Secondary fermentation advice

[MTW]

I just want to pick up on one question you asked, how full to fill the bottles. Glass bottles have a number at the bottom followed by "mm". This tells you the distance from the rim (in mm) to the fluid level, at which the bottle holds its marked capacity.

I've never in my life taken any notice... the level is set by the amount of space my wand has taken up when it's removed once full to the rim... but there you go.

[McMullan]

How many commercial breweries package beer directly from a primary vessel?

[IPA]

How many commercial breweries package beer directly from a primary vessel?

[Rhodesy]

How many commercial breweries package beer directly from a primary vessel?

How many commercial breweries add sugar to a bucket and bottle direct or indeed syphon? The comparison in this case between home-brew and commercial is hardly relevant.

To be clear, I said there was no real need for a secondary, however racking from a bottling bucket is normal I agree though not as a tertriary vessel

[McMullan]

How many commercial breweries package beer directly from a primary vessel?

How many commercial breweries add sugar to a bucket and bottle direct or indeed syphon? The comparison in this case between home-brew and commercial is hardly relevant.

To be clear, I said there was no real need for a secondary, however racking from a bottling bucket is normal I agree though not as a tertriary vessel

Quite a few commercial breweries produce excellent bottle conditioned beers. Regardless of whether it's home brew or commercial beer, there's a procedure to follow to get the best result. Beer should not be packaged until it's ready to be packaged. That usually takes some time in a secondary vessel, where secondary fermentation carries on and finishes, producing a relatively stable product that can be assessed prior to final packaging. Depending on what is being brewed, primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary... vessels can be used. If you make, say, a fruit porter, primary fermentation (and some secondary fermentation) takes place in a primary vessel. When primary fermentation is complete, it gets transferred (off the yeast) to a secondary vessel containing the fruit, which promotes a re-fermentation and some more secondary fermentation. When this re-fermentation is done, and sufficient flavour from the fruit has been extracted, it gets transferred (off the fruit) to a tertiary, where secondary fermentation completes. Then it gets packaged into a quaternary vessel, e.g. a bottle, a keg or a cask, and conditioned either by a secondary fermentation or, as often with kegs, forced carbonation. Or, as with many commercials, it could be transferred to a tertiary vessel, force carbonated then packaged in a quaternary vessel, a bottle or a keg.

[McMullan]

How many commercial breweries package beer directly from a primary vessel?

How many commercial breweries add sugar to a bucket and bottle direct or indeed syphon? The comparison in this case between home-brew and commercial is hardly relevant.

To be clear, I said there was no real need for a secondary, however racking from a bottling bucket is normal I agree though not as a tertriary vessel

Quite a few commercial breweries produce excellent bottle conditioned beers. Regardless of whether it's home brew or commercial beer, there's a procedure to follow to get the best result. Beer should not be packaged until it's ready to be packaged. That usually takes some time in a secondary vessel, where secondary fermentation carries on and finishes, producing a relatively stable product that can be assessed prior to final packaging. Depending on what is being brewed, primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary... vessels can be used. If you make, say, a fruit porter, primary fermentation (and some secondary fermentation) takes place in a primary vessel. When primary fermentation is complete, it gets transferred (off the yeast) to a secondary vessel containing the fruit, which promotes a re-fermentation and some more secondary fermentation. When this re-fermentation is done, and sufficient flavour from the fruit has been extracted, it gets transferred (off the fruit) to a tertiary, where secondary fermentation completes. Then it gets packaged into a quaternary vessel, e.g. a bottle, a keg or a cask, and conditioned either by a secondary fermentation or, as often with kegs, forced carbonation. Or, as with many commercials, it could be transferred to a tertiary vessel, force carbonated then packaged in a quaternary vessel, a bottle or a keg.

[Rhodesy]

How many commercial breweries package beer directly from a primary vessel?

How many commercial breweries add sugar to a bucket and bottle direct or indeed syphon? The comparison in this case between home-brew and commercial is hardly relevant.

