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

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.
Every time I rack the beer from the primary into the next vessel I always somehow disturb the slurry on the bottom and land up with a hazy beer. I use an auto siphon. That's why I like to use the secondary, I just have a hard time getting a clear beer without it.
 
I'm with you, Scooby, and it's not like I haven't done the 4 weeks in primary thing too. But I'm not dogmatic about it, I'm pragmatic...I do what works. If I'm not getting the clearing I want in primary, I have no problem with racking to a secondary. It's results that count, not rules.
 
I'm going to kick this horse again.....

I have always used secondaries, ever since I started brewing. The seed of doubt was planted in my head on this forum that perhaps it isn't worth it. I continued to use them anyway because I needed things in the 5 gallon carboys so that I could put three of them into my ferm chamber at the same time (not possible with three 6.5's).

However, I finally found my "stride" with my brewing schedule and now really need two fermenters in the fridge at the same time, so I decided to cast the secondaries aside and roll for a while. The last two batches I have kegged and and tapped plus one more batch in the fermenter are my "no secondary" experiments.

I am not pleased.

My new beers are significantly less clear after 6 weeks (4 weeks in primary @ 65*F, 2 weeks in keg @ about 45*F) when compared to the batches that I secondaried (2 weeks in primary, 2 weeks secondary, 2 weeks in keg).

That settles the debate for me personally. :D
 
I can't really address the flavor... yet.

Let me clarify about clarity. :) I always get chill haze in my beers for the first couple weeks at serving temp. After that they will clear up completely. However, the beers I have now that I did not secondary have more than just chill haze issues going on; They still have a lot of yeast left in suspension.

I'm sure they will eventually clear, but since they are in kegs already, I'll be sucking yeast cake into my glass for a while before that happens. Maybe I should I have left them in primary longer than a month, but I am not going to make a change to my process that will require me to wait even longer for my yeast to settle.

So, I can't comment on whether the flavor will eventually be better or worse, because right now these things just taste like yeast.

So, I guess my opinion is that not using a secondary (for me) seems to mean that I need to keep my beers in fermenters longer than 1 month. Using a secondary gets me where I want in just 1 month, so I am going to keep using them.
 
Would the above situation be improved if you racked to a tertiary - say a bottling bucket - instead of directly into the keg from the primary? Or would you be convinced that there'd still be too much yeast in suspension -ultimately hindering clarity?
 
Would the above situation be improved if you racked to a tertiary - say a bottling bucket - instead of directly into the keg from the primary? Or would you be convinced that there'd still be too much yeast in suspension -ultimately hindering clarity?

I'm not following you here. If I rack from primary into some other container before going to the keg, then that other container is a "secondary".... which is what I prefer to do. :D
 
I'm not following you here. If I rack from primary into some other container before going to the keg, then that other container is a "secondary".... which is what I prefer to do. :D

Well, I guess technically it'd be a secondary. When I think of using a secondary, I usually think it in terms of conditioning for a period of time, rather than immediately into the keg right afterwards.

Maybe a temporary-secondary? :cool:
 
Well, I guess technically it'd be a secondary. When I think of using a secondary, I usually think it in terms of conditioning for a period of time, rather than immediately into the keg right afterwards.

Maybe a temporary-secondary? :cool:

Oh... Ok. I see what you mean.

The only way racking into something before the keg will help is if you give it some time to let the yeast settle before moving into the keg. "Immediately" moving into the keg won't really do anything.

I can literally watch the beer clear when I use a secondary. A couple of days after racking I start to accumulate sediment on the bottom and I can watch a line basically move down the carboy where there is cloudy beer towards the bottom and much clearer beer at the top.

When I was in the middle of these experiments with no secondaries, I had two beers in the ferm chamber that were less than 1 week apart in the process. One went to secondary as normal (this was the 'older' beer) and the other was left in primary. I could see the one in secondary clearing as described above, but the one in primary did not follow suite.
 
I can literally watch the beer clear when I use a secondary. A couple of days after racking I start to accumulate sediment on the bottom and I can watch a line basically move down the carboy where there is cloudy beer towards the bottom and much clearer beer at the top.

That's the same thing that drove me back to using a secondary more often than not.
 
I wonder why the yeast would drop faster just because it is in a new bucket. Wouldn't it drop just as fast in the primary? What would cause the yeast to remain in suspension longer in the primary that it would in a new bucket?

