A different take on secondary fermenters

[Yooper]

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.

I don't think of them as "off flavors" but I do pick up certain flavors from a long primary.

Basic Brewing Radio did an experiment where brewers all brewed the same recipe. One group did a traditional primary/secondary. One group did a primary only but not a lengthy one, and one group did a longer primary.

All beers were noted to be a bit different. The interesting thing is that it was about equally split among which were preferred!

For me, I don't love the flavor imparted by the yeast in a long primary. Others will routinely go 3-4 weeks in primary, and love those results.

I think everyone should do an experiment for themselves. Make an identical batch and do a three way test just as above. Your preferences may surprise you!

For me, it's not an autolysis flavor that I pick up that I dislike. (That's pretty distinct, like "hot dogs" to me). It's excess yeast character/flavor.

 

[BigFloyd]

I typically go primary ferment------>cold crash (5-7 days @ 35-36*F)------>keg/bottles. What gets racked out of the primary is nice and clear with little or no gunk. I purge the keg with CO2 before and after racking.

My main motivation for avoiding the use of a secondary is laziness and simplicity combined with a desire to avoid any unnecessary racking/agitation that might lead to the subtle oxidation issues that Yooper has described.

 

[bajaedition]

I think that is the bottom line

either go out and experiment for yourself or accept the words of quys quoting sources
there are just too many opinions

I would hate for you to take the opinion of someone who has only quoted sources and has never experimented because all he is doing is passing on information that someone told him. So try it yourself, if you do your beer will improve. Because you will have learned something

 

[bandt9299]

It's funny, I'm going on 9 years brewing and am still learning, but back then there was a thread on here about how to make the best beer possible and racking to a secondary was one of them, which I did religiously. Now very rarely do I ever, only a lager and haven't looked back, love my beer more now than ever. Less time and steps sign me up. After getting a nitro setup for Christmas I have made 30 gallons of dry stout and let that ferment 14 days tops, crash cool for 2 days and keg. Drinking it on day 17 on nitro, better than Guinness.

 

[QuercusMax]

I think racking to a secondary *can* produce clearer beer (or at least less sediment), under the circumstances employed by many homebrewers.

I ferment my ales in the basement, like many folks. And I bottle in my kitchen, which, needless to say, is not in the basement. I'll let my ales sit for a 2-3 weeks before bottling, which should let them clear up pretty nicely even without racking to a secondary. But as it turns out, I often get a fair bit of sediment in my bottles, and in the bottling bucket.

Why? Because in the process of carrying my fermenter from the basement to the kitchen, a fair bit of agitation occurs, and kicks up the sediment.

If, instead, I rack to secondary, I will get much less sediment at bottling time, simply because there's less to be kicked up when it comes time to carry the fermenter up the stairs to my kitchen.

Additionally, I find it's tough to transfer almost all the beer, and avoid transferring some sediment, simply because I can be a klutz at times...

Since I started kegging, a few days before it's time to keg I've started moving my fermenters onto an old dresser I keep in my basement storage room, so I can siphon into the keg without having to move them much. Perhaps I should just start them out there, so I never have to move them at all prior to kegging? I'm planning on getting a second CO2 tank so I can bottle from my kegs (via BMBF), or carbonate my kegs in the cold lagering fridge, or transfer between kegs... If I can seal my kegs in the basement, then I should be able to do an almost completely O2-free transfer from fermenter to keg...

 

[Puddlethumper]

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?

I'll take that correction standing. I meant oxidation. (dislexic fingers and failure to proofread).

 

[Puddlethumper]

I think racking to a secondary *can* produce clearer beer (or at least less sediment), under the circumstances employed by many homebrewers.

Why? Because in the process of carrying my fermenter from the basement to the kitchen, a fair bit of agitation occurs, and kicks up the sediment.

...

Your point on sediment is exactly what I was saying related to bottling. Quite frankly I see this as simple common sense. When you place the end of the autosiphon or racking cane down into a fermenter with a 2 inch bed of spent yeast cells it's going to pick some of them up...it doesn't matter how careful you are. And if you've had to move the vessel at all there will be some in suspension.

If instead, you move the beer to a smaller vessel (bright tank, settlement tank, whatever you want to call it) the junk that did get transferred will settle back to the bottom of that vessel in a few days. Then when its time to bottle there's only a 1/4 inch of junk in the bottom and far less to ever get transferred to the bottling bucket.

