Will the Extended Primary/Secondary debate always be split?

[McGreen]

Is it really just about preference? Is there any science or proof that let's us know if one is better than the other for clarity?

I see so many mixed feelings on this I am coming to the conclusion that they both do the job awesome. Pros and cons to both. So is it really just a matter of personal opinion?

Who will end the debate?!?!

 

[Wakadaka]

I think "scientifically" the secondary crowd will win if the variable is clarity. A lot of the reason not to secondary is simply convenience as well as less risk of oxidation and contamination. In a lab setting those factors should be reduced to where they are negligible.

I think what would be the best would be a combination of the two. I haven't seen much discussion on it, and it seems people are either racking as soon as fermentation is done, or just leaving it on the trub for 3+ weeks then bottling. Best of both worlds seems to be 3+ weeks then rack to secondary.

There really is no reason to say anything else about pros/cons because it has been widely discussed on here.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to scientifically determine which is "better", because it is all subjective.

whats better thick or thin crust pizza?


(I am on board with long primary BTW just because its easier)

 

[TTB-J]

Remember, the whole "debate" started because it was considered standard practice to rack to a secondary mere days after fermentation started. People were racking to secondary not only for the purpose of clarifying but also to avoid off flavors from yeast autolysis.

Once we learned more about the actual risks of homebrewers leaving their beer on the yeast cake for extended periods of time, of which there are none provided that you have adequate temperature control, people started to promote longer primaries in order to give yeast long enough to consume diacteyl and prevent stopping short the conversion to alcohol and leaving notable amounts of acetaldehyde in your beer. These extended primaries also gave time for much of the sediment that is kicked up during active fermentation to settle out at the bottom of the fermenter, which resulted in surprisingly clear beers.

So where we are now is that we know long, single-stage fermentations don't result in off-flavors and can result in clear beers. Dual-stage fermentations will result in off-flavors if you move the beer off of the bulk of the yeast too soon or expose it to too much oxygen or contaminants in the process of moving and can also result in clear beers. The simple question anyone has to ask themselves is this: if there is no specific reason for me to move my beer out of the primary before bottling, why would I even bother introducing the risk of off flavors to achieve clarity when I can achieve similar clarity in the primary? The answer to that question is usually the introduction of an additional flavor element, such as oak chips or fruit.

Any remaining debate is centered merely on the degree of clarity one can achieve and the speed at which one can achieve it in a single-stage vs. dual-stage fermentation. But, if you're like me, such trivial differences don't mean much to me when I'm cracking open a homebrew and loving the results.

 

[MazdaMatt]

TTB-J, you bring up a point that I've had in my head about this debate... that homebrewers don't really care for that "big brewery clarity". Well, I don't, but wifey is severly put-off by any cloudy beer. Even the ones that are designed to be cloudy like a delicious Hoegarden.

So does the answer change if you can be sure that you won't oxidize and clarity is a primary concern?

 

[TTB-J]

TTB-J, you bring up a point that I've had in my head about this debate... that homebrewers don't really care for that "big brewery clarity". Well, I don't, but wifey is severly put-off by any cloudy beer. Even the ones that are designed to be cloudy like a delicious Hoegarden.

So does the answer change if you can be sure that you won't oxidize and clarity is a primary concern?

Well, I'm not sure that you could ever be completely sure that you won't do something to your beer when transferring it, but I can tell you that, from my experience, the risk of noticeably oxidizing or contaminating it is pretty low when transferring, provided you use good sanitization practices.

That being said, I can't really answer that because that's precisely the debate that I primarily avoid; namely, whether you get clearer results through long primaries or by using dual-stage fermentation. I've done both and I haven't noticed enough a difference that I feel the need to chime in on one side or the other. Couple that with the fact that I don't mind a cloudy beer if it tastes great and you've got yourself one apathetic fellow with regard to the question you've posed to me!

 

[olllllo]

The fallacy of this debate is that on the surface it seems as though you are only adding one piece of equipment to obtain one discrete measurable goal.

It ain't the case. You're altering a process. Changing the timeline.

