To Secondary or Not? John Palmer and Jamil Zainasheff Weigh In

[buzzbean]

Thanks for the comments Revvy I learn from nearly every post you throw up. I do a 2ndary to keep the yeast out of the bottle, (dont like drinking yeast paste). But for my next batch I will let it sit in the primary to really compact. One question, I do 3 gal batches do you think that will provide sufficient pressure to really compact the yeast?

 

[BareKnuckleBrew]

If I was the college type I would say this thread made me ready for a thesis paper on the pros and cons of the secondary! Thanks everyone for the input; I'm a new brewer and this thread was very helpful.

I noticed there are a handful of biker/brewers... I re-furbished a wicked 68' ironhead. Beers and Bikes- both are better if you build them yourself!!

 

[BillyBroas]

If I was the college type I would say this thread made me ready for a thesis paper on the pros and cons of the secondary! Thanks everyone for the input; I'm a new brewer and this thread was very helpful.

lol It should be required reading on the homebrewing syllabus. Glad you found it helpful

 

[Griff777]

I've adopted this method(primary only for five weeks on ales) and rack to keg directly. Glad to say it has produced my clearest ales to date. I used to brew in early ninety's and would rack to secondary after a week in primary. All the beers have tasted great but clarity was my goal. I just leave in pail, don't peek until five weeks is up, and rack. So much easier and great results. The knowledge here is invaluable. Also, formerly a carboy only fermenter and secondary, the pails give you plenty of headroom and haven't lost volume due to lack of need for blowoff tubes and that mess.

 

[TW1Kell]

If I was the college type I would say this thread made me ready for a thesis paper on the pros and cons of the secondary! Thanks everyone for the input; I'm a new brewer and this thread was very helpful.

I noticed there are a handful of biker/brewers... I re-furbished a wicked 68' ironhead. Beers and Bikes- both are better if you build them yourself!!

Dude, I agree about the bikes and beer. I brew, and I own a '36 Flathead and a '78 Shovelhead Electra-Glide. both restored by me. Everything's better when ya do it yourself.

I haven't secondaried a beer, yet. I just follow the Cooper's instructions and have since decided to not deviate from that. My last 2 brews went totally south with infections...I deviated from Cooper's instructions. Not going that route, anymore. Later...

 

[BareKnuckleBrew]

:rockin: Sometimes I brew... sometimes I bike! But what I don't do anymore is rack to a secondary!

 

[paleale]

i say each to thier own. i have let it set before for as much as 2 monthes on the yeast cake and it was fine. i have secondaried many times and it was still great. sometimes i still secondary sometimes not. i have never had either way turn out bad.

 

[joety]

Dude, I agree about the bikes and beer. I brew, and I own a '36 Flathead and a '78 Shovelhead Electra-Glide. both restored by me. Everything's better when ya do it yourself.

I have a 1931 Solo D that my grandfather bought new that needs a restore. Did you learn how to do it on your own or are you a trained mechanic?

 

[Dawnhulio]

i say each to thier own. i have let it set before for as much as 2 monthes on the yeast cake and it was fine. i have secondaried many times and it was still great. sometimes i still secondary sometimes not. i have never had either way turn out bad.

Just bottled my first batch off of a primary-only ferment...sat for five weeks. Always do a taste test straight from the fermenter and this tasted just as good as anything I've pulled from a secondary fermenter. No immediate off-tastes or flavors. Put the primary up on blocks last night to get the yeast cake settled so that whatever I siphoned off wasn't yeasty...seemed to work well. Looking forward to the end results (after conditioning) to see how successful I was in leaving the cake behind...

 

[Beernewb]

I rarely secondary, but i will add that there is one yeast (by experience) that seems to give me the same off flavor if it sits on the cake too long (4-6 weeks) versus transfer to a secondary..then bulk aging....maybe it's the gravity..i use this yeast on high gravity beers, maybe it's something else, but i can say that it's the same exact off flavor from beer to beer, and only with this yeast...i also tasted this EXACT off flavor in a bottle of widmer dark saison i had a few weeks ago...not sure what yeast they used, but mine was always with wyeast #1762....it's generally the only yeast i secondary now.

 

[avidhomebrewer]

I don't even bother racking to secondary unless I'm going to age in secondary for quite some time, like when making a lambic. Other than that style (or a big ale, say around 10%), I won't even bother with secondary.

 

[BrewKnurd]

So basic brewing radio/BYO magazine did an experiment on secondary vs longer primary a few months ago, just listened to the podcast today. Premise was brew a batch of beer, after active fermentation was basically done, rack half of the batch to a secondary, leave the rest. Bottle everything at the same time. Not surprisingly, when it came to finished product, there was very little difference between those that had been secondaried or not. Some folks reporter being able to tell a difference, some reported a preference for one or the other, but in general, there was very little difference.

