Primary to secondary?

[london_lhr]

Hi all,

which is better, to transfer from primary fv to secondary fv via a tap on the primary fv or is it better to siphon across to the secondary fv. I have purchased two fv's, both with taps.

Barry.

 

[farmer brown]

Ive always siphoned as I find it easier to prevent getting any trub from the bottom of the primary.
I guess at the end of the day as long as you don't splash and oxygen you can choose iether

 

[graysalchemy]

Use the tap, I find that the yeast and trub is usually well compacted so only the first pint or so is cloudy and perhaps a little at the end, but this will settle out in the secondary. :thumb:

 

[jonnymorris]

You haven't included Option C, 'Don't bother with secondary'. Be prepared for divided opinion and GAs exploding FV picture.

 

[graysalchemy]

Not today


You can have this one instead :lol: :lol:

This did actually get an infection on the crud after being left in it for 10 days.

If you are happy to risk this outcome like JM then go for option C. :whistle:

 

[jonnymorris]

I'm not biting.

 

[graysalchemy]

But would you want peoples beer to end up like this :whistle: :whistle:

 

[morethanworts]

Well I will divide the views even further, because I currently rack to secondary, but beyond 10 days, just to get it even clearer. Doesn't the degassing from racking help even more yeast settle out? That's what I'm trying at the moment, anyway. Gotta try everything once...

GA - Can I 'bite' for a moment, playing devil's advocate for a moment because I still don't know what I reckon about using secondary: isn't there more chance of contamination from the extra handling, exposure to air, involved in racking to a secondary? - and there are either nasties present in your primary or there aren't? Cruddy yeast around the top of the bucket won't suddenly morph into bacteria, will it - it would have to be present already (or doomed to come in via the air, whichever vessel it's in).

 

[jonnymorris]

But would you want peoples beer to end up like this...

I'm still not taking the bait.

 

[graysalchemy]

GA - Can I 'bite' for a moment, playing devil's advocate for a moment because I still don't know what I reckon about using secondary: isn't there more chance of contamination from the extra handling, exposure to air, involved in racking to a secondary?.

I would have said not as long as you are 100% confident with your sanitation, if you are not then yes there will be a risk but is it greater than the risk from the primary I would say not.

and there are either nasties present in your primary or there aren't? Cruddy yeast around the top of the bucket won't suddenly morph into bacteria, will it - it would have to be present already (or doomed to come in via the air, whichever vessel it's in).

Cruddy yeast provides a medium for aerial contamination to grow on and then give rise to the infection of the beer, as is shown in my photograph.

But would you want peoples beer to end up like this...

I'm still not taking the bait.

So then you are happy for people's beer to end up like mine then :P :P

 

[morethanworts]

Cruddy yeast provides a medium for aerial contamination to grow on and then give rise to the infection of the beer, as is shown in my photograph.

Maybe we could just wipe the scum off with a sanitised cloth and spoon after the main krausen is over? I've done that anyway when the krausen has really mushroomed. In a way, seems safer than introducing a new bucket.

Racking to secondary is easier with a bottom tap in the primary, and you don't have to even lift the lid on the primary I guess, but taps seem the hardest things to guarantee are clean to me.

I guess we react to what we see in our own experiences, and I can see why you rack to secondary GA!

 

[oldjiver]

I just leave it in the FV with a plastic bag over the top (and the lid) and a tight elastic band round it. The day before I bottle I add isinglass which settles 90% of the yeast by the next day. You have to leave it in the FV for a few days extra to make sure its finished. I just go by experience.

 

[london_lhr]

Thank you for the replies :

 

[jonnymorris]

So then you are happy for people's beer to end up like mine then :P :P

Arghhh! If your brew hasn't tried to escape from the FV (like GA's brew has) then there is no risk of infection, or at least no greater than was already present, and therefore no point racking to secondary (IMO).

Happy now?

 

[PD]

ha haa...you took the bait eventually....

 

[NickW]

I never secondary and haven't had aspoilt brew (yet!). I ferment for at least 2 weeks then crash cool for a week. It leaves the beer super clear

 

[GavH]

I don't use a secondary and have only recently kegged a brew for the first time. Have a tap on my FV and no siphon. Used a length of tubing inserted into my tap to transfer to the Keg. Haven't tried it yet but have yet to encounter a problem bottling straight from the FV using a bottling wand inserted into the tap.

 

[oldjiver]

I never secondary and haven't had aspoilt brew (yet!). I ferment for at least 2 weeks then crash cool for a week. It leaves the beer super clear

Do you add fresh yeast to the clear brew of does it give a secondary ferment without?

 

[NickW]

I never secondary and haven't had aspoilt brew (yet!). I ferment for at least 2 weeks then crash cool for a week. It leaves the beer super clear

Do you add fresh yeast to the clear brew of does it give a secondary ferment without?

There is always yeast there.

I lagered for 6 weeks at 1c and the bottles carbed up fine in a week :thumb: