A different take on secondary fermenters

[bajaedition]

Who claims it clears faster?

most want it off the trub not to get off flavors

 

[kombat]

Who claims it clears faster?

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."

most want it off the trub not to get off flavors

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.

 

[Mojzis]

The last thing that I think impacts perception is what I call the "Ugly Baby Syndrome". Some people have really ugly babies, but think they are the most beautiful babies in the world. The same is true sometimes with brewers- their beers are noticeably flawed but the UBS means that it tastes great to them, and they just don't "see" the oxidation or phenols in it. That's great in a way, as they have to drink their own beers, but it means plenty of bad beers in competitions! :cross:

Very funny and very true.

 

[bajaedition]

I think you are trying to be argumentative

OK you win

I do not argue with trolls

 

[bajaedition]

Very funny and very true.

I have a few fellow brewers that no matter what they hand me, no matter what the style they tried to do, it will all taste the same and have the same hops profile. And they love it.

 

[Mojzis]

Who claims it clears faster?

most want it off the trub not to get off flavors

I think you are trying to be argumentative

OK you win

I do not argue with trolls

Have you read this link?

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

I'm not saying that you need to accept this. But I suggest reading through the discussion as it may impart a different perspective.

 

[kombat]

I think you are trying to be argumentative

I specifically said I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion. I just need to see some evidence first. The most current research, as well as common sense, discourage using a secondary, because it risks oxidizing your beer and exposing it to infection.

Two of the supposed "benefits" of using a secondary are clarity and autolysis. The autolysis argument has been disproven, as the osmotic pressures that kill the yeast cells do not exist at the homebrew scale. The clarity argument doesn't pass the smell test. Why would beer clear any faster just because you've moved it from one big jug to a different one? Whatever is in solution will precipitate out at the same rate, regardless of what is (or isn't) waiting for it at the bottom of the fermenter.

Yet Puddlethumper is insisting that somehow using a secondary results in a "higher quality" beer. I'm just asking, "How?" What's the science that supports that claim?

 

[bajaedition]

Have you read this link?

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

I'm not saying that you need to accept this. But I suggest reading through the discussion as it may impart a different perspective.

have you read through some of my post

my opinion is based on experience, and that experience is after 6 or 7 days get the wort off the trub, win more competitions that way.

 

[Ilan34]

I've seen a lot of posts on this board about using a secondary fermenter. There seems to be a whole bunch of very strong opinions in both directions, but mostly against. The prevailing arguments against using a secondary seem to be:

1. Increased risk of contamination
2. Risks of autolysis
3. Unneccessary work

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?

Although, it's a moot point anyway, as it's been pointed out many times that autolysis isn't a concern for most homebrewers.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[wtfDean]

some folks secondary, and some folks don't

stop beating a dead horse, you guys.

Yooper raised a good point though by stating that most brewers have bad palates. i must fall into this category. i generally drink my beer and don't notice oxidation, save some minor staling after a while. but i know oxidation happens during my process. how does one learn to identify that kind of stuff? i think i heard of a class, but i can't afford anything like that. should i intentionally screw up several batches?

i get the feeling that i won't be any better of a beer maker if i continue to have a crappy palate.

 

[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!!!