Group Consensus (time in primary)

[BierMuncher]

New brewer here.
I am brewing my first batch (wheat) in a conical and the starting hydrometer reading was 1.042. On the hydrometer, the instructions says not to bottle until it reads below 1.006. This would give me a potential of a little over 4%.

If this is the case, wouldn't the yeast have already done it's job? So if I drained the trub off at this time and waited another week, wouldn't the only advantage be so the beer could clarify a little more before bottling?

Full fermentation is "job 1" of the yeast. Job 2 is to do a little cleaning up after itself in order to reduce the likelihood of diacetyl (off flavors).

Now in the case of your wheat…clarity is not a real concern as one characteristic of wheat beers is the cloudiness and flavor from yeast in the beer.

When you’re satisfied your final gravity has been reached (and held there for 3-4 days), rack your beer.

 

[EdWort]

I typically leave my beers in primary for anywhere from 7 days to 3+ months. It all depends on what else is going on in my life and when I can get to them.

+1 Ain't that the truth! My last batch was over a month in primary, though the last few days were at 34 degrees.

 

[Homercidal]

New brewer here.
I am brewing my first batch (wheat) in a conical and the starting hydrometer reading was 1.042. On the hydrometer, the instructions says not to bottle until it reads below 1.006. This would give me a potential of a little over 4%.

If this is the case, wouldn't the yeast have already done it's job? So if I drained the trub off at this time and waited another week, wouldn't the only advantage be so the beer could clarify a little more before bottling?

What biermuncher said, but for further clarification, the yeast does more than simply create alcohol. They modify the flavor of beer even after the majority of the alcohol has been converted.

I think the instructions that come with many of the kits will def get the job done, but they do nothing to explain the process, and they can be misleading. I'll even step out on a limb here and say that they might also try and get the brewer to brew their batch as fast as possible. This makes the process seem faster than it really ought to be, and maybe the brewer will go buy more extract sooner. Who knows.

You can also see by this thread that there are several methods to many of the steps involved in brewing, and what each brewer decides to do depends on their personal preferences.

Personally, I try to get stuff done when I have a chance, but I will not do most things too soon. I'd rather let it sit another week or two until I can get it done right. Rushing a beer is one of the easiest ways to make it come out at less than it could have been.

 

[Dayvidp]

I have done on average 7 -10 days primary and secondary for the same on most beers and only noticed once on a Honey Weizen a little scum/krausen after a week in a secondary. High gravity beers will require more time in secondary.

 

[kevmoron]

I guess I'm in the minority here, as the consensus on this board seems to be that autolysis does not exist. I'll just say I disagree, and that it is in the literature for a reason.

Ernest CH, Chen A, Jamieson AM, Van Gheluwe G (1980) The
release of fatty acids as a consequence of yeast autolysis. J Am
Soc Brew Chem 38:13–17

Masschelein CA (1986) Centenary review: the biochemistry of
maturation. J Inst Brew 92:213–219

Ormrod IHL, Lalor EF, Sharpe FR (1991) The release of yeast
proteolytic enzymes into beer. J Inst Brew 97:441–443

Vanderhaegen et al;Bioflavoring and beer refermentation (2003) Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 62:140–150

 

[xxdcmast]

Ok not to threadjack here but is there too long of a time to have it in a secondary if you leave it in a primary for 2-3 weeks.

Say I wanted to do primary for 2-3 weeks then do secondary for 2-3 weeks then bottles for 2-3 weeks. Would that cause any problems?

 

[Beerthoven]

Ok not to threadjack here but is there too long of a time to have it in a secondary if you leave it in a primary for 2-3 weeks.

Say I wanted to do primary for 2-3 weeks then do secondary for 2-3 weeks then bottles for 2-3 weeks. Would that cause any problems?

That will work just fine.

 

[Bobby_M]

I guess I'm in the minority here, as the consensus on this board seems to be that autolysis does not exist. I'll just say I disagree, and that it is in the literature for a reason.

Ernest CH, Chen A, Jamieson AM, Van Gheluwe G (1980) The
release of fatty acids as a consequence of yeast autolysis. J Am
Soc Brew Chem 38:13–17

Masschelein CA (1986) Centenary review: the biochemistry of
maturation. J Inst Brew 92:213–219

Ormrod IHL, Lalor EF, Sharpe FR (1991) The release of yeast
proteolytic enzymes into beer. J Inst Brew 97:441–443

Vanderhaegen et al;Bioflavoring and beer refermentation (2003) Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 62:140–150

You have grossly misunderstood the HBT consensus on autolysis. It definitely exists in rare cases but I don't think anyone has had it happen in a few weeks under most conditions. You have to ask yourself how rare does something have to be for you to act as if it doesn't exist? Folks have reported no problems leaving beer on the yeast for months.

