• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

Have you changed your secondary approach

SleepySamSlim

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Location
North of Kalifornia
I always do a secondary fermentation for improved clarity and a bit of mellowing. I've also always gone 14 days --- I'm now thinking for average ales that 7 days might be enough time. Some special ales might need 2 weeks

How many of you vary your secondary times ?
 

stadelman

Master Brewer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
I don't do secondaries at all anymore.  It's an extra transfer, wastes beer, is another vector for infection, usually pulls the beer off of the yeast too early and just isn't necessary.  I suppose you could make an argument for using a secondary with fruit, possibly dry hopping (although I prefer to do that in the primary) or lagering.

Generally moving to secondary is a waste of time and beer.  Leave it in the primary longer.
 

Wastegate

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston
Everyone brews differently. I secondary usually for 2 weeks. If you use a fining agent like gelatin, you could pull it off secondary within 3-4 days. I like to bulk condition in the secondary for a couple weeks or longer depending on the beer.

Cheers
Preston
 

stadelman

Master Brewer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
What are the advantages of moving the beer to a secondary versus just leaving it in the primary for the extra time?
 

MaltLicker

Forum Moderator
Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
0
I often see a dramatic improvement in clarity after moving to secondary, and it does not take long.  I've transferred "simple" beers and the clarity was so good in just days that I bottled much sooner than expected.  It is certainly not required, but I personally worry less about infection after it's beer.  The alcohol and acidity are not nearly as bug-friendly as wort.  And big complex beers that need conditioning time are better stored on less yeast than you'd have in primary (if you were talking months and not weeks).

And I don't secondary wheats or wits b/c clarity is not important and those styles are best drunk fresh.
 

SleepySamSlim

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Location
North of Kalifornia
I'm going to try 7 days in secondary on my current batch and see how it goes. Partly I'm driven by the desire to kick out more beer and partly as we are heading into Summer here in Oregon. Meaning that maintaining 68-ish degrees will require the chilling chamber I just completed for both primary and secondary.

And even though I have two carboys the cooling chamber becomes the bottle-neck in the process.

In getting through my first year of brewing (in Oregon) I can see that Spring and Fall are perfect temps for brewing ... 60s - 70s. During Winter I'll use my temp controller and heat belt on Primary and can secondary 2 carboys at once. But Summer will be a bit trickier ... ohhh to have a basement.

With modern sanitizers like StarSan I don't worry too much about infections ... I still scrub and wash like hell, but feel I can create a fairly sanitary environment.

Brew On
 

stadelman

Master Brewer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
I still don't buy it.  I think the positive effects of using a secondary are mostly psychological.  I think it's also a case of... I read this somewhere once and it's what I do, so I'm going to keep doing it.

Let's take these one by one-
1.  Bulk conditioning/Mellowing.  You can bulk condition in the primary.  Autolysis (at least in the first month) has been proven a myth.
2.  Clarity.  Gravity takes affect both in the secondary vessel and in the primary vessel.  Leaving the beer in primary longer will produce similar results.
3.  I started numbering these thinking I would go through the previous posts and come up with a list of several benefits to using a primary, guess there were just two.

Downsides as I see them-
1.  More work
2.  Another place to pick up contamination
3.  You're picking up more oxygen and increasing or hastening oxidation
4.  Loss of beer!
5.  A lot of times this is done too soon, you're pulling your beer off of the yeast before it's done working

Also Jamil Z and many top homebrewers practice and advocate a no secondary process for most beers.  Obviously there are times that a secondary is useful or required, but it's my belief that those times are few and far between. 

Break free from the shackles of secondaries!
 

Wildrover

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
480
Reaction score
0
A lot of this discussion (and with some an argument) I think needs to be put in context.  I know those who do not secondary at all and it works fine for them and its true that many say it is not necessary as I believe it is not.  However, everyone brews differently and has a different process that works for them.  To suggest that a secondary isn't good for anyone simply because it isn't good for your process is a little short sighted in my opinion. 

I've taken beer straight from the primary to the keg and from the primary to the secondary and I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the secondary.  This is because in my home brewery with my equipment the secondary makes a great intermediate step for the beer while it waits for an empty keg and frees up the primary for another batch.  The secondary also helps with clarity as well as getting that gravity down that one extra point or so.