All brewing is compromise.
Add a secondary; get some benefit*; lose others.
Skip a Secondary; get some benefit*; lose others.

* some loosey goosey ideation of benefit.

 

[lbaker]

After reading until I can read no more I've realized people are going to have thier own valid thoughts, but if your asking for an opinion more times than not you're asking for an argument. I'm just on my second batch and I told myself no matter what anyone told me I was going to try a secondary for my first few batches. I feel like with anything that involves experimentation you HAVE to know what works for you, and if you're just following what guys on here say you never will have your own beer. I want to have something to compare, maybe on the 4th batch I'll just do an extended primary of this one instead of secondary? It's the only way you wont question varrying fermentation information. Half the time I ask for help the question is avoided and its "why are you secondary?" "skip the secondary unless its blah blah." I think everyone just likes to argue about it because it truly is one of those things that just comes down to preferrence. Maybe even neccesity? Maybe someone wants to use thier only 6.5 that currently is a primary in lieu of buying another?

Do what you want, when you want, how you want...just sterilize the **** out of it. :rockin:

 

[lbaker]

whats better thick or thin crust pizza?

QUOTE]

Thin. Ray's on 11th...anyone thinks otherwise are crazy and probably do primary fermentation only in the toilet.

 

[edie]

we always secondary. never experienced any ill effects that i'm aware of at least. having something to do with the beer after a couple of weeks seems to help me on the "patience" side of things.

 

[Hockeyhunter99]

debate, debate, debate.

No "science" will confirm or deny either to be better or worse, only opinion. i started with using secondary (actually a bright tank, or clarifier) on every beer because i was doing one or two brews at a time, and that is what i was told to do by my mentor. one ale pale, one carboy, one bottling bucket. i have since expanded to having 4 possible fermentor buckets and brew almost every weekend and have a pretty good assembly line of brews going. my mentor and i tried the same brew, one with secondary and one with extended primary. we couldn't find the difference. it is only a matterof what you are comfortable with.

 

[OHIOSTEVE]

I usually do both... long primary( 2-4 weeks but usually over 3) then to a bright tank in cold crash... I have done a brew straight from primary after over 4 weeks to bottles and saw no noticable difference except a bit more sediment in the bottles. I JUST kegged a brew straight from primary to keg alongside 2 of the same recipe that went through secondary and cold crash... I have asked for a comparative critique from the guys I made them for.

 

[Malintent]

debate, debate, debate.

No "science" will confirm or deny either to be better or worse, only opinion.

Not true. Define "better". Identify key performance indicators and a system of metrics that accurately measures a target against the definition of "better" that has been agreed upon. "Science" works great. It is people who fling subjective terms around and then complain that science can't help them that are the problem.

If "Better" is defined as "greater clarity", then that can be measured and a winner named (secondary). If "less opportunity for infection" is "better" then "primary only" wins.

The argument is not about which is better. The argument is about what it means to be "better".

 

[Yooper]

TTB-J, you bring up a point that I've had in my head about this debate... that homebrewers don't really care for that "big brewery clarity". Well, I don't, but wifey is severly put-off by any cloudy beer. Even the ones that are designed to be cloudy like a delicious Hoegarden.

So does the answer change if you can be sure that you won't oxidize and clarity is a primary concern?

Well, I insist on perfectly clear beer. I don't filter. I also rarely use secondaries, however, I also don't do ultra-long primaries! I leave the beer in the fermenter about two weeks, or until clear, and then package it.

I guess that's a third way to debate- not an extended primary like some talk about (a month?, seriously?) but not using a bright tank either.

My beer is perfectly clear. I'm a homebrewer, but I care about visual appearance and all of the aesthetics. I do the same with food, also. I know that the food in an unappetizing pile in a pot may taste as good as when artfully arranged on a serving plate- but it sure seems like it tastes better when it looks better!

 

[PhelanKA7]

There are some beers that are better to just do a single fermentation on. There are other beers that are probably best clarified through a secondary fermentation.

I am a scientist. Trust me.

 

[IrregularPulse]

I don't think the clarity point of secondaries holds value. I don't secondary.

 

[PhelanKA7]

I don't think the clarity point of secondaries holds value. I don't secondary.

