Is "Secondary" Actually Worth It?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

gamoss317

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Schenectady
I saw one user say that he suggests not even moving the beer to a secondary fermenter b/c it increases your risk of infection. He says to leave the beer in a single 5 or 6 gal glass carboy for 3 weeks minimum then bottle if it has reached FG. I know a secondary fermenting vessel will clear the beer up a little bit, but is it really worth it? Also...if I only use one vessel, I can make 2 beers at a time! I'm not sold on the idea. Any opinions?
 
I very rarely ever rack anything to secondary and never have issues with clarity.
The only time I will rack is if I'm going to rack on top of something like fruit or if I need to free up a larger carboy for another batch. Other than that, I'll put it in primary and leave it there until it's ready. I'll even bulk age in primary for months and have never had any issues.
 
This is the most discussed topic on here, it has been readily covered. I suggest you read THIS thread, it's become the "uber discussion" on this topic thread. Every discussion, question, answer, citation, etch is in that thread....

To Secondary or Not? John Palmer and Jamil Zainasheff Weigh In .

Many of us leave our beer in primary for a month minimum then bottle.....We find out beers to be clearer and better tasting.

I suggest you read that thread, and experiment for yourself, and make up your own mind.

There's thousands of threads on here already, where folks have ventured their opinions, and argued incessantly, but it ultimately comes down to what works for you......Heck this topic has come up 4 times alone already today.
 
You've opened a can of worms. Not to be "that guy" but if you just search for "secondary fermentation neccessary" or "worth it" you'll come up with many different threads.

Regardless, I started brewing with Better Bottle plastic carboys (5 and 6 gal). I always went to a secondary. My 5 gallon suffered a crack in it, and my 6 gallon followed, so I purchased a 6 gallon glass carboy and did away with secondary fermentation. I can't say I have noticed anything bad with my beers since doing only a primary fermentation.


For ales, it's not neccessary at all. If you want to "clear" your beer, just use irish moss or whirfloc tablets. From what I read, for lagers it's absolutely neccessary
 
There are opinions across the spectrum on this (and anything else related to the subject of homebrewing). I agree to a point with the person you've quoted. If your sanitation practices are sound the potential for infection are negligible and shouldn't in and of it self be the determining factor on whether or not to secondary. I see the use of a secondary as a tool, sometimes it's called for, other times it isn't. Dry hopping, late additions (fruit, etc), or recipe\styles requiring a lengthy aging (assuming no keg or desire to age in keg) would all be a reason to utilize a secondary. American, Indian Pale, English, Irish, Scottish, et al, ales...not necessary.

Keyth
 
I almost never use a secondary since I quit making jet fuel( avb 8-9%). If you control the temp and don't use crap yeast, most of the ales I do will puke for 2 or 3 days before settling down and usually by day 5, I can put on a airlock. at day 7 I will cold crash to 35°for a day or two (if you look at the beer you will see it clearing). Then I keg it, pump it up to 50psi and it's ready in about 6 hours..
p.s. I dry hop in the keg.
 
I know a secondary fermenting vessel will clear the beer up a little bit,

I'm not picking on you at all- but how do you "know a secondary vessel will clear the beer up a little bit?" I mean, moving the beer from one vessel to another won't magically make yeast or suspended proteins fall to the bottom of the next vessel, any more than leaving it in place will. After all, that's gravity that does the work.

I guess what I'm saying is that the basically premise of moving to a clearing vessel is flawed, when you think about it.

I'm a winemaker, and in winemaking there IS a secondary fermenter, as fermentation does occur in the next vessel. Usually, a wine primary is "open" and moved to the secondary for an airlock. But in the case of making beer, typically the fermenter is airlocked from the beginning. So they are different processes, and calling the clearing vessel in beermaking a "secondary" is a misnomer. There is no "secondary fermentation" going on in most cases, and instead in a brewery the clearing vessel is called a "bright tank".

The reason breweries use a bright tank at all is so that a new batch can be started in the fermenting vessel, plus they can then drop the temperature of the bright tank to clear the beer fast. We can do the same thing, by simply sticking the fermenter in the fridge. Also, in a big brewery, the pressure exerted on the yeast of the bottom of the fermenter is considerable while most homebrewers are doing 5-10 gallon batches which don't have the same weight. That means that we don't really have to worry about the yeast cells rupturing from the pressure on them from all of the weight, so it sort of negates the need for a bright tank for that reason.

What I'm saying is that whether a beer is in the first vessel or in a clearing vessel, it won't clear any faster and there really isn't any reason to move it for most beers.
 
There is no "secondary fermentation" going on in most cases, and instead in a brewery the clearing vessel is called a "bright tank".

It's worth mentioning that the airlock activity that one might see after racking to a secondary is rarely, if ever, fermentation. This is a point of confusion for many.
 
To me, secondary only helps with clarity. It gets rid of the layer of yeast and trub at the bottom. That helps clarity when you dont have that thick layer at the bottom. My opinion.
 
