Originally Posted by osagedr
Not me, I jumped off this horse a long time ago, I feel everything's been said about this a million times over the last 5 years. I just point people to the info, and try to clear up misconceptions, I don't debate it anymore.
Why do we need to re-hash the same arguments? The information is here, even the OP has said he's read them...So why again? No matter how you rephrase something it's still the same discussion. No matter what kind of weapon you may choose, you're still beating the same dead horse with it.
You know why people do it, you know why people DON'T do it.... Try it both ways see how it works for YOU, and respect the fact that other people have different experiences. If you choose to secondary don't bash the folks that are successful with long primary, making snide comments like someone did in another thread like "if you don't want clear beer" or whatever. And vice versus. Whatever we choose we're not idiots, we wouldn't be doing whatever if it didn't work for us.
I don't like cloudy beer, I wouldn't be doing it if my beer wasn't crystal clear. I don't like to lose contests, I wouldn't be still doing it if I didn't win things, and didn't get great judging comments about my beers that I long primaried.
If these things didn't work we wouldn't be doing it, just like crystal pepsi....if something doesn't work then it's discarded.
5 years ago the idea of long primary was scandelous in the brewing community. It went against everyone's deep set fear of yeast and autolysis. AND those of us who thought maybe there was another way were pretty savagely attacked about their beliefs. Now enough people, including people like Palmer and Jamil, have said they were too hasty in their repeating of those old brewing chestnuts. And that long primaries won't lead to off flavors, and may be beneficial. Places like BYO and podcasts like basic brewing, have had intelligent dicussions and conduct at least rudimentary experiments. Some kit instructions and magazine recipes have reflected this shift. It's an accepted practice by many many brewers now. It's a choice.
I don't think it needs to be debated any more. People just need to do what works for them. If people have questions, or have never heard of this OPTION, they need to be answered. If people are still operating from the OLD words of Papazian (written 40 years ago) or the first edition of Palmer, where they erronously said it was HARMFUL, they need to be shown the latest info......But only so they can make up their own minds.
Education is one thing, but incessant debate about it, rehashing the same arguments and ideas already re-hashed a millionfold on here is just a waste of bandwith.
The only way is to experience it for yourself. Like everything else there's different ways to do things, and they both work.
In the beginning it had to be debated, because there was so much out there against this idea, and people were pretty nasty to those of us who had contrary ideas, but not so much anymore. There's now enough anecdotal and even some experimental data, to prove that it is not harmful and it is a valid option.... Whether it works for you or not, THAT'S NOT DEBATABLE ANYMORE.
Regardless of whether you secondary or not, it's about not rushing your beer into bottles
. If you rack to secondary for 6 weeks, or if you leave it in primary for 6 weeks, you're probably getting the same overall effect. (Though some of us think yeast contact improves the beer overall.)
Heck if your fermentation is complete in one week, yet you sit it in primary for another week and then secondary for 2 weeks or a month, you still are probably getting the same yeast contact/cleanup time, whether you rack it or not (we can only speculate.) If I do secondary to add fruit or something, I still leave it at least 2 weeks before moving it.
They both work. So rather than debate, just do what works for you.