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

Williams 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.
This is a very interesting thread to me, because of points made regarding secondary being an old school of thought due to the yeast available.
I started brewing in 1999, using Dave Miller's Complete Handbook of Brewing, and he wrote over and over about autolysis. All the recipes mentioned packets - I assume dry yeast. So secondary was the way to avoid autolysis, by getting the beer off this presumably inferior quality yeast.
I have always used liquid - except on a few occasions when dry was required - so it's interesting to learn that there probably was never an issue, and that 70+ batches with secondary were unnecessary. I never thought to question the logic of secondary, and never thought about the layer of yeast in secondary being wasted, as it would have been useful to clean and attenuate the beer in primary. Clear beer is not too much of an issue for me, both in not having an issue but also not caring, but the tight yeast cake and added attenuation are. I'm sure my recent issue with bottle bombs is from just this subject - racking to secondary instead of leaving it in primary, then bottling too soon, so that there is still sugar that the yeast can ferment, in addition to the priming sugar.
Now it all makes sense: brewers make wort; yeast makes beer, so let them do their thing.
I have a mild fermenting on a 1469 yeast cake that has a weird mead-y smell, so I am all for leaving it as long as possible to let the yeast clean it up. It fermented out in about 3 days at 70, and filled my airlock for about a day and a half, so I'm sure that it was too warm and too short a time. It's also why I usually stick to White Labs: never have these issues with temperature/taste/smell. But that's another topic.
 
Inkguy said:
This is a very interesting thread to me, because of points made regarding secondary being an old school of thought due to the yeast available.
I started brewing in 1999, using Dave Miller's Complete Handbook of Brewing, and he wrote over and over about autolysis. All the recipes mentioned packets - I assume dry yeast. So secondary was the way to avoid autolysis, by getting the beer off this presumably inferior quality yeast..
Click to expand...



In his latest book "Brew Like a Pro" (c2012 Storey Publishing) Dave Miller revisits this point. He still uses a secondary but for a different reason. He says that autolysis is probably a non-issue at this time. His secondary is used as "settling tank".

It becomes a choice of use of a secondary vs. filtering vs. cold crashing the beer. If you have a filtration system you can draw directly from the fermenter to the bottling bucket or keg. (He does point out that there are some strong opinions about benefits/concerns related to filtration). To allow a beer to drop clear naturally may take some time so moving the beer to a smaller vessel for this period will free up a fermenter, hence the use of a 5 gal. bucket or carboy as a "settling tank". Natural clearing can be accelerated by cold crashing which can be accomplished in either the primary fermenter or in a secondary, depending on the homebrewer's situation and preference.
 
I'm a little concerned to leave my beer in the primary for so long because it has a poor seal on the lid. Its just a huge bucket with a well fitted, but not sealed lid. I'm concerned it will have too much headroom and therefore too much oxygen will get at it. Maybe my next batch I'll rig up the lid with an airlock and just wrap the lid down with some saran wrap. For now, the plan is about a week primary, 10 - 14 days secondary, bottle for three.
 
kidmeatball said:
I'm a little concerned to leave my beer in the primary for so long because it has a poor seal on the lid. Its just a huge bucket with a well fitted, but not sealed lid. I'm concerned it will have too much headroom and therefore too much oxygen will get at it. Maybe my next batch I'll rig up the lid with an airlock and just wrap the lid down with some saran wrap. For now, the plan is about a week primary, 10 - 14 days secondary, bottle for three.
Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide fills that space between the lid and your beer and it is heavier than air. Unless you disturb it by opening and closing it a bunch your beer will still have that CO2 and no oxidation will occur. :rockin:

You're more likely to introduce oxygen during the transfer to the secondary than by leaving the beer in the primary.
 
I read through *most* of the many pages, and I'm still not sure what the *right* answer is. I am clearly in the camp of don't use a secondary unless there is a clear reason to do so. To me, those reasons are
1) I adding something (dry hop, fruit, etc) to the beer, or
2) it's a big beer and will be sitting for a long time

Just brewed a Scottish Wee-Heavy ale, made a 2 L starter, and put it in the primary bucket. Now I'd be of the opinion, that after a month in the primary, I would move it to a secondary to finish for the next 3 months or so.