 

[Shawn Hargreaves]

I guess I'm in the minority here, as the consensus on this board seems to be that autolysis does not exist. I'll just say I disagree, and that it is in the literature for a reason.

Autolysis definitely does exist, I just don't think it's a serious concern when we are talking about one or even two months in a fermenter. I'd put this in the same category as "house could be destroyed by earthquake" or "wife might become furious for some unrelated reason and dump out my brew before it's ready" - sure, it could happen in theory, but it's not likely to in practice and not worth my while to worry about.

For anything that's going to be sitting around more than a couple of months (barleywine, mead) this is a real concern and a secondary is certainly important. All the serious research I've seen about autolysis (outside those early homebrew books which are now mostly discredited) is talking about this kind of year long maturation period.

Unless you are brewing a lambic, of course, in which case autolysis becomes a desirable flavor characteristic (and again you have to wait a year or more to get results from it).

 

[flowerysong]

I guess I'm in the minority here, as the consensus on this board seems to be that autolysis does not exist. I'll just say I disagree, and that it is in the literature for a reason.

The consensus isn't that it doesn't exist--that would be stupid. The consensus is that it is not a concern at typical extended primary times (1-3 months) and definitely is not a factor at two weeks.

In winemaking, for example, the consensus (at large, not just on this site) is that when aging sur lie autolysis doesn't become a factor until contact time exceeds a year.

 

[kevmoron]

You have grossly misunderstood the HBT consensus on autolysis. It definitely exists in rare cases but I don't think anyone has had it happen in a few weeks under most conditions. You have to ask yourself how rare does something have to be for you to act as if it doesn't exist? Folks have reported no problems leaving beer on the yeast for months.

Autolysis definitely does exist, I just don't think it's a serious concern when we are talking about one or even two months in a fermenter. I'd put this in the same category as "house could be destroyed by earthquake" or "wife might become furious for some unrelated reason and dump out my brew before it's ready" - sure, it could happen in theory, but it's not likely to in practice and not worth my while to worry about.

For anything that's going to be sitting around more than a couple of months (barleywine, mead) this is a real concern and a secondary is certainly important. All the serious research I've seen about autolysis (outside those early homebrew books which are now mostly discredited) is talking about this kind of year long maturation period.

Unless you are brewing a lambic, of course, in which case autolysis becomes a desirable flavor characteristic (and again you have to wait a year or more to get results from it).

The consensus isn't that it doesn't exist--that would be stupid. The consensus is that it is not a concern at typical extended primary times (1-3 months) and definitely is not a factor at two weeks.

In winemaking, for example, the consensus (at large, not just on this site) is that when aging sur lie autolysis doesn't become a factor until contact time exceeds a year.

In the future it might be good to refer to the sources I listed before replying to my post. A month has the potential to be very significant in terms of autolysis. Now I'm not saying that you have to use a secondary to get a good beer. This is just one of many variables (such as trub removal or prevention of hot-side aeration) that one should consider in order to optimize their beer. I'm just saying it is extremely misleading for newcomers that the consensus on this board is that a secondary fermenter is useless. Again, the scientific consensus disagrees with the board consensus, and I don't care what Jamil or Revvy or anyone else on this board says about their empirical experiences (nothing against either of you guys, you just happen to be the most vocal).

It's one thing to say "I don't think you need to worry too much about autolysis. In my experience, I have left beer in primary for over a month without any issues, and all my beers taste great. I don't find secondary fermenters to be necessary. You should try both methods and see which works best for you."

If you say it like that, I happen to disagree a bit but I have no problem with it. We'll agree to disagree and I'm fine with that. What I really don't like to see is that opinion preached as infallible truth to newbies, and for anyone who disagrees to be shot down like they often are. The information is not outdated, either. If you ever check out any of these journals, autolysis is continually being confirmed and has never been refuted. So please, feel free to tell them about your own experiences, but don't tell the newbies that a secondary is a wasted step.

 

[BierMuncher]

So glad the elections are over.

Now we can get back to the important debates.

Carry on civilly please.






....oh...and...dry yeast rules...

 

[kevmoron]

So glad the elections are over.

Now we can get back to the important debates.

So true...

