Death to secondary fermentation!

[JLeuck64]

Transferring to a secondary may be considered an advanced technique but I started doing it early in my home brewing. I was attempting to achieve clear beers, which I did, but as of lately I am wondering at what cost?

Those beers I brewed during my first year were beautifully clear but the nagging problem with them was... it took forever for most batches to bottle condition (carb up). Man it was frustrating and I didn't understand why. I even increased the amount of bottling sugar I was using to help the problem. Later on I realized that was just a bandaid and not helping to fix the underlying problem.

Fast forward to year 1.5 in home brewing and I have branched out to making some IPA's. That style requires dry hopping, and conventional wisdom says it's more efficient to let the beer ferment out then add the dry hops in the primary. So that's what I did. The whole fermentation was carried out in the primary, including the dry hop. When the batch was ready for bottling I transferred directly to the bottling bucket. This process was still the same amount of time for say an average gravity beer in the 1.050's (about 3-4 weeks). The only difference was I no longer transferred the beer into a secondary for the dry hop/conditioning.

What I noticed is my beer carbs up in days now! Literally less than a week! Holy $hit this pi$$e$ me off! All of those batches that I used to transfer to a secondary... and waited months for them to carb up could have been drinkable so much sooner?! Why was this happening? Perhaps it's because I was moving the beer off of the trub?

So the morale of my story is don't waste your time moving your low/medium gravity beers into a secondary. They will taste better if ya leave em be in the primary even after 5 weeks! Oh, I make high gravity beers too... and those guys I will still move over to a secondary but hey... A Russian Imperial Stout is a different style that actually does benefit from extended conditioning. I have totally changed my mind about the need/benefit from moving low/medium gravity beers to a secondary for ever!!!

 

[ol-hazza]

Agreed for ales, i rack to secondary for lagers though. Dont make too many ofthem tnough

 

[Singletrack]

Interesting. I have bottled with and without using a secondary and have experienced no difference in carb time.

Also surprised that your conventional wisdom is to dry hop in the primary. I thought the "conventional" method was to dry hop in secondary. But I'm starting to come around to just avoiding the secondary altogether, same as you. It seems like an extra step for no reason.

 

[BrotherGrim]

As long as you make beer you like use whatever method you want. That being said, I haven't used a secondary for about 5 years. I was in a hurry once and skipped it, it worked, never looked back.

 

[olotti]

I always use my primary for dry hopping and it works just fine for me. I always figure into my calculations losing .5 gal to yeast and dry hop loss and I pretty much get 5 gal on the nose of not a little more when bottling. I always cold crash in my fridge for 3-5 days and I think that really helps compact everything so it makes racking beer to the bottling bucket so much easier to not pull any bits into it. I always have a dry hop haze but I think a good hit break and cold break have more to do with clearing beer than anything if that goes well then adding gelatin or a cold crash only helps further clear the beer.

 

[Calder]

Don't get me wrong, I see no need to secondary unless you have a reason to do so, but ....

Your argument about carbonation doesn't make any sense. A beer racked to secondary will actually have more yeast to help carbonate than one kept in primary for the same amount of time.

You know those pesky yeast cells that take forever to settle. Well, when you transfer to secondary, you mix them back up again, and they start their sloooooow drop to the cake all over again.

 

[huckbof]

and waited months for them to carb up could have been drinkable so much sooner?! Why was this happening? Perhaps it's because I was moving the beer off of the trub?

Were you cold crashing the secondary? It sounds like you were knocking out most of the yeast in secondary. That may be why adding more priming sugar wasn't helping all that much.

I don't see any difference in carb time using a secondary or not, it always takes 1 to 2 weeks and I rarely use more than 2 oz of priming sugar for 5 gals. But I rack to secondary after 3 or 4 days in primary while it is still producing a good amount of CO2 and still has good yeast in suspension, say 1 airlock bubble every 5 seconds or so. Racking early gives me a good CO2 layer in secondary, so no oxidation worries and have not experienced any oxidation over 100 batches.

I know a lot of people only use a primary these days but I still like to get the beer off the dead yeast and spent hops and all the other crap in the trub in the first week. I don't whirlpool the chilled wort and I pour a full boil kettle into the primary through a strainer, but some crap still gets into the primary. I usually end up with 1.5 quarts of trub left at the bottom of the boil kettle.

The way I brew, my experience has been that racking to secondary early on gives me the proper attenuation and therefore better control of carbonation.

