway....

Let's get back to THE TOPIC....

Does anyone WHIRLPOOL, or STIR, their beer when transferring to secondary??

edit: sure I could do this on 2 or 3 of our next few batches, but the entire point of me posting on a discussion forum is to discover things I wouldn't discover on my own (i.e. - cheap 15 gal conical fermenters, hop bursting, adding zero-min additions after chilling wort to 180-190 deg, yeast washing, tossing old yeast in the boil as yeast nutrient, yeast harvesting from Rogue Brutal bottles, etcetera). But today I want to discuss one thing from somebody with experience.

I whirlpool into my secondary and into my bottling bucket...basically because having the tubing parrallel with the bucket is the best way to avoid oxidation and naturally creates a whirlpool. Never had an oxidation issue with a secondary either.

jmendez29 said:

This doesn't sound arrogant.

Why would you stir when you transfer to secondary? If the point is to get the beer off of the yeast, then why would you stir it back in before you rack it?

Click to expand...

That IS a good question. Why WOULD you stir the trub back into the secondary, after leaving it behind in the primary???? I sure don't move the trub into the secondary, because that's the entire purpose of the secondary. I rinse the trub with boiled and cooled water.... throw that water into the 6-gal carboy.... swirl it all around and dump into a pot.... letting the actual trub fall to the bottom of the pot for 30 minutes (while cleaning the 6-gal carboy for another rounding of primary fermentation!)... then siphon the liquid "beer" on top into some mason jars, where they will THEN be put into a fridge. After a day or two, the yeast will have completely settled out at the bottom of the mason jars. When ready to pitch the yeast the next week... pour the liquid off, pour a tad bit of boiled & cooled water in to rehydrate the yeast, shake well, shake the carboy well also, then pitch the rehydrated yeast!!!

I'm theorizing that whirlpooling / stirring in secondary is good for the same reason it's good to whirlpool at any other stage -- to provide for an EVEN, PREDICTABLE solution for the yeasties. I have this theory of mine that homebrewers get such varied results when it comes to bottling for two main reasons -- (1) high temps, and (2) fear of "oxygenating, disturbing the yeast".

Calichusetts said:

I whirlpool into my secondary and into my bottling bucket...basically because having the tubing parrallel with the bucket is the best way to avoid oxidation and naturally creates a whirlpool. Never had an oxidation issue with a secondary either.

Click to expand...

See....

This is what my buddy was doing. Letting the racking hose "naturally" create a whirlpool, as suggested by [Palmer?], at least most everyone on this forum. But his bottles just don't carbonate as consistently as when we take the racking cane and create a VORTEX swirl in the bottling bucket.

If a vortex swirl won't destroy the beer before bottling, then I don't see how the same exact amount of swirling at an earlier step, just after you have REMOVED the beer from the trub & sleeping yeasties... will destroy the beer.

Even a vortex swirl of ~1 minute or so [after the "natural whirlpool"] would give a fraction of a fraction of "oxygen" to come in contact with "surface yeast".

I'm really surprised more people don't physically use the racking cane itself to swirl than just let the output of the racking hose cause a "slight" whirlpool. Maybe our hose is smaller than most or something?? Either way, I've seen the light!! :fro:

I not only whirlpool every time I transfer. I also boil it. If boiling is good during one part of the process it must be good everywhere in the process. I boil my mash. I boil before and after pitching yeast. I boil before transferring to the secondary and I boil right before I bottle it. Kill all the nasties as often as possible.

Special Hops said:

I not only whirlpool every time I transfer. I also boil it. If boiling is good during one part of the process it must be good everywhere in the process. I boil my mash. I boil before and after pitching yeast. I boil before transferring to the secondary and I boil right before I bottle it. Kill all the nasties as often as possible.

Click to expand...

But boiling the wort, even without the yeast... destroys the FOOD for the yeasties.

This is why it's been said the best flavor/aroma hops addition you can make is AFTER the wort has chilled to around 180 to 190 degrees, for about 10 min, then continue chilling.

(If you've ever met a good cook, their secret is to likely cook the food at a lower temperature for a longer time. Why would extracting sugars or isomerizing hop oils be any different??)

Boiling the beer is obviously going to destroy the yeast,

MalFet....

My friend has seen, time and time again, his bottled brews never receive CONSISTENT carbonation.

The only thing I changed was getting him to use the racking cane to swirl the solution in the bottling bucket. Since then, we have had ZERO problems with carbonation or anything else.

Again, perhaps his hose is thinner than most and does not create fast enough of a "natural whirlpool"???

But I just found it odd that he didn't want to "disturb the yeast", but then finally agreed once he realized that by racking to the bottling bucket... he just left the trub behind.

