In Defense of a Secondary

BrewSwag 728
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.
I first quite using secondary, then glass for the most part. It has made brewing so much easier. Cleaning, adding dry hops, yeast harvesting are all easier with buckets. I only use glass now for sours.
 
Teromous said:
Unless you discover that a mischievous group of ants are performing recon inside your fermentation fridge to assault a giant malty vessel of goodness. I'd rather have an airlock on than leave it open as an ant cliff diving ledge. I am continually amazed at how resourceful they are at getting into places.
Click to expand...

Why do you have ants inside of your house to begin with?
 
podz said:
Why do you have ants inside of your house to begin with?
Click to expand...


Lol.
If I leave something sticky and sweet exposed, I will definitely get ants in my house. They find a way in, just like the scorpions and crickets do.


Sent from my magic box, using only my thumbs.
 
I brew 10 gallon batches. Sometimes I use a secondary sometimes I don't. I like to experiment so I might split my primary into 2 secondaries and use 2 different hops to dry hop with. I might split a stout and add coffee to one and not the other. I've racked from my primary to a keg and the other to a secondary for many reasons. I like to do this just to see the differences in the beers with only a change or two.
Since I started doing this I never noticed no infection or oxidation in my beers. (I do purge my carboys with CO2)I think with good transfer and sanitation practices secondaries are fine. As far as them being necessary I would say no unless you are doing comparisons as I like to do or long term aging of your beers.
 
ol-hazza said:
So when lagering most would advise racking to secondary?
Click to expand...

Yes. Or racking to a keg. Kegs makes for great lagering vessels, which means for those who keg and don't normally secondary, there's no difference in process between brewing ales and lagers.
 
I'm going to have to agree with Adam. We go all out in brewing in all areasthen back off the secondary. Yeast starters, oxygen injectors, filters, ferm chambers etc. It's all added details to a simple task. In simplicity brewers, as with chefs, find complexity. When I started I was doing what the OP was doing. I was taking three weeks to bottle . 2 in the primary 1 in the second. That's with 2 primary's 1 secondary and brewing almost every week. I think secondary is useful and can be worthwhile. It should not be discarded as worthless. It should be thought of as something that takes some knowledge and care to do well and get benefits from. That being said I have been experimenting with primary only ie: 2 weeks primary cold crash 3 days, dry hop room temp 3 days, cold crash them keg and am pleased with the beer. But I will still secondary again. It will not leave my tool chest!


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
The bottom line: your beer will have far less sediment with a secondary.
 
GCPHomebrew said:
I'm going to have to agree with Adam. We go all out in brewing in all areasthen back off the secondary. Yeast starters, oxygen injectors, filters, ferm chambers etc. It's all added details to a simple task. In simplicity brewers, as with chefs, find complexity. When I started I was doing what the OP was doing. I was taking three weeks to bottle . 2 in the primary 1 in the second. That's with 2 primary's 1 secondary and brewing almost every week. I think secondary is useful and can be worthwhile. It should not be discarded as worthless. It should be thought of as something that takes some knowledge and care to do well and get benefits from. That being said I have been experimenting with primary only ie: 2 weeks primary cold crash 3 days, dry hop room temp 3 days, cold crash them keg and am pleased with the beer. But I will still secondary again. It will not leave my tool chest!


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
Click to expand...

I am not a professional brewer (just yet) but I have brewed in 3 different commercial breweries ranging in size from 7.5BBLs to 60BBLs. None of them secondary. Lets stop propagating this.

They do use bright tanks...for carbonating and serving or carbonating and packaging. Not to reduce sediment. Breweries use fining techniques or filtering, or centrifuging to clear their beer. Not secondaries....with obvious exceptions of barrel aging or fruit/spice beers of course.
 
jbaysurfer said:
I am not a professional brewer (just yet) but I have brewed in 3 different commercial breweries ranging in size from 7.5BBLs to 60BBLs. None of them secondary. Lets stop propagating this.

