Secondary Fermentation Why?

[katzke]

Well I am going to stuff my foot in it.

Secondary Fermentation is an old term and not applicable to home brewing. The correct term should be conditioning. That said

There is no need for most all brews.

As home brewers we do not leave our brews long enough for any of the bad things that can happen. In fact we bottle or keg our brews well before they are ready in most cases. Our local brewer that is not a mega brewer but past the micro stage plans on turning brews in like 21 days, maybe a few days longer as I do not remember exactly you may be able to get more info at Deschutes Brewery. They do not bottle condition and a bottle that was chilled off the bottling line is ready to drink.

We as home brewers are trying to brew, ferment, and drink a beer in a month.

It is an advantage to transfer your beer to a bottling bucket if you bulk prime. After all you need to stir in the sugar so why stir up all that sediment? If you are new to brewing it helps to transfer your beer to practice the transfer so you learn how to do I with as little extra sediment as possible. When you are good you can transfer out of the primary fermentor after 2 or more weeks with little extra sediment. The extra time the beer sets will allow the sediment to compact and it is harder to stir it up with proper techniques.

Some styles require different fermentation times. Some may be ready to force carb in a week and others may take months. If you bottle condition then it will take longer. I gave up on bottles when I discovered a great deal on kegs. That was early in my brewing life. But as I recall when bottle conditioning it takes 2 to 3 weeks at the least for a green beer to be ready to drink. Why rush that same beer in the fermentation stage.

Fermentation does more then make bubbles and alcohol.

 

[manticle]

Whether or not you do it, believe in it or recommend it, the original questions were 'why is it done and 'how is it done'. The debate about whether or not it's worth it is old and has been done to death. In the end it's up to the individual brewer (if you notice a difference and can be bothered vs if you don't notice a difference worth bothering about).

The thread title is not Secondary ferment: Should You?

Loads of brewers here are far more patient than brew to mouth in a month by the way.

 

[mwd]

Hi all,

Was just wondering (as i am looking at brewing a belgian ale next) what are the benefits of a secondary Fermentation?

and how does one go about doing a secondary ferment?

thanks

I think the OP was asking in context with brewing a Belgian not all ales or lagers.

I also think a load of people just rack to secondary for something to do instead of waiting for the beer to settle properly.
I don't do it because I have only the one FV. and not much spare space.

 

[Wisey]

Im thinking about racking just because I have 2 kegs, and its a way of having new brews waiting to go till the kegs become available.

 

[buttersd70]

Secondary Fermentation is an old term and not applicable to home brewing. The correct term should be conditioning. That said

Bullsh*t.

absolute Bullsh*t....

I detest, with a pasion, the misuse of the term. Secondary fermentation is exactly that, fermentation. NOT conditioning. Totally different kettle of fish. Secondary fermentation certainly IS applicable to homebrewing....

Start brewing English styles, and see what a difference it makes. And when I say English, I mean English. Not a yanke dankie f-n doodle interpretation of what BJCP says is English.



note: should you do a secondary fermentation? answer - not if you don't understand what it is (other than myth and legend), or why it's done. If you don't know what either of those things are, then you are just p*ssing in the wind....and all you are doing is conditioning. In which case you should stick to brewing APA's.

/rant.

 

[manticle]

Bullsh*t.

absolute Bullsh*t....

I detest, with a pasion, the misuse of the term. Secondary fermentation is exactly that, fermentation. NOT conditioning. Totally different kettle of fish. Secondary fermentation certainly IS applicable to homebrewing....

Start brewing English styles, and see what a difference it makes. And when I say English, I mean English. Not a yanke dankie f-n doodle interpretation of what BJCP says is English.



note: should you do a secondary fermentation? answer - not if you don't understand what it is (other than myth and legend), or why it's done. If you don't know what either of those things are, then you are just p*ssing in the wind....and all you are doing is conditioning. In which case you should stick to brewing APA's.

/rant.