Is this reasonable or is the consensus that it will be fine sitting in the primary for 4 months?
 
mjcoss said:
I read through *most* of the many pages, and I'm still not sure what the *right* answer is. I am clearly in the camp of don't use a secondary unless there is a clear reason to do so. To me, those reasons are
1) I adding something (dry hop, fruit, etc) to the beer, or
2) it's a big beer and will be sitting for a long time

Just brewed a Scottish Wee-Heavy ale, made a 2 L starter, and put it in the primary bucket. Now I'd be of the opinion, that after a month in the primary, I would move it to a secondary to finish for the next 3 months or so.

Is this reasonable or is the consensus that it will be fine sitting in the primary for 4 months?
Click to expand...

Even for a Wee Heavy, that sounds like a LONG time in ANY container. Personally, I would leave it in the primary for up to 1.5 months (since it's not dry-hopped), then transfer to bottles as I don't/can't keg (yet). In the bottles for at least a month, then drinky drinky. I've had a wee heavy sit in bottles for six months, and they come out clean and with no hot alcohol burn, very smooth. That way, like it's been mentioned, you're able to free up a fermenter for the next batch which DOESN'T need to sit for long periods. You're still bottling with a bit of yeast in suspension, so cleanup will still happen in the bottle.

I will say, though, that I now only do primary in plastic carboys, never buckets. It seems safer to me for long periods, less likely to allow air in (yes, even with a bed of CO2, there's bound to be "breathing" caused by back pressure, such as when outside doors are opened and closed). That's just an opinion, though. Why not try it out, see how it works for you? If you don't like how it came out, chalk it up to experience. Come back and let us know how it worked! :)
 
A point that seems to be missed in this discussion is the permeability of the plastic bucket/carboy to oxygen. PET and polycarbobate are actually fairly permeable to O2 and that is where we need to be concerned about getting oxidized beer. If we are going to leave the beer in any vessel for a long time that vessel should be HDPE, glass or stainless.

I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately and I've spoken to a couple professional brewers in my area. From what I am learning very few professional brewers leave their beer in primary for more time than needed to complete the fermentation process --- 8-14 days max. After that initial fermentation period it is pretty much standard practice to move the beer to a "settling" or "bright" tank. This move gets the beer off the dead yeast pack and allows the opportunity to dry hop and/or add finings if desired. After a few days the beer is almost always cold crashed to remove chill haze and then filtered, and kegged or bottled.

We've been talking here about using a "secondary" fermenter when, in fact secondary fermentation is not a brewing activity -- it is a winemaking process. And why do winemakers choose to secondary? To reduce the chance of oxidation!
 
Puddlethumper said:
A point that seems to be missed in this discussion is the permeability of the plastic bucket/carboy to oxygen. PET and polycarbobate are actually fairly permeable to O2 and that is where we need to be concerned about getting oxidized beer. If we are going to leave the beer in any vessel for a long time that vessel should be HDPE, glass or stainless.

I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately and I've spoken to a couple professional brewers in my area. From what I am learning very few professional brewers leave their beer in primary for more time than needed to complete the fermentation process --- 8-14 days max. After that initial fermentation period it is pretty much standard practice to move the beer to a "settling" or "bright" tank. This move gets the beer off the dead yeast pack and allows the opportunity to dry hop and/or add finings if desired. After a few days the beer is almost always cold crashed to remove chill haze and then filtered, and kegged or bottled.

We've been talking here about using a "secondary" fermenter when, in fact secondary fermentation is not a brewing activity -- it is a winemaking process. And why do winemakers choose to secondary? To reduce the chance of oxidation!
Click to expand...

I understand your point Puddle, but if you're talking about leaving the beer in a plastic bucket primary for 3-4 weeks, O2 permeability has been shown to be a complete non-issue. It's really better to leave it and maybe pick up a miniscule amount of O2 than to run it through a siphon and very likely pick up a whole lot more. Long-term aging is, of course, a perfectly valid reason to get it off the yeast and into a non-permeable vessel.

