skipping secondary, keeping in primary

wps-hbt
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.
S

Stlheadake

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Location
St. Louis
Historically, I brew in a primary, then after inital yeast activity slows (about a week or 10 days) I racked over to a secondary carboy. Then I read about a guy that somehow introduced nasties into his brew through the racking process. This scared me, though I've never had a problem. I should toss in, that I wasn't particularly careful when racking either.

I sanitized everything, but I would experiment with letting the wort bubble in the bottom of the carboy (the idea being, maybe the yeast need more O2 to keep eating), (I now know that's bad, so I don't do that anymore), but I just transferred it and let it sit.

Then I started just leaving it in primary. Typically now, I'll let whatever I am brewing just sit in the primary, unless it is something special, and there is a reason not to.

So my question, is there a reason I shouldn't do this? I haven't had any issue so far, but there's no sense in inviting trouble. Any thoughts?
 
Stlheadake said:
So my question, is there a reason I shouldn't do this? I haven't had any issue so far, but there's no sense in inviting trouble. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

This depends on YOUR tastes. Beer left in primary longer picks up extra flavors from the yeast. Some folks like these flavors, some do not, and others don't care. If you prefer the flavors of the secondaried beer, then you will figure out what you need to do to limit the risk of infection and oxidation.

Otherwise, just leave it in primary
 
I like putting my beers in a secondary to minimize head space after co2 production slows way down. Doesnt matter if you leave it closed the entire time, but if you open to take samples and reading then it does.

also like the idea of not having my beer on a layer of dead yeast, yeast poop, and particles from the boil that have precipitated. just my two cents.
 
This is by far the most discussed and debated topic on this forum. It's ridiculous how often it comes up. If I had a nickel...

The short story is that there is no good reason to use a secondary except in a handful of situations, one being that you feel like it. Welcome to the forum!
 
The Feds will confiscate your fermenters if you secondary. You'll be kicked out of the hobby for not following the new new new rules set by John Palmer. They will give them back if homebrew talk again finds it acceptable and the latest version of "How to Brew" reflects the change. Otherwise continue to do what whoever screams the loudest here tells you to do.
 
I keep my dark beers in the primary for 3+ week and my lighter color brews I transfer into a secondary for clear better PLUS it frees up a 6g carboy.

There are all sorts of rules that can be broken. Cooling your wort as fast as you can after boiling - NOPE - not needed! Lots of experiments on this one and there is only anecdotal evidence on the quick cool. (I always quick cool BTW).
 
I do just that, leave in primary for generally 3 weeks, then bottle. I don't secondary unless I need to bulk age - wood, fruit, or sour.
I also don't open it much.
I will check on the beer the first 48 hours or so - to make sure things are happening in there (I don't open it; I just check the airlock and maybe shine a flashlight through to check krausen levels.
I then forget about it for another 2 weeks and a bit. I will check the airlock liquid level when I am in my basement, but I don't worry about looking carefully.
At about 2 weeks, 5 days, I will usually open the top to check gravity, and make sure it's where I wanted / expected it to be. Presuming it is, I prepare to bottle a few days later.
On bottling day, I move the bucket to the counter as early as I can, to let things settle back down, and open it for the second and last time to verify the gravity is where it was when I checked before.
 
also like the idea of not having my beer on a layer of dead yeast said:
When you put it that way it really makes me think. In short, I am not competing with my beers, and though I shouldn't say this out loud, I've never made a bad batch.

I just wondered if I was doing something heinous? Even if it tasted ok to me.


Sent from my SPH-L720 using Home Brew mobile app
Click to expand...
 
pjj2ba said:
This depends on YOUR tastes. Beer left in primary longer picks up extra flavors from the yeast.
Click to expand...

Maybe, if by "longer" you mean "several months."

On the timelines typical of standard-gravity ale brewing, I don't think there's any perceptible difference. Whether you leave beer in the fermenter for 3 weeks, or 1 week in the fermenter followed by 2 weeks in another vessel (or any other combination totalling 3 weeks), I don't believe there would be any noticeable flavour difference in the resulting beers.
 
DesignatedDrinker said:
I also like the idea of not having my beer on a layer of dead yeast, yeast poop, and particles from the boil that have precipitated.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think typical brewing timelines (1-3 weeks) are long enough to generate any meaningful amount of "dead yeast" and their associated off-flavours.

