Testing long primary

[pkeeler]

Anyone ever notice the people who are anti long primary want others to do the split batch to test it but will then denounce it as crap?

Interesting that you see it as a belief or ideology rather than simply science. If someone on here came on and said, "I racked my beer to a secondary and it came out clearer after bottling so secondary is best", I'd say the same thing. Without a control batch you can't know anything besides that one beer came out good. You can't even know if that beer came out the best it could have.

The Church of Long Primary people have to chill out and have a beer. ;-)

 

[pkeeler]

The one big difference that you left out of this is that we who keg are drinking this beer while it is sitting there in the keg. Those sitting in carboys are not drinking it. Also, cold conditioning is completely different than leaving a beer sitting in a carboy at room temp. You are not coagulating tannin/polyphenols or proteins and helping them drop to the bottom at room temp like you are at cold temps...

True, although sometimes I keg the beer and let it sit in the cellar because I have more kegs than room in the fridge. You are just making my point, and a previous poster's point, that there are a lot of ways to do this. Too many variables to simply brew a batch, say that came out, and draw conclusions about all beer batches from it.

I agree that bulk aging is important for some length of time. I think 4 weeks is a minimum for most recipes, but I don't care how people do it. From what I've experienced, read, and heard, it is the time and stable temps, not the containers that matter. It is all very liberating from conventional wisdom of 20 years ago. Sometimes I leave stuff in the primary with no worries but other times there are practical reasons to move it.

The other side of the coin is that people use to assert that racking to a secondary would oxidize the beer. This also doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any downside to racking or leaving it. This should be the message. I think there are practical reasons for moving some beers to a secondary sometimes. That there is not one answer for everyone's beer all the time.

 

[Revvy]

Really? I've read thousands of posts here and have never read one that said beer will autolyze in a few weeks. However, when people do ask legitimate secondary container questions (such as for harvesting yeast, adding fruit, dry hopping, et al), I do see many people ignore the question and proselytize about not needing secondary fermenters.

Really. you missed out on how John Palmer pretty much brought this whole old fear into the fore-front with the online edition of how to brew, and the countless posts of folks so sure that if you didn't move your beer on day 8 your might as well just dump it because it was gorilla poop, and the endless panic threads, where people were quoting the passage by palmer, or rehashing various derivation of just when the beer would go bad????? And the endless arguments that people were so sure that those of us who were doing it couldn't didn't know what beer shoud tasting like and were burying our head in the sand.....and the pretty nasty threads, where a few even got closed????

Maybe you need to look into the HISTORY of this discussion....Just go back 3 years or so to see them....Where there were maybe a half dozen of us being pummelled by a bunch of naysayers who never even tried it to begin with, just being a bunch of a$$hat armchair quaterbacks, "opinioning" how this is bad for the beer, or how it does no good for the beer.

The funny thing is, there has been a shift as more and more folks do it....it's become accepted.....

But that's also way like Chesire, most of us are sick and tired of the same rephased old arguments you nay sayers and the trolls use....we've heard them before, and we've countered them, we've provided quotes, source material, thounsands of anecodatal information...everything to counter the BS that gets spwed....and more very day as more established brewing things like podcasts and BYO magazine start to reflect thsi new trend....and like we said, the funny thing is how many of the most virulent nay-sayers of the old days, are now the biggest "evangelists" of the BENEFITS of long primary...they cite improvements their beers by doing it as well....

That's why we say that nothing you say hasn't already been said by countless people who came back at some point down the line after actually trying it to apologize, and say we were right...

 

[pkeeler]

Maybe you need to look into the HISTORY of this discussion....Just go back 3 years or so to see them....Where there were maybe a half dozen of us being pummelled by a bunch of naysayers who never even tried it to begin with, just being a bunch of a$$hat armchair quaterbacks, "opinioning" how this is bad for the beer, or how it does no good for the beer.

I think you are agreeing with me, that for at least three years (what is that 90,000 posts?), nobody has said your beer will turn to sulfur goo at day 15. Maybe you were ridiculed, you seem to have been traumatized, sorry about that. Wasn't me. I do long primaries, long secondaries, short primaries, short secondaries; it all depends.