They do use bright tanks...for carbonating and serving or carbonating and packaging. Not to reduce sediment. Breweries use fining techniques or filtering, or centrifuging to clear their beer. Not secondaries....with obvious exceptions of barrel aging or fruit/spice beers of course.
Click to expand...

Commercial breweries also don't use buckets and carboys. Should we stop that as well?
 
KendallAdkins said:
Commercial breweries also don't use buckets and carboys. Should we stop that as well?
Click to expand...

Rewritten to avoid the snark. With all due respect, I'm not sure you followed my reply or understood exactly what I was asking. I was asking that we stop propagating a notion that we should secondary because "that's what commercial breweries do". Since that's not what most breweries do. People think "bright tanks" are secondaries, and they're not. They're carbonating/serving vessels in all but the most obvious cases (a fruit/spice beer is one of those).
 
Commercial breweries typically ferment in cylindroconical vessels. When you can't dump the yeast and trub from the bottom, you can replicate that by transferring from one vessel to another. The schedules are certainly different between commercial brewing (where fermentation is healthy and optimized) and what's convenient for homebrewers.
 
orangehero said:
Commercial breweries typically ferment in cylindroconical vessels. When you can't dump the yeast and trub from the bottom, you can replicate that by transferring from one vessel to another. The schedules are certainly different between commercial brewing (where fermentation is healthy and optimized) and what's convenient for homebrewers.
Click to expand...

True. This is far healthier then telling people homebrewers should secondary because that's what breweries do. Also, ftr, of the breweries I mentioned in my earlier post on the subject, only one of them even dumps the trub. Most of them dont' dump the trub or the yeast until they're ready to rack to the Bright tank, (this would be when they harvest the yeast too. Right after letting the trub/dirty yeast run out of the cone) or carbonate in the Unitank. They're not too worried about autolysis, but they're damn worried about oxidation.
 
jbaysurfer said:
If that's the bottom line, you're reading the wrong column.



Your beer will have far less sediment in the serving vessel, if you leave it behind when transferring. An additional transfer is not necessary.
Click to expand...


+1 I fail to see a difference in sediment or clarity between a beer left in primary 2 weeks and a beer primaried 1 week/secondaried 1 week, speaking both conceptually and from experience. There is nothing magic about a second vessel that makes the yeast flocculate more.

Given enough time and careful racking, you can minimize sediment using either method.

The only argument that I buy for using secondary is minimizing yeast flavor by minimizing contact with the yeast cake. Not that I've experienced it myself, but I get the idea conceptually, and maybe someone with a more sensitive palate than myself might feasibly be able to tell the difference (I can't for the life of me).

I'm not disparaging the use of secondary (if it works for you, great), just refuting the idea that it somehow makes for clearer beer with less sediment. Time does that. Good racking practices do that. Cold crashing/fining agents/etc help.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew
 
hunter_la5 said:
+1 I fail to see a difference in sediment or clarity between a beer left in primary 2 weeks and a beer primaried 1 week/secondaried 1 week, speaking both conceptually and from experience. There is nothing magic about a second vessel that makes the yeast flocculate more.

Given enough time and careful racking, you can minimize sediment using either method.

The only argument that I buy for using secondary is minimizing yeast flavor by minimizing contact with the yeast cake. Not that I've experienced it myself, but I get the idea conceptually, and maybe someone with a more sensitive palate than myself might feasibly be able to tell the difference (I can't for the life of me).

I'm not disparaging the use of secondary (if it works for you, great), just refuting the idea that it somehow makes for clearer beer with less sediment. Time does that. Good racking practices do that. Cold crashing/fining agents/etc help.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I fee as well. If you want to use a secondary and find it useful that's 100% fine. But don't do it and promote it based on falsehoods like it makes for clearer beer.

