Secondary Fermentation

I'm hearing/reading quite often how secondary fermentation is less prevalent now. I'm wondering why that is.

Risk of infection from another racking phase is probably the key factor. Plus unless you're dry hopping, adding fruit/spices, or lagering...there isn't a huge benefit to doing it. The yeast does a good job cleaning up after itself in primary, getting rid of undesirable byproducts, etc. I've considered getting a glass secondary though for when I have no kegs/bottles available simply as a storage device for my beer. Plastic carries the risk of oxygen permeation. I've had a beer left in a better bottle for months and it was undrinkable. I'm sure some have successfully done just that, but I'm leary.

Because for many beers, it is simply unneccessary.

Reasons for doing a secondary fermentation (may not be all-inclusive): Adding fruit, massive dry-hop, bulk aging or lagering, adding wood, clarifying prior to bottling.

Reasons not to do a secondary: Risk of oxidation, risk of contamination, moving beer too soon off yeast cake risks poor attenuation.

But, there are no hard and fast rules. It's your brewery, you're the boss, you decide.

Cheers!

In large scale breweries they remove the beer from the yeast because under the weight and pressure of the beer the yeast start to eat themselves which gives off a bunch of off flavors. Knowing this, homebrewers did it for a long time without realizing that the weight and pressure of five gallons was not enough to force this effect in a short period of time on their yeast.

It's not necessary. All the cool kids do primary only these days.

That being said, I secondary. I've tried it both ways - with primary only, I ended up with a lot of trub in my bottling bucket, which ended up costing me several bottles of beer at bottling. From now on, I will always secondary. If I sanitize well, I see the infection risk as minimal.

Your mileage may vary.

Quick question on this, I'm about to do my first IPA and thus dry hop.. Is it necessary to use a secondary when I toss the hops in there or can I just put them in the primary? Also I've read that you shouldn't leave them in longer than a week, but then I have read the longer you leave them in the better the aroma sticks... So which is it?

mscg4u said:

Quick question on this, I'm about to do my first IPA and thus dry hop.. Is it necessary to use a secondary when I toss the hops in there or can I just put them in the primary? Also I've read that you shouldn't leave them in longer than a week, but then I have read the longer you leave them in the better the aroma sticks... So which is it?

Click to expand...

It's not necessary to transfer to secondary to dry hop. I have had great results just tossing loose hops in my primary fermenter.

I have only ever dry hopped for a week, though. I can't think of any scientific reason why the aroma would "stick" better with a longer dry hopping phase. And common wisdom says that longer than 10 days or so and you start getting negative grassy/vegetal flavors from the hops.

Good enough for me. It was just one thread where I read the bit about keeping it in longer than a week. Everywhere else has said exactly what you did, too long and it imparts bad flavors

mscg4u said:

Quick question on this, I'm about to do my first IPA and thus dry hop.. Is it necessary to use a secondary when I toss the hops in there or can I just put them in the primary? Also I've read that you shouldn't leave them in longer than a week, but then I have read the longer you leave them in the better the aroma sticks... So which is it?

Click to expand...

I've done both. There's obviously less trub if you dry hop in a secondary but I didn't notice any difference in taste. Maybe someone else will have more experience with this and respond. Maybe do a test for yourself and see what you like better?

I never leave the dry hops in for more than 10 days; but I usually do 7. A grassy type taste can develop if you leave them in for too long.

I rack to secondary for the mere fact it make bottling easier. No Trub in the secondary means I can get essentailly all the beer bottled. I don't know John Palmer says it's not necesarry for most beers. I just find it another simple step that makes life easier.

The infection and oxidatation risks are blown way out of proportion. If you have dirty equipment and can't siphon its a risk.

A secondary makes transferring clear beer much easier at the end.
Like secondaries, long primaries aren't necessary, but are easier for some depending on what they want at the end. To me, a secondary is more work early, a long primary is much more work on the back end.

Basicly, i'm lazy and a secondary is the easiest way to get the product I want.

For me the reason to transfer or not comes down to flavors. The longer the beer is exposed to the yeast cake, the more it will influence the flavor. Some people prefer the taste of primary only and others prefer the flavors of beers that have used a secondary This can also vary with style as the difference are less dramatic in strongly flavored beers.