Except the beers that were racked to secondary cleared significantly faster. I had never bought into the idea that it actually helped beer clear faster. My thought process was that once yeast is done and it flocculates, its not just gonna hop back up. And even if yeast did hop back up, once you had a small layer of yeast, only the very top layer of yeast has any potential to do anything. But boy was I wrong.

Anyways, i'm still not gonna secondary, because its more work and more potential for problems, but found this result interesting.

Sequence of pictures on secondary vs just primary.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/basicbrewing/BelgianProgress.pdf

 

[PricePeeler]

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[brycelarson]

Sequence of pictures on secondary vs just primary.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/basicbrewing/BelgianProgress.pdf

wow, significantly faster. I assume that the un-racked beer eventually caught up on the clarification - yes?

 

[BrewKnurd]

wow, significantly faster. I assume that the un-racked beer eventually caught up on the clarification - yes?

Not before they bottled it. But once it was bottled and chilled there was no visible difference.

 

[PondScum]

Can I re-purpose those 5 gallon secondary carboys into primaries?
I'm wondering if using a blow-off hose for the first week or so will compensate for the loss of head room.

 

[pjj2ba]

Can I re-purpose those 5 gallon secondary carboys into primaries?
I'm wondering if using a blow-off hose for the first week or so will compensate for the loss of head room.

Yes. That is all I use. I use Fermcap S to limit foaming. That being said, I do brew a lot of lagers and they don't foam as much. Although when I do brew ales, I do put a blow off on, but often it is not need. OK, I should also add that I tend to ferment at the bottom of the temperature ranges, so that helps to control foaming as well.

 

[BenRuss]

Ok, so if I am reading this whole thing right? Primary ferment in a carboy with a blow-off tube for the first few days then just leave it for three plus weeks to ferment. Transfer to a pail to prime and bottle?

So if I have a batch already in my primary pail and want to skip the racking process, I will need to transfer to some other vessel to prime and bottle or are people priming over the old yeast and bottling right from the primary? I am just confused on the priming procedure.

 

[Yooper]

Ok, so if I am reading this whole thing right? Primary ferment in a carboy with a blow-off tube for the first few days then just leave it for three plus weeks to ferment. Transfer to a pail to prime and bottle?

So if I have a batch already in my primary pail and want to skip the racking process, I will need to transfer to some other vessel to prime and bottle or are people priming over the old yeast and bottling right from the primary? I am just confused on the priming procedure.

You don't want to add the priming sugar and bottle from the fermenter- you'll stir up all the crud (trub) from the bottom of the fermenter plus risk oxidizing the beer if you stir it thoroughly. Rack from the fermenter into the bottling bucket, where the dissolved priming sugar is mixed in gently as the bucket fills from the bottom. Then use the bottling wand and spigot to fill the bottles.

 

[BenRuss]

Ok, I didn't think so, there just hasn't been any discussion on the priming and bottling end. So I can use this process on the batch I have going now, just use the carboy to bottle as if it was my bottling pail?

It's just that I have already started an ale in my primary pail and was going to follow standard racking procedures but found this thread and don't have anything to add for flavor during racking. Figured I would try the no-rack format but then realized I need to prime and bottle somehow. Thanks everyone, awesome info and help.

 

[fastasaturtle]

Ok, I didn't think so, there just hasn't been any discussion on the priming and bottling end. So I can use this process on the batch I have going now, just use the carboy to bottle as if it was my bottling pail?

It's just that I have already started an ale in my primary pail and was going to follow standard racking procedures but found this thread and don't have anything to add for flavor during racking. Figured I would try the no-rack format but then realized I need to prime and bottle somehow. Thanks everyone, awesome info and help.

You need a sanatized container to rack into for bottling/priming and you could use your carboy for that, but a bottling bucket with a spigot would be easier I think. You may have confused skipping the "racking into a secondary" step with "racking into a bottling bucket" which is somewhat necessary for bottling/priming. I suppose that you could use priming tablets and bottle straight from your primary but I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Good luck with your brew!

 

[helmingstay]

Just read the whole thread in one go. Great read, lots of opinions and experiments. I have a few thoughts, biographical notes, and some questions.

When I started brewing, moving to secondary made a big improvement in my beer. In retrospect, it forced me to slow down and resulted in clearer beer just from more time. One of the biggest things I'm taking from this thread is "don't fear the primary", as in use longer times. I appreciate now the folly of my early attempts to bottle after <2 weeks in primary.