Thankyou. The word 'fermentation' should be a dead giveaway.

 

[katzke]

Bullsh*t.

absolute Bullsh*t....

I detest, with a pasion, the misuse of the term. Secondary fermentation is exactly that, fermentation. NOT conditioning. Totally different kettle of fish. Secondary fermentation certainly IS applicable to homebrewing....

Start brewing English styles, and see what a difference it makes. And when I say English, I mean English. Not a yanke dankie f-n doodle interpretation of what BJCP says is English.



note: should you do a secondary fermentation? answer - not if you don't understand what it is (other than myth and legend), or why it's done. If you don't know what either of those things are, then you are just p*ssing in the wind....and all you are doing is conditioning. In which case you should stick to brewing APA's.

/rant.

Good Rant but you told us nothing.

The question was from a beginner and it was what are the benefits and how to do a secondary fermentation.

So far none of us has answered both questions. Some have said how to transfer from one vessel to another. Some have said not to worry about it. One did give examples of different definitions.

So if you think a Belgian can not be brewed with out a true secondary fermentation then tell us how to do it. Transferring almost beer from one vessel to another is not going to start a second fermentation. It is all the same one.

I will modify my previously posted statement. Secondary fermentation is a grossly misunderstood term. The common use is to describe racking a brew to a second vessel so it can continue fermenting. Many home brewers use true secondary fermentation but it is not described as such. Anyone that bottles or naturally carbonates a keg is using a secondary fermentation when they add sugar to prime.

Now if I still have it wrong then dont rant about it, give us the correct definition of the term and how to do it. And why it needs to be done when the recipe does not call for it.

I would also like to know how to make real English Ale using a secondary fermentation but if you share that with us start a new thread and lets not hi-jack this one.

 

[katzke]

Thankyou. The word 'fermentation' should be a dead giveaway.

Read my other post. Just because a term is misused does not make it correct.

 

[buttersd70]

Secondary fermentation is when the still fermenting beer is racked to a second vessel, where fermentation continues untill the attenuation is complete. It is usually done just prior to the start of the flocculation stage of the yeast (aproximately 4sg points prior to expected terminal gravity; or, as a simplification, approximately 3/4 of the way through fermentation).

The english method of performing secondary fermentation (for a non flocculant strain) is to crash cool the vessel to aprox 8C; this will promote some of the yeast to drop (yes, prematurely drop) out of suspension. The beer is then racked to the second vesel, and is brought back to (the low side of) fermentation temperature, and the fermentation continues untill SG is achieved. For highly flocculant strains, there is no need for the cooling stage, as enough yeast will have dropped out of suspension, anyway. The same applies for true top cropping strains; these will have the top skimmed, which will rempve enough yeast that only racking will be necessary. Either way, the purpose is to remove the inactive yeast, or the yeast near the end of it's cycle, from the wort, in order to allow fermentation to be finished by younger, healthier yeast that is in its earler stages of it's cycle (and this is the yeast that is in suspension in the wort). This enables the yeast to attenuate better, and clear up it's own bi-products more efficiently. It also allows for faster clearing, as it removes the dead yeast from the bottom of the vessel, which is effectively a large area with a net charge equal to that of the yeast still in suspension, effectively repulsing the yeast that is ready to flocculate.

With the use of a conical fermentation vessel, the beer is not taken off the yeast; the yeast is taken off the beer.

So, in answer to the OP; that is how a secondary fermentation is done. Those are the benefits; in relation (specifically) to a belgian ale....the increase in efficiency of the yeast in the later part of the fermentation would aid in the complete attenuation of a high gravity wort. However; as is always the case, there are always pros and cons, and a certain degree of grey area involved. The above are the pros: the cons are somewhat obvious, ie. you have to prepare, clean, and sanatise a second container, and the equipment (read hose) used for the racking. If done in a slapdash manner, there is the increased possibility of oxidation, and also of infection. This is not a problem with the procedure or practice per se, but is, rather, indicitive of poor brewing practice on the part of the brewer.

