Primary, Secondary, then bottle?

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.

maestro_wu

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Location
Kapolei
Hi all,

I learned to brew from my brother-in-law, who always does a primary fermentation (~2 weeks), then bottles and waits another ~2 weeks.

Lately, though, I've been hearing from friends that starter kits are urging a primary fermentation, then a secondary (in carboy, pail, etc.), /then/ bottling.

What gives?

Can anyone clear this up for me?

Thanks!
 
Longer primary, NO secondary, then keg/bottle and carbonate. I keg now, but I use the two week slow method. I ONLY move a batch [of beer] to another vessel IF I'm aging it for an extended period with something that works best off the yeast. Such as 4-8 months on oak/wood. I've gone about three months in primary so far without any negative effects.

IMO/IME, those urging you to go with a secondary are using outdated methods. You don't need to do this by any stretch (especially with ale yeast).

BTW, look into the bazillion posts/threads about not using a second vessel/bright tank these days...

Queue Revvy... :eek:
 
How are your brother-in-law's beers?
You can primary ~ week, secondary ~week, then bottle & let condition for ~2 weeks.
Or you can primary ~2 to ? weeks, then bottle and condition ~2 weeks.
I'm pretty impatient, for me it's usually 1 week in primary, 2 in secondary, and 2 in bottle for most ale's, longer for each phase with heavier beers.
and Some will say why secondary at all, primary 2 to 4 weeks (or longer) then bottle or keg.
After a while it becomes a seat of your pants thing, you find what works for you. Most important of course is sanitation, and temperature control of fermentation, those two done wrong will ruin a batch quickly.
Good luck, have fun!
 
Yea, Goldie hit it. That's a long discussion based on preference. I do secondary almost everything (outdated or not) because I like the clarity of the pour. Secondary is really for lagering.

Also, check out the carbonation thread. Two weeks is a bit soon for bottling. Others better over time so RDWHAB and start laddering brews.
 
I wil ONLY secondary a beer nowadays for clarity. But that's not often.

Gary

Never needed to do that. Almost all the yeasts I've used (and will use) are rated at least 'high' for flocculation. The one that's not, is going to spend a good long time in primary anyway (a 15%+ barleywine, brewed 10/27 and STILL fermenting away :rockin:). I've made plenty of pale ales that have been super clear in glass, without using any additional steps/methods once they go into fermenter. Only 'agent' I've used is Irish Moss (or versions of it) and time. IMO/IME, time is your best ally, tool, resource when it comes to brewing.
 
Thanks for all of the super-prompt and helpful responses.

They do, though, raise for me a secondary (pun intended) question: What, exactly, does one do that makes it count as secondary fermentation? Just re-rack with a bit more corn sugar? Or just re-rack?

Thanks!
 
To be accurate most "secondary fermentations" aren't fermentations at all. The ferment should be complete before you rack (or you risk a stuck ferment) and is used only for clearing the beer and the proper terminology for that is "bright tank". I would only rack to secondary if I was adding fruit which does cause a secondary fermentation. Otherwise I would rack to a bright tank for lagering, oaking, or just extra clearing.
 
Thanks for all of the super-prompt and helpful responses.

They do, though, raise for me a secondary (pun intended) question: What, exactly, does one do that makes it count as secondary fermentation? Just re-rack with a bit more corn sugar? Or just re-rack?

Thanks!

Ah, you've hit on the million dollar question!

In a brewery, there is NO "secondary fermenter". None. The fermentation takes place in the fermenter, and then is pumped to the "bright tank" for clearing. That's primarily so a new batch can be started in the fermenter, not because of anything magical that happens in moving the beer.

However, I'm an old winemaker. In winemaking, there is a primary, and then you move the wine to "secondary" where the fermentation finishes under airlock.

My belief is that homebrewers took winemaking techniques and applied them to brewing, and kept some of the same terminology.

But in winemaking, you normally do the primary not under airlock, and stir the wine for the first few days, so it's a hyrbridized technique.

When more people starting homebrewing, and realized that there is no such thing as a "secondary fermentation" with beer, then people starting rethinking that. The holdouts now tend to be people who read books that describe a secondary and the need to get the beer off of the yeast cake, or old winemakers in homebrew shops.

The current thinking, from maybe the last three or four years, is that a transfer to a clearing vessel ("bright tank") is not necessary for homebrewers, but some still choose to do it.

Gravity is what clears the beer, and not the act of moving the beer to another container.

Sometimes I transfer, because for lagers I always do. Or to oak a beer, or because I want to reuse the yeast for another batch. But it's not necessary for most homebrews.
 
I call BullSheet on that...
[/URL]

You've already stated that a secondary is totally unnecessary, because you don't do it.

Now look at what Midwest says

"While there may be much debate about whether secondary fermentation is necessary or not,
Midwest suggests trying it once and judging for yourself. We think you’ll see, smell, and taste a
noticeable difference in the quality of your beer."

I'd much rather make a judgement based on what I perceive, rather than what you advocate.

-a.
 
Midwest is just regurgitating OLD information. Plus, they SELL hardware, so it's in their best interest to tell people to go the secondary route.

BTW, I did download, and look over, the PDF... Right on the first page, right after what you quote, they start spewing the 1 week primary/1-2 weeks secondary crud... Actually ALL the ale types they list are 1 week primary and then X weeks secondary...

Since the OP DID ask for our take on this, I'm calling MidWest out on this. Plus, they're leading people to believe that an airlock IS an actual fermentation meter. Anyone who's been reading threads here will recognize that's NOT true.