I get the idea of yeast flavor being imparted over time, but really, how much more could the yeast flavor the beer than they do when they're busy fermenting wort?
 
Gameface said:
I get the idea of yeast flavor being imparted over time, but really, how much more could the yeast flavor the beer than they do when they're busy fermenting wort?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit in some cases!

I don't use a secondary very often, but nor do I use a long primary like some others. Once the beer is done, and is clear, I package the beer. It may be day 10 or so. It depends on the beer, and the yeast strain, as some strains clear the beer better and faster than other strains.
 
Yooper said:
Quite a bit in some cases!

I don't use a secondary very often, but nor do I use a long primary like some others. Once the beer is done, and is clear, I package the beer. It may be day 10 or so. It depends on the beer, and the yeast strain, as some strains clear the beer better and faster than other strains.
Click to expand...

I'm particularly interested in your opinion on this as I've heard you mention it before.

What does it taste like? What do you attribute the flavor to, I get that it has to do with the yeast, but there are always yeast in beer unless it is filtered, so what happens in that yeast cake that causes a yeasty flavor? Do you think it's something you're particularly sensitive to that a lot of other people aren't?
 
Gameface said:
But don't do it and promote it based on falsehoods like it makes for clearer beer.
Click to expand...
Just like it’s been said that a lot of competition beers are oxidized because your average homebrewer is not good at racking, it’s also true that they will get clearer beer by using a secondary vessel for the same reason. It’s not “don’t secondary” that should be promoted. What’s needed is better racking skills. You still have to transfer beer to a bottling bucket or keg and have the same risks at that point. You don’t solve a problem by avoiding it.
 
AnOldUR said:
It’s not “don’t secondary” that should be promoted. What’s needed is better racking skills. You still have to transfer beer to a bottling bucket or keg and have the same risks at that point. You don’t solve a problem by avoiding it.
Click to expand...

I don't even own a bottling bucket and all of my bottles are PET, either 750ml or 1 litre in size.

I do all my beers in a plastic bucket with a spigot. I bottle straight from the spigot. That's right, open the spigot, fill the bottle, close the spigot, next. Never had a problem and I don't need a judge to tell me if he thinks my beer is oxidised when it apparently tastes so good that it gets consumed faster than I can make it.
 
Gameface said:
I'm particularly interested in your opinion on this as I've heard you mention it before.

What does it taste like? What do you attribute the flavor to, I get that it has to do with the yeast, but there are always yeast in beer unless it is filtered, so what happens in that yeast cake that causes a yeasty flavor? Do you think it's something you're particularly sensitive to that a lot of other people aren't?
Click to expand...

I don't think I"m particularly sensitive- but I do have a good palate and am a pretty decent BJCP judge.

I think everyone should do this for themselves. First, listen to a Basic Brewing Radio podcast on the subject. There was an experiment in which there were brewers doing two beers. One was traditional primary/secondary, one was primary only. All of the brewers tasting noted differences. What's interesting is that preference in flavor were evenly split- some liked the traditional batch better while others liked the primary only better. I think this was a couple of years ago, and itunes should have the podcast or on the BBR website.

I think if people like the flavor in their technique- long primary, shorter primary, primary/secondary, etc- they should do that. But before brewers preach one way over the other, they should do a taste test and see which they actually prefer. I think many brewers would be surprised, including the ones who use a month-long (or longer) primary.

I won't say that the yeast creates autolyzed flavors, as people would jump on that, but it definitely does have differences. Whether it's micro-oxidation, slight autolysis, more formation of esters due to chemical reactions, etc, I cannot say as I'm no chemist. Maybe the metabolism causes more ethyl hexanoate or ethyl butyrate in those cases. I don't think this has been well studied, but I also haven't really dug through any scientific papers on the subject either.
 
AnOldUR said:
....it’s also true that they will get clearer beer by using a secondary vessel for the same reason.
Click to expand...


How?