Again. It depends on the beer you are brewing. All things being equal you might be correct, but that just isn't the case.

 

[jsweet]

Throwing a little philosophy of science in here....

What is the null hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis we would tentatively accept if we have no evidence? I am inclined to say it is that a given additional step has no effect, i.e. secondary fermentation does not affect clarity. If that is the case, then the burden would be on proponents of secondary fermentation to demonstrate an example where a recipe was followed exactly multiple times in parallel, some with secondary and some without.

Here's where the philosophy of science point comes in (PhelankA7's comment made me think of this): you can never prove the null hypothesis. If you brewed 9,999 recipes each in two parallel batches, one with secondary and one without, and 9,999 times you had no difference in clarity, you can never prove that the 10,000th recipe wouldn't be a style that demanded a secondary in order to achieve sufficient clarity. In contrast, a single example of style that requires a secondary to achieve clarity would prove that hypothesis.

Not taking a position here, just saying... You can never prove, even in principle, that primary-only is always adequate. But in the absence of evidence, one typically adopts the null hypothesis -- because you could prove, at least in principle, that secondary was sometimes necessary.

 

[brewit2it]

I think a lot of the debate comes not from those who assert that the secondary is not needed, but rather the strong contingent that claim the secondary if harmful and will produce an inferior end product because the fermented beer didn't get a chance to sit on the yeast cake long enough. I personally haven't seen any evidence that this is the case and believe it is religion, not science.

I do single stage only because I am too lazy to take the extra step of transferring to a secondary, especially because I don't think the secondary offers any great benefit. But I'm not convinced at all that longer primary times beyond say 10 days to 2 weeks or so offer anything other than better clarity.

 

[IrregularPulse]

I do single stage only because I am too lazy to take the extra step of transferring to a secondary, especially because I don't think the secondary offers any great benefit. But I'm not convinced at all that longer primary times beyond say 10 days to 2 weeks or so offer anything other than better clarity.

I agree with this. My reason to not secondary is, why take the extra step for no benefit?

 

[Yooper]

Again. It depends on the beer you are brewing. All things being equal you might be correct, but that just isn't the case.

Why not? I mean, what is "magical" about transferring to a bright tank?

Why would a transfer mean that more yeast would fall out of suspension as well as any suspended proteins? That doesn't make sense.

And saying "That just isn't the case" without a citation doesn't make it correct. I'm not saying you're necessarily incorrect, but this is a discussion forum and giving a blanket "you're not right" without a reason isn't going to persuade anyone.

 

[jsweet]

I think a lot of the debate comes not from those who assert that the secondary is not needed, but rather the strong contingent that claim the secondary if harmful and will produce an inferior end product because the fermented beer didn't get a chance to sit on the yeast cake long enough. I personally haven't seen any evidence that this is the case and believe it is religion, not science.

In regards my comment about philosophy of science, the null hypothesis here would be that a secondary was neither necessary nor harmful. From a purely scientific point of view*, advocates of any alternative position would have to provide evidence to support their positions -- since the null hypothesis is by definition unprovable.

* An exception would be if the previously accumulated knowledge base dictated a strong a priori likelihood of one of the hypotheses in play. My understanding is that was the case up until recently, when the accumulated knowledge base held that autolysis would create meaty flavors. I guess all I am saying is that if someone could make a very compelling argument based on known phenomena that one of the alternative hypotheses were true, we might put our money on that even without a whole lot evidence. Generally speaking, though, you always assume the null hypothesis.

 

[jsweet]

Although the metaphor was coined in a completely different context (one which might offend some posters), it is worth invoking Russell's Teapot here.

You cannot prove that there is not some celestial teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. It would not show up with any known detection system unless we were looking directly at it, and there is just too much sky to check all of it in a short enough time frame to rule out the existence of the teapot. We can never, ever, ever prove that the teapot isn't out there somewhere we just haven't looked yet.

Yet if I asserted that there were in fact such a teapot, and I was quite certain of it, you might reply, "Prove it!" And that would be quite fair.

