• 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

Now I have to try bottling that little extra bit sometime (something new to try again  ;) )
Generally I don't have too much left over, So I've always used the extra with my hydrometer readings and maybe have a good taste to see where the suds are headed before carbonation happens, just to kinda enjoy the difference from point A to point B, I always have enjoyed the rewards of taking a taste when its flat and then seeing how cool it is a few weeks later when its finished!
I'll definately have to try to throw some of that extra into a bottle or two sometime wildrover, I never even thought about that
 
You're point is well taken.

My bigger issue is the fact that we as a community generally latch on to unproven and sometimes questionable facts and processes.  Someone writes something in a book or on a web page and it becomes a hard coded fact.  For instance, it's my understanding the John Palmer has drastically changed his advice on the use of secondaries from v. 1 of "How to Brew" to the current version.  We all bought the first revision, we read it and we memorized it as fact, but with more experience and information, he's actually changed his view.  Did we all get that update?

Though this thread has grown, I still haven't gotten any good reasons to go back to using secondaries for most beers.  I have gotten a lot of "it works for me."  Bloodletting "worked" for a lot of people too. 


MaltLicker said:
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.
 
stadelman said:
My bigger issue is the fact that we as a community generally latch on to unproven and sometimes questionable facts and processes.  Someone writes something in a book or on a web page and it becomes a hard coded fact. 

Amen to that.  And often we read half of the paragraph and neglect the other factors, etc.  I find it impossible to know the other 20 things the brewer is doing that might be a bigger cause of his current problem, so I focus on what he wrote in his question.  For ex, I bottle exclusively, so I suspect secondary/clarity helps me much more than someone who kegs, since the beer is still in volume and yeast that settles in the keg can be blown out.  And I judge and compete, and so know that appearance in the glass does affect judges' perception as to overall quality.  So there's geeks like me at one end, and people that brew 4-6 times a year on the other, and every possible variation in between. 
 
econolinevan said:
MaltLicker said:
I think the general rule of thumb is 1 tsp per 12 oz, but I'm sure you could fine tune that in BSmith

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.

Sorry...I believe I was thinking about 'fine-tuning' the volumes of CO2 for your beer style, but that was a poor answer.

Curious, I weighed some corn sugar and checked against BSmith and it's actually very accurate.

My corn sugar was 5.5 oz for a settled, level cup.  On the gram scale, one tsp was 0.11 oz, and as a check, one tbs was 0.33 (3 tsp = 1 tbs). 

For a 5 gal batch size, BS calculates 4.93 oz CS to get 2.7 volumes, which is typical for many brews.  So that is roughly 1 oz CS per gallon, or 128 oz of beer, or 10.6 12 oz bottles.  Changing the batch size to 0.11 (128oz/12oz=10.66, rounded up) led BS to calculate 0.11 oz of CS, or one tsp per bottle (to get 2.7 volumes CO2). 

So the "rule of thumb" of one cup corn sugar per five gallon batch actually pans out for a typical level of 2.7 volumes CO2.

So, if you set BSmith batch size to 0.11, and then pick the volumes of CO2 you want, you could bottle prime with 1 tsp Corn Sugar, plus/minus as needed to hit any style carbonation from mild to hefe.  Be mindful of bottle bombs though: measure carefully, make sure the beer hit its terminal FG, etc. 

I've done this a few times, and when these early "sample" bottles tasted good, I figured the rest in secondary was ready to bottle. 
 
stadelman said:
For instance, it's my understanding the John Palmer has drastically changed his advice on the use of secondaries from v. 1 of "How to Brew" to the current version.  We all bought the first revision, we read it and we memorized it as fact, but with more experience and information, he's actually changed his view.  Did we all get that update?

Though this thread has grown, I still haven't gotten any good reasons to go back to using secondaries for most beers.  I have gotten a lot of "it works for me."  Bloodletting "worked" for a lot of people too. 

Thats a good observation -- I think I have Palmers latest (3rd edition) and read over the section(s) on secondary fermentation prior to posting. I used the term section(s) because he touches on in several areas and I felt he was waffling a bit from "hardly needed" to "it helps in general" ...  So thats why I posted in the first place to get some feedback, however I really totally forgot how this can be a hot-button issue (as I've seen on other brewing boards). That was not my intent to push buttons - but I was really questioning what I had heard and read "secondary for 2 weeks blah blah". 

We all brew for our own reasons when all is said and done. I do think its beneficial to review processes and ideas from time to time so that you evolve as a brewer. Lots of good comments and food for thought ... and yes ... I may even go from primary to bottle on a future batch :eek:
 
I would really like to see some sort of experiment on this.

Basic Brewing Radio and BYO recently did a collaborative experiment on the effects of leaving beer on the yeast for an extended period of time.  Similar, but not quite the same thing we're talking about here.

It would be easy enough to brew a batch a beer siphon half of it off to a secondary container and let both the primary and secondary vessels sit until bottling.  A little blind taste test action and we'd have some results.  Having several brewers do this with their varied techniques and equipment and brewing various styles would make the results more valid.


SleepySamSlim said:
stadelman said:
For instance, it's my understanding the John Palmer has drastically changed his advice on the use of secondaries from v. 1 of "How to Brew" to the current version.  We all bought the first revision, we read it and we memorized it as fact, but with more experience and information, he's actually changed his view.  Did we all get that update?

Though this thread has grown, I still haven't gotten any good reasons to go back to using secondaries for most beers.  I have gotten a lot of "it works for me."  Bloodletting "worked" for a lot of people too. 

Thats a good observation -- I think I have Palmers latest (3rd edition) and read over the section(s) on secondary fermentation prior to posting. I used the term section(s) because he touches on in several areas and I felt he was waffling a bit from "hardly needed" to "it helps in general" ...   So thats why I posted in the first place to get some feedback, however I really totally forgot how this can be a hot-button issue (as I've seen on other brewing boards). That was not my intent to push buttons - but I was really questioning what I had heard and read "secondary for 2 weeks blah blah". 

We all brew for our own reasons when all is said and done. I do think its beneficial to review processes and ideas from time to time so that you evolve as a brewer. Lots of good comments and food for thought ... and yes ... I may even go from primary to bottle on a future batch :eek:
 
stadelman said:
You're point is well taken.

My bigger issue is the fact that we as a community generally latch on to unproven and sometimes questionable facts and processes.  Someone writes something in a book or on a web page and it becomes a hard coded fact.  For instance, it's my understanding the John Palmer has drastically changed his advice on the use of secondaries from v. 1 of "How to Brew" to the current version.  We all bought the first revision, we read it and we memorized it as fact, but with more experience and information, he's actually changed his view.  Did we all get that update?

Though this thread has grown, I still haven't gotten any good reasons to go back to using secondaries for most beers.  I have gotten a lot of "it works for me."  Bloodletting "worked" for a lot of people too. 


I think you're missing the point.  No one on here is trying to convince you to go back to using a secondary.  All we have done is present the reasons why we do it when we do.  In fact, if you go back and re-read this thread you are the only one on here trying to convince anyone of anything.  A number of people who claim to secondary also concede that it isn't necessary but then explain their reasons for doing it and why it works for them. 

I'm a little confused by what appears to be an incessant need to convince all of us who use a secondary that we should stop and its a waste of time?  We get it, you don't like to use a secondary and its not generally apart of your process.  Great, if you are happy with the beer you are making then run with it.  If someone is making beer that they like and are proud of and their process has a hundred extra steps that aren't needed, so long as they are enjoying the hobby and the beer they are making, I'm not gonna tell them they're doing it wrong.  I don't think this hobby works like that.  If they are making good beer that they like, they are doing it right.  If they are making bad beer that they don't enjoy then they are doing it wrong.  Everything else is a matter of what works best for you in my opinion. 
 
I'm not sure why you're trying to make this into an argument.  This is the second post you've made in an attempt to try and make this an argument.  I ignored the first post.