Before I started kegging I would do a secondary. Now I let it ferment out and settle. Once the top starts to clear out, I transfer to a keg and pressurize to about 15 and stick it in the fridge. After a few days I drop the pressure to just enough to pull a half pint then repressurize. I do this every couple of days until it seems the yeast is gone. Then I jack the pressure up to about 25 for 2 days, then back to 12 for a week. Works for me.
 
I did a secondary one time and then stopped. Now I am minimum 3 weeks before I even take a hydrometer reading. I am at my FG 95% of the time. Then I usually let sit another week unless I have something coming down the pipleline too fast and need to move to keg.
 
I have little doubt a secondary will leave less trub on the bottom of a fermenter than in a primary. That's about it. Let your beer ferment out in the primary, all junk will settle out and no secondary equals less hassle and less opportunity for oxidation to occur.

Rack from primary to the bottle bucket (leaving the trub on the bottom - it's not difficult to do) and bottle away. By the time the beer has carbonated and sat in a fridge for a week or so to allow all that CO2 to be absorbed into the beer - You'll end up with clear beer that is fully carbonated and ready to drink.
 
It's simple: Try the same recipe with a secondary, and without. See which one you think works best.

I do secondaries as a matter of habit and because it works for me.

My usual schedule (for ales) is 2 weeks primary, 2 (or more) weeks secondary. I've done some secondary-less batches with a 3 week primary and it worked just fine too.

MC
 
Just my 2 cents...
I tried secondary with my last Kolsch (1 primary+2 secondary w/gelatin) and it turned out pretty much the same as previous Kolsch with 2 weeks of primary and cold crash. Difference was imperceptible.

Even C. White in his book "Yeast" said that there are two misconceptions when using a secondary at homebrewing:
1. Beer should be removed before the yeast starts to die and cause unwanted flavors.
For carboys and plastic buckets, the yeast is on the bottom of the broad fermenter so it does not retain heat and there is larger amount of yeast in contact with beer (as opposed to the conical fermentation) Because of that, the risk of autolysis and creating unwanted is much lower, the exception is if beer is a long time at a higher temperature after completed fermentation (when are created similar conditions as in the conical fermentation.), but several days longer are no real issue.
2. Beer will clear up quickly in the secondary fermentor.
If flocculation is not in some way increased after decanting the secondary, clarification of beer will be the same. During decanting the particles that have begun to drop on the bottom of the primary fermentor again "rise" in the secondary, so decanting can slows clarification.

Also, a layer of yeast at the bottom of the fermenter is not inert, it is participating in absorption of aldehydes and diacetyl.
Yeast that is washed from the primary fermenter contains cells with higher flocculation but lower attenuation, so the new beer might be less attenuated. Yeast from the secondary tend to have lower flocculation but higher attenuation, and the new beer may be cloudy because the yeast is not settled at the bottom.
 
I had a fairly significant sulfur (h2s) odor in my wort in a braggot and after ferm had pretty much stopped, I racked it a couple of times before bottling and that got rid of it. That's one reason a secondary can possibly be beneficial.
 
I do both and it really depends on my fermenter needs, my time available, and the yeast I'm dealing with. If I have a 2.5-3 week timetable, I will primary for 2 weeks and rack to secondary for a few days. Its amazing how much yeast falls out after racking.

I primary only german wheat 3333 since it flocs almost clear after 2-3 weeks in primary. I cold crash in primary Bells yeast, some US and English strains, and lower gravity belgians. Usually after 3 weeks or so in primary.

I will rack high gravity beers to secondary after 3-4 weeks on primary for further conditioning. It would probably be fine in primary for longer, but I feel more comfortable having these beers sit for another month or two on less yeast.

I find that 2565 Kolsch yeast flocs best when the beer is chilled (& gelatin added) in primary for a couple of days, then rack to secondary. Falls out clear in 2-3 weeks at 40F that way.
 
I'm not picking on you at all- but how do you "know a secondary vessel will clear the beer up a little bit?" I mean, moving the beer from one vessel to another won't magically make yeast or suspended proteins fall to the bottom of the next vessel, any more than leaving it in place will. After all, that's gravity that does the work.

I guess what I'm saying is that the basically premise of moving to a clearing vessel is flawed, when you think about it.

I'm a winemaker, and in winemaking there IS a secondary fermenter, as fermentation does occur in the next vessel. Usually, a wine primary is "open" and moved to the secondary for an airlock. But in the case of making beer, typically the fermenter is airlocked from the beginning. So they are different processes, and calling the clearing vessel in beermaking a "secondary" is a misnomer. There is no "secondary fermentation" going on in most cases, and instead in a brewery the clearing vessel is called a "bright tank".

The reason breweries use a bright tank at all is so that a new batch can be started in the fermenting vessel, plus they can then drop the temperature of the bright tank to clear the beer fast. We can do the same thing, by simply sticking the fermenter in the fridge. Also, in a big brewery, the pressure exerted on the yeast of the bottom of the fermenter is considerable while most homebrewers are doing 5-10 gallon batches which don't have the same weight. That means that we don't really have to worry about the yeast cells rupturing from the pressure on them from all of the weight, so it sort of negates the need for a bright tank for that reason.

