A different take on secondary fermenters

[bajaedition]

Puddle you bring in to play a huge part of this

we are hobbyist, and in being such, very few of us will ever have anything close to a professional set up

Most hobbyist have very neanderthal systems compared to a big brewery. and many brew pubs have systems barely better than a expensive hobby setup

I secondary, or use a brightening tank, or a settling tank, or what ever you want to call it. I also do 3 step infusions and a lot of guys try and try to get me to stop telling me that I am accomplishing nothing.

OH Well

But one thing I notice the most, is those that do not are always telling the guys who do why they should not

such as in motorcycling, ever notice non motorcyclist are the ones trying to write laws against it

and non gun owners want us to give up our guns

and atheist want people to stop openly praying to God

and on and on

such as people who do not use secondaries want those who do to stop
otherwise why would they be spending so much effort to tell us how it is useless?

oh well

the debate continues

 

[Puddlethumper]

such as people who do not use secondaries want those who do to stop
otherwise why would they be spending so much effort to tell us how it is useless?

oh well

the debate continues

Well said.

 

[Puddlethumper]

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.

Perhaps you haven't used a 5 gallon carboy in the past. Here's the math:

A 16" diameter 6 gal. fermenter filled with 5 gal. of beer leaves a total exposed surface area of ~50 sq. in.

A 5 gal. carboy filled with 5 gal. of beer fills it into the neck leaving <12 sq. in. of exposed surface area.

 

[HoppyDaze]

Secondary fermenter is really just a clearing or aging vessel. Whoever called it "fermenter" was dumb and should be punched in the eye

 

[evanmars]

Perhaps you haven't used a 5 gallon carboy in the past. Here's the math:

A 16" diameter 6 gal. fermenter filled with 5 gal. of beer leaves a total exposed surface area of ~50 sq. in. of exposed surface area

A 5 gal. carboy filled with 5 gal. of beer fills it into the neck leaving ~12 sq. in. of exposed surface area.

Got ya. I wasn't getting the fact that you only secondary in a vessel that is smaller in volume with a 'pinched' neck. I was thinking 7 gallon bucket to a 5 gallon bucket or carboy with more head space.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Got ya. I wasn't getting the fact that you only secondary in a vessel that is smaller in volume with a 'pinched' neck. I was thinking 7 gallon bucket to a 5 gallon bucket or carboy with more head space.

I can see your point. And yes, trying to use a bucket for a bright tank would accomplish nothing.

It's all a matter of trade-offs as far as oxidation risk is concerned. I, for one, feel that if I'm careful there will be far less exposure to o2 during the 10 min. or so it will take to rack to the bright tank, than there will be if I leave the beer sitting with 50 sq. in. of surface area exposed to o2 for days or perhaps weeks.

 

[JustLooking]

And yes, trying to use a bucket for a bright tank would accomplish nothing.

You do realize that a brite tank is used to carbonate beer?

 

[Puddlethumper]

Nope, never made that connection. No problem. Miller refers to it as a settling tank. So shall we agree on settling tank?

 

[Puddlethumper]

such as in motorcycling, ever notice non motorcyclist are the ones trying to write laws against it

Darn. Wish I hadn't sold my bike. Would like to deliver some of my brew down your way and try some of yours!

Cheers!

 

[VladOfTrub]

""""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."""

I agree. If someone brews like Fred Flintstone..... Where did you come up with the "in fact?" On your own? Junior, when a decent process is used, none of what you wrote happens.

I'm not sure when the term secondary fermentation/fermenter ceased, but it is still used by Siebel and Narziss. There are over 100 pages between them on what secondary fermentation is and what it does and it takes place in a thing they call a secondary fermenter. They've been teaching people to be brewmasters since the end of the 19th century and still do. It might be best to invest in their books, instead of the 10 dollar books written by book salesmen. That feed on the sheep, that believe their blather and declare it gospel. In Millers case, what he recommends comes from Siebel. I would be willing to bet, he owns books from Siebel or Narziss. I use a secondary fermenter and have used that process since 1982. Now, I own two 14 G Blichmann fermenters. I transfer from the primary using CO2, through the blow off attachment, into the purged and under a slight CO2 pressure secondary. Lower than transfer pressure. When carboys were the only thing to be had. I used the orange two port cap to push the beer with CO2. Never once did a carboy explode. If a poor transfer method is used, beer can be oxidized. When oxidation occurs in the secondary, diacetyl can form. When diacetyl is formed in the secondary, no amount of temperature change will cause the yeast to reduce it. Certain chemical changes take place during secondary fermentation that can't take place in the primary with beer sitting on a yeast cake or combination of yeast and trub. It is impossible.

 

[ArcLight]

>.""""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."""

I disagree, because I leave the beer in the clearing tank (secondary is a bad name) when I brew beers that need to be aged that those particles are going to sink anyway. The main benefit is not sucking up as much trub into your bottling bucket.

 

[HoppyDaze]

OK, so we should punch Siebel and Narziss. You could have just said that.

 

[bajaedition]

Darn. Wish I hadn't sold my bike. Would like to deliver some of my brew down your way and try some of yours!

Cheers!

that would be fun
I have 3 completely different styles on tap as of now
and my new brew stand is just a few hundred from completion, we could christen it with a brewing session

and rack some beer into a secondary just for fun

 

[Shropshire]

traffic.libsyn.com/basicbrewing/bbr05-24-12secondaryresult01.mp3

There's the Basic Brewing Radio episode on this subject. Check it out if you haven't listened to it yet, it's got some good discussion and the host doing a primary only vs. racking to secondary experiment of his own, plus results from five listeners. The general results were: Beer racked to a secondary clears up faster in the fermenter/whatever vessel, but by the time bottles are being poured they all look the same in clarity/color. One listener slightly preferred the taste of the primary only beer, one the beer racked to secondary, the rest couldn't tell any difference.