 

[Puddlethumper]

let that ferment 14 days tops, crash cool for 2 days and keg. .

Your method is extremely close to Mr. Miller's suggested method. Let it ferment until finished and then chill it, move it to a keg, carbonate and serve.
He says he usually goes 8 days.

He only recommends use of a settling tank when he wants to use fining agents or other method to allow the beer to fall clear. But he says he really prefers to cold crash in the fermenter and then push the beer through a filter.

 

[Puddlethumper]

This conversation seems to have gotten derailed a bit. Let me see if I can clarify a couple points that may set things aright.

Mr. Miller's advice is based on returning to home brewing after a 15 year stint working as a professional brewer in a brew pub. He is trying to introduce some of the things he learned as a pro to the home brewing community. (This, in my view, is the purpose of his book.) He suggests doing a few things differently than what the mainstream thinking seems to be (my evaluation). Hence the reason for the thread. Here's what I've gathered and am trying to incorporate in my brewing process:

A. There is little or no benefit to allowing most ales to sit for a long time on their yeast cake.
B. Once fermentation is finished (usually a little over a week) we need to decide how we are going to prepare it for serving. We may: 1) cold crash the beer in the fermentation vessel then move it via filtering system to the serving keg, or 2) if we want to dry hop or choose to use fining agents, etc. we can safely move the beer to a settling tank and add those fining agents, dry hop, etc. The final step is always to cold crash and move to serving. (Hence the reason for the thread --- we have to decide how we are going to deal with the yeast cells, etc. in the bottom of the bucket. The "secondary" has nothing to do with fermentation. It is used as a step in clearing the finished product.)
C. He also advises use of a grant during vourlauf and has his brewing rig set up for fly sparging.

His ideas make a lot of sense to me. Whether all of his suggested techniques are necessary I can't say. I do know that the Irish Red I made yesterday went into the fermenter clearer and I had an 8% improvement in efficiency over the last batch by implementing some of the other advice in this excellent book. As I work through the rest of his recommendations I'll have personal opinions on those as well.

 

[pjj2ba]

I don't think of them as "off flavors" but I do pick up certain flavors from a long primary.
Basic Brewing Radio did an experiment where brewers all brewed the same recipe. One group did a traditional primary/secondary. One group did a primary only but not a lengthy one, and one group did a longer primary.
All beers were noted to be a bit different. The interesting thing is that it was about equally split among which were preferred!
For me, I don't love the flavor imparted by the yeast in a long primary. Others will routinely go 3-4 weeks in primary, and love those results.
I think everyone should do an experiment for themselves. Make an identical batch and do a three way test just as above. Your preferences may surprise you!
For me, it's not an autolysis flavor that I pick up that I dislike. (That's pretty distinct, like "hot dogs" to me). It's excess yeast character/flavor.

THIS is what it boils down to - taste preference. It is a fallacy to think that leaving your beer on the yeast for extra time does not affect the final taste. Yeast are not inert. The longer on the yeast the more it influences the flavor. Some folks like the flavors, others do not. THIS IS THE REASON YOU SHOULD BE CHOOSING TO DO A SECONDARY OR NOT. And it is strictly a personal decision. I'm with Yooper and prefer to get my beers off the yeast. A couple days after fermentation is complete, I purge a keg with CO2, and then use CO2 to push the beer out of the carboy into the keg. I'll then age in the keg, and then force carbonate.

In the book Yeast (by C. White) he says that beers in a secondary do not clear any faster, which to me makes sense. One advantage though is that it potentially makes it easier to transfer without any trub at packaging time - if that matters to you.

It certainly is easier to just leave the beer in primary, and if you are happy with the flavors, then by all means go with that. If you've done that, and are not truly happy, then you will figure out ways that work for you to minimize the risk of infection and oxidation

A note on the "CO2 blanket" concept. Every gas behaves independent of one another. O2 could care less how much CO2 is there. If there is no O2 in the carboy, then O2 from the air will move in if there is a way, whether it be through the wall (plastics) or by dissolving into the liquid in the airlock, and then out of that into the headspace of the fermenter. Having a lot of CO2 coming out of the airlock will slow it's entrance that way (like flying into the wind), but once the airlock stops bubbling, the "blanket of CO2" does nothing to stop O2 from coming in via the airlock. Note that this is a slow process to move through the liquid, but it is occurring. If you are going to age a beer for a while in a carboy, you are better off putting a solid plug in once you are sure fermentation is done (although some barleywines might benefit from a little oxidation - for those sherry notes)

