What does a secondary fermenter do?

[Brüverine]

If you're considering approaching the topic of a new brewer's 1st day, How to Brew, 4e (chapter 1, for extract) and Speed Brewing (chapters 1 & 2 for BIAB) could be a useful comparision for your writing efforts.

I'm still very new and have only done BIAB. Thank you for the Speed Brewing resource! I'm currently doing everything on my stove in one 10gal kettle for 5g batches.

 

[D.B.Moody]

@D.B.Moody Wow!
TLDR: Let's write a book.

I left working in education in 1980, I left managing people in 1998, and I retired in 2006. I am not the guy to write a book. I am not the person to tell people what to do. My brewing is out of date. That's why I'm exploring whether or not I think not doing a secondary will improve my beers. I do like the 30 minute boil and late addition method that I now use because of what I picked up on on HBT. That's not out of date, so I'm not hopeless.

 

[Brüverine]

I really admire that perspective! Who says you can't teach an "old dog" new tricks?!

 

[csantoni]

I also suspect that @D.B.Moody is focused on brewing beer that he likes. Ultimately, that's my goal too. I won't say it should be everyone's goal but I think it's the best path to being happy with what you do.

 

[hout17]

I also suspect that @D.B.Moody is focused on brewing beer that he likes. Ultimately, that's my goal too. I won't say it should be everyone's goal but I think it's the best path to being happy with what you do.

One would hope that's why we all do it otherwise what's the point?

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I'm still very new and have only done BIAB.

Simple Homebrewing and Methods of Modern Homebrewing are a couple of additional books that you could consider.

If you decide to add 'extract' to the list of ingredients you brew with, start with the Basic Brewing Radio episodes on Aug 25, 2005 and Nov 17, 2005.

@D.B.Moody isn't "out of date". Whether or not he is "out of sync" with forum wisdom depends on where the metronome is .

 

[Oleson M.D.]

Is this thread about secondary fermentation?

Just a polite heads up...there is no such animal. There is one, and only one fermentation that takes place. You can transfer the wort/beer into different vessels if that's your desire, but it is still the same fermentation that is taking place.

We leave the beer in a single fermentation vessel (SS Conical) from start to finish.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Is this thread about secondary fermentation?

Just a polite heads up...

As a polite heads up, in home brewing the technique of transferring beer to a secondary container is commonly referred to as "secondary fermentation".

The recent theme of the this topic hasn't been on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the technique. It has been on showing the results of the technique.

And some of use seem to see it as an interesting discussion.

We leave the beer in a single fermentation vessel (SS Conical) from start to finish.

You are the "head brewer" in your "home brewery".

Brew how you like, like what you brew.

 

[Oleson M.D.]

No worries, mate. The info regarding primary, secondary, etc., came from the head brewer at the Hofbrau Brewery in Addison, TX.
He is also a graduate of the Siebel Institute.

Just thought I would pass it on.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I respect his definitions in his context. In this topic, please return the favor. Thanks.

 

[VikeMan]

Is this thread about secondary fermentation?

Just a polite heads up...there is no such animal. There is one, and only one fermentation that takes place. You can transfer the wort/beer into different vessels if that's your desire, but it is still the same fermentation that is taking place.

The denizens here are aware of that. Personally, I don't use the term "secondary fermentation" unless there is one (fruit additions, bottle conditioning, etc.). If the beer is moved to a second vessel, I'll say "do a secondary" or "transfer to secondary" without adding the word "fermentation."

 

[D.B.Moody]

see below

 

[cactusgarrett]

It's just one of those idioms that experienced brewers know what is being talked about, but just don't argue semantics of the language. I personally know there is such an animal as "secondary fermentation" (ex. when fruit is added, additional sugar added at dry hopping to scrub diacetyl production, even bottle conditioning), but I know it's not worth parsing that language and derailing the discussion and I try not to bust balls about it when someone does use it inaccurately.

