Once and for all...is a secondary neccesary??

Only do this if your racking on fruit...

Dry hoping....

I've been seeing so many mixed reviews...what is the final word on this??

Final word? You won't find one here. Sorry.

My opinion is that a secondary is necessary if you're a stickler for clarity and don't want to filter or cold crash. Otherwise, I don't see much point to it, other than for adjunct additions like you mentioned.

Best of luck. Runaway thread in 3... 2... 1...

IMO, generally no, sometimes yes.

No

No wait, yes.

Sometimes I do.
Other times I don't

I wasn't looking for a run away thread or smart answers but a right answer...

salb29 said:

I wasn't looking for a run away thread or smart answers but a right answer...

Click to expand...

Well then you're not going to find one. There's thousands of opinions floating around this board when it comes to this topic. None of them are right or wrong.

You have to research, then form your own opinion.

I'm very new to brewing and all that cones with it but I find it amazing that we can have all these advances is science and medicine but when it comes to brewing and a secondary no one can give an exact science of why I should or shouldn't use one, that its just a preference, I think it's more than that as brewing is a science...

i don't even secondary if I'm adding fruit.

wait till most of fermentation is done, krausen mostly falling, then add sterilized fruit.(I ferment in buckets)

if you can cold crash do so, it will get great results.

if not, let the beer sit for a few more weeks. if you transfer from primary to secondary you are still stirring up yeast and trub, which you will have to wait for it to clear. your yeast floculation is a big contributor.

secondary is, in my mind another opportunity for infection and oxidation.

do what you want. I don't care. drinking.

It can be a science. Sure. Why not do a double batch, then split it into two fermenters. Rack one to secondary, and not the other. Gather a group of randoms. Collect marking data. Rate every aspect of the difference numerically. If that's your thing, go for it. But you still won't know if it's "necessary".

Necessary for what? You need to answer that question first.

For fermentation? No.
For clear beer? No.
For taste? No.

For making additions that you don't want to touch krausen and yeast cake? Perhaps.

Brewing is just as much science as painting is. I for one wouldn't enjoy Bob Ross as much if he broke down his brush strokes into integrals, so I don't break down my own brewing like that.

Best of luck. Hope you find the answer you're looking for.

runningweird said:

i don't even secondary if I'm adding fruit.

wait till most of fermentation is done, krausen mostly falling, then add sterilized fruit.(I ferment in buckets)

if you can cold crash do so, it will get great results.

if not, let the beer sit for a few more weeks. if you transfer from primary to secondary you are still stirring up yeast and trub, which you will have to wait for it to clear. your yeast floculation is a big contributor.

secondary is, in my mind another opportunity for infection and oxidation.

do what you want. I don't care. drinking.

Click to expand...

But u do care u replied! Thanks for info

salb29 said:

I'm very new to brewing and all that cones with it but I find it amazing that we can have all these advances is science and medicine but when it comes to brewing and a secondary no one can give an exact science of why I should or shouldn't use one, that its just a preference, I think it's more than that as brewing is a science...

Click to expand...

It's also an art. A fine balance, that many try to maintain. I agree there's plenty of science involved. Anyway, to secondary or not is mainly a matter of opinion. Personally the risks outweigh the benefits for me in most cases, therefore I don't secondary unless I'm lagering or bulk aging for some time.

It seems you are looking for a concrete list of reasons either to do it or not. In that case, I don't think you will find much help around here....but you will find plenty of opinions

I rack to secondary if I'm harvesting the yeast from the primary.

salb29 said:

I wasn't looking for a run away thread or smart answers but a right answer...

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a final say about anything in home brewing other than you need yeast to make beer. Why are you so opposed to formulating your own opinion based on research, experiments, and experience from other home brewers? If you are looking for right answers maybe you shouldn't ask such a broad question.

salb29 said:

...what is the final word on this??

Click to expand...

Final word: no.

Props to me; I just saved you the hassle of reading this: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/secondary-not-john-palmer-jamil-zainasheff-weigh-176837/ and doing your own research.

Everyone here answered your question, Is secondary Necessary? Everyone here answered that they sometimes do and sometimes don't, if at all. So the answer must be NO. Also you must form your own opinion on this from your own brewing experiences.

salb29 said:

I wasn't looking for a run away thread or smart answers but a right answer...

Click to expand...

there is no wrong way to eat a Reases...

Smartass answer given, now here is the deal.

The question you are asking does not have a single right or wrong answer.

IMO, it is up to personal preference. Some folks think secondary offers a cleaner or clearer beer even in the absence of the addition of fruits or dry hopping, others don't seem to care.

The right answer to your question is one that you will discover on your own for you after you have many brews under your belt.

I personally do secondary for dry hopping and other post fermentation additions, this works for me. Others don't consider this necessary, Am I right or wrong? Or are the naysayers?....Actually neither because our each individual style is what counts.

