Secondary Fermentation

[tnlandsailor]

I came in way late on this discussion, but thought I would give a perspective from the other end of the spectrum. I rarely, if ever, secondary my beer. I've left beer on the primary yeast for as long as 5 weeks with no discernable effect on flavor (it was a Cream Ale). I really doubt the flavor improvements that were mentioned earlier in this thread when using a secondary fermentation. The physical presence of suspended yeast will definitely affect the flavor. But, once the yeast settles out, I think the beer is the same whether it's sitting on big cake of primary yeast or a smaller cake of secondary yeast. Off flavors come from the suspended yeast which will eventually settle out if given enough time (cold temps help to speed this up) and autolysis (yeast death and decomposition) which takes months to develop. If you carefully rack for bottling or kegging directly from the primary, you can get very clear beer and it won't taste any different than same beer that utilized a secondary fermentor.

Does using a secondary hurt anything? Of course not. It might speed the process up for settling the yeast out and it certainly makes racking for bottling and kegging easier because you don't have to be as fastidious about not picking up yeast from the bottom of the container. But if you're lazy or forgetful like me, leaving the beer in the primary for 4 or 5 weeks won't hurt a thing.

 

[Janx]

The vast majority of beer literature disagrees with you. Empirical evidence tells me the same thing that all the books do: You get *much* better beer if you use a secondary and rack out of the primary within a week. Every homebrewer and professional brewer I personally know agrees with that statement. I know that I can tell a beer that has sat in the primary to long easily. You get much cleaner flavor if you rack to secondary within a week. There's a lot in the primary besides yeast.

Your opinion is valid, though it suprises me coming from a guy who can't tolerate a tenth of a degree variation in his mash In any event, I wholeheartedly disagree with it. And I want to make sure that any newer brewer reading this thread understands that your opinion falls into a definite minority among brewers.

 

[brewhead]

new brewer here and so i consulted with a microbrewer who happens to be my home brewers supply store. right off the bat he told me to do initial fermentation in the primary for about 3-5 days or as soon as the bubbler stops - rack to the secondary for clarification for a week or upon visual inspection yeilding desired results - then rack to bottling pale - and bottle cap - wait 3 weeks and enjoy.

so far this method has not failed me. whether or not it is the most right way for the homebrewer i cannot be conclusive about having the least experience in this group - however most of what i have been able to read onling and talk with to other home brewers says this procedure is best.

 

[tnlandsailor]

Nice dig Janx. I'm surprised at my opinion too. I've heard the same arguments and wisdom passed on from everyone - but it just doesn't seem to pan out in practice for me. The first time I left my beer in the primary for 3 weeks, I really expected the worst. Like I said before, I didn't do it on purpose, time just got away from me. The finished beer, once it cleared, was every bit as good as any beer I secondaried, which puzzled me at the time given all the information out there to the contrary. That paricular beer was an IPA which scored in the 40's at one of our club events.

What is it that causes the off flavors? I will agree with you to the point that suspended yeast and other "stuff" definitely affects flavor. If you taste a beer that is visibly cloudy and the same beer once the suspended particles settle out, the clear beer wins hands down. The taste difference is dramatic, I've experienced that with my own beers. But my beer tends to clear up to the same degree whether it has been secondaried or not, it just takes time (maybe a week or two in the keg). Is there something that is still present in (mostly) clear beer that didn't get the benefit of a secondary fermentation that affects flavor? I'm not arguing here, I'm really curious.

Sounds like an experiment is in order. Brew 10 gallons, split the batch with the same yeast, primary only in one, and secondary the other and do an A-B taste test. I'll look into it.

Prosit,

 

[homebrewer_99]

I left a brew in a primary for 32 days (I had a heart attack and couldn't do any heavy lifting) that ended up winning a local HB contest.

 

[Janx]

There's no doubt that perfectly drinkable beer can be made without a secondary. There's also no doubt, to me, that that same beer would have been better had it been racked to a secondary in a timely fashion.

