Primary, Secondary, then bottle? - Page 2 - Home Brew Forums
Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Beginners Beer Brewing Forum > Primary, Secondary, then bottle?
Cool Brewing Giveaway - Supporting Membership Drive & Discount

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-25-2012, 01:28 AM   #11
Yooper
Ale's What Cures You!
HBT_ADMIN.png
 
Yooper's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Jun 2006
UP of Michigan, Winter Texan
Posts: 68,504
Liked 7365 Times on 5207 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro_wu View Post
Thanks for all of the super-prompt and helpful responses.

They do, though, raise for me a secondary (pun intended) question: What, exactly, does one do that makes it count as secondary fermentation? Just re-rack with a bit more corn sugar? Or just re-rack?

Thanks!
Ah, you've hit on the million dollar question!

In a brewery, there is NO "secondary fermenter". None. The fermentation takes place in the fermenter, and then is pumped to the "bright tank" for clearing. That's primarily so a new batch can be started in the fermenter, not because of anything magical that happens in moving the beer.

However, I'm an old winemaker. In winemaking, there is a primary, and then you move the wine to "secondary" where the fermentation finishes under airlock.

My belief is that homebrewers took winemaking techniques and applied them to brewing, and kept some of the same terminology.

But in winemaking, you normally do the primary not under airlock, and stir the wine for the first few days, so it's a hyrbridized technique.

When more people starting homebrewing, and realized that there is no such thing as a "secondary fermentation" with beer, then people starting rethinking that. The holdouts now tend to be people who read books that describe a secondary and the need to get the beer off of the yeast cake, or old winemakers in homebrew shops.

The current thinking, from maybe the last three or four years, is that a transfer to a clearing vessel ("bright tank") is not necessary for homebrewers, but some still choose to do it.

Gravity is what clears the beer, and not the act of moving the beer to another container.

Sometimes I transfer, because for lagers I always do. Or to oak a beer, or because I want to reuse the yeast for another batch. But it's not necessary for most homebrews.


__________________
Broken Leg Brewery
Giving beer a leg to stand on since 2006

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 02:13 AM   #12
ajf
Senior Member
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
 
ajf's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Oct 2005
Long Island
Posts: 4,646
Liked 105 Times on 99 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by Golddiggie View Post
I call BullSheet on that...
[/URL]
You've already stated that a secondary is totally unnecessary, because you don't do it.

Now look at what Midwest says

"While there may be much debate about whether secondary fermentation is necessary or not,
Midwest suggests trying it once and judging for yourself. We think you’ll see, smell, and taste a
noticeable difference in the quality of your beer."

I'd much rather make a judgement based on what I perceive, rather than what you advocate.

-a.


__________________
There are only 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 02:23 AM   #13
Golddiggie
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
 
Golddiggie's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Dec 2010
Posts: 11,943
Liked 491 Times on 427 Posts


Midwest is just regurgitating OLD information. Plus, they SELL hardware, so it's in their best interest to tell people to go the secondary route.

BTW, I did download, and look over, the PDF... Right on the first page, right after what you quote, they start spewing the 1 week primary/1-2 weeks secondary crud... Actually ALL the ale types they list are 1 week primary and then X weeks secondary...

Since the OP DID ask for our take on this, I'm calling MidWest out on this. Plus, they're leading people to believe that an airlock IS an actual fermentation meter. Anyone who's been reading threads here will recognize that's NOT true.

Do what you like, but don't think that you MUST rack to a second vessel with ALL brews. It's simply not the case. As others have stated, you can (and very often will) get better beer when you DON'T rack to the bright tank/second vessel (with ales, I'm not talking lagers here).

BTW, this is one of the reasons why I stopped going to the LHBS that I first used when starting out brewing. They were locked into the ANCIENT methods of X days in primary then rack to secondary for Y days. Didn't matter about all the risks you take when you do this. Didn't matter what the big names in homebrewing now say.

As I said, do what you want, but don't delude yourself into think you MUST rack for all brews.

I'm out.
__________________
Hopping Tango Brewery

跟猴子比丟屎 ・ Gun HOE-tze bee DIO-se

On Tap: Caramel Ale, Mocha Porter II, MO SMaSH IPA
Waiting/Carbonating: 12.5% Wee Honey II, 8.9% Old Ale, English Brown Ale, Lickah ESB, Mocha Porter II
Fermenting
K1:
K2: Epic mead
K3: TripSix
On Deck: Caramel Ale
Aging:mead
Mead [bottled]:Oaked Wildflower Traditional, Mocha Madness, Blackberry Melomel, maple wine

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 05:45 AM   #14
bobbrewedit
Recipes 
 
Sep 2012
, California
Posts: 296
Liked 32 Times on 24 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by Golddiggie

As others have stated, you can (and very often will) get better beer when you DON'T rack to the bright tank/second vessel

I'm out.
Hmmm, so now its gone from "you don't have to rack" to "not racking will very often give you better beer"?

I can understand the statement of "its not necessary", but please, let's not mislead people.

Another weak argument is the whole infection claim...Have you ever infected a batch by merely racking it? I never have and I've never spoken to anyone who has.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 06:12 AM   #15
maestro_wu
Recipes 
 
Aug 2012
Kapolei, HI
Posts: 17


Heh. I'd no idea I'd be the guy who kicked the hornets' nest. Oops.

