How long in the Primary

[kevinb]

I know this question gets asked often and the common feedback seems to be longer is better. However I am really confused. I just read the beginner section of "The complete joy of homebrewing" and it seems to contradict this. The book suggests that the best time to bottle is immediately after fermentation stops and at least within 2 -3 weeks.

Can anyone give me some insight about why popular opinion seems to contradict the book?

 

[Andrew5329]

The actual fermentation finishes within a week or two on average, longer for some really high gravity beers. The reason people say to leave it in longer is because something called conditioning occurs when a whole number of chemical changes (that take a 2 course sequence in organic chemistry to fully explain) take place.

In layman's terms when you do a "secondary" fermentation, or extended primary your letting the yeast work out a lot of the unsavory molecules that cause off tastes/odors which then leave the beer.

Most of the conditioning process will occur in a bottle too, but it happens a lot faster in a fermentation vessel because the yeast are more active.

 

[homebrewdad]

Because the book is out of date and refers to a time when homebrew yeast selection was limited and health was poor. Autolysis was the big concern, that the yeast would die and give off flavors to the beer.

Yeast "technology" (for lack of a better word) has come a loooooong way since that book was published.

Autolysis is only an issue on the commercial level where the massive batches creature huge pressure on the yeast. Your five gallon batch cannot do this.

I have seen posts reporting up to a *year* in primary with no ill effects. Three weeks is a very common time frame, but you'll see those who regularly leave it longer than that.

 

[Andrew5329]

Because the book is out of date and refers to a time when homebrew yeast selection was limited and health was poor. Autolysis was the big concern, that the yeast would die and give off flavors to the beer.

Yeast "technology" (for lack of a better word) has come a loooooong way since that book was published.

Autolysis is only an issue on the commercial level where the massive batches creature huge pressure on the yeast. Your five gallon batch cannot do this.

I have seen posts reporting up to a *year* in primary with no ill effects. Three weeks is a very common time frame, but you'll see those who regularly leave it longer than that.

To be fair the book isnt that out of date, the origional book was published in the 80s but the newest edition was about 2003 and it mentions extended primary as a new trend in homebrewing. just thought I'd share that with you.

 

[homebrewdad]

To be fair the book isnt that out of date, the origional book was published in the 80s but the newest edition was about 2003 and it mentions extended primary as a new trend in homebrewing. just thought I'd share that with you.

The version the OP read warns against leaving the beer in primary any longer than absolutely necessary. Ergo, it is out of date.

It doesn't matter to me that the newest printing corrects this - the printing that HE READ was out of date.

See what I mean?

 

[jmprdood]

It's all good. Bottle once the SG is steady over a few days, but don't be worried if you have to leave it for 3-4 weeks. Yeast is better and more consistent now. I usually bottle at about the 2 week mark if SG is stable.

Cheers!

 

[looneybomber]

My Mr.Beers generally sat in the fermented 3-5wks. I would say leave it sit a minimum of 3wks if you're not taking gravity measures, just in case. If you are taking measurements, let it sit a week after fermentation is done so the yeast can clean up, then either secondary on other flavorings, or bottle.

 

[befus]

It's all good. Bottle once the SG is steady over a few days, but don't be worried if you have to leave it for 3-4 weeks. Yeast is better and more consistent now. I usually bottle at about the 2 week mark if SG is stable.

Cheers!

See, even now there is a divergence in opinion on these issues. The ONE thing which has almost universally changed since I began brewing in the late 80's is the previously adhered to practice of transferring to a secondary fermenter. This is related to the same root as your post, the effect of yeast on the beer as it ages and conditions. While once standard it is now seen as a mostly needless practice which increases the chance of oxidation and a slightly increased chance of infection. There are still some situations caling for, and individuals using secondaries, but most of us now leave it in the primary for the length of time we used to secondary. As dood pointed out some differ, and really we used to primary a week, secondary a week and bottle sometimes, so not so different after all.

 

[kevinb]

Thanks everyone. I think I will leave it for four weeks and then bottle.