What I'm saying is that whether a beer is in the first vessel or in a clearing vessel, it won't clear any faster and there really isn't any reason to move it for most beers.

This is exactly what I used to think. And then Basic Brewing/BYO did the experiment that MC linked a few posts above this one. I was as shocked as anyone, but moving to secondary pretty conclusively lead to faster clearing in their experiments. Dramatically so in some cases (if nothing else, check out the PDF with the pictures of the belgian). Their theory is that transferring dislodged small CO2 bubbles from yeast/proteins, causing them to fall faster.

 
I never do secondary but wonder why most kit instructions call for it. If the trend is to leave the beer in the primary for a little longer prior to bottling/kegging, why haven't the kit makers followed this trend ?

ETA: I get most of my kits from Austin HomeBrew.
 
I never do secondary but wonder why most kit instructions call for it. If the trend is to leave the beer in the primary for a little longer prior to bottling/kegging, why haven't the kit makers followed this trend ?
.
because its a method that works, one of several.
leaving the beer in the primary until you bottle isn't necessary
 
It's simple: Try the same recipe with a secondary, and without. See which one you think works best.

I do secondaries as a matter of habit and because it works for me.

My usual schedule (for ales) is 2 weeks primary, 2 (or more) weeks secondary. I've done some secondary-less batches with a 3 week primary and it worked just fine too.

MC

I like this answer the best. I've decided on no primary for me by trying both methods and being perfectly happy with both beers. I decided a secondary was unnecessary, but do what works best for you!
 
I haven't racked a beer to secondary in probably 3 or 4 years, and I brew 2x5 gallon batches each month. I really don't see a reason to rack beer to secondary any longer for a normal batch. Now, if you are making a fruit beer, like a lambic, then definitely rack.
 
I never do secondary but wonder why most kit instructions call for it. If the trend is to leave the beer in the primary for a little longer prior to bottling/kegging, why haven't the kit makers followed this trend ?

ETA: I get most of my kits from Austin HomeBrew.

Most of the companies that sell the kits also sell secondary fermenters. Take that for what it's worth.
 
avidhomebrewer said:
I haven't racked a beer to secondary in probably 3 or 4 years, and I brew 2x5 gallon batches each month. I really don't see a reason to rack beer to secondary any longer for a normal batch. Now, if you are making a fruit beer, like a lambic, then definitely rack.

Let me add beers with extra material in the boil that is not stained out, like a pumpkin ale. Secondary is helpful here as well to let things clear without leaving bottles half full of pumpkin. I racked off p primary and left behind a little more than a gallon due to a large amount of pumpkin in the boil.
 
I stopped doing secondaries a long time ago and pretty much just go 3 weeks in the primary. I don't care about clarity (even though my brews are clear) because I am not a pro brewer but I do care about quality and freshness and I feel like the average home brewer doesn't have the proper equipment to transfer beer from container to container without oxidizing it. I leave my beer in the primary pretty to avoid extra work but to mainly reduce oxidation post fermentation.
 
I do secondaries sometimes. It depends on a few different things: type of beer, empty kegs, or if i want to brew another beer. Since i only have one primary fermentor and 3 glass 2ndry's i do it out of necessity.
 
I stopped doing secondaries a long time ago and pretty much just go 3 weeks in the primary. I don't care about clarity (even though my brews are clear) because I am not a pro brewer but I do care about quality and freshness and I feel like the average home brewer doesn't have the proper equipment to transfer beer from container to container without oxidizing it. I leave my beer in the primary pretty to avoid extra work but to mainly reduce oxidation post fermentation.

Because an auto siphon is too much work? Granted im not saying your wrong about leaving in the primary, but the transferring and oxidizing scare doesnt seem warranted.
 
Absolutely worth it but it requires patience!
Some don't have it but it not only clarifies your beers, i.e., Brite Tank, but let's your yeast finish its job.
 
Besides in wine or mead, a secondary is just one more thing to clean.....

Some people swear by it, others don't. However if you have ****ty practices.....most likely the issue isn't caused by not having a secondary.
 
Interesting thread. I always thought skipping secondary was just another one of those things you can get away with, but it might not be best practice. Then I see evidence from Palmer and and Jamil that secondary might actually be bad.

Here’s a couple of logs to throw on the fire:

1. It depends on the yeast. Using WLP004 I had to secondary to clear enough to bottle. You could watch it. There was a band that went top to bottom in about three days, Didn’t happen in primary.

2. Secondary is more important for bottling than keg. Kegging pretty much is secondary.

Let the flames begin!

Full disclosure, I have a pale going to bottle, tomorrow maybe, that is primary only. It’s SO4, a highly flocculent yeast. More research is required. Research is fun.
 
I never do a secondary anymore. With my lagers, I go from primary to keg. When I do a Kolsch or something, I leave it in the primary for a month and then right to keg to cold crash..Works great everytime...
My beers always come out clear and tasty..
 
Back
Top