So here's the thing : I've got a Midwest kit on order, and I think I'll try it their way - just that once.

Honestly, I'll probably go back to the single fermentation phase. I've been pretty happy with everything I've ever brewed this way (the only way I knew) up to now.

Of course, if I really do see a big difference, I'll repeat the experiment with a control of sorts and make a more informed decision then.

Thanks!

PS: I'll report more results if there's interest.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 06:23 AM   #16
bobbrewedit
Recipes 
 
Sep 2012
, California
Posts: 296
Liked 32 Times on 24 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro_wu
Heh. I'd no idea I'd be the guy who kicked the hornets' nest. Oops.

So here's the thing : I've got a Midwest kit on order, and I think I'll try it their way - just that once.

Honestly, I'll probably go back to the single fermentation phase. I've been pretty happy with everything I've ever brewed this way (the only way I knew) up to now.

Of course, if I really do see a big difference, I'll repeat the experiment with a control of sorts and make a more informed decision then.

Thanks!

PS: I'll report more results if there's interest.
Ha, no man, its not you. Believe it or not I actually agree with Goldiggie for the most part. I rack most of my beers because I usually need my primary fermenters for another batch and I'm a big advocate of conditioning most beers for over a month. I also reuse the yeast periodically and need to get it out. That said, I've had no ill effects from racking.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 06:41 AM   #17
Brulosopher
Recipes 
 
Jun 2011
Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,913
Liked 356 Times on 260 Posts


I've done it both ways too many times to count. I also have great respect for homebrew shops, including Midwest, and all they do for our hobby. With that out there, the absolute only reason I can think of that any homebrew shop would encourage transferring to secondary is to make more money- what's the most expensive piece of equipment is most starter kits? The glass carboy, hands down. It's common knowledge that perception is biased, even if we think we're not. I urge anyone to brew the split a batch into 2 fermenters, keep 1 in primary only and use a secondary for the other, then do a triangle test. If you can even tell a difference, my hunch would be you'll like the "primary only" batch a tad better. We now know that leaving beer on the yeast cake actually benefits beer! Add to that the fact it removes a rather tedious task of homebrewing and I truly see no reason anyone would choose to secondary, other than tradition. But hey, to each their own.

Cheers!
__________________
Brulosophy is a place to experiment with home brews. If you've had a crazy idea or wondered how something worked please visit us at Brulosophy.com!

List of exBEERiments

How To Easily Harvest Clean Yeast from Starters

Make Good Lager in Less Time!

Marshall "Brulosopher" Schott

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 07:51 AM   #18
Wakadaka
Recipes 
 
Mar 2011
Richmond, VA
Posts: 513
Liked 9 Times on 4 Posts


i have always done just a (longish) primary, but recently transferred a beer to a secondary to dry hop. i read somewhere that yeast greatly reduces the amount of aroma extracted from dry hops.

i haven't tried the beer yet, but i think i will start transferring to secondarys. there is close to 2 inches of sediment in a 5gallon carboy. if that hadn't been in a secondary it would all be in my bottles. transferring is kinda fun because what other brewing activity takes less than 1 hour to do? maybe making a starter but i use dry anyways. i don't see any downside to transferring except for maybe oxidation (never had it in homebrew), and extra work.

i feel like all of the long primary supporters have severely missed the point. originally it seemed to be an ADDITIONAL option to only primary, since pri. +sec. was the standard. now its mentioned as the only way to do it, which is the same as people just blindly listening to the old method.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 07:53 AM   #19
NewDecadeBrewery
Recipes 
 
Dec 2011
San Clemente, Ca
Posts: 92
Liked 2 Times on 1 Posts


I like to rack to the keg from the "bright tank". The extra step to me isn't that big of a deal and results in (for me) much clearer beer going into the keg. Drinking a beer right now that was put in the refrigerator today and being served out of "tertiary" (aka "keg") and is darn near crystal clear from day one even after only a 48 hr "secondary" in the bright tank, and a 48 hr or so tertiary at the lower end of ferment temps in the keg. Don't always "secondary" but it gets me a much clearer beer racked into the serving vessel. Just my experience with my system. YMMV. Oh, and also just like bobbrewedit said I usually want my primary(ies) back for a new batch.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:56 AM   #20
RM-MN
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Recipes 
 
Nov 2010
Solway, MN
Posts: 9,292
Liked 1585 Times on 1259 Posts


Quote:
Oh, and also just like bobbrewedit said I usually want my primary(ies) back for a new batch.
This would be a good point but for a new brewer on a short budget they can buy a plastic bucket for an extra fermenter for half the price of a carboy and get something that isn't fragile at the same time.



 
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First IPA: Long Primary or Secondary? Bottle or Keg? wittmania Beginners Beer Brewing Forum 2 02-12-2011 05:11 PM
Primary, Secondary or Bottle? abrdnck Beginners Beer Brewing Forum 2 09-18-2010 04:09 PM
Longer in primary + secondary = Shorter in bottle? kingoslo Beginners Beer Brewing Forum 6 02-09-2009 09:49 PM
If a saison's been in primary 3 weeks, should I go to secondary or just bottle? rockout General Techniques 10 08-18-2008 07:16 PM
Primary, Secondary, bottle condition, What gives? Todd General Techniques 13 10-20-2006 03:24 PM


Forum Jump