Primary only vs. secondary

[pete1459]

I'm sure this has been asked repeatedly so I apologize for the repetition. I just brewed my first IPA which came out pretty good despite being impatient while force carbonating (Save this for another thread). Anyways, I currently only have one carboy and the more recipes I look at for future brews they use a secondary. I'm really into the belgian strong golden ales and they seem to take several months for fermentation. Can this be done with only having a primary? I also only have a 5 gallon corny keg and don't plan on bottling which I'm sure makes things more difficult for certain recipes. I'm just starting out with everything and am trying to take in all the info I can. Thanks!

 

[BBL_Brewer]

If you're going to age the beer for an extended period of time I would use a secondary and get the beer off the yeast cake. I just kegged up some stout about 3 weeks ago that sat on the yeast for 8-10 weeks. It had a slight off flavor that I'm almost certain was due to leaving it on the yeast too long. From here on out, if I have a beer that's going to sit for a month or longer before I do something with it I'm going to use a secondary.

 

[Foosier]

Here are my $0.02. Take them for what they are worth.

Secondary is only really needed with long term bulk aging of a beer. This would be the case with your Belgian Strongs. Otherwise, for shorter fermentations, a single vessel is all that is "necessary". "Necessary" is an important distinction because you can use a secondary for pretty much any beer. Many, me included, choose not to use a secondary since it is an extra step and it does not really make a difference when the fermentation is short.

I know you say you don't want to bottle and I get that. I moved to kegging quickly and run a similar single keg set up and plan my beers accordingly. That being said, this works for ales and other beers where extended time is not needed. For bigger beers, I just did a triple, bottling can be used for the long term aging. While time consuming, it puts the beer in an easy to store form that you don't have to worry about while it ages. This works better than a keg since you only have 1 and don't want to use all your space up. It is also better than a bucket or plastic carboy as those are oxygen permeable over longer periods of time (months not days or a few weeks.)

Again, just my $0.02. I'd recommend looking into bottling for those bigger beers which need a bit of age to be great.

 

[hunter_le five]

Well said Foosier.

I tend to leave my beers on the cake/in primary longer in lieu of secondary, but in that case I'm talking about a few extra weeks, not months.

If you want to bulk age the beer for several months I would move it to a secondary vessel. That can be either the keg, or another carboy (5 gallon to minimize headspace), take your pick. I myself don't have any carboys, so I age in the keg. But I also have multiple, so tying up one for several months isn't a big deal. Either way it sounds like you might want to invest in either more carboys or more kegs, unless you don't mind waiting for several months without beer.

 

[balrog]

...unless you don't mind waiting for several months without beer.

Perish the thought!

 

[KeninMN]

I rack to secondary in order hold for extended conditioning, to dry hop and to free up my primary for my next brew.

 

[petrolSpice]

I used to secondary as it would lead to clearer beer. But I've been cold crashing in the primary before bottling and it seems to lead to clear beer as well, so I've been skipping the secondary.

 

[AlfA01]

In my small amount of experience with beer, and even greater experience with wine, a secondary should always be used, IMO. In wine making, the "cake" is called lees, ans yes, if you leave this to render its less than admirable flavors, you will have an 'off' taste to your libations. You may be able to pull it off, but you may also cause yourself more problems than benefits.

 

[fuxorfly]

In my small amount of experience with beer, and even greater experience with wine, a secondary should always be used, IMO.

Theres a tradeoff - transferring to another vessel introduces the risk of infection. Many people don't see the possible flavor benefit as warranting the risk of introducing an infection, especially on a short turnaround batch. If you are sitting on the yeast cake for 3-4 weeks, you will not see the same flavor problems develop as sitting on the yeast cake for 3-4 months.

That being said, I like to rack to a secondary. I've never had a problem with my sanitation, and I like being able to free up a larger carboy for the next brew. The possibility of getting a better flavor is a nice side benefit

 

[pete1459]

Thanks for all of the replies and help guys! Right now I have a Bavarian wheat fermenting, the kit I got said to ferment for 6-10 days. What say you on this? Should I go longer? Also what does everyone think about the 5 gallon plastic kegs that usually coming in home brew kits? Are these a viable fermenter? So if I got one I could use my glass carboy as a secondary then.