The grey area comes down to this....the benefits of performing a secondary fermentation will only be apparant in the event of good recipe construction combined with good brewing practice (ie, correct yeast pitching rates, yeast health, yeast nutrition and aeration, sanatation, temperature control, etc.) If any of those elements are sub par, then the percieved benefit of the secondary fermentation will reduce to the point where you may as well not bother, anyway, as the difference will not be noticed.

Katzke

The common use is to describe racking a brew to a second vessel so it can continue fermenting.

which is absolutely correct, as I have detailed above. Many, many brewers incorrectly use the term to descrive the transfer of beer that has finished fermenting into another vessel, to age and (supposedly) condition. IMO, there is no point in this, other than to allow it to drop bright - which can be done just as easily in the keg or bottle, anyway. So it seems to me a wasted step. Unless dry hopping is a factor, then I can understand it....but it's still not secondary fermentation.

Finaly, is a secondary fermentation required to produce a good beer (belgian, english, or otherwise?). Of course not. Perfectly good beer can certainly be produced without it. It can, however, be used, and it can lead to a better result if done correctly - however, as stated, it is only one part of a process, and it's ability to produce better beer is only as good as the other parts of the process will allow it to be. My 2c for new brewers would be to forget about secondary fermentation untill you can get the primary sorted, and get some experience in the process. Then you can try secondary fermentation, or not, as you decide.

 

[katzke]

Secondary fermentation is when the still fermenting beer is racked to a second vessel, where fermentation continues untill the attenuation is complete. It is usually done just prior to the start of the flocculation stage of the yeast (aproximately 4sg points prior to expected terminal gravity; or, as a simplification, approximately 3/4 of the way through fermentation).

Thanks for the explanation.

I cut out the other part so as not to repeat it all.

I sure hope everyone reads this so the incorrect use of the term may be reduced.

For a bit of history I read that breweries used this method to free up the fermentors and transferred the beer to wood kegs. The kegs would then be rolled in the keg yard to keep them moist all over and if I recall correctly to help keep the fermentation going. I would guess that the kegs carbonated naturally this way also. Trick is knowing your recipe well enough to pick the correct time to transfer for all of that to happen. Good thing we do not have to worry about it like they did.

 

[RobboMC]

I dare someone to make a brew and split in in half, with half bottled straight from primary
and half racked to secondary for a couple of weeks, and enter both in a decent brew comp
and see if the judges score them differently!!!

I'd volunteer, but my fermenter is destined to be empty until I finish painting the house.

By the way, no one has pointed out so far that transferring the beer via nice clean tubing to a second
vessel for a secondary ferment is kinda good fun, and after all that's what we're suposed to be doing,
it's a hobby remember.

 

[buttersd70]

with half bottled straight from primary
and half racked to secondary for a couple of weeks

Again, secondary vessel for clarification, or secondary fermentation? Different kettle of fish....secondary fermentation would be completed in a matter of days at most. Not weeks; that would be more akin to the former. The truncated phrase is what leads to the ambiguity of the term.

 

[pdilley]

Being hobbyists its easy to misuse terms.

Whats being described is secondary fermenter not fermentation. In other industries you have to get a bit of scientific training and learning beforehand as a barrier to entry as its not as easy to just do it at home with minimum tools and kitchen level techniques and methods.

From people in that position they'd shake their heads. Primary fermentation would be the metabolism of a metabolite ot group of metabolites by an organism. Once that organism has done metabolising the mixture is now a different makeup than when the process started. This new mixture can or not still support the original organism. This new mixture may now be a perfect environment for a second organism to now start metabolising the metabolite(s) in the mixture. This new organism would be carrying out a secondary fermentation as the primary was conducted by the primary organism.

If the sequencing was wine must + yeast = finished wine primary ferment.
Then finished wine primary ferment + Oenococcus oeni bacteria would perform malolactic fermentatiin as the secondary fermentation of the original wine must.