Instead of getting so upset at constructive criticism and calling people trolls (you didn't seem to like it when you were getting it), maybe you should open your own mind. If I heard the same criticism over and over, I would probably take a step back and wonder if I was missing something. Brewing science is really quite young still and new things are being learned. For instance, this Kaiser guy is showing new things about RA, which itself is a relatively new concept.

 

[SwampassJ]

Interesting that you see it as a belief or ideology rather than simply science. If someone on here came on and said, "I racked my beer to a secondary and it came out clearer after bottling so secondary is best", I'd say the same thing. Without a control batch you can't know anything besides that one beer came out good. You can't even know if that beer came out the best it could have.

The Church of Long Primary people have to chill out and have a beer. ;-)

Then feel free to do the testing since you are the more vocal one between the two of us and the one saying it is useless. If your going to stand behind the scientific method then do your own work instead of expecting others to do it for you.

 

[Haputanlas]

This S#!t is getting old.

Sorry Chshre. I really want to know how this turns out.

 

[ChshreCat]

I'm with you. Can we just stop the argument in here? It's all been said! Brew how you want! Long primary, short primary, whatever works for you! I'm just doing this demonstration to dispel some fears people have when they go long.

 

[Six_O_Turbo]

I'm with you. Can we just stop the argument in here? It's all been said! Brew how you want! Long primary, short primary, whatever works for you! I'm just doing this demonstration to dispel some fears people have when they go long.

Absolutely, and it is a fine demonstration for showing that long primary is not a bad thing, but I don't see anyone here (certainly in this thread) saying a long primary is detrimental to a beer, only that a secondary can work just as well when done properly.

I agree that bulk aging is important for some length of time. I think 4 weeks is a minimum for most recipes, but I don't care how people do it. From what I've experienced, read, and heard, it is the time and stable temps, not the containers that matter. It is all very liberating from conventional wisdom of 20 years ago. Sometimes I leave stuff in the primary with no worries but other times there are practical reasons to move it.

The other side of the coin is that people use to assert that racking to a secondary would oxidize the beer. This also doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any downside to racking or leaving it. This should be the message. I think there are practical reasons for moving some beers to a secondary sometimes. That there is not one answer for everyone's beer all the time.

Excellent post. Very non-confrontational, unlike others...

 

[ChshreCat]

Absolutely, and it is a fine demonstration for showing that long primary is not a bad thing, but I don't see anyone here (certainly in this thread) saying a long primary is detrimental to a beer, only that a secondary can work just as well when done properly.

If you look around, you'll see lots of threads from folks worried about autolysis or that their beer won't carb right and many other unnecessary fears. That's all I'm trying to curb here. Don't want to force anyone to change what they do. Just trying to kill some bogeymen. Don't know why folks can't just let it be. If you don't like doing a long primary, then don't. No need to come onto a thread and start a fight.

 

[samc]

Anxious to see the results here!

As to all the constant fighting about the process, that's part of the evolution of how new ideas and methods are formed. It's a pain to read and see for some of us, but if you start a thread about the subject people are going to jump in and get it going no matter what you do, short of closing the thread.

 

[Six_O_Turbo]

If you look around, you'll see lots of threads from folks worried about autolysis or that their beer won't carb right and many other unnecessary fears. That's all I'm trying to curb here. Don't want to force anyone to change what they do. Just trying to kill some bogeymen. Don't know why folks can't just let it be. If you don't like doing a long primary, then don't. No need to come onto a thread and start a fight.

I see those "autolysis" posts occasionally from new brewers who may have got some advice from old school brewers or LHBS owners who haven't cracked open a book in 10 years, but can't say I've seen it from anyone who is (at least semi) up to date on current practices and yeast.

Where's the fight? I didn't realize I was trying to start a "fight". In fact, I thought I agreed with what you were doing in your experiment to show a long primary is often not detrimental to a beer. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.

 

[ChshreCat]

Sorry if you felt that was directed at you. It was more of a general "you" towards the world.

 

[Haputanlas]

We should just put a hold on this thread and let ChshreCat update us when he actually has something to update.