Autolysis, the off-flavor generated by spent yeast essentially decomposing in the fermenter, is really not the biggie here, though it's often talked about. Most of us don't leave our beers in the fermenter long enough for that to matter. So, yeast contact isn't the issue to me.

Nor is lack of clarity caused by suspended particles and yeast. Sure, that stuff settles out in the end, and more importantly, it's not the primary cause of haze.

The biggger issue is prolonged contact with the trub in the primary. We all know that it's best to leave as much of the hot break as possible behind in the kettle. That's why people use Irish moss or whirlpools. The same is true of cold break and any of the protein trub in the wort.

The conversion of sugar to alcohol and CO2 happens pretty quickly in the first few days in the primary for most beers. Much of the later secondary fermentation involves the yeast metabolizing off flavors like diacetyl. Physically removing as much of the off-flavor producing proteins (trub) makes this phase of the yeast's job easier.

It's clear once you brew a few batches that batch aging the beer for a few weeks in the secondary (or tertiary) fermenter makes better tasting beer than if you bottle at the first possible moment. That's because of these secondary roles of the yeast in metabolizing off flavors generated as byproducts of fermentation. I'm by no means an expert on the chemistry of it all, but by removing the trub from the fermenting beer, you physically reduce the amount of off flavors the yeast must metabolize.

To me, it has little to do with clarity or suspended particles, though I do think you get clearer beer if you use a secondary. In any event, clarity of homebrew is usually dictated not by suspended particles, but by things like chill haze. You'll also reduce chill haze by removing the beer from the trub. But the flavor advantages come from complex chemical reactions that have to do with the later phases of yeast metabolism.

Personally, I can always taste the advantages of using a secondary and batch aging an appropriate amount of time. Racking to a secondary within a week is one of the top five things you can do to improve the flavor of your beer, IMO.

Cheers!

 

[tnlandsailor]

Top 5? I guess that's a matter of opinion. My curiosity is up however. I'm going to give the experiment a go and see what happens. What might be a good beer style to try for something like this?

For what it's worth, my top-5-things-to-make-better-beer list looks like this:

1) Effective sanitizing procedures
2) A large, clean, healthy yeast starter
3) Fermenting at the proper temperature
4) Fresh quality ingredients
5) Utilizing a full wort boil

 

[Janx]

I'd say make a good clean APA...something simple so you can see if there's a difference.

Your list looks pretty much like mine. I'd amend number 2 to include *liquid* yeast specifically, and I'd replace number 3 with use of a secondary off the top of my head. Whole hops are also a big thing for me, so I'd add that to number 4. Full wort boil is something I definitely consider essential...in all honesty, you can't expect to be making good beer without a full boil. So, if we accept a full boil as a given prerequisite for the serious brewer, my list would look like (off the top of my head and in no particular order):

1) Effective sanitizing procedures
2) A large, clean, healthy yeast starter made from quality liquid yeast
3) Racking to a secondary within a week
4) Fresh quality ingredients and use of whole hops
5) All-grain brewing

This could be a really good thread all its own...what are your top 5 tips to improve your beer. Cheers!

 

[DeRoux's Broux]

1. mad sanitation
2. quality ingredients (includes hops)
3. healthy LIQUIDE yeast starter
4. proper fermentation/conditioning/lagering temps (which includes racking to secondary vessel)
5. PATIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

those are the 5 things that have improved my brews the most over the past severa lbatches.....
Cheers!
DeRoux's Broux

 

[tnlandsailor]

The whole hop argument needs a thread unto itself.

 

[Janx]

starting the thread...you two be sure to repost your list...

 

[Ken Doggett]

I've always been an advocate of racking to a secondary fermentor to take the beer from the used yeast to avoid off flavors, and to help clarify the finished product. I've gotten rid of the plastic primary fermentor and moved to all glass carboys for both primary and secondary. This reduces the risk of infection from well-used plastic buckets which tend to get scratched inside and harbor bacteria. My final products have improved substantially. How long before you rack from primary to secondary? Usually a week, but a longtime brewer told me that once the fermentation slows down to about one bubble a minute, time to rack to the secondary. I've generally followed this advice (which is about 5-7 days) and had no problem. How long in the secondary? Generally, another week, then into the keg for a week. I like a 3-week turnaround for most ales.
The beers always seems to improve at about 4 weeks, if it last that long! Happy brewing.