I am not arguing with your results - just wondering why that would be. I always thought he purpose of the secondary was to get off the yeast cake and trub. It really had nothing to do with making the beer appear clearer.
 
I wonder why the yeast would drop faster just because it is in a new bucket. Wouldn't it drop just as fast in the primary? What would cause the yeast to remain in suspension longer in the primary that it would in a new bucket?

I am not arguing with your results - just wondering why that would be. I always thought he purpose of the secondary was to get off the yeast cake and trub. It really had nothing to do with making the beer appear clearer.

I honestly have no idea why it would be this way. I couldn't think of any reason why it would settle faster in a secondary than in a primary, which is why I went ahead and tried it to see what happened.

Maybe my results are not typical, but I did at least try the no-secondary with more than one batch before forming my opinion.
 
I don't know if this is helpful, but in winemaking you tend to rack the wine back and forth multiple times in an effort to "polish" it. I have not made wine in years, but I seem to recall that clarification was a primary reason for doing this.
 
I honestly have no idea why it would be this way. I couldn't think of any reason why it would settle faster in a secondary than in a primary, which is why I went ahead and tried it to see what happened.

Maybe my results are not typical, but I did at least try the no-secondary with more than one batch before forming my opinion.

I did the no secondary thing for 2-3 years before deciding to try secondary again. I think it has something to do with the physical motion of moving the beer to secondary, but I have no science to back that up.
 
A couple of years ago, I tried this experiment: I brewed 10 gallons and split it evenly between two carboys. One I left in a primary for four weeks and the other I moved to secondary after two weeks. Both were kegged at four weeks, conditioned on CO2 for three weeks and brought to a homebrew club meeting for a blind tasting.

There were some subtle differences between the two. Half the club preferred the primary only, the other half the secondary version. What was interesting was that a couple of our most vocal "Primary Only" advocates liked the secondary version better and one of our Secondary advocates liked the "primary only" better.
 
I've not heard that four weeks is standard here. I've heard minimum 10-11 days, preferably three weeks. I think the commentary has also said if you leave it up to four weeks nor worries about autolysis.

I just bottled an American Wheat on August 1st that was in the plastic primary bucket for almost six weeks. Forget autolysis. It may exist, but don't worry about it. Indulge your yeast. They keep working long after the enclosed directions tell you.
This American Wheat is so clear, it is amazing. Now, I know you should pour 2/3s of it, swirl and pour the rest, but I can't bring myself to do it. You have probably seen pics of Kristallweizen. This beer is almost that clear.
 
I just won second place in competition with a barleywine that was in primary on the yeast for about 16 weeks. No worries at all.
 
I just bottled an American Wheat on August 1st that was in the plastic primary bucket for almost six weeks. Forget autolysis. It may exist, but don't worry about it. Indulge your yeast. They keep working long after the enclosed directions tell you.
This American Wheat is so clear, it is amazing. Now, I know you should pour 2/3s of it, swirl and pour the rest, but I can't bring myself to do it. You have probably seen pics of Kristallweizen. This beer is almost that clear.

I just won second place in competition with a barleywine that was in primary on the yeast for about 16 weeks. No worries at all.

This is great guys, and congrats on the medal Rick. I just popped open my APA which was in the primary for 5 weeks - crystal clear :mug:
 
Has anyone observed that the type of yeast makes a difference? I've been doing the one month primary and have liked the results, but I do notice a difference in the sediment at the bottom of my bottles depending on the yeast that I have used. Some is much more compact and some is easier to disturb when pouring. I know that yeasts have different flocculation attributes, but am wondering if this plays a role in this discussion in terms of clarity. Thanks.
 
just read fthough all of this. i just brewed belgian strong pale, on monday now trying to decide on fermentation schedule. it seems like lots of people like primary only, so i am inclined to do that (especialy this being big beer - sg 1.085 or so)

i bottle for the time beeing and most proponents of primary only seem to keg. so is it ok to leave it in primary for 3-4 weeks and then bottle? or should i leave it longer in the primary.

cheers
 
i bottle for the time beeing and most proponents of primary only seem to keg. so is it ok to leave it in primary for 3-4 weeks and then bottle? or should i leave it longer in the primary.

cheers

This is what I have done for my last several batches and I have been very happy with the results. I am sold on the "no secondary" thing- and I always bottle.
 