 

[dfc]

Because the book is out of date and refers to a time when homebrew yeast selection was limited and health was poor. Autolysis was the big concern, that the yeast would die and give off flavors to the beer.

Yeast "technology" (for lack of a better word) has come a loooooong way since that book was published.

Autolysis is only an issue on the commercial level where the massive batches creature huge pressure on the yeast. Your five gallon batch cannot do this.

I have seen posts reporting up to a *year* in primary with no ill effects. Three weeks is a very common time frame, but you'll see those who regularly leave it longer than that.

I just bottled an Imperial Stout (9.9%) that sat in primary for over 2 months.

 

[duboman]

As with anything in this hobby, you will always get various opinions on many subjects and there really is never a definitive right or wrong way to go about something. A lot of decisions made are based upon an individual's process and what works best for them.

That being said there has been a lot of evolution in the craft of making beer, both in the equipment available and the ingredients available to us. The quality and understanding of the yeast we have available to us today is far greater and so a lot of the concerns that were present in the past are no longer necessary today.

Essentially, once the beer has reached a stable final gravity it can be moved either to secondary or package with no ill effects. However, general practice has confirmed that leaving the beer on the yeast for additional time has improved the overall quality of the beer but the amount of additional time will vary on the brewer, style, OG, FG, Time, etc.

 

[kevinb]

Essentially, once the beer has reached a stable final gravity it can be moved either to secondary or package with no ill effects. However, general practice has confirmed that leaving the beer on the yeast for additional time has improved the overall quality of the beer but the amount of additional time will vary on the brewer, style, OG, FG, Time, etc.

I brewed the following recipe:
Extracts:
9 lbs Amber Extract

Grains:
1/2 lb Cara-Pils
1/2 lb Crystal
1/4 lb Roasted

hops:
1 oz Willamette Hop Pellets
1 oz. Kent Golding hop Pellets
1 oz Cascade Hop Pellets
1 oz Hallertau Hop Pellets

Yeast:
Wyeast 1084

I kept this beer at about 68° while it was fermenting and it is now sitting at about 64F. The SG was about 1.058 and I expect the FG to be 1.010. I am thinking about leaving it in the primary for 4 weeks. What are your thoughts? I am so confused. I thought I had an idea about what I was doing.

 

[RiffMagnum]

I'm most comfortable with the method of making sure my F.G. is stable and fermentation is complete, then giving it one more week in primary before bottling.
That's just me though, but i feel it gives me peace of mind without wasting too much time in primary just for the hell of it.

 

[homebrewdad]

I kept this beer at about 68° while it was fermenting and it is now sitting at about 64F. The SG was about 1.058 and I expect the FG to be 1.010. I am thinking about leaving it in the primary for 4 weeks. What are your thoughts? I am so confused. I thought I had an idea about what I was doing.

You should be just fine doing it this way.

 

[duboman]

I brewed the following recipe:
Extracts:
9 lbs Amber Extract

Grains:
1/2 lb Cara-Pils
1/2 lb Crystal
1/4 lb Roasted

hops:
1 oz Willamette Hop Pellets
1 oz. Kent Golding hop Pellets
1 oz Cascade Hop Pellets
1 oz Hallertau Hop Pellets

Yeast:
Wyeast 1084

I kept this beer at about 68° while it was fermenting and it is now sitting at about 64F. The SG was about 1.058 and I expect the FG to be 1.010. I am thinking about leaving it in the primary for 4 weeks. What are your thoughts? I am so confused. I thought I had an idea about what I was doing.

If there is no dry hopping being done I would look at a total of 3 weeks primary time, then bottle/keg and this beer should turn out well. Good job on maintaining the fermentation temperatures!

My general process is to pitch my yeast (I use liquid and always make a starter) and allow the beer to reach final gravity which is usually in the range of 5-10 days depending on the beer. Then I will allow the beer an additional week for average gravity, two for higher gravity or dry hopping and then I package.

 

[pjj2ba]

Because the book is out of date and refers to a time when homebrew yeast selection was limited and health was poor. Autolysis was the big concern, that the yeast would die and give off flavors to the beer.

