Reuse the primary as a secondary?

Can I ferment my beer in one of my buckets or carboys, then siphon it to my bottling bucket, clean and sanitize the primary and siphon it back into the primary to use it as a secondary?

The reason I ask is, I would like to brew more batches and I don't have the equipment yet.

The only problem I can see is additional o2 exposure from the second siphoning. Has anyone done this? How did it turn out?

Yep, you can do that. But the risk of oxidation probably precludes it.

Most beers can be fermented completely in the primary -- no need for a secondary. Obligatory use of secondaries is very old school.

You could technically do this, but I'll discourage it for the following reasons.

1) Any time you add unnecessary equipment into the mix, you're adding unnecessary risk of infection
2) Any time you rack the beer unnecessarily, you're add unnecessary risk of oxidation
3) You can just leave it in the primary for a few more weeks to let it clear out, and IMHO it tastes better that way.

If you really need to rack off that yeast (bulk aging>6 months, adding fruit, adding oak, adding sour cultures) it could be done, and if you're very careful you will minimize the risk. That being said low risk is worse than no risk, but it's your beer. Do what you're comfortable with.

Just go out and buy another bucket, they are fairly cheap.

FlyGuy said:

Most beers can be fermented completely in the primary -- no need for a secondary. Obligatory use of secondaries is very old school.

Click to expand...

Whoa, hold on there. First I'm told it's good to use a secondary then it's unnecessary? I'm reading Jon Palmer and he says after three weeks in the primary, the sediment will be detrimental to the taste of the beer hence racking to a secondary.

Following this advice I bottled my first batch after 15 days in primary seeing as I didn't have a glass carboy. I was comfortably past the initial fermentation and also well within Palmer's Three Week deadline.

histo320- I'm broke as a joke right now so that's not really an option. All my budget was spent on ingredients.

Others: I think I will just leave it in the primary for the entire time. Sounds like less work anyway! Thanks for the advice.

15 days in primary with no secondary really isn't ideal for most styles. I know people take Palmer's word as gospel, and I don't mean to knock the great man, but some of the things he says aren't 100% modern. I don't imagine my beer is better than his by any stretch of the imagination, just a bit more modern in technique.

Philsc said:

Whoa, hold on there. First I'm told it's good to use a secondary then it's unnecessary? I'm reading Jon Palmer and he says after three weeks in the primary, the sediment will be detrimental to the taste of the beer hence racking to a secondary.

Following this advice I bottled my first batch after 15 days in primary seeing as I didn't have a glass carboy. I was comfortably past the initial fermentation and also well within Palmer's Three Week deadline.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of conflicting information in brewing .

If you pitch the appropriate amount of healthy yeast the risk of autolysis (dying yeast spilling their guts) and resulting off-flavours is not a problem for months - how many months depends on the yeast strain and fermentation conditions.

GT

Philsc said:

Whoa, hold on there. First I'm told it's good to use a secondary then it's unnecessary? I'm reading Jon Palmer and he says after three weeks in the primary, the sediment will be detrimental to the taste of the beer hence racking to a secondary.

Following this advice I bottled my first batch after 15 days in primary seeing as I didn't have a glass carboy. I was comfortably past the initial fermentation and also well within Palmer's Three Week deadline.

Click to expand...

Have you read the publication date on How to Brew? Its been a few years now since Palmer updated that thing. The website is ancient. Besides you can't trust what you read on the internet anyways. (wait....)

Seriously, read here:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/vs-pro-con-analysis-109318/#post1204663

Or search for primary and secondary and see lots of discussion on the topic. Most people agree that secondaries are HIGHLY over-rated.

FlyGuy said:

Have you read the publication date on How to Brew?

Click to expand...

Yep, it's pretty old. I also borrowed Dave Miller's "Homebrewing Guide" and "Homebrewing for Dummies" from the library. Both are about 10 years old. I assumed that homebrewing hadn't progressed much in 10 years. Silly me, we've only been doing it since the 70s.

Anyway, directly after I read this paradigm changing thread, I bashed "autolysis" into the search bar and read. It seems that autolysis is almost a mythical beast, which is a bit of a relief. One less thing to worry about, or one thing to worry about less.

