Author Topic: Another Starter Question  (Read 2207 times)

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13590
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2014, 07:32:41 AM »
This is merely a guess, but maybe its not an issue to homebrewers because of the size of our fermentation vessels.  5 gallons of beers has a lot less pressure at the bottom of the tank then say 3-5bbls to 100bbls. would that pressure rupture dead cells?

Yes.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline a10t2

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3553
  • Ask me why I don't like Chico!
    • View Profile
    • SeanTerrill.com
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2014, 07:48:56 AM »
Those who claim that the use of a secondary fermentation vessel to clear and age beer is out of date and more harmful than beneficial have yet to put forth any real scientific data supporting their thesis.

Nor have you supporting yours.
Beer is like porn. You can buy it, but it's more fun to make your own.
seanterrill.com/category/brewing
twomilebrewing.com

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13590
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2014, 07:52:01 AM »
Those who claim that the use of a secondary fermentation vessel to clear and age beer is out of date and more harmful than beneficial have yet to put forth any real scientific data supporting their thesis.

Nor have you supporting yours.

But...but...it's science!  ;)
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline S. cerevisiae

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • deus ex machina
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2014, 10:35:19 AM »
Those who claim that the use of a secondary fermentation vessel to clear and age beer is out of date and more harmful than beneficial have yet to put forth any real scientific data supporting their thesis.

Nor have you supporting yours.

I do not have to prove my claim.  There is ample peer reviewed scientific data available that shows that leaving beer with the trub is not beneficial to flavor.  It is those who are making claims against this body of evidence that have to support their claim via peer reviewed data from scientifically-executed experiments.

If performed correctly, there is little to no oxygen pickup during racking.  Dissolved CO2 is off-gassing during the racking operation.  CO2 is heavier than air; hence, off-gassed CO2 forms a protective barrier between the surface of the green beer and the air in the secondary fermentation vessel.   Additionally, any oxygen picked up during the transfer will be consumed by the yeast culture and used for respirative reproduction via a phenomenon known as diauxic shift.  Oxidation really only becomes a problem when the yeast culture is in bad health or has been filtered out of the beer.
Mark V.

Just say "no" to yeast rinsing
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=19850.msg252492#msg252492

"A pale ale losing points for being too pale is like a vicar being defrocked for being too godly. It is no wonder that beer judges get such a bad rap."  - Graham Wheeler

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7366
  • Underhill VT
    • View Profile
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2014, 10:58:51 AM »
Those who claim that the use of a secondary fermentation vessel to clear and age beer is out of date and more harmful than beneficial have yet to put forth any real scientific data supporting their thesis.

Nor have you supporting yours.

I do not have to prove my claim.  There is ample peer reviewed scientific data available that shows that leaving beer with the trub is not beneficial to flavor.  It is those who are making claims against this body of evidence that have to support their claim via peer reviewed data from scientifically-executed experiments.

If performed correctly, there is little to no oxygen pickup during racking.  Dissolved CO2 is off-gassing during the racking operation.  CO2 is heavier than air; hence, off-gassed CO2 forms a protective barrier between the surface of the green beer and the air in the secondary fermentation vessel.   Additionally, any oxygen picked up during the transfer will be consumed by the yeast culture and used for respirative reproduction via a phenomenon known as diauxic shift.  Oxidation really only becomes a problem when the yeast culture is in bad health or has been filtered out of the beer.

I don't see anyone claiming NOT using a secondary is beneficial, just that USING one doesn't seem to be beneficial either. You assume racking is done correctly which is not a safe assumption in my experience. you also assume that most brewers, especially new brewers, are able to accurately determine when their beer has reached final gravity, this is also not a safe assumption. The main reason I advise against transfer to secondary is because so many brewers complain about slow or stuck fermentation after racking to secondary on day 3 or 4 because the recipe and instructions said to do it. Combined with under pitching prematurely removing the beer from the YEAST cake (not so much the trub) tends to negatively impact a lot of brews. The protective blanket of co2 argument is not accurate as in a dynamic situation like racking there will be significant mixing of gases in the head space. and remember that often the yeast culture is in less than optimal health in a homebrew situation. Like so many things, we are working with sub optimal equipment, knowledge, and facilities in the homebrew world and we have to take that into account when deciding how we are going to brew and how we are going to advise new brewers with questions.

