A different take on secondary fermenters

Brewer's Friend 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Puddlethumper

Puddlethumper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
1,946
Reaction score
329
Location
San Joaquin Valley
I've seen a lot of posts on this board about using a secondary fermenter. There seems to be a whole bunch of very strong opinions in both directions, but mostly against. The prevailing arguments against using a secondary seem to be:

1. Increased risk of contamination
2. Risks of oxidation
3. Unneccessary work

David Miller brought up the oxidation issue in "The Complete Handbook of Homebrewing" (c1988). But in his latest book, "Brew Like a Pro" (c2012) he revisits this point. In this book he actually recommends the use of a secondary but for a different reason. He says that oxidation is probably a non-issue at this time. He routinely uses a secondary vessel as "settling tank".

It becomes a choice of use of a secondary/settling tank for dry hopping or addition of finings or filtering prior to cold crashing the beer. If you have a filtration system you can draw directly from the fermenter to the bottling bucket or keg. (He does point out that there are some strong opinions about benefits/concerns related to filtration). To allow a beer to drop clear naturally may take some time so moving the beer to a smaller vessel for this period will free up a fermenter, hence the use of a 5 gal. bucket or carboy as a "settling tank". Natural clearing should always be done by cold crashing which can be accomplished in either the primary fermenter or in a secondary, depending on the homebrewer's situation and preference. He sees no value in holding most beers on their yeast cake once fermentation is complete.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with him. I have found that I have far less junk in the bottom of the bottle when I use a secondary between primary and bottling. This may not be as big an issue to those who keg, but since I choose to bottle, this is a big issue to me. I also believe that good sanitation practices negate the concerns about contamination. Whether one wants to do the extra work is simply a matter of choice.
 
i use a secondary to free up my primary because i only have one of each. it allows me to stay on an easy-to-keep brewing pace. i don't think that there's a whole lot to gain from transferring to secondary, but the whole "you could contaminate your beer" argument is for novices. if you can't transfer to secondary without contaminating your beer then you should probably work on sanitation fundamentals and definitely NOT use a secondary until you have that down.

i do both and i notice no difference, except maybe a smaller sediment layer on the bottom for batches i put in secondary (but only slightly). it's one of those "six one way half dozen the other" arguments. some folks secondary and some folks don't.
 
I get clearer beer after secondary as well.

One more point - after the transfer to the secondary, I add a blanket of CO2 on top of the beer to eliminate (minimize?) any potential oxidation.
 
another technique is to fill the carboy with co2 immediately before transferring beer to greatly reduce the amount of oxygen exposure during transfer. i would do that if i had the gear.
 
What was the 'different take' again? Seems like just a rehash of the same old same old.

And Mr. Miller apparently never encountered a balky autosiphon...

Cheers!
 
day_trippr said:
What was the 'different take' again? Seems like just a rehash of the same old same old.

And Mr. Miller apparently never encountered a balky autosiphon...

Cheers!
Click to expand...

The "different take", because I guess you missed it, is that use of a secondary is that a secondary has nothing to do with fermentation. We've used the term "secondary fermenter" for a long time. But the real purpose of the secondary has absolutely nothing to do with fermentation. The purpose of the technique is settling. And it can, an often should be done, with the idea of improving the quality of the finished beer.
 
Puddlethumper said:
The "different take", because I guess you missed it, is that use of a secondary is that a secondary has nothing to do with fermentation. We've used the term "secondary fermenter" for a long time. But the real purpose of the secondary has absolutely nothing to do with fermentation. The purpose of the technique is settling.
Click to expand...

LOL! That's not news.

And it can, an often should be done, with little risk to the quality of the finished beer.
Click to expand...

Except there are better alternatives that have zero risk to quality...

Cheers!
 
i truly think that the amount of o2 exposure when transferring to secondary is one of those things people over-worry about. sure, there's going to be some oxygen exposure, but in the grand scheme of things that will wreck your brew, it's negligible. there may be some science out there that says i'm wrong for whatever technical reason, but most of my beers are racked to secondary and i have never had any staling problems.

if you leave your bottle conditioned beers sitting at room temperature for months then minor oxidation could be an issue for you. try refrigerating them after they have conditioned to taste. refrigerating bottle conditioned beer can help it keep a lot longer than when it's sitting on your spare bedroom floor.
 
wtfDean said:
i truly think that the amount of o2 exposure when transferring to secondary is one of those things people over-worry about. sure, there's going to be some oxygen exposure, but in the grand scheme of things that will wreck your brew, it's negligible. there may be some science out there that says i'm wrong for whatever technical reason, but most of my beers are racked to secondary and i have never had any staling problems.

if you leave your bottle conditioned beers sitting at room temperature for months then minor oxidation could be an issue for you. try refrigerating them after they have conditioned to taste. refrigerating bottle conditioned beer can help it keep a lot longer than when it's sitting on your spare bedroom floor.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
One more, which IMO is significant when you look at the overall brewing process, it takes more cleaning. I just made a carboy cleaner, so this may change my view in my personal system.

I find my beers clear greatly when bottled. Maybe there's more sediment than if I had used a bright tank (the more correct term for secondary), but my beers are very clear in the glass, quite happy with them that way.
 
Puddlethumper said:
Originally Posted by ArcLight View Post
There is one more big disadvantage of racking to a secondary - risk of Oxidation.

Mr. Miller doesn't seem to think it is a matter of that much concern.
Click to expand...

Did he explicity write that? Or did he just not address it? There is a difference between forgetting to address a point as opposed to addressing it and saying they think it's of little worry..

Some of the AHA gold medal winners told me that they take this risk seriously , though maybe they are "over worrying". They even worry about dry hopping introducing Oxygen.

I think it was Charles Bamforth (or some brewing scientist) who said Oxidation affects taste at very low levels.

While I am not a BJCP I wouldn't be so quick to say "its not a problem".
It would be an interesting large scale test.
 
Puddlethumper said:
The "different take", because I guess you missed it, is that use of a secondary is that a secondary has nothing to do with fermentation. We've used the term "secondary fermenter" for a long time. But the real purpose of the secondary has absolutely nothing to do with fermentation. The purpose of the technique is settling. And it can, an often should be done, with the idea of improving the quality of the finished beer.
Click to expand...

We've all been saying that, for years and years, even when many of us routinely did a "secondary". In a brewery, that vessel is called the "bright tank", and that's exactly the purpose. The beer is moved directly from the fermenter, to the bright tank to clear.

I'm an old winemaker, and I think that is where homebrewers started using the term "secondary", as it's not a term used in a brewery. Winemakers normally move a wine from primary to a secondary- to protect it from oxidation actually while it finishes fermenting.

While it is true that oxidation risks can be minimized, they can not be eliminated. In most BJCP competitions that I've judged, one of the most common flaws I pick up is oxidation. It's usually not severe (not to the "cardboard" stage), but it's in most beers to a degree. sometimes it's just a "dull" flavor, with a sherry note behind it- but that is still an effect of oxidation. One of the problems with oxidation (and it happens to all beers eventually) is that it worses with time. It may be just a minor off-flavor in the beginning, but for beers that will be aged like a barley wine or a big imperial stout, it will totally change the character of the beer.

Some homebrewers really minimize the chances of that, by doing things like pressure fermentation and transferring to the keg under c02 so that the beer never comes in contact with oxygen. That would be ideal, but most homebrewers can't do that. Still I think it's good practice to do everything possible to minimize oxidation as that is one of the things I think is most responsible for less-than-stellar beer by good brewers.
 
Puddlethumper said:
But the real purpose of the secondary has absolutely nothing to do with fermentation. The purpose of the technique is settling.
Click to expand...

Why would beer "settle" any faster in a "secondary" fermenter rather than just leaving it in the primary for the same length of time?