But the main reason I secondary is because I primary in plastic buckets, not glass carboys.  I only have five gallon carboys but seven gallon primary buckets.  The buckets are also easier to clean and versatile as I use them as measuring devices during my brew day.  I like the ease in use and cleaning and the extra space for when I underestimate the amount of wort I've produced as well as the fact I shoot for six gallon batches to compensate for the beer loss due to trub and spent yeast.  I couldn't make a five gallon batch if I primaried in a five gallon carboy.  I also don't worry about breaking them as they get moved around a bit during brew day and are subject to some quick temp changes, something that would crack a glass carboy (I'm speaking from experience). 

However, the bucket is permeable so when the wort becomes beer and the yeast settles to the bottom the plastic stands a much greater chance of letting oxygen get to the beer than the glass carboy.  The perfect solution is to rack the beer to the secondary.  As far as beer loss goes, if there is any left in the primary after I move the beer over I will bottle what's on the bottom of the primary.  I don't like to lose beer so bottling whatever is left on the bottom of the primary after I have my five gallons in the secondary is a great way to store the beer for posterity. I only have three taps so there are only three beers on tap at any one time but I have all kinds of bottled homebrew because I've started this practice. 

I don't worry about contamination either.  I keep everything really clean and do my best to give everything in the area a good cleaning before I move anything from something to something else.  Like Preston says, once its beer it can do a pretty good job of taking care of itself. 

I've gotten to the point of where I really enjoy the day where I move the beer from the primary to the secondary (as well as bottle a few beers) because it gives me a chance to try the new beer and give me an idea of how well (or bad) things are going to be.  So I don't see it as "more work" its "more fun" to me.  This is my hobby after all, if I didn't enjoy the process I'd go to the store and buy beer.

I'd also be willing to bet my next pay check that when I move the beer from the glass carboy to the keg, the carboy is about a hundred times easier to clean than if I had used it to primary in. 

Finally, as alluded to earlier, often times I'll make a beer and it will become ready but there won't be an empty keg or I'll have a beer ahead of it in the queue.  Often times beers are going to be asked to sit for 5-8 weeks and every once in a while even longer before they get to the keg.  I'd much rather have that beer off of that initial yeast if its going to sit for that long.  Not to mention how long I'd have to wait to brew another batch if I tied up my primary buckets that long.

So, in my home brewery the pro/con list favors the secondary despite the fact it might not have much effect on the beer, the secondary has a huge effect on my process. 

$.02   
 

stadelman

Master Brewer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
"Obviously there are times that a secondary is useful or required, but it's my belief that those times are few and far between"

is a far cry from...

"To suggest that a secondary isn't good for anyone"

I've distilled a couple of "pro primary" points from your post-

1.  To combat the oxygen permeability of a plastic bucket.  I have no real metrics on this, but I'm wondering if the oxygen the beer picks up through the plastic is more or less than the oxygen the beer is going to pick up in the transfer to secondary.  Even if you flush the vessel with co2, there is going to be some pickup.  There's no magic "blanket of CO2" that exists.  CO2 is going to mix with O2.  Inf fact, just the oxygen in the transfer tubing is probably more than the oxygen that permeates the plastic bucket.  However, I will concede that a plastic bucket doesn't seem ideal for a month or more of storage. 

2.  Storage.  I can't argue with this.  If you've purchased 5 gallon glass carboys as storage vessels, that's what you have to use.  I don't recommend using something you don't have for storage.

The question I'm answering is NOT "What should Wildrover be doing and what kind of equipment does he or doesn't he have?"  I'm answering the question "Have you changed your secondary approach?"  My answer to that question is... "Yep... I usually don't do a secondary because (generally speaking) it's not necessary and doesn't really help."
 
D

dhaenerbrewer

I personally have mixed feelings on secondary. The benefits of getting the beer off yeast before autolysis occurs are great, but like stated before it takes awhile for autolysis to occur. Even longer if the beer is cold. I generally just stick the whole carboy in the fridge when I'm ready to cold crash it, then rack it off into kegs about 4-5 days later. Never had a problem. I have to agree with the point about oxygen pickup. It is very valid. Although, if you have a conical fermenter and all you have to do is rack the trub and yeast off the bottom, by all means do it. That is by far the best setup. There is a good reason that professional fermenters are called Unitanks ( primary and secondary all in one ).