In the last post that I made on this topic I indicated that I'd really like to see some experimentation on this subject.  Yep, I'm sending the message loud and clear- I'm dead set on my view and I'm incessantly trying to convince everyone.  I don't know about you, but I'll concede I have a bunch to learn.  "This-is-how-I-do-it-and-I-feel-good-about-it-and-I-have-no-other-reason-for-doing-it-but-it-works-and-don't-judge-me" posts aren't conducive to learning, for me.  Do you like how I put that "for me" in there?  That was super inclusive, because maybe you like those types of posts and I didn't want to be judgemental.  

Apparently you're not up to the task of a back and forth discussion on this topic.  You're instead dead set on taking it off topic and making it personal.  


Do whatever you want.  I sincerely hope you enjoy your hundred extra steps, I'm sure you're beer is delicious.


Wildrover said:
stadelman said:
You're point is well taken.

My bigger issue is the fact that we as a community generally latch on to unproven and sometimes questionable facts and processes.  Someone writes something in a book or on a web page and it becomes a hard coded fact.  For instance, it's my understanding the John Palmer has drastically changed his advice on the use of secondaries from v. 1 of "How to Brew" to the current version.  We all bought the first revision, we read it and we memorized it as fact, but with more experience and information, he's actually changed his view.  Did we all get that update?

Though this thread has grown, I still haven't gotten any good reasons to go back to using secondaries for most beers. I have gotten a lot of "it works for me."  Bloodletting "worked" for a lot of people too.  


I think you're missing the point.  No one on here is trying to convince you to go back to using a secondary.  All we have done is present the reasons why we do it when we do.  In fact, if you go back and re-read this thread you are the only one on here trying to convince anyone of anything.  A number of people who claim to secondary also concede that it isn't necessary but then explain their reasons for doing it and why it works for them.  

I'm a little confused by what appears to be an incessant need to convince all of us who use a secondary that we should stop and its a waste of time?  We get it, you don't like to use a secondary and its not generally apart of your process.  Great, if you are happy with the beer you are making then run with it.  If someone is making beer that they like and are proud of and their process has a hundred extra steps that aren't needed, so long as they are enjoying the hobby and the beer they are making, I'm not gonna tell them they're doing it wrong.  I don't think this hobby works like that.  If they are making good beer that they like, they are doing it right.  If they are making bad beer that they don't enjoy then they are doing it wrong.  Everything else is a matter of what works best for you in my opinion.  
 
I never seen where Wildrover is creating a an argument about whether it's the right way to use a secondary or not. I think after you make a million batches of beer at home it's a matter of preference really.
I believe both approaches are great methods, After that, It's up to the person making the beer.
Say, if you were making a barley wine, Would you let it set in a primary to condition for 8 months? It's not gonna work
My thoughts (and with how I was taught) are that if it's gonna take longer than 21 days to complete, it goes to a secondary because of the yeasts dying off to prevent off flavors (my grandfather brewed his own for 50 years, A sencondary was only used if needed)
I agree with both approaches, but why should there be any argument at all, I homebrew because it is one of the most laid back, rewarding, fun hobbies ever.
Exchanging ideas is fun, But I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks if you beat him long enough to retrain him.
I haven't seen yet as to why using a primary only is the know all be all way to do things. Show me scientific facts as to why only that method is the only way to go.  I use a seconday on a 50/50 basis (when needed) more often than not.
  I'd like to see some informative liturature that changes how I can approach the way I make the suds that I enjoy daily (that I'm happy with, and everyone else I know thinks is wonderful as well) 


Tomato...Tomoto,  They all taste good in a crock pot tommorrow morning, Who gives a Sh*t!
 
""Apparently you're not up to the task of a back and forth discussion on this topic.  You're instead dead set on taking it off topic and making it personal. 

Do whatever you want.  I sincerely hope you enjoy your hundred extra steps, I'm sure you're beer is delicious.""


Don't make me pull this thread over ... because dammit I'll send MaltLicker back there to straighten things out ! 
 