 

[bajaedition]

I think MR puddles makes some good points

and he seems to me to be saying, "try it before you decide"

I see 4 kinds of people talking here

1 those who do not, have not, and are aginst because of something they have read
2 those who do, have also not done, and have read stuff but always try for themselves
3 those who do not because they have and see no benefit
4 and those wanting to try it or have an excuse not to.

we have heard al kinds of reasons to, backed up by personal experience, and all kinds of reasons not to backed up by a quoted source or personal experience.
personally to me you can throw out the quoted sources and lets talk experience
mine is I get clear beers by doing it,

if we call it a secondary, or settling tank, or what ever, it makes not difference the hobby calls it a secondary and changing that will be a very hard row to plow.

So what do we do to get a finish to the debate?

my suggestion is for every one to try it and decide for themselves
if you do like it, post why, if you do not, then post why

but please try it first and just post results, not opinions.

 

[bajaedition]

let us also consider the equipment we all have compared to a prfessional setup

the guy with a 3 gallon brew pot and 6 gallon primary bucket
has different needs than the guy with a full wort boil pot and a temperature controlled conical fermentor with bottom dump.

 

[kombat]

A couple days after fermentation is complete, I purge a keg with CO2, and then use CO2 to push the beer out of the carboy into the keg.

Just a short aside: Everything I've read said you should absolutely NOT use pressure to force liquid out of a glass carboy. They are not designed to withstand any kind of positive pressure whatsoever, and you risk exploding the carboy.

 

[pjj2ba]

Just a short aside: Everything I've read said you should absolutely NOT use pressure to force liquid out of a glass carboy. They are not designed to withstand any kind of positive pressure whatsoever, and you risk exploding the carboy.

I do not push the beer out with the CO2 except at the very beginning. I have the carboy elevated and the keg below that. I just use a tiny bit of pressure to get a siphon flowing, and then I use just enough CO2 to fill in the headspace as the beer siphons out (it is barley on).

 

[kombat]

I do not push the beer out with the CO2 except at the very beginning. I have the carboy elevated and the keg below that. I just use a tiny bit of pressure to get a siphon flowing, and then I use just enough CO2 to fill in the headspace as the beer siphons out (it is barley on).

Ah, OK, that's probably fine. I do the same thing when racking from one Corny keg to another. I have a "jumper" tube I use to connect the two "liquid out" posts to each other. I pop the lid of the destination keg and slowly open the valve of my CO2 tank to begin pushing beer up the dip tube of the source keg, down to the destination keg. Once the flow starts, I pull the PRV on the source keg while simultaneously closing the valve of the CO2 tank, to let gravity take over and do the rest of the siphon.

 

[bajaedition]

(it is barley on).

no pun intended I gather

 

[ColdcrashedK]

I thought the main benefit of a secondary was being able to get the beer off of the trub if you planned on having it in the fermenter for an extended period. Fermentation does occur in the secondary just like the bottle, but it is more of an aging process than anything. If you do this in the primary the proteins in the trub can start to break down and give your beer a soapy taste. Soapy beer is not tasty...I have had it happen. The only other alternative is to age in the keg, and that doesn't work because *hic*...

I agree with the better clarity as well...

 

[Puddlethumper]

You know, as I was reflecting on this discussion today a couple thoughts occurred to me.

Everyone who is involved in this discussion, regardless of their viewpoint, probably makes beer that is vastly superior to the swill that will be consumed by millions of football fans this weekend.

Just because we are involved and interested means we care and we are trying to get better. Like Condeleza Rice said when she was asked why she enjoyed golf. She answered, "I enjoy the process of getting better at it".

I think most of us are probably like that. So whether you agree with what Mr. Miller is suggesting or you think he's full of baloney, cheers! Have one of your excellent brews this evening and enjoy it!

 

[Zuljin]

Secondary for life!

It's where I add ingredients, some of which ferment.
More maturing on less trub.
Less sediment in the bottles.

I've never had a beer oxidize.

The only unintentional infection I've ever gotten was in primary. Never primary your beer!

 

[Puddlethumper]

The only unintentional infection I've ever gotten was in primary. Never primary your beer!

LMAO!!!

 

[HoppyDaze]

Secondary for life!

It's where I add ingredients, some of which ferment.
More maturing on less trub.
Less sediment in the bottles.

I've never had a beer oxidize.