I am not trying to discourage you from contributing to this conversation because I think that your perspective is important but you can't assume optimal conditions and draw conclusions about best practices from that when the real world situation is not optimal.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

Offline a10t2

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3553
  • Ask me why I don't like Chico!
    • View Profile
    • SeanTerrill.com
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2014, 11:08:23 AM »
I do not have to prove my claim.  There is ample peer reviewed scientific data available that shows that leaving beer with the trub is not beneficial to flavor.  It is those who are making claims against this body of evidence that have to support their claim via peer reviewed data from scientifically-executed experiments.

Saying that there's evidence to support your position isn't the same as citing your sources. Neither you nor the putative opposition in this debate that you really, really seem to want to have has presented any evidence.
Beer is like porn. You can buy it, but it's more fun to make your own.
seanterrill.com/category/brewing
twomilebrewing.com

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13590
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2014, 11:31:17 AM »
Saying that there's evidence to support your position isn't the same as citing your sources. Neither you nor the putative opposition in this debate that you really, really seem to want to have has presented any evidence.

The best evidence I have is the way my beer tastes by not using a secondary.  It's no different from when I use a secondary.  Beyond that, all the scientific evidence in the world doesn't matter to me.  I've proven it to myself.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline S. cerevisiae

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • deus ex machina
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2014, 01:20:59 PM »
The main reason I advise against transfer to secondary is because so many brewers complain about slow or stuck fermentation after racking to secondary on day 3 or 4 because the recipe and instructions said to do it.

I agree that racking after an arbitrary number of days is a poor practice.  Many poor practices are preached in amateur brewing like they are gospel (e.g., rinsing yeast with boiled tap water).

Quote
The protective blanket of co2 argument is not accurate as in a dynamic situation like racking there will be significant mixing of gases in the head space.

However, the oxidation while racking non-filtered green beer argument holds water no better than the hot-side aeration in a small brewery argument.  Unless the yeast culture is in absolutely horrendous shape, any oxygen that is introduced while racking will be scrubbed by the viable cells, even if terminal gravity has been reached.  Yeast cells do not need a carbohydrate source to use oxygen.  Yeast cells will happily utilize ethanol as their carbon source in the presence of oxygen via diauxic shift.



Quote
I am not trying to discourage you from contributing to this conversation because I think that your perspective is important but you can't assume optimal conditions and draw conclusions about best practices from that when the real world situation is not optimal.

I am not discouraged in the least.  I do not mind being the underdog in a discussion. 
Mark V.

Just say "no" to yeast rinsing
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=19850.msg252492#msg252492

"A pale ale losing points for being too pale is like a vicar being defrocked for being too godly. It is no wonder that beer judges get such a bad rap."  - Graham Wheeler

Offline jeffy

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2802
  • Tampa, Fl
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2014, 01:34:04 PM »
The main reason I advise against transfer to secondary is because so many brewers complain about slow or stuck fermentation after racking to secondary on day 3 or 4 because the recipe and instructions said to do it.

I agree that racking after an arbitrary number of days is a poor practice.  Many poor practices are preached in amateur brewing like they are gospel (e.g., rinsing yeast with boiled tap water).

Quote
The protective blanket of co2 argument is not accurate as in a dynamic situation like racking there will be significant mixing of gases in the head space.

However, the oxidation while racking non-filtered green beer argument holds water no better than the hot-side aeration in a small brewery argument.  Unless the yeast culture is in absolutely horrendous shape, any oxygen that is introduced while racking will be scrubbed by the viable cells, even if terminal gravity has been reached.  Yeast cells do not need a carbohydrate source to use oxygen.  Yeast cells will happily utilize ethanol as their carbon source in the presence of oxygen via diauxic shift.



Quote
I am not trying to discourage you from contributing to this conversation because I think that your perspective is important but you can't assume optimal conditions and draw conclusions about best practices from that when the real world situation is not optimal.

