Debating secondary fermentation

[oyster_jam]

I'm new, about to do my third brew. I'd like to try secondary fermentation this time and compare with and without. Problem is I only have two 6.5 gal buckets (primary and bottling) which leaves quite a bit of headspace for 5 gallons of beer. I know that secondary fermenting requires less headspace since there will be less gas production to form the CO2 protective layer.

So, is it worth trying to use one of these buckets or should I just wait til I can get a carboy? Sorry if this has been asked/answered already, but there is so much content on this great site to sift through, so if you've seen it before I'd love a link.

Thanks!

 

[mdindy]

if your fermenting for less than 4 weeks I would say it's completely pointless and not worth risking contamination. I don't think you will notice any difference.

 

[CUrchin]

Unless it's high gravity or your adding fruit or something IMO the risks involved with transfer aren't worth it. I'd just leave it.

 

[BigFloyd]

I've tasted beer that was needlessly racked into a secondary with too much headspace. Stale, like wet cardboard.

But hey, it's your beer.

 

[oyster_jam]

Awesome, thanks guys. I'm not gonna bother it then.

 

[jethro55]

It's a good idea to wait until you have a 5 gallon carboy. But I have transferred a few with lots of excess head space and they turned out great. But 6.5 gallon bucket with 4.5 gallons in it is something that I wouldn't try.

I transfer all of mine. I had too many batches with sloppy trub and hop particles in the bottles. Though the mess settled to bottom and the bottles cleared just fine, pouring into multiple mugs or tasters stirred it up. And pouring a single mug meant stopping short to avoid it.

There are pros and cons to each way, but both ways make great beers. Flavor difference between the two methods is not something that can be determined - has been tried many times by enthusiasts without clear answers. It is an endless debate. Contamination risks are often brought into the debate, but they are same either way - normal sanitation is always needed. Dirty bottles, vessels, tubes and tools are possible either way.

If you have no issues with your current process - I'd continue with it and refine things on that same track.

 

[brewbama]

I rarely secondary but I recommend if you do to use a plastic carboy. Glass breaks and there are a bazillion horror stories here with ugly cuts to prove it.

 

[joshesmusica]

it's hard to get any good debate going about this subject. always turns into an unhealthy argument.
as suggested, i wouldn't personally attempt to go to a secondary vessel without getting rid of a lot of the head space. although a little won't kill the beer, it's best to have the least amount possible. the reason why people go with carboys is that if it's only 2 inches of head space, the amount of air contacting the beer is still fairly minimal when comparing to 2 inches of head space in a bucket. so if you're going to try to experiment with this, i would wait until you can get a carboy.

the only difference in trub in the bottles (if you're indeed bottling) shouldn't have anything to do with primary only vs. secondary. that has more to do with your bottling techniques. i've seen online and personally primary only vs. secondary experiments, and if you look at the amount of trub that settles out in the secondary, it's practically the same amount that continues to drop out in that amount of time in the primary only.

the best thing you could do to help out the debate is to do your own experiments, and then have somebody serve you the two identical beers side by side without you knowing which one is primary only and which one is secondary, and then see if you can personally tell a difference between the two.

the last line of debate that still pops up (as most of the other reasons to secondary a beer that doesn't need long-term conditioning and that doesn't have fruit additions) is that it frees up your primary vessel so you can start a new beer. while this is a good point if somebody has already purchased some bs starter kit from their LHBS and it included a carboy, the reality is that if you haven't already wasted your money on a carboy, then you might as well just spend the money on a new primary fermenter and some ingredients! right now i have two primary buckets, and have recently started brewing with a friend so we'll add a third. still haven't had any need for a secondary vessel, as we don't really like beers that have a need for that.

 

[KartRacer54]

Plenty of conversations on this topic. I have used secondary with every batch. I have not had a situation to make a comparison until now. I have 2 - 5 gallon batches of Dry Stout, 1 in the secondary and other ready to move. I have decided not to move the second batch as this will be a perfect test. Bottling batch in secondary tomorrow. The second batch in the primary is 2 weeks behind the other and I will bottle that one without secondary. I will let you know if I can tell any difference. Should be interesting and may end up changing how I brew in the future.

 

[joshesmusica]

Plenty of conversations on this topic. I have used secondary with every batch. I have not had a situation to make a comparison until now. I have 2 - 5 gallon batches of Dry Stout, 1 in the secondary and other ready to move. I have decided not to move the second batch as this will be a perfect test. Bottling batch in secondary tomorrow. The second batch in the primary is 2 weeks behind the other and I will bottle that one without secondary. I will let you know if I can tell any difference. Should be interesting and may end up changing how I brew in the future.

definitely will be interesting. are they the exact same recipe? how are they tasting so far? pretty similar (as far as the flavors from the recipe should be adding to the flavor)? it would be really nice if you had somebody serve them to you blindly, and you did the same to others to see if they could tell a difference.