 

[Wonderwoman]

I dare someone to make a brew and split in in half, with half bottled straight from primary
and half racked to secondary for a couple of weeks, and enter both in a decent brew comp
and see if the judges score them differently!!!

I recently did something similar to this unintentionally...

I had ~23 L of beer in my fermenter and wanted to transfer it to a secondary vessel to condition (NB - it was for conditioning only as the SG did not change while it was in the secondary vessel, ie no further fermentation).

without thinking, I started transfering it to a 20 L cube. Normally I do 20-21L batches so the 20L cube is fine, but obviously you can't fit 22 L into a 20 L cube so I had a bit left over and decided to bottle 1 longneck from the primary fermenter. The rest of the beer was conditioned in secondary for 1 week and then bottled.

after 3-4 weeks I tried the bottle from the primary fermenter and one that had been conditioned for a week in the secondary vessel. IMO there was a significant difference in the taste, with the one that had been conditioned in secondary being much better.

to be honest, I had been sceptical about the benfits of racking to secondary prior to this serendipitous experiment

 

[pdilley]

A month in a secondary fermenter or a month on the primary yeast cake will make a better tasting "Ale" than the standard recommended get it off the yeast cake after signs of fermentation being complete and in the bottle asap most beginners receive. To self test. Make a standard batch. Bottle half of it and then transfer the last half sans the yeast sediment into a secondary fermenter for four weeks. Then bottle the beer in the secondary fermenter. By that time the original bottled beer has been in for four weeks. Pop one and give it a taste, take notes. In another four weeks pop open the secondary beer and taste, take notes and then pop one from the original bottling at this time taste, and take notes.

If you like the taste of either of them over the others, stick with that and don't listen to what anyone tries to tell you. If you like one better but it involves more work and you couldn't be bothered stick to the easier method and follow the same advice. Its your beer, enjoy it either way you want.

 

[manticle]

The question was from a beginner and it was what are the benefits and how to do a secondary fermentation.

So far none of us has answered both questions.

'How to brew' covers it better than I probably can but the basis of it is thus:

You may transfer to secondary to allow the beer to mature and clean up after itself while fermentation is completing. (2/3 - 3/4 through)
You may transfer to secondary because you are concerned the yeast may die and create off flavours (usually only a worry if you leave it in primary for over 6 weeks)
You may transfer to secondary for bulk priming
You may transfer to secondary to assist clarity in the final beer.

This answers why

Transferring to secondary (racking) is basically transferring to another container. This may be done via the tap and hose or by siphoning from the top. Siphoning will take less sediment but may have a mildly higher risk of infection. Siphoning involves using euuipment specifically for the purpose, not suckinhg the end of the hose unless your saliva is actually napisan.

The hose is necessary to avoid splashing and oxidation. All parts in contact with any beer should be cleaned and sanitised.

You may transfer to plastic or glass. Plastic is good because it's cheaper but glass is good because it's less permeable to oxygen. Best not to leave to much headroom if you can avoid it as CO2 will need to develop in the deadspace to provide an anti-microbial blanket leaving a small window of vulnerability.

This answers how.

 

[katzke]

'How to brew' covers it better than I probably can but the basis of it is thus:

As usual Palmer is part of the problem.

Most of what was quoted is not Secondary Fermentation but other things.

One particular Belgian actually uses Secondary Fermentation in that a blend of worts is made and a second fermentation actually takes place. Sorry not a Belgian brewer so can not remember what the brew is called.

I have also seen in some of my recipe searches where it calls for one or more additions of fermentables after the active fermentation is complete. Even some fruit beers can have a Secondary Fermentation if the fruit is added late.

So lets not confuse simple Racking with Secondary Fermentation. Remember Fermentation is a clue?

It is kind of funny that one reason to rack a beer is to get it off the yeast cake and trob. Then others that may even use this method will put fresh wort on that old yeast cake and not think anything about it. Kinda makes you think about it.