 

[brisboy]

Don't get me wrong, I see no need to secondary unless you have a reason to do so, but ....

Your argument about carbonation doesn't make any sense. A beer racked to secondary will actually have more yeast to help carbonate than one kept in primary for the same amount of time.

You know those pesky yeast cells that take forever to settle. Well, when you transfer to secondary, you mix them back up again, and they start their sloooooow drop to the cake all over again.

I've had carbonation issues with ciders that were bottled straight from primary before, but I think that had to do more with rediculous ambient temperature.

As to racking to secondary picking the yeasties back up again: I've got an ale on at the moment which I thought might have stopped (no discernable airlock activity). I've racked it to secondary and have had a bubble in the airlock every 5-10 secs for 3 or 4 days now, so I think you might be right Calder.

Anyway, if just primary works for you then brew on, I say!

 

[Tegra]

Been brewing for just two years. On my third batch I asked the most respected brew shop in the area about finishing in the primary. They looked at me like I had two heads and seemed to have never heard of the concept. Said that the commercial brewers uses a secondary so it must be right.

I went ahead with what I read here and will start batch 23 tomorrow.

 

[jethro55]

Me too. Carb time has never been an issue (2 weeks) and I secondary everything. I'd suspect that the OP overlooked something related to carb. My son has has had similar issues with a few of his brews and he uses primary only process. He uses ferm tabs, whirfloc, and pbw - we have no idea what makes it happen. But eventually they did carbonate after a month.

Secondary is just considered a waste of time for some, and considered necessary by some.

IPA's don't really require dry hop. Another case of some do it this way and some do it another way.

 

[RM-MN]

They will taste better if ya leave em be in the primary even after 5 weeks! Oh, I make high gravity beers too... and those guys I will still move over to a secondary but hey... A Russian Imperial Stout is a different style that actually does benefit from extended conditioning. I have totally changed my mind about the need/benefit from moving low/medium gravity beers to a secondary for ever!!!

Try leaving your RIS in the primary for 6 to 8 weeks and then consider that the bottles are the secondary for the extended conditioning. I suspect you will find that the end result is the same or maybe even better since you eliminated one racking with it's opportunity for oxidation.

 

[beergolf]

Here is an interesting tidbit from the book "Yeast"

“The second theory, that beer clears faster after transferring, also is illogical. Unless flocculation somehow increases after transfer, the time it takes for the beer to clear should increase, not decrease. Transferring”“remixes the particles that were slowly drifting down through the beer. If anything, this slows the process of clearing the beer.”

Excerpt From: White & Jamil Zainasheff. “Yeast.” Brewers Publications, 2010. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

I rarely transfer to a seconday. It usually is something that will age for a long time, like my Brett beers and sours. I do this mostly to get them out of the buckets for aging. I have many 5 gallon carboys that I can set aside and age for a long time and not miss them.

Even those beers that have been tranferred and aged for months never have any problem carbing up.

 

[Weezy]

Deleted...it was the beer talking..

 

[JONNYROTTEN]

From what I have read homebrewers used a secondary because thats what the mega breweries do.It has then been understood that they did this from the shear weight of the 1,000's of gallons of beer chrushing/killing the yeast.Our 5 gallons is a non issue in crushing the yeast.Therefore secondarys have been for the most part eliminated.

 

[jethro55]

The theory on suspended yeast clearing seems solid for sure. I think that those who brew in glass can see it no matter what the process is.

Fluffy trub and floaters can be ornery, depending on many things. There are those situations where the beer is done and there is lots of floating debris and fluffy trub that needs time to settle. 2-3 weeks might be a fair number for this. Heck, some will never drop or settle.

On the other hand, some yeasts drop out of suspension quickly, on the order of a few days. That is quite a mismatch.

There are are tools at hand to deal with the mismatch and get a clear bottle sooner. Transferring to secondary vessel is just one of those ways. And there are variations in recipe and processes that can bring the timing closer together. And you can wait it out while brewing some more.

 

[1977Brewer]

My beer is as clear as can be. 2 weeks brewed bottled. no secondary, no fining agents, whole kettle in the fermenter. Carbed in 5 days at 70, conditioned and delicious at about 8.

 

[jethro55]

My beer is as clear as can be. 2 weeks brewed bottled. no secondary, no fining agents, whole kettle in the fermenter. Carbed in 5 days at 70, conditioned and delicious at about 8.

You just gotta be doing it all wrong.

