Blowoff vs Secondary

[jimbrew_jr]

I have read the sticky about single fermentation vs racking to a secondary. I am a new brewer with a glass carboy and a fermentation bucket. The sticky writes that the main benefits of racking in terms of quality of beer are two fold

Results in clearer beer (could be a + or -) and reduces the risk of autolysis. the sticky lists other benefits that do not have a direct impact on the quality of the beer.
The sticky lists the benefits of the single with a blowoff are removing the Krausen and also reducing the risk of oxidation or infection.

This seems to me that the benefits of a single glass carboy with a blowoff tube would result in a higher quality beer. I have read in Charlie Papazian book that the krausen can contribute some unwanted flavor to the beer and a blowoff tube can prevent this.

with my current setup would it be recommended to buy a blowoff tube resulting in hopefully better beer? Does anyone use a blowoff tube then rack after primary fermentation has subsided? (conceptually in my mind this would remove krausen and also alow for aging)
Does anyone rack to a bucket?

 

[frazier]

I think you are conflating a bunch of different issues.

The main benefit of using a blowoff tube, is to keep kraeusen off your ceiling. I think the "kraeusen contributes bad flavors" is somewhere between overstatement and myth.

Racking to a secondary is a benefit if you are adding fruit, or massive dryhop, or extended aging. I never bother with it. I get decent clarity with a four-week primary, but YMMV.

Cheers!

 

[NordeastBrewer77]

I think you are conflating a bunch of different issues.

Definitely. You use a blowoff tube to keep your fermenter from exploding. Autolysis is a myth. Secondary isn't needed to clear beer. Krausen doesn't make your beer taste bad, it's yeast that's fermenting your beer and making it taste great. And Papazian's book is very, very outdated. Not saying it isn't a good beginners book, but a lot of what he said twenty years ago has been disproven, or at least figured out more.

My suggestion, relax, don't worry, and slow down. Read all the stickies here on HBT, and ask tons of questions. The good information you'll glean here is far more on par with modern practice than anything in Papazian's book.

And welcome to the forum and the hobby!

 

[jimbrew_jr]

Thanks alot

 

[SmoothSmoke]

You're still confusing two things man.

A blow off tube is to stop a bucket from exploding. Let's the trapped air release.

A secondary is used for clarity. Having a blow off tube wont help with clarity and or quality.

However, I can be wrong since I'm new too.

 

[ShinyBuddha]

You're still confusing two things man.

A blow off tube is to stop a bucket from exploding. Let's the trapped air release.

A secondary is used for clarity. Having a blow off tube wont help with clarity and or quality.

However, I can be wrong since I'm new too.

You got it. A blow off tube is a precaution against active fermentation (high krausen) which would normally clog an airlock.

A secondary is just another fermentation vessel (glass or plastic) in which you can further clarify your beer and/or add adjuncts such as fruit or more hops (aka dry hopping), or age your beer. However, you may dry hop in the primary too. Some people like to secondary and some don't.

The main item to take away is, don't be afraid to ask questions. We all started somewhere.

 

[OkashiiBrew]

I only use a secondary if I need my primary stat! Sometimes due to longer slower fermentation times you need your larger fermentation carboy for the next brew. I use glass if it is in the secondary for over 2 months and a 5 gal better bottle for under 2 months. Think of the secondary as a back up plan if you get brewambitious.

 

[BrewingRugger]

It really come down to personal preference. I use secondarys. I think that my beers turn out pretty good. I have use single or prolonged primary and the beer turned out fine it is just what you feel most comfortable with. Blowoff tubes are just to prevent carboy from blowing up. It really sucks cleaning the wort off of everything.

 

[oakbarn]

I use secondary for Lagers but not for Ales. I do get less sediment that way. I read an article where Palmer was discussing all the bad "myths" that he help create. One was the need for a Secondary. Personal Choice IMO.

When I ferment in a carboy, I normally just cover with a "Dave Rag" which is a paper rag soaked in Star San for the first 3 days then replace with a standard air lock. I have had a stopper with a blow off tube actually blow out of the fermenter so the cover works best for me. After 3 days, the fermentation has normally slowed so a small airlock works fine.

 

[Calichusetts]

I use secondary for Lagers but not for Ales. I do get less sediment that way.

You can and will get clear beer, and there are about 50+ ways to get there.

For me personally, racking to a secondary means I can rack without worry of trying to avoid the sediment the first go round...I tend to get more beer out than if I just bottled from it. My secondary looks a lot like a bottle, just a tight ring around the bottom, which again means I can siphon pretty much without worry of getting any sediment into the bottling bucket. Granted, racking an extra time means I do loss SOME beer, probably the same as avoiding the sediment with just a primary.

It is personal preference. I don't know what it is, but I simply do not get tightly compacted trub at the bottom of my carboys, maybe its the smaller batch size. I've done 6 week primaries, cold crashing, but its really loose and tends to stir up easily, so a secondary helps me a lot with that. No REAL benefit, just easier for me.

 

[Revvy]

You're convoluting a whole bunch of stuff that is based on out of date info and beliefs that are from 30 years ago.

You have to remember JJoy of Homebrewing was written over 30 years ago, and views about yeast and yeast contact has changed since then. Getting the krausen off the beer (via blowoff or otherwise) and getting the beer off the yeast were reflections of the autolysis worries, and the idea that the yeast contributed to off flavors.

