Latest trend - NO Secondary?

[Rick_R]

I've only done one no-secondary batch and decided not to repeat. It may be because my primary is in a carboy, not a bucket, but the krausen left hefty deposits on the upper, inside portion of the carboy. When I inserted the racking cane I couldn't help but knock some of these deposits off into the beer. Maybe it didn't hurt the final result, but I didn't like having it drop into the beer just before racking into the bottling bucket. Of course, as they (whoever they are) say, your mileage may vary.

Rick

 

[duskb]

Sorry I missed responding to this, but TheFlatLine gives a good answer. I want to restate my stance on this, every recipe will have it's own time frame of when it is ready and another time frame when it peaks. Secondary is really a place where the yeast can continue dropping out of suspension. If you want less sediment in your bottle then a secondary is advisable.

However, I have always had excellent results by merely going from primary right to bottle in 10 days on many of the Ales I make. I am also patient enough to know that they'll be sitting in the bottle for a month, 2 or more and that is the other key point to this method. There are supposedly subtle differences between bottle conditioning vs. bulk conditioning, what they are I am not sure anyone has quantified these effects (or so I have not come across). I do know that highly successful breweries like Ommegang bottle condition their Ales after they are in the cold cellar for 2 weeks (for clarification).

Thanks mostly to this board and in part to my local homebrew shop I've become much more educated in the last few weeks on this topic. It's funny, re-reading that same post here now I seriously can't believe I let that Newcastle clone age only 10 days before bottling...WTF was I thinking?

The irony is the beer has aged remarkably. I only wish I did not plow through the first box of 24 in the first two weeks. I was reckless. Now I'm down to the last 12 bottles and the flavor has gotten sooo much better. I marked "reserve" on the remaining bottles, requiring a wait before further consumption, but the damage has already been done...

This error will not be repeated on subsequent bottlings.


I have tried both a primary fermentation and a primary to secondary fermentation during the period of this post and to be dead honest...I can't tell a difference in either of the results. It seems the beer solution is resilient enough to make a good product in either environment. Maybe a judge can tell the difference in the product but I sure can't, and ultimately that's all that matters. I'm not out to win awards...I'm out to enjoy the fruits of my labor.

 

[TheFlatline]

OK, I will play advocatus diaboli now:

This year I made some experiments with fermentation that go exactly the other way.
I used the procedure descibed here:
http://www.beertools.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1693&highlight=tertiary
It goes like that: Primary as short as possible, brief secondary, and long and cold tertiary for a few weeks.

Autolysis? No, this is not the biggest thread. I'm worried about trub from cold break - it contains some proteins, the food for microbes.
About yeast: when you rack to secondary, you don't get rid of all the yeast, only the dead and week that have already flocculated to the bottom. There is still plenty of healthy yeast in suspension, that will do the cleaning job.

The yield of the experiment was like that: a few times I got under-attenuated beer. But 4 of the beers won prizes.

Under-attenuated beer? I'm going to say that has nothing to do with using a secondary and everything with pulling your beer out before it's done fermenting.

If you're *really* worried about cold break proteins, then just whirlpool in your boil kettle and siphon out, leaving the cold break & hops behind.

My point was that if you have off flavors in your beer, letting it rest on the yeast cake, or at the very least letting it bulk age, will clean the off flavors out quicker. For my hefe that I brewed, that was as short as 3 days time (the fermentation was done, but the flavor went from "ick OMG this is horrible" to "damn I could drink this for breakfast" in 3 days. I'm not sure that would have happened if I bottle conditioned.)

Besides, it seems like there is some confusion here. I thought most of the yeast in the sediment was dormant, and not actually dead yet. I mean, you can pour wort directly onto the yeast cake and have it go berserk a few hours later, which would lead me to believe that most of that yeast isn't dead, but in stasis.

 

[TheFlatline]

Thanks mostly to this board and in part to my local homebrew shop I've become much more educated in the last few weeks on this topic. It's funny, re-reading that same post here now I seriously can't believe I let that Newcastle clone age only 10 days before bottling...WTF was I thinking?

The irony is the beer has aged remarkably. I only wish I did not plow through the first box of 24 in the first two weeks. I was reckless. Now I'm down to the last 12 bottles and the flavor has gotten sooo much better. I marked "reserve" on the remaining bottles, requiring a wait before further consumption, but the damage has already been done...

This error will not be repeated on subsequent bottlings.


I have tried both a primary fermentation and a primary to secondary fermentation during the period of this post and to be dead honest...I can't tell a difference in either of the results. It seems the beer solution is resilient enough to make a good product in either environment. Maybe a judge can tell the difference in the product but I sure can't, and ultimately that's all that matters. I'm not out to win awards...I'm out to enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Hence why people skip secondary. I'll use secondary if I need to open up a fermentation vessel, as my "secondary" bucket is like a 5.5 gallon capacity, and would overflow easily with a vigorous fermentation.

