A different take on secondary fermenters

[wtfDean]

my mistake. 3 gallon glass carboys, not 3.5

3 gallon carboy

 

[Puddlethumper]

I think headspace in a settling tank is irrelevant, if you re-establish the CO2 blanket after the transfer, which is what I do.

I don't have any oxidation problems even though I use 6.5G fermentors for both primary and secondary.

+1 on that Dave Miller's book, I also really like his no-nonsense approach.

Your take on the headspace issue is interesting. But if we are following Miller's procedure the beer isn't sitting in the settling tank for more than a few days anyway so it may be a moot point. Nonetheless, I think I'll continue to err on the side of caution on this one.

To experiment with half batches would then require finding a settling tank that is almost exactly a half batch of beer. Maybe the answer is to find 2.5 gal carboys or buckets or else make 6 gal batches and divide them into 3 gal carboys?

 

[Puddlethumper]

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."

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.

You begin by failing to recognize that there is a difference between clarity of the beer and crud in the bottom of the bottle. I have learned, as most homebrewers have also learned, to pour carefully to leave the sediment in the bottom of the bottle behind. And I have a glass of nice clear beer to enjoy. However, if I choose to move the beer off the yeast cake and let it settle again before bottling, there is far less of that crud in the bottles. Please read what was written and it will help you understand better what the writer was saying.

Yoopers, whose opinion seems to carry some credibility around here, has chimed into this discussion with her view that lengthy fermentations can lend the flavor of the yeast to the beer. This may be desirable to some, but to many of us that constitutes an "off flavor".

When you speak of dogma and conjecture, I would suggest you try reading Mr. Miller's book and perhaps do some experimentation. Such experimentation might challenge you a little but you may also find it liberating to not be so bound to entrenched ideas. (You might also look up the definition of dogmatic.)

Cheers!

 

[QuercusMax]

That is the very reason I began questioning the prevailing wisdom of bottling straight from the primary fermenting vessel.

When you say "bottling straight from the primary", do you mean you're siphoning directly from your primary into the bottles, and not using a bottling bucket? That seems like a fantastic way to put a ton of junk into your beer. I don't think anybody recommends doing *that*.

If you aren't using a bottling bucket, then the results (in terms of clarity) from using a secondary will probably be similar to those of people who use a bottling bucket and no secondary.

 

[kombat]

if I choose to move the beer off the yeast cake and let it settle again before bottling, there is far less of that crud in the bottles.

The "crud" at the bottom of the bottle is yeast that is created during bottle-conditioning. It is unavoidable and is not a function of whether or not you employed a secondary clearing vessel.

If you allow sufficient time for the beer to settle in primary, and rack carefully to your bottling bucket at bottling time, then you would end up with less sediment in the beer than if you'd disturbed it partway through fermentation and transferred it to another (secondary) vessel (which has the effect of re-mixing precipitating particles back into even distribution in the beer).

Unless you're actually suggesting what QuercusMax described, that is, literally bottling straight from the primary fermenter, in which case I think you're arguing a straw man as nobody is actually advocating that. We all assumed you would still be using a separate bottling bucket in your process, as is normal.

 

[wtfDean]

When you say "bottling straight from the primary", do you mean you're siphoning directly from your primary into the bottles, and not using a bottling bucket? That seems like a fantastic way to put a ton of junk into your beer. I don't think anybody recommends doing *that*.

If you aren't using a bottling bucket, then the results (in terms of clarity) from using a secondary will probably be similar to those of people who use a bottling bucket and no secondary.

yes, of course. assume the person you're talking to has no idea how to make beer, it is the only way to be internet social.

i don't know anyone who doesn't use a bottling bucket, experienced or inexperienced.

 

[QuercusMax]

yes, of course. assume the person you're talking to has no idea how to make beer, it is the only way to be internet social.

i don't know anyone who doesn't use a bottling bucket, experienced or inexperienced.

I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from. Unless we clearly define what we're talking about, we have no way of knowing whether we're talking about the same things. Puddlethumper (who I quoted, not you) usde a phrase I thought was might need some clarification.