Have fun brewing...that counts most

BobC said:

Everyone here answered your question, Is secondary Necessary? Everyone here answered that they sometimes do and sometimes don't, if at all. So the answer must be NO.

Click to expand...

This

wolfstar said:

there is no wrong way to eat a Reases...

Click to expand...

No but there is a wrong way to spell Reese's Sorry, I had to

I do as part of my process and for (imo) clearer beer. Let me explain. I have 2 6 gal carboys that are my primaries and 4, 5 gal carboys as secondarys. I like to let my beer sit for 4 weeks after brewing. I brew every 2 weeks. So in order to free up my primaries, on brew day I rack them into 2 of the secondarys and this frees up my primaries for the fresh brew.

Hopefully, here is some constructive information. I recently racked a bavarian Hefeweizen to secondary and the yeast cake smelled like soap. This was only after 6 days in primary. However fermentation went went fast. According to "How to Brew", by John J. Palmer, "If you leave the beer in primary fermenter for a relatively long period of time after primary fermentation is over ("long" depends on the style and other fermentation factors), soapy flavors can result from the breakdown of fatty acids in the trub. Soap is, by definition, the salt of a fatty acid, so you are literally tasting soap."

When I first opened the yeast, it smelt just like it should. I made a yeast starter, so the yeast was very healthy. In fact the manufacture date was only a week old, so it was super fresh.

Since I'm still new at making beer, I don't know exactly what happened. But my best guess is that the type of yeast used finished out fast and started breaking down. I'm glad I racked to secondary, because I didn't want my precious beer to take on any soapy flavor.

I think it has to do with the type of yeast and perhaps process. This is the first time I've smelt soap.

My 2 cents

The short answer - no. When I first started brewing (over 20 years ago) I never used a secondary for the mere fact that I didn't have the equipment to do so. The beers were really good too. So not necessary. Now that I brew way more, my use of secondaries are mainly to free up my primaries. In the old days I would go from primary to priming bucket, and then bottle. Today I bottle no more. So I go from carboy to corny to serving corny. Transfer from secondary to serving vessel is just way too convenient this way. And if my beer tastes better or comes out clearer, well, that's ok too.

My answer for this goes something along the lines of the answer provided on the second question of this link, scroll down mid page:

http://byo.com/stories/issue/item/748-help-me-mr-wizard

Is secondary "fermentation" necessary? YES, if you are naturally carbonating.

Is a secondary "vessel/carboy/fermentor" necessary to condition or clarify? NO

Plus, I believe it's Palmer who describes a secondary "phase" of fermentation, which will happen on its own after the bulk of fermentation is complete. It's the process of the yeast eating away at the more complex sugars and cleaning up after themselves once they have consumed most of the simple sugars in the wort. This will occur whether you have it in your primary or secondary fermentor.

And if you want to keep going with this, you could consider the diacetyl rest a secondary "stage" and lagering a tertiary stage in the fermentation process of lagers.

Regardless of what container holds your beer, some of these processes will occur on their own or with a little bit of your help. They can all be done in a single fermentor, but brewers have their reasons for racking or not racking to a secondary fermentor. It really is a matter of personal preference.

Nononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononono!

I have made beer without using a secondary.
Clearly the answer is no.

Water, hops, malted grain, yeast and a container to put them in are the only necessary things.
Everything else is optional.

Guys I really appreciate all the feed back, I'm doing my second batch this weekend an American cream ale and will not secondary this one, my first batch I did which is a nut brown ale, so ill compare the two and make my decision in a couple of months---thanks!

I have a conical and don't... but I keg usually after 4 weeks (Ale) and sometimes let it age in the Keg.

The first beer or two usually clears out the majority of the yeast..

Agreed. You don't generally need a secondary unless you need it to clarify your beer (like a bright tank) or are adding something else to the beer like adjuncts (fruit, wood chips, tons of hops, etc.). The risk of infection and oxidation outweighs the need for a secondary IMHO.

aiptasia said:

Agreed. You don't generally need a secondary unless you need it to clarify your beer (like a bright tank) or are adding something else to the beer like adjuncts (fruit, wood chips, tons of hops, etc.). The risk of infection and oxidation outweighs the need for a secondary IMHO.

Click to expand...

The risk of contamination is the same as just using a primary vessel. If the brewer uses common sense, knows how to siphon, and uses proper sanitation techniques the risk of contamination and oxidation is slim to none. I'd say the only down side to using a secondary is the extra work it involves to do it properly.

Experiment. Verify that every step you're doing is necessary to achieve your end result. Whether that's racking to a secondary, or doing cartwheels during the boil, that will be your "right answer" for that beer.