It seems the "real purpose" you're describing is to free up the primary fermenter for another batch. In a perfect world, you'd have enough primary fermenters that you wouldn't need to rush a beer out of one to make room for another batch, and you could just leave it in the same fermenter for the entire period, until you're ready to bottle. The beer itself doesn't clear any faster just because you've moved it to another container. In fact, if anything, transferring the beer to secondary hurts the beer clarity, because any sediment that was slowly sinking to the bottom is mixed back into even distribution, and must start settling all over again, from the top down.
 
ArcLight said:
Did he explicity write that? Or did he just not address it? There is a difference between forgetting to address a point as opposed to addressing it and saying they think it's of little worry..

While I am not a BJCP I wouldn't be so quick to say "its not a problem".
It would be an interesting large scale test.
Click to expand...

He goes into oxidation pretty thoroughly. I am summarizing here (you can read it yourself on pp. 70-72 if you like) but he is saying that if we move the beer to another vessel while there is still some live yeast present, then any oxygen present will be scavenged by the yeast. So I would conclude that moving to another vessel should happen within the first 6-8 days. (And I also conclude that he is assuming we won't be ham-handed in our transfer techniques.) After this the main concern seems to be related to the length of time involved and what the vessel is made of. Polycarbonate is susceptible to oxygen permeation. PET is better. HDPE is the best of the plastic materials. And it is obvious that glass is the least permeable.

And he does recommend cold crashing as soon as possible once fermentation is complete unless we are going to use finings to clarify the product. This is where we find ourselves using a "secondary" or as another suggested "bright tank". Cold crashing as soon as possible is how we can minimize the concern about autolysis. He sees no advantage to leaving the beer in a warm fermenter any longer than needed to finish fermentation.

I realize that he is not the final authority on any of these subjects, but he is pretty well respected and has plenty of street cred. I find his views refreshing and interesting because he seems to be at odds with some of the current thinking out there.
 
I think a lot of this can come down to technique

I say it a lot, and I think it applies here

Want to know how good you can brew? Brew up a batch of a light lager.

you will search for a few answers to guestions

Yes I secondary, to as much to finish beers, but to age them a little and let them clear, I then cold crash and then I filter when going into the keg.

I have tricks to help with such as oxidation et el.

And whatever we call it, I think a secondary has huge benefits over letting the beer sit on the trub. I always have it off the trub by day 7 of fermentation and rarely finish a beer before 3 weeks. (disclaimer: Ales not lagers, lagers take a bit longer.)

I also get accused of lagering my ales sometimes.

I also keg 99% of my beers, force carbonate them all.

We are not professional brewers, most of us could be classed as pretty neanderthal in the equipment department. What makes each of us unique is our technique. Many of us have found ways to deal with problems many of us do not even know we have. Keeping a beer from oxidizing during transfer is a extremely simple fix, cost less than a dollar.

I guess I am trying to say, I get cleaner, brighter beers using a secondary, no matter what we want to call it. And I will continue just for that reason.

Let the debate continue
 
I guess I don't see whats new and exciting about the statements in the OP. All that was stated was that racking to a bright tank can clear up some space in fermenters. If you have more than enough fermenters whats the point unless you want to dry hop, gel, fruit, age a strong beer, etc? And like Yooper stated, the risk of oxidation (even if minimal) might not be worth it. You might not be able to detect it, but I'm sure a judge will. I'd rather pick up some cheap buckets :D

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/secondary-not-john-palmer-jamil-zainasheff-weigh-176837/

