Is Secondary fermentation really needed???

i've been doin alot of research and have heard numerous people claim secondary really isnt worth the risk of contamination. Simply leave it in the primary for upwards of 4 weeks and then keg or bottle, and leave for an additional 2 weeks. I have been brewing now for about 6 months, and have always racked to a secondary. I really just want as many people to give me their opinion, i may try it next batch.

I don't use one. I'm not worried about contamination, as I'm pretty careful about sanitation. I just tend to be rather impatient. Plus, I don't bottle, so beer becomes increasing clear as I consume it.

Secondary fermenters can be great places for dryhopping, if you bottle, or adding certain aromatic spices. It can also be a way to rack your beer off your yeast cake if you are getting ready to brew again and want to harvest the yeast.

Frankly, I think the time and effort isn't really worth the net result. Just one brewer's opinion, which is what you asked for.

General consensus seems to be that it's not necessary. I don't use a secondary and my beers always come out fine regardless.

there are uses of it and there are plenty of beers that will turn out just as well without a secondary. I have done a few beers and have additions of a second yeast of sugars in the secondary. When i do a bigger beer I really enjoy pulling my beer off the yeast and letting it go in the secondary I will add a small addition of sugar to kick up the fermentation and get a layer of co2 and let it sit for 3 months

What are the beneifits for harvesting your yeast cake??

mike1978 said:

What are the beneifits for harvesting your yeast cake??

Click to expand...

You don't have to buy yeast for your next batch, and if you pitch right onto the cake, you can get the same effect as a big starter without having to bother with actually doing a starter. Those fancy Wyeast smack packs are like $7+ and for me that's like a quarter of the money I have to spend on a typical brew day.

If you brew the same thing (or similar beers) twice in a row, you can rack the first batch to secondary on the day you brew the second batch. Then rack the new wort (chilled, of course) onto the first batch's yeast cake. Fermentation will probably start quicker and will be cleaner, and you don't pay a dime for yeast.

JUST WANNA BE CLEAR.

So what your sayin is after i rack a batch that has already fermented for 2-4 weeks, and i'm in the process of cooling a new batch, to rack the fermented beer to a secondary, and then rack the new (cooled) batch into the first batch's primary vessel on top of the yeast cake? Then close it up without any addition of yeast?

Do you stir it up/aerate the beer?

Or gentley rack and try not to disturb it?

Yeah, what you described is how I understand it's supposed to be done.

I'm pretty sure you don't have to aerate, but I haven't actually done this before so I might be wrong. The yeast use oxygen to multiply and then when the oxygen runs out, they start producing alcohol. So if you already have a cake that's got a big enough yeast population to do your fermentation, the yeast can just skip the oxygen-consuming phase and get right to making alcohol.

You don't need to stir, and I don't think disturbing the yeast bed will hurt either. There is a video floating around that's a time lapse of a carboy where fresh wort was pitched onto a cake. Over the course of a few hours, the yeast cake literally wakes up, rises up into the solution, and sets up camp at the top of the carboy to form a new kreuzen, without any encouragment other than having fresh wort dropped onto it.

I agree with post below me, and that's what i plan on doing when i pitch for my stout.


edit: oops i should learn to read the full post.

mike1978 said:

JUST WANNA BE CLEAR.

So what your sayin is after i rack a batch that has already fermented for 2-4 weeks, and i'm in the process of cooling a new batch, to rack the fermented beer to a secondary, and then rack the new (cooled) batch into the first batch's primary vessel on top of the yeast cake? Then close it up without any addition of yeast?

Do you stir it up/aerate the beer?

Or gentley rack and try not to disturb it?

Click to expand...

I rack off the cake and then dump the new batch in there with enough force to knock the teeth out of Grandma.

Wort onto cake = aerate.

Although research shows it will do fine without aeration as well. Yeast wants to turn sugar into beer.

But I dump it on in there. I have done 5 beers in a row with no problems.

YMMV.

But I doubt it.

I have an old ale aging in secondary now - it is going to sit maybe six months before I bottle. But I don't secondary most of my "normal" beers though. I have even started dry hopping in the primary.

I see no need for a secondary vessel you really not having a secondary fermentation. More of a clearing vessel or storage vessel not needed.

I recommend aerating your wort, even if you are pitching onto the yeast cake. Will horrible things happen if you don't? No, but as brewers it is always better to do things correctly every time, so that when you aren't pitching onto a yeast cake, you don't forget to aerate. Typically, splashing the wort is sufficient.

I only do a primary when able to. I use a secondary for dry hopping, fruit additions, long aging for big beers and when I didn't have enough primary fermentors and wanted to get my primary back.

I never use a secondary. I'll let the beer stay in the primary from two to five weeks. When I reuse a yeast cake I try to leave a layer of finished beer on top of the cake and just rack the new wort right on top. I usually stir it up real good to make sure the yeast cake gets exposed to the new wort.