To be clear, I said there was no real need for a secondary, however racking from a bottling bucket is normal I agree though not as a tertriary vessel

Quite a few commercial breweries produce excellent bottle conditioned beers. Regardless of whether it's home brew or commercial beer, there's a procedure to follow to get the best result. Beer should not be packaged until it's ready to be packaged. That usually takes some time in a secondary vessel, where secondary fermentation carries on and finishes, producing a relatively stable product that can be assessed prior to final packaging. Depending on what is being brewed, primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary... vessels can be used. If you make, say, a fruit porter, primary fermentation (and some secondary fermentation) takes place in a primary vessel. When primary fermentation is complete, it gets transferred (off the yeast) to a secondary vessel containing the fruit, which promotes a re-fermentation and some more secondary fermentation. When this re-fermentation is done, and sufficient flavour from the fruit has been extracted, it gets transferred (off the fruit) to a tertiary, where secondary fermentation completes. Then it gets packaged into a quaternary vessel, e.g. a bottle, a keg or a cask, and conditioned either by a secondary fermentation or, as often with kegs, forced carbonation. Or, as with many commercials, it could be transferred to a tertiary vessel, force carbonated then packaged in a quaternary vessel, a bottle or a keg.

Conversely many commercial breweries use conicals and then bright tanks, Its all a matter of opinion for which there are many. If you read my original post though I did state that some benefit from a secondary however my point is more along the lines of yes it is an option but its not a necessity.

Personally I had results from fermenting, cold crashing and fining in my FV then moving to a bottling bucket (prior to kegging) which had the desired results of clear beer and the finest line of sediment.

It is a subject where there are many views, not looking to change those only that in my opinion you can go FV > Bottling bucket > bottle by skipping the 2nd FV element. When starting out this is also handy if getting to grips and wanting to help avoid or minimise getting oxygen in there or picking up an infection etc.

To the OP, as far as carbonation goes, I would look to use a carbonation calculator to get the right amount for your style and doing some reading up but for starters the most important thing to be sure of is that the beer has finished before priming and bottling.

[orlando]

At our level multiple transfers invite disaster, if you go down this route and see it to the end you're going to know an awful lot about the difference between sterile and sanitary and nowhere near bloody good enough. I now transfer from pressurised conical to keg. At this point the conical is effectivly a bright/conditioning tank. Eliminating multiple transfers and transferring under CO2 reduces infecton and oxygen staling.

[McMullan]

At our level multiple transfers invite disaster.

At your level maybe

[orlando]

At our level multiple transfers invite disaster.

At your level maybe

[TheSumOfAllBeers]

And the advice here is intended for a novice.

Good secondary regime isn't rocket science, but there are small details that are important, and certain investments that make it a lot easier

[Rhodesy]

And the advice here is intended for a novice.

Good secondary regime isn't rocket science, but there are small details that are important, and certain investments that make it a lot easier

Thats where I was coming from, keep it simple and then go from there

[IPA]

And the advice here is intended for a novice.

Good secondary regime isn't rocket science, but there are small details that are important, and certain investments that make it a lot easier

Thats where I was coming from, keep it simple and then go from there

Why not just start correctly in the first place ? It's not that complicated.

[Rhodesy]

And the advice here is intended for a novice.

Good secondary regime isn't rocket science, but there are small details that are important, and certain investments that make it a lot easier

Thats where I was coming from, keep it simple and then go from there

Why not just start correctly in the first place ? It's not that complicated.

haha, there is no right or wrong here only differing practices. I don't see the need for a secondary when brewing a standard batch, you do, that doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I'll let the OP make their own mind up.

No-one is saying it is overly complicated however when starting out reducing some steps is not a bad thing.

[Jocky]

The 'right' way is very subjective when it comes to home brewing.

For some people the right way is the way with the least effort to something remotely drinkable.

For me it's to make the best beer I can... Within reasonable time/effort limits.

For others it's whatever is the most technical/fun/crazy.

And there are many other permutations.

Home Brewing is and should be a broad church, so I will rail at anyone saying 'mine is the way and the truth'.