As for "nobody" using a bottling bucket, I'd recommend searching for threads here with "bottling bucket?" in the title. In about 10 seconds I found about 5 threads asking whether a bottling bucket was necessary. I've also read a few threads, and watched several youtube videos, of people saying they stir their priming sugar into their primary bucket and siphon directly into bottles.

I don't think it pays to make any assumptions when it comes to homebrewing, especially when we're on such a controversial subject. Some people have been homebrewing since before it was legal, and may use old techniques. Others may be total noobs who don't know what they're doing.

 

[JustLooking]

I've also read a few threads, and watched several youtube videos, of people saying they stir their priming sugar into their primary bucket and siphon directly into bottles.

Adding priming sugar to a primary is a pretty obvious way to get a lot of sediment in the bottle, but bottle priming is not all that unusual and can be done without disturbing the trub.

 

[QuercusMax]

Oh, for sure, and John Palmer even says as much in the first edition of How To Brew, available here: http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter11-4.html

He really needs to change that site to have a big fat disclaimer on every page saying "THIS IS OLD ADVICE, PLEASE READ THE UPDATED VERSION". Since there's a lot of facepalm-worthy info in there, like the suggestion to stir the priming sugar into the primary.

 

[Puddlethumper]

For those who don't understand Mr. Miller's ideas (not mine, may I remind you, but his) I would suggest you avail yourselves of copy of his latest book and read it for yourself. He has rethought a lot of what he believed was correct in his 1988 book and this new text explains his current thinking and procedures.

For those who are so entrenched in the prevailing wisdom that they cannot even consider anyone else having a legitimate and valuable contribution to add, all I can say is I am sorry for bringing new ideas into your world. They clearly upset you.

And yes, I have always used a bottling bucket. However, you may find it interesting that Mr. Miller doesn't! He often moves his beer from primary to a keg, then using CO2 for pressure pushes the beer through a filter to a "bright keg". (pp 172-176) This procedure is very similar to those performed in commercial breweries every day and a procedure he prefers for many beers.

Before you decide you are qualified to criticize his ideas please include in your criticism the number of years you have been brewing and how long you have personally worked as a professional brewmaster in a successful microbrewery. You might also let us know when the American Homebrewers Association awarded you a lifetime achievement award. I would think that anyone who's credentials compare to David Miller's is certainly worth listening to. General naysayers who are simply challenged by different or new ideas? Not so much.

 

[cpa4ny]

I think the fine point here is going from primary to a KEG vs BOTTLING from primary.

Those are fairly different things - one can siphon nicely from primary into a keg without kicking up the crud.

This is different from bottling from the primary where one needs to add priming sugar and stir (one can of course argue that we can skip bulk priming and just add carbonation drops to the bottles directly, which would probably result in clearer beer).

To my recollection - Miller doesn't bottle at all and actually recommends getting a kegging system from day 1.

 

[Puddlethumper]

I think the fine point here is going from primary to a KEG vs BOTTLING from primary.

To my recollection - Miller doesn't bottle at all and actually recommends getting a kegging system from day 1.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. He's pretty clear that a person shouldn't bother with bottling at all. From his perspective kegging seems to be the only legitimate option. And he makes a lot of good arguments. Those arguments were so persuasive that UPS has made a couple of deliveries of big boxes to my home over the last few days.

 

[cpa4ny]

Those arguments were so persuasive that UPS has made a couple of deliveries of big boxes to my home over the last few days.

I think if you ask most homebrewers who keg - myself included - the only regret is not starting to keg earlier in their homebrewing "careers"

 

[tagz]

Just to answer the dude getting all riled up back on pages 3-5, Basic Brewing did a secondary experiment and found that the secondary beers cleared faster, but they ended up with the same final clarity as beers with extended primary. And, settle down buddy.

 

[DeBAD]

Wow just read through this whole thread. To quote the Beatles "and in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make". Chill out bros, we are all just making beer here. Can't we just play nice in the sand box? Haha!