 

[D.B.Moody]

Is this thread about secondary fermentation?

No, it's actually about a secondary fermenter.

 

[D.B.Moody]

see above

 

[D.B.Moody]

see above. I can't seem to get my edit right today.

 

[Oleson M.D.]

Well, pardon me. Did not intend to step on anyone’s toes here…or spill anyone’s beer.
I’m in the camp that believed there were two, yes two, fermentations. A primary. Then a secondary.
Thankfully I was straightened out on the matter.

My thought was perhaps there are others who may be in the same camp.

The pro brewer pointed out to me that there is no need to transfer into another vessel. It creates risks that are not warranted. So we always ferment to completion in a single vessel. Works for us at Bel Air. Might not work for you.

I take words literally. My personal problem. Sorry!

 

[bwible]

Is this thread about secondary fermentation?

Just a polite heads up...there is no such animal. There is one, and only one fermentation that takes place. You can transfer the wort/beer into different vessels if that's your desire, but it is still the same fermentation that is taking place.

We leave the beer in a single fermentation vessel (SS Conical) from start to finish.

In a brewery, its referred to as a settling tank or a bright tank. Its the same idea

 

[D.B.Moody]

Yesterday we again compared #282 and #283.

In the bottle and in the glass they appeared alike. #282 was 5 weeks in the bottle, and # 283, which was subjected to secondary, was 4 weeks in the bottle.

They also tasted alike, almost exactly the same. I had a problem deciding which I preferred and was afraid my knowing which was which might be coloring my judgement. My fellow taster, who was not aware of which was which, stated a preference for #283, but could not describe why, perhaps because the difference seemed so small.

This brew is lightly hopped and has a good amount of crystal malt for only 4 1/2 lbs. of light malt extract. Perhaps this is why there isn't the darkening we saw in comparing batches #278 and #279 which had no crystal malt in posts #61 and #79 as in this:

 

[GrowleyMonster]

Sometimes I use a secondary, when the trub layer is really thick like right up to the spigot. My fermenter (BMB with spigot) is up on a shelf that allows easy gravity transfer. If I am transferring to a secondary, which is also a BMB, I purge with CO2 from the bottom, using a line from the regulator of a chilled CO2 tank to the spigot of the secondary. Et wa-lah. Secondary is filled with CO2. I run a line from the spigot of the primary to the spigot of the secondary. That's how the beer transfers. I run another line from the stopper hole of the secondary to the hole in the stopper of the primary. That gives the displaced CO2 in the secondary somewhere useful to go, right in on top of the beer in primary. The displaced CO2 prevents vacuum in the primary and air getting sucked in. Closed loop, just like transferring to keg. A couple of swallows of beer are wasted in the transfer line but one could always use a two hole stopper on the secondary, and fill through one hole while the other lets the CO2 move. I have tried the open end method, using a CO2 tank to push the beer out but that requires constant fiddling with the regulator. Anyway, transfer CAN be done without oxidation, if you are careful. After transfer, the secondary goes up on the shelf, and a week or two later I transfer to a CO2 purged keg, basically the same way. With the greatly reduced trub layer I get a much cleaner final transfer to keg, with greatly reduced sediment if I don't get greedy for that last pint of beer.

I have been meaning to add a second spigot to my BMB's to allow for the heavy trub layer I get from these larger beers I have been making. I have also considered a floating pickup in the BMB. Of course that is more stuff to wash and sanitize. There just ain't no free lunch. Home brewing is all a big exercise in compromise. If you want perfection, you will pay for it, one way or the other.

 

[D.B.Moody]

Another opinion in my comparisons of secondary and no secondary batches:
My older son, who is also a homebrerwer, is visiting. Wednesday he compared #282 and #283, and Thursday he compared #280 and #281. In both cases he was able to detect a difference, though he indicated he would probably not have in the case of #283 and #284 if he had not been looking for one. In both cases he correctly identified which batch had been put through a secondary. He felt the primary only batches had a yeastier taste. He had no real preference in either comparison, but, if he had to pick, he would pick the secondary in both cases.

