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

helmingstay said:

You're saying that your primary-only beers are *less* carbonated?
Without a side-by-side comparison of a split-batch, I imagine this is hard to really verify. But I would expect the opposite, that the "clearer" secondary'd beer would have trouble carbonating...

Click to expand...

Yes. The primary only beers seem to be less carbonated and very little head on those beers.

TallyMaltyAle said:

Yes. The primary only beers seem to be less carbonated and very little head on those beers.

Click to expand...

Then your beers not carbed yet. Length of primary has NO affect on carbonation level. If your beer is less carbed then you're doing something different or you are not waiting long enough for your beer to be carbed.

There's no logical reason for length of primary causing this....I've been long primarying on here probably longer that anyone, and my beers are no more or less carbed than the beers I occasionally secondary.

Carbonation has to do with the sugar you add AFTER your beer has finished fermenting and clearing. It's no different if you long primary for a month or use a secondary. The beer is really the same.

What you do prior to carbonation in terms of this is really null and void, it's what you do at bottling time and after that determines level of carb.

Are you comparing higher gravity beers that take longer to carb and condition with lower grav beers?

If you judge an ordinary bitter with a low grav at 3 weeks, that is probably finished carbed, with a higher grav beer like a Russian imperial stout at 3 weeks (which may take 2 months to carb in reality,) the RIS will APPEAR to be less carbed, simply because a RIS takes longer.

But none of it has anything to do with whether or not you did a long primary or a secondary.....

One caveat to this is, if you never take gravity readings and bottle after only a week without using EITHER a long primary or a secondary your beer could indeed appear to be over carbed, because fermentation was probably not complete before you bottled. Fermentation is going to continue of the still unfermented sugars AND the fresh sugar you added, so the co2 level would be higher and the beer would be carbed more......and you could be getting bottle bombs as well.

That's why all those old homebrewers use to get bottle bombs back in the day because they didn't leave sufficient time for fermentation to be complete, or use a hydrometer...they added more sugar to beer that was still fermenting and trapped it all into a bottle.

Caveat two is similar to caveat one. If you had a stuck fermentation and bottled, it could appear the same way as caveat one for the same reason, fermentation kicks up again in the bottle.

But under normal circumstances, regardless of whether you racked at two weeks into a secondary for 2 weeks OR kept it in the primary for a month, the same beer will not be any more or less carbed than the other in this instance....

Revvy said:

Then your beers not carbed yet. Length of primary has NO affect on carbonation level.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Never had a problem, even on very low carbonation beer which need an extra attention not to underdo nor to overdo it. I'm referring to something like 60/ and mild where your bottle carbonation has to be perfect otherwise you are outside of the style very easily. For those styles I add sugar aiming to 1.3-1.4 and when I pour a 50cl bottle in a pint glass (56cl) I obtain half an inch of foam in just one shot, leaving just the yeast in the bottle. It's very tricky, if primary was a source of problem with carbonation, I think I had realized it immediatly. Thanks again to Revvy who converted me to primary only.

Revvy said:

If your beer is less carbed then you're doing something different or you are not waiting long enough for your beer to be carbed.

Are you comparing higher gravity beers that take longer to carb and condition with lower grav beers?

Click to expand...

I could suggest stressed yeast in any way or temperature drop after bottling.

Cheers from Italy!
Piteko

Wow! I just got done reading this thread in it's entirety, lots of good stuff. Due to this thread, I'm going to leave the Cream Ale I brewed yesterday on my fermenter bucket for a whole month before bottling.

I've only been home brewing since last April and I'm drinking some of mine right now. Until yesterday, I've always "followed the directions" whether it be the instruction sheet that came with the NB extract kit or the John Palmer on-line or paper book. So far, all my home brew has been anywhere near being "clear"; in fact, it's fair to say that it's pretty cloudy. Starting with the Cream Ale from yesterday, I'm going to see if the four week on primary will help or solve that problem.

Thanks for the good information, I appreciate it!

Well, I haven't read through this entire thread but I was wondering about open fermentations and racking to a secondary? I like the simplicity of open fermentations but it seems like a transfer is necessary, unless perhaps I brew small batches and just drink them after a few days of fermentation?

Or just cover your fermenter once the krausen has dropped.

Denny said:

Or just cover your fermenter once the krausen has dropped.

Click to expand...

Do you think I would need an airlock? Or should I just seal the bucket, wait a few more days and then drink?