To quote another post:
"Jamil: And if you are using healthy yeast and the appropriate amount and the thing is... homebrew style fermentors..if you are using a carboy or plastic bucket which have that broad base when the yeast flocculate out they lay in a nice thin layer. When you're dealing with large, tall...one of the things you know people go "Well the commercial brewers they remove the yeast because it is gonna break down, die, and make the beer bad. We should be doing the same thing." That's where alot of this comes from. But the commerical brewers are working with 100 bbl fermenters that are very tall and put a lot of pressure on the yeast. The yeast are jammed into this little cone in the bottom and they are stacked very deep and there is a lot of heat buildup. The core of that yeast mass can be several degrees C higher than the rest of that yeast mass and it can actually cook the yeast and cause them to die faster and cause those problems with flavor and within a couple of days the viability of that yeast which the commercial brewers are going to reuse is going to drop 25%, 50% over a couple of days so they need to get that yeast out of there. You don't have that restriction as a homebrewer. You've got these broad fermenter bases that allow the yeast to be distributed evently. It's an advantage for cleaning up the beer. You have the advantage that the yeast don't break down as fast. You don't have as high a head pressure. There are a lot of advantages."
 
Puddlethumper said:
I realize that he is not the final authority on any of these subjects, but he is pretty well respected and has plenty of street cred. I find his views refreshing and interesting because he seems to be at odds with some of the current thinking out there.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of disinformation out there is caused by laziness.

Let someone get away with out having to do something, and he will preach that till he dies

No one at all wants to be wrong, not me or you or the guy reading this.

but how we choose to not be wrong is what makes some wrong and others right. Those of us who go out and experiment till we are convinced one way is better than another usually find the right way, those of us who take short cuts or do it the way we first learned usually turn out the same beer each time no matter what the grain bill.

I am that guy with a closet full of old equipment, I can show you stuff that does not work, or is of bad design. I also have a lot of stuff others see as luxuries, such as an oxygenation system for the wort before pitching. However, I am not the guy who claims something does not work who has never tried it.

I see a lot of information out there today that I think is , ah , interesting. I think it is up to us all to try it once however.
 
Mojzis said:
I guess I don't see whats new and exciting about the statements in the OP. ."
Click to expand...

Not really new or exciting. But Mr. Miller's books and his opinions do seem to carry some credibility and he is saying that, contrary to the thinking of many in the brewing community, in most cases it is good to get the beer out of the primary as soon as fermentation is done. It has nothing to do with economy. It has to do with quality of the finished product.
 
Yooper said:
I'm an old winemaker
Click to expand...

Memory cell from the past broke loose when I read that..



Aside from the "Little Old Winemaker" ad, how about doing away with the secondary fermenter and actually calling it what it is;
Bright tank, clearing tank or whatever really describes it best?

bosco
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yooper said:
Winemakers normally move a wine from primary to a secondary- to protect it from oxidation actually while it finishes fermenting.

While it is true that oxidation risks can be minimized, they can not be eliminated. In most BJCP competitions that I've judged, one of the most common flaws I pick up is oxidation. .
Click to expand...

Is it possible that oxidation you have detected came from mishandling or possibly oxygen permeation of the storage vessel?

Based on your comments above and what I'm reading elsewhere the link between transfer to a bright tank and oxidated beer has been feared and assumed but may not be an issue at all.
 
Funny

having made wine for a decade or more before having brewed beer, I think the brewing has effected my wine making more than the wine making has effected my brewing.

That said, I think most brewers would be antsy over when a wine would finish fermentation, I have a batch started last friday that is still bubbling away and beer has been brewed and finished since it started.
 
Puddlethumper said:
[Mr. Miller] is saying that, contrary to the thinking of many in the brewing community, in most cases it is good to get the beer out of the primary as soon as fermentation is done. It has nothing to do with economy. It has to do with quality of the finished product.
Click to expand...

But why? Why does getting the beer out of primary - at the homebrewing scale - result in better beer? What's the explanation? I've yet to see any credible explanation that supports the idea that you end up with higher quality beer by getting it away from the yeast ASAP. To the contrary, common sense and research both suggest that the opposite is in fact true; that you'll get clearer, higher quality beer the less you disturb it, and if you leave it in the same vessel for the entire process and let the yeast finish doing their job.
 
