Bucket versus Carboy for secondary

[Gee Tee]

I am a beginner brewer and am about to start my 3rd batch of beer. This time I wanted to do a secondary fermentation (The brick warmer holiday red just arrived). Instead of a carboy, I'd rather get a 6.5 gallon bucket with a lid and spigot as it's easier to use and flexible. It should be air-tight enough right? Does using a carboy really improve the brew enough to invest in one? Below is the bucket in case you're curious...
6.5 Gallon Bottling & Siphonless Fermentation Bucket
[Fixed Link -Mod]

 

[eric19312]

Welcome @Gee Tee

I'd not do a secondary on that beer. Brew it, pitch the yeast and leave it alone until ready to bottle. If you must do a secondary for whatever reason a bucket would be a poor choice. When brewers used to do a lot of secondaries we had 6.5 gallon carboys or buckets for primary fermentation and then a 5 gallon carboy for secondary. This allows for almost zero headspace in the secondary fermenter to try to limit oxygen exposure.

But like I said at first, not necessary and recommend you don't do it. Let it ferment out in the bucket, don't peek, leave it alone, and then after 3 weeks check final gravity and bottle it.

 

[TechFanMD]

My recommendation is to NOT do a secondary at all. This is not something to step up your game, but it something most homebrewers have gone away from. It adds an additional chance to: oxidize the beer, infect the beer, spill the beer.

 

[RM-MN]

If you are a commercial brewer you have one big fermenter and several other vessels to hold beer to let it settle out. As soon as fermentation is over you move the beer to secondary so you can start another batch. As far as I know you aren't a commercial brewer and as a home brewer, fermenters are cheap enough in dollars and space that you can have more than one. Thus you don't need to move a beer from the fermenter and give it the chance to oxidize or get infected.

 

[bobeer]

We don't need no stinking secondary.


But, for real, like everyone said you can just skip that part. I've aged a strong ale on oak chips in the primary for months and it was fine. I've used buckets and carboys and can't really notice the difference. If you're going to age something for a long time in primary then I'd use glass but as long as your bucket lid has a good seal you should be good.

 

[Gee Tee]

Welcome @Gee Tee

I'd not do a secondary on that beer. Brew it, pitch the yeast and leave it alone until ready to bottle. If you must do a secondary for whatever reason a bucket would be a poor choice. When brewers used to do a lot of secondaries we had 6.5 gallon carboys or buckets for primary fermentation and then a 5 gallon carboy for secondary. This allows for almost zero headspace in the secondary fermenter to try to limit oxygen exposure.

But like I said at first, not necessary and recommend you don't do it. Let it ferment out in the bucket, don't peek, leave it alone, and then after 3 weeks check final gravity and bottle it.

Thank you for this information, Eric. This is great news as I wasn’t looking forward to transferring. Does this apply for all double-fermentations? Even the ones where you might add ingredients (dry hopping, etc.). The sediment doesn’t release any off-flavors after the second week then? Here is another double-fermentation I’m about to start in the next couple of weeks. Anyway, I’m happy not to do the transfer as my apartment is small and already smells like a brewery!
https://www.northernbrewer.com/coll...ced-winter-ale-extract-kit-w-specialty-grains

 

[Gee Tee]

My recommendation is to NOT do a secondary at all. This is not something to step up your game, but it something most homebrewers have gone away from. It adds an additional chance to: oxidize the beer, infect the beer, spill the beer.

Yes, thank you. My first thoughts were "why bother?". What about when dry-hopping of adding extra spices, etc.

 

[Gee Tee]

If you are a commercial brewer you have one big fermenter and several other vessels to hold beer to let it settle out. As soon as fermentation is over you move the beer to secondary so you can start another batch. As far as I know you aren't a commercial brewer and as a home brewer, fermenters are cheap enough in dollars and space that you can have more than one. Thus you don't need to move a beer from the fermenter and give it the chance to oxidize or get infected.

Thank you for the info. I'm completely relieved!

 

[IslandLizard]

Below is the bucket in case you're curious...
6.5 Gallon Bottling & Siphonless Fermentation Bucket

That's basically an (overpriced) bottling bucket. Except for the spigot (additional purchase), it's a regular brew bucket with a drilled hole in it.

As others have said already, there's no need to use a secondary, and buckets would make poor secondaries due to the huge headspace, and usually non-airtight, poor sealing lids.

Many kit and homebrew instructions still include antiquated verbiage to rack to secondary after xx days. There's truly no need for secondaries, your beer is much better off leaving it where it is, in the primary fermenter. The only fermenter you need. The less you tinker with the beer the better it is.

In very few cases a secondary fermenter is truly needed or advised, such as for long term bulk aging, mixed fermentation sours, etc. 99.99% of all beers brewed do not benefit from a secondary, the very few that do are not within the regular, (beginning) brewers realm.

 

[IslandLizard]

Yes, thank you. My first thoughts were "why bother?". What about when dry-hopping of adding extra spices, etc.

Just add them to your primary. If at all possible, don't lift the lid, as by doing so you'd lose most or all the CO2 that occupies the headspace, being replaced with air.

That air, containing 21% O2, may oxidize your beer. The hoppier the beer, the more of an issue that is in the short term, and always in the long term.

You can add most additives and dry hops through the airlock hole.