Darin
 

SleepySamSlim

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Location
North of Kalifornia
Everyone needs to brew in a way that makes sense to them. I secondary based on the physical evidence that is presented to me every time I bottle or keg ... there is another 3/8" of trub at the bottom of the carboy. That means less suspended solids in the final product. I also know that time mellows the ale.

And as was voiced earlier - once its in the secondary it can stay there awhile should something come up.

Brew On
 

Wildrover

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
480
Reaction score
0
stadelman said:
"Obviously there are times that a secondary is useful or required, but it's my belief that those times are few and far between"

is a far cry from...

"To suggest that a secondary isn't good for anyone"

I completely agree with this statement. You are right, that one statement you made, to me, is a far cry from suggesting that a secondary isn't good for anyone.

However, other statements attributed to you like:

"Break free from the shackles of secondaries!" 

or

“I still don't buy it.  I think the positive effects of using a secondary are mostly psychological.  I think it's also a case of... I read this somewhere once and it's what I do, so I'm going to keep doing it."

followed by a point by point refutation of a previous posters reasoning for conducting a secondary, to me, isn't a far cry from suggesting that a secondary isn't good for anyone and seems to take aim at other people's processes rather than just commenting on your own. 

My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make and misread your comments.
 

MaltLicker

Forum Moderator
Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
0
stadelman said:
Break free from the shackles of secondaries!

For me, it is more a question of trying things I believe will improve the current batch, rather than sticking with a set process.  I see many posts online that appear to be shackled by assumptions and personal preferences rather than a mindset toward improving the brew at hand.  Each brewer and process are unique in myriad ways, so it's impractical to say any single path is "the best."  Better to say this works for me and this is why. 

stadelman said:
I still don't buy it.  I think the positive effects of using a secondary are mostly psychological.  I think it's also a case of... I read this somewhere once and it's what I do, so I'm going to keep doing it.

Also Jamil Z and many top homebrewers practice and advocate a no secondary process for most beers.  Obviously there are times that a secondary is useful or required, but it's my belief that those times are few and far between. 

So, you read someplace (presumably JZ) that secondary is not needed, you agree and don't do it yourself, and you're going to keep doing it that way?  Perhaps the positive effects of avoiding secondary are also psychological?  ;)  Meaning every brewer does what they think is right and makes them comfortable.
 

tommiwommi

Master Brewer
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Location
West virginia
If I'm working with a something that isn't going to take more than 2 weeks or dry hopping  (or you can dry hop in your primary)etc.  I skip the secondary on occasion (especially with wheats or darker suds), where clarity isn't much of a concern to that style.
  When I do pale or red ales I rack to a secondary. And there is a difference for sure. But even if you don't mind alittle extra sediment in your bottles, you can just stick to the primary method, it all settles out in the end.

There is no perfect way to create a great beer, That's why its so fun and that's why there is a million people on here trading info, tricks and ideas all the time.

 

econolinevan

Master Brewer
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
question on wildrovers statement on bottling leftover beer in primary after getting your five gallons into secondary.  I usually have beer left over after transferring to secondary.  Bottling the left over beer is something I've never thought about.  Is there a good rule of thumb for how much dme or corn sugar is needed for however many fl.oz of beer @ what ever specific gravity?  I just hate pouring out such tasty liquid I've spent time to make.  AS far as the origional question.......I've never not use the secondary approach.  I'm a newer homebrewer (150gallons,5gallons @ a time) and going with secondary is the way I learned and I've never made a batch I wasn't proud of and I have a box full of 36" waist Levis I can't get into to prove it.  Now with what I've read today on this subject, I have something new to try, a beer bottled straight from the primary. Man, what a hobby!!!
 

Wildrover

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
480
Reaction score
0
Sure thing, the right way to do this is to take what beer you have left over in the primary and siphon it into some sort of bottling bucket but given the small amount of beer you have left you could probably use a nice sized pot or something.  The important thing is to figure out how much beer you actually have so you'll know how many bottles to use and how much priming sugar you need.  If you siphon off into the bottling bucket and its marked with gallon, half gallon marks and you feel good about estimating the volume based on those marks than great.  Same if you use a gallon container.  You probably won't end up with anything near a gallon, at least I don't but if you feel good guesstimating with your eyes based on your known volume (e.g. the gallon container) than run with it.  You could also siphon the left over beer into your bottles before putting the beer into the priming container.  This way you'll know exactly how many bottles and how much sugar you'll need. 