There are a couple of reasons why I bottled after 15 days. I wasn't just pulling a time frame out of my ass. My recipe was similar to an 'award winning' British pale ale recipe in "Dummies". I think they had it in Primary for 5 days and secondary for 7. Having seen John Palmer's illustration of the fermentation processes, I saw my primary as a secondary and and left it in there for the duration, added a couple of days and bottled.

I have brewed, and often prefer, smaller beers (well, that was the plan, the first had an OG of 1060 and the second, 1050). I notice on this forum that many people like the big beers. I have used Safale 04 and Danstar's Nottingham.

After having read this fantastic thread I'm going to leave my beer for a lot longer than I was planning, but do you good people have a suggestion for just how long I should have them in the fermenting vessel?

Thanks

Palmer says this in "How To Brew". It is often over looked...

"As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis."

IMO Both ways make a great beer. It is your beer and you are in charge so relax........

That is what makes this Hoppy hobby so great!!

Philsc said:

After having read this fantastic thread I'm going to leave my beer for a lot longer than I was planning, but do you good people have a suggestion for just how long I should have them in the fermenting vessel?

Thanks

Click to expand...

There are a couple different ways you can do it that will all probably work:

1. Leave it three weeks and then bottle.

2. Leave it 10 days, then check the gravity, write down the number, check the gravity the next day, if its the same number then either go ahead and bottle it or wait one more day and check again.

3. Get too lazy/busy to bottle, leave the thing for two months and tell yourself your just "bulk aging" it.

One thing you should NOT do is jump up and bottle the beer the second the airlock stops bubbling. Fermentation can still be occurring with little or no airlock activity. Stable gravity readings or waiting three weeks (for normal gravity ales) are a better bet.

jmiracle said:

One thing you should NOT do is jump up and bottle the beer the second the airlock stops bubbling. Fermentation can still be occurring with little or no airlock activity. Stable gravity readings or waiting three weeks (for normal gravity ales) are a better bet.

Click to expand...

I read on here something like "your hydrometer is a scientifically calibrated tool; your airlock is a cheap piece of plastic". I took this to heart and waited till a couple of days after it had stopped bubbling then checked the gravity on two seperate occasions. The readings were the same and were close to the gravity suggested by the recipe.

I surmised that the primary fermentation had finished, but I didn't bottle it there and then. I left it for a few more days for the secondary fermentation. I think it was about 8 days. I didn't write it down. Then I bottled because It was into the third week and I wanted to be comfortably far away from John Palmer's "three weeks on the yeast cake and autolysis sets in". I didn't want autolysis, which has been variously described as the smell of burning rubber and as the smell of syphilitic chimp sh*t. (by the way, how to you pronounce this? AU-to-LIE-sis or au-TOH-li-SIS?)

I would like to have left it a while longer. I'm not really in a hurry to drink my beer. I'd rather it was nice. I doubt this'll happen, but I would like to impress my friends with my first brew.

Wandering around this and other fora, I find people who leave their beer in the primary for ages before bottling and some who have it in primary a week before bottling.

My guess is that it's to do with the style of beer. I'm brewing British pub bitter, my next will be a mild. I've read that they're traditionally drunk young. My idea of a high alcohol beer is 5% which is pretty much the lowest alcohol beer you can get in the LCBO.

On this forum people like great big beers - imperials, trappists and big bocks and apfelwine, which I'd never heard of before joining this community. Those beasts need longer to get their act together, I think.

Thanks for the advice, jmiracle. It makes me more confident in my practice.

Philsc said:

Then I bottled because It was into the third week and I wanted to be comfortably far away from John Palmer's "three weeks on the yeast cake and autolysis sets in". I didn't want autolysis, which has been variously described as the smell of burning rubber and as the smell of syphilitic chimp sh*t. (by the way, how to you pronounce this? AU-to-LIE-sis or au-TOH-li-SIS?)

Click to expand...

The latter. And note that your fears of autolysis are almost certainly unfounded; the usual time frame to start worrying about it is 3+ months (and usually more like 6+).

Palmer does say that it's _possible_ after 3 weeks, but he also notes:

As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis

Click to expand...

I should have said in that last post that my fears on autolysis were well and truly allayed. If I had only read what everyone in this thread had said I'd be fine. However, as soon I posted here, I bashed 'autolysis' into the search bar and read for about half an hour, and came back to this thread with a sense of calm and well-being concerning autolysis.

This:

"As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis"

has been quoted 3-4 times on this thread. It bears repeating, though.