Bottling straight from glass carboy?

My local home brew shop guys strongly recommend bottling straight from the glass carboy, and not racking to a bottling bucket. They said the contamination risk was too high and that research had shown that racking again could destroy some of your yeast. Yet it seems like almost every post here says the opposite. What's the deal?

Also, is there really any difference between a bottling bucket and a plastic primary?

Can't say I've ever heard of racking causing yeast loss or increasing contamination risk. As long as your bottling bucket was sanitized beforehand, and you avoid splashing (and therefore oxidizing) the beer, you're fine. Plus, you run the risk of pulling more sediment if you direct-bottle, not to mention how much of a pain it would be to hold the racking cane in one hand and your bottling wand in the other.

I use my primary bucket for bottling. I have a spigot attached to it. As long as the bucket is sanitized, it should be OK. I see nothing but difficulties and potential issues with bottling from the carboy.

1) There is usually a yeast cake at the bottom of the carboy. There is a risk of having some of that make it into the last few bottles.

2) priming the batch with your sugar for bottle conditioning is more difficult. You will be required to pour the sugar in from the top and you won't be able to stir it up without stirring up significant yeast sediment into the brew. You spent lots of time in secondary to let it settle, don't stir it back up again.

Generally, when I rack back into my bucket, I will have boiled water and mixed my corn sugar into it and poured it into the bucket before I rack my brew into it. Since everything is sanitized, I limit my risks fo infection. When you properly rack to the bottling bucket, there should be little or no yeast sediment since that was left in the carboy.

The batch gets stirred up with minimal agitation to reduce the introduction of oxygen. This way, the sugar gets mixed in well with the brew before bottling so that all of your bottles should have equal carbonation.

You can do things the way the folks at you LHBS told you, and it can work, but I personally wouldn't do it that way. I just see too many issues that can be a pain in the ass to deal with.

I suppose it could be done, we rack straight to the keg from a carboy at times but you're only dealing with starting and stopping one time.

If you were to bottle 5 gallons of beer from a carboy with a racking cane you would have to stop and start about 50 times all the while making sure you don't stir up the trub. Then theres the priming of each bottle seperately. Sounds like a pain.

Most people rack to a bottling bucket to separate the beer from the trub and to mix the priming sugar at the same time.

The bottling bucket has a spigot. Other than that, they are the same thing.

Get a bottling bucket. It isn't 100% necessary but almost unless you keg. If you bottle you have to mix in priming sugar. You don't want to do that in your fermenter after you just spent 3 weeks letting the yeast and other junk settle out of solution.

The contamination risk isn't to high. All you have to do is clean and sanitize your bottling equipment. Buy some star san, a spray bottle and some distilled water. Spray down the inside of your cleaned bottling bucket and rack some star san solution through everything that will touch your beer. Keep those surfaces wet for a minute and as long as they were clean to start, you are sanitized. It takes my neighbor and I about 45-60 minutes to bottle 5 gallons including cleanup.

I have never run across anything that said racking destroyed your yeast. You leave most of it behind when racking but you want to.

Read Revvy's blog, Of Patience and Bottle Conditioning. Sorry to say it but I think your LHBS guys are nuts to bottle out of the fermenter.

In Australia, this is exactly what most people do, except we don't use glass carboys. Most basic homebrew setups here use a plastic fermenter with a tap, probably similar to your bottling bucket. There's a little slotted piece that fits inside the tap that helps prevent the sediment being sucked from the bottom of the fermenter, so the beer stays pretty clear. You do have to individually prime the bottles, but it's not that hard

GreenLion said:

My local home brew shop guys strongly recommend bottling straight from the glass carboy, and not racking to a bottling bucket. They said the contamination risk was too high and that research had shown that racking again could destroy some of your yeast. Yet it seems like almost every post here says the opposite. What's the deal?

Also, is there really any difference between a bottling bucket and a plastic primary?

Click to expand...

They are full of it. Once it is fermented it is significantly harder for an infection to happen because of the alcohol present. I have used a bottling bucket for the last 20 years and have not had an issue. By transferring to a bottling bucket you are eliminating more sediment so your beer will be clearer in the bottles. Especially if you only use a primary.

You should use a secondary and the bucket becomes the tertiary. The less sediment the better. I use a primary, secondary, then a bottling bucket. If the beer is still not clear after the secondary, I use a tertiary then the bottling bucket.