 

[Setesh]

Thanks for all of the replies and help guys! Right now I have a Bavarian wheat fermenting, the kit I got said to ferment for 6-10 days. What say you on this? Should I go longer? Also what does everyone think about the 5 gallon plastic kegs that usually coming in home brew kits? Are these a viable fermenter? So if I got one I could use my glass carboy as a secondary then.

6-10 days will usually be enough, but it really comes down to making sure you have hit final gravity. If the gravity doesn't change for three days in a row, and you are in your target range then it is done. That will usually happen in 6-10 days on this style of beer.

Do you mean a 5 gallon better bottle? They don't make good fermentors because they lack the head space for krausen to form without blowing off, but they do make great secondaries. Generally you want at least 6-7 gallon vessel for primary fermentation to allow room for the krausen. For secondary you want 5-5.5 so that you can fill it to the top to limit oxygen exposure via surface area.

 

[szac]

Thanks for all of the replies and help guys! Right now I have a Bavarian wheat fermenting, the kit I got said to ferment for 6-10 days. What say you on this? Should I go longer? Also what does everyone think about the 5 gallon plastic kegs that usually coming in home brew kits? Are these a viable fermenter? So if I got one I could use my glass carboy as a secondary then.

Many a gallon of great beer has been fermented in plastic buckets, without a secondary. The very least of your concern is how long the beer is sitting on a yeast cake (with this relatively small volume) and should be what temperature is the beer fermenting at. What temperature was the beer when you pitched? What did you pitch? Were the yeast viable? Did you oxygenate? Was everything the wort touched after the boil sanitized? Ignore these matters and you may still great beer. Prioritize your effort in these matters higher than whether or not to have a secondary fermentation (or even wort production) and you'll more than likely have great beer.

Let that wheat sit in that bucket for 30 days. It'll be awesome. That'll give the yeast plenty of time clean up after itself and round off the corners of any off-flavors produced during fermentation.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Thanks for all of the replies and help guys! Right now I have a Bavarian wheat fermenting, the kit I got said to ferment for 6-10 days. What say you on this? Should I go longer? Also what does everyone think about the 5 gallon plastic kegs that usually coming in home brew kits? Are these a viable fermenter? So if I got one I could use my glass carboy as a secondary then.

+1 to the excellent advice above re: long-term aging. A secondary fermenter is indeed needed for that purpose. And definitely use the glass carboy for your secondary fermenter instead of a plastic one if you have a choice. Glass is 100% impermeable to oxygen so it is ideal for long-term aging.

I don't think any 5 gal. vessel would be suitable as a fermenter for a 5 gal. batch of beer. You need the extra headspace of a 6 - 6.5 gal. carboy or bucket during active fermentation.

 

[RookieBrewer55]

Hello everyone!

Looking to see if someone can help me with knowing when to transfer my beer from my primary to secondary (carboy). It's been sitting in the primary for 72 hours and is looking pretty good. any help would be appreciated.

 

[CanAusBrewer]

Hello everyone!

Looking to see if someone can help me with knowing when to transfer my beer from my primary to secondary (carboy). It's been sitting in the primary for 72 hours and is looking pretty good. any help would be appreciated.

I would say 72 hours is too early to rack to secondary. Better to wait around 6 days to ensure primary fermentation has completed before racking.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Hello everyone!

Looking to see if someone can help me with knowing when to transfer my beer from my primary to secondary (carboy). It's been sitting in the primary for 72 hours and is looking pretty good. any help would be appreciated.

Wait until you know initial fermentation is completely done. You can only tell by taking hydrometer readings. If you take readings three days in a row and they are all the same and all are close to the recipe's projected FG then the initial fermentation is done. This may take as little as 4-5 days or as long as 12-14 days. Only after your FG has stabilized should you consider moving the beer off of the yeast.