Even at almost 350 comments (at least 100 of which were on-topic), I don't think we've come anywhere near exhausting this issue and I'd love, for example, to hear Chris White's opinions on some of this. Temperature and yeast strain, for example. Here's an absolute worst-case scenario: -- 85F primary of a saison in a plastic bucket, into bottles that will be cellared at 75F and transported by bicycle to the location of their consumption (e.g. shaken up). These super-attenuative farmhouse strains take a long time settle out and don't form nice compact cakes in the bottle, so I'm looking at 2-3 months in a very warm primary to clarify. My two concerns are oxygen diffusion (which is temperature dependent) through plastic leading to high yeast metabolism or oxidation flavors in a delicately-flavored beer, and general yeast health due to prolonged high temp. This is just to say that this scenario is much different than 6 months primary bucket at 50-60F with a stout or porter full of antioxidant melanoidans sitting on a nice, compact chico yeast cake. I'd love to see, for example, calculations of oxygen diffusion rate curves through plastic buckets.

Back to my original comment about short primary, I feel like some of the secondary oxygen-exposure issues are ameliorated by transfer to secondary before you hit FG. Yeast are always happy to consume any O2 that's available, and will do so quickly if they're metabolically active. So I feel like there are 2 separate issues -- if you're going to go to secondary, it doesn't make sense to me to wait until you hit FG, just get off the trub early and let things clarify in a nice, sealed carboy. I think of this as the "set it and forget it" principle -- once it's in secondary, I can neglect it as much as I like. Bottling is similar, you're waking the yeast up and giving them some sugar to chew on, and they *should* draw O2 levels in the bottle down to almost nill. This is simply me reasoning through things; I have no first-hand *evidence* for any of the above. By my logic, 02 absorbing caps look a little suspect, and I have seen passing reports of their preserving the "hop-head" of bottled beer.

That said, I see some extended primaries in my immediate future for chico yeast. The evidence in this thread alleviates my "get it off the cake" anxiety, which gives me yet another method to "set and forget".

 

[AmandaK]

J...if you're going to go to secondary, it doesn't make sense to me to wait until you hit FG, just get off the trub early and let things clarify in a nice, sealed carboy...

You must have not read the 1000s of threads from people who have racked to the secondary without taking a gravity reading (5-7 days after brew day) who then run to the boards with things like, "I transferred to the secondary, but my gravity is stuck at 1.035!! Help!!"

 

[BrewKnurd]

You must have not read the 1000s of threads from people who have racked to the secondary without taking a gravity reading (5-7 days after brew day) who then run to the boards with things like, "I transferred to the secondary, but my gravity is stuck at 1.035!! Help!!"

But there's no way of knowing if their fermentation wouldn't have stalled either way. To me, it seems very odd that yeast would floc out, and then at some later time decide they were interested in fermentation again. The yeast in the cake have decided they were done and flocculated. But, this is all nothing more than "what makes sense in my head" not based on any actual data. Perhaps there is data to the contrary. Would make for an interesting experiment. Or perhaps already has made for an interesting experiment, and I've just not seen the results of said experiment. Anyone know of any? A controlled experiment with side by side fermentations where one is racked to secondary early?

 

[AmandaK]

But there's no way of knowing if their fermentation wouldn't have stalled either way. To me, it seems very odd that yeast would floc out, and then at some later time decide they were interested in fermentation again. The yeast in the cake have decided they were done and flocculated. But, this is all nothing more than "what makes sense in my head" not based on any actual data. Perhaps there is data to the contrary. Would make for an interesting experiment. Or perhaps already has made for an interesting experiment, and I've just not seen the results of said experiment. Anyone know of any? A controlled experiment with side by side fermentations where one is racked to secondary early?

Okay. Think of it this way: you have tons of yeast fermenting your beers and they are happy, even though they are in a very stressful environment. Let's say that you now cut down the yeast population by 1/10 (aka you rack to the secondary). Now the small amount of remaining yeast have to do 10 times the amount of work to finish fermenting your beer. Chances are, those yeast will poop out and quit fermenting due to all the stress you just caused.

That's why you get a stalled fermentation when you rack too early to the secondary. Also, just because a yeast has floc'd doesn't mean that it is done fermenting. Different yeasts have different properties.

If that doesn't make sense, please go buy the book Yeast, read it, and report back.

 

[Pilgarlic]

Okay. Think of it this way: you have tons of yeast fermenting your beers and they are happy, even though they are in a very stressful environment. Let's say that you now cut down the yeast population by 1/10 (aka you rack to the secondary). Now the small amount of remaining yeast have to do 10 times the amount of work to finish fermenting your beer. Chances are, those yeast will poop out and quit fermenting due to all the stress you just caused.

