I never said that one could go crazy with O2 infiltration after primary fermentation is complete. What I said is that the amount of O2 that is introduced by racking is insignificant, and the yeast cells that are in suspension will rapidly consume any O2 that is introduced. There are plenty of reasons not to use a secondary fermentation, but oxidation is not one of these reasons while yeast cells are in suspension.
Without seeing your process and tasting the phenomenon to which you are referring, I do not have a clue as to why you are experiencing a loss of flavor in the mis-capped beers… Part of the flavor loss could be due to a partial loss of carbonation while the bottle is mis-capped. If you let samples from mis-capped and properly capped bottles go flat, do they still taste different?
I think that what a lot of us are saying is that it is best to avoid secondary because it is a chance to introduce o2. Leaky autosiphon sending bubbles down the line. Unintentional splashing. Airlock running dry. Large head space that can’t be purged with co2 locked in solution.
I used a secondary all the time without purging with no problems, but that secondary was a keg and I purged the head space. I think at the very least you need to purge the head space.
Regardless, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My strong feeling is to avoid oxygen pick up whenever possible. But I do agree that an unpurged secondary can be used, if used very carefully to avoid as much o2 pick up as possible.
I was reading the portion of Kaiser’s website concerning fermenting lagers, and I came across the sentence below.
“Recent studies have shown that even active yeast may not be active enough to consume all the oxygen from the headspace before it can contribute to oxygenation of the beer [Hermann 2005], because of that the head space should be purged as well.”
There’s a link to source on Kaiser’s wiki, but it doesn’t seem to be working at the moment, and I wasn’t able to pull it up with a Google search. Also, I think it is probably in German. Below is the reference from Kaiser’s site:
M. Hermann, Entstehung und Beeinflussung qualitätsbestimmender Aromastoffe bei der Herstellung von Weißbier, Dissertation, Technical University Munich, 2005
One of the problems that I see with a using a secondary is processed oriented. When using a secondary, the secondary fermentation vessel volume has to be less than the primary fermentation vessel volume in order to minimize head space. Anyone who is fermenting 5 gallons of wort in a 5-gallon carboy and racking to a 5-gallon carboy is more than likely going to end up with significant head space. I have always fermented a third to half of a gallon more than will fit in my secondary fermentation vessels in order to ensure that the carboy or better bottle is filled at least up to the beginning of the neck as well as to have enough liquid to swirl my yeast crop.
The greatest opportunity for O2 pickup is before the end of the tubing becomes submerged in green beer. The air in the carboy is being purged as the carboy is filled via a combination of displacement and outgassing. Anyone who has used a secondary has noticed that the airlock starts to bubble after it has been affixed.
With that said, I concur with the use of CO2 purging as an insurance policy if the use of a secondary fermentation vessel results in a significant amount of head space, especially with the modern tendency to allow a primary fermentation to go a week or more beyond the end of active fermentation. However, there are advantages to using a secondary fermentation vessel that cannot be ignored. Cropped yeast is healthier. Dry hopping is more effectively accomplished after the beer has been racked off of the lees. Bulk aging is better performed in a secondary fermentation vessel or keg than in a primary fermentation vessel. A secondary fermentation vessel allows for relatively rapid sedimentation of suspended yeast cells and organic matter without the need for cold storage. This feature allows brewers with minimal investments in gear who are still in the bottling stage to bottle relatively clear beer without having to wait 3+ weeks for the beer to clear in the primary.
[quote]A secondary fermentation vessel allows for relatively rapid sedimentation of suspended yeast cells and organic matter without the need for cold storage.
[/quote]
What’s the reason it would make any difference on how fast yeast or anything else would get to the bottom since the beer density is the same?
The difference in sedimentation has nothing to do with density. It has to do with the propensity for yeast cells to remain in suspension while the beer is still sitting on the trub. This phenomenon can be viewed by using transparent primary and secondary fermentation vessels. For example, less flocculent strains such BRY 96 (a.k.a Ballantine “beer,” “Chico,” Wy1056, WLP001, US-05 …) will often take several weeks to sediment after fermentation is complete if left on the trub. However, most BRY 96 fermentations will clear in a few days if racked to a secondary fermentation vessel after fermentation is complete.