The only unintentional infection I've ever gotten was in primary. Never primary your beer!

Yes! I routinely skip primary fermentation. Straight to secondary! No brainer if you don't think about it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[Grannyknot]

You know all is right in the homebrew world when you can still get 5+ pages of browbeating over the use of a secondary fermenter.

 

[cosmo]

I think there may be some merit to both arguments. I normally don't do secondary and I don't like to leave the beer in primary longer than is needed either. I do try hard to avoid oxidation. And I have noticed an improvement in my beers. When I do a secondary it is either for dry hopping or yeast harvesting. Also, for cold crashing. Yes cold crashing. I don't like to cold crash in a primary since it has a larger headspace. Rapidly dropping the temperature condenses the gas in the headspace and can suck in liquid from the airlock or blowoff tube. There are many threads where people talk about this experience. Even worse, it could suck in air through the airlock. To avoid oxidation, I crash cool in a secondary or keg. Crash cooling in a primary exposes the beer to more oxygen then transferring to secondary (unless you suck in a pint or so of starsan instead). If I do use a secondary, I do it right away after fermentation is complete and the yeast has not fully dropped out. That way there is plenty of yeast in suspension to soak up some of the oxygen. For lagers, I sometimes drop the temperature in the primary, but very slowly. I drop it a degree or two a day. When kegging I always flush the keg with CO2 by pushing starsan out.

 

[wtfDean]

after participating in this discussion i decided to experiment a little. i made a beer and dry hopped it in primary, no secondary at all.

i'm bottling that beer right now and it's the cloudiest, least appealing looking beer i've ever bottled. i usually secondary my beers and they are never this yeasty. i guess if you are into that then whatever, but i'm going back to the secondary.

 

[RM-MN]

after participating in this discussion i decided to experiment a little. i made a beer and dry hopped it in primary, no secondary at all.

i'm bottling that beer right now and it's the cloudiest, least appealing looking beer i've ever bottled. i usually secondary my beers and they are never this yeasty. i guess if you are into that then whatever, but i'm going back to the secondary.

Ooh, one experiment, no details of how long your beer spent in the fermenter, making judgement on a technique without the beer even being in the bottles. Yup, pretty definitive.

I've had beer that looked pretty cloudy coming from the fermenter into the bottling bucket and on to the bottles too but it cleared up pretty quickly in my bottles. You might try a little patience with this one.:rockin:

 

[wtfDean]

Ooh, one experiment, no details of how long your beer spent in the fermenter, making judgement on a technique without the beer even being in the bottles. Yup, pretty definitive.

I've had beer that looked pretty cloudy coming from the fermenter into the bottling bucket and on to the bottles too but it cleared up pretty quickly in my bottles. You might try a little patience with this one.

yeah ok, you can ridicule and criticize me for coming to my own conclusion though experimentation. you could criticize everyone else out there who spouts off some stupid bull**** they read in a book, but you're not.

edit: here are my brewing notes. please, feel free to ridicule and criticize my technique while you're at it.

Brew day: 1/25/14
mashed in w/ 3.5gal strike water @164.5, stabilized temp @ 152 or 151.8 ~ more or less on target for 77 min (oops)
first runnings 1.8gal @ SG 1.088 - lower than desired volume, would do 1.4 next time
batch sparged w/ ~5.5gal @ 170, let sit for 10 minutes (5.0 gal initially, then added 0.5 gal to reach pre boil target)
collected 7.05 gal @ SG 1.045 pre boil
cooled to ~188, removed chiller (set aside, sanitized w/ 10 minutes left in hop stand)
added 3oz cascade, whirlpooled, covered for 60 minutes
cooled to 68 in ~25 minutes
transferred to primary, lots of trub, had to scrape screen w/ sanitized spoon constantly.
lost ~0.75 gal to trub/kettle
OG 1.050 w/ 5.4 gal in fermenter
aerated for ~30 seconds w/ o2 system, shook by hand for ~1 minute
poured off top 2/3 of yeast starter and pitched to fermenter
overall, great brew day
strong primary. 68 to 72 by the end of day one
peaked at 73 overnight, back at 72. will bottle in a few days
dry hopped w/ 1oz cascade flowers on 2/1/14, will bottle on thursday afternoon
bottled on 2/8, possibly heavily oxygenated due to hop clogging. bottled 4 gal. very cloudy with yeast. hopefully will settle out.

gosh, everyone on HBT is so friendly

 

[RM-MN]

OK, I'll apologize. I did come off a bit harsh. Perhaps it has something to do with getting 6 hours of sleep last night with a backache, perhaps I'm just a jerk. Now back to the discussion at hand. 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? I've waited 2 weeks in the primary for the beer to be done fermenting, waited another week for the beer to finish fermenting, waited another week while the gravity was still going down and then bottled. Was your beer done fermenting in that 2 weeks? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't this time and you bottled beer that wasn't really at its final gravity and the cloudiness was because the yeast was still active. Did you verify that your beer was ready to bottle by taking hydrometer readings?