 

[paperairplane]

My process, which is extremely similar to everyone else's process, is vastly superior due to the very minor differences in my process. Those who use a very similar process to mine, with very minor differences, are completely wrong and worthy of derision.

As sergeant Hulka said, "lighten up Francis".

 

[Zuljin]

My process, which is extremely similar to everyone else's process, is vastly superior due to the very minor differences in my process. Those who use a very similar process to mine, with very minor differences, are completely wrong and worthy of derision.

As sergeant Hulka said, "lighten up Francis".

Your process sucks! Tertiary fermentation, for the win!

 

[Yooper]

my fg stabilized at 1.010 for a while. of course i take hydrometer samples before racking. maybe you shouldn't assume the person you're talking to is a total novice if you really don't want to appear to come off "harsh".

my experimentation came from this post earlier in the discussion



i was using someone else's method for the sake of seeing what happens first hand. now i am telling you i didn't like the results. that's my conclusion.



um, obviously not. didn't i say this was an experiment and that i normally use a secondary? my beers spend 3+ weeks fermenting, normally. i will say again, this was an experiment.

My beers spend 10-14 days in the fermenter, and then are kegged. They are crystal clear, with little sediment. I think that there are more than a few keys to this, though. One is simply having clear wort to start with- a great mash and kettle pH, a good hot break, a good cold break, and then pitching the proper amount of yeast at the proper temperature and maintaining that. Once FG is reached, the beer is given about 3 days to ensure it's done and is clear (or at least clearing quite well). Then it is dryhopped if I'm dryhopping.

I'm an old winemaker, and so am extremely proficient with racking and not picking up any trub or hops debris at all.

That means my beer is generally totally clear while being kegged.

Also, for clarity, starting with a clear wort and using a flocculant yeast if possible means a clear beer shortly after fermentation ends. Some yeast stains I use, notably Denny's Favorite 50 Wyeast 1450, are not very flocculant but clear well after three days in the kegerator. There is a difference between a slight yeast haze, and murky beer. I never package a murky beer.

One of the reasons homebrewers like to give the beer extra time in the fermenter is to "clean up" off flavors- but if you don't create them in the first place, then they don't need to age out.

I think it's great that we're talking about our own experiences (good or bad) and not relying on things we've read or a rule-of-thumb about length of the time in the fermenter.

I would point out that a commercial brewer friend would be incredulous at some of the posts stating that they keep the beer in the fermenter for a minimum of a month. But if the homebrewer loves the beer made that way, that's awesome and that's really what it's all about.

Try different approaches to see which one works for YOU. I have. I've done many different methods over the years, and settled on what makes the best beer in my system. What works for others may be a bit different, or a lot different- but try several things to see what's "best".

 

[Puddlethumper]

My beers spend 10-14 days in the fermenter, and then are kegged. They are crystal clear, with little sediment. I think that there are more than a few keys to this, though. One is simply having clear wort to start with- a great mash and kettle pH, a good hot break, a good cold break, and then pitching the proper amount of yeast at the proper temperature and maintaining that. Once FG is reached, the beer is given about 3 days to ensure it's done and is clear (or at least clearing quite well). Then it is dryhopped if I'm dryhopping.

I'm an old winemaker, and so am extremely proficient with racking and not picking up any trub or hops debris at all.

That means my beer is generally totally clear while being kegged.

Do I understand correctly that you rely on good technique alone?

 

[spinaltap32]

I only secondary my big beers for aging purposes. I've never lost one due to contamination or oxidation. They have been some of my best beers.

 

[Puddlethumper]

When you say "bottling straight from the primary", do you mean you're siphoning directly from your primary into the bottles, and not using a bottling bucket? That seems like a fantastic way to put a ton of junk into your beer. I don't think anybody recommends doing *that*.

If you aren't using a bottling bucket, then the results (in terms of clarity) from using a secondary will probably be similar to those of people who use a bottling bucket and no secondary.

Please slowly and carefully read the second paragraph of that post.