 

[ten80]

I very much agree with the OP. I don't rack any beers any more unless there are special circumstances. Wines and mead, yes, but not beer, even imperial stouts. I find that starting fermentations cool, then ramping up by 10 C over the course of the fermentation with frequent carboy swirling leads to good floculation and clear beer. Just kegged a very clear Imperial Janet's Brown ale straight out of the primary at 10 days.

"Secondary fermentation" is a giant misnomer; a second fermentation doesn't occur unless more fermentables or a different organism is added. There is no magic inherent to putting a partially-fermented wort into a new vessel.

Drawbacks to unnecessary racking include oxidation, potential exposure to contaminating organisms, poor attenuation, and slow clearing up of off-flavors. Yep.

In most circumstances, the correct term that should be applied is "racking to a bright tank" or "sedimentation vessel," but that doesn't sound all that sexy.

 

[huckbof]

This is an abstract from an old article that popped up from google from the Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists.

Wort Trub Content and Its Effects on Fermentation and Beer Flavor. D. O. Schisler, J. J. Ruocco, and M. S. Mabee, Adolph Coors Company, Golden, CO 80401. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 40:0057, 1982.

Pilot-scale fermentations were conducted to determine the impact of various trub levels on fermentation kinetics and beer flavor. Trub content of the worts ranged from 0.00 to 2.66% (v/v). Clarified worts were produced either by filtration or by whirlpool treatment. Worts with high trub content were produced by omitting clarification treatment altogether, or by clarifying wort and then adding predetermined amounts of trub to the fermentor during fill. Results indicated that trub stimulated yeast activity, and subsequently, the rate of fermentation. In addition, elevated trub levels depressed the formation of esters and slightly increased production of fusel alcohol. Flavor analyses of the finished product demonstrated a preference for beers produced from clarified worts. The relationship between trub and fermentation kinetics appeared to be related to high lipid and zinc contents in the trub, which may have contributed important growth factors to the yeast. These findings demonstrate the importance of utilizing a wort processing technique that achieves an optimum and consistent trub level in production wort.

 

[Ivypunx]

I rarely use secondary in ales except in really string batches. But I travel a lot for work and I am gone for usually a few weeks to a month at a time and I use secondary a lot to condition the wort while I am gone and then I bottle it when I return. Secondary can be a very useful tool.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

I understand what all of y'all are saying, but it's bulk age and not secondary. primary fermentation, secondary fermentation, tertiary fermentation. anything after fermentation is complete is bulk age. now everyone line up for your weekly berry punches or I'll have to call @Qhrumphf for some steel cap-to-the-head action.

 

[jethro55]

Interesting info on the trub testing.

And the term "secondary fermentation" does get used in the wrong way a lot. Brewing terms are complicated. It is not over the top to view conditioning as the second phase, but yeah; technically wrong.

And from the Palmer reference, lag, attenuation, and conditioning are the 3 fermentation stages.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

Interesting info on the trub testing.

And the term "secondary fermentation" does get used in the wrong way a lot. Brewing terms are complicated. It is not over the top to view conditioning as the second phase, but yeah; technically wrong.

it shouldn't get under my skin the way it does. and I know I'm a hypocrite as I have misused it myself. it even bothers me when I do it, but I'm getting better.

 

[jethro55]

I very much agree with the OP. I don't rack any beers any more unless there are special circumstances. Wines and mead, yes, but not beer, even imperial stouts. I find that starting fermentations cool, then ramping up by 10 C over the course of the fermentation with frequent carboy swirling leads to good floculation and clear beer. Just kegged a very clear Imperial Janet's Brown ale straight out of the primary at 10 days.

"Secondary fermentation" is a giant misnomer; a second fermentation doesn't occur unless more fermentables or a different organism is added. There is no magic inherent to putting a partially-fermented wort into a new vessel.

Drawbacks to unnecessary racking include oxidation, potential exposure to contaminating organisms, poor attenuation, and slow clearing up of off-flavors. Yep.

In most circumstances, the correct term that should be applied is "racking to a bright tank" or "sedimentation vessel," but that doesn't sound all that sexy.

That's what I was saying. You found one of those ways and happens to does not need secondary clearing. There are lots of ways. I just don't see any one way as invalidating all of the other ways that achieve the same thing.

 

[hopbrad]

Dry hopping is the best thing you can do to an IPA.

IPA's don't really require dry hop. Another case of some do it this way and some do it another way.