Giggliato said:

Do you think I would need an airlock? Or should I just seal the bucket, wait a few more days and then drink?

Click to expand...

Well, I'd wait more than a few more days, but I don't know how long a time we're talking about. The few times I tried open fermentation, after the krausen had fallen (about 5 days IIRC) I put a lid with an airlock on the fermenter and waited another couple weeks.

Just got through reading the entire 37 page thread, lots of great information. I have always used a secondary and know I just need to take the leap and go right into the keg but the thing that is stopping me is that after each secondary I seem to have a layer of trub that I wash out of the Better Bottle. In my mind I think that if I don't secondary this layer of trub goes right into the keg. After I finish a keg there is always a bit of solids in the bottom but not as much as in the secondary. If I don't secondary would I just end up pulling all of the trub out on the first pint and basically end up in the same place thus eliminating my need for a secondary?

blackcows said:

In my mind I think that if I don't secondary this layer of trub goes right into the keg.

Click to expand...

The idea is to keep the beer into the primary longer than you would do if you were to do the secondary. This to let what you would find into the secondary drop on the bottom of the primary.

Cheers from Italy!
Piteko

Don't worry about the trub. It sinks below the level of the tap and stays there.

You never get any in the beer.. especially as you worry that "pulling all of the trub out on the first pint".

I've moved to no secondary a while back. I haven't noticed any better or any worse beers. You do have a little extra left at the bottom, but not much.

Some people say you have to leave it in the primary for a month... don't worry. I do two weeks primary, rack into the keg and drink two days later. It's all fine and I never get a cloudy truby pint. The only difference I find between not using a secondary is the time / effort saved...

Good luck!

Well I would like to say thank you to Revvy for this one.

When I started brewing a year ago I read Dave Miller"s Guides to Brewing. And he instructed to do secondaries. His instructions on sanitation, primaries and secondaries was almost overwhelming.

Then I ran across one of Revvy's posts on not doing secondaries, prior to doing my first brew. I went that route and never reconsidered.

I follow the "three weeks in and three weeks out" rule.
Three weeks in the primary, three weeks conditioning. (Ok now that I keg, I can drink in two weeks)

One step eliminated, saving hours of time and clean up.

Thanks, on that one.

yes no more secondaries amen brother.

Anyone have some links to any published info for not using secondaries on the homebrew scale? I am trying to put an argument to rest with a stubborn friend.

Just found a passage in Yeast that talks about it (pg. 156), but does not go in that great of detail.

spenghali said:

Anyone have some links to any published info for not using secondaries on the homebrew scale? I am trying to put an argument to rest with a stubborn friend.

Click to expand...

I am one who uses secondaries for 95% of my beers, and think I have good reason most of the time. But I have seen many of the arguments, and agree there is no need for secondary of a simple ale that is bottled within a couple of months.

Why argue? Let your friend continue to do what he is comfortable doing. As I said, I mostly secondary, and accept the argument that many beers do not require secondary, but I have my process, and don't want anyone telling me how to make it simpler/easier. I occasionally do primary only, but still continue to do my 'process' for most of my beers as I think they benefit from how I treat them.

I'm not trying to convert him, I could care less what he does with his beers.

Revvy said:

There's a cushion of co2 protecting your beer, if you don't open the fermenter. I really never disturb them in the month I'm letting them go, so once it's voided out the 02 with the initial growth of co2, all that headspace is filled with co2, so it's pretty much covered in a big blanket until you open it.

Click to expand...

I'm a converted believer in longer primaries, but this quote boils down my main question - which is about minimizing O2 contact with the smaller headspace rather than worrying about autolysis. I get that if I leave my primary rolling in my 6.5 carboy and leave it the heck alone, I'm good. But what if it is a beer that for whatever reason I'm doctoring or collecting samples of via wine thief? If the beer tells you when it's ready, you have to open up the carboy to have the conversation. If you've already been sitting on it for a while, it probably won't generate enough CO2 to push all of the new O2 out. Is this negligible in the grand scheme? Or do the people who talk about taking multiple samples of their beer pump CO2 into the carboy before re-capping?

Thanks for sharing the knowledge!

CO2 is denser than O2 (1.98kg/m3 vs 1.43), so in theory the CO2 would settle to the low point of the carboy and the O2 would 'float' on top, with the other elements in our air mixed in between. How long it actually takes for the individual elements to settle out in a stagnant environment like a carboy is a question to itself.

