skipping secondary, keeping in primary

[dobe12]

Non-fermentable sweetener? Anyone have a suggestion. I am all ears.

Lactose or Milk Sugar. It's what's used in milk stouts. It's unfermentable and leaves a residual sweetness.

 

[fearwig]

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!

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.

 

[masonsjax]

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.

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

 

[pjj2ba]

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

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

 

[fearwig]

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.

 

[Stlheadake]

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

 

[fearwig]

Neglecting rules I don't like is my secret ingredient. Also nose bacteria, I sniff my beer like three or four times a week.

 

[Yooper]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Puddlethumper]

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.

 

[fearwig]

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.

 

[AnOldUR]

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.

If I remember correctly in the Basic Brewing Radio podcast experiment, differences were noted in the batches, but preferences were about equally divided.

 

[fearwig]

So it was double blind? And there were no other possible factors in the fermentation? I mean I don't really expect anything absolutely scientific (multiple tests, subjects, etc), but beer geeks would sooner die than say they can't distinguish two samples, y'know, even when they come from the same bottle. I'm just saying I'll be awfully hard to convince.

 

[Yooper]

So it was double blind? And there were no other possible factors in the fermentation? I mean I don't really expect anything absolutely scientific (multiple tests, subjects, etc), but beer geeks would sooner die than say they can't distinguish two samples, y'know, even when they come from the same bottle. I'm just saying I'll be awfully hard to convince.

I think it was couple of years ago, and I can't remember the details, but yes, it was a blind sampling.

The interesting thing to me was that everybody noted differences in the beers, even if subtle. But, the preference for one over the other was almost evenly split- that is, some liked the shorter primary, some liked the primary/secondary, and some liked the long primary better.

 

[fearwig]

This almost has me wanting to do the test, preferably with an American, English and Belgian strain... with multiple samples... all those things I won't actually ever do.

 

[Genuine]

I've always kept in primary till it was ready to keg. Haven't had an issue yet.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[pjj2ba]

O......... 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...........

This makes no sense to me. Just because they are dormant, that does not mean they are inert. If cell activity is required, then how does dry hopping or wood aging work? No cell activity going on there. Yeast don't have some magic spell that somehow prevents anything from going into or out of the cells. Diffusion is occurring across the yeast cell membrane, whether still actively metabolizing, or dormant.

You certainly will get more flavor impact from active cells though.

A little science content. Diffusion across the membrane can be passive or active (requiring ATP). Passive diffussion strictly relies on a concentration gradient. If there is more of something inside than out, it will tend to flow out, and vice versa. Now, not all compounds can simply diffuse through the membrane. Non-polar compounds typically can, but polar compounds cannot. That being said, there are proteins in the cell membrane that can facilitate movement of polar molecules across the membrane. Again this is all driven by material simply diffusing from an area of high concentration to low concentration. No energy required. Flavorful esters tend to be non-polar
Now active transport, this is different, and requires the input of energy. What this allows a cell to do is to concentrate things inside the cell, and resist the tendency of materials to be at equal concentrations inside and outside the cell (what physics would like). This is how yeast take up sugars from the wort (sugars are too non-polar to diffuse across the membrane)

Then there is endocytosis and exocytosis which are used to get bigger molecules into and out of cells, like proteases that destroy heading positive proteins

 

[pjj2ba]

So it was double blind? And there were no other possible factors in the fermentation? I mean I don't really expect anything absolutely scientific (multiple tests, subjects, etc), but beer geeks would sooner die than say they can't distinguish two samples, y'know, even when they come from the same bottle. I'm just saying I'll be awfully hard to convince.

Read about it here
byo and basic brewing radio experiment does delayed racking harm your-beer

 

[fearwig]

This makes no sense to me. Just because they are dormant, that does not mean they are inert. If cell activity is required, then how does dry hopping or wood aging work? No cell activity going on there. Yeast don't have some magic spell that somehow prevents anything from going into or out of the cells. Diffusion is occurring across the yeast cell membrane, whether still actively metabolizing, or dormant.

My point is that the yeast were in contact with the beer for all of primary fermentation, what are you getting from them (other than the results of autolysis maybe) when they've gone dormant that you aren't from the first week?

If cell activity is required, then how does dry hopping or wood aging work?

I don't this is an appropriate comparison at all. There is flavor already the wood, that originated somewhere else, and it is seeping out. What flavor (other than those produced by metabolic activity) is in the yeast already that's seeping out? The yeast's contributions to beer flavor are the products of metabolism, not something that just happens to be bound up intrinsically within yeast that seeps out over time. Yeast are alive, your yeast are born in wort. It's (loosely) a closed system.

I'm not saying there can be no difference in flavor at all, because even when dormant there is still some metabolic activity (which is the key). It's just that the effect of being "on the yeast" is overstated by imagining that you're steeping your beer with some outside element, it's not like that at all.

