Does "no secondary" equal "shooting yourself in the foot

[freisste]

I think you two are saying the same thing:

If you are afraid of introducing oxygen, don't secondary. The gains of a small headspace are not worth the movement and loss of protective CO2 layer. If (IF!) you plan on a secondary FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, use a secondary that is properly sized so as to minimize headspace.

Do either of you disagree? If not, let's answer OP's questions and move on.

 

[unionrdr]

Minimizing head space in secondary was my whole point. The reasons should be obvious...

 

[Bob]

You've def got it backwards in regard to head space volume post racking.

Um...

[looks around]

I'm not talking about head space volume.

What I'm talking about is racking AT ALL. When you rack, you guarantee exposure to oxygen and infection and and and. I'm saying if you're racking solely to reduce headspace, you're doing something out of unfounded fear which is guaranteed to introduce the thing you're trying to avoid.

By any standard, that's just dumb.

I think maybe we're arguing at cross-purposes.

Bob

EDITED TO ADD:

I think you two are saying the same thing:

If you are afraid of introducing oxygen, don't secondary. The gains of a small headspace are not worth the movement and loss of protective CO2 layer. If (IF!) you plan on a secondary FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, use a secondary that is properly sized so as to minimize headspace.

Do either of you disagree? If not, let's answer OP's questions and move on.

I guess we were arguing at cross purposes.

Sheesh, sometimes I'm dim.

 

[GuldTuborg]

I think you two are saying the same thing:

If you are afraid of introducing oxygen, don't secondary. The gains of a small headspace are not worth the movement and loss of protective CO2 layer. If (IF!) you plan on a secondary FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, use a secondary that is properly sized so as to minimize headspace.

Do either of you disagree? If not, let's answer OP's questions and move on.

In the context of a typical homebrewing setup and procedure, I agree with this. What we were discussing were the problems, or problems solved, involved in racking to a secondary (which was a big part of the OP's original question). Strictly speaking, head space volume is irrelevant, it's oxygen that's the enemy. Minimizing head space is one method of attempting to avoid oxygen exposure, but it shouldn't be viewed as something intrinsically good. There are other and better ways of achieving this goal, which homebrewers typically do not choose to use for a variety of reasons.

If we want to get back to the thrust of OP's question, I think the differences, in most cases, between racking/no racking will not be as great as differences that appear with other changes already mentioned (fermentation temps, pitch rates, mash pH, etc.).

 

[GuldTuborg]

I guess we were arguing at cross purposes.

Sheesh, sometimes I'm dim.

You're not the only one. I think there was a good amount of hand waving at arguments and such that was plenty easy to misunderstand.

It's all good, everyone. Yes, we can all just get along.

 

[unionrdr]

Um...

[looks around]

I'm not talking about head space volume.

What I'm talking about is racking AT ALL. When you rack, you guarantee exposure to oxygen and infection and and and. I'm saying if you're racking solely to reduce head space, you're doing something out of unfounded fear which is guaranteed to introduce the thing you're trying to avoid.

By any standard, that's just dumb.

I think maybe we're arguing at cross-purposes.

Bob

EDITED TO ADD:



I guess we were arguing at cross purposes.

Sheesh, sometimes I'm dim.

In the context of a typical home brewing setup and procedure, I agree with this. What we were discussing were the problems, or problems solved, involved in racking to a secondary (which was a big part of the OP's original question). Strictly speaking, head space volume is irrelevant, it's oxygen that's the enemy. Minimizing head space is one method of attempting to avoid oxygen exposure, but it shouldn't be viewed as something intrinsically good. There are other and better ways of achieving this goal, which homebrewers typically do not choose to use for a variety of reasons.

If we want to get back to the thrust of OP's question, I think the differences, in most cases, between racking/no racking will not be as great as differences that appear with other changes already mentioned (fermentation temps, pitch rates, mash pH, etc.).

You're not the only one. I think there was a good amount of hand waving at arguments and such that was plenty easy to misunderstand.

It's all good, everyone. Yes, we can all just get along.