I typically don't do a secondary - unless I do. It depends on what you want to call kegs. It's the container that the beer is in after it comes out of the primary fermenter that is impermeable to both light and oxygen. Does this make it a secondary? I only have a two-tap kegorator, so the beer may sit for a few weeks before being rotated in. Sometimes I gas it, sometimes I don't. There's usually some yeast slurry on the bottom that comes out first. There are also the remains when the keg is kicked.

While I buy the CO2 denser than air argument, after a mixing event such as taking a sample with a thief, I'd say that the headspace is compromised and to move to the next step sooner rather than later. If atmosphere striated all by itself, us ground-living animals should all be suffocated whenever we're lying on the floor indoors. I think that the key to the argument is that the CO2 is being generated from below, gently pushing the atmospheric mix above out the airlock. When not enough is generated, there may be a preferential layer protecting the beer, but over a long enough time period, diffusion should cause homogeneity.

TheKeggingPart said:

but over a long enough time period, diffusion should cause homogeneity.

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist. This seems counterintuitive. Why wouldn't gases of different densities stratify, as liquids do? If they wouldn't stratify then, indeed, I need to rethink the "protective layer".

Thanks.

Pilgarlic said:

Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist. This seems counterintuitive. Why would gases of different densities stratify, as liquids do? If they wouldn't stratify then, indeed, I need to rethink the "protective layer".

Thanks.

Click to expand...

It's really more of a purge than a 'protective snugly blanket' of CO2. When co2 outgases it pushes all the other air (nitrogen/oxygen) out.

When you blast the headspace with CO2 you are purging, and then IF the Carboy is still enough it might stratify but I really doubt it. It's the purging of air that counts.

I am a scientist. But Not an atmospheric one. We 'lay down a blanket' with argon gas. But that is quite a bit more dense than CO2

JimTheHick said:

It's really more of a purge than a 'protective snugly blanket' of CO2. When co2 outgases it pushes all the other air (nitrogen/oxygen) out.

When you blast the headspace with CO2 you are purging, and then IF the Carboy is still enough it might stratify but I really doubt it. It's the purging of air that counts.

I am a scientist. But Not an atmospheric one. We 'lay down a blanket' with argon gas. But that is quite a bit more dense than CO2

Click to expand...

If true, then lots of people are getting a false sense of security from the "C02 is heavier" maxim.

if you have two gasses mixed, they won't stratify, at least not in brewing time scales. gravity pulls the heavier ones more, but the forces of molecular collisions make it difficult for this slight difference to have a huge effect.
just like if you have a solution of sugar in water, the sugar won't accumulate towards the bottom. some can crystalize out of solution, but that's different from the liquid stratifying. that's the difference between a solution and a suspension; in a solution the individual molecules form a contiguous matrix with the solvent. in a suspension there are clumps of things; sand particles, yeast, that are held up by the liquid but not dissociated into molecules. suspensions stratify quite readily. big particles in gas, like smog, can also easily stratify.
so if you layer a less dense solution on top of a more dense one, and don't mix, it can remain stratified; just like those underwater caves where fresh water that has trickled through the rock overlies salt water from the sea. it can work the same for gasses, if you don't mix them they can remain stratified, like in a pyroclastic flow; think pliny and vesuvius, but if you mix them, the heavier gas is not going to miraculously separate to the bottom. there are probably cases where this can happen, but for practical purposes of co2 and air in a fermenter, i stake my flimsy reputation on the idea that they won't spontaneously stratify, but can display stratification if co2 is evolving off from the beer, or added as pure co2 that isn't yet mixed with air!

So the accepted norm is to purge with CO2 then?

This may seem like a silly question, but such are the advantages of semi-anonymity. I have a CO2 tank that I use for kegging, but the only adapters I have are fitted for ball-lock kegs. Do people just keep a separate hose with no adapter at the end for purging?

I agree that you won't get stratification in any reasonable brew time. I'm not sure that I agree that the relatively small amount of air introduced while taking a sample will mix with the existing CO2 'blanket' and form a homogenious solution that will lead to the oxidization of the beer. Unless you're swirling the sampling wand around or you have to remove a large lid off a bucket that will create mixing due to pressure differentials, I would wager that you'd be hard pressed to notice any sort of oxidization associated with the sampling of your beer.

Koach said:

Do people just keep a separate hose with no adapter at the end for purging?

Click to expand...