Puddlethumper said:
Not really new or exciting. But Mr. Miller's books and his opinions do seem to carry some credibility and he is saying that, contrary to the thinking of many in the brewing community, in most cases it is good to get the beer out of the primary as soon as fermentation is done. It has nothing to do with economy. It has to do with quality of the finished product.
Click to expand...

I don't see this in your quote from him. All I get from that is if you need space, transfer. Autolysis is a non issue, clarity is a non issue, so what else is left? Oxygen permeation from plastic? That would be present in both situations, unless you opt for glass or SS.

I'm not trying to attack you or Mr. Miller, but could you explain to me how transferring to a bright tank makes a more quality end product? Why is it good to get the beer out of primary? I don't see those answers in the OP. There is a reason for scientific method. I would love to see Mr. Millers data.

Data is tough to dispute.
 
Puddlethumper said:
Is it possible that oxidation you have detected came from mishandling or possibly oxygen permeation of the storage vessel?

Based on your comments above and what I'm reading elsewhere the link between transfer to a bright tank and oxidated beer has been feared and assumed but may not be an issue at all.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, that's entirely possible. But my point was, there are degrees of oxidation in many homebrews I've judged in competition (except for the final round of the NHC- I didn't get any hints of oxidation in most of those).

I think sometimes that homebrewers have three things that come up when they say "I poured my beer into secondary and I don't have oxidation!"

One is that they just don't have the world's best palate sometimes. The next is that many people think that oxidation only tastes like "wet cardboard". That's not true of course. The first sign of oxidation is a dulling of the flavors. Then it can be a bit stale, and darker grains get this "metallic" finish on the sides of the tongue. It's very subtle, perhaps. When oxidation worsens, the beer will take on a "sherry" flavor (called "madierized") and have a bit of a brandy sweetness in the swallow. That is usually appealing in things like aged barleywines, so it's not really a flaw there but when a young English brown has that flavor- that's oxidation. In order for a beer to have the "wet cardboard" flavor I've heard described, it would have to be a very severe oxidation and probably in an aged beer as oxidation gets worse with age.

The last thing that I think impacts perception is what I call the "Ugly Baby Syndrome". Some people have really ugly babies, but think they are the most beautiful babies in the world. The same is true sometimes with brewers- their beers are noticeably flawed but the UBS means that it tastes great to them, and they just don't "see" the oxidation or phenols in it. That's great in a way, as they have to drink their own beers, but it means plenty of bad beers in competitions! :cross:

Even the best handled beer will be susceptible to oxidation when made the traditional way. I was just reading a study on oxidation and vessels and oxygen can even permeate the water in the airlock eventually, or the bung (not the glass) in a carboy. That is a very small amount, of course, but that means that you will never have an oxygen-free environment in a homebrew setting (except for those pressure fermenters guys). The key would be to control the factors as much as possible (reducing headspace over a lengthy period, handling carefully, purge with c02, siphoning, etc).

Other things to keep in mind is that "co2 blanket" that people discuss is a fallacy. The fermenter is never filled with 100% co2 although it is the majority of gas during active fermentation. It does dissipate and the protective effect would be minimal later on. That's why you see infected beers at times- always in secondary, or in a primary that has wide headspace over a bit of time. You need a bit of oxygen for most of those infections to take hold. Things like mold can't grow in a 100% c02 environment- but that doesn't happen in a fermenter at home.

I don't usually use a clearing vessel for my regular ales. they ferment about 5-7 days, and I leave them for 3 days (or so) after they finish and start to clear. Then I add the dryhops if dryhopping, and package 5 days later. Most of my beers are packaged around day 15 or thereabouts. Others go much longer, for a variety of reasons.

I do my lagers differently (always racking to a carboy or keg for lagering) and things like oaked beers are always racked. Occasionally, I rack a regular ale so that I can harvest the yeast from the fermenter. I don't think there is ever one right way to do things- just what works best for each brewer.