I'm also not sure what "yeast poop" is. The yeast metabolize the sugars and minerals in the wort to produce ethanol, CO2, and other assorted esters and compounds that are what makes beer taste like beer. Why would you want to minimize that?

The other particles from the boil are just break material (protein) that settles to the bottom and doesn't really add any flavours to the beer the longer it's in contact with it, to my knowledge (again, talking about typical brewing timelines of 1-3 weeks. If you're leaving it for several months, perhaps that trub breaks down somehow and affects beer flavour, I don't know).

If you're careful, racking to secondary doesn't really hurt anything. There are lots of ways to skin this cat! To each their own!
 
I just did my first brew this past Saturday. I started with the brewhouse red ale kit (a premade wort) and I did some hacking. I boiled the existing wort and added an oz of Warrior at 90 minutes and an ounce each of pacifica and nugget at 60 minutes. The OG came in at roughly 1.054. I would like to dry hop and have an ounce of pacifica and an ounce of citra. What I am wondering is if I should bother to rack this I to a secondary or of I should dry hop in the primary? If I keep it in the primary when would be the proper time to put in the dry hop?
 
You boiled a pre-hopped kit wort for 90 minutes? And added MORE hops? That is going to be one super-bitter beer! That wort would have been prepared with various hop additions already done at the appropriate times to create the desired hop bitterness, flavour, and aroma profile. By re-boiling it, you're turning any flavour and aroma additions into bittering additions, escalating the bitterness that was already present by their bittering addition. Then you added an ounce of your own bittering hop, then 2 more ounces of bittering additions!

But anyway, to answer your questions, no, I would not rack it to secondary unless you plan to wash and re-use the yeast. I would leave it in the fermenter for 3 full weeks, then add the dry hops directly to the fermenter, wait another week, then bottle.

Let us know how this one turns out, you've got me very curious. ;)
 
Once again, it is a matter of choice. I commonly leave my wort in the primary from 3 to 6 weeks depending on my schedule, cold crash for a week, then rack into bottling bucket. I did secondary once to dry hop, and I probably didn't even need to. I figure if my method is wrong and there were "unwelcome flavors", I wouldn't have won a competition like I did.
 
kombat said:
Maybe, if by "longer" you mean "several months."

On the timelines typical of standard-gravity ale brewing, I don't think there's any perceptible difference. Whether you leave beer in the fermenter for 3 weeks, or 1 week in the fermenter followed by 2 weeks in another vessel (or any other combination totalling 3 weeks), I don't believe there would be any noticeable flavour difference in the resulting beers.
Click to expand...

I can taste the difference in a beer that was on the yeast for 10 days vs. 3 weeks. It may not be a big difference, but it is there. As I always say, it depends on the individual.

I had some friends over to test the taste difference that adding CaCl2 had on a porter. I was adding it in the glass. We used a triangle test format. The results were all over the board. Some could tell the difference at 20 ppm, and others could not at 60 ppm
 
I did add in a half cup of honey to the boil as well. I read about reboiling and adding hops in a few places. I may have overdone it.but we will see. The original IBU of the wort was 16. This should drive it up to about 100 which is not a problem though. Hopefully it is drinkable. I think I will just dry hop it in the primary. Anything I could add with the dry hop that may combat over bittering?
 
You might get a balance of sorts by adding a non fermentable sweetener. Honey will ferment all the way out, making the beer even drier. Really dry beer, lots of hops... It may turn out to be a "hoppy (happy) accident", or you end up blending it when you serve it. Either way it will still be beer.
Good luck.
 
Croyzen said:
The Feds will confiscate your fermenters if you secondary. You'll be kicked out of the hobby for not following the new new new rules set by John Palmer. They will give them back if homebrew talk again finds it acceptable and the latest version of "How to Brew" reflects the change. Otherwise continue to do what whoever screams the loudest here tells you to do.
Click to expand...

This seems a bit hysterical. The general consensus on HBT these days is that there's no need to secondary most beers, and there's sound evidence in that lots and lots of award winning beers have now been brewed that way. Of course lots and lots of award winning beers have been (and are still being) brewed by people using secondaries, so even if there's little/no benefit to the practice, the risk of infection and oxidization durring transfer to the secondary cannot be high if you're using proper technique.