Yeast "technology" (for lack of a better word) has come a loooooong way since that book was published.

Autolysis is only an issue on the commercial level where the massive batches creature huge pressure on the yeast. Your five gallon batch cannot do this.

I have seen posts reporting up to a *year* in primary with no ill effects. Three weeks is a very common time frame, but you'll see those who regularly leave it longer than that.

I wouldn't call the book outdated. What was written, even in the first edition, are still perfectly good methods and techniques to use and will make great beer. What has changed is that we have found new additional ways to do things - not necessarily better, it just gives us more options. Plus we have access to much better equipment (which may help some folks)

As someone who was brewing back then, I don't think the yeast are any better now than they were back them. What is different is they are packaged more conveniently and we have access to more strains. I don't think there is much quality difference.

What has changed is that the homebrewer of today is often MUCH better at managing the temperature of fermentation. Back then it was pretty much pitch the yeast and that was it. The beer fermented at whatever temperature the room was at - often on the warm side. We didn't ahve an appreciation for how a couple of degrees can affect the beer. Under these conditions, the yeast are more likely to have an impact on the flavor, hence the advice to move the beer to a secondary to minimize the influence of the yeast cake on the flavors. Now that many of us are much better at managing the temperatures, we have found that it is OK to leave the beer on the yeast longer with much less influence of the yeast cake on the flavor. However, if one does not have a good control of temperature, then racking to a secondary is still very good advice, unless you like the extra flavors from sitting on the yeast longer.

 

[homebrewdad]

I wouldn't call the book outdated. What was written, even in the first edition, are still perfectly good methods and techniques to use and will make great beer. What has changed is that we have found new additional ways to do things - not necessarily better, it just gives us more options. Plus we have access to much better equipment (which may help some folks)

As someone who was brewing back then, I don't think the yeast are any better now than they were back them. What is different is they are packaged more conveniently and we have access to more strains. I don't think there is much quality difference.

What has changed is that the homebrewer of today is often MUCH better at managing the temperature of fermentation. Back then it was pretty much pitch the yeast and that was it. The beer fermented at whatever temperature the room was at - often on the warm side. We didn't ahve an appreciation for how a couple of degrees can affect the beer. Under these conditions, the yeast are more likely to have an impact on the flavor, hence the advice to move the beer to a secondary to minimize the influence of the yeast cake on the flavors. Now that many of us are much better at managing the temperatures, we have found that it is OK to leave the beer on the yeast longer with much less influence of the yeast cake on the flavor. However, if one does not have a good control of temperature, then racking to a secondary is still very good advice, unless you like the extra flavors from sitting on the yeast longer.

Sigh. The advice to get the yeast off the cake is outdated - no ifs, ands, or buts. My earlier post explained why. The book is full of great advice and comes from more knowledge that I would begin to claim, but some of it is outdated.

As for temperature control? I submit that most new homebrewers do now what they did when the book was new - they brew a batch which sits in a closet or basement with no more temperature control than that. And the beer is still fine, because of the healthy yeast. They might get other off flavors from high/inconsistent ferm tempsl but no autolysis, which was the boogeyman behind getting beer off the yeast cake.

 

[pjj2ba]

Sigh. The advice to get the yeast off the cake is outdated - no ifs, ands, or buts.

This is strictly a matter of personal taste.

It used to be said that leaving the beer on the yeast too long would harm your beer. This clearly is not the case in most situations. This has somehow morphed into that it is bad to use a secondary. Getting the yeast off the cake promptly is still a perfectly valid technique - for those who prefer the flavor of the resultant beer. Both methods work just fine. Some folks prefer the flavor of beers done one way, and some prefer flavors of beers done the other way - others still don't care. That doesn't make a method outdated.

Once you pitch viable yeast, no matter how unhealthy it might be at that point, it will divide and produce perfectly healthy yeast, and the daughter cells will produce more healthy yeast (at a rate of approximately 1 division per hour). Think about how much yeast we pitch an how much is there at the end. A tiny bit of unhealthy yeast added at the start is not going to have much flavor influence on the beer - except for what happens as a result of under-pitching.