We have a winner! whadda we have for'em Johnny??
You basically misunderstood what I was referring to. Racking when it isn't needed is a waste of time to me,gives more to sanitize,clean,sanitize again. Plus the problem of whether you'll get enough co2 out of solution to fill the head space enough not to worry while aging. And co2 systems for that costs money. I use the "single stage" system as described in BS2 for those wanting further info. Always did it that way. That's where we got caught in the cross-fire. (Stevie Ray RULES!). A little sabre rattling fer sher.
AAAAAAnyway...a healthy yeast pitch,keeping ferment temps within the particular yeasts' range,mash/steep temps & the like will go further in preventing off flavors & yield beer that,even tasting the FG sample,will be great. I just did that monday with the IPA that pegged the airlock in 15 minutes. Even the aroma was great,& wasn't dry hopped yet.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

I left a beer on the lees for a year and had no issues. As long as the fermenter is stored at cellar temperatures autolysis should not be an issue.

I really wish whoever ages ago coined the term "secondary" had just picked abtter term, like clarifying vessel; because that is exactly what a secondary is.

The term "secondary fermenter" lead to the the term "Secondary fermentation", which is an oft propagated fallacious use of terminology.

 

[GuldTuborg]

I really wish whoever ages ago coined the term "secondary" had just picked abtter term, like clarifying vessel; because that is exactly what a secondary is.

You mean like "brite tank?"

If I had to guess, there was a time when beer was more commonly racked prior to the end of fermentation, with the idea that the fermentation continues in the secondary vessel. It's still fairly common practice to remove wine from the gross lees before fermentation has completed. Is it possible homebrewing followed some in this pattern, either by inspiration, default, necessity given the materials at the time, or something similar? I don't know, but I'd love to hear if anyone knows of the reasons for all of this.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

You mean like "brite tank?"

If I had to guess, there was a time when beer was more commonly racked prior to the end of fermentation, with the idea that the fermentation continues in the secondary vessel. It's still fairly common practice to remove wine from the gross lees before fermentation has completed. Is it possible homebrewing followed some in this pattern, either by inspiration, default, necessity given the materials at the time, or something similar? I don't know, but I'd love to hear if anyone knows of the reasons for all of this.

Even so, there is/was no "secondary" fermentation.

And yeah, Bright tank. Common term in beer and wine industry. Though usually in brewing it's also a chilled tank. You don't really hear the term "secondary" used in professional brewing/wine making.

 

[unionrdr]

Bright tank is about the most descriptive term I can think of atm. And the secondary,or two vessel system was common in earlier days because of the fear of autolysis. Now we have better yeasts than I remember using on wines a long time ago. So the autolysis boogieman is a thing of the past on our scale of brewing. Commercial brewers still have to be concerned,since their giant fermenters exert a lot of pressure by weight on the trub & settled yeast that can still cause autolysis on such huge systems.

 

[GuldTuborg]

Even so, there is/was no "secondary" fermentation.

No, but there was a secondary fermentor (though generally not a fermenter, if you follow). Most of us do engage in a secondary fermentation process, it's just in the bottle. I'm sure the overlap and extension of terminology was natural.

 

[AnOldUR]

I really wish whoever ages ago coined the term "secondary" had just picked abtter term, like clarifying vessel; because that is exactly what a secondary is.

But it's not what a secondary was. Before yeast became a well-controlled science it was better to get beer off the old, dying yeast before fermentation had completed and let the healthy ones that hadn't flocculated finish the job. Autolysis was a real concern, regardless of the batch size. Who ever coined the term knew exactly what they were saying.

 

[Bob]

I like the term "conditioning tank". Since a "bright tank" is a vessel to receive bright beer, after filtering and before dispense/packaging, what homebrewers call "secondary" isn't a "bright tank" in the slightest way.

Traditional pro breweries who still use a second vessel call them conditioning vessels. Makes sense to me.

Bob

 

[AnOldUR]

You (I) hear things often enough and you take them for fact. You motivated me to look into this more. Beeradvocate had the term’s "bright tank" and "conditioning tank" as synonymous, but the lemmings there aren’t to be trusted. Here’s an article with more creditability. I’ll file this under, “what I learned about beer today.” Unless the beer is already clear going in, a secondary vessel is not a bright tank. Thanks Bob.