The valid reasons that the commercial guys move the beer off the cake ASAP has been hashed and re-hashed here. Fortunately for us, their peculiar considerations in that regard are not worries at all for us. Lots of us make "bright" (clear) beer with no bright tank at all.:D

It is troubling that some of the kit instructions (Brewers Best comes to mind) still have new brewers rushing their beer (even stouts!) off the yeast cake in just a week, sometimes resulting in problems that we see posted here. I've also tasted a few of those oxidized beers at our local meetings since our LHBS sells those kits. I do wish that they would update those instructions. I tell our newer folks to toss them in the trash and provide them a substitute instruction sheet.
 
BigFloyd said:
I understand your point Puddle, but if you're talking about leaving the beer in a Lots of us make "bright" (clear) beer with no bright tank at all.:D

It is troubling that some of the kit instructions (Brewers Best comes to mind) still have new brewers rushing their beer (even stouts!) off the yeast cake in just a week,
Click to expand...


Having run into that issue when I was starting out I couldn't agree more. The kit makers aren't doing their customers or the hobby justice when they start new brewers off on the wrong foot by giving them poor instructions from the get-go.

The good news is that these kits, even with the poor instructions, still usually yield a pretty decent beer. The neophyte brewer only becomes aware of the faults in his process if he gets serious about brewing.

And, for what its worth, I bought a jug of an excellent oatmeal stout from a microbrewery not far from here. I asked the brewer about his process and he said he usually leaves it in primary for no more than 14 days.
 
BigFloyd said:
It's really better to leave it and maybe pick up a miniscule amount of O2 than to run it through a siphon and very likely pick up a whole lot more. ]
Click to expand...

How does a liquid gain oxygen through siphoning? I'm no chemist so I'm totally open to learning on this, but quite frankly, I can't see it.
 
Puddlethumper said:
How does a liquid gain oxygen through siphoning? I'm no chemist so I'm totally open to learning on this, but quite frankly, I can't see it.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a necessary evil when transferring beer in anything but a closed system. Unless you purge the secondary with CO2 (which most folks aren't set up to do), you can't avoid exposing the beer to the air inside it when racking. There's going to be some air in the tubing. The initial pumping action of an auto-siphon mixes in a small amount of air too. I'd rather not do that any more times than I have to.

The biggest potential is probably air in the (sometimes significant) headspace of the secondary. The minority of brewers with CO2 tanks will purge that out, but most folks are stuck with it.
 
I don't want to sound argumentative on this point or trying to beat a dead horse, but there seems to be a couple of different discussions taking place here and it is confusing to read and try to sort out what exactly is being said.

1. The OP's original point is that traditional secondary fermentation is no longer needed (in fact it may be harmful) in most of the beers we brew. Traditional secondary being associated with a revived fermentation. Personally, that seems completely logical based on the experiences of so many who have posted to this forum and what other experts have written lately. So can we say that the subject of traditional secondary fermentation is probably a dead issue?

2. Many professional brewers and quite a few who have posted to this forum (in this thread and others) believe there is value in moving the beer off of the yeast cake as soon as primary fermentation is accomplished. The vessel they move the beer to, while sometimes still called a "secondary" might be more correctly referred to as a "bright tank" or "settling tank". At this point the beer may be dry hopped or other flavoring or fining agents added. Once the desired effect has been accomplished the beer is cold crashed and bottled/kegged. This is not traditional secondary fermentation. But it is distinctly different from the 3-6 weeks in primary that many here advocate.

So when we disagree, which of the two different processes are we talking about?
 
BigFloyd said:
It's kind of a necessary evil when transferring beer in anything but a closed system. Unless you purge the secondary with CO2 (which most folks aren't set up to do), you can't avoid exposing the beer to the air inside it when racking. There's going to be some air in the tubing. The initial pumping action of an auto-siphon mixes in a small amount of air too. I'd rather not do that any more times than I have to.

The biggest potential is probably air in the (sometimes significant) headspace of the secondary. The minority of brewers with CO2 tanks will purge that out, but most folks are stuck with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I've been going through this in my mind and those were the same issues that I could see. I can't help but wonder how much actual impact these issues have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that oxidation isn't bad. But being a fairly new brewer full of questions I'm running into conflicting viewpoints on several issues. Do you know if anyone has done any work to substantiate a connection between moving beer to a secondary vessel and oxidation of the finished beer?
 