BTW, if you had any issues with temperature control during the fermentation stage (i.e. the beer got too warm) don't be in too much of a hurry to move the beer to secondary. The yeast can help clean up after some of those errors if you leave the beer in the primary longer, perhaps a couple or 3 weeks. However, if you had excellent temperature control there probably won't be any off flavors to clean up so you can move the beer earlier. Excellent temperature control is how the professional breweries get by with only leaving the beer on the yeast a week or so at most.

p.s. You may find it simpler to just skip the secondary altogether. A lot of home brewers don't use a secondary at all and many of them make excellent beer.

 

[AlfA01]

I've asked some similar questions and received a lot of great advice here. My recipe/brew schedule suggested a secondary for my AG Indiana Ale. Being that I was faced with a similar issue, but found a work around, I was curious to see how I could pull the brew off and get the best quality, and tasting, beer.

From the wine makers world, which seems to be much more finicky than beer (probably because you don't boil or steep/mash the fruits involved); therefore, removing the wine from the lees/pulp/dregs/cake helps to prevent oxidation and off flavors is much more important.

I've taken on a lot of research regarding this and have many different opinions in the home brewing world. Some folks are religious about using a secondary and others are just as committed to leaving the beer until kegging or bottling. My plans are to try both now that I have the equipment to brew in either way. From there, I can see which system works for me and use that one. If you have a brew schedule, you may want to follow that as other folks have already taken on the brew and achieved success.

 

[Yooper]

I've asked some similar questions and received a lot of great advice here. My recipe/brew schedule suggested a secondary for my AG Indiana Ale. Being that I was faced with a similar issue, but found a work around, I was curious to see how I could pull the brew off and get the best quality, and tasting, beer.

From the wine makers world, which seems to be much more finicky than beer (probably because you don't boil or steep/mash the fruits involved); therefore, removing the wine from the lees/pulp/dregs/cake helps to prevent oxidation and off flavors is much more important.

I've taken on a lot of research regarding this and have many different opinions in the home brewing world. Some folks are religious about using a secondary and others are just as committed to leaving the beer until kegging or bottling. My plans are to try both now that I have the equipment to brew in either way. From there, I can see which system works for me and use that one. If you have a brew schedule, you may want to follow that as other folks have already taken on the brew and achieved success.

I've been a winemaker for many years (25+) and it was hard for me to think about not using a secondary for my beer for several years when I started brewing. Of course, the thought even then was the same as with wine- get the beer off of the trub (lees in winemaking) reduce head space, etc.

I agree that long term on the trub will produce some flavors; however, some people actually like the flavors imparted by a month-long primary on their beer. I'm more of a "medium" primary only person for my beer, unless I"m doing something oaked aged or have a reason to transfer. I generally have my beer in the fermenter for 10-14 days before packaging. In that short of a time, the beer will be at FG and will be clear (or clearing), but any headspace will not be a factor at that point.

It's not that wine is more finicky- it's just that for wine, we're talking about a lot of gross lees in fruit wines, and we have much longer periods of time in a vessel. That means it must be racked to get it off of the gross lees, and the breaking down of the fruit can really impart a bad flavor, plus the ABV is generally much higher than beer so autolysis of the yeast is more likely as well.

I hope this was helpful!

 

[AlfA01]

It's not that wine is more finicky- it's just that for wine, we're talking about a lot of gross lees in fruit wines, and we have much longer periods of time in a vessel. That means it must be racked to get it off of the gross lees, and the breaking down of the fruit can really impart a bad flavor, plus the ABV is generally much higher than beer so autolysis of the yeast is more likely as well.

Finicky was probably a bad choice of wording to compare wine and beer. What I have experienced during my years of making wine, from muscadine in Mississippi, to Staphida Blush and Merlot in Greece, the flavors of wine are often determined by its loooooonnnggg time spent aging. Many of the wines we are drinking frequently were from 2005, 2009 and 2011, which were 'bumper years' for wine in Greece. Since we consider that when wine of these sorts are made, they will age much longer than your average homebrew will prior to consumption. Therefore, control of the lees, and the flavors they impart is more critical, IMO.