I've already discussed this elsewhere, and people say that they swirl and see NO EFFECTS OF OXIDATION. Has anyone seen the effects of oxidation from simply swirling and not splashing???

This *definitely* works in the bottling bucket. So you ask, why wouldn't the beer in the secondary be a solution?? I'm not a yeast, so I can't answer that question.... but half the time our last batch sat in the secondary (and even with a 10-day primary; ale, btw), it had dark and light "splotches" all throughout the carboy. It all became dark last time I looked (bottle day is in 2 more days).... but perhaps swirling in secondary could make secondary times go by quicker????

An even solution for the yeast IS NECESSARY, and most particularly in homebrew bottling.

I think the fear of oxidation is one reason why people move to kegs so quickly. They say it's "better", but they've never had one of my beers.

MalFet said:

These things (sugars, hop oils, etc.) are in solution. That means that they are already as mixed as they can possibly be.

Click to expand...

Soo... you're implying that when these proteins and such are mixed into a liquid solution.... THAT THEY'LL STAY IN SOLUTION FOREVER??!?!?

I don't think that's the case.

grndslm said:

Soo... you're implying that when these proteins and such are mixed into a liquid solution.... THAT THEY'LL STAY IN SOLUTION FOREVER??!?!?

I don't think that's the case.

Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong.

This is basic chemistry. Solutions maintain homogenous mixture. Here's an experiment for you: make a jar of Kool-Aid, set it on the ledge, and wait six months. Come back and see if the sugars have settled out. I do this with canned wort all of the time.

The comparison to priming sugar in the bottling bucket is completely different. There, you're combining two different solutions, and the "whirlpooling" effect does a great job of mechanically mixing the solutions. This is a common technique, even advocated by Palmer. Whirlpooling a homogenous solution, on the other hand, just won't do anything.

Trust me...I have 77 thumbs up.

I love it when a noob asks a question and then gets upset and tells everyone they're wrong when they answer.

Stirring the bottling bucket helps the sugar mix evenly into the rest of the solution. It has nothing to do with making an "even solution" of anything. Stirring the secondary is *at best* entirely pointless (since it accomplishes nothing positive), and at worst will oxidize your beer. That's all there is to say.

grndslm said:

Let's get back to THE TOPIC....

Does anyone WHIRLPOOL, or STIR, their beer when transferring to secondary??

Click to expand...

No. Because the point of "secondary" is so that trub and suspended solids settle out further. Stirring it up before hand would be a ridiculous thing to do, even if it didn't oxidize the beer. The idea is to siphon from above the trub, to avoid transferring it, and then to allow further clearing in the second vessel with a bit of time.

grndslm said:

Either stay on topic with direct answers, discussion.... or go back to your hole if you want to BE one. This is a general statement for all those who like to take discussions [such as this one] off-topic with a snotty attitude such as this:

I'm mixing THE BEER (read: grain/extract sugars, isomerized hop oils, water, and yeast). DUH!!!

Click to expand...

Watch your tone and the way you "talk" to people.

grndslm said:

I've already discussed this elsewhere, and people say that they swirl and see NO EFFECTS OF OXIDATION. Has anyone seen the effects of oxidation from simply swirling and not splashing???

Click to expand...

Yes, I certainly have. Oxidation is one of the most common flaws at every homebrew competition. Even careful siphoning allows a bit of oxygen contact, and the older a beer the more the oxidation is obvious. In a young beer, it might only be a tinge of astringency on the sides of the tongue, so it's not really that bad. But it can be picked out as a flaw with an experienced judge.

grndslm said:

Hmmm.... I might just have to give you your 78th thumbs up then??

OK... we're getting somewhere. Whirlpooling in the bottling bucket works because it's two different solutions. Whirlpooling in the secondary just might work for yeast reasons... "cleaning up after itself" more than the "actual solution" itself.

Again, after an ale's 10-day primary and half-way thru its 3-week secondary.... there are dark and light blotches all around its carboy. This would very likely be the same regardless of whether I whirlpooled after racking to secondary or not. But perhaps, it could make the secondary fermentation process more efficient, quicker, etc.??

Click to expand...

Mechanical agitation of beer as it transfers to secondary will (at best) do nothing and (at worst) oxidize. (And, yes, oxidation is real. If you can't taste it, no worries, but an experienced judge will.) There is nothing to mix, and mechanical agitation will not cause the already suspended yeast and already solublilzed sugars/oils/etc to behave any differently.

grndslm said:

If I must be the first to try it out, then so be it. But I'm certainly not expecting any NEGATIVE side effects in the beer itself.

Click to expand...

