Is a secondary really worth it?

I can't see the difference between fermenting until the beer begins to clear and then bottling without priming sugar into 2 and 3 litre bottles, and fermenting one week in primary, 2 - 3 weeks in secondary and then bottling. I have now done 2 trials, and cannot tell the difference between them 10 weeks after start of fermentation. Anything that is supposed to happen in secondary must surely be happening in 3 litre bottles ?

Well theoritically you'd get less yeast sediment if you had a long secondary. I personally like cold crashing my secondary and then artifically carbing. So then if I bottle any of the batch, there isn't any yeast sediment. Even HBT members who only primary: they do that for at least 3 weeks so that the beer clears. One method is not better then the other since everyone is a bit different in their techniques for bottling (and how yeast could be kicked up).

What does using priming sugar or not have to do with using a secondary?

Nurmey said:

What does using priming sugar or not have to do with using a secondary?

Click to expand...

Sounds like the OP is saying that they bottle only after a week of fermenting: IE they bottle as the beer is still at the last stage of fermentation so that there's enough CO2 to not need priming sugar. There are a couple issues with this. The major one being that certain beer styles take longer to attenuate, and if you bottle too early, you'll have bottle bombs. The other issue is that you'll have a lot of yeast sediment in the bottle itself.

I only primary and then after about two weeks will cold crash my fermenter. Then after another week I pull it out and bottle/keg without any problems of haze and cloudyness. The idea behind secondary is that you want to clear your beer. If I am making a highly hopped beer and want to save the yeast, then I will use a secondary. If I am just making some pale ale or something else like that, then I will primary, crash, keg and then wash the yeast.

*EDIT: I think that he is also missing the point that the beer should pretty much be done with fermentation quickly and that the yeast doesn't drop out until after the beer is done. I typically am through fermentation at day 3-4. Then I leave the beer on the yeast to clean up the flavors and clear up the beer. If I make a bigger beer (my Imperial IPA at 1.080 in my Recipe Drop Down) it took 4 solid days, I tested it on day 5 and it was fully attenuated.

There are hundreds of threads on here about the pro and cons of secondary. Personally I do, because I seem to end up with a cleaner beer doing that. Many others don't - personal preference! You will end up with a great beer either way.

I can think of two reasons why I wouldn't like to bottle before fermentation is complete.
1. See How to Brew - By John Palmer - Secondary or Conditioning Phase
If you bottle, there is nowhere for the undesirable flavours developed during primary fermentation to go. They will be trapped in the bottle.
2. I would thnk it would be very difficult to judge the degree of carbonation that would be developed . This could result in over or under carbonated beer, or in extreme cases - bottle bombs.

-a.

I use a secondary to be able to throw it in my keggerator for the last couple of days to crash chill it. I can not fit my 6.5 gal carboy in there with the other serving kegs.
I also like to move to secondary to clear up my one 6.5 for my next batch.
These are reasons, but not requirements. Do what works for you.

Thanks, all. For the record, I get only a very fine film of yeast at the bottom of my bottles - so thin it is transluscent. Also I do not get over pressurisation in my bottles, if anything they are sometimes a bit under pressurised. Really confused now about maturation off flavours being trapped in the bottle...

My take is you do what works for you. With a bit of nous, bottling with a point or two of gravity still to go (you are I think putting it in plastic 2l bottles by the sound of it, so little chance of explosion) would work - hell that's how cask conditioned beers often do it.

For me, I don't trust myself not to bodge it so wait for it to finish up then prime so I know how much sugar there is. Same difference though - bottling with a bit of sugar still to go. Some people get all excited on forums about bottling with fermenting wort rather than priming sugar. How is that really any different from what you're doing? Fermention flavours must get trapped in the bottle too that way surely?

Reading between the lines I think Freeminer Brewery used to bottle like that with the beer they made for Co-op, but now I think they do it differently for consistency. Or at least, a while ago you had to be careful when opening them to not rouse them so they'd splash all over your trousers whereas now they aren't so lively and have noticeably less yeast on the bottom.

A lot of what is implied in "maturation off flavors" may be in the eye of the beholder. For example, until 5 batches ago I brewed extracts exclusively, and I NEVER tasted what I would describe as the "extract twang" that some people go on about. In fact -and, in some cases, genetically- some people can't taste the things other people do. I have former colleague who can't stand cilantro, says it tastes like soap. I love cilantro.

My advice: try primary only; I just did, with a Leinie Sunset Wheat clone. Taste it and judge for yourself; that's what I plan to do.

I did secondaries for everything when I started because the book said to do it. Then I started doing only primary for almost everything once I started kegging. Fed up with beers taking two months to clear at times I'm now back to using secondary for less flocculant strains and adding gelatin to the carboy to drop out the yeast. With a high flocc strain or a hefe where you want the yeast I still go straight to keg from the primary. I also secondary for dry hopping because I wasn't happy with dry hopping in the keg.. I don't go through my beers fast enough so dry hopping in the keg I got grassy flavors after awhile.