 

[dontman]

To be honest Kev, you have done nothing to further your argument. The consensus here is NOT that there is NO such thing as autolysis. There is also no general belief that secondarying is a waste of time. Any one of the even vocal people here would not say such a thing. The consensus is that there is nothing to worry about for the standard beer brewer.

Your references to 30 year old articles notwithstanding, autolysis only becomes an issue to worry about when the period for dormancy passes and the yeast die and begin to basically rot, all while your beer is sitting on it. This process takes a long time. White Labs and Wyeast believe that their yeast can sit dormant for at least 4 months. How many newbie brewers leave their beer on yeast even close to this long. I would feel pretty confortable saying "NONE" give or take one. So for all but the most extreme examples it is perfectly safe to say to someone "relax, you have nothing to worry about from autolysis."

But this is no longer the point.

In the future I would appreciate it if you did not give me advice on how to give advice. There is a reason people here get so vocal about issues. It is that day in day out they have someone new coming in saying "my beer has been in primary for 5 days, is autolysis imminent?" and after the 150th time saying "no, you do not need to worry," we get to the point where we say "NO, YOU NEVER NEED TO WORRY!"

We get the same way about "Did I ruin my beer" threads, and "is it too soon to drink my beer threads." Does this mean that we believe that a newb has never ruined a beer? No. Just that the beer is more than likely fine. Does this mean that beer always has to wait 21 days in bottle to drink? No. Just that in our experience the beer is better off for the wait.

So, if we do not put enough caveats and conditional language in our advice for your tastes, deal with it.

EDIT: Oops written while BM wrote his "carry on civilly" post. Sorry, Kev. I think I woke up on the wrong of the beer keg.

 

[dontman]

Dry yeast?!? Please! Liquid yeast is the bomb.

But Better Bottles really do rule!

 

[Shawn Hargreaves]

So here's a question: has anyone here ever left beer too long in the primary, and had autolysis problems as a result?

We have plenty of people who have left beer a month or two without any problems.

We also have people who rack after a couple of weeks in order to avoid problems.

But what about the third possibility? Anyone personally experienced a problem due to waiting too long in primary?

 

[Bobby_M]

I've had a autolysis problem from pitching a stressed yeast slurry that came out of a high gravity batch. To make it worse, the next batch wasn't properly aerated so it was just expected to do too much. It has never happened to me when pitching fresh yeast and leaving it alone for 3 weeks.

kevmoron is clearly arguing about absolutes and scientific data instead of practical advice. If a new brewer comes in here asking about time in primary, they can't do anything with 4 journal article references. Talk about information overload.

It's enough to say that "we" collectively within the isolated walls of HBT have obviously decided that autolysis is not a problem for the most part in the short 4 week time frames. In any case, a new brewer hardly has a problem leaving beer sitting around too long. On the contrary, they're more concerned about if they CAN move the beer to the next step right NOW (now = 3 days after pitching). It's all we can do to get them to at least wait two weeks.

 

[bob1852]

Now we can get back to the important debates.

Shampoo or Conditioner?

 

[dontman]

Shampoo or Conditioner?

Razor. !

 

[Yunus]

Shampoo or Conditioner?

Pert Plus!

 

[BierMuncher]

I've had a autolysis problem from pitching a stressed yeast slurry that came out of a high gravity batch. ..

Mine came from underpitching a single packet of -04 into 10 gallons.

Took on a slight sulfur aroma that never went away.

In my case...it became apparent 24 hours into the fermentation.

Never had a problem where good yeast went bad because it was in the primary too long though.

 

[Jonnio]

Mine came from underpitching a single packet of -04 into 10 gallons.

Took on a slight sulfur aroma that never went away.

In my case...it became apparent 24 hours into the fermentation.

Never had a problem where good yeast went bad because it was in the primary too long though.

What you and Bobby said (under/over pitching and stressed yeast) are the things that Whitelabs/Wyeast warn against too, not time on cake.

 

[kevmoron]

First, I am not preaching absolutes here. Given the chance to go back in time and adjust my semantics, I would have rephrased "the consensus on this board seems to be that autolysis does not exist" as "many on this board seem to think autolysis can't happen with a one month primary." My statement was a bit overwrought and for that I apologize.

You can get a great beer with a long primary, and for many styles it is essential. I am not saying it is obligatory to secondary! You can brew your beer however you want, and I'm not telling anyone they are idiots or subpar brewers for not using a secondary. But the notion that it is totally useless in the art of homebrewing seems a tiny bit narrow-minded.