I am not discouraged in the least.  I do not mind being the underdog in a discussion.

I am learning quite a bit through this discussion also.  Keep it up.
Jeff Gladish, Tampa (989.3, 175.1 Apparent Rennarian)
Homebrewing since 1990
AHA member since 1991, now a lifetime member
BJCP judge since 1995

Offline klickitat jim

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2014, 02:03:43 PM »
I've always been curious what peer review really means. If it means what it sounds like it means, as someone who understands what evidence is, I don't think peer review is evidence.

Offline Joe Sr.

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2912
  • Chicago - NORTH SIDE
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2014, 02:26:39 PM »
If I'm not mistaken, the review of this group of peers is that not transferring to secondary is just fine.

I'm sure there's valid science in SC's arguments, but scientific inquiry and brewing practice are not the same thing.  I don't need peer reviewed data to come to my conclusions because I'm a home brewer.  My own personal observations and the consensus of others I trust are sufficient for me. 

But, like I said before, if you really want to go ahead and transfer there's nothing stopping you.
It's all in the reflexes. - Jack Burton

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7366
  • Underhill VT
    • View Profile
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2014, 02:32:25 PM »
I've always been curious what peer review really means. If it means what it sounds like it means, as someone who understands what evidence is, I don't think peer review is evidence.

peer review is the process in which another (or more than one other) expert in the subject matter reviews the procedures and results of a study or experiment for validity. sometimes it will go so far as to mean that another person or persons expert in the same subject matter have validated the results through independent experimentation or study. not perfect but that's the scientific scholarly method for you.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

Online Jimmy K

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3612
  • Delaware
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2014, 02:36:27 PM »
I've always been curious what peer review really means. If it means what it sounds like it means, as someone who understands what evidence is, I don't think peer review is evidence.
Researchers publish articles in peer-reviewed journals, which means that the journal editor will send copies of the article to several third-party reviewers. The reviewers are experts in the subject that the research addresses. They look at the article, research methods, results, statistics, and conclusions to make sure that it all makes sense. That the methods are appropriate, results support conclusions, nothing is missing, etc. Peer-reviewed research is evidence, however, most research articles are limited in scope - examining a simplified version of the real world. So drawing too much from a single article is risky (media loves to do this). To really know what's going on in the world, you need to look at lots of related research and see what general direction it all points in.
Delmarva United Homebrewers - President by inverse coup - former president ousted himself.
AHA Member since 2006
BJCP Certified: B0958

Online HoosierBrew

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • Indianapolis,IN
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2014, 02:41:10 PM »
+1 .  Also, in the case of hoppy beers like IPA, I totally disagree that oxygen contact from racking makes no difference to the beer quality. There is a reason hop aromas remain stronger for longer in beers that are carefully racked into purged kegs - reduction of contact with oxygen. I've brewed a lot of hoppy beers (understatement) and the batches that were racked less than extremely carefully or racked into non-purged kegs are the ones that have noticeably less hop aroma. Beer need not be oxidized to the point of the wet cardboard flavor/aroma to impact hop aromas. Noticed it for 20 years.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 02:43:13 PM by HoosierBrew »
Jon H.

Online Jimmy K

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3612
  • Delaware
    • View Profile
Re: Another Starter Question
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2014, 02:46:31 PM »
Quote
The protective blanket of co2 argument is not accurate as in a dynamic situation like racking there will be significant mixing of gases in the head space.

However, the oxidation while racking non-filtered green beer argument holds water no better than the hot-side aeration in a small brewery argument.  Unless the yeast culture is in absolutely horrendous shape, any oxygen that is introduced while racking will be scrubbed by the viable cells, even if terminal gravity has been reached.  Yeast cells do not need a carbohydrate source to use oxygen.  Yeast cells will happily utilize ethanol as their carbon source in the presence of oxygen via diauxic shift.

So now I'm curious and I suspect you might know. When yeast metabolize ethanol in the presence of oxygen, what do they produce and does it affect flavor?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 08:08:16 AM by mtnrockhopper »
Delmarva United Homebrewers - President by inverse coup - former president ousted himself.
AHA Member since 2006
BJCP Certified: B0958