 

[bajaedition]

RM-MN, looks like you are an anti secindary type

so

He posted his experiment

have you posted your experiment using a secondary that you have done since this thread started?

we are asking for experiments, not for guys to rip on guys experimenting

if all you have to offer is doubts and rips about his experiment

STFU

or if you have an experiment to offer, post it.

 

[masonsjax]

Unsubscribe

 

[C-Rider]

And they are....????

Cold Crashing. Three weeks in fermenter, 1 week cold crash at about 34*. Can't get much cleaner.

[url=https://www.homebrewtalk.com/photo/ohikilolo-fest-61150.html] [/URL]

 

[jjw5015]

rm-mn, looks like you are an anti secindary type

so

he posted his experiment

have you posted your experiment using a secondary that you have done since this thread started?

We are asking for experiments, not for guys to rip on guys experimenting

if all you have to offer is doubts and rips about his experiment

stfu

or if you have an experiment to offer, post it.

+1000

 

[C-Rider]

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.

How much does a plastic fermenting bucket cost at your LHBS? $6?? Why not have a bunch. I do small 2 gallon batches and I have 5 two gallon buckets.

 

[wtfDean]

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 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 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.

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.

 

[RM-MN]

my fg stabilized at 1.010 for a while. of course i take hydrometer samples before reading. 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.

No problem. I was just questioning why you would choose to make a determination on the procedure with only one try and that one a questionable practice in my mind based on what results I have seen. I've done some short ferments and had a lot of good experiences with them, then came bottle bombs because my yeast didn't know when it was supposed to be done. I'd rather be a jerk and keep someone else from having glass flying about than just be quiet and let someone get injured.

 

[bajaedition]

who says you need to use glass I use SS

and i do not bottle, I keg

your concerns are noted, but are not valid as we are talking secondary, not weather they are bottled in glass or not

 

[Puddlethumper]

I have had similar experiences to bajaedition. Not so much cloudy beer, but a ton of crud in the bottoms of the bottles after carbonation. That is the very reason I began questioning the prevailing wisdom of bottling straight from the primary fermenting vessel. Being a fairly new brewer I am honestly looking for the best techniques to adopt. And, being a skeptical old fart, I have learned that it never hurts to question the "group-think" in almost any human endeavor.

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.

When I read David Miller's book "Brew Like a Pro" I learned that his methods, perfected from decades of brewing experience both as a home brewer and a pro, almost exactly mirrored what I, and a few others here, have been doing all along. Granted, I learned a ton from his writing and have made numerous changes to my procedures to get closer to his technique. But the core principles he advocates fly directly in the face of that aforementioned "group-think".

So, although there are many who will say those of us who choose to use a settling tank/bright tank/secondary are all wrong, I for one will stick with what I am learning works better for me. I find it reassuring that what I am doing is closer to what the pros are doing than those who disagree with my procedures.

NOTE: All of this assumes we are making a normal "house ale" rather than a specialty brew (i.e. Imperial Stout, Barleywine, etc.)

 

[Puddlethumper]

How much does a plastic fermenting bucket cost at your LHBS? $6?? Why not have a bunch. I do small 2 gallon batches and I have 5 two gallon buckets.

I paid about $16 but your point is interesting. Sounds like a good way to experiment. Are there any 3 gal. containers out there that one could use as a settling tank to compare between use of a "secondary" vs. going straight from the primary to the bottle/keg?

 

[wtfDean]

there are 3.5 gal carboys available from most brewing equipment suppliers.

 

[Puddlethumper]

there are 3.5 gal carboys available from most brewing equipment suppliers.

For a 2 1/2 gal. batch that leaves almost a gallon of headspace. Seems like way too much for a settling tank don't you think? I don't think a 5 gal. carboy has more than a cup or cup and a half of headspace when it is being used with a 5 gal. batch.

 

[cpa4ny]

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.