 

[BitterRat]

I do think it's important to utilize a secondary, although I too have not had any problems with my beers that have sat for extended time in primary. But I can't put a time limit on being in primary!! I have had beers that have fermented out in 3 days and others that needed 2 weeks+ before they were ready for secondary!! The only way to know for sure is to take a hydrometer sample!!

 

[Ken Doggett]

At what hydrometer reading do you generally transfer beer to the secondary? Thanks.

 

[rixport]

I posted this in the 'top 5 reasons' thread and then saw this thread where it would be more appropriate. I'm obviously in a minority in my opinion, but that's what promotes discussion.

Hello, I'm new to this forum. So, why not start in by adding something that's sure to render many opinions. I rarely do any 2ndary fermentation. I do a complete and temperature controled fermentation and imediately transfer into corny kegs for carbonation, aging and dispensing (ah). Personally, I feel that the more you mess with your beer while fermenting, the more risk you take of contamination. There are cases where I think it's a good thing, as in brewing a lager style that requires a long aging period. If I need to do this, as soon as the primary frementation is done, I transfer to a corney keg and put it under enough pressure to maintain the seal and let it age in there. This is a form of 2ndary fermentation I would imagine, but I carbonate that beer without transfering to another vesel for dispensing after a proper ageing period. I rarely brew these styles, so it does not come into play that often. The other styles are mostly best when drank fresh, so why put your beer thru one more handling stage that's not needed. My beer gets many comments on clarity and I rarely have a person spit my beer out with a sour look on their face.. if they do, chances are mega-lite is their favorite brand. The rest of the top 5 reasons, I agree with at one level or another.

Ken Smith

 

[brewhead]

i think secondary fermentator is a mis-nomer as in the styles i have been brewing. yes i am sure that SOME fermentation happens in the secondary - but from what i can gather it is mostly a clarification process - the majority of the fermentation happening in the first 3-5 days in the primary.

 

[Dude]

At what hydrometer reading do you generally transfer beer to the secondary? Thanks.

Their really isn't a guideline for this because every batch is going to be different. Most of the heavy fermenting takes place inthe first 3-4 days, but the yeast will continue to breakdown sugars and continue to ferment well past that.
The general rule I've read is to take a hydrometer reading (after the main fermentation is done) and when it is steady for 3 days in a row, its ready to rack/bottle/carbonate/whatever.
Of course thier are exceptions to this. High gravity beers wil take MUCH longer.

 

[Ken Doggett]

How does one know when to rack to a secondary? I have a batch in the primary right now, been there for two days, and the airlock has pretty much stopped bubbling constantly. Is this a sign it could be ready for the secondary already or is there a specific gravity way of telling?

Generally speaking, it usually takes 5 days and up to 8 or 9 days in the primary before you rack to secondary. A long time homebrewer once told me count the time between bubbles in the airlock. If it is over a minute, it may be ready for the secondary.

 

[brewhead]

for the pilz and ales i've been doing it goes like this:

saturday: boil and toil - xfer to primary
7 days later: rack to secondary
7 days later: bottle
3 weeks later: enjoy

i have seen clarification happen faster than 7 days depending on temps but i do the saturday to saturday thing because i have more free time on the weekend.

i have brewed some good beer just in a primary - but i've brewed better beer using the secondary for clarification

 

[DyerNeedOfBeer]

I made a honey ale 10 days ago. This thing had a very active fermentation going the day after I made it. I usually rack to secondary seven days after pitching the yeast and in the past this has been sufficient to get over the initial 'burst' of fermentation. This batch however still has the airlock poping every five seconds and I can still see the activity in the carboy where things are still stirring around in there. I realize I could go ahead and rack to secondary now. I want to harvest the yeast from the bottom of the primary too so that is another consideration. I could rack to a tertiary in another couple weeks if the fermentation were to continue in the secondary. What is your opinion on taking this to secondary? Go for it now or wait till when?