How is using a secondary ANY different than extended primary in terms of clarity?

My beer is glass-clear coming out of primary. How would using a secondary improve that?

I agree that there is no reason to tell people NOT to use secondary, but rather to promote the use of good racking practices, but I still don't see what this has to do with clarity.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
podz said:
I don't need a judge to tell me if he thinks my beer is oxidised when it apparently tastes so good that it gets consumed faster than the effects of oxidation are noticable.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you. :D

Just kidding, but it does bring up a point. I would bet that a lot of homebrewers finish their beer before oxidation or even infection from transfer becomes noticeable. If their beer's a little clearer from using a secondary, it makes them happy.



podz said:
I do all my beers in a plastic bucket with a spigot. I bottle straight from the spigot.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what product are you using to prime those PET bottles?



It's silly to argue or preach about this. You can’t tell someone they’ll have clearer or better tasting beer by using or not using a secondary. It's all personal preference, based on individual practices and skill.

For the record, I secondary most of my beers, but it has nothing to do with clarity.
 
hunter_la5 said:
How? . . . My beer is glass-clear coming out of primary.
Click to expand...
ummm . . . guess you missed this part from that quote.
AnOldUR said:
Just like it’s been said that a lot of competition beers are oxidized because your average homebrewer is not good at racking. . .
Click to expand...
Good for you if you're not one of those people. :D




edit to clarify (pun intended):

It doesn’t matter how clear your beer got in the primary if you disturb the cake during transfer. You’ll get trub in your keg, bottling bucket or bottle. By using a secondary there will be less to disturb after you’ve allowed it to drop clear a second time. Kind of a diminishing returns thing. At least that’s the theory. :cross:
 
Yooper said:
I don't think I"m particularly sensitive- but I do have a good palate and am a pretty decent BJCP judge.

I think everyone should do this for themselves. First, listen to a Basic Brewing Radio podcast on the subject. There was an experiment in which there were brewers doing two beers. One was traditional primary/secondary, one was primary only. All of the brewers tasting noted differences. What's interesting is that preference in flavor were evenly split- some liked the traditional batch better while others liked the primary only better. I think this was a couple of years ago, and itunes should have the podcast or on the BBR website.

I think if people like the flavor in their technique- long primary, shorter primary, primary/secondary, etc- they should do that. But before brewers preach one way over the other, they should do a taste test and see which they actually prefer. I think many brewers would be surprised, including the ones who use a month-long (or longer) primary.

I won't say that the yeast creates autolyzed flavors, as people would jump on that, but it definitely does have differences. Whether it's micro-oxidation, slight autolysis, more formation of esters due to chemical reactions, etc, I cannot say as I'm no chemist. Maybe the metabolism causes more ethyl hexanoate or ethyl butyrate in those cases. I don't think this has been well studied, but I also haven't really dug through any scientific papers on the subject either.
Click to expand...

I'm completely not set up for doing a standard secondary, but I could keg and call that a secondary, I suppose. But I typically ferment for about 10 days then cold crash for 2-3, then keg, add gelatin and put on CO2.
 
AnOldUR said:
ummm . . . guess you missed this part from that quote.
Click to expand...


I did not miss that part. I saw the part where you said:

AnOldUR said:
it’s also true that they will get clearer beer by using a secondary vessel for the same reason.
Click to expand...


If you are trying to say that second part is equally fallacious as saying secondary WILL lead to oxidation, then some rewording is in order. I can't read you mind and determine what you meant, I can only go by what you typed.

AnOldUR said:
Just like it’s been said that a lot of competition beers are oxidized because your average homebrewer is not good at racking, it’s equally wrong to assert that they will get clearer beer by using a secondary vessel for the same reason.....
Click to expand...


FTFY


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
AnOldUR said:
For the record, I secondary most of my beers, but it has nothing to do with clarity.
Click to expand...