Then your expectations are unrealistic.

emjay said:

Stirring the bottling bucket helps the sugar mix evenly into the rest of the solution. It has nothing to do with making an "even solution" of anything. Stirring the secondary is *at best* entirely pointless (since it accomplishes nothing positive), and at worst will oxidize your beer. That's all there is to say.

Click to expand...

I think at worst is entirely pointless... and at best will allow the yeast to clean up faster.

Yooper said:

No. Because the point of "secondary" is so that trub and suspended solids settle out further. Stirring it up before hand would be a ridiculous thing to do, even if it didn't oxidize the beer. The idea is to siphon from above the trub, to avoid transferring it, and then to allow further clearing in the second vessel with a bit of time.

Click to expand...

That's exactly correct!!!! I'm not transferring the primary trub into the secondary. The trub that falls in the secondary will likely fall, regardless of however much it has been stirred, due to gravity.

Our last batch had very little trub in secondary anyway. I also imagine that... if we spun the beer up in secondary, then that the same exact ("very little") amount of suspended solids would fall.

Similar to how washing yeast requires you to wait the 30 minutes. The solids WILL settle out, in VERY short amount of time.

Yooper said:

Watch your tone and the way you "talk" to people.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Yooper said:

Yes, I certainly have. Oxidation is one of the most common flaws at every homebrew competition. Even careful siphoning allows a bit of oxygen contact, and the older a beer the more the oxidation is obvious. In a young beer, it might only be a tinge of astringency on the sides of the tongue, so it's not really that bad. But it can be picked out as a flaw with an experienced judge.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I guess the only solution is for us to try the primary-only fermentation see if it improves the beer.

emjay said:

Oh, and don't forget to "whirlpool" your bottle before serving. Swirl it nice and good before opening. Getting all that yeast back into an "even solution" can only be a good thing, right? Though it'll probably taste more like an odd solution...

Click to expand...

Umm... you forgot the "racking to the glass" step. Then swirl all you want.

Special Hops said:

Do us all a favor. Since you are so sure of it, whirlpool before transferring to secondary and let us know how it goes.

Click to expand...

Ack! This is going to be a severe case of ugly baby syndrome - not just a beer he created, but a process too. The beer could taste like pure cardboard and he'll still say it improved his beer... He'll probably even believe it, too.

grndslm said:

Interesting. I guess the only solution is for us to try the primary-only fermentation see if it improves the beer.

Click to expand...

Or how about just not stirring the ****ing secondary?!

And I say that as someone who generally only primaries.

grndslm said:

Umm... you forgot the "racking to the glass" step. Then swirl all you want.

Click to expand...

Why not swirl before pouring it as well? If once is good, twice is better, right?

emjay said:

Or how about just not stirring the ****ing secondary?!

And I say that as someone who generally only primaries.

Click to expand...

Or how about I do both, and I realize the difference between no oxidation and minimal oxidation for myself??

emjay said:

Why not swirl before pouring it as well? If once is good, twice is better, right?

Click to expand...

You know the drill....

Separate from trub, THEN swirl.

This step takes place:

- from kettle to primary
- from primary to secondary (conventional "wisdom" desires as minimal swirling as possible, apparently)
- from secondary to bottling bucket
- from bottle to glass

Keep on topic...

OP - If you ask for opinions, listen to the opinions. If you're looking for unconditional endorsement of your ideas, you're in the wrong forum.

I am definitely listening.

And I am responding about the topic and the topic only.

MalFet said:

Mechanical agitation of beer as it transfers to secondary will (at best) do nothing and (at worst) oxidize. (And, yes, oxidation is real. If you can't taste it, no worries, but an experienced judge will.) There is nothing to mix, and mechanical agitation will not cause the already suspended yeast and already solublilzed sugars/oils/etc to behave any differently.

Click to expand...

This is my point to Yooper.... that mixing up the secondary will have no effect on trub.

I am not particularly qualified to say whether or not whirlpooling *after* transferring to secondary will or will not cause the suspended yeast to behave any differently, however.

I'm a little confused. When I brew a beer, I do use a secondary, personal preference I know, but I feel I get a lot clearer beer that way, again, my opinion and probably ignorance. But I have brewed many batches and have never had inconsistency that would negate me to want to introduce anything that I wouldn't have to, to the beer, the more steps, the more agitation, the more risk of oxidation or introducing bacteria. I let it ferment for two (ish) weeks, rack to a secondary, wait a week, take a hydrometer reading 3 days in a row, if no change in gravity, bottle. I don't know what the advantage of "speeding" things up would be, another reason I bottle, if I wanted it done fast, I'd force carb an keg. Sanitize a cup or so of water, dissolve priming sugar, poor in bottling bucket, put hose from carboy to bucket, turn on, and watch it fill, I let the natural whirlpool mix the sugar up as it fills, and bottle from there, no problems ever, again, different stokes for different folks, just saying, I have never run across a problem.

grndslm said:

This is my point to Yooper.... that mixing up the secondary will have no effect on trub.

