theotheragentm
Member
Why do we use carboys for secondary fermentation rather than another plastic bucket? What about plastic carboys? Is there a difference in the containers?
secondary is usually considerably longer than primary and plastic is much more permeable by oxygen. Whether "plastic" carboys such as better bottles are suitable for secondary has been debated over and over again so i don't think we need to re-hash that. Do a search if you're interested in further info on that one.
I like to use glass carboys for primary and secondary for two reasons: 1. You get to see the fermentation happening (that's just cool to me) and 2. Glass wont attract bacteria like plastic will. Plastic will eventually degrade and u can get contamination in there.
I use better bottles for primary (i never secondary, just bulk age on the yeast) because I like to see what's happening. It's like the yeast are having a party in my fermenter!
I was thinking about this a little bit recently as I've just been using a plastic bucket for my primary fermenter since I started brewing. We've only done about 3 or 4 brews in there and have been careful when cleaning/sanitizing so we don't scratch it, but when should we replace the bucket just to be safe? I don't want there to be contamination because of scratches or anything.
Thanks!
To the OP's original question: it's the shape that determines secondary use. Carboys (whether plastic or glass) are tapered at the top to limit surface area.
Rather I thought it was that we use 5-gallon carboys specifically for secondary use in a way to decrease the amount of headspace. In a 6 or 6.5 gallon carboy, you have nearly the same amount of headspace as in a bucket fermenter. (My carboys are a touch smaller in diameter than my buckets, but not by much, and not nearly enough to make a difference)
Rather I thought it was that we use 5-gallon carboys specifically for secondary use in a way to decrease the amount of headspace. In a 6 or 6.5 gallon carboy, you have nearly the same amount of headspace as in a bucket fermenter. (My carboys are a touch smaller in diameter than my buckets, but not by much, and not nearly enough to make a difference)
The biggest thing is headspace, you want to eliminate headspace if you're going to sit a beer in a secondary for a long time (But if you're long primarying and don't open the bucket and leave the co2 in the headspace- you don't have to worry.)
I'll still take the 0 permeability of glass/
I'm completely with Revvy here. Its frustrating to see brewing myths perpetuated simply because someone read it somewhere, or a given explaination seemed to make sense.
I fermented solely in buckets almost the entire time during my first go round with this hobby from 1990-2003 (I had a carboy early on, broke it, and just used buckets since). Thats longer than, and before, most members of this forum were brewers. I have never had any problems with infection or oxidation of my beer. Back then, I still transferred to a secondary after krausen, because that's what the books told you to do. But my secondary was just another bucket.
Nowadays, I still use buckets for my small batches, but use a conical for large batches. If headspace and surface area were really an issue, why would anyone use a conical fermentor? Why would anyone buy a 22gallon brewhemoth conical and use it with 5 or 10 gallon batches? Because its a non-issue.
I choose to believe that carboys were a convenient container and already in use, so brewers adapted them. Many people like them so they can see their beer. But I like to set it and forget it. I set my beer to fermenting and forget about it for 3-4 weeks (sometimes more) then bottle or keg. I dont have the need to keep looking in on it. I have enough experience to know that it'll be fine without my help. I also no longer use a secondary, in the sense it was used in the early brewing books. But I may allow it to condition in a corny for a while.
So, to me, the bottom line is: Ferment in whatever you want that is sanitary, doesn't leach chemicals, and reasonably keeps oxygen and bacteria out.
Do you think those water containers that come on water coolers would work?
I think instead of oxygen permeability, people should be worried about the light getting through the glass or clear plastic. Probably much more of a problem. Ill stick with the long primary in a bucket, and no secondary. Unless I can come up with the cash for a cool looking SS conical.
how big of a boogie man is head space in a secondary really ???
how big of a boogie man is head space in a secondary really ???
I don't understand the question. I personally don't believe head space is an issue at all during fermentation. I might be more concerned about headspace for long term conditioning, especially on lighter beers (although I have no proof to justify that statement). I would have no hesitation about leaving a 5gallon brew in a 6.5gallon bucket untouched for a couple (maybe a few) months. But if you're going to be opening the lid to peek in, all bets are off.
So, it's a bad idea to use a 6.5 Gal carboy as a secondary for a 5 Gal batch?
This doesn't make any sense...I guess a better question is .. how hard is it to get enough oxygen into a beer in a secondary, due to a large amount of head space? .. keeping in mind that the beer will probably be drank with in a few months after it's bottled ...
If it's fine now, it will be fine later.I used a 6 1/2 gal bucket as a secondary to dry hop 4 1/2 gals. of an APA for 5 days and it was bottled about 2 weeks ago now ... so far the ones I have had, have no cardboard taste .. will it show up eventually if I don't drink it fast?
So, it's a bad idea to use a 6.5 Gal carboy as a secondary for a 5 Gal batch?
And how about all the top wineries and trappist breweries changing their packaging to plastic since it is just like glass and can be aged for years or decades...what, you mean they didn't change to plastic? I wonder why
This doesn't make any sense...
If it's fine now, it will be fine later.
If by secondary, you mean the old, outdated, concept of transfering your beer after high krausen to get it off the trub then it doesn't matter at all.
If by secondary, you mean long term conditioning, then I would generally agree (in concept) that less head space is probably better. But only because I haven't tried leaving my beer in a carboy or bucket for months with a lot of headspace. I do know that some members here have left beers in the primary for several months with no ill effects.
I just have a presumption that if you transfer your beer to another vessel to secondary, you've opened it up to fresh oxygen and then headspace could just possibly make a difference. But that theory could just be a load of Hoooey.
how hard is it to get to get too much oxygen into the beer due to too much head space? .. I mean .. will it really happen or is it just a myth?
Enter your email address to join: