Secondary Fermentation Container Questions

[ToddStark]

One of the things I keep reading over and over is that after the introduction of the yeast, you do not want to do anything that would allow oxygen back into the beer. The yeast quickly starts feeding in the primary and generates Co2 while they consume any oxygen diluted in the beer and the excess co2 pushes out any oxygen above the beer in the fermentor.

Now I am getting into recipes that call for a secondary fermentor after two weeks in the primary. It's not clear to me why but I think it is the yeast cake at the bottom of the primary that might generate off flavors if the beer stays on it longer than 2 weeks. Can I get some reasons why it is important to use secondary fermentors?

Also, by moving it to a secondary after fermentation is complete, even if I am very careful at not splashing the beer during the transfer, won't it leave a huge oxygen layer above the resting beer since no further feeding by the yeast is expected?

 

[max384]

This is a HIGHLY debatable subject. Many here don't use secondary fermentation at all. I use it on some of my bigger beers or with lagers, but other than that, I mostly go straight from primary to keg. When I use a secondary, I fill the fermenter with CO2 before transferring. If you don't keg, this is one big drawback to using secondary. However, if you're careful and don't splash, you'll keep oxygenation to a minimum.

 

[ToddStark]

This is a HIGHLY debatable subject. Many here don't use secondary fermentation at all. I use it on some of my bigger beers or with lagers, but other than that, I mostly go straight from primary to keg. When I use a secondary, I fill the fermenter with CO2 before transferring. If you don't keg, this is one big drawback to using secondary. However, if you're careful and don't splash, you'll keep oxygenation to a minimum.

well I don't keg and I don't have any co2 to flood the fermentor with. If I chose to follow the directions and go with a secondary, would you think pitching a little sugar during the transfer to wake up a few yeasties would cause issues ?

 

[McKnuckle]

That would be counter-productive. If one does employ a secondary, the main purpose is to help the beer clarify. You don't want to add fermentables and generate more yeast activity. Now, fruit is another thing and that's a valid reason for a secondary - but sugar - there isn't really a justification for adding that in secondary.

 

[C-Rider]

Unless you are going to add something like fruit. FORGET THE SECONDARY. You can leave beer on the yeast for a few months w/out any damage .

 

[Kerrbrewer]

Usually when I rack to a secondary it is barely big enough to hold the beer. 5 gallons into a 5 gallon carboy. After racking the beer either outgasses or a small fermentation fires up filling the headspace with co2. I can then store it for as long as I like in the dark. Could be just me, but it seems to mature better and aids in bottle conditiong. I'm not a kegger, so I can't use a keg as a secondary/serving vessel, which is basically what a keg is. YMMV

 

[chickypad]

Now I am getting into recipes that call for a secondary fermentor after two weeks in the primary. It's not clear to me why but I think it is the yeast cake at the bottom of the primary that might generate off flavors if the beer stays on it longer than 2 weeks. Can I get some reasons why it is important to use secondary fermentors?

What are the recipes that are calling for secondary? Stuff like fermentation schedule is IME more about personal preference and not so much part of the recipe. I often don't even look at that part when using other people's recipes, unless it involves a specific addition of some kind. If you choose to do it then rack carefully and try to leave as little headspace as possible as Kerr notes above. But you really shouldn't need a secondary on the overwhelming majority of beers, if you are happy with your process and don't want to risk infection/oxidation with another transfer I would stick to your usual schedule. I think the concern about off flavors is more applicable to the larger professional scale, when you have huge fermenters and a lot more pressure generated. I've certainly left some beers in extended primary over the years, life sometimes gets in the way. I just don't see autolysis being a big issue on the homebrew scale.

 

[ToddStark]

What are the recipes that are calling for secondary? Stuff like fermentation schedule is IME more about personal preference and not so much part of the recipe. I often don't even look at that part when using other people's recipes, unless it involves a specific addition of some kind. If you choose to do it then rack carefully and try to leave as little headspace as possible as Kerr notes above. But you really shouldn't need a secondary on the overwhelming majority of beers, if you are happy with your process and don't want to risk infection/oxidation with another transfer I would stick to your usual schedule. I think the concern about off flavors is more applicable to the larger professional scale, when you have huge fermenters and a lot more pressure generated. I've certainly left some beers in extended primary over the years, life sometimes gets in the way. I just don't see autolysis being a big issue on the homebrew scale.

I am looking at 3 from northern brewers.
http://www.northernbrewer.com/documentation/beerkits/HoneyKolsch.pdf

http://www.northernbrewer.com/documentation/beerkits/Kolsch.pdf

http://www.northernbrewer.com/documentation/beerkits/Grandma'sSecretStash.pdf

 

[chickypad]

I think Nothernbrewer includes a secondary in pretty much all their instructions. The Kolsch's can benefit from a period of cold storage like a lager, so some might do that in secondary (although in the instructions they apparently are talking about room temp secondary). I'd do this in the keg but if not kegging you can lager in bottles. The third recipe does have a vanilla bean addition, which some like to use a secondary for, though you can also just add to primary. If using a secondary I would just rack onto the beans though, not let it sit in secondary for a week then add them.