I'm the one turning this into an argument and personal?  Oh brother  ::)

Well for what its worth, yes actually my beer is delicious as evidenced by the compliments I get and the fact they have done well in competition.  But the biggest indicator is that I enjoy the beer I make.  I also enjoy all the steps in the process however many there may be.  I also hope you enjoy the beer you make however few steps you employ. 

If your process works for you then great, run with it.  My process works for me and until I have a good reason to change it I'll run what I do. 
 
Sheesh
I go on vacation and miss a nice discussion like this. Guess Ill quit going on vacation!  8)

Disclaimer: The opinions and ideas expressed in this posting are my own, If you subscribe to them, so be it, If not :  :p

;D

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.
No There are very clear reasons to go to a secondary which are not psychological and there are clear reasons not to.
1. The addition of misc spices, fruits, and hops that you don't want the yeast to accost.
2. Big beers that need bulk conditioning. My personal rule of thumb is anything bigger than 1.060 should go to secondary for bulk conditioning.
3. Autolysis, It is not a myth, you may want to do more reading. Or speak to  professional brewers like dhaenerbrewer, AndrewQld, bonjour and hear their thoughts.
4. Adding fining agents like Gelatin
When not to go to secondary.
1. Small/Normal/Ordinary beers (IMO: under 1.050) after a sufficient amount of time has lapsed after primary fermentation has completed to clear the beer. Your call
2. Cloudy beers like wheat beers often do not need a secondary.
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.
No you can not bulk condition in in the primary. Bulk conditioning requires several months and I personally have bulk conditioned for over a year. Lagers take a minimum of 3 months and I usually do a tirtiary for that!
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.
Not sure which one you are talking about here Clarity or Gravity so I will address them both.
Clarity: Yes after a sufficient amount of time the beer will clear. However if you leave the beer on the primary yeast cake there will be more live yeast cells still in suspension because the beer is sitting on more live yeast cells. If you feel this is untrue, think about bottle conditioning your beer. You don't see the yeast, but there is some in there!
Gravity: the only thing I have to say about this, is your beer should be finished before you transfer it to secondary. If not then you are transferring to early. Trust your Hydrometer. It really works!
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
1. Your hobby not mine. IMO: Your making beer how bad can it be!
2. Cleanliness is godliness, Yes! However, The PH and the alcohol content at this stage in your beer's life are not very conducive to bacteria growth.
3. O Come on! your kidding right? It takes ALOT to oxidate a batch. I have not succeed yet to do it. I once kegged a batch and forgot to purge before I started shaking the keg for carbonation. There was a good 6" of air on top of that batch and I still did not notice any off flavors.
4. Compensate like most of us do. Add an additional 1/2G and you wont have anything to worry about.
5. Trust the Hydrometer. 2 readings over 3 days. If no change, Transfer.
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.
I don't claim to know more than or less than anyone, I have presented clear facts as I believe them to be true. Take it how you like, or not at all.

The fact is this: There are no Hard Fast Rules. All you can do is read what others do and derive your own processes from that. It is your hobby do as you like.
Break free from the shackles of secondaries!
Ya right!

Cheers
Preston
 
Good post Wildrover,
Lately I have not been using a secondary.  I had a string of infections, so I've been going overkill trying to minimize new ones.  Without a doubt infections can occur while siphoning, either from contaminated equipment or air containing bacteria laden dust.
It all depends on what I'm making and the audience.  If the S.G. is under 1.040 and I don't plan to share it with anyone who I want to impress, I'll go two to four weeks in the primary (plastic bucket) then into the keg.
If I'm making anything more potent I tend to rack it into another bucket, or a glass if I think it will need to sit around for a while.
The only problem I run into when I don't use a secondary for clarification is excessive wind I attribute to yeasties eating sugars in my belly.
 
Maine Homebrewer said:
The only problem I run into when I don't use a secondary for clarification is excessive wind I attribute to yeasties eating sugars in my belly.

I will put that one down as a positive effect for secondary. Excessive Wind! SWMBO calls it differently and can hear it across the house over all the other noise/ruckus going on in the house. Bionic hearing I tell you! Seriously!