 

[zoebisch01]

Besides, it seems like there is some confusion here. I thought most of the yeast in the sediment was dormant, and not actually dead yet. I mean, you can pour wort directly onto the yeast cake and have it go berserk a few hours later, which would lead me to believe that most of that yeast isn't dead, but in stasis.

Exactly, which is why I have no qualms doing it the way I do, well that and my personal experiences have proven it time and time again. It's not like the yeast at the bottom are interacting anymore .

 

[Chad]

Besides, it seems like there is some confusion here. I thought most of the yeast in the sediment was dormant, and not actually dead yet. I mean, you can pour wort directly onto the yeast cake and have it go berserk a few hours later, which would lead me to believe that most of that yeast isn't dead, but in stasis.

That's true, but near the end of fermentation, when the yeast figure out that they are running out of food they stop producing alcohol and start building glycogen reserves. That glycogen is what they live on while dormant. Once that runs out, the yeasts start to die, releasing decomposition products into the wort and giving it a meaty, brothy flavor. That's autolysis.

Chad

 

[zoebisch01]

That's true, but near the end of fermentation, when the yeast figure out that they are running out of food they stop producing alcohol and start building glycogen reserves. That glycogen is what they live on while dormant. Once that runs out, the yeasts start to die, releasing decomposition products into the wort and giving it a meaty, brothy flavor. That's autolysis.

Chad

That kind of brings me to why I secondary for my big beers or beers that will be lagered. Most big beers I plan on keeping over the 1 year mark, with which the affects of autolysis can occur, granted in very small amounts. The flocculation of the yeast prior to bottling can help prevent these effects.

 

[dmako]

I've only brewed 3 beers so I'm no expert but I look at the use of a secondary as more interaction with the beer making process. It gives me something to do and observe the changes during the whole brewing process.

 

[Piotr]

If you're *really* worried about cold break proteins, then just whirlpool in your boil kettle and siphon out, leaving the cold break & hops behind.

There is no way to remove the cold break completely from primary fermentation (well, except flotation used by big breweries). Just look at the yeast cake - it is never clean, no matter how much you whirlpool.

Well, you did't convince me to long primary yet. To do it, I must make two assumptions:

1. The yeast on the bottom of the fermenter, although dormant, somehow still work on the beer, thats why we don't want to get rid of them too early
2. The cold trub and microbes that might grow on it are not very dangerous for beer.

is there any way to prove it?

 

[Revvy]

1. The yeast on the bottom of the fermenter, although dormant, somehow still work on the beer, thats why we don't want to get rid of them too early
2. The cold trub and microbes that might grow on it are not very dangerous for beer.

is there any way to prove it?

Considering the John Palmer passage I quoted in this thread earlier, there's also this...passage by him in the autolyses section in the lagering chapter.

As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis.

And personal eaperience...I have certain brews that I rebrew all the time, and amber ale, and a clone of rogue deadguy...I used to secondary after about 10 days...Well I brewed the deadguy and didn't get to rack it, and didn't even get to touch it for a month before I could bottle it.. I still had a couple bottles of the previous secondaried batch, when the month in primary/to bottle came online...exactly the same recipe...

The ones left in primary for a month were cleared, didn't have any chillhaze and tasted better, (according to several people) then the ones that went in secondary...Since then I've repeated it with several other batches and had the same results.

Words like "crisp," "jewel like" and "clean tasting" have been used to describe my month on primary batches....and I have to agree...But like so much in brewing it comes down to personal preference...

I didn't even KNOW this was a common practice until after I did it..I used to believe in the autolyses bogeyman andget it off the cake asap...Didn't realize I was missing out on better quality beer.

I've just found that letting the yeasties work for me, both in the fermenter and in the botlles (see my never dump your beer thread/blog) does a heck of alot to put my beer over the edge in terms of quality.

 

[Piotr]

The ones left in primary for a month were cleared, didn't have any chillhaze and tasted better, (according to several people) then the ones that went in secondary...Since then I've repeated it with several other batches and had the same results.

Well, that makes me at list willing to try this techniqe. You know, what I will do? I will split a batch in 2 fermenters; equal time of fermentation; but one with secondary and one with primary only. Blind testing them side-by-side will be the proof I need.

 

[Brew-boy]

Since I started kegging, I've stopped secondarying. I haven't had any negative impact. YMMV, RDWHAHB, to each their own, etc...

Amen I will never do secondaries again, not need to in my case. Primary to Keg.

 

[SilverKing]

I'm planning on leaving my American Wheat in Primary for a total of about 3 weeks. When I rack to keg, is there any reason not to put it in the kegerator to condition cold? Also, is there a reason not to hook it up to co2 right away?

I was thinking of racking to keg, stick in the fridge and carb at a lower psi for a week or two to condition and carb at the same time. Instead of shake and bake. any problems ahead for me?

EDIT: I guess the general question is, should I condition the beer then force-carb it, or should I force-carb and condition at the same time? I'll be doing an Oatmeal Stout sometime and I'd like to take it home for the holidays. Should I force-carb the batch, then bottle what I want and set aside, or let the whole batch sit in the keg to age and carb it when it's ready?