I do think it's important to spread the word that secondaries aren't a mandatory part of home brewing (as opposed to say, sanitation), because anyone getting into the hobby and reading older books will read that they MUST use a secondary. That's extra work, and for the beginner there's also extra cost in buying a secondary vessel, and extra opportunity to screw up the beer if the transfer goes badly.

Having said that, I haven't done blind taste-tests of a split batch where half was secondaried and half wasn't. Sounds like pjj2ba may have done so and noticed a difference, which I'd be interested to learn more about!
 
MindenMan said:
You might get a balance of sorts by adding a non fermentable sweetener. Honey will ferment all the way out, making the beer even drier. Really dry beer, lots of hops... It may turn out to be a "hoppy (happy) accident", or you end up blending it when you serve it. Either way it will still be beer.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Non-fermentable sweetener? Anyone have a suggestion. I am all ears.
 
pjj2ba said:
I can taste the difference in a beer that was on the yeast for 10 days vs. 3 weeks. It may not be a big difference, but it is there. As I always say, it depends on the individual.

I had some friends over to test the taste difference that adding CaCl2 had on a porter. I was adding it in the glass. We used a triangle test format. The results were all over the board. Some could tell the difference at 20 ppm, and others could not at 60 ppm
Click to expand...

What you're tasting has nothing to do with the yeast, unless you're in the vast minority and your taste is particularly sensitive to something the rest of us can't detect. Fresh beer changes pretty rapidly until the flavors have a chance to settle. You're probably referring to the "green" taste of new beer.
 
TheZymurgist said:
What you're tasting has nothing to do with the yeast, unless you're in the vast minority and your taste is particularly sensitive to something the rest of us can't detect. Fresh beer changes pretty rapidly until the flavors have a chance to settle. You're probably referring to the "green" taste of new beer.
Click to expand...

No, not in green beer, fully matured beer. I'm far from the only one who can tell the difference

byo and basic brewing radio experiment does delayed racking harm your-beer.

Again, the difference is not much, but it is there. Since we are brewing to our own tastes, if one prefers one over the other way enough, then they will do what it takes to make it work. If one doesn't care, then leave it alone.

It has everything to do with the yeast. Yeast are not inert, and as long as there is yeast around it is influencing the flavor, and the more yeast, the more influence it has. Is there not clearly a difference if one dry hops for 7 days versus leaving the hops in for 3 weeks? How do yeast magically stop influencing the flavor of a beer once they settle out?
 
Yeast finish influencing the flavor of beer when they run out of compounds they are capable of acting on. At that point they prepare for hibernation, settle down and go dormant. Not magic, it's nature.
 
masonsjax said:
Yeast finish influencing the flavor of beer when they run out of compounds they are capable of acting on. At that point they prepare for hibernation, settle down and go dormant. Not magic, it's nature.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying that yeast has to have biological activity to influence flavor and aroma? That there is no flavor component to dormant yeast that will be transferred to beer through contact over time the way hops, wood and other additions work?

From my experience, the yeast cake has a distinct aroma after the beer has been racked off. I'd think that it must be being diffused into the beer. Not nature, it's science.
 
jrgtr42 said:
I do just that, leave in primary for generally 3 weeks, then bottle. I don't secondary unless I need to bulk age - wood, fruit, or sour.
I also don't open it much.
I will check on the beer the first 48 hours or so - to make sure things are happening in there (I don't open it; I just check the airlock and maybe shine a flashlight through to check krausen levels.
I then forget about it for another 2 weeks and a bit. I will check the airlock liquid level when I am in my basement, but I don't worry about looking carefully.
At about 2 weeks, 5 days, I will usually open the top to check gravity, and make sure it's where I wanted / expected it to be. Presuming it is, I prepare to bottle a few days later.
On bottling day, I move the bucket to the counter as early as I can, to let things settle back down, and open it for the second and last time to verify the gravity is where it was when I checked before.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^ is pretty much exactly what I do. The only difference, I let most beers sit for 3 weeks, then keg. I don't even take a gravity reading or taste until I am ready to keg. I purge the keg with CO2 through the beer out dip tube, rack, then purge the top through the gas in, cap and done. My beer never comes in contact with oxygen.