 

[jethro55]

If I look at the amount of sediment in the bottles for a primary only process and compare it to a secondary process, the difference is clear in the bottle and in the glass when poured to empty bottle state. It has nothing to do with siphoning or bottling skills in my brews. One way has floaters and fluffy trub in bottling bucket and bottles and the other does not. Results for each recipe/process and brewer vary.

 

[azazel1024]

I typically only go to secondary for

1) fruit/carboy additions
2) Lagers
3) Dry hopping

Sometimes for #3 what I do is I'll add just a tiny bit of sugar and boiled water when I transfer to secondary. Just enough to give the yeast a little nudge and get a little CO2 pushing out the O2 I get in the transfer. Especially if doing #3. I don't worry about it with 1, because the fruit is going to kick up the yeast and for #2, I don't worry about it too much because cold beer doesn't really oxidize quickly at all. And sometimes with 3 I don't bother. I haven't done any scientific tests back to back to see if the little yeast nudge does anything or not.

I haven't noticed any oxidized flavors or faster expiring beers when I do secondary. I mostly don't bother because it is extra time and I don't notice much difference when I do.

With the exception that I do sometimes noticed slightly clearer beers and I also tend to get just a hint more beer out of it in the end.

If I only do a primary, I tend to be a lot more conservative in my siphoning to my bottling bucket, which probably results in at least a good 8-12oz of beer left behind on top of the yeast cake to keep from siphoning too much of it in to the bottling bucket. If I do secondary I have no qualms about getting some of that yeast and sediment picked up because I know it'll settle out again over a few days. Then from secondary there is typically so little sitting at the bottom I can get pretty much every last drop of beer out.

That said, the difference of half a beer or maybe a whole beer isn't really much of a difference.

I do typically label my last 3-6 bottles that I bottle as "first drinkers" because I know anything I DO siphon in to the bottling bucket will typically be in those bottles as things slowly settled in the bottling bucket as I filled the bottles.

I've done a few tests in comparing my first to bottle versus my last to bottle, bottles and there is a notable difference in seddiment in the bottles, though so long as I am careful pouring the bottles, not a huge difference in clarity in the glass.

But I do like drinking the "worst" of a batch first.

 

[jethro55]

That is one of the best posts that I have ever seen on this topic. Salute!

My favorite taster is the hydrometer sample at bottling time. It reminds me of the '60's Koolaid mix. The freshest beer is the best imo.

Dry hopping with pellets gives me a pour issue even in secondary. Fresh whole hops or packaged leaf hops not so much but there is the volume loss factor and a bit of lupulin residue in the bottling bucket. The lupulin residue does not bother my experience - yellow is fun to me.

I don't brew on a schedule, so waiting 3+ weeks for one to clear verus one that is done in 4 days and clears in secondary 3 days does not fit my habits.

 

[joshesmusica]

Sometimes for #3 what I do is I'll add just a tiny bit of sugar and boiled water when I transfer to secondary. Just enough to give the yeast a little nudge and get a little CO2 pushing out the O2 I get in the transfer. Especially if doing #3. I don't worry about it with 1, because the fruit is going to kick up the yeast and for #2, I don't worry about it too much because cold beer doesn't really oxidize quickly at all. And sometimes with 3 I don't bother. I haven't done any scientific tests back to back to see if the little yeast nudge does anything or not.

i'm not gonna go on debating the whole idea about secondary. some people are convinced it helps. good on ya if you think that.

but i wanted to comment on the O2 purging that you're doing while dry hopping. i think you're possibly losing a lot of aroma to this method. in fact, i mentioned before how when i would move my primary to a warmer space and then dry hop, i would still have activity. so now i move it slightly sooner, in order to let that CO2 to move out, then i dry hop. I'm not really sure how big of a difference it makes, as I haven't tested it yet, but it is another one of those things the expert homebrewers suggest making sure doesn't happen. it's one of the reasons why they suggest not dry hopping during fermentation, because all of those aroma oils, they believe, are escaping out with the co2.

 

[KartRacer54]

definitely will be interesting. are they the exact same recipe? how are they tasting so far? pretty similar (as far as the flavors from the recipe should be adding to the flavor)? it would be really nice if you had somebody serve them to you blindly, and you did the same to others to see if they could tell a difference.