I am not particularly qualified to say whether or not whirlpooling *after* transferring to secondary will or will not cause the suspended yeast to behave any differently, however.

Click to expand...

It won't.

amurphyz said:

I'm a little confused. When I brew a beer, I do use a secondary, personal preference I know, but I feel I get a lot clearer beer that way, again, my opinion and probably ignorance. But I have brewed many batches and have never had inconsistency that would negate me to want to introduce anything that I wouldn't have to, to the beer, the more steps, the more agitation, the more risk of oxidation or introducing bacteria. I let it ferment for two (ish) weeks, rack to a secondary, wait a week, take a hydrometer reading 3 days in a row, if no change in gravity, bottle. I don't know what the advantage of "speeding" things up would be, another reason I bottle, if I wanted it done fast, I'd force carb an keg. Sanitize a cup or so of water, dissolve priming sugar, poor in bottling bucket, put hose from carboy to bucket, turn on, and watch it fill, I let the natural whirlpool mix the sugar up as it fills, and bottle from there, no problems ever, again, different stokes for different folks, just saying, I have never run across a problem.

Click to expand...

Lots of people have problems with inconsistency of bottling....
[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=608&q=site%3Ahomebrewtalk.com+inconsistency+of+bottling&oq=site%3Ahomebrewtalk.com+inconsistency+of+bottling&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...5137.5614.0.5855.2.2.0.0.0.0.48.95.2.2.0...0.0.vVbQHZj2fbU]"inconsistency of bottling"[/ame]


I really think the thing that inspired this whole thought stems from our last batch, where I boiled the hops only, turned the burner off, then added the extract, and NOT turning the burner back on. The wort was yellow. By the time we racked to secondary, it was still a very, very light brown. But half-way thru secondary, I can see a slightly "bloodier" color of clouds in the beer, which is presumably the "output" of the yeast. Perhaps swirling the yeast around would have made those clouds more uniform and, hence, more EFFECTIVE in addition to being more efficient. You are correct, that time efficiency shouldn't be too important.... but maybe swirling (without splashing) the yeast in secondary is just as good as swirling the yeast in primary??

I guess what I really need is a 5-gallon stir plate.

grndslm said:

I can see a slightly "bloodier" color of clouds in the beer, which is presumably the "output" of the yeast.

Click to expand...

that's wrong.

I still don't get why the OP is advocating whirlpooling before transferring into secondary. It accomplishes absolutely nothing except potentially oxidizing the beer, and if anything it stirs up sediment that would otherwise have stayed in the primary.


Also, to the OP, you clearly do not understand why people whirlpool in brewing.

The purpose of the whirlpool post-boil is that it concentrates the sediment into the center of the vessel. The sediment doesn't automatically drop out when you whirlpool, though. You whirlpool, and then you WAIT, 20 minutes or so, until the sediment has formed a nice, neat cone in the center. Then you carefully rack the liquid from the kettle. The reason you want a cone in the center is because the dip tube in your boil kettle is on the edge of the kettle, so the cone in the center keeps sediment from going into the dip tube.

When you are transferring to secondary, there is absolutely no need to whirlpool because you typically use a racking cane or autosiphon, which pulls liquid from above the sediment, which is settled across the bottom in a nice compact cake (usually).

Also, one other thought about why this interests me...

is that we've been losing a few beers somehow, recently... and we've been adding like a half gallon or so of boiled water directly to the primary in order to make up for it. Tipping the carboy around for a minute, without actually using somethin inside to actually STIR the liquid..... might mean that we didn't exactly have a homogenous solution to begin with???

weirdboy said:

I still don't get why the OP is advocating whirlpooling before transferring into secondary. It accomplishes absolutely nothing except potentially oxidizing the beer, and if anything it stirs up sediment that would otherwise have stayed in the primary.

Click to expand...

There's no sediment to stir up, because he is advocating whirlpool in the beer that has already transferred to the secondary.

But you are right...there is nothing to be gained by it.

weirdboy said:

I still don't get why the OP is advocating whirlpooling before transferring into secondary. It accomplishes absolutely nothing except potentially oxidizing the beer, and if anything it stirs up sediment that would otherwise have stayed in the primary.

Click to expand...

*AFTER* transferring to secondary.