If I do secondary, I make sure to purge the carboy with CO2. I sanitize the CO2 line and pump a bunch in until I can smell it coming from the top. I'm sure some oxygen is still present, but I'm also sure most is purged.
 
masonsjax said:
This is by far the most discussed and debated topic on this forum. It's ridiculous how often it comes up. If I had a nickel...

The short story is that there is no good reason to use a secondary except in a handful of situations, one being that you feel like it. Welcome to the forum!
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the topic turned into a poll and stickied for eternity.

The thing that makes it so conclusive (to me) is that almost everyone who does secondary says, "Wait, you don't have to secondary? What?" and everyone who doesn't secondary is already fully aware of this parallel homebrew universe. I blame the massive carboy-industrial complex (CIC). I also blame LHBSes being stuck in the year 2000.
 
AnOldUR said:
So, you're saying that yeast has to have biological activity to influence flavor and aroma? That there is no flavor component to dormant yeast that will be transferred to beer through contact over time the way hops, wood and other additions work?

From my experience, the yeast cake has a distinct aroma after the beer has been racked off. I'd think that it must be being diffused into the beer. Not nature, it's science.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that a dormant yeast cake, at the homebrew level, and in my experience, does not affect noticeable changes in beer flavor post fermentation. I have personally made many beers that sat in primary for months without detectable negative flavors. Some very light beers with little to hide behind, some that sat there for nearly a year. If the yeast cake imparts non biologically derived flavors to a beer, I believe they are there from early on and more time spent together will not make it worse. If the temperatures get out of control, maybe the breakdown of the yeast will have an increasing impact? I can't speak to that. All I know is that I've made around 300 batches that spent their entire pre keg life on the yeast cake and they've all been without off flavors regardless of the length of time spent in primary. YMMV
 
masonsjax said:
What I'm saying is that a dormant yeast cake, at the homebrew level, and in my experience, does not affect noticeable changes in beer flavor post fermentation. I have personally made many beers that sat in primary for months without detectable negative flavors. ........ YMMV
Click to expand...

What I highlighted is what causes the confusion. I don't think any of us are saying you get negative flavors from leaving the beer on the yeast for extra time. Not at all!!! Yes, that is what the old line was, particularly when we weren't so well informed about temperature control, but nowadays it is not the problem it used to be. HOWEVER, you still do get additional flavors from the extra yeast contact. Many folks in fact really like these flavors. But, like with ice cream, some folks like vanilla and others prefer chocolate, and some don't care as long as they get some ice cream :ban:
 
There's definitely flavor in the yeast itself (anyone can have a hefeweizen mit hefe and mit-out and tell me it's not different). But if beer were going to pick that flavor up it would still have it in secondary--it's not like the yeast is some foreign substance it's in contact with, that's the stuff that made the beer. Unless the yeast goes through some change in flavor (like autolysis, which is just about a mythical beast in my experience), another week's contact with yeast should not really change the flavor of beer. Flocculation and racking up sediment should impact flavor, though, for the reason above.
 
Man I stirred it up this time. I think I'll continue as I have WITHOUT the secondary until I have a better reason TO secondary.

Was just thinking back I've used both plastic buckets and glass carboys as primary and have left a porter in a bucket for 6 weeks. It may have been the best beer I've ever made! Both in my opinion as well as those who have tried it.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Home Brew mobile app
 
Neglecting rules I don't like is my secret ingredient. Also nose bacteria, I sniff my beer like three or four times a week.
 
masonsjax said:
What I'm saying is that a dormant yeast cake, at the homebrew level, and in my experience, does not affect noticeable changes in beer flavor post fermentation. I have personally made many beers that sat in primary for months without detectable negative flavors. Some very light beers with little to hide behind, some that sat there for nearly a year. If the yeast cake imparts non biologically derived flavors to a beer, I believe they are there from early on and more time spent together will not make it worse. If the temperatures get out of control, maybe the breakdown of the yeast will have an increasing impact? I can't speak to that. All I know is that I've made around 300 batches that spent their entire pre keg life on the yeast cake and they've all been without off flavors regardless of the length of time spent in primary. YMMV
Click to expand...

A "dormant" yeast cake certainly impacts beer flavor post fermentation. It also affects wine, too. That's why some winemakers age sur lie (but stir the lees) and why some winemakers rack off of gross lees much more frequently.