It is not necessary but often it would improve the final product. Its not to say you can't make good beer without it, you would need to be careful and have a good process for transfering out of you fermenter (or filtering)

Next I think we should discuss whether blue or red is the best color! Put that whole thing to rest too.

reverendj1 said:

Next I think we should discuss whether blue or red is the best color! Put that whole thing to rest too.

Click to expand...

Best color is green...

wolfstar said:

there is no wrong way to eat a Reases...

Smartass answer given, now here is the deal.

The question you are asking does not have a single right or wrong answer.

IMO, it is up to personal preference. Some folks think secondary offers a cleaner or clearer beer even in the absence of the addition of fruits or dry hopping, others don't seem to care.

The right answer to your question is one that you will discover on your own for you after you have many brews under your belt.

I personally do secondary for dry hopping and other post fermentation additions, this works for me. Others don't consider this necessary, Am I right or wrong? Or are the naysayers?....Actually neither because our each individual style is what counts.

Have fun brewing...that counts most

Click to expand...

the_trout said:

I have made beer without using a secondary.
Clearly the answer is no.

Water, hops, malted grain, yeast and a container to put them in are the only necessary things.
Everything else is optional.

Click to expand...

These are both good answers.

salb29 said:

Guys I really appreciate all the feed back, I'm doing my second batch this weekend an American cream ale and will not secondary this one, my first batch I did which is a nut brown ale, so ill compare the two and make my decision in a couple of months---thanks!

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good plan, but don't forget that a Cream Ale is lighter beer with a faint hop and malt character. Any off flavors produced from any step in your process will be more easily perceived than in a brown ale, which is much more malty. Any bold flavored beer will mask off flavors better.

fork said:

It is not necessary but often it would improve the final product. Its not to say you can't make good beer without it, you would need to be careful and have a good process for transfering out of you fermenter (or filtering)

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for an argument, but I think it's a misconception that a secondary improves beer. Merely transfering into a secondary fermentor will not improve your beer just because you are transfering it. You make good beer from the combination of a good recipe and a good process, and that may or may not include a secondary fermentor.

I've done both, and feel that as long as other factors like sanitation, yeast selection, pitch rate, fermentation temperature, use of finings, quick cooling of the wort after the boil, etc. are taken care of, you can produce equally great beer, regardless if you use a secondary fermentor or not. Bulk aging for many months is probably the only time you really see a benefit to using a secondary fermentor. Other than that, you can produce egually good, clear beer by simply tweaking your process for the use of a single fermenter. Even dry hopping and fruit, spice, or wood chip additions can be done in your pimary fermentor. But like I stated earlier, each brewer has his or her own reasons for doing the things they do and on this matter, no one way is correct or better as long as the rest of your process is solid.

I can't believe how worked up people get about the primary vs secondary "debate". Read through these threads and decide which you prefer. Do you what you prefer. Ultimately, it doesn't matter as the likelihood of any of us trying your beer is very low.

Make your beer the way you want it to be made, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. At the same time, remember to heed the advice of the giants who's backs you stand on. That is how you grow your ability and become a great brewer.

You want to know if you should stop using a secondary? Stop using a secondary. You will know when you drink the beer if you made the right decision.

I used to transfer to secondary and I made good beer. I don't anymore and I still make good beer although it is less work so to me its a plus to not do a secondary.

Really, I believe that the clarity that some achieve when racking to a secondary is simply because they are letting the beer age/condition extra time.

For a person who ferments in the primary bucket for 3 weeks and then goes straight to bottling for 3 weeks is conditioning the beer for 3 weeks after terminal gravity is reached.

For a person who racks to secondary, they may use the primary for 3 weeks, then the secondary for a week (After terminal gravity), then bottle for 3 weeks. The extra week in the secondary is very similar to bottle conditioning, thus helping the clarity of the beer.

In other words, you could just use the primary and give your beer an extra week to bottle condition and more than likely, I believe, you will end up with a very similar product in terms of clarity.

To answer your question: Needed? No. Not at all. That doesn't mean you can't use one, or that there aren't other (good) factors why people use them (late additions such as hops/chips or space for more product) but those are all factors that are arbitrary, fluid, and will change from brewer to brewer.

Do what you want, and be happy. Your beer is going to come out just fine either way as long as you do the important stuff ahead of time, such as cleaning, proper brewing techniques, etc. After that, everything is arbitrary.

From what I can tell, being fairly new to brewing myself, this is by and large a "Coke vs Pepsi" type of thing.

By and large it seems like secondary is not needed, though there are a couple of reasons why you might want to. One is to harvest yeast from the primary. Another is if you have some additions that won't mix well with the yeast/trub bed.

I'm rethinking my shipping list for the lhbs now, based on what I have found. Instead of getting a couple carboys for secondaries, I'm thinking I may buy one for long-term fermentation and another bucket. I may avoid the carboys all together. I haven't decided yet.