Secondary FV vessel

[DirtyCaner]

Hi Folks,

Heres a question...

How much of a difference does secondary fermentation in a new vessel (then bottle) make compared with bottling after a week and 2ndry in bottle?
Which is what I've always done...

Please advise,

DC

 

[pittsy]

it is done really only to have less sediment in your brew , as you move brew to 2nd vessel then leave then more sediment drops out then move to 3rd vessel for batch priming , however unless im making a lager etc i don't do 2nd vessel except when batch priming

 

[ScottM]

The secondary is more for better clearing and removing more of the dead yeast. If you rack into a secondary, allow it to chill for a few days then rack into a bottling bucket with priming sugar and THEN bottle, it generally won't get any better than that IMO.

Out of the last 3 brews I have done I did the last one this way. My last cider was absolutely crystal clear.

Primary in FV
Rack to secondary for a few days to clear (still with airlock etc)
Add priming sugar to bottling bucket and rack from secondary into it
Bottle

Job done.

Obviously it's a bit more work but it's well worth it IMO.

 

[jonnymorris]

Why would more sediment drop out in the 2nd FV vs leaving it the first (assuming brew is cooled at same time for the same time at same temp)?

I don't see any advantage but do see a disadvantage of increased, albeit small risk of infection from unnecessary racking.

Before anyone (GA) dives in, this assumes you don't have a massive dirty krausen hanging over the edge.

 

[ScottM]

Why filter something more than once? Same principle.

When racking from primary to secondary you will always drag up some crud. When racking from the secondary to the bottling bucket there will be far less crud to drag up so enevitably less will be in the bottles when finished. If the sediment all fell to the bottom and stayed there then there would be no point. Think of it like this...

1kg sediment left over, racking drags up 10%

Primary to secondary = 100g of sediment in the secondary
Secondary to bucket = 10g of sediment in the bucket.

Obviously that's just made up numbers but it explains the idea behind it.

 

[jonnymorris]

I don't think I suck up any crud, or at least I'm very careful not to so I'm not sure your point holds true.

Happy to be corrected.

 

[ScottM]

Test it for yourself, you would be surprised what ends up on the bottom of the secondary after a few days.

This is what I got doing it...

 

[pittsy]

btw those bits on your pic are not whats in the beer but more whats on the glass , the little tiny smudges that you may see if you hold up an empty glass to the light , well taking pictures of glasses shows em up

 

[pittsy]

p.s unless you was saying this is a clear pint

 

[jonnymorris]

Test it for yourself, you would be surprised what ends up on the bottom of the secondary after a few days.

Not wishing to labour my point but... could the same not also be added to the bottom of the primary during the same time frame? The fact it's in clean FV only means you can see it.

 

[ScottM]

p.s unless you was saying this is a clear pint

Lol, that's how clear the pint is. What you see in the glass is the bubbles

 

[pittsy]

not gonna show you mine ... there mostly wheat beers and are nicely cloudy (as they should be ) :)

 

[ScottM]

Test it for yourself, you would be surprised what ends up on the bottom of the secondary after a few days.

Not wishing to labour my point but... could the same not also be added to the bottom of the primary during the same time frame? The fact it's in clean FV only means you can see it.

Agree to disagree then. That batch was the first I racked twice before bottling and the difference is night and day. IMO you will always suck up some sediment when racking regardless of how careful you are. It isn't the sediment that's fell that's the issue, it's what gets swirled up when the syphon gets close to the bottom. Leaving 5-10 pints would do away with this problem as well but I'd rather have the brew

 

[lovelldr]

Test it for yourself, you would be surprised what ends up on the bottom of the secondary after a few days.

Not wishing to labour my point but... could the same not also be added to the bottom of the primary during the same time frame? The fact it's in clean FV only means you can see it.

Even though you think you are not collecting any trub from the bottom when syphoning, you will still be taking some yeast up. Remember, there are millions of yeast there, and you are bound to pick up some... I bet that if you brewed 1 beer twice in exactly the same conditions and everything, then racked 1 to secondary, and left the other until bottling, the total amount of trub at the bottom would be more from the one that had been secondaried... Another thing (which could hold true, might not, but I'll put out there for others in the know to say yes or no), since the trub in a secondaried beer is said to be "cleaner" for those who want to re-use or wash the yeast, then I'd say it would possibly give a slightly better beer to secondary. As said, possibly not, but might be (someone confirm/deny please :p)

 

[DirtyCaner]

Fair enough guys,

It's not something I'm gonna start doing straight away (lack of buckets) but what you say makes sense. When I get a chance to pick up some more reasonably priced FVs I'll definately give this a go. Current supply is tenner plus at tesco.

Just now I guess I'll just put up with a bit of cloudyness, still tastes great.

Thanks for the input guys,

DirtyC

 

[ScottM]

You only really need 1 spare. I just work between 2 of them, while the secondary is doing it's thing I clean out the primary to use as the bottling bucket

 

[oldstout]

Before anyone (GA) dives in, this assumes you don't have a massive dirty krausen hanging over the edge.

You'll get wrong :rofl: :rofl:

 

[kwakamat]

This is a really interesting thread to me.

I only have a coopers starter kit and now that I've moved to corny kegs I became concerned about excess sediment ruining the first few pints.

As I have a tapped f.v I thought it would make sense to syphon into a demijohn or similar and allow it to rest for a few days before siphoning into the keg.

Sure it will come into contact with some air but that's about all I can see as the risk?

I've no doubt my sediment levels in the beer will go down and I will have a clearer pint.

Anyone donating a demijohn for me? ;-)

 

[critty]

I have racked straight in to bottles and have found some trub at the bottom of the bottles. I transfered the beer from the original fv into another fv to do the priming then into the bottles. Even with the special bit on the auto syphon to avoid sucking in trub I doubt you would get rid of everything like you would in manufactured beer. They employ filters and allsorts to make a pure brew. The way I look at it is that we have been brewing beer for centuries. I doubt anyone complained over a little sediment. Lol.

Thing that has me scratching my head is what the fine stand looking things are in my bottles.

 

[Andyhull]

My brews end up crystal clear, as with all bottle conditioned beers you will end up with some trub at the bottom of the bottle, this is inevitable due to the fact your secondary fermenting to carbonate.

I don't see the point in using a secondary FV to drop more yeast out of suspention, I can understand using one for batch priming if thats your preffered way, but you are adding more fermentables so will end up with sediment anyhow.

I end up with a solid sediment on the bottom of the bottle that when poured carefully stays put and i end up with a truely clear pint to the point where even SWMBO comented in disbelief at the look of the pint.

I personally think it's just another added unneccesary process to possible add an infection.

Andy