Well yeast 30 years ago and today are really two different animals. Yeast back then came in cakes, primarily from over seas, travelled in the cargo holds of ships, usually came under the lid of a tin of extract that sat on a store's shelves, sometimes in direct sunlight. Yeast was a lot less healthy then, and often DID autolyze and possible DID contribute to off flavors.

Todays yeast is much different. It's healthier, we use more of it today, and we understand more of it's role in brewing, not just in fermentation but that as part of it's life cycle, if left to it's own devices, it actually cleans up after itself- it cleans up those off flavors.

So today rather than removing the krauzen, and rushing the beer off the yeast we embrace the yeast. We realize that as a krauzen falls after fermentation, it pulls down with it, protiens and other things in solution. It acts sort of as a filter for the beer. Pulling cleaning and pulling down things, resulting in cleaner, clearer and better tasting beer.

We no longer fear the yeast. And feel the need to do things like remove the krausen (via blowoff or scooping it off) or rush the beer off the yeast into a secondary right away. We find that letting the natural process happens, letting krausen fall and letting the yeast clean up the very byproducts of fermentation that lead to off flavors are beer actually benefits from the krausen and the yeast.

John Palmer actually redacted his views on that in his book, which he admitted was based on Papzian's influence.

Nowadays secondaries aren't used as a way to get beer off the yeast as much as vessels to add things to the beer, or to bulk condition or for a final clearing. Not the "place you moved the beer to get it away from the nasty yeast" like it used to be.

Like other's have said, it is a choice these days, a preference, both extending primaries and using secondaries are valid, and they both prove on thing, that beer shouldn't be rushed. That it benefits from some time just sitting.

 

[oakbarn]

RevvY, great response. When We first started, we were adamant to do a secondary based upon Palmer. I was away and did not get to transfer an Ale to secondary so it sat on the trub for a while. The beer was actually better, so we did away with secondary except for our lagers and that is simply to aid in clearing. In fact, you need the trub for a diacytel rest for a lager. We have brewery rules.

Rule # 6: Do not fear the Trub.

 

[Revvy]

Oakbarn, that's exactly how many of us "discovered" the benefits of long primary. Life got in the way of a beer. We let it sit longer than Palmer, our beer didn't die, and in fact it was better.

Palmer has since retracted what he wrote about it. But it's still out in the consciousness.

 

[pjj2ba]

The myth is that autolysis produces off-flavors. Autolysis is a normal part of the yeast culture cycle and is occurring in all of our beers, this is no myth. It can add subtle flavors and in certain wines (notably chardonnay and champagne) these are left on the yeast for extra time to encourage these flavors.

I think the "myth" goes back to Palmer's first how to brew book where he wrote that he left a pot of homemade rice glue out and forgot about it and then found it several days later and it stunk to high heaven, and he then erroneously concluded that smell must be the result of yeast autolysis (in a product to which no yeast was added other then what floated in along with a host of other microbes)

I'm not convinced the DRY yeast that I used 25 yrs ago is vastly different from what is available now. The handling of dry yeast has been well developed in the baking industry for quite a long time. Now post production, that is a different story. The homebrew stores back then might not have handled it well and the quality suffered as a result. But I think the yeast was just as healthy going into it's package, we are just better post-production at handling it. Good fresh yeast was available back then, just in limited strains. Also for sure old stale yeast was available and sold, and in some homebrew shops, it is still available and sold.

There aren't tons of new yeast strains that weren't around back then. They were being used by commercial breweries and weren't available to homebrewers. What has changed dramatically is the diversity of strains available. Thanks to Wyeast (since the early '80's) and Whitelabs (mid '90's), we now have access to many of these yeast in liquid cultures. Many of these are the same strains that the breweries have been using for a LONG time. I'm sure the yeast in the tube of WLP036 is the same as has been used at Zum Uerige for many decades

What has gotten better is how the end user handles the yeast. We pitch more, we make starters, we are more aware of the effects of temperature. I would say it is not so much that the yeast are different, it is the WE are different in how we handle yeast.

As to krausen and a blowoff or not, I think that depends on how well you can remove hop debris going into the fermentor. The advice to use a blowoff I believe was to help remove any hop debris that made it into the fermenter. Back then the common post boil technique was simply to pour the wort through a strainer into the fermenter. Also, pellet hops were the rule, leaf hops were less common at LHBS back then (at least the ones I went to) so hop debris was more likely to make it into the fermontor. Besides the normal AA in hops there are also polyphenols that contribute to the overall bitterness of a beer. The danger is having a beer that is more bitter than expected. So, since it was common for more hop debris to make it into the fermentor, a blowoff was recommended to help remove the hop debris. We now have much better ways to ensure hop free wort makes it into the fermentor so a blow off is not necessary, except to prevent a major mess. However, if one is getting lots of hop debris in the fermentor, a blow off is still good advice. Another option if a blow off is not used (and you have lots of hop debris) is to under bitter, to then account for the extra bitterness frm the hop debris that makes it into the fermentor.

In Chris White's book on yeast he states that beer actually clears a LITTLE better in a primary only beer as opposed to a secondary. A secondary does however make it easier to get less yeast into your bottling bucket/keg. etc., if this is important to you.

A secondary is not needed, however neither is a long primary (for normal OG beers). Both are perfectly valid ways to handle your beer and both can produce great beer. It is simply a matter of personal taste preference, and how much you are willing to or want to "play" with your beer.