Do what you like, but don't think that you MUST rack to a second vessel with ALL brews. It's simply not the case. As others have stated, you can (and very often will) get better beer when you DON'T rack to the bright tank/second vessel (with ales, I'm not talking lagers here).

BTW, this is one of the reasons why I stopped going to the LHBS that I first used when starting out brewing. They were locked into the ANCIENT methods of X days in primary then rack to secondary for Y days. Didn't matter about all the risks you take when you do this. Didn't matter what the big names in homebrewing now say.

As I said, do what you want, but don't delude yourself into think you MUST rack for all brews.

I'm out.
 
Golddiggie said:
As others have stated, you can (and very often will) get better beer when you DON'T rack to the bright tank/second vessel

I'm out.

Hmmm, so now its gone from "you don't have to rack" to "not racking will very often give you better beer"?

I can understand the statement of "its not necessary", but please, let's not mislead people.

Another weak argument is the whole infection claim...Have you ever infected a batch by merely racking it? I never have and I've never spoken to anyone who has.
 
Heh. I'd no idea I'd be the guy who kicked the hornets' nest. Oops.

So here's the thing : I've got a Midwest kit on order, and I think I'll try it their way - just that once.

Honestly, I'll probably go back to the single fermentation phase. I've been pretty happy with everything I've ever brewed this way (the only way I knew) up to now.

Of course, if I really do see a big difference, I'll repeat the experiment with a control of sorts and make a more informed decision then.

Thanks!

PS: I'll report more results if there's interest.
 
maestro_wu said:
Heh. I'd no idea I'd be the guy who kicked the hornets' nest. Oops.

So here's the thing : I've got a Midwest kit on order, and I think I'll try it their way - just that once.

Honestly, I'll probably go back to the single fermentation phase. I've been pretty happy with everything I've ever brewed this way (the only way I knew) up to now.

Of course, if I really do see a big difference, I'll repeat the experiment with a control of sorts and make a more informed decision then.

Thanks!

PS: I'll report more results if there's interest.

Ha, no man, its not you. Believe it or not I actually agree with Goldiggie for the most part. I rack most of my beers because I usually need my primary fermenters for another batch and I'm a big advocate of conditioning most beers for over a month. I also reuse the yeast periodically and need to get it out. That said, I've had no ill effects from racking.
 
I've done it both ways too many times to count. I also have great respect for homebrew shops, including Midwest, and all they do for our hobby. With that out there, the absolute only reason I can think of that any homebrew shop would encourage transferring to secondary is to make more money- what's the most expensive piece of equipment is most starter kits? The glass carboy, hands down. It's common knowledge that perception is biased, even if we think we're not. I urge anyone to brew the split a batch into 2 fermenters, keep 1 in primary only and use a secondary for the other, then do a triangle test. If you can even tell a difference, my hunch would be you'll like the "primary only" batch a tad better. We now know that leaving beer on the yeast cake actually benefits beer! Add to that the fact it removes a rather tedious task of homebrewing and I truly see no reason anyone would choose to secondary, other than tradition. But hey, to each their own.

Cheers!
 
i have always done just a (longish) primary, but recently transferred a beer to a secondary to dry hop. i read somewhere that yeast greatly reduces the amount of aroma extracted from dry hops.

i haven't tried the beer yet, but i think i will start transferring to secondarys. there is close to 2 inches of sediment in a 5gallon carboy. if that hadn't been in a secondary it would all be in my bottles. transferring is kinda fun because what other brewing activity takes less than 1 hour to do? maybe making a starter but i use dry anyways. i don't see any downside to transferring except for maybe oxidation (never had it in homebrew), and extra work.

i feel like all of the long primary supporters have severely missed the point. originally it seemed to be an ADDITIONAL option to only primary, since pri. +sec. was the standard. now its mentioned as the only way to do it, which is the same as people just blindly listening to the old method.
 
I like to rack to the keg from the "bright tank". The extra step to me isn't that big of a deal and results in (for me) much clearer beer going into the keg. Drinking a beer right now that was put in the refrigerator today and being served out of "tertiary" (aka "keg") and is darn near crystal clear from day one even after only a 48 hr "secondary" in the bright tank, and a 48 hr or so tertiary at the lower end of ferment temps in the keg. Don't always "secondary" but it gets me a much clearer beer racked into the serving vessel. Just my experience with my system. YMMV. Oh, and also just like bobbrewedit said I usually want my primary(ies) back for a new batch.
 
Oh, and also just like bobbrewedit said I usually want my primary(ies) back for a new batch.
This would be a good point but for a new brewer on a short budget they can buy a plastic bucket for an extra fermenter for half the price of a carboy and get something that isn't fragile at the same time.
 
RM-MN said:
This would be a good point but for a new brewer on a short budget they can buy a plastic bucket for an extra fermenter for half the price of a carboy and get something that isn't fragile at the same time.

I was just stating my considerations. I have various fermenters including plastic buckets and they make fine beer.

Perhaps some are, especially these days, but I wasn't assuming the original poster was on a "short budget" or any other new brewer either.

As far as a secondary necessarily being fragile there are better bottles, plastic and steel conicals, corny kegs, and of course glass. So, secondaries aren't intrinsically fragile.

BTW I found a Carboy on my local Craigslist yesterday the guy said he left it dirty after last brew session so he was only asking $15. I guess he didn't feel like cleaning it. Not necessarily expensive either I guess.
 
Back
Top