I chose to begin using a secondary vessel to get the beer clear of the 1 1/2" of yeast cake so there would be less to end up in the bottle. A period of clearing/settling (call it a secondary, settling or bright tank as you like) yielded about 1/4" of stuff in the bottom of that vessel. When racking off of that into a bottling bucket you end up with about nothing in the bottle. To me this doesn't seem to be rocket science but it does appear to be a stumbling point for a lot of people.

Then re-read what you wrote.

I have no idea of your age, but from your posts I think I can hazard a reasonable guess. So please consider some advice from an old man... it's the same advice I gave to Kombat... it is wise to read and be sure you understand what a person has written. This should be done before jumping to conclusions about their motives, their skills, or whether their views are worthy of consideration.

Cheers!

 

[Shropshire]

You brewed on 1/25/14, dry hopped on 2/1/14 and bottled on 2/8/14. To me that comes out to be 14 days. Do you normally leave your beer in the fermenter for 7 days, dry hop in the secondary for 7, and come out with crystal clear beer?

um, obviously not. didn't i say this was an experiment and that i normally use a secondary? my beers spend 3+ weeks fermenting, normally. i will say again, this was an experiment.

Let me preface this with saying this is not a personal attack or me trying to be mean or really anything but me trying to be helpful, but:

Dean, if you're doing an experiment on using a secondary versus not using one to see what the difference is, you have to do the entire process the same way in every other aspect or you can't be absolutely sure what causes differences.

If you usually ferment beers for 3+ weeks, but stop your experiment at 14 days, how can you be sure what causes any differences in the end result? Maybe you're right, and only the lack of a secondary caused the beer to be cloudy. Maybe it was because they had not fully fermented and settled as much as your other beers have time to do. Maybe a combination of both. The point is, if your experiment has multiple steps of the process differ from the usual, you can't know for sure what causes your results.

I mean do what makes you happy, but if you want an experiment with a definite answer, I would try this again but following your regular fermentation schedule, the only difference being you skip racking to the secondary (in fact I'm going to try it this way soon, split up a wort and only transfer one of them and see how they turn out).

 

[kombat]

I chose to begin using a secondary vessel to get the beer clear of the 1 1/2" of yeast cake so there would be less to end up in the bottle.

Why would less of this yeast cake be transferred when racking to a secondary fermenter than would be if you were racking it to a bottling bucket?

A period of clearing/settling (call it a secondary, settling or bright tank as you like) yielded about 1/4" of stuff in the bottom of that vessel.

Why do you not think allowing that exact same additional time still in the primary - rather than in a secondary - would not still yield that same 1/4" of additional precipitate? The only difference is that if the beer remained in primary, that additional 1/4" of precipitate would accumulate on top of the already-present yeast cake, while in a secondary vessel it would build up on the bottom of the vessel surface.

When racking off of that into a bottling bucket you end up with about nothing in the bottle.

Why could you not rack above the yeast cake from the primary fermenter and end up with the exact same clarity?

Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the sediment in bottles is trub that you failed to eliminate from the beer in earlier stages, when in fact it is yeast produced during bottle carbonation (and thus, unavoidable if you want bottle-carbonated beer). Yeast sediment in bottles is a byproduct of bottle-carbing, not a flaw in your process. In fact, I would be concerned to see so little sediment in bottles, as it would be indicative of insufficiently carbonated beer.

Puddles, we're going around in circles, and you still haven't explained this fundamental flaw in your argument. You still have not explained HOW transferring the beer off the yeast cake enhances the final clarity. All you've done is said "Because Dave Miller says to use a secondary in 'Brew Like A Pro'." But pros use secondary not to clear the beer, but rather to free up the primary fermenter for another batch.

So, at the risk of offending the horse's family, I'll ask you one more time: Can you explain HOW getting the beer off the yeast cake and into another vessel enhances beer clarity?

 

[Grannyknot]

Ahhhh...good morning homebrew world.
I see we've made 11 pages of tomato vs. tomahto.
Keep up the good work.