Just like with every living thing, yeast are dying from the moment they are "born". There is no doubt about that, from a scientific standpoint. Now, do they autolyse in huge amounts immediately? No. But they are certainly not just laying on the bottom of the fermenter with no impact at all on flavor.


pjj2ba said:
What I highlighted is what causes the confusion. I don't think any of us are saying you get negative flavors from leaving the beer on the yeast for extra time. Not at all!!! Yes, that is what the old line was, particularly when we weren't so well informed about temperature control, but nowadays it is not the problem it used to be. HOWEVER, you still do get additional flavors from the extra yeast contact. Many folks in fact really like these flavors. But, like with ice cream, some folks like vanilla and others prefer chocolate, and some don't care as long as they get some ice cream :ban:
Click to expand...

My preference is much like pjj2ba. I do not like the yeast characters imparted by an ultra- long primary. I don't scream about autolysis- but I do not care for the flavors in a long primary. Sure, the beer is clear, but there are flavor changes for those who take notice.

Try it for yourself, everybody! Take a 6 gallon batch and split it in half. Do a 10 day primary, and a 40 day primary, and compare the results and see which you prefer. If I remember correctly in the Basic Brewing Radio podcast experiment, differences were noted in the batches, but preferences were about equally divided.
 
Will throw my 2cents worth into this, although I doubt it will make a nickel's worth of difference...

Although the "no-secondary-train" is bulldozing its way through the group-think I tend to lean in the direction that makes sense to me and matches the results I've seen in my brewing. I'm also cognizant of what is being written in a lot of the latest books on brewing by the gurus we all seem to look to for insight and inspiration. I am convinced that a 5 gal. carboy used as a "settling tank" is a completely viable addition to the brewing process.

The old-time concept of one week primary + one week secondary is dead. Palmer, et.al. have done an excellent job of driving the final nails in the idea's coffin. But the brewing community (at least here) seems to have swung like a clock's pendulum in the opposite direction. Now the mind-set seems to be "if you use a secondary for any reason other than additions you are just wrong!"

I've read and participated in a lot of threads on this topic and, quite frankly, there are people who can detect a different flavor when a beer has been left on the yeast cake a long time. And I, for one, see no reason to leave beer on the yeast any longer than is needed to complete the fermentation process. I've found that a hybrid approach works really well for me, and coincidentally, it is very near the process recommended by David Miller (remember him?) in Brew Like a Pro.

1. 8-14 days primary
2. Rack to 5 gal. carboy settling tank (secondary if you like) and drop temp to 40F - after 24 hrs add gelatin as finings
3. After 3-6 days rack to keg
4. Carb up for a week or so and, after the first pull of chill-haze crap, enjoy a run of excellent crystal clear home brew

To me this process makes sense and it works. Let the "no-secondary" train rumble on without me. I'm fine right here.
 
OK. Autolysis isn't an all or nothing kind of thing (well, it is for one cell, but not for a hundred million), and it stands to reason to me that some of the normal flavors associated with ales in general--that is, ales that aren't trying their best to be lagers. ales with even a little yeast character--are dependent on cell activity that will include autolysis, on some level or another. It is a yeast flavor, to go with all the other yeast flavors.

And there's a reasonable case to be made that SOME more yeast cell material must make it in to a straight-from-primary rack than would from a secondary-then-settle rack. Maybe that's a factor, too. I have said before that a hefeweizen mit hefe tastes dramatically different from a hefeweizen not mit hefe and I think there are things in the cells themselves that account for that, like what I think is a saline taste, plausibly potassium.

But given all the "noise" you get from even meticulously controlled homebrew conditions, I think this is absolutely under the radar. I think even the staunchest proponent of secondary for the reason of minimizing yeast flavor would fail a double-blind test, when push comes to shove. But that's just my sense.
 

Similar threads

P
why siphon instead of pour if next step is aeration?
Replies
18
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
Gabriel Sayegh
How do folks calculate ABV after a step feed with volume change?
Replies
12
Views
728
MaxStout
MaxStout
B
Moving from Primary to Secondary?
Replies
10
Views
868
mac_1103
mac_1103
J
Back again for peace of mind
Replies
2
Views
285
Joewalla88
J
S
Apples in seconday, massive sediment overnight.....
Replies
0
Views
289
shanes66charger
S

Latest posts

Back
Top