I will just say that I use a secondary for every beer that is not a wheat. 2 or 3 weeks in primary and one week in secondary on gelatin and polyclar. Any dry hopping is done in the secondary with polyclar and gelatin and pellets.

I seem to always get some haze if I don't use a secondary. It's bothersome that people chest thump and declare 27 weeks in primary MAKES BETTER BEER.

I have 9 ribbons in the last year (including 1st place HBT Hefe out of 28 beers) and one Best of Show for an American Lager out of 90 beers. I am not a great brewer like Jamil or Denny but my beers are good, IMO, and I use a secondary.

well to each his own.

i can see that some people see benefits of secondary, mainly clearer beer.

i just got this bug recently and am much more concerned with my technique and taste of my beers. so at this point i dont see benefit of secondary for my purpose.

also from reading a lot it seams that everyone has their own way, and there is no wrong one. just like you posted you succses in winning someone else did who does not do secondary. so i think brewer is more important than steps taken.

i like the RDWHAHB attitude, and plan doing just that. i like to get perfect results but after much reserch it looks like, there is so many variables that you just have to figure out what works for you, and don't get coaght up in doing things "the right" way

this site is amazing, but i dont thik you can take things word byy word as it seems different things work for different people

cheers!! you guys rock
 
just read fthough all of this. i just brewed belgian strong pale, on monday now trying to decide on fermentation schedule. it seems like lots of people like primary only, so i am inclined to do that (especialy this being big beer - sg 1.085 or so)

i bottle for the time beeing and most proponents of primary only seem to keg. so is it ok to leave it in primary for 3-4 weeks and then bottle? or should i leave it longer in the primary.

cheers

I don't keg and i can definitely recommend leaving it in the primary for at least 4 weeks. For a big beer like that one, you may want to put it in a secondary after that, or just let it sit in the bottle for a good 6-9 months.
 
If the trick is to not use your calendar as a schedule for primary-to-secondary transfer, how can you get a gravity reading without opening the primary bucket and releasing that CO2? Isn't the whole point to keep that CO2 blanket there until you're ready to move to secondary?

My first beer I just used the airlock as the guide, when it slowed, a lot, I transferred. But I did it before it finished fermentation.

Any advice for my next batch based upon my techniques?
 
If the trick is to not use your calendar as a schedule for primary-to-secondary transfer, how can you get a gravity reading without opening the primary bucket and releasing that CO2? Isn't the whole point to keep that CO2 blanket there until you're ready to move to secondary?

My first beer I just used the airlock as the guide, when it slowed, a lot, I transferred. But I did it before it finished fermentation.

Any advice for my next batch based upon my techniques?

C02 is heavier than air so you're not going to lose the whole blanket when you take a gravity reading. The beer will also keep giving off CO2 to reestablish the blanket. So yes, open it up and take a gravity reading while trying to disturb the beer as little as possible. When the reading stays the same over the course of a few days, fermentation is over. What we are advocating here, however, is that additional time in the fermenter will help to clean up your beer after fermentation is over.
 
After reading a bunch of "I still use a secondary" posts on here I just want to point out that I didn't start this thread to say that an long primary/no secondary is hands down better than using a secondary. I posted to debunk the myth about autolysis and the fears that many brewers have about leaving their beer on the yeast cake. Many of us have found that the no secondary results in better beer, while others have found the opposite.

Do whatever works for you. There is no single way to brew, but at least give the long primary a shot and don't be scared of the autolysis boogeyman. Mr. Palmer is responsible for much of this fear, but has has corrected himself, which is why I posted his conversation with Jamil.
 
If the trick is to not use your calendar as a schedule for primary-to-secondary transfer, how can you get a gravity reading without opening the primary bucket and releasing that CO2? Isn't the whole point to keep that CO2 blanket there until you're ready to move to secondary?

My first beer I just used the airlock as the guide, when it slowed, a lot, I transferred. But I did it before it finished fermentation.

Any advice for my next batch based upon my techniques?
I would just give the beer enough time to finish fermenting, then rack it to secondary and catch a sample as I get the siphon going. If going to a secondary I don't see much point in taking a gravity reading first.