You shouldn't have to explain to someone how to pour your beer to avoid sediment. Gives the impression that your beer is inferior to commercial beer.

Forrest

plaidpaint said:

In Australia, this is exactly what most people do, except we don't use glass carboys. Most basic homebrew setups here use a plastic fermenter with a tap, probably similar to your bottling bucket. There's a little slotted piece that fits inside the tap that helps prevent the sediment being sucked from the bottom of the fermenter, so the beer stays pretty clear. You do have to individually prime the bottles, but it's not that hard

Click to expand...

But you are talking about Cooper's canned kits right? You don't have much sediment at all with canned kits. The kits with raw ingredients will have a good 1/2 to an inch of sediment in the primary. The canned kits will just have a dusting.

Forrest

The Cooper's kits I've done did have pretty small amount of sediment and the beer generally does come out quite clear. I have done a few AG BIAB brews now, and while there is more sediment in the bottom of the fermenter, it still doesn't accumulate as far as the tap. I find that as long as I don't disturb the fermenter while bottling, it stays in a pretty solid layer. The last few bottles get a bit cloudy, because I have to tilt the fermenter to get all the beer out, but it settles out fine in the bottle.

I'm not saying it's right way, I'm just saying it's not the wrong way

Is it worth getting that extra half bottle of beer so that all of the bottles have sediment?
I usually sacrifice the half bottle to have cleaner beer.

Forrest

Austinhomebrew said:

You should use a secondary and the bucket becomes the tertiary.

Click to expand...

Nope. Don't even bother with a secondary. Just use a primary for a month and then a bottling bucket.

Sounds like they're trying to sell you a carboy with a spigot

I've never had an issue going from carboy to bucket to bottles. The only infections I've had were from individual bottles.

GreenLion said:

...and that research had shown that racking again could destroy some of your yeast.

Click to expand...

I love how people say things like "research shows" and "studies show" without actually saying what studies. And by "love" I mean "hate".

I'd ask where he go that information.

johnnyt471 said:

Nope. Don't even bother with a secondary. Just use a primary for a month and then a bottling bucket.

Click to expand...

Breweries remove the beer from the sediment shortly after fermentation is complete for a cleaner beer and a better flavor. That is why they use a secondary. Leaving the beer on the sediment for 3 extra weeks certainly alters the flavor from what it should be.

Good enough for me. Who wants cloudy beer?

Forrest

Just get a bottling bucket, with spigot or not. It costs next to nothing. Priming bottles by adding a little sugar to each one can be done, but it adds a solid hour to bottling time. I know I have a friend who insisted to do his first two batches this way because his bonehead LHBS told him to so because "he wouldn't have enough yeast for carbonation" otherwise. I was in charge of measuring the sugar. Unless you dip your dirty socks or breathe directly over the beer for minutes at a time, I doubt there's a greater risk of infection than if you bottled directly from your fermentation vessel.

1. Boil some water and your priming sugar briefly.
2. Cool for a bit, put half in bottling vessel.
3. Rack your beer. Pour carefully the remaining solution into the bucket when you're halfway done.
4. Start bottling.

Austinhomebrew said:

Breweries remove the beer from the sediment shortly after fermentation is complete for a cleaner beer and a better flavor. That is why they use a secondary. Leaving the beer on the sediment for 3 extra weeks certainly alters the flavor from what it should be.

Good enough for me. Who wants cloudy beer?

Forrest

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the main reason commercial breweries do that is to prevent autolysis. Commercial breweries are dealing with large volumes of beer. That is a lot of weight pushing down on the yeast cake. That pressure, along with the heat generated by pushing all that yeast together, causes autolysis. That isn’t going to happen with the little ½ inch of trub produced in a home brewers fermenter. Not for a much longer time, anyway.

As for clarity, I have seen plenty of crystal clear beers done without a secondary. I was able to do it on my first batch so it can’t be that hard.

Nothing wrong with doing a secondary. But some people, like me, like to keep it as simple as is practical.

I don't secondary, I've done kits, partial mashes and all-grain; and I have both kegged and bottled. No reason not to bottle straight from the glass carboy, provided that you will be able to let the bottles settle for about two weeks, and will be drinking within a few months.

RDWHAHB

Vuarra said:

I don't secondary, I've done kits, partial mashes and all-grain; and I have both kegged and bottled. No reason not to bottle straight from the glass carboy, provided that you will be able to let the bottles settle for about two weeks, and will be drinking within a few months.