Yes. And I use one of these for good measure.

Once the gasses are mixed they won't stratify in any length of time.

I really like this conversation and need to ask the question of flavor. I think we can all agree that the yeasts that we use contribute to the flavor of our beer. It seems as though we can control those flavors by how much time the yeast sits in contact with the beer in primary, at least in my belief. One of the beers I brew absolutely needs to stay in primary for over 2 weeks in order to develop the flavor that I am shooting for. Anything less that 10 days and it does not take on the specific flavor that I want from the yeast. But for all my other beers, once the yeast has done its job, I rack to secondary for it to "age" or condition for at least a week, usually two weeks. Sometimes, beer left to long in primary can turn out to be way too "yeastie", so to speak.

My question would be, if you do leave the beer in primary for a month, how would the flavors of the beer be affected by this? Also, are there certain yeasts that do better or worse than others in regards to flavor? Its hard to believe that all yeasts will do great with beer on it for a month. There has to be certain yeasts or beer styles that do better in this environment that others, but hey, I could be wrong.

A visit to youtube shows us quite graphically how heavy CO2 is.

[ame]http://youtu.be/Xzfq3lIWu9s[/ame]

[ame]http://youtu.be/g3PZwPSz2n4[/ame]

Based on these I'm inclined to think that it does indeed form a protective layer over our beer.

JohanMk1 said:

Based on these I'm inclined to think that it does indeed form a protective layer over our beer.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would argue that CO2 initially drops below other gasses, the question is, how long does it take for the gasses to mix? There would be more value to that experiment if they tried to light the candle in the jar back up at, say 10 second intervals after it initially went out.

At first the CO2 will be layered - but the random movement of molecules will disperse it throughout the available volume of gas over time.

If we're talking about a system where there is some sort of barrier (air lock) then the concentration of CO2 will be higher than outside the vessel. The "blanket" that we're always talking about would more accurately be considered simply a higher concentration of CO2 inside the fermenter.

But I think the debate is - if you pull the air lock to draw a sample, are you disturbing that blanket / higher concentration enough to make any appreciable difference on the beer.

In a bucket, as opposed to a carboy, the large surface area would lead to a lot of mixing of gasses and lowering of the concentration of CO2 in the head space. There are a too many variables to quantify it, but once you replace the lid the gasses introduced will eventually mix with CO2 in there and create a new and lower concentration. There will be no blanketing within the closed space.

No doubt... But back to my question - will it cause any appreciable impact to the end flavor of the beer? Maybe a question for the science sub-threads of the board...

BadNewsBrewery said:

No doubt... But back to my question - will it cause any appreciable impact to the end flavor of the beer? Maybe a question for the science sub-threads of the board...

Click to expand...

I've always bought into the idea that less head space was better for long term fermentation simply due to the smaller volume of gas in the container.

I think we might be hitting one of those "matters to big brewers, not for small brewers" things. We tend to drink our small beers quickly - and age big beers. Big beer companies need all of their beers to be shelf stable for longer periods.

I've had some terribly oxidized beers (not mine ) but those all suffered hot side aeration. They were terrible, cardboardy beers. I've had oxidized stouts that were in the bottle for too long - but they go pruney. What flavors indicate fermentation oxidation - or is it simply not an issue?

Anyone have a beer oxidize in the fermenter?

BadNewsBrewery said:

No doubt... But back to my question - will it cause any appreciable impact to the end flavor of the beer? Maybe a question for the science sub-threads of the board...

Click to expand...

Based on hundreds of batches of experience, I say no.

I was listening to the "brew strong" episode on attenuation, and I think I heard them say this.

What I am wonder is this, I am about to brew my first AG on Christmas day, and I am brewing a vanilla robust porter. I have read to add the vanilla beans to secondary, but is that neccessary? Could I just throw the beans in after 2 weeks and let them sit the remaining two weeks in primary?

Yes, but I don't think you want them in there for 2 weeks.

I've been doing primary only for a few months now. It's working out great, with one exception. WLP051 California V yeast.

I noticed a bit too much diacetyl with this one. so, the next time I brewed my signature recipe (an American Pale), I brewed 10g and split it. I used WLP051 for 5g and WLP001 for 5g. The WLP001 was pretty good, slightly more hoppy than my usual for this recipe. The WLP051 had diacetyl again.
I haven't noticed this with any other yeast, when I primary only. I think, from now on, when I use WLP051, I will secondary like I used to.