Angell Wine
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 4
Now is a demi john the same has a secondary fermenter or is the carboy just a jug with a handle. I'm just having fun, don't mine me.
MEAD!!
- Thread starter promo0
- Start date
Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:
My take on why:
Primary Fermentation is actually Aerobic fermentation: Which means fermentation in the presence of oxygen. This stage is important to build a large colony of viable yeast cells to guarantee all the sugar in your must can be consumed and converted into CO2 and ethanol.<?
amespace prefix = o ns = "urn
chemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>
Secondary Fermentation is actually Anaerobic fermentation: Which is fermentation without the presence of oxygen. This stage is important so the yeast can concentrate on converting the sugar to CO2 and ethanol and not multiplying.<O></O>
Only microbes, such as yeasts and bacteria, can live for long periods without oxygen. The main reasons to put the wine under airlock in a secondary fermenter is to prevent any chance of oxidation when the fermentation slows and the amount of CO2that isproduced diminishes. It also allows the yeast to concentrate on feeding on the remaining sugar so you get a completefermentation or conversion to CO2 and ethanol.
So you can see the primary and secondary fermentation are the same in that you are only introducing one type of microbe (a single celled fungus called yeast) but their role and ultimate goal is quite different.
If you pitched a very large amount of viable yeast you would not need any oxygen and the yeast would just concentration on feeding on the sugar and not multiplying.
Primary Fermentation is actually Aerobic fermentation: Which means fermentation in the presence of oxygen. This stage is important to build a large colony of viable yeast cells to guarantee all the sugar in your must can be consumed and converted into CO2 and ethanol.<?
amespace prefix = o ns = "urnchemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>Secondary Fermentation is actually Anaerobic fermentation: Which is fermentation without the presence of oxygen. This stage is important so the yeast can concentrate on converting the sugar to CO2 and ethanol and not multiplying.<O
></O>Only microbes, such as yeasts and bacteria, can live for long periods without oxygen. The main reasons to put the wine under airlock in a secondary fermenter is to prevent any chance of oxidation when the fermentation slows and the amount of CO2that isproduced diminishes. It also allows the yeast to concentrate on feeding on the remaining sugar so you get a completefermentation or conversion to CO2 and ethanol.
So you can see the primary and secondary fermentation are the same in that you are only introducing one type of microbe (a single celled fungus called yeast) but their role and ultimate goal is quite different.
If you pitched a very large amount of viable yeast you would not need any oxygen and the yeast would just concentration on feeding on the sugar and not multiplying.
geocorn
Vendor
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Messages
- 2,096
- Reaction score
- 12
According to Daniel Pambianchi in his book, "Techniques in Home Winemaking", there is a cross over of terms. He states
"...it is common to refer to primary and secondary fermentations to describe artitrary phases relative to the amount of fermentable sugars still present in the must. It is usually related to the fermentation virgoourousness. The transition from the vigourous primary fermentation phase to the lesser active secondary fermentation signals the need to transfer the wine to another container. Some literature refers to both fermentations as one, i.e., the alcoholic fermentation. The latter terminology helps to avoid confusion when referring to maloactic fermentation, quite often referred to as the secondary fermenation."
This discussion points out that there are always multiple ways to do and SAY things. The important point is the ability to comunicate. I would say that one could use the term "secondary fermentation" to refer to either the secondary phase of the primary (alcoholic) fermentation or to the maloactic fermentation and still be correct and understood.
"...it is common to refer to primary and secondary fermentations to describe artitrary phases relative to the amount of fermentable sugars still present in the must. It is usually related to the fermentation virgoourousness. The transition from the vigourous primary fermentation phase to the lesser active secondary fermentation signals the need to transfer the wine to another container. Some literature refers to both fermentations as one, i.e., the alcoholic fermentation. The latter terminology helps to avoid confusion when referring to maloactic fermentation, quite often referred to as the secondary fermenation."
This discussion points out that there are always multiple ways to do and SAY things. The important point is the ability to comunicate. I would say that one could use the term "secondary fermentation" to refer to either the secondary phase of the primary (alcoholic) fermentation or to the maloactic fermentation and still be correct and understood.
peterCooper
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 966
- Reaction score
- 0
My take on it is this:
Wine is good. Making wine is good, drinking wine is good. Giving wine away
is good (within reason of course). Feeding the little yeasty beasties is good
so if we stumble over the occasional word, that is less painfull than
stumbling over other things after a few glasses.