That's why you get a stalled fermentation when you rack too early to the secondary. Also, just because a yeast has floc'd doesn't mean that it is done fermenting. Different yeasts have different properties.

If that doesn't make sense, please go buy the book Yeast, read it, and report back.

Have read it. And others. I think the reason the explanation may be counterintuitive is that you're racking the suspended, or active, yeast to secondary. The flocculated yeast have become, at best, much less active, so the situation seems a bit more nuanced than portrayed.

 

[Pilgarlic]

the situation seems a bit more nuanced than portrayed.

Some examples (theoretical, because nobody's counting cells, here).

Simplest case is that given above, that if you rack you will increase the likelihood of a stall simply by virtue of the fact that you've left the suspended yeast to do the job alone and they're not up to it, whereas the suspended yeast and the cake would have been. Maybe. But we've seen in this thread and elsewhere that racking causes clearing to occur much faster (which seems VERY counterintuitive to me from a simple mechanical perspective). That implies that there is something in the act of racking that affects the behavior of the suspended yeast. There are at least a couple of possibilities here. First, it's possible that the suspended yeast simply behave differently when over the cake, and that they stay active and suspended longer, resulting in more completed ferms. It's also possible that the mechanical act of racking stresses the suspended yeast and causes them to go inactive and fall out, causing more stuck ferms. After all, when I rack I send every single suspended yeast cell on the rollercoaster ride of its life.

I'm not saying that racking before FG increases the likelihood of stuck ferms. I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm not saying any of the cases I put above is true. I'm not arguing with anyone about it.

All I'm saying is that the simple, obvious answer is almost never the most interesting, at least to me.

 

[BrewKnurd]

Have read it. And others. I think the reason the explanation may be counterintuitive is that you're racking the suspended, or active, yeast to secondary. The flocculated yeast have become, at best, much less active, so the situation seems a bit more nuanced than portrayed.

Exactly. I have also read Yeast. Do not recall any mention of how yeast which are not even in meaningful contact with the beer (i.e. most of the yeast in the cake, as they are only in contact with other yeast, and trub, and whatever liquid is trapped in between) could be accomplishing much. If I missed such a section, I'd be happy to revisit it.

The 1/10th doing 10 times the work analogy would work better if they weren't already doing the bulk of the work, since the other 90%, by virtue of having given up and flocculated, ain't doing much.

Now, as was noted in the BYO/BBR experiment, beers do clear much faster when racked, and their theory was that the racking provide enough turbulence to knock microscopic CO2 bubbles off of yeast and cause them to fall out of solution. So its certainly possible that there's an impact there.

 

[Pilgarlic]

their theory was that the racking provide enough turbulence to knock microscopic CO2 bubbles off of yeast and cause them to fall out of solution. So its certainly possible that there's an impact there.

That explanation is as good as any, so long as they all remain theoretical. One of the things I love about yeast/fermentation is that there is so much that we don't know. Makes the hobby much more interesting than, say, auto mechanics (no offense intended!).

 

[BrewKnurd]

That explanation is as good as any, so long as they all remain theoretical. One of the things I love about yeast/fermentation is that there is so much that we don't know. Makes the hobby much more interesting than, say, auto mechanics (no offense intended!).

They suggested a possible follow up test of agitating the carboy you didn't rack to see if the mechanical agitation was all that was required to cause the faster clearing. To me, it seems the agitation has to play a key role. Because otherwise it seems to come down to 1) yeast are less likely to settle on a bunch of yeast than they are on a clean carboy floor, which seems like nonsense, or 2) yeast which have previously flocculated are going to decide (term used very loosely, obviously) that they want to hop back up after all, despite their environment being less conducive to activity than it was when they flocculated in the first place. I suppose this is possible, but I'd be quite curious as who what would drive this behavior.

 

[Pilgarlic]

1) yeast are less likely to settle on a bunch of yeast than they are on a clean carboy floor, which seems like nonsense,

Maybe. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because it doesn't seem to make sense. Organisms interact in very interesting ways.

 

[BrewKnurd]

Maybe. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because it doesn't seem to make sense. Organisms interact in very interesting ways.

Agreed that organisms are weird. But in this case, even if they do prefer a clean carboy floor to other yeast, that should only matter for the very first yeast to settle, because after that, the other yeast are still having to flocculate onto yeast either way.

Anyways, I should make it clear that I don't pretend to know what goes on with those little buggers. I am, however, a fan of their work.