... That clarified beer is known as bright beer because of its non-cloudy nature. That bright beer is then transferred to a bright beer tank. Often called a “brite” beer tank, serving tank or secondary tank, a bright tank is the vessel in which beer is placed after primary fermentation and filtering, so it can further mature, clarify and carbonate, as well as be stored for kegging, bottling, canning and packaging. In brewpubs, bright beer tanks can even do double-duty as serving vessels.

 

[GuldTuborg]

Good info there. I had always assumed (not really having looked into it) that the "brite tank" was where a beer went to become bright (cleared), not somewhere it went after clearing had taken place.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

It's usually unfiltered beer in a bright tank. At least at craft breweries.

 

[Bob]

Not at the craft breweries where I brewed, Denny. The "bright tank" was what the output of the filter was hooked up to. Maybe it's a regional thing.

Bob

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

Not at the craft breweries where I brewed, Denny. The "bright tank" was what the output of the filter was hooked up to. Maybe it's a regional thing.

Bob

I think it's a "I'll call it whatever the hell I want to cause I own the damn brewery" kinda thing. haha

 

[emjay]

Denny is right. Why do you think it's called a bright tank? Because beer sits in it while it clears.

 

[misterbk]

Wow, out of town for a few days and this thread really took off with useful info. Thanks guys!

In regards to fermentation temp, 71 degrees is what the thermostat on the A/C is set to. It's really that crude. I'm looking into better systems, but I want to jump right into something that will really let me dial that in. I've seen the bins you can put the carboy in along with ice packs, and the "swamp chiller" method, but I'm thinking something more accurate would be nice. Ideally with liquid contact to the carboy surface, and a way to measure the temp at the center of fermentation, if that exists.

So, temp control is on the way, just haven't quite figured it out yet. The beer is coming out pretty great in the meantime, so it's all good.

In terms of a secondary, maybe I should have considered one. I just dunked oak beans and spices in the primary container as adjuncts (right term?) so there is a possibility I mildly disturbed that layer of CO2. I wasn't wild about it, so the CO2 layer should be disturbed about as much as you'd get by using a beer thief three times to take a measurement.

My process for the oak chips was as follows:
1: Submerge a spoon, funnel, and a steeper cylinder in StarSan.
2: Boil oak cubes for a few minutes. (I didn't time it, would guess 3.)
3: Use the sanitized spoon to transfer oak cubes to the sanitized cylinder.
4: Submerge cylinder (which took some oxygen with it I'm sure) into primary carboy.
5: Use sanitized spoon to sample the boiled oak juice, and discard spoon after sampling.
6: Tastes really good, so poured that into the carboy via funnel. (actually now thinking I should try cooking salmon with oak beans... it was delicious.)

Adding the spices, I just brought those up to a low boil for about 30 seconds, cooled the bottom of the pot in the sink, and dumped those through the funnel as well. At very least, I don't think the CO2 resting in the carboy from its own weight would have been removed, so there should still be a layer of it on the beer.

So, I probably added some O2 to my carboy via the splashing liquids, and there's probably some O2 at the top of the carboy that wasn't there before, but I should still have the blanket. We'll see how it turned out when I return home tomorrow. It's about time to check on the oak.

 

[unionrdr]

I always pour the liquid,liquor,whatever through a hop sock into secondary,tie it off & drop it in. Your cylinder would act the same way. Whenever you soak wood chips,etc in any liquid,it'll absorb the flavors of the liquid,while soaking out wood resins. You want those resins in the beer,as this is where the oak flavor comes from. so that's cool.
They have these to put in a carboy for temp probes;http://www.midwestsupplies.com/stopper-thermowell.html It also has a 2nd hole for the airlock as well. The johnson temp controller on the same page has temp probes that go in the well.
And I'd have poured the spices through a hop sock into secondary as well to keep the beer clean at bottling time.

 

[Bob]

I think it's a "I'll call it whatever the hell I want to cause I own the damn brewery" kinda thing. haha

Could be, could be. All I know is the packaging breweries in the PA/NJ/DE areas, when I was working in the industry, called the final tank before packaging the "bright tank". In brewpubs it was the "serving tank". If beer went into it to rest or be fined, that tank was a "conditioning tank".

So unlike emjay I'm not willing to make a blanket statement to the contrary.

Nomenclature can be a funny old thing. Sometimes it's universal. Other times, not so much.