Puddlethumper said:
Do you know if anyone has done any work to substantiate a connection between moving beer to a secondary vessel and oxidation of the finished beer?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know about this, too. Siphoning the beer into a container filled with air (and hence, oxygen), would seem to increase the risk for harmful oxidation. Then again, the siphoning process agitates the beer, bringing CO2 out of solution, so this could protect the beer somewhat. Which of the factors matters more, and are there other to worry about? Or are any of them so small we don't have to worry about them unless we mean to age extensively? I haven't a clue, really, but I'd love to know.
 
Puddlethumper said:
I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately and I've spoken to a couple professional brewers in my area. From what I am learning very few professional brewers leave their beer in primary for more time than needed to complete the fermentation process --- 8-14 days max.
Click to expand...

Puddlethumper said:
And, for what its worth, I bought a jug of an excellent oatmeal stout from a microbrewery not far from here. I asked the brewer about his process and he said he usually leaves it in primary for no more than 14 days.
Click to expand...

Hey Puddlethumber,

I think it's worth it to give a word of caution towards these two comments. There's a lot that we can learn from professional brewers, yes. However, at the same time, we should be very cautious to take it for granted that home brewers are following their own best procedures by mimicking a commercial setup.

Volume, in particular, is the big variable here that just can't be overlooked, particularly in the primary tank. There are a couple reasons that a pro brewer will want to get a beer out of the primary as soon as attenuation is achieved and fermentation is complete. 1) The volume of beer itself causes a lot of pressure on the yeast cake and shortens the road to autolysis. Home brewers don't need to worry about this, unless you're brewing in 40 gallon conicals. 2) The pro brewer has a supply chain they need to feed. They don't want to let a beer sit in a primary fermenter after it's done because they need to get something else in there. As home brewers, we have the luxury to not worry about this.

After debating the topic myself, I've come to decide that there's nothing wrong with getting the beer out of the primary as soon as fermentation is done, but you don't need to. You're right that the term "secondary fermentation" is not particularly accurate for brewers, the secondary really is a bright tank. Because autolysis is not as pressing of an issue at the 5 gallon scale, you can primary and brighten in the same vessel. This is what I tend to do, it's both easier than racking to a secondary container, and I don't need to worry as much about watching my attenuation and timing a transfer.

Cheers. :mug:
 
I am brewing my first batch and it is in primary. It's almost time to dry hop but my friend who is a professional brewer and avid home brewer said that I don't even need to secondary ferment. Is there much if a difference if you are dry hopping?


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
jdk36 said:
I am brewing my first batch and it is in primary. It's almost time to dry hop but my friend who is a professional brewer and avid home brewer said that I don't even need to secondary ferment. Is there much if a difference if you are dry hopping?


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

Just wait until it's done fermenting before you dry hop in the primary.
 
Ok cool thanks for the quick response


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
TAK said:
I think it's worth it to give a word of caution towards these two comments. There's a lot that we can learn from professional brewers, yes. However, at the same time, we should be very cautious to take it for granted that home brewers are following their own best procedures by mimicking a commercial setup.
Click to expand...

You've made a couple of really good points to consider. I've decided to try the techniques David Miller advocates in "Brew Like a Pro" and see how my brews turn out. I can't see how it will do any harm since he seems to be having good success with them.

Cheers! :mug:
 
I wish I had racked my Belgian Pale Ale into secondary last night. I went ahead and bottled it, as I really needed to use the yeast for a Belgian Golden Strong Ale, and when I shoved my siphon tube into the pale, it sucked up a HUGE amount of trub!

Normally the yeast cake sits just above the autosiphone when it's inserted to the bottom of the fermenter, but for some reason (used O2 this time, large starter, I don't know) the yeast cake was about twice as thick!

If I had racked to secondary for one more week, this could have settled out, but that's what happens when you get used to doing something one way all the time.
 
Excuse me if this is too obvious, but instead of debating it, why not try it both ways and decide for yourself? That's what I did and it's the reason I almost never bother with a secondary.
 
Denny said:
Excuse me if this is too obvious, but instead of debating it, why not try it both ways and decide for yourself? That's what I did and it's the reason I almost never bother with a secondary.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Both methods work well, but only you can determine which is right for you. Also note that a person could screw up a beer using either method.