 

[kombat]

Ahhhh...good morning homebrew world.
I see we've made 11 pages of tomato vs. tomahto.

Nobody says tomahto.

And all I'm asking for is a logical, scientific explanation for how moving beer off the yeast cake results in clearer beer.

 

[JustLooking]

You forget that the vocal majority here at HBT have a love affair with plastic buckets and auto siphons?

 

[Puddlethumper]

Nobody says tomahto.

And all I'm asking for is a logical, scientific explanation for how moving beer off the yeast cake results in clearer beer.

Hey, don't sweat it man. You win.

Cheers!

 

[evanmars]

So, should I rack to secondary or not?

 

[ArcLight]

>>And all I'm asking for is a logical, scientific explanation for how moving beer off the yeast cake results in clearer beer.


If you rack from a bucket that has a lot of trub you will bring over more than if you rack form a bucket with less trub.
Then after the trub settles (in your secondary/bright tank) when you rack off that, you will bring over still less trub.

The alternative is to leave more beer behind when racking out of your primary, directly into your keg or bottling bucket.

Even if you cold crash, you can get sediment if you don't leave behind enough beer.


The main risk with the secondary is the Oxidation damage. If you sanitize your equipment the infection risk is probably minimal.

 

[JustLooking]

So, in English, if your racking skills and technique are not up to the task, transferring to a secondary vessel will give you clearer beer.



BTW, I do often use a secondary, but not for clearer beer.

 

[kombat]

If you rack from a bucket that has a lot of trub you will bring over more than if you rack form a bucket with less trub.
Then after the trub settles (in your secondary/bright tank) when you rack off that, you will bring over still less trub.

So, to be clear, the beer itself is no clearer. It's merely a function of how much of the sediment at the bottom you're "sucking up" with your racking cane/autosiphon.

If you start at the top and work your way down, keeping the siphon tip just below the surface of the beer as you go (the recommended technique), then you'll be transferring equally clear beer (whether you used a secondary or not) until you get down to the last few ounces just above the bed of sediment, at which point you must either carefully keep the siphon tip just below the surface of the beer and above the sediment, or stop siphoning altogether and leave those last few ounces.

If you do that (which is the proper siphoning technique anyway), then there is no clarity advantage.

 

[ArcLight]

>.So, to be clear, the beer itself is no clearer. It's merely a function of how much of the sediment at the bottom you're "sucking up" with your racking cane/autosiphon.

Correct - buts it's not just a few ounces.



>>f you start at the top and work your way down, keeping the siphon tip just below the surface of the beer as you go (the recommended technique), then you'll be transferring equally clear beer (whether you used a secondary or not) until you get down to the last few ounces just above the bed of sediment, at which point you must either carefully keep the siphon tip just below the surface of the beer and above the sediment, or stop siphoning altogether and leave those last few ounces.

Correct.


>>If you do that (which is the proper siphoning technique anyway), then there is no clarity advantage.


When I rack, and the end of the cane approaches the trub, I frequently get in some beer that has some trub mixed it. I also have to tip the bucket, otherwise I leave behind a lot of beer.

If you don't tip the bucket, and don't mind losing several beers, then you are probably fine, and don't need to rack to a secondary.

I wouldn't secondary just for clarity, I'd do it if I wanted to age the beer for a while and didn't want to sitting on the yeast for a long time. (talking many weeks, not days). Gordon Strong once wrote about not always wanting his beer to sit on yeast for a long time taht it can gradually pick up off flavors.

 

[evanmars]

>.So, to be clear, the beer itself is no clearer. It's merely a function of how much of the sediment at the bottom you're "sucking up" with your racking cane/autosiphon.

Correct - buts it's not just a few ounces.



>>f you start at the top and work your way down, keeping the siphon tip just below the surface of the beer as you go (the recommended technique), then you'll be transferring equally clear beer (whether you used a secondary or not) until you get down to the last few ounces just above the bed of sediment, at which point you must either carefully keep the siphon tip just below the surface of the beer and above the sediment, or stop siphoning altogether and leave those last few ounces.