I believe the take away here is that racking off of the primary removes a lot of yeast from the equation, which allows a large percentage of the cells that are still in suspension to naturally settle out of suspension. The result is fewer cells going into bottling, which, in turn, results in less sediment in one’s bottles. The same thing can be accomplished via forced sedimentation. However, my experience shows that natural sedimentation tends to lead to a product that needs less aging to round off the harsh edges.
I’m late to this thread, but I don’t secondary anymore and haven’t in years. I did an experiment with our homebrew club a while back. Brewed 10G of summer ale and split the batch into 2 carboys. I let one sit for 3 months - on the trub and yeast and the other I racked over into a secondary after 3 weeks and let it sit the same amount as the first batch. I bottled both on the same day (boy did that suck).
The result? No one - not one single person in our club could pick out which batch sat for 3 months in primary and which one was put into a secondary. They couldn’t even tell the difference by judging clarity as they were both spot on. I’ll repeat that - there was NO visible difference in clarity between both batches. Some dropped secondary’s from that point forward and haven’t looked back, remain very pleased with the results of their beers, and continue to thank me for my experiment. Others are convinced my test was an anomaly and continue to secondary
Hey - that’s the wonderful thing about this craft - you make it yours and you own it. The beer you brew, ferment, condition, and care for is truly YOURS. Do what YOU think makes you the best beer and follow the process YOU enjoy the most! Cheers!
While it is true that beer will naturally clear in a primary if given enough time (three months is a long time), most of the less flocculent strains will not clear as quickly as they do when racked to a secondary. That’s why brewers have resorted to cold crashing.
Is a secondary fermentation vessel necessary? Well, I contend that brewers who serially bottom crop should seriously think about racking before the beer fully clears. The choice to rack to a secondary fermentation vessel or straight to a keg is their choice. However, bottom cropping well-sedimented beer carries over the least flocculent cells. The least flocculent cells are often, but not always petite mutants. That’s a problem that the practice of cropping from a cold-crashed primary has compounded.
I also believe that a secondary fermentation vessel can be an advantage early on in the game when one is still bottling without the aid of cold storage. Under those conditions, a secondary fermentation vessel will get clearer beer one’s bottle much quicker than waiting for it clear in a primary fermentation vessel at fermentation temperature. Let’s face it. New brewers tend to stick with BRY 96 in one its forms (often US-05) because the strain is so forgiving. BRY 96 is not the most flocculent strain, and new brewers have not yet mastered the art of racking; hence, a lot of sediment gets carried over to the bottling bucket, less sediment in the fermentation vessel leads to less sediment in the bottling bucket.
By the way, the 3-month test that hmbrewing ran proves not only that autolysis is overblown, but also that oxidation when racking to a secondary fermentation vessel is overblown. The old school autolysis bogeyman has been replaced with the new school oxidation bogeyman.
“By the way, the 3-month test that hmbrewing ran proves not only that autolysis is overblown, but also that oxidation when racking to a secondary fermentation vessel is overblown. The old school autolysis bogeyman has been replaced with the new school oxidation bogeyman.”
I did not think of it that way! 2 VERY good points!
Agree on the autolysis being overblown. Still strongly disagree that oxidation is overblown. At the very least, not for hoppy beers. Oxygen will destroy a IPA or IIPA very quickly.
I agree with the bolded part under the right conditions. Poor racking procedures, especially when coupled with premature racking to secondary, is a good opportunity to create flaws in the beer. If the choice is between the risk of less than perfectly clear beer or the risk of creating off flavors then I’d take the risk of cloudiness any day, especially when the clarity can be improved by sticking carbonated bottles in the fridge and basically cold crashing them.
I’ve done the same “3 month” test like 4 years ago… the difference is that I compared both beers with 5 weeks, and there was no difference just like the “3 months” test, that’s why I asked the reason it would happen because I’ve been doing that for years and I (and a lot of friends) never noticed that kind of thing. Actually did let a few batches for 6 months and more, but I didn’t pay attention to clarity because all of them were bright clear after so much time.
