To secondary or not to secondary...that is the question

I've read a lot of posts and some use a secondary and many do not. What are advantages of using a secondary and is it truly worth taking this extra step?

I don't think it is, but I don't make fruit beers or anything like that. For me, the only advantage to using a secondary is to free up a fermenter. There is tons of crap on the site so you could do a search, but I am sure people will chime in.

I think it's worth it because I do less than 15 SRM beers and lagers mostly and it helps with clarifying. But the main reason is that it frees up my primary for another batch. Additional benefits that I see are less trub and yeast in my final product. To each his own though.

Award winning beer can and has been done both ways, so I feel it's a matter of preference for the most part. For me, skipping the secondary is 1 less step for to do, and that's worth it.

You can brew a batch from start to finish in a plastic ferm when in a pinch....can't you? What will be the outcome of your brew?

I don't do it "in a pinch", "typically" is probably the better term.

If you plan to age your beer for longer then a month or two, then you might want to secondary. I go from primary to keg, and think of the keg conditioning as 'secondary'. Just my preference though..

When I started I was excited about the secondary just because that meant that I could mess my beer some more. After a while though I stopped doing them all together. Even when I need to add fruit or age a big beer for a while, I just do it in the keg. If I need something crystal clear then I just add gelatin in the primary. So for me there isn't much of a need for a secondary. If you are bottling all your beer, then I think there are definitely some types of beers that need a secondary.

I think this recent thread says it all:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/s...nasheff-weigh-176837/index10.html#post2088490

Secondary fermentation vessels were recommended due to the lack of good yeast and knowledge of how yeast works.

I've stopped using secondary vessels altogether and noticed a marked improvement in my beers. I dry hop in the primary with great results. I've had barleywines sit on the primary for 8 weeks with no autolysis.

Now I'm starting to regret putting my latest beer into a secondary. I'm sure it'll be fine but I think it would have been better off if I just left it in the primary some more.

Noob question... Just finished my first brew. I left it in the primary for about two weeks and then left it in the secondary for about two weeks. When i racked into my keg i was glad i had used a secondary as there was about a half inch or so of trub that didn't go into the keg.

Why do beer gods now say no secondary is needed? Am i wrong to think that half inch of trub i tossed out was a good thing?

maxamuus said:

Noob question... Just finished my first brew. I left it in the primary for about two weeks and then left it in the secondary for about two weeks. When i racked into my keg i was glad i had used a secondary as there was about a half inch or so of trub that didn't go into the keg.

Why do beer gods now say no secondary is needed? Am i wrong to think that half inch of trub i tossed out was a good thing?

Click to expand...

Had you left it in primary for four weeks, it would have given the yeast more time to clean up after itself, and the trub more time to settle out and compact. Cold crashing the primary allows even more settling and compaction. Adding gelatin allows even more.

With careful racking, one can certainly achieve good clarity without a secondary.

jeffmeh said:

. . . it would have given the yeast more time to clean up after itself.

Click to expand...

This is a favorite statement here on HBT, but does anyone have a link to science that supports it? Don’t get me wrong. I’ve followed the trend and don’t secondary many beers and have good results. It just seems that there would be plenty of healthy yeast still in suspension (and not the spent yeast that drops) to clean up the beer just fine while in a secondary. If there’s enough yeast present to carb the beer after the secondary is over, wouldn’t it also be able to perform this magical "cleaning."

I agree that there is not always a necessity for a secondary clearing vessel, but to imply that you can harm your beer because the yeast doesn’t have a chance to clean up is hard to believe.

How long do you guys typically let your beer sit in the keg before drinking after racking from primary? Do you place in cooler while waiting?

BriarwoodBrewer said:

How long do you guys typically let your beer sit in the keg before drinking after racking from primary? Do you place in cooler while waiting?

Click to expand...

I put it in the kegerator and I set my psi at 10 and leave it for about a week and it's good to go. Most get a little better with time, but for most of the beer styles I make they don't really need to be aged to be great.

Listen to the jamil/palmer thread above. They never secondary unless the beer has to age for an unusually long time. One good point is that messing with the beer and moving it to the secondary Removes it from it's protective co2 blanket and gives infection another chance to ruin the beer. I used to secondary all the time now I just wait for the yeast to drop then I chill it and keg. Cleaning the carboys twice sucked anyhow.

And there is no real reason to regret transferring to secondary, as long as you didn't splash a ton, the beer will still turn out fine. There are a million ways to build a doghouse, and you chose one. It is a little more of the old school of thought, but if you were careful, you will still end up with a nice clear beer. No Worries!

Do you want a cloudy beer? A hefeweizen I will not secondary- I'll simply let it sit in primary for 2 weeks or so. If I'm making a crisp clean ale- Absolutely secondary. If you are going to rack to secondary- have patience. Wait at least 2 weeks- it will be worth it!

I don't bother with secondary unless I happen to be dry hopping and need to free up a fermenter at the same time or if i'm going to be bulk aging a bigger beer for say six months or something. Otherwise almost all of my beer gets 3-4 weeks in the primary and right to the keg. Like the one poster said above, I used to rack everything to a secondary because it made me feel like I was actively participating in the beermaking process instead of just letting the yeast do their job. I've found no real difference in final products using one way or the other so I go with the easiest process that eliminates one added step that can potentially introduce a contaminant. Even initially cloudy beer left only in my primary ends up clearing up just fine after giving it the proper amount of time to finish and sit at serving temps.

Oh well. You'll make beer either way so do what makes you happy. But in most cases it really isn't needed and it's just an added step and one more opportunity for error so just keep that in mind.

AnOldUR said:

This is a favorite statement here on HBT, but does anyone have a link to science that supports it? Don’t get me wrong. I’ve followed the trend and don’t secondary many beers and have good results. It just seems that there would be plenty of healthy yeast still in suspension (and not the spent yeast that drops) to clean up the beer just fine while in a secondary. If there’s enough yeast present to carb the beer after the secondary is over, wouldn’t it also be able to perform this magical "cleaning."

I agree that there is not always a necessity for a secondary clearing vessel, but to imply that you can harm your beer because the yeast doesn’t have a chance to clean up is hard to believe.

Click to expand...

Valid point, as I certainly cannot cite any scientific evidence that the yeast cleans up after itself better in primary than in secondary. That being said, my main point was that one can achieve clarity without a secondary. Additionally, as you have supported, primary only can result in excellent beer.