I think this is the biggest take away in the end. I don't like all of my vessels for primary fermentation, I really dislike having to clean crusty krausen off the inside of carboys. I also don't trust 5 gallons or greater in a 6.5 gallon carboy to not blow off.

Do I get clearer beers by secondary-ing? Yes. Do I secondary to get clearer or cleaner tasting beers? No. I have vessels I like to do primary fermentation in (primarily a bucket thats never treated me wrong, and one of my 6.5 gallon carboys I do 2-4 gallon batches of higher gravity beers in). So when something gets to 2 weeks in primary, I start to look at transfering so I can brew again on the coming weekend.
 
KendallAdkins said:
She is just extremely cheap (maybe frugal is a nicer word?). She grew up really poor so she isn't used to being able to spend money. Also, she despises the smell of boiling wort and hops. I wasn't trying to portray her as a witch that never lets me do anything fun.
Click to expand...

interesting thread and i havent read it all but as far as the financial side, we are doing the dave ramsey plan and it really works and is great bc we both agree on spending b4 it happens :)


good luck :mug:
 
I primaried 3 weeks. Cold crashed 7days. Gelatin 3days. Secondary 1day to reach room temp. Dry hop 4 days. Clearest beer ever. 2" sediment. Can't wait to cold crash then keg. I transfer using CO2 no oxidation. And infection risk? Learn how to sanitize people. If that's a risk you are clueless as to how to clean your equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
GCPHomebrew said:
I primaried 3 weeks. Cold crashed 7days. Gelatin 3days. Secondary 1day to reach room temp. Dry hop 4 days. Clearest beer ever. 2" sediment. Can't wait to cold crash then keg. I transfer using CO2 no oxidation. And infection risk? Learn how to sanitize people. If that's a risk you are clueless as to how to clean your equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
Click to expand...

You cold crashing in a carboy/bucket? How do you keep oxygen out when dropping temps? This was the problem I had, ended up just transferring to pressurized keg, cold crash and gelatin in that and of course the gunk you comes out in the first half pint...
 
GCPHomebrew said:
I primaried 3 weeks. Cold crashed 7days. Gelatin 3days. Secondary 1day to reach room temp. Dry hop 4 days. Clearest beer ever. 2" sediment. Can't wait to cold crash then keg. I transfer using CO2 no oxidation. And infection risk? Learn how to sanitize people. If that's a risk you are clueless as to how to clean your equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
Click to expand...

Sanitizer exists because infection risks exist.
 
rpe290 said:
You cold crashing in a carboy/bucket? How do you keep oxygen out when dropping temps? This was the problem I had, ended up just transferring to pressurized keg, cold crash and gelatin in that and of course the gunk you comes out in the first half pint...
Click to expand...

You could fasten a balloon to the fermentor near the end of fermentation. Then, when you cold crash, the CO2 will get sucked back into the fermentor instead of air.
 
Row 290 I wrap cling wrap over the Carboy bung. It pulls down when cold and pushes out when brought to room temp so no problems. Since I don't remove the bung until dry hopping(which I do under co2) there is no more oxygen than when I do gravity checks. Less actually since I don't remove the bung.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
Jbaysurfer you are agreeing with me without knowing it. Yes sanitizer exists. Use it. It works. Really well. Like foolproof well. If you use it.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 

Similar threads

Gabriel Sayegh
How do folks calculate ABV after a step feed with volume change?
Replies
12
Views
513
MaxStout
MaxStout
Arbe0
how much beer in 3 gallon carboy?
Replies
7
Views
779
IslandLizard
IslandLizard
gjolivo
Fermentation loss with fruit puree
Replies
11
Views
765
gjolivo
gjolivo
G
Aging and pasteurizing new cider in a mini-keg
Replies
1
Views
489
CKuhns
CKuhns
Denis2121
Racking to secondary with krausen
Replies
8
Views
369
hottpeper13
H
BrewSwag 300

Latest posts

Back
Top