Content Deleted.
That I can buy. Transferring to secondary is one of the biggest misunderstood beginner instructions mistakes out there. Whenever I read “after X days, transfer to secondary” I quit reading that recipe because God knows what else kind of nonsense will follow.
I get it. I’m talking about the ubiquitous beginning brewer instructions that tell them to rack to secondary. Most are being told they should do that to avoid autolysis. If your yeast are so frail they die and rupture after 7 days you’ve got bigger problems. The typical first time brewer would be better off letting their imperial Russian white stout with cocoa nibs, juniper berries, and baby onions, finish fermentation rather than prematurely taking it away from most of its yeast cake.
I agree with using the term secondary fermentation when adding a second fermentable, like fruit. Or when adding a second yeast, like Bret. Or like in this case, natural carbonation.
This is exactly what I’ve been advocating. By all means, DO transfer to secondary and perform a secondary fermentation - in the FINAL vessel, be it bottle, keg, or cask.
Great approach Phil, but not just on some arbitrary calendar date, right?
Very cool gift - thanks for sharing!
Agreed. I watched my last batch like a hawk, and racked to cask when the gravity was 4 points above the FFT (I still find this acronym odd) results. Even with 0.5 gallons of headspace in the cask, and rolling it around on the kitchen floor for 5 minutes, turned out great. Oxidation should happen after the cask is vented, not before. 
But still, secondary isn’t evil, it’s just not leveraging it’s intended purpose thats evil.
Soon…
That last excerpt is particularly insightful about bias and carry forward of “known” beer flavors - and applies to us all. I try to avoid this bias when judging in competitions, while still applying the guidelines; one never overcomes it completely, I fear.
I knew a wine connoisseur who told me that “in the end [he felt that] there are just two kinds of wine - those you like and those you don’t. Significantly, you shouldn’t prejudge them by the category in which they are placed by the winemaker or sommelier - your palate alone should be your guide.”
This explains how the awful combination of caramel malts and grapefruit hops got to be so commonly accepted.
Awful to you, maybe, but delightful to me.
I do entire seminars about those very things.
It’s cool that you’re posting all this, but are you sure there are no copyright issues?
That would be great. Thanks.
70 years after authors death. It doesn’t matter if the text is in print or not.
Even if the text itself was out of copyright, the printed text could be. For example, many literary classics are in the public domain, Frankenstein, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, etc. The text is public domain, but that doesn’t mean I can photocopy an edition I bought from Barnes and Noble. That edition likely carries its own copyright.
You may be protected under fair use, but I wouldn’t push it.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. It’s one thing to quote the book, but I worry about photos of pages.
I don’t know if we need to go that far if we just make sure in the future.
As a librarian, I’d say so far ok, but at some point (and it’s a fuzzy line) this will go beyond fair use. It’s about the proportion of material used relative to the text. If it were just you and me, no problem.
In my profession we weight risk against reward. In this case, the risk is AHA getting sued, and the reward is photos of text that most of us kinda know already. At least we know the point, if not the verbatim text.
I like the enthusiasm and intent. The means makes me nervous. But I’m just a dude
Fixed it for you [emoji6]