 

[Wables]

Its a long story about how my process works that I don’t want to get into, but my typical brew day yields 2 10 gallon batches split into 4 primaries. The first 2 primaries get kegged around day 10-14 depending on the dry hops. The second two go into secondaries until the first 2 kegs are drained. I keep track of pints to keep ahead of schedule on dry hopping. The second two kegs are always clearer, smother, and IMHO better beers. I have never just left the second 10 gallons in the primary, but maybe I should give it a shot.

 

[D.B.Moody]

The second two go into secondaries until the first 2 kegs are drained. . .The second two kegs are always clearer, smother, and IMHO better beers. I have never just left the second 10 gallons in the primary, but maybe I should give it a shot.

Just curious if you do some sort of closed transfer and CO2 thing to avoid oxygen exposure when going to the secondary. Would you test of leaving it in the primary be looking to see if was mainly just extra aging?

 

[Wables]

Just curious if you do some sort of closed transfer and CO2 thing to avoid oxygen exposure when going to the secondary. Would you test of leaving it in the primary be looking to see if was mainly just extra aging?

You have to understand that I’m a walking time capsule. I quit doing any type of brewing research in 2009. I’ve still brewed 200+ gallons a year since, but using the standard, accepted practices of that era. I got back online 2 weeks ago and learned that I was making crappy beer because I use a secondary, don’t purge with co2, yadda, yadda, yadda. I’d be willing to bet most people regurgitating all of this oxygenating stuff have never experienced oxidation, and are just repeating what they have learned as if it was settled science.

The standard theory of 12 years ago was that when you transferred to the secondary, you would get some minimal contact with air, but you keep the output end of the siphon in the beer to minimize splashing. There is some dissolved co2 that gets released during the transfer that blankets the beer. If you aren’t dry hopping, you make sure that your batch is big enough to fill into the neck of the carboy. You are then left with a few cubic inches of air space that will be filled with co2 as fermentation completes.

Same concept for filling kegs, but you purge the top with a few fills and dumps of co2 prior to force carbing.

I’m not saying I’m right. In fact, I am going to buy a pressurized fermenter and see if there is anything to these new gadgets and theories, but at the end of the day I’d be willing to put my beer in front of anybody for a taste test. It will be interesting to split a 10 gallon batch and compare my tried and true methods with minimal oxygen contact methods.

 

[D.B.Moody]

You have to understand that I’m a walking time capsule. . . I use a secondary, don’t purge with co2, yadda, yadda, yadda. . .
It will be interesting to split a 10 gallon batch and compare my tried and true methods with minimal oxygen contact methods.

I'm old school and use secondaries too. That's why I've been doing the comparisons I've been reporting on in this thread starting in post #61.

 

[bwible]

You have to understand that I’m a walking time capsule. I quit doing any type of brewing research in 2009. I’ve still brewed 200+ gallons a year since, but using the standard, accepted practices of that era. I got back online 2 weeks ago and learned that I was making crappy beer because I use a secondary, don’t purge with co2, yadda, yadda, yadda. I’d be willing to bet most people regurgitating all of this oxygenating stuff have never experienced oxidation, and are just repeating what they have learned as if it was settled science.

The standard theory of 12 years ago was that when you transferred to the secondary, you would get some minimal contact with air, but you keep the output end of the siphon in the beer to minimize splashing. There is some dissolved co2 that gets released during the transfer that blankets the beer. If you aren’t dry hopping, you make sure that your batch is big enough to fill into the neck of the carboy. You are then left with a few cubic inches of air space that will be filled with co2 as fermentation completes.

Same concept for filling kegs, but you purge the top with a few fills and dumps of co2 prior to force carbing.