The right thing for each brewer is what makes the best beer. I've had an awful lot of bad beers given to me and can barely drink some of them- but if the brewer loves their beer, that's what makes it a good beer. (I've also had a ton of great beers sent to me as well if someone reading this is thinking they sent me a bad beer!!!! Many were excellent!)
 
bajaedition said:
Who claims it clears faster?
Click to expand...

The OP:

"I have found that I have far less junk in the bottom of the bottle when I use a secondary between primary and bottling."

bajaedition said:
most want it off the trub not to get off flavors
Click to expand...

Why would you get off flavours from the trub at the homebrew scale and on typical brewing timelines?

What off flavours could possibly manifest at the homebrew scale in the first few weeks of sitting on the yeast/trub?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm an open-minded guy. I'm just saying, "show me some evidence." So far, I haven't seen any evidence at all, just a bunch of conjecture and dogma.
 
Yooper said:
The last thing that I think impacts perception is what I call the "Ugly Baby Syndrome". Some people have really ugly babies, but think they are the most beautiful babies in the world. The same is true sometimes with brewers- their beers are noticeably flawed but the UBS means that it tastes great to them, and they just don't "see" the oxidation or phenols in it. That's great in a way, as they have to drink their own beers, but it means plenty of bad beers in competitions! :cross:
Click to expand...

Very funny and very true.
 
bajaedition said:
I think you are trying to be argumentative
Click to expand...

I specifically said I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion. I just need to see some evidence first. The most current research, as well as common sense, discourage using a secondary, because it risks oxidizing your beer and exposing it to infection.

Two of the supposed "benefits" of using a secondary are clarity and autolysis. The autolysis argument has been disproven, as the osmotic pressures that kill the yeast cells do not exist at the homebrew scale. The clarity argument doesn't pass the smell test. Why would beer clear any faster just because you've moved it from one big jug to a different one? Whatever is in solution will precipitate out at the same rate, regardless of what is (or isn't) waiting for it at the bottom of the fermenter.

Yet Puddlethumper is insisting that somehow using a secondary results in a "higher quality" beer. I'm just asking, "How?" What's the science that supports that claim?
 
Puddlethumper said:
I've seen a lot of posts on this board about using a secondary fermenter. There seems to be a whole bunch of very strong opinions in both directions, but mostly against. The prevailing arguments against using a secondary seem to be:

1. Increased risk of contamination
2. Risks of autolysis
3. Unneccessary work
Click to expand...

I've never heard autolysis used as an argument AGAINST transferring to secondary. If anything, it's been used as an argument FOR getting the beer off the trub. Is that what you meant, perhaps?

Although, it's a moot point anyway, as it's been pointed out many times that autolysis isn't a concern for most homebrewers.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Home Brew mobile app
 
wtfDean said:
some folks secondary, and some folks don't
Click to expand...

stop beating a dead horse, you guys.

Yooper raised a good point though by stating that most brewers have bad palates. i must fall into this category. i generally drink my beer and don't notice oxidation, save some minor staling after a while. but i know oxidation happens during my process. how does one learn to identify that kind of stuff? i think i heard of a class, but i can't afford anything like that. should i intentionally screw up several batches?

i get the feeling that i won't be any better of a beer maker if i continue to have a crappy palate.
 

Similar threads

SFC Rudy
Secondary Fermentation Yes, no or maybe?
Replies
10
Views
297
hottpeper13
H
gjolivo
Fermentation loss with fruit puree
Replies
11
Views
752
gjolivo
gjolivo
chrispokey
Time for another round of "Is this beer infected?"
Replies
15
Views
415
IslandLizard
IslandLizard
Gadjobrinus
Current wisdom - just leave it in the primary bucket, rack into bottling bucket?
Replies
31
Views
1K
BrewnWKopperKat
BrewnWKopperKat
P
is carbonation part of conditioning activities
Replies
5
Views
808
CascadesBrewer
CascadesBrewer
SSBrew 300

Latest posts

Back
Top