Cheers
Preston
 
No There are very clear reasons to go to a secondary which are not psychological and there are clear reasons not to.
Agreed there are some reasons to go to secondary.

Autolysis, It is not a myth, you may want to do more reading. Or speak to  professional brewers like dhaenerbrewer, AndrewQld, bonjour and hear their thoughts.
What I said was autolysis shouldn't be an issue in the first month.  I didn't deny the existence of autolysis.  Even if autolysis is a big issue, which I doubt, moving it to secondary won't help significantly, because- 1.  There is yeast in supension and 2.  There is going to be a thin layer of yeast on the bottom of the secondary.  Whether it's sitting on 1/16th of an inch or two miles, it's going to be roughly the same amount of surface area that is in contact with the beer.

No you can not bulk condition in in the primary. Bulk conditioning requires several months and I personally have bulk conditioned for over a year. Lagers take a minimum of 3 months and I usually do a tirtiary for that!
Are you seriously saying that the beer doesn't bulk condition while it's in the primary?  Or, is that a joke?  As long as the beer is being stored in bulk, it's conditioning in bulk.  Unless you've got the ability to stop time, the beer is going to condition.  Again, I wouldn't tell you to leave a lager on the yeast cake for 3 months, there are clearly reasons to use a secondary fermenter.  Also, primary fermentation and secondary fermentation processes are occurring in tandem.  The beer doesn't say hey, I'm in the secondary now, I'm going to start secondary fermentation.  On a side note, during the Basic Brewing/BYO collaboration experiment, one tester left their beer in the primary for months with no perceived off taste.

Gravity: the only thing I have to say about this, is your beer should be finished before you transfer it to secondary. If not then you are transferring to early. Trust your Hydrometer. It really works!
I'm talking about the kind of gravity that keeps you from floating away into space.  Hopefully that's still working where you're at.

1. Your hobby not mine. IMO: Your making beer how bad can it be!
I'll tell myself that the next time I'm scrubbing out my brew kettle.  Hey, maybe I'll dirty it up again for no reason or cause a boil over so I can have more fun- how bad can it be??

3. O Come on! your kidding right? It takes ALOT to oxidate a batch. I have not succeed yet to do it. I once kegged a batch and forgot to purge before I started shaking the keg for carbonation. There was a good 6" of air on top of that batch and I still did not notice any off flavors.
Sweet!  I can disregard everything I've read or heard about oxidation because this one time UselessBrewing shook up a keg with oxygen in it and he said it tasted good.  By the way, when I made the list of downsides of using a secondary, I didn't preface each one with "This would be the absolute worst thing in the world."

4. Compensate like most of us do. Add an additional 1/2G and you wont have anything to worry about.
Here's a news bulletin... if you make more beer and waste some of it, you're still wasting some of it.  Again, I didn't say the world is going to end.

The fact is this: There are no Hard Fast Rules. All you can do is read what others do and derive your own processes from that. It is your hobby do as you like.
Thanks for the permission to do as I like.  Sweet
 
I like doing all the steps I do while making my own suds, They taste great and I enjoy doing it,
  This thread is like arguing about how we put our socks on, Everyone talked about how they like to pull them on (and why), And I guess we comfortably walk around all day with no problems. Now them flip flops are wierd ::)
 
Well actually .... I wear socks during primary fermentation and flip-flops during secondary. Is that going to be a problem ?

You should all be happy I don't do a tertiary ....
 
Stadelman
Snide Comments are not necessary! We are all friends here. We are here to help each other learn this great software, and make better beer of course! If you want me to respond to you, don't try to slam me because that is not productive. I did not slam you, I merely attempted to answer your questions. Ask a question, like What do you mean by that, or whats your take on that. It's about perspective, Yours is different than mine. I went back through some of your other posts in an attempt to get a feel for what kind of brewer you are and you obviously have a grasp on brewing. So I would hope to see more posts from you. Remember, none of this is a personal attack on you or your brewing methods and methodology.

Cheers
Preston
 
Back
Top