Wine is good. Making wine is good, drinking wine is good. Giving wine away
is good (within reason of course). Feeding the little yeasty beasties is good
so if we stumble over the occasional word, that is less painfull than
stumbling over other things after a few glasses.
Jack Keller
Junior
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
I was invited to chime in on this, so I will.
I totally agree with Daniel Pambianchi's explanation. When he said, "...it is common to refer to primary and secondary fermentations..." within the context of a single, continuing fermentation,he didn't say it is correct. He simply said it is common. But he alsopoints outthere is another way to use these terms, one that avoids confusion.
When presented a choice between precision and confusion, I vote for precision and against confusion almost every time. The purpose of lanuage is to communicate and words have accepted meanings.
It is common to call a certain variety of grape "Concord grapes" rather than the absolutely correct Vitis labrusca var. 'Concord'. Calling them either is okaybecauseeveryone understands that the one is shorthand for the other. The same idea is communicated.
The same thing does not occur when one says "secondary fermentation." To me and a whole lot of folks who are serious about winemaking, that means either (1) a fermentation induced inthe bottleso as tocreate a sparkling wine, or (2) a malolactic fermentation performed by malolactic bacteria. In both cases, the fermentation being discussed is secondary to the one that created the wine. All the secondary fermentation does is change the wine in some way. Some authoritiesconsider a restarted stuck fermentationas a"secondary fermentation," but most do not -- they consider it a continuation of the "primary" or "main" or "original" fermentation.
When I read "secondary fermentation" out of context,I automatically assume the person is talking about one of these two types of fermentation, not simplythe original fermentation ina secondary fermentation vessel (carboy, jug, dimijohn). But, if whilereading in context I see a reference to "primary fermentation" in a primary and "secondary fermentation" in a carboy,I assume the person simply does not know the correct terminology and really is talking about the original("primary" fermentationin both instances.
In my life I have used a lot of terminology incorrectly, but because I wish to communicate precisely I usually adopt the correct terminology as soon as I learn ofit.
Digging up quotes where people misuse one term or another does not in itself prove orwin an argument. A lot of people can be wrong, and since ordinary people write Wiki entries, you should not consider them authoritative. It is better to seek out a recognizedauthority than just search for examples of a term's use or misuse. Daniel Pambianchi is, in my world at least, a recognized and respectedauthority.
I totally agree with Daniel Pambianchi's explanation. When he said, "...it is common to refer to primary and secondary fermentations..." within the context of a single, continuing fermentation,he didn't say it is correct. He simply said it is common. But he alsopoints outthere is another way to use these terms, one that avoids confusion.
When presented a choice between precision and confusion, I vote for precision and against confusion almost every time. The purpose of lanuage is to communicate and words have accepted meanings.
It is common to call a certain variety of grape "Concord grapes" rather than the absolutely correct Vitis labrusca var. 'Concord'. Calling them either is okaybecauseeveryone understands that the one is shorthand for the other. The same idea is communicated.
The same thing does not occur when one says "secondary fermentation." To me and a whole lot of folks who are serious about winemaking, that means either (1) a fermentation induced inthe bottleso as tocreate a sparkling wine, or (2) a malolactic fermentation performed by malolactic bacteria. In both cases, the fermentation being discussed is secondary to the one that created the wine. All the secondary fermentation does is change the wine in some way. Some authoritiesconsider a restarted stuck fermentationas a"secondary fermentation," but most do not -- they consider it a continuation of the "primary" or "main" or "original" fermentation.
When I read "secondary fermentation" out of context,I automatically assume the person is talking about one of these two types of fermentation, not simplythe original fermentation ina secondary fermentation vessel (carboy, jug, dimijohn). But, if whilereading in context I see a reference to "primary fermentation" in a primary and "secondary fermentation" in a carboy,I assume the person simply does not know the correct terminology and really is talking about the original("primary" fermentationin both instances.
In my life I have used a lot of terminology incorrectly, but because I wish to communicate precisely I usually adopt the correct terminology as soon as I learn ofit.
Digging up quotes where people misuse one term or another does not in itself prove orwin an argument. A lot of people can be wrong, and since ordinary people write Wiki entries, you should not consider them authoritative. It is better to seek out a recognizedauthority than just search for examples of a term's use or misuse. Daniel Pambianchi is, in my world at least, a recognized and respectedauthority.