I’m not saying I’m right. In fact, I am going to buy a pressurized fermenter and see if there is anything to these new gadgets and theories, but at the end of the day I’d be willing to put my beer in front of anybody for a taste test. It will be interesting to split a 10 gallon batch and compare my tried and true methods with minimal oxygen contact methods.

I think the whole oxygen exposure thing really started with and because of NEIPAs. People making these beers are seeking to capture every hop nuance. Those beers are much more averse to oxygen exposure because of the process used to make them. They don’t use any boil hops and they put all the hops in at the end of the boil in one giant whirlpool addition. If I was a fan of NEIPA and brewing those (I’m not and I’m not) then I would be more concerned with O2 exposure. I’m an old school clean beer guy and I’m happy making my beers the way I’ve been doing them.

 

[D.B.Moody]

Yesterday we compared #282, left, six weeks in the bottle, and #283, right, five weeks in the bottle. #283 experienced a secondary. The beers looked the same:

Although #283 was noted as fizzier, the tasting was unsatisfactorily inconclusive, so we did another tasting today. (I know you are all impressed by the dedication this shows, but applause is not necessary.) Our decision today is that #282 is a wee bit sharper/more bitter; but it is slight, and the extra fizziness of 283 confuses things. The upshot is that if we have to choose we again have a preference for the batch that experienced the secondary.

 

[Bobby_M]

Back when I used a secondary because I thought you had to, I noticed that a lot of sediment had collected at the bottom of the secondary in very short time. I thought it had to do with possibly sucking up some of the heavier particles in the transfer and those just fall sooner. Then I was extremely careful to avoid the trub layer and left a bunch of beer behind to be sure. Still a lot of fast sedimentation in the secondary in only an hour. I speculated that it has something to do with breaking surface tension or that the mixing action helped particles to coagulate and get heavy. If either of those are the explanation, a controlled agitation of the fermenter after fermentation is done should also simulate that response. I tend to do it to get trapped surface particles to fall a bit sooner. Sometimes rafts of yeast and dry hops will get stuck up there under a few trapped CO2 bubbles. Jostling the fermenter gets it moving almost like punching down the cap on a wine ferment. Anyway, this ramble is just to say I THINK something happens to the beer when it gets transferred to a secondary and it probably aids in faster clearing. I would never do it because my beers eventually get brilliant anyway and it's not worth the effort or exposure.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

@Wables : this approach to brewing / storing may be of interest to others - so I think it's worth bringing together a couple of ideas from some recent replies.

my typical brew day yields 2 10 gallon batches split into 4 primaries. The first 2 primaries get kegged around day 10-14 depending on the dry hops. The second two go into secondaries until the first 2 kegs are drained.

Aside to readers: certainly, there are alternatives (buy more kegs, ...). My point here is to highlight an alternative that appears to work in the right set of conditions. If readers find inspiration for other places where a similar idea works, everyone wins.

The standard theory of 12 years ago was that when you transferred to the secondary, you would get some minimal contact with air, but you keep the output end of the siphon in the beer to minimize splashing. There is some dissolved co2 that gets released during the transfer that [...]. If you aren’t dry hopping, you make sure that your batch is big enough to fill into the neck of the carboy. You are then left with a few cubic inches of air space that will be filled with co2 as fermentation completes.

Many people here currently use wide necked containers (that's neither good nor bad, just an observation).

A related observation: There was a recent reply over in the The definitive NEIPA bottling experiment! topic where a bottling process that yielded good beer in the 120 to 200 day range was anecdotally reported. Filling the "dead space" in containers with C02 during the bottling process appears to have been the key.

Thank you @Wables for sharing your process, even though it seems to not fit into common, current "forum" practices and conventions.

 

[brew_mama]

This is a fascinating thread and I like all the attention to detail with regard to the taste tests. As a serious beginner, I'm going to try to leave my next brew in the primary and compare it to one I already did where I used a secondary.