 

[CUrchin]

Don't bother with the secondary- The risks aren't worth the reward. As I've said before, the yeast have no idea they are supposed to be in some kind of secondary/altered world, so there is no reason to do it in the homebrew world under normal circumstances.

 

[Jaybird]

Transferring to a secondary is helpful for bottling brewers unless you are super clean with your transfer to the bottling bucket. Just remember there is a small amount of Co2 in suspension and it will "HELP" make a little barrier in the secondary bucket. You can also drop a small chunk of Dry Ice in there and let it create that barrier you want. $2 at the grocery around here and you get enough Dry Ice to do that AND make a few Dry Ice bombs to play with in the back yard..LOL

Cheers
Jay

 

[Puddlethumper]

As mentioned earlier the use of a secondary vessel isn't really necessary. (BTW, the term "secondary fermentation" comes from wine making - brewers use a "brite tank".) That being said, the use of a secondary vessel can be helpful but certainly isn't necessary except when making really big beers that need to age for months. Some will argue to not use one at all for fear of infection or oxidation. From my experience the risk of infection from transfer to the secondary vessel is minimal unless you are sloppy with your sanitation. Likewise, the risk of oxidation is pretty close to nil unless you are ham-handed in handling your transfer.

There is little benefit to be derived from leaving the beer on the yeast much beyond the time required to complete fermentation. (Another point that will be debated.) If I intend to package a beer after 10-14 days in primary I won't bother moving it, but instead, hold it in primary until time to keg. If the beer is to remain beyond a couple of weeks I prefer to follow the practices of most professional brewers and move that beer to a brite tank. I do this because I want to get a beer off of the yeast, allow the beer to age/condition/mature. This move also reduces the chance of oxidation by filling the brite tank up into the neck. This reduces surface area exposed to O2 thus significantly reducing oxidation. It also frees up a fermenter so the "pipeline" doesn't get bottled up.

Contrary to some opinions moving the beer to a brite tank will not help to clear the beer. What it will do is allow any suspended trub to settle a bit more (less gunk in the bottom of the bottles), make certain that fermentation is completely done, provide time for dry-hopping or other additions the recipe may call for, and allow the beer to condition/age a bit to let the flavors develop. I typically hold my beers in the brite tank at 70-72F after transfer and almost always get a point or two drop in SG between transfer and packaging.

The main thing I'd suggest to any new brewer is that there are few single "right ways" to do all this. There are some basics that you need to observe or you're guaranteed a flop, but beer is really pretty forgiving stuff. Get advice, try what seems to make sense and evaluate the results. You'll make some mistakes but you'll also develop your own ideas of what works best for you. In the meantime, you'll still be making some very good beer!

Cheers!

 

[ToddStark]

This thread had a slow start but I really appreciate all your input. I really liked the option of adding some dry ice if I chose to use the secondary. That would certainly be cheaper than buying a co2 tank. Based off your input, I believe I will just use the one fermentor for the first two but try a secondary with the Stout. Thanks again for all your input!

 

[CUrchin]

I'd be a careful with dry ice- Yes it will add CO2, but what else might be frozen in that CO2? Just leave the beer in the primary, much easier, much less risk. Only exceptions would be if you want to add something (fruit, wood), if it's strong and needs bulk aging, lagers. Otherwise it's simply not worth it.

 

[Puddlethumper]

I'd be a careful with dry ice- Yes it will add CO2, but what else might be frozen in that CO2?

Dry ice is commonly used as a carbonating or special effects agent in foods. You need not be concerned about contaminants.

Although other grades of dry ice may be available for industrial uses, the only grade we will likely find for sale to the public will be classified as "Food Grade". Dry ice contains virtually nothing but carbon dioxide (CO2) at a surface temperature of < -109.3F. All processes for handling CO2 gas, whether converting it to dry ice or simply compressing it for use in our kegs, are tightly controlled and completely sealed (otherwise the gas would escape). If a person takes the time to understand the process he will quickly see that there are are no opportunities for contaminants to enter the product.

For more information: http://dryiceinfo.com/other.htm

Cheers!

 

[gspot]

The main thing I'd suggest to any new brewer is that there are few single "right ways" to do all this. There are some basics that you need to observe or you're guaranteed a flop, but beer is really pretty forgiving stuff. Get advice, try what seems to make sense and evaluate the results. You'll make some mistakes but you'll also develop your own ideas of what works best for you. In the meantime, you'll still be making some very good beer!

That's solid advice right there. When I started brewing in 2000 it was very common to do a secondary, and I did for years because I was taught by someone who'd been brewing for many years before that. Nowadays it's not so common, and I don't either. No difference in the beer.