I've done both ways many times, and I prefer the beers that I get off of the yeast promptly. Sometimes I'm short on free time and the beer sits in primary longer than I like. The beer still turn out fine, but I prefer the flavor when I get it off the yeast shortly after active fermentation is done
 
I have tried both ways over many years of brewing. One issue that does not get discussed much in this thread has to do with temperature during fermentation. In warmer climates, during the summer, it is difficult for some brewers to stay below the higher end of the temp scale for a particular yeast. Because of that, off-flavors can creep in if left in primary for very long. I transfer to secondary to reduce the quantity of yeast being exposed to the beer after primary fermentation has slowed.
In winter months, it's not as difficult for me to regulate temps and if I can stay on the lower end of the temp scale, leaving in primary is my preference.
 
Puddlethumper said:
very few professional brewers leave their beer in primary for more time than needed to complete the fermentation process --- 8-14 days max. After that initial fermentation period it is pretty much standard practice to move the beer to a "settling" or "bright" tank. This move gets the beer off the dead yeast pack and allows the opportunity to dry hop and/or add finings if desired. After a few days the beer is almost always cold crashed to remove chill haze and then filtered, and kegged or bottled.
Click to expand...

That's certainly an interesting observation from an academic point of view, but I would submit it has no relevance in the context of homebrewing.

Professional brewers face vastly different concerns than home brewers. Specifically, of paramount concern for professional brewers is profitability. So virtually every decision they make is centered around that single focus. "Will doing this increase our profit?" Yes, they also desire to make good beer, but ultimately, even that decision is rooted in profitability (frankly, they wouldn't sell as much beer if it wasn't high quality).

They rush fermentation because they need to get another batch of beer into that very expensive fermenter so it can make money. An empty fermenter - or a fermenter needlessly storing finished beer - is like an airplane on the ground. Airlines strive to keep their planes in the air for as much time as possible, as a plane on the ground isn't making them any money.

One reason professional brewers rush their beer off the yeast is because autolysis is a concern as such large volumes. However, it is not a concern at the volumes typically employed in home brewing.

Another reason pro brewers employ "brite tanks" to clarify their beer is because brite tanks are cheaper than fermenters, and as mentioned before, their primary concern is to keep those fermenters full of fermenting beer at all times.
 
kombat said:
They rush fermentation because they need to get another batch of beer into that very expensive fermenter so it can make money. An empty fermenter - or a fermenter needlessly storing finished beer - is like an airplane on the ground. Airlines strive to keep their planes in the air for as much time as possible, as a plane on the ground isn't making them any money.

One reason professional brewers rush their beer off the yeast is because autolysis is a concern as such large volumes. However, it is not a concern at the volumes typically employed in home brewing.

Another reason pro brewers employ "brite tanks" to clarify their beer is because brite tanks are cheaper than fermenters, and as mentioned before, their primary concern is to keep those fermenters full of fermenting beer at all times.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that the pro's "rush" fermentation. They can dial in the yeast, O2 and nutrients so fermentation is optimized. The professional will leave the beer in the fermenter until it is done fermenting. They are not going move a beer to a bright tank before it is done fermenting. If it takes longer than expected for some reason, they will keep it in the fermenter until it finished. As soon as active fermentation is finished, there is no reason to keep it in the fermenter. As you say is is cost effective to move it over to the less expensive bright tanks so they could put a new batch in the fermenter. Yes, they deal with higher pressures so the risk of autolysis is greater, but that is not the driving force to move it to a bright tank. Even if there were no risk of autolysis, they would still move the beers to a bright tank once fermentation is complete as that makes more economic sense, and there is no reason to leave the beer on the yeast for longer
 
10ACbrew said:
I have tried both ways over many years of brewing. One issue that does not get discussed much in this thread has to do with temperature during fermentation. In warmer climates, during the summer, it is difficult for some brewers to stay below the higher end of the temp scale for a particular yeast. Because of that, off-flavors can creep in if left in primary for very long. I transfer to secondary to reduce the quantity of yeast being exposed to the beer after primary fermentation has slowed.
In winter months, it's not as difficult for me to regulate temps and if I can stay on the lower end of the temp scale, leaving in primary is my preference.
Click to expand...

A large majority of ester formation happens in the first 72 hours. If the temp goes up after that it will have a negligible effect on esters.
 
Denny said:
A large majority of ester formation happens in the first 72 hours. If the temp goes up after that it will have a negligible effect on esters.
Click to expand...