 

[thylacine]

A month in a secondary fermenter or a month on the primary yeast cake will make a better tasting "Ale" than the standard recommended get it off the yeast cake after signs of fermentation being complete and in the bottle asap most beginners receive. To self test. Make a standard batch. Bottle half of it and then transfer the last half sans the yeast sediment into a secondary fermenter for four weeks. Then bottle the beer in the secondary fermenter. By that time the original bottled beer has been in for four weeks. Pop one and give it a taste, take notes. In another four weeks pop open the secondary beer and taste, take notes and then pop one from the original bottling at this time taste, and take notes.

If you like the taste of either of them over the others, stick with that and don't listen to what anyone tries to tell you. If you like one better but it involves more work and you couldn't be bothered stick to the easier method and follow the same advice. Its your beer, enjoy it either way you want.

Similar experiment completed via BYO magazine & Basic Brewing Radio. http://www.basicbrewing.com/index.php?page=radio 29/5/9 Does more yeast contact hurt?

 

[manticle]

As usual Palmer is part of the problem.

Most of what was quoted is not Secondary Fermentation but other things.

One particular Belgian actually uses Secondary Fermentation in that a blend of worts is made and a second fermentation actually takes place. Sorry not a Belgian brewer so can not remember what the brew is called.

I have also seen in some of my recipe searches where it calls for one or more additions of fermentables after the active fermentation is complete. Even some fruit beers can have a Secondary Fermentation if the fruit is added late.

So let's not confuse simple Racking with Secondary Fermentation. Remember Fermentation is a clue?

It is kind of funny that one reason to rack a beer is to get it off the yeast cake and trob. Then others that may even use this method will put fresh wort on that old yeast cake and not think anything about it. Kinda makes you think about it.

If you've got a better resource than palmer (and I'm not suggesting there isn't one) I'd love to read it. That's not a jibe - I'd genuinely like to read anything and everything about the basics of brewing.

I think the way some trappists are brewed is to brew, pitch and then continually add freshly brewed wort over the week. Tha's a vague memory of a podcast so the accuracy of my memory is hazy. The adding of fermentables during primary is usually an incremental feeding of the yeast to stop them becoming lazy after eating simple sugars and is something I've mainly heard about in conjunction with some trappists again..

I'm aware that racking and secondary fermentation are separate things. I was trying to list all the basic reasons why people transfer to secondary vessel INCLUDING for a secondary fermentation. Even bottle conditioning is a mini-fermentation of sorts.

Being scared of autolysis after just a week or two seems to be a misinterpretation which is why I suggested in my first post that wahtever you do you should be aware of why you're doing it and not just do it because you once heard about it.

It's not complicated but taking time to do it properly and doing it for a good reason rather than just because you read about it are advised

My main gripe was the OP asking something and being told :"don't bother", a bit like someone asking how do I steep grains and someone piping up "just go AG mate".

 

[katzke]

If you've got a better resource than palmer (and I'm not suggesting there isn't one) I'd love to read it. That's not a jibe - I'd genuinely like to read anything and everything about the basics of brewing.

How to Brew is not bad but it does have some errors, especially the on-line version. The on-line version is version 1 and the print is up to 3 as I recall. I would not be surprised if #4 was not in the works as he has made references to learning some things in a few programs I have listened to.

There are other books out there but you have to watch who they quote for there advice. Some just requote the same incorrect info because somebody famous said it, like Palmer. Then that quote gets requoted and so on.

One good thing is I can not remember any errors that will make bad beer. Some just scare people and give poor advice. Things like do not boil grain, or dont squeeze the bag. These 2 seem to have some correctness to them but by them selves are not correct. In both instances the pH has more to do with the resulting problem then the action. If you follow the advice then you may not get the problem but that does not say if you do it with correct pH then you will have the problem. An example is Decoction for boiling grain and BIAB for squeezing the bag.

Hope I did not confuse and sorry I could not give you any good books to read.