 

[SilverKing]

^any input on this? thanks.

 

[Alemaker]

^any input on this? thanks.

Are you expecting this American Wheat to clear? It's probably not going to, and any amount of cold conditioning isn't going to change that. 3 weeks in primary ought to be enough to go straight to the keg and drink. Hell, if I'm doing a German hefe, it'll be on tap in about two weeks from brewing it. Same with stouts, even if it did "clear" you wouldn't be able to tell anyway. Wheats and stouts are my "quick" beers.

As for your question about conditioning while carbing, it's fine. Hook up the gas and wait.

 

[SilverKing]

yeah, I'm more concerned with ales in general. when to condition and when to keg. Just trying to develop a process to repeat for future batches.

 

[SuperiorBrew]

No secondaries here either, unless its a lager, big beer or if I'm adding fruit or something to that nature.
I have left them up to 6 weeks in the primary and I think they are clearer than when I used to secondary them all.

 

[Saccharomyces]

I'll report back the results and see if we can tell the difference.

Still waiting, growing impatient now. *thump thump*

I have two lagers going right now, both will go straight to the keg. The swill beer will stay in the primary for four weeks or until I get impatient and decide to take the space back for kegs in the kegerator. The other (Munich Helles) is getting six weeks. Both will be lagered in the keg for one month before tapping. I will post pics to this thread when they are tapped.

 

[reibrew]

The thing to remember is that the only "right way" to brew is the way that's right for you...What provides you with beer that meets your standards...

There are some absolutes, like Sanitization and Patience, but the brewing methodolgy employed, usually comes down to personal experience, and developing your process.

Sorry for the graveyard bump, but I signed up just to quote this and say thanks. I've got my second ever brew in the primary and was considering leaving it in for a couple weeks; thread gave me the direction to leave it alone.

Quoted for the good advice!

 

[Revvy]

Sorry for the graveyard bump, but I signed up just to quote this and say thanks. I've got my second ever brew in the primary and was considering leaving it in for a couple weeks; thread gave me the direction to leave it alone.

Quoted for the good advice!

Man this thread is one of the first discussions on this topic, 4 years ago. A lot has changed since then, no secondary has really become less controversial, it's become quite common actually, BYO magazine, & Basic Brewing have tested it out, and written about it. Many, many recipes in BYO and even some kits are starting to reflect this idea...and even John Palmer backed off of what he wrote in the first edition of How to Brew, and has even advocated not racking to secondary.

If you want to catch up on that, read, To Secondary or Not? John Palmer and Jamil Zainasheff Weigh In .

It's sort of the UBER discussion on the topic, and there's links to all the information that has come up, and folks have ventured their opinions and such on it in there. But looking at this and some of the contentious earlier threads, and looking at that one, you can see how far this discussion has come.

 

[reibrew]

Basically my buddy and I split a coopers kit for $110 and messed up the lager that came with the kit, bottled it way too fast and it's virtually undrinkable. We went for a blonde and did it the right way and since it's in my basement I'm keeping it in the primary for 2-3 weeks.

A bit off-topic, but in that article he mentions brewers becoming knowledgeable about how much good healthy yeast to use and that back in the day they used the packet taped to the can.

The coopers kit we used had a packet of yeast on it. Would it be a good investment to go to the brew store and pick up some better quality yeast, or will I be good with just the included pack with the 23L?

 

[BierMuncher]

...The coopers kit we used had a packet of yeast on it. Would it be a good investment to go to the brew store and pick up some better quality yeast, or will I be good with just the included pack with the 23L?

I'd always opt for some fresher yeast. SafeAle-04 or -05 is a great dry yeast and is only $3-$4 per packet.

 

[Revvy]

The coopers kit we used had a packet of yeast on it. Would it be a good investment to go to the brew store and pick up some better quality yeast, or will I be good with just the included pack with the 23L?

Honestly, although biermuncher's right about using us-04 or 05, the thing to realize is that it's not 1977 anymore, we're not still under homebrew prohibition. Those ideas about old, bad yeast comes from back then, when there weren't a ton of fresh ingredients easily available, there weren't homebrew shops nearly in every city (sometimes more than one) or just a keyboard click away. Back in the day MAYBE, you had a winearts in your town, selling that stuff under the counter, or your grocery store that was selling Blue Ribbon Extract with an unmarked satches of godknowswhatbrand of yeast with no expiration date on there.

Yeast isn't coming across in the hold of a ship and that can of extract more than likely, if it's a decent turnover store, isn't going to be gathering dust and past it's expiration date. Even Cooper's kits, if you're using an online retailer or an LHBS with a good customer base isn't/shouldn't be expired. If it's in it's use by dates, then there's no reason why you shouldn't use it.

That's the point, stuff is usually healthier and fresher, then when all those bad yeast ideas, were popular, and handed down even to John Palmer.