On the lighter side of things:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f45/caption-picture-contest-214773/index3.html

 

[SamuraiSquirrel]

Not reading the entire thread here but just thowing my thoughts/experience out there.

I don't think anyone who hasn't done both and compared results should comment or make statements as fact on this issue. I started brewing and transfered to secondary for the first 5 or 6 brews as some kits state this in the instructions. Then I tried the 3 week primary and have done this every since. 40 + brews with great results (most of which were dry hopped pale ales & IPAs all dry hopped in the primary)

The only problem I see with the argument is that I get the idea that many who argue for secondary have not tried primary only. It's my guess that the majority of those who now advocate the extended primary method once secondaried at least a few of their beers .......... You can get sparkling crystal clear beer without transferring to a secondary.

If theres any people out there who started out secondary, did primary only for awhile and didn't like it, then switched back to secondary I would be interest to hear from them.

 

[ChshreCat]

If theres any people out there who started out secondary, did primary only for awhile and didn't like it, then switched back to secondary I would be interest to hear from them.

Sure, just not here.

 

[Bensiff]

Same as any beer I do...

Chill through the CFC, aerate by pouring between two buckets, pitching liquid yeast that's been on a starter for ~24hrs, maintaining ambient temp ~60*F, wait two months, bottle, and collect gold medals.

I'm somehow left thinking of Christopher Walken on the Cowbell skit...

"Easy guys, I put my pants on just like the rest of you, one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on I make gold records."

 

[HoppedIPA]

So i have a Chinook single hop IPA OG 1.078 with over 150+ ibu's and i think i am going to do an extended primary why not.. Looking for suggestions for how long is long enough?

So far my longest primary was 15 days and shortest was 7 the short one was only due to i wanted the esb ready for Christmas which it was and it was gone within 6 days..lol Too much family and friends in town..

 

[HItransplant]

I think part of the fear of autolysis issue is related to which handbook you choose to start your homebrew education. I started with charlie... and although it got me there.. I wish I had started with how to brew. Charlie talked about autolysis.. and that may be why so many new brewers are freaked about it, but his book in general seems a little less "sciency," and seems to have more outdated info (dunno.. maybe I just like the style of Palmer's book).

That said, It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be an end to this debate anytime soon (since nobody is really coming to the table with any new OBJECTIVE information.. just the same old anecdotal info, quotes, opinions, etc.). What would change that (possibly) is a double blinded, random-controlled-trial... preferably lots of them. This would be hard in the brewing world because there are sooo many variables to control. One of these is yeast, which is notoriously hard to keep consistent (even for the pros). So, until someone comes up with a good study design, it seems like a waste of time to continue arguing this point, especially since people on both sides have had good success, each with their own method (primary, secondary, long, short).


Maybe we can agree to disagree, or at least to agree that neither side is going to "convince" the other that their way is right (at least without some hard evidence). But, does it really matter who is right???

I think we are losing sight of the point. I believe its to make good beer, no?

How about we instead pool our knowledge and resources to look into just what is the ideal time to keep a batch in primary before bottling or kegging? I think C-cat's little trial is a start in this direction, mostly because it involves some blinding (in the form of judges).

I like secondary because I get to handle my beer one more time (yes, Im still an idealistic newbie, obsessive about "the process"), but im intrigued, and I want to learn more about this "one vessel fermentation;" How long is too long? What is the ideal time to keep a batch in the fermenter.. aka, at what point, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks? is the benefit not worth waiting any longer to get on to the drinking?

maybe we stop bickering and move forward.

C-cat, sorry to jack a little, im just tired of rumination and of picking through these threads where it seems only one in ten posts actually have NEW information in them.

ok, im done.....carry on.

oh, and happy new year everyone.

 

[ChshreCat]

Ok. I didn't forget about this thread and my promise. I just got my score sheets and it's time to see the results.

The test was to see how a couple of BJCP judges would react to my beer that sat for months on the yeast in a plastic bucket. Specifically, to see if there would be any mention of autolysis or oxidation in the beer. It would be a blind test as they would have no idea I was using them to test the long primary and the would simply report what they detected in the beer.