Of course, its all up to maker and drinker preference in the end.

One question that always lingers in my mind regarding beer, is the filtering. We often filter our wines, depending on style, clarity and if they will be bottled or used in bulk. The wines that get bottle are always filtered to remove any previously overlooked particles, yeast clumps or floating lees. Again, since I am more new to brewing, I see a lot of brewers discussing sediment, etc., but not many people speaking about filtering options. Is this viable consideration for beer? What are the pluses and minuses?

Cheers,
AlfA01

 

[Jason_W]

my primary is a cheap 10 gallon bucket which doesn't seal very well.

I tried a primary only, got an infection probably from the fly that found its way in. I'll be using one of my glass carboys for secondary after 5-6 days of primary with a bubbler as i know they won't get any nasties in it.

 

[Setesh]

my primary is a cheap 10 gallon bucket which doesn't seal very well.

I tried a primary only, got an infection probably from the fly that found its way in. I'll be using one of my glass carboys for secondary after 5-6 days of primary with a bubbler as i know they won't get any nasties in it.

If your fermentor seals so poorly that bugs can get in then you need to replace the fermentor or come up with a solution to that problem. Just because CO2 is being produced in the first 5-6 days doesn't mean it's going to keep bugs out, quite the contrary in fact. Some bugs are drawn to the CO2. Every bug is going to be covered with....well....bugs, so you definitely don't want them getting into your beer! If your umbrella has holes in it you could put on a rain slicker to avoid getting wet from all the drips, but a better solution would be to replace the umbrella

 

[Puddlethumper]

I think I paid about $15 for the last fermenter bucket I bought at the LHBS. It's a shame to throw out $30-$40 worth of beer for want of a $15 bucket.

 

[DogboyBrew]

so 5 weeks on a yeast cake at about 65 deg F wont hurt the beer? Im going on vacation, and planned to go to secondary the day before to get it off the big patty and let it sit there for 3 weeks to clear...but id rather not risk infection if it isnt necessary

 

[HomeWetBar]

I always secondary ferment regardless of the beer, I have tried single fermentation ONCE and the beer was cloudly with some floating particles. HOWEVER I have read on here about many people successfully cold crashing a beer for clarity and only doing single fermentation like petrolSpice said. So I may try that on a future beer.

 

[Yooper]

I always secondary ferment regardless of the beer, I have tried single fermentation ONCE and the beer was cloudly with some floating particles. HOWEVER I have read on here about many people successfully cold crashing a beer for clarity and only doing single fermentation like petrolSpice said. So I may try that on a future beer.

Just food for thought:


That is a primary only, dryhopped APA, that is about 3 weeks old. I don't cold crash, but I do keg which can be sort of considered a cold crash I guess, but the beer is that clear going into the keg. I don't keg a cloudy beer.

 

[hd333]

I don't think any 5 gal. vessel would be suitable as a fermenter for a 5 gal. batch of beer. You need the extra headspace of a 6 - 6.5 gal. carboy or bucket during active fermentation.

I fermented in a 5 gallon glass carboy with a blow off tube. Seemed to work fine. A buddy gave me another 5 gallon for secondary. I was going to buy a 6.5 for my next primary but the blow off tube worked great so I will probably save the $$$.

 

[skw]

Yooper, what yeast was used for that beer?

I may start using secondaries just for the reason of reducing bottle sediments. Two out of my last three brews used secondaries, and it seems to me like they have significantly less bottle sediment than any of my previous brews. I have tried cold crashing and long primaries, but my latest beer which was bottled after 5 days primary and 5 days secondary was clearer than anything else I ever produced. The yeast strain probably is a big part of it, but still...I think I have to experiment some more.