After you have your volume of beer you need to figure out how much priming sugar you need.  You'll probably do best to scale down from 3/4 of a cup of priming sugar per five gallon batch based on how much beer you have.  You could also scale up (probably a little easier) from 1/2-1 teaspoon of priming sugar per bottle.  You should boil the sugar in as little water as possible to make sure there is no contamination and that the sugar is sanitized.  After you boil the sugar you can move it to the left over beer and then bottle as you would normally. 

Now, having said all that, you can do it my way (many many many people will cringe using my way however so read with caution).  I usually just add something just over 1/2 teaspoon directly to my clean and sanitized bottle.  With some experimentation I've found the 1 teaspoon number to over carbonate a bit and the 1/2 teaspoon to be just under what I'm looking for (of course make adjustments depending on the beer your are bottling, maybe a little more for wheat or lighter beers and and a little less for heavier, fuller English beers, experiment a little to figure out what amount works best for you).

I like this way because there isn't as much guess work.  I can bottle until I run out of beer.  Having said that, I'm not really taking into account the potential for contaminated priming sugar and carbonation is going to be inconsistent between and among bottles and batches.  Having said that, I've never had a problem with contamination and since all I'm usually bottling is somewhere between 2-6 bottles of left over beer that used to go down the drain, the fact I've found a viable use for it makes me happy enough to trump and concerns I may have had about the consistency regarding the level of carbonation.  It works for me!  To put an experimental spin on it, it gives you the freedom to mess with different levels of carbonation to figure out what you like best with each kind of beer.  Much better to put varying amounts of sugar in each bottle to see what they give you than to try and mess with a five gallon keg.  Just be careful to not prime too much, we don't want any bottle bombs!!  I would say, with my experience, there is never a reason to go above 1 teaspoon per bottle no matter what kind of beer and how much you want it carbonated. 

On a final note, this method of bottling my left over beer developed because the volumes of my primary and secondary are different.  If they were the same I wouldn't have the extra beer and thus, wouldn't bottle anything.  But since I formulate my recipes for six gallons (to account for trub and spent yeast loss) and my kegs and secondaries are only five gallons it means I usually have some left over, depending on original yeast count, the type of yeast, its flocculation, attenuation and my starting wort volume (usually between 2-6 bottles). 

Since I'm taking the beer from the primary I do not expect it to be as clear as if I had taken it from the secondary.  But again, I can't understate that this is the beer that was once going down the drain.  The fact that I've found a way to keep it is worth the extra haze and sediment at the bottom of the bottle. 
 

econolinevan

Master Brewer
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Sounds good.  I don't worry so much about contamination when bottling, except my bottles, caps and equipment.  I feel the alcohol in the beer should take care of any germs which may be present in the process at this stage.  I bottle all my beer and I have used hot tapwater to disolve and mix my dme and c.sugar into the bottling bucket and I've never had a beer I've had to label as a biohazard.
 
D

DrinksWellWithOthers

I've changed my secondary approach several times since I've started brewing.

When I first started I did a 1 week primary and 1 week secondary per instructions of my brewing kits.

Then I switched to a 1 week primary and 2 week secondary for better clarity and then I switched that to a 2 week primary and 1 week secondary so the beer would spend more time on the yeast to ensure complete fermentation and let the yeast clean up after itself.

Now I just use a 3 week primary and only secondary if I'm dry hopping or aging a high alcohol beer like a barleywine or RIS. 
 

MaltLicker

Forum Moderator
Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
0
econolinevan said:
...Bottling the left over beer is something I've never thought about.  Is there a good rule of thumb for how much dme or corn sugar is needed for however many fl.oz of beer @ what ever specific gravity? 

I think the general rule of thumb is 1 tsp per 12 oz, but I'm sure you could fine tune that in BSmith
 

econolinevan

Master Brewer
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
I think the general rule of thumb is 1 tsp per 12 oz, but I'm sure you could fine tune that in BSmith
[/quote]

I looked at BSmith carbonation tool and unless I'm missing something, there is no conversion from weight in ounces to teaspoons.  I have no way to measure or weigh out .09 oz of corn sugar or .13 oz of dme.  So, I think with your rule of thumb is where I would start and adjust if necessary.  As always, thanks for sharing your wisdom.
 
Top