RDWHAHB

Click to expand...

???

Austinhomebrew said:

Breweries remove the beer from the sediment shortly after fermentation is complete for a cleaner beer and a better flavor. That is why they use a secondary. Leaving the beer on the sediment for 3 extra weeks certainly alters the flavor from what it should be.

Good enough for me. Who wants cloudy beer?

Forrest

Click to expand...

I've found that the beers I've left on the cake for 3-6 weeks have been markedly better than those pulled off earlier - even once the beers pulled off early were the same age as those left on the cake. Anecdotal at best, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

My understanding is that breweries pull the beer off as soon as primary is done for reasons of economics, not reasons of quality. Far less headspace is required for secondary, etc than primary... Smaller container = cheaper container.

Austinhomebrew said:

Breweries remove the beer from the sediment shortly after fermentation is complete for a cleaner beer and a better flavor. That is why they use a secondary. Leaving the beer on the sediment for 3 extra weeks certainly alters the flavor from what it should be.

Good enough for me. Who wants cloudy beer?

Forrest

Click to expand...

Actually, everything I've read on this forum shows that this is completely untrue, although I admit I'm a n00b.

It may sound cynical, but you are an online brewing company and therefore have an incentive to get people to buy more carboys, even if it doesn't actually do anything.

The problem with bottling from a primary or secondary instead of using a bottling bucket, is that since you have patiently gone and let your beer settle and clear, in order to mix the priming solution and beer effectively, you would have to stir it in the carboy which would a) kick up all that nice sediment you have patiently let fall, b) possibly oxydize the beer.

It really defeats the purpose of both a long primary/no secondary or a secondary if you have to stir up all the nice sediment you patiently waited to settle just so you can have consistent carbonation.

Go to a hardware store and get a translucent or white bucket...but look for one where the 5 gallon mark falls way below the top of the bucket. Usually it will say 5 gallons at 3rd band from the top. (oh get the lid too....I totally regret not getting it when I did.)

Then get a spigot and make a dedicated bottling bucket. It really defeats the purpose of both a long primary/no secondary or a secondary if you have to stir up all the nice sediment you patiently waited to settle just so you can have consistent carbonation.

Mine is the translucent Leaktite brand 5 gallon container with the gallon and liter markings from Homedepot.



Here's a pic of mine from my bottling thread.



You'll find a ton of good info here to make bottling easier.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f35/revvys-tips-bottler-first-time-otherwise-94812/

And the long primary/no secondary thing has been done to death, there are threads on here covering it from all angles, there is really no need ot keep re-inventing the wheel. However you want to go works fine.

johnnyt471 said:

Actually, everything I've read on this forum shows that this is completely untrue, although I admit I'm a n00b.

It may sound cynical, but you are an online brewing company and therefore have an incentive to get people to buy more carboys, even if it doesn't actually do anything.

Click to expand...

I resent the implication that my advise is biased. Just because I have a store does not negate my valid opinion.

If you use a secondary your beer will be clearer. Fact.
Just using a primary is "clear enough" for some people. It is not clear enough for me or a brewery.

Ask a brewery why they use a seconday don't just assume.

I have run red lights before and have never been stopped or caught by the police. So there is no reason to stop at red lights.

Of course it is not necessary to use a secondary. It is just a good idea.

Forrest

Forrest

Revvy is right about this argument being done to death, so I'll just add this link to a discussion about it.

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

Austinhomebrew said:

If you use a secondary your beer will be clearer. Fact.
Just using a primary is "clear enough" for some people. It is not clear enough for me or a brewery.

Ask a brewery why they use a seconday don't just assume.

Forrest

Click to expand...

Sorry Forrest but I call BS..... I'm actually a little disheartened that you of all people wouldn't be up on the latest discussions/trends in brewing to just make such a blanket ascertion that beer is clearer in secondary than those of us that have for the last 5 years opted for long primaries. I would state that since I've been using long primries as opposed to secondaries, my beer is CLEARER, taste better, and my scores in contest have risen greatly, as have the comments as to the clarity and crispness of my beer, from those judges, since I skpped secondaries. Other's have noted similar things.

It is no longer as concrete a fact as you state. Hence the fact that even recipes by your competitors, as well as BYO are bgininng to reflect this fact. There is at least one of your direct competitors in kit making who have begun to have their recipes in the long primary format.