I love posts like this that are useful, honest, and balanced. It extols the benefits of a long primary as well as the utility of using a secondary. A new brewer is presented with good balanced advice, learning that they don't have to use a secondary to make a good beer, but that if they do secondary after some reasonable primary time, the beer can benefit from the attention.

I just wish some people would acknowledge the real possibility that a new brewer could potentially experience autolysis with a long primary, and be more careful about how they post on advice threads like this, or more specifically how they react to people that disagree. This thread is a perfect example. I know this is the internet, and this is therefore serious business, so I'm used to getting flamed. I just didn't realize people were so passionate about long primaries that they respond to contrary opinions with the tone that they often do on this forum. RDWHAHB and allow me to disagree here, sheesh

I've had a autolysis problem from pitching a stressed yeast slurry that came out of a high gravity batch. To make it worse, the next batch wasn't properly aerated so it was just expected to do too much. It has never happened to me when pitching fresh yeast and leaving it alone for 3 weeks.

A long primary would exacerbate a problem such as this, and a new brewer is more likely than most to make a little mistake like this.

kevmoron is clearly arguing about absolutes and scientific data instead of practical advice. If a new brewer comes in here asking about time in primary, they can't do anything with 4 journal article references. Talk about information overload.

Listen, guys... I'm not advocating that we inundate newbies with technical journals when they ask a simple question. And I'm definitely not saying your beer will be ruined if you leave it in primary for a month. I'm only saying there is a proven (however unlikely you may think it to be) potential for it to be affected. When they ask, give them your advice and don't try to stifle debate or discredit those that tell them they might want to consider a secondary.

 

[Jonnio]

I just wish some people would acknowledge the real possibility that a new brewer could potentially experience autolysis with a long primary, and be more careful about how they post on advice threads like this, or more specifically how they react to people that disagree. This thread is a perfect example. I know this is the internet, and this is therefore serious business, so I'm used to getting flamed. I just didn't realize people were so passionate about long primaries that they respond to contrary opinions with the tone that they often do on this forum. RDWHAHB and allow me to disagree here, sheesh

The problem is, many people know that new brewers are more likely to be pulling yeast off the cake too soon, not too late, so there is no need to fuel their desire to rack after 4 days. Your free to disagree, but don't discount the collective thousands of gallons of experience as bunk because you read a couple 10-20 year old articles.

A long primary would exacerbate a problem such as this, and a new brewer is more likely than most to make a little mistake like this.

I think what your missing is that the long primary did not cause the autolysis - if you have an issue then leaving the beer in that environment will make it worse. If you have an infection and you leave the beer in the primary for two months it is going to be worse, the length in the primary did not cause the infection.

 

[reim0027]

Wow, this was a fun thread to read. It gives new meaning to the adage "Ask 3 brewers for advice and you get 4 answers" (or something along those lines).

From what I read, the general consensus is yeast autolysis exists. However, if you pitched healthy yeast correctly (not under or over pitched) into the proper environment, autolysis is very unlikely. Therefore, leaving your beer in the primary for 3-4 weeks is very unlikely to have autolysis.

Then, moving to the secondary. That is highly debatable (and mainly a matter of opinion). The biggest problem is moving to the secondary too soon (before the yeast have finished cleaning house - so to speak). Another aspect of this debate - is a secondary even necessary? That depends on preference (again, from what I've read in this forum). If you wait long enough in the primary, rack it to the secondary using good sanitary procedures, there appears to be minimal to no downsides, yet there might be benefits.

Is that an adequate summary? If not, please point out where I am misinformed (because I am a n00b that loves helpful and constructive criticism). That is the best way for me to get better.

 

[Bobby_M]

Kev, here's a cool idea. Spend a few years here giving advice to new brewers and then come back and coach everyone as to the most helpful approach to take. Maybe you already have experience doing that on other forums, but I don't get that impression. It seems you've come here and picked up on one little topic to nit pick on when none of the advice here is likely to cause anyone autolysis issues. There are bigger fish to fry in the new brewer community.

I agree with one of the previous posts suggesting that if all advice posts included every caveat, exception and debatable detail that applies to a given topic, no one would possibly sit around long enough to deliver the helpful piece.

 

[Jolly McStanson]

The yeast will still clean up the beer in the secondary. The yeast on the bottom isn't cleaning up, its the yeast in suspension. The yeast in suspension goes with the beer into the secondary to continue cleaning up after it self. This is just my opinion.

 

[Joos]

You have to really TRY to screw up beer.You may be new to brewing,but the yeast has been doing this for thousands of years.If you Do screw it up.You learn from your mistake.RDWHAHB