The recipe was for my BBD Saison Furtif. You can find it at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f71/bbd-saison-furtif-155009/.

I planned on typing in the comments, word for word... but since Yooper and the other fine folks taking care of things had them scanned, I can actually show you the results in the judges own handwriting.

Here are the score sheets:




Comments?

 

[ChshreCat]

I made a bigger set of images, but the forum doesn't seem to want to allow me to edit them into the previous post, here they are:





edit: and it seems that HBT doesn't like people posting images large enough to be readable.

 

[SwampassJ]

Upload them to imageshack and use the direct link option (might need to register )

 

[beergolf]

chshrecat. Looks good. I did a screen capture and then was able to zoom in so I could read the comments.

I know that recipe because I have made it and I really liked it. The first time I made it I left in the primary for 3 weeks. I am making it again on Saturday and want to try leaving it a little longer. I think it would benefit from a little more time in the primary.

 

[Revvy]

Fairly respectable scores there, and not one mention of autolysis....

 

[remilard]

The first scoresheet calls the beer wine like, or vinous. That is, at least potentially, a sign of oxidation (see the descriptors next to the oxidation tick box on the left of the scoresheet).

I thought the BBR/BYO study was interesting as the BBR guys picked up meaty and brothy, obviously autolysis, in a blind tasting. Maybe not a myth, at least according to those guys.

 

[ChshreCat]

The first scoresheet calls the beer wine like, or vinous. That is, at least potentially, a sign of oxidation (see the descriptors next to the oxidation tick box on the left of the scoresheet).

I can say with confidence that this was a product of the alcohols and the fruity tartness of the beer. If it was oxidation, I think he would say so (and tick the box)

 

[Haputanlas]

Chshre, I didn't see your opinion on the matter. Do you think that the beer was affected by this amount of time on primary? Do you taste any off-flavors? Or does it test better?

I'm actually going on 2 months right now with 2 different beers that I've made quite regularly. I'll be able to give my opinions on the matter too (however biased it might be).

 

[remilard]

I can say with confidence that this was a product of the alcohols and the fruity tartness of the beer. If it was oxidation, I think he would say so (and tick the box)

He said it had fusel alcohols and didn't tick that box either. If he had ticked the box closes to the word he used, winey, it would have been the oxidation box.

 

[MachineShopBrewing]

I would be a lot more interested in the results if you sent this to a large competition and had a master or grand master judge it. There are a lot of judges that are not able to pick up on some of the more subtle flavors. Very interesting experiment nonetheless. Get a few more scoresheets though, so you have more data points. Judges can be all over the board. I scored a 39 with a Northern English Brown and took 2nd in a big competition and sent the same beer to another and scored a 26 with lower ranked judges with less experience.

 

[JonK331]

I think the overall point of this was to prove that a) transferring to secondary is not necessary; and b) that fermenting in plastic will not cause oxidation.

Given that, and that I think we can all agree that this test by Chshre was an extreme example (in longevity), I think the point was proven. While maybe it's not ideal to leave a beer in a bucket on the yeast for ~5 months, 1-2 is certainly not going to hurt anything and may improve the beer. I don't see any reason to nit pick.

 

[winvarin]

I think the overall point of this was to prove that a) transferring to secondary is not necessary; and b) that fermenting in plastic will not cause oxidation.

Given that, and that I think we can all agree that this test by Chshre was an extreme example (in longevity), I think the point was proven. While maybe it's not ideal to leave a beer in a bucket on the yeast for ~5 months, 1-2 is certainly not going to hurt anything and may improve the beer. I don't see any reason to nit pick.

BRAVO! You took the words right out of my mouth. I subscribe to the "nothing to lose and potential for gain" theory when it comes to a longer primary.

I have secondaried a beer too early before and been hit by the acetaldehyde bug.

I've never gone longer than 5 weeks in the primary. But those beers that stayed 3-5 weeks in the primary, to me anyway, turned out more stable and a bit more polished than my beers that followed the old 1 week primary, one week secondary, package routine.

Not calling out. Just tossing out some of my own experiences.