I've often mention how not every vendor is up to date in their knowlege, that they don't hang out on forums, or read the latest magazines, or are up on the latest ideas in brewer. And that some are just 'can't teach an old dog new tricks" type owners, I just never thought you would be one as well.

There is now enough information, not just conjecture on this forum, but articles in byo, discussions on podcasts, and other forum to give credence to the long primary as a means to improve clairty/quality, that it no longer is "one way or the high way" like you so adamently state. It has been shown over the last few years, that whether you secondary or long primary instead doesn't really matter, both work and both work great.

It's no longer a matter of "Secondaries make for clearer beer, period" a lot of folks, even folks who scoffed at those of us who started doing this 5 years ago, are no longeer so convinced in their original asertions, they may not opt for long primaris, but they don't skoff at it either. The at least acknowlege that our way my have some merit, and some validity, after 5 years of folks trying it both ways.

As to the "professional brewers all use secondaries" part of your argument, the last time you posted that in a thread, SEVERAL poster challenged that by posting the names of microbreweries, and brewpubs, and craft breweries who DIDN'T use a secondaries either.

I am really shocked that you are so close minded on this, I've always respected your insights, and that you are no only here to solicit business, but you are also an active part of the community here, giving advice and sharing your wisdom. I am just disspointed that, especially with this being such a huuuge part of the cutlure and the discussions on here (long primaries) that you would maybe have soaked up some of the wisdom, and knowlege on here as well. I would have thought you would have been less emphatic in your declarations......

In brewing you are allowed to take as many shortcuts as you want. Just make sure your shortcuts don't cause other issues. Sometimes you can't tell that your shortcut has compromised your end result because you dont have a control to compare with.

Forrest

Austinhomebrew said:

In brewing you are allowed to take as many shortcuts as you want. Just make sure your shortcuts don't cause other issues. Sometimes you can't tell that your shortcut has compromised your end result because you dont have a control to compare with.

Forrest

Click to expand...

Dude, that warning is so five years ago, BEFORE people, including John Palmer started realizing that long primaries caused no harm, and maybe do some good. You are starting to sound like one of the LHBS owners that folks on here complain about and want to use YOU instead. One of those you can't teach an old dog new tricks, refuse to listen dispite all the information availabe online types.

I'm not going to re-invent the wheel from the first time I started writing about long primaries, but I did have a control to compare it with.

I did have two batches of the same recipe, one done with a traditional 2 week primary/2 week secondary, and one that I hadn't gotten to rack to a seondary various reasons. And in head to head comparrisons, from other brewers, a couple beer judges, AND enterring both of them in a contest, the long primary did better, got a higher score, better comments about clarity, and people just overall liked it better.

I wouldn't keep doing it if I didn't keep getting positive feedback from my beers.

Also I have repeatedly posted comments from enterred beers, and even informal comments from beer judges about the clarity of my long primaries, or the tastes of them. And I'm not the only one. I've done that purposefully so that there would be some canonical information to back up the "it does no harm" and "it may have some benefit" argument.

Sorry Forrest but there's too much info contrary to what you ascert so emphatically anymore. It's no longer as cut and dried, nor as harmful as you are so convinced it is. But again, there is plenty of info on here, including things cited from byo, palmer, basic brewing, brew strong and many other places to show that it is no longer so cut and dried.

I'm just disspointed you haven't already bothered reading it.

People, people, I have found a way to put to rest the secondary/no-secondary debate. Stouts for all

As a beginning home brewer, the best advice I got from here is not wether to use a secondary or not, it's to use whatever produces the best results for your process. Nothing is inherently "better" or "worse" especially not on an issue where you have anecdotal proof of great results from both sides of the argument. It's a matter of what works best for you. I'm a fervent believer of the "don't knock it 'till you try it" so I will refrain about entering the debate.

Austinhomebrew said:

I resent the implication that my advise is biased. Just because I have a store does not negate my valid opinion.

Click to expand...

I happen to agree here that just because you sell equipment, that you would be bias. In fact, the opposite could be true.