Thanks...

 

[DeRoux's Broux]

i'd wait until activity has ceased, and you see no sign of activuty. it will not hurt a thing to let it go until fernmentation is complete. let sit another 2-3 days, then rack it to your secondary. that'll mean less trub in the secondary and clearer beer!
just my $0.02 worth :~)
DeRoux's Broux

 

[pmriess]

Can some one tell me the difference between - DROPPING - SECONDARY FERMENTATION and PRIMING - it seems to me the brewing industry, like alot of others, uses different terms for the same thing! I'll be interested in your response.

 

[DeRoux's Broux]

never heard of dropping? secondary fermentation is a homebrewers term. no commercial brewery uses that, that i know of. it's realy just a conditioning stage of the beer (or lagering for cold conditioning). priming means to prime the green beer with a simple sugar syrup so that what yeast remians in the green beer, will have something to "eat" to produce CO2 and carbonate the bottled beer.

make sense? please chim in........

 

[Dude]

Can some one tell me the difference between - DROPPING - SECONDARY FERMENTATION and PRIMING - it seems to me the brewing industry, like alot of others, uses different terms for the same thing! I'll be interested in your response.

I've never heard of DROPPING, but SECONDARY FERMENTATION is the aging process. Some use it, some don't. By letting the beer age in secondary fermentation, the idea is to let the bitterness of the hops blend with the malt characteristics and make a smoother beer. Secondary fermentation is not mandatory.
PRIMING is adding additioanl fermentable sugar to the primary or secondary fermenter to assist in providing carbonation when bottling. Usually about 3/4 cup of corn sugar is boiled with water and this sugar is added to the fermenter, and then racked into bottles. Suspended yeast in the beer will then eat the sugar and produce carbonation (CO2) in the bottled beer.
The two terms I described are definitely not the same.

 

[tnlandsailor]

I culled this off of HBD from 1997:

"Dropping is the practice of transferring wort from one container to another at a very early stage in the fermentation process (1-2 days). During this transfer process, it is optionally suggested that one might deliberately allow the wort to become aerated by letting the wort splash into the second container (for example by having the first container on a work surface, the second container on the floor and syphoning the wort with a short tube). This is the dropping process. Why do it? Dropping is done as soon as the fermentation really takes a hold (the yeast crust start forming). At this stage there is a lot of active yeast in suspension. What we are trying to do is transfer the wort off any undesirable material (trub, dead yeast etc.) which may after 1-2 days have settled to the bottom of the fermenting container. The purpose of allowing the wort to become aerated is encourage further yeast growth in the second container. Since the yeast will be now have taken a hold, the risk of infection is reduced. But be warned. This technique (the aeration in particular) may not be applicable to all types of yeast (top vs bottom fermenters or even different strains of the same type). Nevertheless, this technique seems to result in wonderfully clean yeast in the second container. Does it improve the taste? Dunno! It might help if one wanted to recover yeast from one batch and use for a second, however."

Sounds like a dubious practice at best. A lot of brewing processes are holdovers from hundreds of years ago when brewers had to develop all kinds ways to make the best of really bad ingredients. Dropping might be one of them. For what it's worth, back then the chemistry of malting was not fully understood, therefore practices such as multiple mash rests and decoction were invented to compensate. These days, ingredients are so much better that most of these practices, decoction especially, are simply not necessary. I had a local pro tell me recently, when he was getting his brewing education in Germany, that the brewery he worked in had a process for decoction where the husks where separated from the grain prior to the decoction process, then reintroduced later in the lauter tun. Why? Because boiled husks give astringency. I asked him why do it at all, and he replied that it was marketing - if the competitors found out they weren't using traditional methods, it could mean negative press. Furthermore, astringency dissipates over time. Strangely enough, the lagering process takes care of this. This explains one of the reasons why lagering was practiced. Sorry for the long post......