Does visible fermentation usually start quicker when pitching on the cake than when pitching with a starter? Seems like it would start pretty quickly and pretty actively.

When you pitch on a HEALTHY yeast cake it takes off very very quickly and much faster than a starter. The yeast are like fat kids ready to eat some cake.

Just curious, does it matter what kind of yeast you use to pitch effectivly onto a yeast cake? Like do you need to have used liquid yeast when you first pitched it or will dry yeast work fine too?

It's all yeast, shouldn't matter.

I will only pitch on a yeast cake if the yeast was from liquid. I pitched on a yeast cake from a dry yeast but the finished beer from that tasted bad. The real problem may have been due to high fermentation temps...but I promised myself to always at least buy a fresh package of dry yeast for each brew. It doesn't take that much time to clean the fermenter.

It really shouldn't matter if you pitch onto previously dry or liquid yeast as long as the yeast is healthy. Buying a new packet of dry yeast isn't too expensive but there really shouldn't be any need if your yeast is healthy and clean. The advantage of pitching onto a yeast cake is you get very very quick adaptation phase where the yeast don't have to reproduce nearly as much making the primary fermenation start much quicker. This means less time for foreign organisms to take a foothold.

You don't PITCH onto a yeast cake, you RACK onto a yeast cake
(sorry for being that guy)

According to Mr. Malty's calculator, you'd only need about about 86ml of yeast slurry to pitch into 5 gallons of 1.050 SG wort. There's significantly more than that in a used cake.

Is there an advantage to using the whole thing over the amount recommended by Mr. M?

or

Is it advantageous to scoop out most of the slurry (with sanitized utensil of course) and be closer to the recommendation than to use the entire cake?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

hopvine said:

You don't PITCH onto a yeast cake, you RACK onto a yeast cake
(sorry for being that guy)

Click to expand...

Somebody's gotta do it!

As you rack your first batch over to keg or bottling bucket, you can also collect some of the yeast slurry into a very well sanitized mason jar. That's what I love about the autosiphon, the ability to pump the slurry. Now you have some reserve yeast for the next next batch. The new batch can be racked right onto the remaining yeast in the primary.

In other words, you really don't need all of the yeast. The advantage of removing a portion of the slurry is that you're not significantly over pitching. This is only an issue if the style of beer you're brewing requires yeast character which is partially expressed as flavors formed during propagation (at least as I understand it). If you over pitch, there are so many cells that the sugar is gone before any real esters are developed. If you want a super clean flavor, almost lager like, more yeast is better.

So will your beer be "dirty" looking if you don't use a secondary? I don't really care how it looks personally, but I just wanted to know if using a secondary will make it that much nicer to look at.

BlueSunshine said:

So will your beer be "dirty" looking if you don't use a secondary? I don't really care how it looks personally, but I just wanted to know if using a secondary will make it that much nicer to look at.

Click to expand...

I have only ever heard of people reporting the beer to be just as clear. This has been my experience with the few batches I have done a primary only on. Granted you will have more trub to rack off of but as long as you aren't kicking the trub up into suspension or siphoning the trub into the bottling bucket/keg it really won't make a difference. The beer itself will be the same clarity from my experience.

Scut_Monkey said:

I have only ever heard of people reporting the beer to be just as clear. This has been my experience with the few batches I have done a primary only on. Granted you will have more trub to rack off of but as long as you aren't kicking the trub up into suspension or siphoning the trub into the bottling bucket/keg it really won't make a difference. The beer itself will be the same clarity from my experience.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In addition, many who only use one fermenter crash cool for 24-48 hrs before racking to keg/bottling bucket, to aid in clarity.



Now for my question: What about dry-hopping in the primary? Any weirdness from having the hops sit on the yeast cake?



.

Yeah, generally I have almost never gone to a secondary. The only times I have has been when I was using fruits. I will let the primary go for 3 weeks, crash cool it for 2 days and then bottle or keg it.

hopvine said:

You don't PITCH onto a yeast cake, you RACK onto a yeast cake
(sorry for being that guy)

Click to expand...

Hahahaha I knew writing it that it didnt sound right but I didnt feel like getting the correct terminology.

HomerJR said:

According to Mr. Malty's calculator, you'd only need about about 86ml of yeast slurry to pitch into 5 gallons of 1.050 SG wort. There's significantly more than that in a used cake.

Is there an advantage to using the whole thing over the amount recommended by Mr. M?

or

Is it advantageous to scoop out most of the slurry (with sanitized utensil of course) and be closer to the recommendation than to use the entire cake?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

Click to expand...

I have been beaten into submission by an unnamed, yet knowledgeable brewer that one should use a calculator (such as mr malty) and determine the correct amount of slurry to pitch and to do so into a SANITIZED fermenter. So you are pitching the slurry, not racking into a used, dirty, nasty fermenter because that would be bad. very bad. You get smacked with rolled up newspapers for doing it.