 

[Singletrack]

This is an abstract from an old article that popped up from google from the Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists.

Wort Trub Content and Its Effects on Fermentation and Beer Flavor. D. O. Schisler, J. J. Ruocco, and M. S. Mabee, Adolph Coors Company, Golden, CO 80401. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 40:0057, 1982.

Pilot-scale fermentations were conducted to determine the impact of various trub levels on fermentation kinetics and beer flavor. Trub content of the worts ranged from 0.00 to 2.66% (v/v). Clarified worts were produced either by filtration or by whirlpool treatment. Worts with high trub content were produced by omitting clarification treatment altogether, or by clarifying wort and then adding predetermined amounts of trub to the fermentor during fill. Results indicated that trub stimulated yeast activity, and subsequently, the rate of fermentation. In addition, elevated trub levels depressed the formation of esters and slightly increased production of fusel alcohol. Flavor analyses of the finished product demonstrated a preference for beers produced from clarified worts. The relationship between trub and fermentation kinetics appeared to be related to high lipid and zinc contents in the trub, which may have contributed important growth factors to the yeast. These findings demonstrate the importance of utilizing a wort processing technique that achieves an optimum and consistent trub level in production wort.

This information seems headed off topic, but I lost interest in the secondary (bright tank) debate, so...

My take-away from this study is that fermenting with all the trub is so beneficial to the yeast that fermentation can proceed too fast, resulting in off flavors. To correct this, stop working so hard. Forget making a yeast starter. Forget the yeast nutrient. Maybe splash the wort around a bit for aeration, but forget the oxygen bottle. Dump in all the trub, and let 'er rip. Control temperature.

 

[jethro55]

This information seems headed off topic, but I lost interest in the secondary (bright tank) debate, so...

My take-away from this study is that fermenting with all the trub is so beneficial to the yeast that fermentation can proceed too fast, resulting in off flavors. To correct this, stop working so hard. Forget making a yeast starter. Forget the yeast nutrient. Maybe splash the wort around a bit for aeration, but forget the oxygen bottle. Dump in all the trub, and let 'er rip. Control temperature.

Right on Singletrack! "Let 'er rip"

 

[jethro55]

Dry hopping is the best thing you can do to an IPA.

No way hopbrad !! That's the best thing that you can do ! The best thing that I can do is mash hop a heavy load of my fresh homegrown centennials and add a heavy load of fresh hop tea (done ever so carefully) at bottling time.

 

[huckbof]

As long as the fermentation completes and proper attenuation is achieved then why do I care how much faster the ferment is with the trub in there. I'm not running a production line.

My takeaway from that study is a big yawn, what I really wanted to know is a quantitative study of leaving the beer on the trub for say a month or more. Will the off-flavors caused by the trub disappear over time if left on the trub, will they stay the same or will they increase for one or more reasons, like autolysis of the yeast. Does anyone know if such a study has been done (other than the one by brulosophy)?

 

[jethro55]

My takeaway was that if you are going to produce exactly the same taste, then among many things, the amount of trub must be carefully controlled.

And that something positive was confirmed wrt taste for beers made with clear wort.

 

[Singletrack]

As long as the fermentation completes and proper attenuation is achieved then why do I care how much faster the ferment is with the trub in there. I'm not running a production line.

My takeaway from that study is a big yawn, what I really wanted to know is a quantitative study of leaving the beer on the trub for say a month or more. Will the off-flavors caused by the trub disappear over time if left on the trub, will they stay the same or will they increase for one or more reasons, like autolysis of the yeast. Does anyone know if such a study has been done (other than the one by brulosophy)?

The study seems to be discussing the effects of BK (wort) trub on primary fermentation. There is no discussion of fermentation trub and its effects, which is why I mentioned that this may be off topic. Whether or not you use a secondary vessel, the effects of wort trub during fermentation will be the same.

It is possible that leaving the beer on the trub, instead of racking to a secondary, could impact the off flavors that resulted from fermentation of the wort trub, but this study is silent on that subject, as you said. (...so I'm not sure why you posted it to begin with, but I'm glad you did.)

The only off flavor mentioned in the study is fusel alcohol. (Depressed esters are another effect, but not really an off flavor.) My understating is that, once formed, fusel alcohols cannot be cleaned up. I'm guessing that means leaving the beer on the trub makes no difference. Esters are unlikely to be impacted by more time on the trub too, I think.

