Secondary fermenter for a one gallon batch?

One gallon batches result in so little finished output. An extra transfer would reduce that even more. I would recommend no secondary for this beer, especially since it's a one gallon batch.

 

A single gallon should have so little trub in it, that it should not need a secondary. Just add the dry hops right to the primary.

 

The amount of trub in a one gallon batch ought to be proportional to the amount of trub in any size batch. But I agree about not needing a secondary, on general principle.

 

I'll second VikeMan, as both a home brewer and a professional I've let plenty of beers sit on the yeast for way longer than you're supposedly supposed to and it's always been fine. The purpose of the secondary is to rack-off of all of that initial yeast so that you can get a clearer beer in the end - it's not really to avoid autolysis (which I've never experienced even with very old yeast). You probably won't need that, you should be fine.

 

I mainly do one gallon batches. I always rack to a secondary. Haters gonna hate. I’m just gonna shake it off (shake it off).

 

I used to have that same attitude towards secondary. Then I made better beer.

 

Jim, in commercial brewing there can be a concern of yeast autolysis in large Cylindroconical fermenters since the large amount of hydrostatic pressure can be an issue. My understanding is that in a commercial brewery this can be managed by simply opening a valve in the bottom of the tanks to expel the yeast (that has settled to the bottom).

In the case of homebrewing where the typical volume is 5 gallons and the typical primary fermentor is flat bottomed (e.g., buckets, carboy) there is little in the way of hydrostatic pressure so yeast autolysis is not of such a concern to we homebrewers.

In your commercial brewing did you work with large (e.g., > 60 barrels) Cylindroconical fermenters? Did the breweries where you work(ed) manage the situation by dumping the yeast which has settled to the bottom of the tanks?

Cheers!

 

Interestingly, uni-tanks weren't invented until the 1960's.

The angle, and thus the shape of the cone could vary, but I think they're pretty much the same, and unless you filled your entire cone with yeast you wouldn't have a situation similar to that of a flat bottomed tank. What that means in answer to your question, I'm not sure, but British brewers used to let their beers sit on some very wide yeast cakes because they could not remove the yeast until the beer was moved. Keep in mind, we're not talking about massive tanks that are two to three stories tall.

With that said, I have worked with 60 bbl fermenters, and 60 bbl bright tanks that have held unfiltered beer as well. I don't think hydrostatic pressure is an issue at that volume. In fact, I'm not sure of how much hydrostatic pressure is a problem at even higher volumes unless you get into those really big tanks.

And of course the answer, and the purpose of the unitank with the cone at the bottom, is to collect the flocculated yeast so that you can remove it. However, as I've noted, there have been times when I haven't touched the yeast at all, I just let it sit. - Keep in mind we have dropped the temperature of the tank at this point and cold drops to the bottom where the yeast is. - There can be some dead yeast at the very bottom, usually in the racking arm, but the beer is only in contact with the live yeast above that.

I think it's extended amounts of time at higher temperatures where problems occur, with higher temperatures being more of an issue than time, or the amount of yeast that's in play. As a homebrewer I've also let beer sit for months at cellar temperature and had no issues, so I believe that temperature is a bigger concern.

 

And I think this is a critical point.

Beer at cold temperatures will 'resist' yeast autolysis both for a commercial brewery or a homebrewery.

Cheers!

 

Sorry brah, I don’t feed trolls

 

I see what you did there

 

I would bet if you were to transfer the sheer ratio of oxygen exposure to amount of beer could really do more damage to the beer than maybe leaving it on a small amount of trub/yeast for what? 5 days? A week? O2 could potentially do way more damage I would think.

 

Secondary is largely nonexistent in pro breweries and is largely unnecessary in home breweries. But its a hobby. You do you.

 

I stopped using a secondary and my beer quality has improved after making the change. It's not trolling, it's actually caused by disassociting myself with an antiquated practice that brought unnecessary oxygen into contact with my beers.

 

I'm kinda leaning away from secondary fermenting too ... I've got 2 fastfermenting 3 gallon conical fermenters due here tomorrow which I'll use for small 1 gal batches and I may even use both of them to split a 5 or 6 gallon batch. Supposed to be easy to dump the trubb and bottle from. I'll let you know!