Similarly, we can never prove that there isn't a style of beer which requires secondary fermentation. And similarly, I think it's fair to demand that secondary fermentation advocates "Prove it!".

(And like I said, by the same token it's fair to demand that those who say that a beer will be better if it sits on the yeast cake for enough time also need to provide evidence for their position.)

 

[edie]

interesting post. i've read so many posts about leaving in the primary for 4+ weeks and it seems just about everyone agrees with that. then i read this post and it seems i'm not the only one that goes with 2-3 weeks, primary alone or w/secondary, and keg.

granted i can taste a bit of a difference once its been in the keg for a couple of weeks but not enough for me to wait.


THUNDER UP!!

 

[Yooper]

interesting post. i've read so many posts about leaving in the primary for 4+ weeks and it seems just about everyone agrees with that. then i read this post and it seems i'm not the only one that goes with 2-3 weeks, primary alone or w/secondary, and keg.

granted i can taste a bit of a difference once its been in the keg for a couple of weeks but not enough for me to wait.


THUNDER UP!!

I would argue that it's NOT the majority that leave the beer in the primary for a month. It's just the most vocal promoters who do. I never have and probably never will advocate a month-long primary in a beer that finished fermentation in 5 days. Two weeks? Sure! But I don't see any benefit to longer, even if no harm comes.

 

[windbreaker123]

Op debate probably will continue. The real issue is what you want to do ? You can extend primary or secondary. It is up to the brewer how do it. Neither are right or wrong just a couple of extra steps between finished product.

 

[TTB-J]

I would argue that it's NOT the majority that leave the beer in the primary for a month. It's just the most vocal promoters who do. I never have and probably never will advocate a month-long primary in a beer that finished fermentation in 5 days. Two weeks? Sure! But I don't see any benefit to longer, even if no harm comes.

What about bulk aging or conditioning? I don't know if it's necessarily a "benefit" per se, but it certainly is something that some brewers may prefer in terms of the effects it has on their beer.

 

[edie]

I would argue that it's NOT the majority that leave the beer in the primary for a month. It's just the most vocal promoters who do. I never have and probably never will advocate a month-long primary in a beer that finished fermentation in 5 days. Two weeks? Sure! But I don't see any benefit to longer, even if no harm comes.

point taken -

 

[brewit2it]

I would argue that it's NOT the majority that leave the beer in the primary for a month. It's just the most vocal promoters who do. I never have and probably never will advocate a month-long primary in a beer that finished fermentation in 5 days. Two weeks? Sure! But I don't see any benefit to longer, even if no harm comes.

Agree completely.

 

[Pezman1]

The thing is, we have two groups here when we should have three.

Group one: Those that have tried extended primaries and are sold.

Group two: Those that don't do it, don't want to, or don't believe in it.

missing is GROUP THREE: The many people that have tried extended primaries and have reported problems.

That should tell us something right there. Pez.

 

[Yooper]

The thing is, we have two groups here when we should have three.

Group one: Those that have tried extended primaries and are sold.

Group two: Those that don't do it, don't want to, or don't believe in it.

missing is GROUP THREE: The many people that have tried extended primaries and have reported problems.

That should tell us something right there. Pez.

Ah but there are subgroups, too! for example- an "extended primary" hasn't been defined here. But when I started brewing, a "primary" was always 5 days to "get the beer off of the yeast cake" and to go to secondary. But that definition, anything longer than 5 days is an extended primary. I'm an old winemaker, and would consider anything over 5-7 days an extended primary in wine.

But over the years, I've found that my beer is better with two-three weeks total in a fermenter. It hasn't mattered if it's in primary, or in the bright tank (secondary). The time is what is important. So, I started not racking darker beers first. Then, all beers stayed in the primary. The only time I rack to a clearing vessel or a secondary now is to do something with the beer- lagers, oaking, etc. Otherwise it goes from 2 to 3 weeks total from fermenter to packaging.

For an IPA, I'll leave it sit in the fermenter for about 7-10 days, and then dryhop right in the fermenter, then package on about day 14 to 20, whenever I get time.

So, is 10-14 days an extended primary? By my old definition, it sure seems that it is.