The real myth is that normal autolysis results in strong disagreeable off flavors, not that autolysis in not occuring. Autolysis is a normal part of the yeast culture cycle. Look in any microbiology text book. Based on the number of people advocating long primaries, clearly autolysis produces flavors that many people in fact like quite a bit. Wine makers are well aware of yeast autolysis and the desireable flavors it contributes.

What does make for some nasty flavors is when you add an infection on top of that. There are a number of anerobic bacteria that love nothing better than to dine on dead yeast. Unfortunately this has been attributed to autolysis alone, which is clearly not the case.

 

[duboman]

The only thing I would add is that on a home brew scale auto lysis is never a concern. In commercial brewery's it can be because of the weight of the beer sitting and compacting on yeast. Home brewers are not putting hundreds of pounds of beer on the yeast cake.

 

[kevinb]

Now you guys are just trying to confuse the noobie, right

 

[pjj2ba]

Now you guys are just trying to confuse the noobie, right

Not intentionally. Just keep in mind that there are lots of different ways to handle your beer that will result in great tasting beer. I always like to recommend to use the procedures that are the most convenient to YOU. Don't try and force yourself to do it the way so and so does it. You are not brewing on so and so's equipment in their house. Figure out what techniques work best for your situation and do that. Over time you'll find little ways that make things work smoother and slowly add them in to your routine.

When I went all-grain, I was trying new techniques/equipment every time. Invariably I'd get to the new step/equipment and it wouldn't go smoothly. Some things were never tried/used again. Others I can't imagine brewing without. However, I realize that just because it works great for me, that doesn't mean it will for everyone.

The make a long story short, do what feels right to you, and keep an open mind and try new things

 

[Yooper]

Sigh. The advice to get the yeast off the cake is outdated - no ifs, ands, or buts.

Sorry, I don't agree. I agree that no harm may come to the beer, but I can't agree that it will make it better to be left on the trub.

I actually can taste a difference in a beer that was in primary for a month vs. one in the primary for 5-7 days. My preference is the latter. Maybe others prefer a longer primary, which is fine. I find that my favorite beers are ones that spent about 10 days in the fermenter.

I'm happy to see some of the old dogmas "You must rack to primary by day 5 or your beer will be terrible", "You must use a clearing vessel", etc, are being either disproved or being relaxed to "Do what gives YOU the beer you like". But any militant statement that something must be one way or the other is simply incorrect.

Yeast is alive. And because it's alive, just like people they die. Not all at the same rate or the same time, but some are alive and active and some are dying. That's the way life is. Because of this, even though autolysis flavors aren't common in relatively short primaries, there can be a flavor component to a beer that spent 4 weeks in the fermenter that isn't present at day 5. Some people may prefer that.

I'm a winemaker and I still rack the wine at about day 5-7. But for beer I don't. Because I like the flavor of the beer if it's been in the fermenter for 10 days. Not for any other reason.

 

[leolee86]

I have never used a secondary for standard beer.I normally leave all my pales,ipas,wheats,and bitters on the cake.the only ones I second rack are sours and beer I'm going to age for several months.

 

[befus]

Sorry, I don't agree. I agree that no harm may come to the beer, but I can't agree that it will make it better to be left on the trub.

I actually can taste a difference in a beer that was in primary for a month vs. one in the primary for 5-7 days. My preference is the latter. Maybe others prefer a longer primary, which is fine. I find that my favorite beers are ones that spent about 10 days in the fermenter.

Refreshing and interesting rebuttal, seems you have lots of those. So do you keg or bottle at that 10 day mark (my guess), or are you saying you still use a secondary conditioning vessel? TIA.

 

[Yooper]

Refreshing and interesting rebuttal, seems you have lots of those. So do you keg or bottle at that 10 day mark (my guess), or are you saying you still use a secondary conditioning vessel? TIA.

If the beer has been at FG for at least several days and is clear, I package it. I often keg, but sometimes bottle. I package almost all beers (even dryhopped beers) by day 14.