From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Racking to a secondary
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:18:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.9503
Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha  OR

In article <jdecarlo.538.726500418@mitre.org> jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo) writes:
>>(me:)
>>Yeast is another story.  You want the beer to remain in contact with
>>all the yeast until it has fermented out, in order to get as much
>>reduction of diacetyl as possible.
>
>That doesn't sound exactly right to me, as your beer is *always* in contact 
 with the yeast until you either filter out the yeast or do something else to 
 remove the yeast.  That's why fermentation will continue after you rack to a 
 secondary and why fermentation will occur in the bottle with a little more 
 fermentables.

Well, I'm really just parroting Dave Miller here.  Of course there is
plenty of yeast in the beer, although I would guess that by racking
off of the sedimented yeast you re-establish an equilibrium at a lower
(w/respect to amount of yeast in suspension) point.  The question is,
what good is two-stage fermentation anyway, really?  (And you give an
answer below...)

>>True two-stage fermentation, i.e. racking from a "primary" to a
>>"secondary" fermenter after high kraeusen, is not worth a plugged
>>nickel IMHO.  The beer should remain on the yeast until it has
>>fermented out.  Ales are ready to bottle at this point.  (If you have
>>to rack instead, the carboy you rack into is not really a "secondary
>>fermenter", it's a beer storage tank).
>
>Again, I don't know why this is called "true two-stage fermentation", as the 
 beer may or may not have fermented out before racking anyway.  And there is 
 plenty of yeast *in* the beer to allow it to ferment out no matter *when* 
 you rack to the secondary.
 
I used the phrase "true two-stage fermentation" because it seems like
lager brewing is often mistakenly characterized as "two-stage" even when
the beer has been allowed to ferment out before racking.

>The primary purpose of waiting for the krauesen 
 to fall is so you can use a 5 gallon secondary for 5 gallons of fermenting 
 beer without fear of overflow.

To be honest, I had never thought of that...but now that you mention
it, sure, it makes sense that someone would do that as an alternative
to a barf-tube.

I use 6.7 gallon glass carboys and no blowoff, which probably accounts for
my different perspecive.

>>If you're force-chilling the wort, then you should
>>(1) pitch the yeast immediately, (2) allow the trub to settle during
>>the "lag time" or respiration period, then (3) rack the beer (and the
>>suspended yeast) off the trub, before active fermentation begins.
>>Obviously, this means that you can't just "pitch and forget"...but if
>>you're not going to pitch immediately, then you are loosing one of the
>>primary benefits of chilling the wort.
>
>I wonder if anyone has ever done this.  How are you going to tell that 
 reproduction has finished and fermentation begun except for signs of active 
 fermentation?

I've done it.  When it looks like the trub has settled out, or I see the
first little spots on the surface (whichever comes first), it's time to rack.
 
>Practically speaking, it seems best, when force-chilling, to rack the beer 
 *before* pitching into the primary, leaving behind *most* of the trub (a 
 little trub is good for the yeast), then pitching the yeast.  

I'm not sure I understand.  OK, first you're going to siphon out of
the boiler, and some trub will get left behind.  Now when are you
going to rack the wort again?  How long do you wait for the trub to
settle?  It seems to me that it takes several hours, during which time
the yeast could be getting ready for action.  If you wait to pitch,
then the effective "lag time" is the settling time plus the respiration
period of the yeast.

Best regards,
Mark