I don't know of other studies about the effects of leaving the beer on the fermentation trub, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting it doesn't have a significant impact whether you leave the beer in the primary for one week or four.

I have continued to use a secondary for dry hopping, but that doesn't seem necessary either.

 

[jethro55]

Yep I agree. It doesn't address 'how slow can I make a beer with all the trub and not affect flavor'. But it does say that trub affects flavor. And that more trub is a negative flavor impact in production brewing. Barely relates to the idea of secondary.

Dry hopping in secondary is a choice - not a requirement.

 

[hopbrad]

No way hopbrad !! That's the best thing that you can do ! The best thing that I can do is mash hop a heavy load of my fresh homegrown centennials and add a heavy load of fresh hop tea (done ever so carefully) at bottling time.

Touchee!

 

[RM-MN]

Results indicated that trub stimulated yeast activity, and subsequently, the rate of fermentation. In addition, elevated trub levels depressed the formation of esters and slightly increased production of fusel alcohol. Flavor analyses of the finished product demonstrated a preference for beers produced from clarified worts. The relationship between trub and fermentation kinetics appeared to be related to high lipid and zinc contents in the trub, which may have contributed important growth factors to the yeast.

We tend to think of off flavors in our beer being related to the excess production of esters which we call "banana" or "bubblegum". Fusel alcohol is usually considered separately from "off flavors" . This study says that the beer fermented on trub has less esters which should mean a cleaner flavored beer but then it says that flavor analyses of the finished beer demonstrated a preference for beers that were produced with clarified worts.

OK, which is it? Do we prefer beers with less esters or more esters or is the presence of fusel alcohols overwhelming the presence of esters? The meat of the study and the conclusions seem to be at odds.

 

[jethro55]

Fusel alcohol flavors I have perceived in barely finished beers before bottled. Not sure if it was chemistry, but it seemed that the harshness disappeared after a few days.

I think that production brewing, even for craft beer, needs to be exact when it comes to flavor. It comes down to getting so many people used to a good flavor (so much subjective) and repeating it. Being of 'good' taste and consistently the same is repeat business.

The study said that the amount of trub affects the rate of attenuation. That makes sense with our temperature control issues and experiential flavor results in homebrewing

 

[jethro55]

One could assume from the findings that a full kettle dump fermented at lower temps is the same flavor as a cleared dump fermented at higher temps. It's a stretch of info admittedly.

 

[huckbof]

The study seems to be discussing the effects of BK (wort) trub on primary fermentation. There is no discussion of fermentation trub and its effects, which is why I mentioned that this may be off topic. Whether or not you use a secondary vessel, the effects of wort trub during fermentation will be the same.

Maybe/maybe not, some of us rack off the trub to secondary just after high krausen, in cases like that using a secondary could minimize some of the effects of the trub on taste because it was on the trub for such a short period. Look at my #7 post.

"Worts with high trub content were produced by omitting clarification treatment altogether" this suggests to me that the wort trub goes into the fermentor and thus becomes fermentor trub. Since the response variable is taste it makes sense that fermentation trub was also present in all cases but not a significant factor because they did not relate it to taste, at least not what is in the abstract, the actual study may say different.

My understating is that, once formed, fusel alcohols cannot be cleaned up. I'm guessing that means leaving the beer on the trub makes no difference.

I don't think I would make that conclusion, if trub caused fusel in this study then it may be reasonable to assume that the longer the beer is in contact with the trub, the more likely you are to form more fusels. And if the fusels don't clean up then the argument that leaving the beer in primary for 4 to 5 weeks or more in order to clean up the beer is false when it comes to fusels.
Check out this link that says "it is possible for fusel alcohols to arise from oxidation or from leaving the beer sitting on the trub in the fermenter for a really long time."

http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/12/homebrew-troubleshooting-off-flavors-from-yeast-how-to-fix-phenols-solventy-flavor-diacetyl-sanitizing-tips.html

This study was from 1982, surely there are more recent/relevant studies, are there any members of the ASBC out there that can comment or point us to other information sources?

 

[MattyIce]

Here is an interesting tidbit from the book "Yeast"



I rarely transfer to a seconday. It usually is something that will age for a long time, like my Brett beers and sours. I do this mostly to get them out of the buckets for aging. I have many 5 gallon carboys that I can set aside and age for a long time and not miss them.

Even those beers that have been tranferred and aged for months never have any problem carbing up.

I learned a lot from that book!