You never saw me use the word BEFORE. ev. ar.

I used the words "while" and "when", and these were the source of confusion, methinks. It made plenty of sense to me, since my previous thread was "do you aerate *after* transferring to secondary".... but aerate wasn't the proper word. Whirlpooling / Stirring do not necessarily mean "aerating".

EDIT: if a mod could change the thread title to "*after* transfer to secondary", that could probably end most of the angst in this thread.

grndslm said:

Also, one other thought about why this interests me...

is that we've been losing a few beers somehow, recently... and we've been adding like a half gallon or so of boiled water directly to the primary in order to make up for it. Tipping the carboy around for a minute, without actually using somethin inside to actually STIR the liquid..... might mean that we didn't exactly have a homogenous solution to begin with???

Click to expand...

fermentation will homogenize the solution.

motobrewer said:

that's wrong.

Click to expand...

which part??

you're telling me that beer happens thru spontaneous combustion?

grndslm said:

which part??

you're telling me that beer happens thru spontaneous combustion?

Click to expand...

um, the part i quoted - that you are seeing the "output", as you put it, of the yeast.

grndslm said:

*AFTER* transferring to secondary.

You never saw me use the word BEFORE. ev. ar.

I used the words "while" and "when", and these were the source of confusion, methinks. It made plenty of sense to me, since my previous thread was "do you aerate *after* transferring to secondary".... but aerate wasn't the proper word. Whirlpooling / Stirring do not necessarily mean "aerating".

EDIT: if a mod could change the thread title to "*after* transfer to secondary", that could probably end most of the angst in this thread.

Click to expand...

Still useless. Please see my previous post, as I added some more descriptions that might explain why it is completely useless.



If you think whirlpooling doesn't introduce oxygen, you should probably let all those brewers and microbiologists know they are wasting their money on stir plates.

motobrewer said:

fermentation will homogenize the solution.

Click to expand...

With this being said, this thread can be locked.

weirdboy said:

The purpose of the whirlpool post-boil is that it concentrates the sediment into the center of the vessel. The sediment doesn't automatically drop out when you whirlpool, though. You whirlpool, and then you WAIT, 20 minutes or so, until the sediment has formed a nice, neat cone in the center. Then you carefully rack the liquid from the kettle. The reason you want a cone in the center is because the dip tube in your boil kettle is on the edge of the kettle, so the cone in the center keeps sediment from going into the dip tube.

Click to expand...

See the "cold break question" thread in the Brew Science forum. Proteins drop out due to temperature.

The sediment does automatically drop out regardless of whether or not I whirlpool. I understand the cone bit, but I'm really not going to go there right now.

motobrewer said:

um, the part i quoted - that you are seeing the "output", as you put it, of the yeast.

Click to expand...

soo... the beer gets darker from spontaneous combustion, and not from the yeast???

weirdboy said:

Still useless. Please see my previous post, as I added some more descriptions that might explain why it is completely useless.

Click to expand...

I missed the part where you proved whirlpooling was "completely useless". That would seem very difficult to prove a negative. You would likely have to have done it before yourself; then and only then would we have empirical evidence.

weirdboy said:

If you think whirlpooling doesn't introduce oxygen, you should probably let all those brewers and microbiologists know they are wasting their money on stir plates.

Click to expand...

It looks to me like a stir plate introduces just as much oxygen as a racking cane creating a whirlpool.

j1laskey said:

With this being said, this thread can be locked.

Click to expand...

No, that wouldn't make any sense. There is a discussion going on here.

If you have more important things to do, then don't let us get in your way.

grndslm said:

soo... the beer gets darker from spontaneous combustion, and not from the yeast???

Click to expand...

Can't tell if you're being rude or are just terribly dense.

Of course the apparent color of the beer changes color. When the yeast have reproduced to appropriate concentrations they will spread throughout the wort and make the wort look much much lighter. Then, once they drop out, the beer will get much darker.... and also much darker than what it will look like in a pint glass.

How about you take some advice from people who know what they are doing and not insist that you know the answer to the question you're asking.

I missed the part where you proved whirlpooling was "completely useless". That would seem very difficult to prove a negative. You would likely have to have done it before yourself; then and only then would we have empirical evidence.

Click to expand...

*sigh* if you are really going to be this defensive, then let's use the scientific method.
State your hypothesis and predictions up front as to why whirlpooling will help your beer.

It looks to me like a stir plate introduces just as much oxygen as a racking cane creating a whirlpool.

Click to expand...

And oxygen causes oxidation, which means off flavors in your beer. Also, maybe I'm not understanding your statement, but I don't get a whirlpool when I use my racking cane. Maybe you're doing something wrong.