Fermenting question

[Deon Botha]

So I have been brewing a Mangrove Jack Australian Golden Lager which is a liquid extract kit. The bubbling through the air lock in primary fermentation stopped after about 4 days. After two weeks in primary fermentation and no more bubbling, I transferred the brew into my secondary fermenter. Since the transfer into secondary, there has been new activity in the brew. Gas has started to escape through the airlock again. Not much, but there is activity. So it has been 19 days so far. So I was just wondering if it unusaul for the fermenting to go for so long or not? Thank you.

 

[Abhishek Dewan]

Not unusual. I’ve had it for up to 3 weeks. Gravity readings can help you know better. What temperature you’re fermenting at?

 

[Deon Botha]

Not unusual. I’ve had it for up to 3 weeks. Gravity readings can help you know better. What temperature you’re fermenting at?

22 degrees

 

[SEndorf]

It's common for bubbling activity to resume after transfer to secondary. It's just dissolved carbon dioxide coming out of solution due to the agitation. As mentioned, gravity readings with a hydrometer is the only way to determine when fermentation ends.

 

[Deon Botha]

It's common for bubbling activity to resume after transfer to secondary. It's just dissolved carbon dioxide coming out of solution due to the agitation. As mentioned, gravity readings with a hydrometer is the only way to determine when fermentation ends.

Thank you. I understand the hydrometer part. I was just wondering about the fermenting. Thank you

 

[Abhishek Dewan]

I think it'll be good to leave it for a week, in any case rest will improve many things - sediments, taste etc. I usually let my beer sit over the yeast cake for a week. That helps remove unwanted stuff.

 

[davidabcd]

Technically, it is unusual for fermentation to last 19 days for a beer like that and yours had probably finished in under a week, based on your fermentation temperature and observation of the primary fermenter.
I would take gravity readings two days apart and package.

 

[balrog]

Remember that any headspace gas will expand/contract with changes in ambient temp and local weather air pressure changes. The resultant airlock activity has nothing to do with the fermentation.

 

[cactusgarrett]

I know it's not what you asked, but it's related to your question: why did you transfer to the secondary? I ask because without a specific or good reason, the recent consensus is that using a secondary vessel is unnecessary and could actually be more detrimental instead of beneficial.

Sorry to derail, but something to look into in order to improve your beer/processes.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

the recent consensus is that ...

Be careful with claiming "forum consensus". Remember when "forum consensus" claimed that

• dry yeast had to be re-hydrated
• one could not make enjoyable beers quickly using malt extract
• one could not add brewing salts to extract based recipes

 

[Deon Botha]

I know it's not what you asked, but it's related to your question: why did you transfer to the secondary? I ask because without a specific or good reason, the recent consensus is that using a secondary vessel is unnecessary and could actually be more detrimental instead of beneficial.

Sorry to derail, but something to look into in order to improve your beer/processes.

Yes I do understand that. I probably won't do it again. Thanks

 

[cactusgarrett]

Be careful with claiming "forum consensus". Remember when "forum consensus" claimed that

• dry yeast had to be re-hydrated
• one could not make enjoyable beers quickly using malt extract
• one could not add brewing salts to extract based recipes

Point taken, but the benefit of a transfer to secondary isn't one of those "measurable", binary things (like necessity of yeast rehydration). When i say consensus, i mean just that - a general agreement - and I get the impression most people here would tout avoiding an unnecessary secondary, but that's just me. Call it preference? Solid logic? Call it what you will, but to me it's solid logic and makes perfect sense - the status quo of leaving a beer in the primary is less susceptible to negative influences (ie. oxidation & contamination), than a beer "unnecessarily" transferred to a secondary.

But i get what you're saying, and given all this, I personally employ secondary (and tertiary) vessels for requiring circumstances.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Point taken, but [... this time its different ... ]

Most recently, the results of polite disagreement with simply repeating the former consensus on active dry yeast, dry malt extract, and brewing salts resulted in No-Boil Recipes! New for 2019.

negative influences (ie. oxidation & contamination)

From what I read, if done improperly, the risk of adding oxygen or contaminating the beer is pretty much a certainty.

From what I read, if done properly, the risk of oxygen and contaminating the beer is pretty close to zero.

The details on how to avoid the risks, while actually doing the transfer, can already be found here, over in /r/homebrewing, and in the AHA forums.

Perhaps a well written sticky would give HBT a comparative advantage over /r/homebrewing's FAQ.

 

[cactusgarrett]

But the point i'm trying to make is that it sounded like the OP was following the previous consensus. Previously, nearly all homebrew instructions used to say "Ferment for x days, transfer to secondary..." and it sounded like this was followed.

What I'm getting at is that it's a strict odds thing: The odds of contaminating/oxidizing a beer by transferring to a secondary versus one that's left in the primary in inherently greater, regardless of the steps done to mitigate and if they're done perfectly. The "general consensus" i'm referring to is alluding to this as well: for lack of a specific reason to secondary (ex. fear of autolysis, long-term storage, fruit use, etc.), the odds are better in your favor to just leave in primary. In this back and forth, it sounds like some are advocating for using secondaries without reasoning, and I can't wrap my head around that.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

With regard to the use of "secondary", https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=15108.0 from the "Ask the Experts" series in 2013 covers the topic well.

Like so many homebrewing topics, covering a topic well takes more than one sentence. What's useful in the longer discussion is 1) knowing what the "rules" actually are, which 2) allows me to understand when I could "break the rules" and still get good beer.

Personally, I would describe myself as a "lazy" brewer: leaving the beer in primary until I bottle is less work and I get good beer.

So far, in this topic, forum consensus appears to be running about 1 for 5.

 

[cactusgarrett]

Yeah, after fully highjacking this thread (sorry OP), the intent was to make a statement and have people read up on the topic for themselves. Great find on the link, but it still feels like we're arguing the benefit of unnecessarily transferring to the secondary, so for anyone curious, JP knocks it out of the park (skip tot he second to last paragraph):
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=15108.msg191642#msg191642

So far, in this topic, forum consensus appears to be running about 1 for 5.

That low? It just seems like everywhere I turn on here I see someone asking about it and 5 people are touting to not use a secondary. Okay - maybe I should have said "the consensus of the more enlightened/read" is that using a secondary is unnecessary?

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

So far, in this topic, forum consensus appears to be running about 1 for 5.

That low? It just seems like everywhere I turn on here I see someone asking about it and 5 people are touting to not use a secondary. Okay - maybe I should have said "the consensus of the more enlightened/read" is that using a secondary is unnecessary?

Sorry, I was a little vague on what was being counted. Here's what I was counting (along with the score):

• 0 for 1: dry yeast had to be re-hydrated
• 0 for 2: one could not make enjoyable beers quickly using malt extract
• 0 for 3: one could not add brewing salts to extract based recipes
• 0 for 4: transfer to secondary is good (pre 2013)
  
• 1 for 5: transfer to secondary is bad (2013)

JP knocks it out of the park (skip tot he second to last paragraph):
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=15108.msg191642#msg191642

Back in 2013, it was a "game changer".

 

[cactusgarrett]

Here's what I was counting (along with the score):

Gotcha - i took that to mean you thought 1 in 5 were actually stating transfer to secondary is bad.