Diferences in primary/secondary and bottle conditioning?

[Lit]

After making my first Belgian Golden Strong I've read that high gravity beers need more time conditioning to remove diacetyl/attenuate the warm alcohol flavors, and a lot of people here let it sit in primary/secondary a lot of time.

The sample I just drank to take the gravity (day 8, from 1083 to 1012) tastes more like wiskey than beer. So I panicked.

The thing is that I need my primary bucket to make more beer, and the secondary it's a bit dirty even after washing it I just don't feel like using it (at least for this beer).

Is there any diference from conditioning in primary/secondary and bottle? If I bottle it I don't care if it sits in my cellar 1 month or 1 year, but I would like to know if there will be any difference.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Well, safety is a concern. I know that thats already a pretty low gravity but, to me I would be scared to bottle that after only 8 days, could end up with bottle bombs if the yeast decides it wants to keep going (regardless of priming perfectly). So in terms of aging and mellowing theres not any major difference between bottle conditioning and aging in secondary. But secondary aging will allow the yeast to well and truly finish attenuating.

I personally would go and clean the secondary vessel and then transfer and let it sit for 2 months.

 

[BMBC]

That's a big beer to be rushing through. If you're ready to brew again why not just pick up another cheap fermenting bucket?

 

[Lit]

So in terms of aging and mellowing theres not any major difference between bottle conditioning and aging in secondary.

That's what I wanted to know! or to hear.

I will let sit into primary a week more to be more safe, but secondary really isn't an option.

 

[Joker]

Getting the brew out of Primary gets it off the yeast and anything else in there. Placing it in a Secondary Vessel gives it a chance to allow more to drop out of suspension prior to bottling and of course frees up the Primary.

Are you comfortable using what was your Secondary as your Primary? That is another option.

 

[fstfrd00]

That's a big beer to be rushing through. If you're ready to brew again why not just pick up another cheap fermenting bucket?

Seems to me the best way to go.

 

[Lit]

For a secondary vessel I've always used 25L plastic bag with double wall, and it's not easy to clean. That's how I was told it was done when I started as newb homebrewer. I will try to get another bucket for secondarys then.

But wasn't the consensus around this forum not to make secondary?

 

[Gavin C]

Or you could just leave it in the primary until you bottle in a month or so. Let it condition in the bottles for as long as you can. Big beers like this need some months to mellow.

That is what I would do.

Buying another bucket and cleaning the other one would be a good idea too.

Edit: Bag as a secondary. That's new to me. Can't say I'd like the idea of trying to sanitize one let alone cleaning and reusing one.

 

[Lit]

And sorry to double post but:

What is the diference then between bottle conditioning and letting it sit more time at primary/secondary? Appart from bottlebombs.

 

[Gavin C]

And sorry to double post but:

What is the diference then between bottle conditioning and letting it sit more time at primary/secondary? Appart from bottlebombs.

These two issues are not linked

Bottle bombs result from either of two things

1: Bottling prior to the completion of fermentation
2: Fermentation completed but too much priming solution added

Both result in the production of CO2 in volumes exceeding the physical limits of the bottle and/or its cap. Very dangerous things.

1: Issue 1 can be eliminated by allowing time for your beer to completely ferment. This can be verified by confirming the gravity is not changing over time.

2: Issue two can be eliminated by adding the correct amount of priming sugars at bottling. This is dependent on the volume and style of beer you are making.

 

[BMBC]

And sorry to double post but:

What is the diference then between bottle conditioning and letting it sit more time at primary/secondary? Appart from bottlebombs.

My newb answer is...

In primary/secondary the yeast will continue to work on the fermentables and other compounds in the beer. The CO2 will be vented.

In bottle conditioning your yeast will be working on the priming sugar and will eventually be inactivated by the pressure building in the bottle.

Both improve the beer, but if you're looking for your beer to be cleaned up and its taste to improve you probably want to keep it in primary/secondary.

 

[Joker]

But wasn't the consensus around this forum not to make secondary?

Its your brew do as you like.

Personally I have a 7 gallon bucket for Primary, easier to clean. I have a bunch of 5 gallon carboys for secondary. I don't care who likes glass or secondary, its my routine it works for me and it makes my Primary available for another batch.

Ask 10 people how they brew, you will get 10 different methods from crushing to bottling.

 

[Lit]

That's why a reason to let it sit more time at primary/secondary I can understand is to let it ferment completely and prevent bottle bombs.

If you are sure that you can bottle it, what is the reason to not do it if you can let it conditioning in the bottle while freeing buckets?
Pressure building can affect the yeast then?

Also, a photo of a secondary bag (I agree its a bad idea, but I was told it was done like that)
https://sites.google.com/site/jvilc...veza/imagenes/sec_02.jpg?height=450&width=600

 

[Joker]

If your gravity reading is stable for 3-4 days, bottle it.

 

[Lit]

If your gravity reading is stable for 3-4 days, bottle it.

settled then!

Thanks to all!

 

[Gavin C]

Bottling once fermentation is complete is safe.

Bottling once fermentation is complete will also remove the beer from contact with the vast yeast population in the cake at the bottom of the FV.

These yeast cells, over time will metabolize various undesirable chemicals in the beer that are associated with an array of off flavors. If you want to minimise these undesirables leaving the beer exposed to the yeast cake for longer is the recommended approach.

John Palmer as one example; a recognized homebrew expert, agrees with this. It's not just me blowing smoke.

While yeast will still be present in the bottled beer in sufficient numbers to carbonate it, the bulk of the population is left behind in the yeast cake in the FV.

The reason big beers need time to mellow is that the yeast are working in a more extreme environment with the result being more undesirable products of fermentation. Optimal pitch rate of healthy yeast, optimal fermentation temperatures will reduce these but not eliminate the compounds completely. Hence the reason to let the beer sit on the yeast in the primary for longer.

I stopped using secondary vessels after 2 batches. I am not BJCP qualified or skilled enough to recognise an off flavor if it were subtle. I based my decision on two things.

1: Tried it to see if it worked, noticed no ill effects
2: Learned more, read and listened to experts on brewing. There no longer appears to be any chemical or biological rationale to their use.

There are a ton of threads on this debate. I simply advise doing your own research and deciding for yourself. Oft cited reasons for secondary use are.

1: I need my primary
solution: Buy another bucket.

2: I want clear beer
This has never been the rationale to secondary usage and is a non-issue. Clear beer is readily obtainable with no secondary vessel.

3: I'm worried about autolysis
This is really a hold-over from commercial scale brewing. Modern yeasts in homebrewing are not longer prone to this at the scales we use

4: There is no differences between the two approaches
I like less work and exposing my beer to less chance of oxidation/infection.

I am rambling now. I'll stop. Sorry for the digression