Take that as you will, brew as you will, and have fun.

 

[BeastMaster]

I use a secondary on beers where I have a lot of trub in the primary. It usually results in a better final product in the keg(quantity, clarity, etc.)

 

[stratoblastor]

I'm new to home brewing. I apologize if this was already covered or I'm posting in the wrong place.
I am in the process of brewing my first batch of porter. After 7 days (OG 1.062, down to 1.020, FG should be 1.012), I attempted to siphon from the primary fermenter to a sanitized carboy but I had issues with the rubber stopper staying in the bottle, so I then siphoned the liquid in to the secondary (bottling) fermenter and capped it.
My question is, when, and do I just add the sugar to the secondary and siphon into the bottles when ready? Or should I transfer it back to the glass carboy, add sugar to the secondary, and re-siphon it back? Thanks


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[kombat]

Certain chemical changes take place during secondary fermentation that can't take place in the primary with beer sitting on a yeast cake or combination of yeast and trub. It is impossible.

Like what?

With respect to clarity, there's nothing magical about a fresh, new carboy that will cause sediment to fall out faster. And there's nothing about a yeast cake sitting at the bottom of a vessel of beer that discourages sediment above it from precipitating out. It's simply time and temperature.

 

[snowtires]

I'm new to home brewing. I apologize if this was already covered or I'm posting in the wrong place.
I am in the process of brewing my first batch of porter. After 7 days (OG 1.062, down to 1.020, FG should be 1.012), I attempted to siphon from the primary fermenter to a sanitized carboy but I had issues with the rubber stopper staying in the bottle, so I then siphoned the liquid in to the secondary (bottling) fermenter and capped it.
My question is, when, and do I just add the sugar to the secondary and siphon into the bottles when ready? Or should I transfer it back to the glass carboy, add sugar to the secondary, and re-siphon it back? Thanks


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

How's about you add sugar into your now clean primary and siphon and bottle from that. Or is your (secondary) a bottling bucket with a spigot? Either either do what feels right in your heart.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[Puddlethumper]

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.

You made a really good point here. To properly test the issues we are discussing would require 4 tests run with beer either all from the same batch or as many as 4 batches of a very familiar, simple and easily replicated recipe. Ideally the experiment would be run with beer from the same batch.

For the past couple days I have been studying through how one might accomplish this experiment without either, 1) having to make 4 identical 5 gal. batches using existing equipment, or 2) invest in enough new equipment in the 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 gal. range to split one or two batches. I've got the perfect recipe in mind but my beer budget isn't up to the investment in new small fermenters and/or carboys just for this.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Puddlethumper]

that would be fun
I have 3 completely different styles on tap as of now
and my new brew stand is just a few hundred from completion, we could christen it with a brewing session

and rack some beer into a secondary just for fun

<chuckle>

I just filled my first two kegs last night. (Finally getting liberated from bottling!) Like you, I'm set up to serve three styles and have an APA in primary to round out the trio.

Are you going with a gravity system or horizontal?

 

[bajaedition]

<chuckle>

I just filled my first two kegs last night. (Finally getting liberated from bottling!) Like you, I'm set up to serve three styles and have an APA in primary to round out the trio.

Are you going with a gravity system or horizontal?

doing a hybrid

the MT on top, the HLT under that and half way down on the side is the brew kettle

so you have to pump from the HLT, but gravity after that

I owned one half of a gravity system when I first started, brewed about 2 years on that ans sold out and set up a horizontal with pumps and herms, Sold that after a few years and did another gravity system, sold that after about 7 years and think I am on to something here.
I like the pump so I can do a hybrid rims/herms mash using the system to do steps
but I like the simplicity of the gravity sparge and fermenter fill. Guess I am just a fiddler
but doing mainly 5 gallon brews, a herms system is a bit wasteful to me and a rims system does not have the versitillity I want, so I am redesigning the heat exchanger.
The totally killer thing about this hobby is designing stuff. I think that as we try to emulate what the big guys do we do super brain farts till something works, I DIG THAT.
I am a tinkler and experimenter, I am never satisfied, hence my participation in this thread. I have dome 30 or 40 experiments with different fermentation vessels and techniques. Personally, I think a SS conical with all the bells and whistles is best. I get the best of both worlds. I simply draw the trub off when I need to and leave the beer alone.
But anyway about the new system. I have my stand welded up and I am plumbing it for gas right now. next will be the hybrid rims/herms system.
I figure using the HLT to pump water through a heat exchanger using a pump to move the mash liquid will keep my mash where I want it with a little control over the temp, when I need to step I can use gas to heat an exchanger with the HLT water going through it and the Mash Liqour inside of that. That way I am not putting flame or direct heat to the mash liqour, but have the ability to heat up the HLT water flowing around it hot hot hot. Got the idea when I designed my tankless water heater. I saw the price of those puppies and just made one of my own.
while brazing up the heat exchanger I had an epiphany.

opps sorry for the hijack

 

[Puddlethumper]

doing a hybrid

the MT on top, the HLT under that and half way down on the side is the brew kettle so you have to pump from the HLT, but gravity after that

The totally killer thing about this hobby is designing stuff. I think that as we try to emulate what the big guys do we do super brain farts till something works, I DIG THAT.

Wow. Sounds like that is going to be a great system! I know what you mean about tinkering. I'm always trying to find a better way to do things. Being fairly new at this I'm blown away by just how technical it can get in just about any direction you might want to explore.

Good luck with that build and let me know when its up and running. I'd like to know how it works out for you.