Good point, Denny. How long would you allow an ale using Wyeast 1056 to sit hovering between 72-76 F on a full yeast cake after the first 72 hours?
 
10ACbrew said:
Good point, Denny. How long would you allow an ale using Wyeast 1056 to sit hovering between 72-76 F on a full yeast cake after the first 72 hours?
Click to expand...

What was the temp (beer, not ambient air) for the first 72 hours?
 
It's easy to get it down in the high 60's by using a pre-chiller prior to CFC. (Ground water is crazy warm in August). The problem comes in maintaining it. Generally, fermenter temps will creep up by next morning. Then internal temps from an already warm fermentation can drive it on up to mid 70's by 36 hours into fermentation. Albeit, I can make arrangements for keeping it cooler, it's just a real hassle at times hauling 10 gallons around to other areas of home. It was easier to do when I was younger... 50!
Actually thinking of building a glycol fermentation chamber which should help. Another good project.
I am very interested however in any timeline data for ester production and how long is a "safe zone" for being in the clear.
Thanks for input
 
I know this is getting off topic of to secondary or not but I have always felt temps can be a contributor to whether it is needed or not.
 
pjj2ba said:
As soon as active fermentation is finished, there is no reason to keep it in the fermenter.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this phrase...

"active" fermenatation - as opposed to "inactive fermentation"?

It's my understanding that fermentation is either happening or it's not....

And there have been some reasons identified to keep it in the primary after FG is reached. How long, and under what circumstances, are up for debate.
 
I currently dump from a conical after 10 days simply because my style guidelines for all the research I've done recommends it but, I have noticed that the yeast looks and smells so healthy that it did seem like a waste to me. This last dump I was tempted to open top of conical and put right back lol but it wasn't dumped in a sanitized container. I' d like to ask if anyone thinks the need to dump or transfer of course would be greater when double pitching for a bigger grain bill and higher gravity beers?
 
10ACbrew said:
Good point, Denny. How long would you allow an ale using Wyeast 1056 to sit hovering between 72-76 F on a full yeast cake after the first 72 hours?
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about my beer fermenting at 72 - 76F with Wyeast 1056 than rushing to get it to a clarifying vessel.
 
AZ_IPA said:
I've never understood this phrase...

"active" fermentation - as opposed to "inactive fermentation"?

It's my understanding that fermentation is either happening or it's not....

And there have been some reasons identified to keep it in the primary after FG is reached. How long, and under what circumstances, are up for debate.
Click to expand...

I actually don't like the term "active" fermentation myself, but do use it as many folks believe that fermentation continues for long after it actually does, so I use the term to avoid some confusion (while not being technically correct). And I suppose there is some debate over whether clean up of byproducts is still fermentation or not. I guess I personally consider fermentation complete once all of the sugars have been consumed. Clean up is clean up, not fermentation.

I can see leaving the beer in a primary once fermentation is complete as the longer the beer is in contact with the yeast, the more it influences the flavor - if that is what you want. For some of us, we prefer to minimize those flavors.
 
My brother is newly back into brewing. When we first started brewing together 10 years ago or so, we racked to secondary like good little soldiers. He hasn't brewed for about 9 years and started talking about racking to secondary.

So I hit him back with a really long email that became a blog post that is now a reply here.

http://www.madalchemist.com/archives/the-secondary-myth/

Should you rack your beer to a secondary fermentor after primary fermentation is complete? When is it appropriate to rack to secondary? How long can you leave beer in a fermentor on the yeast cake before all hell breaks loose?

These questions are commonly asked, and there are people in both camps, but one of the camps is wrong. Traditional homebrewing literature posits that racking to secondary is vital if you wish to make the best possible homebrewed beer. Modern techniques and ingredients suggests that racking to secondary is a practice of the past, with an asterisk.

If you don’t want to read a bunch of text, stop after this paragraph. John Palmer, author of the seminal How to Brew, espoused the need to rack to a secondary fermentation vessel. In subsequent revisions of his book and in current conversations, he believes racking to secondary is rarely necessary (and wishes people would just buy his new revision rather than using the free first edition online to get old information). The only time racking to a secondary is advised is when actually performing a secondary fermentation (e.g. when adding fruit or souring the beer).