So yes, it likely is advantageous to pitch the calculated amount of yeast for the highest quality finished product. You can have less desirable results dumping new beer on old cakes. Still good. Still beer. Still done by me on occasion (5 in a row this fall...)

But it is BETTER to scoop out the slurry and put the measured amount in a sanitized fermenter and add your fresh wort.

Actually the real concensus it that you should use a secondary. Ask any professional brewer or brewery. Find out what they do.

Sure there are lots of things you should do but dont absolutely have to. Like stopping at red lights and not saying "no its your butt that makes your butt look big".

Why would there be a risk of contamination? You guys sanitize don't you? It is alcohol by then, you would have to have a pretty hardy strain to contaminate once it is alcohol. It is more likely to cause a infection to use a primary.

J/K I say skip the primary, go straight to a secondary for fermentation and a tertiary for claification. J/K

Use a secondary, it makes better beer. Sure it is drinkable without but it is better with.
Your favorite brewery right now uses a secondary.

Forrest

I agree with Forrest. I find beers that are moved to a secondary have cleaner flavors. I like to use a secodary. That doesn't mean it needs to be done though. It is the individuals choice (as Revvy keeps harping on somewhat deaf ears)

If one is concerned about contaimination, then maybe one should reexamine their technique because as Forrest said, once fermented, it is even less likely to get infected - unless your technique is suspect to begin with, in which case it probably is already infected

Austinhomebrew said:

Why would there be a risk of contamination? You guys sanitize don't you? It is alcohol by then, you would have to have a pretty hardy strain to contaminate once it is alcohol. It is more likely to cause a infection to use a primary.

Use a secondary, it makes better beer. Sure it is drinkable without but it is better with.
Your favorite brewery right now uses a secondary.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same camp. If you do it right, the risk of contamination or oxidation is no greater than the risk of autolysis for leaving your beer in the primary for a month (i.e., nil).

I've only had two batches that I did not rack to secondary. Both of those have been within the last couple years, and I was not happy with either one for quite a while. Both eventually became very good beers, but it took longer than it should have. I'll keep racking.

As for the time and effort involved, there's hardly any of either required. Hands-on time for sanitizing and siphoning is very little, and cleaning a secondary involves little more than some hot rinsing.


TL

TexLaw said:

As for the time and effort involved, there's hardly any of either required. Hands-on time for sanitizing and siphoning is very little, and cleaning a secondary involves little more than some hot rinsing.


TL

Click to expand...

I feel the same. i have a batch in the secondary right now and I think it helps to clean it up. It's also not really hard to sanitize a carboy and racking cane and transfer.

Please keep in mind that we are not professional brewers and the things that work well on the large scale are not necessarily what we need to do to make great beer. Professional brewers do not use a secondary fermenter. They use bright tanks that they clear, carbonate and package/serve the beer from. If you consider that a secondary then every time I keg I am using a secondary.
The only time I use a secondary is for a beer like a flanders red where you let the yeasties do what they do and then txfer it to a secondary so that the bugs can do what they need to do over time (years not months) without having to deal with yeast autolysis. There are very few beers that you need a secondary for.

Interesting that there seems to be geographic differences between people who use a secondary and people who don't (most of you that say you use a secondary are Texans). I'm just getting started (and am a Texan), but I'm using a secondary and my LHBS (located in Texas) recommends it too.

I rarely us a secondary vessel. The style of beer I make don't generaly require it.
My beer's are fine by me and others that drink it.

I'd say it's a personal choice unless the method of brewing dictates it.

Interesting observation. I hadn't noticed. I was in the Marines so naturally I knew alot of Texans (I think half of the damn Marine Corps is from Texas) and I know you guys/gals stick together. I see a secondary fermenter in your future...

Hoosier said:

Please keep in mind that we are not professional brewers and the things that work well on the large scale are not necessarily what we need to do to make great beer. Professional brewers do not use a secondary fermenter. They use bright tanks that they clear, carbonate and package/serve the beer from. If you consider that a secondary then every time I keg I am using a secondary.
The only time I use a secondary is for a beer like a flanders red where you let the yeasties do what they do and then txfer it to a secondary so that the bugs can do what they need to do over time (years not months) without having to deal with yeast autolysis. There are very few beers that you need a secondary for.

Click to expand...

+1,000,000,000000...............................

They reason they use a bright tank in commercial breweries is simply because it's easier to filter after. I don't filter. I don't secondary. I need a little yeast for bottle conditioning. My beers are clear and clean. I've never had a single scoresheet from a competition where a judge make a remark about the beer not being "clean" or comment on any other flavor or aroma that could possibly be from not doing a secondary.

*DISCLAIMER* I am not implying that doing a secondary is wrong or bad, just that it is unnecessary if you follow certain steps in your brewing process. *DISCLAIMER*