Prosit,

 

[DeRoux's Broux]

good stuff Dennis. thanks for the "culling". :~)

it does seem like a bunch of work for maybe a tiny difference, if any at all? think i'll stick to my normal routine!

cheers!
DeRoux's Broux

 

[rixport]

I culled this off of HBD from 1997:


Sounds like a dubious practice at best. A lot of brewing processes are holdovers from hundreds of years ago when brewers had to develop all kinds ways to make the best of really bad ingredients. Dropping might be one of them. For what it's worth, back then the chemistry of malting was not fully understood, therefore practices such as multiple mash rests and decoction were invented to compensate. These days, ingredients are so much better that most of these practices, decoction especially, are simply not necessary. I had a local pro tell me recently, when he was getting his brewing education in Germany, that the brewery he worked in had a process for decoction where the husks where separated from the grain prior to the decoction process, then reintroduced later in the lauter tun. Why? Because boiled husks give astringency. I asked him why do it at all, and he replied that it was marketing - if the competitors found out they weren't using traditional methods, it could mean negative press. Furthermore, astringency dissipates over time. Strangely enough, the lagering process takes care of this. This explains one of the reasons why lagering was practiced. Sorry for the long post......

Prosit,

I agree with all of this except the decoction line. Dropping is a legitemate technique even in today's brewing, however timing is everthing.. you only want to do this practice while the beer is at full high krausen. It has been noted that diacetal in enhanced by this practice.. so you might want to examine if this is a charcteristic that's desireable in the style of beer you're brewing. Now to the point of this post.. decoction is not an obsolete technique and while not necessary, is a very desireable technique in certain styles of beer as well as when using pilsner or lager malts that are lower in protein levels and needs to be step mashed in order to get full conversion. A couple places where decoction style mashing is very desireable is in Weiss beirs as well as Marzen/Octoberfest styles. The technique totally enhances the malt richness and in the case of Weiss makes lautering much easier. I've in the past employed decoction mashing doing a California Common with great results. Just my 2 cents worth.. don't hold it against me..

Ken

 

[DyerNeedOfBeer]

Ok, this honey brew I made 13 days ago is still going strong. The airlock is clicking one off every six seconds still. The brew I made 6 days ago is sitting in a carboy next to it and is clicking about every 15 seconds which is more in line with my past experiences. I have pretty much made up my mind to go ahead and secondary the honey brew today but I was just wondering if this is normal for a recipe such as this. Is it the honey doing it or just the fact that it is a rather heavy brew?

6# extra light DME
3# Honey
0.5# carapils grains
2oz Hallertauer (5.2% aa)
1.74oz coriander seed - ground just prior to brew day
1.4oz fresh grated orange peel (one orange)
White Labs WLP550 Belgian Ale

Corrected OG 1.067

 

[pmriess]

Thanks for all replies to my post asking about dropping, sec. fermentation and priming. Dropping, still in operation at MARSTONS Brewery ( England ) removes fermenting liquor once the OG has fallen by half - it reputedly produces a 'brighter' beer - and, as one post mentions, removes the fermenting liquor from the dead yeast at the bottom and from the vigourous cauliflower head at the top which may impart a taste to the beer. The yeast carried over in secondary fermentation is supposed to be a stronger strain than that left behind. In the next few days I intend to brew using this method - I'll let you know if the result is worth the effort! Thanks again for the useful posts.

 

[DeRoux's Broux]

Ok, this honey brew I made 13 days ago is still going strong. The airlock is clicking one off every six seconds still. The brew I made 6 days ago is sitting in a carboy next to it and is clicking about every 15 seconds which is more in line with my past experiences. I have pretty much made up my mind to go ahead and secondary the honey brew today but I was just wondering if this is normal for a recipe such as this. Is it the honey doing it or just the fact that it is a rather heavy brew?

if it was mine, i'd let it go until i saw no sign of activity. and it probably is still activer because it's a big brew. extra fermentables in there.....
DeRoux's Broux