Cold crashing and different fermentation times.

[arringtonbp]

I have seen a lot of different things out here about how people choose to run their fermentations. I have tried the following:

1. 4 weeks in primary
2. 2 weeks primary, 2 weeks secondary
3. 1 week primary, 3 weeks secondary
4. 1 week primary, 2 weeks secondary

The beer that spent all of its time in primary may have gotten infected, but it turned out to be drinkable. It definitely had a slightly odd aftertaste (kind of bitter, but a little different from hops). I'm wondering if it could be from spending 4 weeks in primary on a hot yeast cake (probably 72-75 or so with nottingham yeast).

The beer that spent 1 week in primary and 3 weeks in secondary turned out to be the best I have ever done. I controlled the temperature, and the beer came out great. Very clear and clean tasting.

The beer that spent 1 week in primary and 2 weeks in secondary came out very cloudy and still hasn't fully developed after about 5 weeks in the bottle.


SO given this information, I have recently purchased a chest freezer, and I am considering cold crashing the beer at some point. I have heard of some people cold crashing the beer after primary fermentation, but doesn't that inhibit the conditioning phase? I am definitely interested in any thoughts you guys have on this. Thanks.

 

[jimebob1]

I have similar concerns. Airlock is down to 1/min. I am leaving town in 4 days for 9 days. If I leave it in primary will it be ok (total 24 days)? Also it's in a controllable environment, should I crash cool it to about 45oF for the last 10 days I'm out of town? Using 1007 Wyeast. Fermented 8 days at 62oF. Dropped to 55oF last couple of days.

 

[arringtonbp]

I have similar concerns. Airlock is down to 1/min. I am leaving town in 4 days for 9 days. If I leave it in primary will it be ok (total 24 days)? Also it's in a controllable environment, should I crash cool it to about 45oF for the last 10 days I'm out of town? Using 1007 Wyeast. Fermented 8 days at 62oF. Dropped to 55oF last couple of days.

I'm sure you will be fine. I know plenty of people on here regularly leave their beers in primary for 4+ weeks. I just haven't had much luck with that so far, and I'm curious how people do it.

 

[DRonco]

I'm curious how people do it.

Set it and forget it.

 

[Hex23]

I would not crash after only one week of primary. There are really two kinds of conditioning 1) conditioning time with yeast which is best done in bulk, in the primary, 2) cold conditioning which doesn't require yeast activity. Stopping yeast activity after 1 week won't usually give the yeast enough time to clean up off tasting byproducts.

How you cold crash may depend on how you package, bottle or keg. If you're going to bottle, it is probably best to gradually lower the temp so that you don't shock the yeast. Otherwise just crash it at right above freezing, until you get your desired clearing effect.

On another note ... are the other variables about these beers the same? I would not compare the beers based on your fermentation schedule unless everything else was the same.

 

[Revvy]

Set it and forget it.

What he said.

Pitch yeast, come back in a month and bottle or keg. It's not rocket science. Nothing "special" needs to be done. You put your yeast in the fermenter and forgetaboutit for a month or more. That's it.

If someone's beer got infected, it's not because it was left in primary for a month. It would have showed up infected in the secondary or in the bottles. If it got infected then sanitization slipped somewhere down the line...NOT because it was conditioning for a month.

An extended primary is probably the SAFEST method, you're not touching the beer, you're not opening the lid, or bung, you're not racking it...You're leaving it alone to do it's thing.

 

[seabass07]

You absolutely do not want to cold crash based solely on 1 week in primary. Wait until it hits FG, then give it a few days to clean up. You might even want to let it free rise to the low 70's after hitting FG to speed up the clean up process, basically a diacetyl rest among other benefits. Then cold crash and secondary if you feel it's necessary. Also, you may want to consider getting rid of the secondary completely. It opens up a lot of opportunity for oxidation if not done properly. Something to look into.

There's also absolutely no reason to make the primary and secondary fermentation add up to 1 month. For most beers, 1 month is more than is needed. That doesn't mean it will hurt the beer, but it's not necessary. It depends on what you're making and whether it needs such a long conditioning time. Many beers will be fine with a 10 day primary, cold crash, and bottle/keg. Bigger beers might need an extra week or two.