 

[Puddlethumper]

so 5 weeks on a yeast cake at about 65 deg F wont hurt the beer? Im going on vacation, and planned to go to secondary the day before to get it off the big patty and let it sit there for 3 weeks to clear...but id rather not risk infection if it isnt necessary

If you like the flavors the yeast will add to the beer then leaving it on the cake for 5 weeks won't hurt it any. Personally, I tend to follow the advice of a couple pro brewers I know who believe the flavor of the beer is brighter if pulled off the yeast as soon as FG is reached. Therefore, I almost never leave a beer on the yeast for longer than two weeks +/- (usually less).

If your beer were in a fermenter at my house it would go into a 5 gal. carboy before I left on my trip. And the concerns that keep getting raised about infection and oxidation are nothing but boogie-men that vaporize when examined squarely. If you follow normal and good sanitation practices and aren't ham-handed with your racking you'll neither introduce an infection nor oxidize your beer.

As others have said, use of a secondary fermenter is a matter of personal taste and preference. Although I find it amusing how often those opposed are more vocal, sometimes to the point of intolerance, than those who prefer to use them. You probably should try it both ways before you make up your mind about what you'll view as "good practice" for your equipment, procedures, recipes and taste.

 

[Biergarden]

I always move my beer off the primary and into a secondary fermenter, no matter the "aging" times. I Crash cool and then rack into the secondary to further clear the beer. By leaving the sediment behind, you're further assuring yourself of a better product. Be sure you've reached your target gravity before transferring. I also like to add a packet of boiled plain gelatin to further clear the beer.

 

[Yooper]

Yooper, what yeast was used for that beer?

I may start using secondaries just for the reason of reducing bottle sediments. Two out of my last three brews used secondaries, and it seems to me like they have significantly less bottle sediment than any of my previous brews. I have tried cold crashing and long primaries, but my latest beer which was bottled after 5 days primary and 5 days secondary was clearer than anything else I ever produced. The yeast strain probably is a big part of it, but still...I think I have to experiment some more.

The funny thing is that I use WLP001 for most of my American APAs and IPAs. It's not particularly flocculant as a rule, but it tends to clear very well for me, compared to S05, or Wyeast 1056, which are said to be the same strain.

 

[Setesh]

The funny thing is that I use WLP001 for most of my American APAs and IPAs. It's not particularly flocculant as a rule, but it tends to clear very well for me, compared to S05, or Wyeast 1056, which are said to be the same strain.

I use US-05 as my 'house' strain and I agree, it doesn't clear nearly as well as 001. No idea why. It does respond extremely well to gelatin though.

 

[dudius]

I don't see a need for myself to use a secondary usually, though I have a couple beers planned that will require it. In my opinion, secondary is best used for dry hopping, fruit/other additions, or adding wood. I get clear enough beer using a primary for 2-3 weeks, and if I wanted to clarify I could do so without using a secondary. I see it as more time to wait for beer, especially since I bottle.

Not knocking on those who prefer to use a secondary, to each their own. It's hard to change if you're pleased with the beer you're making

 

[AlfA01]

If your fermentor seals so poorly that bugs can get in then you need to replace the fermentor or come up with a solution to that problem. Just because CO2 is being produced in the first 5-6 days doesn't mean it's going to keep bugs out, quite the contrary in fact. Some bugs are drawn to the CO2. Every bug is going to be covered with....well....bugs, so you definitely don't want them getting into your beer! If your umbrella has holes in it you could put on a rain slicker to avoid getting wet from all the drips, but a better solution would be to replace the umbrella

What? No added protein? Damn, that rules out the dinner-in-the-bottle philosophy!

In September we always have to avoid nats by the droves when crushing grapes outdoors....

Use anything you can get a hold of to keep the bugs away from your brew...screens, tape old sheet (all clean and sterile as possible and don't bring them in contact with the brew or the surfaces the brew will touch).

Cheers,
AlfA01

 

[Puddlethumper]

The funny thing is that I use WLP001 for most of my American APAs and IPAs. It's not particularly flocculant as a rule, but it tends to clear very well for me, compared to S05, or Wyeast 1056, which are said to be the same strain.

I've been using BRY-97 for many of my American ales and have been pretty happy with the results. I'd be interested to learn if you've worked with that strain and how you feel it compares to the other American ale yeasts.