I know lots of folks say don't go by calendar but most properly pitched/aerated ales should reach terminal gravity within a week easy. And most of us intend to primary for longer than that. So I don't see the need to take a gravity reading before racking to a secondary if you've primaried for a couple of weeks or more. After a couple of weeks the FG of most ales isn't going any lower (whether it 'finished' or not), so just rack it and catch a sample along the way.
 
i bottle for the time beeing and most proponents of primary only seem to keg. so is it ok to leave it in primary for 3-4 weeks and then bottle? or should i leave it longer in the primary.

cheers

Perfectly fine to go 3-4 weeks in primary. If you primary in a bucket, I wouldn't go a lot longer than that. If you primary in SS or glass, you can give it more time if you want to.
 
If the trick is to not use your calendar as a schedule for primary-to-secondary transfer, how can you get a gravity reading without opening the primary bucket and releasing that CO2? Isn't the whole point to keep that CO2 blanket there until you're ready to move to secondary?

My first beer I just used the airlock as the guide, when it slowed, a lot, I transferred. But I did it before it finished fermentation.

Any advice for my next batch based upon my techniques?

First advice is to not use the airlock for anything other than releasing pressure. Unless you are positive your fermentation vessel is totally airtight, it is useless.
Secondly, don't use a secondary.
 
After reading a bunch of "I still use a secondary" posts on here I just want to point out that I didn't start this thread to say that an long primary/no secondary is hands down better than using a secondary. I posted to debunk the myth about autolysis and the fears that many brewers have about leaving their beer on the yeast cake. Many of us have found that the no secondary results in better beer, while others have found the opposite.

Do whatever works for you. There is no single way to brew, but at least give the long primary a shot and don't be scared of the autolysis boogeyman. Mr. Palmer is responsible for much of this fear, but has has corrected himself, which is why I posted his conversation with Jamil.

I am totally sold on leaving the beer in the primary for 4-6 weeks. My beers are amazingly clear now. An added bonus is one less container to clean, and less exposure to contaminants.
 
In my opinion too. This man makes great beer. Actually, he's the best homebrewer I know.

FWIW, proud secondary user here. Always was, always will be. The way I see it, it's just another tool in producing tasty, clear beer. A tool - nothing more, nothing less.

I will just say that I use a secondary for every beer that is not a wheat. 2 or 3 weeks in primary and one week in secondary on gelatin and polyclar. Any dry hopping is done in the secondary with polyclar and gelatin and pellets.

I seem to always get some haze if I don't use a secondary. It's bothersome that people chest thump and declare 27 weeks in primary MAKES BETTER BEER.

I have 9 ribbons in the last year (including 1st place HBT Hefe out of 28 beers) and one Best of Show for an American Lager out of 90 beers. I am not a great brewer like Jamil or Denny but my beers are good, IMO, and I use a secondary.
 
I will just say that I use a secondary for every beer that is not a wheat. 2 or 3 weeks in primary and one week in secondary on gelatin and polyclar. Any dry hopping is done in the secondary with polyclar and gelatin and pellets.

I seem to always get some haze if I don't use a secondary. It's bothersome that people chest thump and declare 27 weeks in primary MAKES BETTER BEER.

I have 9 ribbons in the last year (including 1st place HBT Hefe out of 28 beers) and one Best of Show for an American Lager out of 90 beers. I am not a great brewer like Jamil or Denny but my beers are good, IMO, and I use a secondary.
No chest thumping, and I wouldn't try 27 weeks in a primary, but I will just say that 4-6 weeks is giving me very, very clear beers with clean finishes, and it is less work. Whatever works for you.
 
I simply use secondary to dry hop and for big beers. I have only 4 6 gallon and 1 6.5 gallon primary..but 5 5 gallon secondary so I always like to move them to make room to brew again. I have left them in primary up to 3 months with no problem..I also have moved them to secondary after only 10 days with no problem..The key is good fermentation..the yeast will clean up after fermentation in only a few days..than its all about clearing//so primary or secondary the same to me for clearing..

The one time I had a problem in Primary was with stressed out washed yeast..never again..that was a mistake..live and learn

J
 
I use secondary less and less...only for beers I want really clear. I dont even dryhop in secondary. I just let fermentation finish, then throw the dry hops in. Main reason is because its hard to get the dry hops in and out of a carboy...but in a bucket its easy. Dark beers dont need a secondary.

