A different take on secondary fermenters

[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.

 

[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.