 

[arringtonbp]

What he said.

Pitch yeast, come back in a month and bottle or keg. It's not rocket science. Nothing "special" needs to be done. You put your yeast in the fermenter and forgetaboutit for a month or more. That's it.

If someone's beer got infected, it's not because it was left in primary for a month. It would have showed up infected in the secondary or in the bottles. If it got infected then sanitization slipped somewhere down the line...NOT because it was conditioning for a month.

An extended primary is probably the SAFEST method, you're not touching the beer, you're not opening the lid, or bung, you're not racking it...You're leaving it alone to do it's thing.

Thanks Revvy. I do have a question though. In the past, I never really did anything to prevent a bunch of hop pellet sediment and junk get into the fermenter. Do you whirlpool or do anything to prevent that? Is it possible that having the beer sit on a bunch of hop sediment (for any length of time) contributes any undesirable flavor to the beer? I'm nitpicking at this point, I know, but I am looking for ways to improve my beer. At least I have some form of temperature control at this point! I'm sure that's a step in the right direction.

 

[Revvy]

That's really one of those things that is a matter of personal preference and nothing else. Some dump everything in, without straining, just pour it in the bucket or in the funnel....Some use a big strainer that fit in the funnel for a carboy, or a sanitized 5 gallon nylon paint strainer bag in the bucket...

I have done it all ways. It really doesn't matter...anything will settle.

In other words, there is no wrong way to do it, or better way, or way that will make the best beer...they all work...the choice is what will work the best for you. That's how you develop you own unique brewing process. By trying all ways and deciding what works best for you.

What I do with my IC, is chill the wort, then I lean the bottom of my autosiphon about two coils up from the bottom on the metal of the siphon. That rests it above most of the break material and trub, then I rack it to the fermenter until I'm down to that and carefully lower the siphon down into the gunk, just trying to get as much of the wort as possible without letting in the hops and break matter.

A whirlpool helps.

But pretty much up until I got my immersion chiller I just dumped for the majority of my batches. And I still managed to do well in contests...

I find that long primaries render my beer just as clear, and crisp tasting regardless of whether I dumped it all in or not....so I just do what works for me.....

 

[arringtonbp]

Also, if you leave the beer in primary for a month, is the flavor of the beer any different? I.E. - more yeast character/less yeast character? Cleaner tasting or not? I am thinking I'll try skipping secondary this time again, but I'm just curious if any differences in flavor occur as a result of leaving the beer to sit on the yeast like that.

 

[Hex23]

There was an experiment that Basic Brewing Radio (podcast) did a little while ago and IIRC the general consensus was that it made little difference, with maybe a slight preference for the pitch it all method. I think these were all ales.

 

[arringtonbp]

I find that long primaries render my beer just as clear, and crisp tasting regardless of whether I dumped it all in or not....so I just do what works for me.....

Thank you for the insight. I can attest to this as well. Of all of my beers, the clearest one was the one that sat in primary for a month.

 

[Revvy]

Most of us who do it do so because, we think our beer tastes better. Otherwise what would be the point of doing it?

This discussion has been thoroughly covered in this thread, it's become the "uber discussion" on this topic.

To Secondary or Not? John Palmer and Jamil Zainasheff Weigh In .

The best thing to do is to try it for yourself and see what works for you. Regardless of if you use a secondary or an extended primary, it's about not rushing your beer and letting the yeast do what they're supposed to do.

 

[arringtonbp]

There was an experiment that Basic Brewing Radio (podcast) did a little while ago and IIRC the general consensus was that it made little difference, with maybe a slight preference for the pitch it all method. I think these were all ales.

That kind of makes sense. Either way, there's still a bunch of yeast in the beer, right?

 

[Hex23]

That kind of makes sense. Either way, there's still a bunch of yeast in the beer, right?

I don't think it was about whether there was yeast remaining in the beer. It was about whether the hops trub and break material would affect the flavor or overall outcome. There were some that thought the batches with trub transferred had a better flavor but IIRC it was pretty vague. The general consensus was that the overall quality was pretty similar. One thing they did seem to agree on is that the ones with trub transferred into the fermenter started fermenting faster. The theory was that the break material provides nutrient to the yeast.