 

[piteko]

Agreed that organisms are weird. But in this case, even if they do prefer a clean carboy floor to other yeast, that should only matter for the very first yeast to settle, because after that, the other yeast are still having to flocculate onto yeast either way.

I complitely agree. That said, in theory yeast should prefer to land on other yeast because of it's cellular polarity (the same that makes the yeast flocculate). Just my two cents...

I would like to know (to go deeper in the understanding of the test) if the first part of the primary that has been moved to secondary (which falls faster) was taken from the top of the primary, the bottom or other.

Another interesting topic about clear beer is that some yeast types tend to flocculate well (so they generate blocks of cells) but they don't stay "glued" to the bottom of the bottle. Others are powdery but, when landed, they tend to form a thick and dense (almost solid) layer. Any comments about that?

Cheers from Italy!
Piteko

 

[BrewKnurd]

I would like to know (to go deeper in the understanding of the test) if the first part of the primary that has been moved to secondary (which falls faster) was taken from the top of the primary, the bottom or other.

if you're referring to the BYO/Basic Brewing Radio experiment that I was referencing, the comparison was between two otherwise identical batches, in two different carboys. So the entire batch was moved to secondary, not a portion of the primary moved to secondary and a portion left behind, which I think is what you were asking about.

 

[VladOfTrub]

Here's kinda why Zainipalmer Jammijonnee say not to worry about autolysis and no need to secondary beer in homebrewing. Many homebrewers don't pay attention to water chemistry, or mash pH. So, what happens is that the wort pH becomes quite high during run off. Now, as the yeast ferments the high pH wort, the pH begins to drop, due to a natural chemical process. Autolysis begins when the wort drops to around 4.3 pH. Since, the wort pH was already quite high. The yeast can't lower the pH to the point where the yeast begins to break down. However, the beer will suffer in other ways. The brewers that pay attention to mash pH and pH in the fermentor, rack the beer off the yeast before pH hits the point of starting autolysis. Lagers that don't fall bright during cold aging are usually caused by factors like; poor hot break, poor cold break, poor sparge and or autolysed yeast proteins. So, yes. Homebrewers don't need to worry about those things; when certain processes that make better beer aren't followed. There is absolutely no reason to keep beer on the yeast after it is done working. Especially if pilsner or lagers are being brewed.

 

[Pilgarlic]

So there!

 

[helmingstay]

You must have not read the 1000s of threads from people who have racked to the secondary without taking a gravity reading (5-7 days after brew day) who then run to the boards with things like, "I transferred to the secondary, but my gravity is stuck at 1.035!! Help!!"

Hah. Now that you mention it, I'm vaguely aware that these exist.

I pretty much always use a starter, and I've had no problem adding substantial amounts of fermentables in the form of fruit or simple sugars into the secondary. Evident fermentation usually re-ignites after a day or 2 and finishes to completion without problem. I'm personally of the opinion that a stuck fermentation is yeast handling technique, and racking too early is a "secondary" concern, so to speak...

Racking can, to some extent, degas CO2 and thus relieve yeast inhibition, as can a vigorous daily swirl in the carboy.

To comment on the flocculating question, I wouldn't be surprised if electrostatic interactions from the yeast cake keep yeast in suspension. Yeast cells are charged, and like charges tend to repel. More charge in a smaller area == more repulsion. That said, I have no idea how variable flocculation in yeast works -- I'm guessing there's some sophisticated biochemistry behind the solid-vs-powdery yeast cake phenomenon, for example...

 

[piteko]

To comment on the flocculating question, I wouldn't be surprised if electrostatic interactions from the yeast cake keep yeast in suspension. Yeast cells are charged, and like charges tend to repel.

Now that you mention it, I never thought of the possibility that the cellular polarity could be driven in order to remain in suspension or to get down. I wonder if the yeast is able to do that.

Cheers from Italy!
Piteko

 

[TallyMaltyAle]

I've let my last two beers (an Irish stout and a saison) sit in the primary for approximately 4 weeks and then straight to the bottles. The major difference I've noticed between my primary only beers and my primary/secondary beers is the carbonation levels. Even after 2 months, my saison produced very little carbonation in the bottles.

Should I be adding a little yeast into the bottling bucket so that they can eat the priming sugar and produce a beer that ins't flat?

Thanks in advance for the advice and help.

 

[helmingstay]

The major difference I've noticed between my primary only beers and my primary/secondary beers is the carbonation levels. Even after 2 months, my saison produced very little carbonation in the bottles.

You're saying that your primary-only beers are *less* carbonated?
Without a side-by-side comparison of a split-batch, I imagine this is hard to really verify. But I would expect the opposite, that the "clearer" secondary'd beer would have trouble carbonating...