If one finds they prefer one method over the other, then they will take steps to minimize any risks associated with that method. Or one simply might not care which is a perfectly acceptable answer

Keep in mind that the yeast in the cake is not very metabolically active so they do not contribute much in the way of cleaning up any undesirable products of fermentation. Keeping the beer on the yeast cake so they can clean up, is not an accurate statement as the yeast still in suspension are the ones doing the job. The yeast cake is not needed for this purpose. If you like the flavors from a long primary, it is not because the yeast had more time to clean up the flavors

Now I'm even more confused! But at least I know many of the arguments on both sides.

apcoach said:

Now I'm even more confused! But at least I know many of the arguments on both sides.

Click to expand...

Haha. Remember to RDWHAHB, and that at the end of the day you'll make beer! Try it one way, and if it isn't perfect you'll just have to brew more beer...there are worse problems

homebrewdad said:

It's not necessary. All the cool kids do primary only these days.

That being said, I secondary. I've tried it both ways - with primary only, I ended up with a lot of trub in my bottling bucket, which ended up costing me several bottles of beer at bottling. From now on, I will always secondary. If I sanitize well, I see the infection risk as minimal.

Your mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I understand this. You state that you lost several bottles on bottling day due to trub in the bottling bucket. Don't you lose about the same when you leave it in the primary during that transfer?

I don't get much trub in the bottling bucket but that may be due to more in suspension that ends up in the bottle. With kegging its nice because any sediment usually pours off with the first pint and then its smooth sailing.

apcoach said:

Now I'm even more confused! But at least I know many of the arguments on both sides.

Click to expand...

One thing to take away from this discussion... If there is no consensus, it probably doesn't matter.

I agree with the arguments above for both methods. I've done both, but mostly only use a secondary when dry hopping. My only reasoning for this is that I think it is possible that you might get better extraction of the aroma of the hops if they don't get incorporated into the yeast cake. However, they usually float on top anyway so it's probably just voodoo.

For those of you using a primary only, are you using a screen when you put the wort into the primary?

jarrodaden said:

For those of you using a primary only, are you using a screen when you put the wort into the primary?

Click to expand...

You can if you want, but isn't necessary. I screen if I'm using Irish Moss or I specifically want the hops out, if I remember to...

It's the most debated topic here. I do long primarys because I'm lazy. I can understand both sides, particularly with bottling in mind. I did a RIS with good old '05 and the yeast cake was packed down hard as a rock. The White labs Trappist in another batch was still loose, even though it was clear as day.

There are pluses and minuses for both. Use whatever method makes sense for your personal setup and what you're willing to put up with.

I am really tempted to take 5 gallons of wort and split it into 5 - 1 gallon glass growlers and then bottle at various times. Maybe someone had already tried this... If so, please provide a link.

Would be easier to catch this if you are familiar with Jonny Cash and The Circle. Crappy adaption but all the better I can come up with right now.

OP. Make beer! Control the wort fermentation temp and be patient. Secondaries are not always necessary in making great beer.

I was standing
next to my fermenter.
By and by lord by my side!
Can the circle?
A second fermenter,
Take my fermentation to the sky?

Second fermenter,
I asked you better?
To take my brew aside.
Make her better
than ever!
Take my beer on a ride.

If you're asking
and you're waiting?
For the best ferm around!
Please listen, to my rumblings
Second fermentation is not bound!

Dan said:

Would be easier to catch this if you are familiar with Jonny Cash and The Circle. Crappy adaption but all the better I can come up with right now.

OP. Make beer! Control the wort fermentation temp and be patient. Secondaries are not always necessary in making great beer.

I was standing
next to my fermenter.
By and by lord by my side!
Can the circle?
A second fermenter,
Take my fermentation to the sky?

Second fermenter,
I asked you better?
To take my brew aside.
Make her better
than ever!
Take my beer on a ride.

If you're asking
and you're waiting?
For the best ferm around!
Please listen, to my rumblings
Second fermentation is not bound!

Click to expand...

HaHa! Hilarious Dan......I just blew beer out of my nose and onto my keyboard when I read this.