 

[masonsjax]

This makes no sense to me. Just because they are dormant, that does not mean they are inert. If cell activity is required, then how does dry hopping or wood aging work? No cell activity going on there. Yeast don't have some magic spell that somehow prevents anything from going into or out of the cells. Diffusion is occurring across the yeast cell membrane, whether still actively metabolizing, or dormant.

I don't disagree with your point in general, but you're acting like leaving beer in primary is equivalent to adding something new to the fermenter. The yeast was there all along. It's still there when you move the beer to secondary, and it's there in the keg or bottle too, albeit in smaller quantities. Whatever flavors are imparted from the yeast are there regardless. Extra time spent on a large amount of yeast obviously intensifies certain flavors, but it's minimal, and those are not new flavors and not unusual flavors that don't belong in beer. Nobody is implying theres any supernatural suspension of flavor melding, just that it's not changing your beer into a different species, it's just a slightly different development and maturation of the already existing flavor profile.

 

[pjj2ba]

I don't disagree with your point in general, but you're acting like leaving beer in primary is equivalent to adding something new to the fermenter. The yeast was there all along. It's still there when you move the beer to secondary, and it's there in the keg or bottle too, albeit in smaller quantities. Whatever flavors are imparted from the yeast are there regardless. Extra time spent on a large amount of yeast obviously intensifies certain flavors, but it's minimal, and those are not new flavors and not unusual flavors that don't belong in beer. Nobody is implying theres any supernatural suspension of flavor melding, just that it's not changing your beer into a different species, it's just a slightly different development and maturation of the already existing flavor profile.

Again, this is the source of confusion, there are not many people saying you get unusual flavors and different flavors from extra yeast contact. All I (and others) am saying is the flavors that the yeast impart are more evident the longer you leave the beer on the yeast. Just like with longer dry hopping, longer wood exposure, etc. Yes they can be subtle, but to some of us, it matters.

 

[Yooper]

I don't disagree with your point in general, but you're acting like leaving beer in primary is equivalent to adding something new to the fermenter. The yeast was there all along. It's still there when you move the beer to secondary, and it's there in the keg or bottle too, albeit in smaller quantities. Whatever flavors are imparted from the yeast are there regardless. Extra time spent on a large amount of yeast obviously intensifies certain flavors, but it's minimal, and those are not new flavors and not unusual flavors that don't belong in beer. Nobody is implying theres any supernatural suspension of flavor melding, just that it's not changing your beer into a different species, it's just a slightly different development and maturation of the already existing flavor profile.

But thAt is the point! The yeast breaking down (it's not dormant exactly at all) does has a flavor impact. Some find it pleasing, but others don't. Yeast metabolism doesn't magically stop because some folks on a homebrew forum say the yeast should.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[Puddlethumper]

But thAt is the point! The yeast breaking down (it's not dormant exactly at all) does has a flavor impact. Some find it pleasing, but others don't. Yeast metabolism doesn't magically stop because some folks on a homebrew forum say the yeast should.

I think I have a handle on the process you are describing, but to check on my understanding:

Corn on the cob is good raw
It is still corn on the cob when cooked and tastes better yet
After a week, it is still corn on the cob, but maybe not so tasty?

Do I have that roughly correct?

 

[fearwig]

I also think we got sidetracked and confused between advising people not to secondary and advising people to leave beer on the yeast in primary as long as they would have kept it in secondary, the latter of which everyone agrees you can do, but I'm not sure anyone says you should (unless you refuse to buy a hydrometer or something crazy like that).

There should be no considerable extra yeast character from racking to a bottling bucket or keg rather than to secondary, especially if you cold crash. You're not leaving it on the yeast any longer. There would be a negligible difference due to suspended yeast but that depends on the quality of your method.

 

[AnOldUR]

After a week, it is still corn on the cob, but maybe not so tasty? Do I have that roughly correct?

No! More time on the yeast doesn't make it tastier. It makes it different.

 

[Puddlethumper]

No! More time on the yeast doesn't make it tastier. It makes it different.

Maybe I didn't choose a good example but we agree that there is a noticeable difference in the flavor of the three stages. I think that is the thrust of what many have been trying to say here.

 

[AnOldUR]

This thread could have ended with the 4th post.

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

 

[masonsjax]

Then we would've missed all the discussion and articulation of ideas that some of us hadn't considered. Honestly I think we were all on the same page (or at least the same chapter) to begin with, but have slightly different ways of conceptualizing the same idea. I've enjoyed this civil discussion which seems to be a rarity on the internet.

 

[fearwig]

I've enjoyed this civil discussion which seems to be a rarity on the internet.

No YOU!

 

[Puddlethumper]

then we would've missed all the discussion and articulation of ideas that some of us hadn't considered. Honestly i think we were all on the same page (or at least the same chapter) to begin with, but have slightly different ways of conceptualizing the same idea. I've enjoyed this civil discussion which seems to be a rarity on the internet.

+1

 

[Stlheadake]

Thanks for a great discussion. And YES it was civil.

Next question....anyone use an aluminum boil kettle?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Home Brew mobile app