Correct.


>>If you do that (which is the proper siphoning technique anyway), then there is no clarity advantage.


When I rack, and the end of the cane approaches the trub, I frequently get in some beer that has some trub mixed it. I also have to tip the bucket, otherwise I leave behind a lot of beer.

If you don't tip the bucket, and don't mind losing several beers, then you are probably fine, and don't need to rack to a secondary.

I wouldn't secondary just for clarity, I'd do it if I wanted to age the beer for a while and didn't want to sitting on the yeast for a long time. (talking many weeks, not days). Gordon Strong once wrote about not always wanting his beer to sit on yeast for a long time taht it can gradually pick up off flavors.

How sure are you that the combined total of beer left behind in both primary and secondary is less than that of just a primary?

How would putting the beer in a secondary allow it to age any better than a keg or bottles?

 

[HoppyDaze]

Unsubscribe

Ha!

 

[ArcLight]

>>How sure are you that the combined total of beer left behind in both primary and secondary is less than that of just a primary?

Each time you rack, you leave behind some liquid, so some beer gets lost. You don't try and get every last drop because those are heavily laden with trub.


>>How would putting the beer in a secondary allow it to age any better than a keg or bottles?

Both a keg and bottles would be fine. What I was comparing was aging in a bucket compared to aging in a better bottle/carboy with minimal head space.

 

[seckert]

Everyone has their own way of brewing/transfering/aging/bottling/kegging/drinking their beer. if it works for you then go for it. if you want to try something different then go for it! thats the joy of homebrewing...huh, isnt that a book?

I personally have tried multiple different ways of doing things, sometimes i have even ended up with the same results. other times i have learned a better way to do something. The ONLY thing that i have done that i have found will ALWAYS give you clearer beer is cold crashing. other than that a lot of it depends on your technique and style of beer you are making.

now everyone relax! and have a homebrew!

 

[Grannyknot]

Nobody says tomahto.

And all I'm asking for is a logical, scientific explanation for how moving beer off the yeast cake results in clearer beer.

Some people do.
And some people use a secondary.
Not all of them use a secondary because they believe it makes clearer beer. There are other reasons as well.

Point is...who cares what other people do?

 

[UglyDude]

Im considering using secondary to gain clarity and not have to worry as much when racking to the keg or bottle.

 

[Puddlethumper]

How would putting the beer in a secondary allow it to age any better than a keg or bottles?

Aging in a keg or a bottle should be equal and without risk. However, the issue at hand here is not related to aging. The question is whether to allow the beer to go through a lengthy time in the primary fermenter as opposed to moving it to a bright tank once initial fermentation is complete. And this is where the issue of oxidation raises its ugly head.

We have learned that the co2 that was in the headspace in the primary fermenter will dissipate somewhat and that headspace will gain o2 as time passes through diffusion. The more susceptible the holding vessel is to permeation the faster the o2 will accumulate. Therefore, since the majority of o2 absorption will occur on the exposed surface of the beer the best way to minimize that absorption is to minimize the exposure through reducing the total surface area exposed. We reduce the surface area dramatically by moving the beer to a more confined space. And if that move is made while there is still some active fermentation going on, the yeast will scavange the small amount of o2 in that restricted headspace. That, I think we will find, is why winemakers choose to move to secondary fermenters. The move reduces the likelihood of oxidation of their finished product.

As Yoopers pointed out in an earlier post, this issue can also be addressed by use of a pressurized vessel that contains almost exclusively co2 instead of o2. But I doubt that type of system is within the budget of most home brewers.

 

[evanmars]

... since the majority of o2 absorption will occur on the exposed surface of the beer the best way to minimize that absorption is to minimize the exposure through reducing the total surface area exposed. By moving the beer to a more confined space for that maturing period will reduce that surface area thus reducing the exposure to o2.

No, the surface area will remain the same unless you rack into a taller, narrower vessel. Plus you are exposing more surface area to O2 (unless vessel is completely purged of oxygen) as you fill the secondary.