Quick review of racking to secondary: This is the practice of siphoning or otherwise transferring finished beer out of the primary fermentation vessel into a new one. It was done to allow the beer to condition and prevent autolysis (and its associated off-flavors) in the process. Autolysis is most likely to occur if the brewer uses unhealthy yeast or does not pitch enough yeast for the batch.

What are the risks associated with transferring to a secondary vessel? The two main risks are oxidation and infection. Oxidation can occur due to oxygen exposure during the transfer, which will cause the beer to stale sooner (as will warmer storage conditions, but that is not part of this discussion). You can mitigate oxidation by ensuring that the siphon does not get bubbles in it and that you prevent splashing during the transfer. Infection can come from a number of directions, but can be avoided with relative confidence with good sanitation practices (which you should already have), and isn’t a significant risk anyway given the alcohol content in the beer being transferred.

The alternative to racking to secondary is leaving the beer in the primary fermentor until you bottle or keg. What has changed since traditional homebrewing literature advised racking to secondary? Two main things have changed.

First, the yeast we have access to is worlds better than it used to be. There are multiple excellent sources for great yeast. In fact, it’s the same stuff that actual breweries use. Because we have access to healthy, viable yeast, we don’t have to worry much about autolysis.

The second factor is knowledge. We now know what proper pitching rates are for different gravities of wort. Since we know how much we need to pitch (and how to handle yeast), we can avoid the risk of autolysis by pitching at a proper rate (often a vial of White Labs or packet of Wyeast is enough for a standard/low gravity wort, but creating a starter is often advised for higher gravities or if you are obsessive like me).

It is now safe when utilizing healthy yeast a proper pitching rates to leave your beer on the yeast cake for several weeks, and even up to a couple of months in my experience. Leave it in your primary fermentor and it will condition properly, cleaning up acetaldehyde and diacetyl. Don’t risk oxidation and infection for no reason! This applies both to ales and lagers.

As I mentioned before, racking to secondary is sometimes necessary. However, it is only necessary when a secondary fermentation takes place. The two most common examples would be adding fruit (due to the sugars in the fruit) or souring the beer intentionally. The only other time I do it is if I want to free up my primary fermentor for a new beer.

Some of those who are firmly planted in the secondary camp also believe that the clarity of the beer is improved in a secondary vessel or that tradition is worth preserving. I’m happy to let those folks keep doing what they’re doing. The clarity argument might be true, but I don’t feel the risk of oxidation or effort involved are worth it, and I cold crash my beer for a week before bottling anyway, which completely negates that benefit in my process.

Final words: White Labs, Wyeast, John Palmer (author of How to Brew), and Jamil Zainasheff (author of Yeast) all recommend against racking to secondary. They are all more experienced and knowledgeable than we are; listen to them.
 
Hop said:
I’m happy to let those folks keep doing what they’re doing.
Click to expand...
So, I can continue to transfer 80% of my beers to another vessel even though it's not for secondary fermentation or clearing?

Damn! You're such a nice guy. Thanks. :rolleyes:



We really need a "Don't Like This Post" button.
 
I've been doing sort of a hybrid approach where I transfer from primary into a keg, but then leave the keg at fermentation temp for a week or two while I dry hop and let it continue to condition. Then I remove the dry hops and either chill and carbonate, or bottle. Seems to be working well so far.
 
I just brewed an ESB with Wyeast 1469, and it is taking a while to clear and/or condition. Of course, that could be partly due to the cold temperatures. Looked like a classic top-ferment, but then the yeast cap fell & it got cloudy. I think if I had racked to a secondary after about 5 days it would have improved the clarity situation. Beer is great, though, maybe it just needs a month or two.
 

Similar threads

SFC Rudy
Secondary Fermentation Yes, no or maybe?
Replies
10
Views
299
hottpeper13
H
S
S-23 Lager Yeast Educate Me
Replies
24
Views
743
shavy
shavy
N
NEIPA (Pressure) Fermentation schedule
Replies
5
Views
591
ninkwood
N
Jkrags
Light Lager Stuck Fermentation
Replies
11
Views
489
VikeMan
VikeMan
luckybeagle
Conditioning in kegs prior to pressurizing or bottling?
Replies
27
Views
1K
BongoYodeler
BongoYodeler
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top