However, if Im making something light colored and belgian that isnt a wit, i usually secondary. If Im making something that requires some aging (barleywine, sour, impy stout) ill secondary.

I think ultimately secondary is all about what your goal is. It isnt necessary...but can be helpful.
 
If the trick is to not use your calendar as a schedule for primary-to-secondary transfer, how can you get a gravity reading without opening the primary bucket and releasing that CO2? Isn't the whole point to keep that CO2 blanket there until you're ready to move to secondary?

If you are using a bucket, you can drill a hole near the base and insert a plastic faucet:

ef1011.jpg



My first beer I just used the airlock as the guide, when it slowed, a lot, I transferred. But I did it before it finished fermentation.

Any advice for my next batch based upon my techniques?

I suggest not to rely on the airlock: one of my buckets is not airtight, so I the airlock is moving only during the top of the fermentation. Take a density measure, especially if you are going to bottle: if you have an incomplete fermentation, you are bottling unfermented sugars > you have more priming than what you're thinking > the bottles could explode.

By the way, very interesting thread. I'm on my first IPA and I always used secondary. This time I'll take a shot on primary only.
Cheers from Italy :)
Piteko
 
I just racked 3 beers to kegs and each had been in the primary for 5 weeks. The beers are very clear compared to similar beers I fermented in primaries for less time. I have not tasted these yet, but they seem to smell less "green."

My question is this. If you tend to brew large beers (6-8%) do they benefit more from longer primaries? It seems longer primaries are one form of conditioning longer and larger beers tend to need more time to condition; right?
 
I'm a secondary man for sure. Clears up the beer, easier to siphon off without a lot of yeast into kegs. It's always worked for me and I see no reason to change. I actually like to transfer, gives me a chance to taste the brew and take a reading, etc.
 
If you're using "taking a reading" as a reason to transfer, as the kids today say, "UR DOIN IT RONG". The point of taking a series of readings is to ensure that it's the right time to transfer. In other words, you shouldn't be transferring until you get at least two readings recorded.

Moving on.

For the record, I've done both. I admit to using secondaries. Often. For me, it's a clarity issue, unless I use a yeast with a very high sedimentation characteristic. So I rack and fine. I don't usually rack dark beers - Porters and Stouts and such - nor do I rack beers where I don't care about clarity - like wheat beers of any type.

My "house" English strains, S-04 and Ringwood, flocculate very well and rarely require fining, so I rarely secondary them. My "house" American strain, S-05, is much less flocculent, so I always rack to secondary and fine. My "house" Belgian yeast (Wyeast Ardennes [3522]) is another high flocking yeast, so no secondaries unless I plan to bulk age for months. So much of my decision depends on what I'm brewing and what yeast I choose.

It's not about "MY WAY IS BETTER". It's about experimenting with what works best in a given situation in your brewery. Sometimes that might mean transferring to secondary. Other times it might mean leaving the beer in primary until it's packaged. To swear off one or the other is crippling yourself for no good reason. It's like refusing to put a sand wedge and other clubs in your bag. Why would you do that? It's stupid and really rather petulant.

Cheers,

Bob
 
LOL if you think doing a month long primary is bad...TRY IT! and you will know. it's the way to go. i have noticed the beers i brew and leave in the primary for 3-4 weeks with no secondary, come out better. got the advice from HBT probably 2 years ago. so if you think it is a scam...then do 2 batches of the same beer ..leave one in the primary until it's done (hydro reading the same for 3 days) then rack to secondary for 2 weeks. and then leave one in the primary for a month. taste and visually test them on your own. i promise you... you will know
 
One thing I noticed about this whole thread is that the secondary users seem to be the only ones mentioning clearing agents. It seems they rack to secondary then use gelatin to clear their beers. Does that mean that the "primary only" crowd isn't using any clearing agents, like IM, or whirfloc? Do their beers just clear on their own with the extended time in primary? From what I've read on the threads about clearing agents, IM, or whirfloc does it's magic in primary, and clears the beer very well.

I've never used any clearing agents, and I've had clear beers. On the other hand, I've had hazy beers as well. I have always primaried for a month, but I've only been brewing for 13 months. On my next brew, I'm planning on using whirfloc to get my American Amber to clear up nice.
 
Back
Top