Using only primary fermenter vs. primary/secondary

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.

hellbus

Active Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Hello! I know there have been several debates on using a primary/secondary fermenters vs. only using the primary.

From what I gather, most people say "it depends". One main reason I see that people opt to use a secondary for is if the beer is a bigger beer.

I am wondering why bigger beers would require a secondary. Does it have something to do with it sitting on the trub for an extended period of time? Is it to make room for the amount of krausen?

Can anyone shed light on this for me?
 
For a "bigger beer," the only benefit I could see is if you were doing an extended bulk conditioning... that way you don't have the beer on the yeast for too long. But even then, you wouldn't want to rack it into secondary for several weeks.
 
Personally, I would only use a secondary for... secondary fermentation - like you are adding fruit or maybe souring the beer. Other than that, the risk of autolysis is much lower than the risk of oxidation. It's an antiquated logic that really is a slow-to-die habit for a lot of older brewers - one of those theories that has evolved over time. Honestly, many people even dry hop in the primary. You could even leave the beer in the primary fermenter for a fairly extended period of time - like a month or more - providing the other aspects of your procedure are solid - yeast health, pitching rate, ferm temps, sanitation, etc.
 
Does it have something to do with it sitting on the trub for an extended period of time?

Yes it has something to do with this, and more than anything it has to do with pretending to be a commercial brewer and superstition. :)

I don't know anyone who will seriously warn against using a primary only.

The first argument is a fear about something called autolysis which will supposedly produce off-flavors in long aging beers.

Generally speaking, people don't worry about it unless they are aging their beers for at least a few months. Your normal gravity, normal aging beers have nothing to fear from autolysis.

High gravity beers generally age for a lot longer so if people are doing a barleywine that will age for a year, they frequently transfer to a secondary, but as I said, not for normal beers.

The other argument is that your beer will be clearer if you use secondaries, but the use of gelatin, cold crashing, and normal racking doesn't give this argument much of a leg to stand on either.

The topic has been discussed to death so if you need more info, just use the search function to get enough reading material for a lifetime.

The short answer, is that the debate is over. You don't need secondaries to make world class beer. In fact, almost any change to your brewing process you can make will have a bigger impact than secondaries.
 
I agree, the only time I've ever used a secondary (glass carboy type) is when I didnt have a keg to put the beer in to "secondary" while carbing up. If you do choose to utilize a secondary though, make sure there is very minimal head space as the yeast are not chugging out C02 anymore and oxidation could become a problem with 5 inches of head space between the opening and the beer.

Sound advice has said to just ferment out for three weeks in the primary, secondary only if you're adding something to the beer, and lager or condition the beers in kegs or bottles. Most of the time the beers will be the best at about 6-8 months after brew day, unless you're doing something like a Hefe when you should be drinking it on day 12 after brew day.
 
I could see using a secondary for big beers if you plan to do a secondary fermentation by adding more fermentable sugars (corn sugar, malt extract, etc.) to up the ABV.

Or maybe the higher alcohol level makes autolysis more rapid or more likely and you don't plan to bottle/keg real soon.
 
Racking to secondary is recommended for lagering or when you simply want a clearer beer. You can't leave it in primary over extended periods as autolyse eventually kicks in and ruins flavour. So to get crystal clear results, or to lager it, you'd rack it off the cake to secondary and move it colder. If you harvest yeast, then it's normal to rack your beer before you dry hop, to avoid flavouring your harvested yeast. Big beers normally require long primary, and would not necessarily reach acceptable fg if you racked it off the cake too soon. But sometimes you'd rack a big beer with the lees and all simply to get the yeast back in suspension, as big beers have a tendency to stick near the end. Racking the yeast back in suspension is very effective for those situations. At the end of the day, many brewers do not secondary their beers. Amongst them is Jamil Zainacheff. So is secondary a requirement to make good beer? Absolutey not, but in some situations as mentioned above, it may be useful.
 
I only secondary into my 5 gallon carboys to make room for my 8 gallon fermenting buckets for new beer lol, so maybe 25% of my beers see secondary at this point, and only if i need a bucket.
 
True, but there's also a risk of spoilage of thrub, hop-material and proteins settling out on the bottom along with the yeast. All these components are potential off-flavour donors, and so it is simply safe and standard practice to keep your primary relatively short. In practical terms that means 1 month or less, and nowhere near 6.
 
True, but there's also a risk of spoilage of thrub, hop-material and proteins settling out on the bottom along with the yeast. All these components are potential off-flavour donors, and so it is simply safe and standard practice to keep your primary relatively short. In practical terms that means 1 month or less, and nowhere near 6.

It'll take at least 6 months for any of the trub or yeast to even begin affecting your beer. You can safely leave it in primary for 2 months (been there, done that), and much longer.

6 months is the mark where it might start to produce off-flavors
 
Even when sitting for a few months,autolysis is NOT something to worry about these days. The old yeast strains weren't as hearty as they are now,& would die off & hit the bottom by th time the ber was ready to rack over & bottle. Some folks on here have let'em sit 5 months without worry.
And average gravity beers,ales like pales in particular do not need to sit 6-8 minths to be at there best. 4 or 5 weeks in reality from my experiences. these pale ales are not stouts. They don't need to sit 6 months to be good. Most if not all of the hop flavor will be gone.
If you have some off flavors that are pretty nasty,then maybe 6-8 months may make them drinkable. But normally,they're ready much sooner than that.
 
it is simply safe and standard practice to keep your primary relatively short. In practical terms that means 1 month or less
this is outdated thinking. jamil z, john palmer and lots of other prominent brewers have recanted on the get-it-off-the-trub boogeyman. ask any one of them and they'll tell you that on the homebrew scale, a 2 month primary poses no inherent risk. moving everything to secondary is much riskier (racking equipment is a huge source of infection), homebrewers are safer using a single vessel. unless you're bulk-aging for several months or adding fruit for a true second fermentation, the use of secondary is best avoided.
 
Both "risks" of each side of the argument are very minimal. There is almost no chance of autolysis for 99% of the beer you brew, just the biggest beers with the longest conditioning. Just as how if you know how to sanitize and siphon, there is virtually no risk of oxidation or infection. Do what you want. If you want to go through the trouble of moving the beer to a secondary do it, if not, don't.
 
Based on this thread and that long "primary only" thread I plan to keep all my extract beers in primary for four weeks and not do any secondary. The NB directions that come with the kits talk about bottling after only two weeks.

I currently have a NB Cream Ale and an AK47 Pale Mild fermenting. These are two of my favorite to brew and I've done several so far (just started brewing this last April) - it will be interesting to see and taste the difference between these four week beers vs. the previous two week only ones.

Thanks,
 
In my experience

1) Leaving it in the primary doesn't seem to hurt anything.
2) Moving it to the secondary doesn't seem to hurt anything - as long as you give it enough time to ferment out in the primary
3) Beer will clear either way, but it does seem to happen faster in the secondary. Cold crashing is MUCH faster than either.
 
I agree too that it does depend a lot on they style on how long a beer should go before packaging. Any beer that focuses on hop flavor and aroma needs to be consumed in time to get the most quality out of the beer (probably not 6 months of aging) A huge barley wine or a RIS will need to sit and let the flavors meld together to smooth everything out and bring out the character. Hefe's only need 10 days primary and then it's off to packaging and drinking asap due to the yeast playing such a part in the flavor profile.
 
Back
Top