As far as doing a secondary, I use a conical so I don't have to transfer the beer. I dump trub usually at 3-4 days after the apparent yeast utilization. I then dump again at 7 days paying attention to how much trub is left. I then usually wait another 4-5 days on average and dump a small amount out. This usually results in not only clearer beer, but better tasting. I then keg and chill to 32F and then force carbonate for about a week or two. I usually force carbonate to style guidelines. Anyway, I think it is worth it, most of the time, to secondary ferment. YMMV.

jfr1111 said:

As a beginning home brewer, the best advice I got from here is not wether to use a secondary or not, it's to use whatever produces the best results for your process. Nothing is inherently "better" or "worse" especially not on an issue where you have anecdotal proof of great results from both sides of the argument. It's a matter of what works best for you. I'm a fervent believer of the "don't knock it 'till you try it" so I will refrain about entering the debate.

Click to expand...

+1,000,000

Now what was this thread originally about???? Oh yeah bottling from the primary.

Revvy said:

Now what was this thread originally about???? Oh yeah bottling from the primary.

Click to expand...

Yeah, don't do that. Get a bottling bucket. Problem solved

I don't need to convince anyone because I am not trying to sell anyone anything. I am simply stating my opinion. There are other schools of thought. I am not old school to be old school. This is what works for me.

If you ask 10 brewers you will get 15 answers.

Forrest

Until you have done a dozen or so batches figuring out the best system for you, Read books, talk to your LHBS, comb this forum and a couple others for whatever question you have. If you run into an anomaly, such as your LHBS giving you a line of BS like they did, then you know you can discard it.

However, don't bottle from your carboy. Spend $10 on a bottling bucket like the one in Revvy's thread and save yourself a TON of aggravation.

My opinion about the clarity is thus: There is NO difference save for the time it is left undisturbed. If you primary for 6 weeks, it will not be the same as primary for 3 weeks, secondary for 3 weeks because in the middle of the settling you have disturbed it increasing the time it takes to become as clear as leaving it undisturbed for 6 weeks.
Me, I don't care about clarity especially since I know, in my system, enough time in the bottle and refrigerator yields me commercial clear beer for most batches.

At least use a bottling bucket if you don't use a secondary. And like Revvy said go to Home Depot to buy it. At least that will remove some of the sediment.
Just don't bottle from the primary. It is a pain in the tuckus.

Forrest

Can we just agree that bottling is a pain in the tuckus?

My point was that I use bottling (as I keep it in a safe place for a month) as a type of secondary, where it re-carbonates, and the extra three weeks or so allows the sediment to settle and compress. That is my experience. I find that both Revvy and Forrest have their points of view, and I agree with parts of theirs.

The OP has asked, is there a difference... the answer is yes, but which is better is up to his taste, what he is doing with the beer, and how long he is leaving it. This is his personal choice, now that he has the pros and cons of it.

So Revvy, I am about to open a brewery. So I can skip the bright tanks and filtering and bottle straight from the primary 30 barrels? This will save me a lot of time and money. Palmer and BYO say its ok?

Forrest

I am a rookie, but I secondary everything so far. I don't necessarily do it for clarity I do it because I think I get more beer to the bottling bucket PLUS I primary in 6.5 gallon carboys and they will not fit in my cooler to cold crash so I primary for 3 weeks +- depending on the beer then rack to a 5 gallon and stick em in the cooler for a couple days before bottling.

Austinhomebrew said:

So Revvy, I am about to open a brewery. So I can skip the bright tanks and filtering and bottle straight from the primary 30 barrels? This will save me a lot of time and money. Palmer and BYO say its ok?

Forrest

Click to expand...

I suggest that we all agree that everyone has opinion and should respect that opinion. Just saying. Nothing personal.

beerman1957 said:

I suggest that we all agree that everyone has opinion and should respect that opinion. Just saying. Nothing personal.

Click to expand...

I agree. Everyone has a right to express their opinions. Many of us don't use a secondary- many others do. I think it's rude to suggest that "It's my way or the highway", the way the OP's homebrew shop seemed to.

This is NOT the place to revisit the primary/secondary debate. Please go to the proper thread for that.

The topic here is "Bottling straight from glass carboy?". Keep to the topic please! Thank you.

Austinhomebrew said:

So Revvy, I am about to open a brewery. So I can skip the bright tanks and filtering and bottle straight from the primary 30 barrels? This will save me a lot of time and money. Palmer and BYO say its ok?

Forrest

Click to expand...

Are you trying to pick a fight here?

Obviously conditioning in a 6 gallon fermenter is different from a giant tank at a brewery, plus filtering isn't even a part of this debate.

Anyways. Bottling from primary is a ridiculous suggestion, I'm suprised ANYBODY would suggest that.

I agree.