This evening update:
Today I took hydrometer readings on both fermentors. They were at 101.2. One unit is 16 days in primary, one unit was 14 days in primary and 7 in the secondary.
I recovered both samples and tasted them. To my amazement they tasted exactly the same.
My rooky conclusions:
This recipe does not need - 4 weeks fermentation or secondary transfer. Bottled first fermentor tonight and will bottle second one in the morning.
I have 1 more of this recipe and 5 others to brew.

 

[joshesmusica]

This evening update:
Today I took hydrometer readings on both fermentors. They were at 101.2. One unit is 16 days in primary, one unit was 14 days in primary and 7 in the secondary.
I recovered both samples and tasted them. To my amazement they tasted exactly the same.
My rooky conclusions:
This recipe does not need - 4 weeks fermentation or secondary transfer. Bottled first fermentor tonight and will bottle second one in the morning.
I have 1 more of this recipe and 5 others to brew.

cool, if you can, you should try to document differences in appearances in the bottles and in the glass and all that fun stuff.

 

[azazel1024]

i'm not gonna go on debating the whole idea about secondary. some people are convinced it helps. good on ya if you think that.

but i wanted to comment on the O2 purging that you're doing while dry hopping. i think you're possibly losing a lot of aroma to this method. in fact, i mentioned before how when i would move my primary to a warmer space and then dry hop, i would still have activity. so now i move it slightly sooner, in order to let that CO2 to move out, then i dry hop. I'm not really sure how big of a difference it makes, as I haven't tested it yet, but it is another one of those things the expert homebrewers suggest making sure doesn't happen. it's one of the reasons why they suggest not dry hopping during fermentation, because all of those aroma oils, they believe, are escaping out with the co2.

I usually don't actually add the dry hopping until 1-2 days after moving to secondary once I've given it the little kick. Part of that is I am almost never able to have the time to move to secondary while there is a bit of fermentation finishing up. I usually end up doing it 1-2 weeks after fermentation started, so it is basically over with.

 

[oakbarn]

We used to Secondary, but one time I was away on a trip and the brew was left in the primary (ale) for a month on the trub. I thought it would be "lost" but we could not tell much difference so we did a few experiments and blind tasting and we concluded that Secondary was not needed unless you Dry Hop. The clarity of the beer is not much effected (we keg). We now use a Blickman Hop Rocket and it is far superior to dry hopping for he great hop aroma and finish so we NEVER Secondary anymore.

 

[b-boy]

If I look at the amount of sediment in the bottles for a primary only process and compare it to a secondary process, the difference is clear in the bottle and in the glass when poured to empty bottle state. It has nothing to do with siphoning or bottling skills in my brews. One way has floaters and fluffy trub in bottling bucket and bottles and the other does not. Results for each recipe/process and brewer vary.

Do you cold crash before you bottle? That generally takes care of the sediment problem in a primary. 1-2 days at ~35F and everything will drop right out of suspension. Makes racking clear beer much easier.

 

[jethro55]

Do you cold crash before you bottle? That generally takes care of the sediment problem in a primary. 1-2 days at ~35F and everything will drop right out of suspension. Makes racking clear beer much easier.

I'm on the borderline physically for handling the carboy to cold crash. Age is a factor and there are some troublesome stairs to the spare fridge.
I agree - cold crashing is a great way to improve clarity for lots of brewers that bottle.

 

[b-boy]

I'm on the borderline physically for handling the carboy to cold crash. Age is a factor and there are some troublesome stairs to the spare fridge.
I agree - cold crashing is a great way to improve clarity for lots of brewers that bottle.

I hear ya.

I just picked up some 10-gallon fermenters and I have no idea how I'm going to get them into my fermentation chamber. They weigh a ton.

 

[jethro55]

I hear ya.

I just picked up some 10-gallon fermenters and I have no idea how I'm going to get them into my fermentation chamber. They weigh a ton.

10 gallons ? I wanna be like you! That ROCKS !!!

 

[joshesmusica]

I hear ya.

I just picked up some 10-gallon fermenters and I have no idea how I'm going to get them into my fermentation chamber. They weigh a ton.

just when you think you've finally got your equipment settled and perfected and won't need to add any more expense to this hobby, and then you gotta go and build a pulley system just to get it in the fermentation chamber.

or i guess you could figure out a way to have your fermenters in the chamber before you siphon all the wort into them?

 

[b-boy]

or i guess you could figure out a way to have your fermenters in the chamber before you siphon all the wort into them?

There's an idea. I'd still have to get them out though.