What happens if I don't second ferment?

[jceg316]

Hey everyone. Every brew I've done so far (about 8 or so) has been into secondary for a bit. I was wondering what would happen if I went straight from primary into the bottle, and left it in the bottle to condition longer.

For example, where I would normally leave in secondary for 3 weeks, then bottle condition for a couple weeks, I was thinking of going straight from primary to bottle conditioning for 5 weeks.

Thanks in advance.

 

[LandoLincoln]

You may bring about the End of Times.

But more likely, you'll see no difference.

 

[jceg316]

You may bring about the End of Times.

But more likely, you'll see no difference.

I was worried that my 5 gallon homebrew set up would unleash the Kraken, but thanks for confirming. Do you reckon this would dramatically change the taste or texture though?

 

[LandoLincoln]

I was worried that my 5 gallon homebrew set up would unleash the Kraken, but thanks for confirming. Do you reckon this would dramatically change the taste or texture though?

Not at all. I'd wager that most homebrewers on this site don't bother to secondary their beers, unless they're doing something special, like racking onto some fruit or are racking into a whiskey barrel. Every time that you rack from one vessel to another you have a chance to infect your beer and/or oxidize your beer, so it's best to minimize going from one vessel to another.

Back in the ancient times of homebrewing (1980's/1990's), homebrewing yeasts were pretty crappy and the risk of autolysis was relatively high, so it was recommended that homebrewers move the beer off of the yeast cake as soon as the beer was done fermenting. Homebrew beer yeast has greatly improved since then, so the risk of autolysis has been thoroughly reduced.

Some other people believe that racking off of the yeast cake to let the beer settle out will make the beer clearer, but countless brewers have experienced no clearer beer due to racking into secondary. If you want really clear beer, I'd recommend using some whirlfloc tabs in the last 10 minutes of the boil, and then after the beer is done fermenting, cold-crash the fermentor for 72 hours before racking to your bottling bucket or keg.

 

[cricky101]

Hey everyone. Every brew I've done so far (about 8 or so) has been into secondary for a bit. I was wondering what would happen if I went straight from primary into the bottle, and left it in the bottle to condition longer.

For example, where I would normally leave in secondary for 3 weeks, then bottle condition for a couple weeks, I was thinking of going straight from primary to bottle conditioning for 5 weeks.

Thanks in advance.

You get one less piece of equipment to wash. Other than that, everything should work out just fine.

 

[DurtyChemist]

I just learned a local brewer leaves his beer on yeast for 6 weeks to let the yeast clean up any by-products. If you can still get enough yeast to carbonate a bottle after 3 weeks in a secondary I'd say leave it in the primary for that 3 weeks then bottle as normal. Use your secondary as a second fermentation chamber.

 

[grittanomyces]

Some other people believe that racking off of the yeast cake to let the beer settle out will make the beer clearer, but countless brewers have experienced no clearer beer due to racking into secondary. If you want really clear beer, I'd recommend using some whirlfloc tabs in the last 10 minutes of the boil, and then after the beer is done fermenting, cold-crash the fermentor for 72 hours before racking to your bottling bucket or keg.

Do you mean they experience no clearer beer if they cold crash?

Because I keep hearing cold-crashing touted as a solution here, but many brewers do not have the fridge space to do so.

Maybe it's just my racking technique not being refined, but my beers are noticably clearer coming out of secondary than going in, even if I left the beer in primary for several weeks to let everything drop.

Of course it doesn't matter when kegging, but in my experience it helps alot in clearing bottled beer of yeast when you can't cold crash.

But in answer to the OP, pretty much clarity is the only possible difference in foregoing secondary, and as mentioned above that is debateable at best.

 

[MindenMan]

My schedule, (or available amount of funding) usually determines how long I primary. It is very common for me to leave my beer in the primary for 4 to 6 weeks. I go through one extra step when brewing, I use Irish Moss @15 min, cool my BK as low as I can, and pour the wort through double stacked paint strainers. The amount of trub that gets into primary is very small due to the effectiveness of the strainers, the amount of wort lost is technically zero. There is a very small amount of liquid in the trub that is left in the strainers, maybe a tablespoon if that much. And when I cold crash, my beer is clear down to the last half cup. To me, this extra step is worth it to not leave behind a gallon or so like I used to.

 

[LovesIPA]

Or you can just transfer then entire contents of the brew kettle into the fermenter, break material and all. You will still get clear beer and you won't waste any wort.

The only beer I leave behind is whatever is in the cake at the bottom of the fermenter, plus a few ounces on top.

After a couple of pints it comes out of the tap clear.

 

[grittanomyces]

Or you can just transfer then entire contents of the brew kettle into the fermenter, break material and all. You will still get clear beer and you won't waste any wort.

The only beer I leave behind is whatever is in the cake at the bottom of the fermenter, plus a few ounces on top.

After a couple of pints it comes out of the tap clear.

Well yes, if kegging then there is no debate that secondary and filtering aren't necessary, because its effectively cold crashing it.

But bottling, I still maintain that it seems to help clear if unable to cold crash.

 

[HarborTownBrewing]

Someone has a great brewing blog (for the life of me I can't recall it's name) but they did an experiment with the same beer racked into two carboys. One was left in primary for the two or so week duration, the other was racked into primary, then into secondary. As I recall the results: the beer which went to secondary was a little bit more clear than the other, but the one left only in primary received better reviews from tasters.

Personally, I only use secondary for adding fruit or coffee or something like that. My opinion also would be that you are leaving your beer in secondary too long. Leaving a brew in secondary for 3 weeks means you may miss out on some of the freshness if you are making a nice apa or ipa. Irish Moss may help with your clarity, if you haven't tried it yet and are concerned.

 

[jceg316]

Thanks everyone for your replies, that's very useful. As most my beers so far have been IPAs I've dry hopped and therefore secondary is quite essential. Now I'm branching out into Belgian style abbeys and lagers I don't really need to dry hop, so 2ndary isn't too necessary, but I have done it out of habit I guess.

Interestingly enough, when I tried my Belgian ale Archduke Franz Ferdinhandz (based on a Westmalle clone recipe) it tasted nicer out of the primary than it did out of secondary.

MindenMan - that's a great idea you have! Thanks for sharing.

 

[KeninMN]

Someone has a great brewing blog (for the life of me I can't recall it's name) but they did an experiment with the same beer racked into two carboys. One was left in primary for the two or so week duration, the other was racked into primary, then into secondary. As I recall the results: the beer which went to secondary was a little bit more clear than the other, but the one left only in primary received better reviews from tasters.

Personally, I only use secondary for adding fruit or coffee or something like that. My opinion also would be that you are leaving your beer in secondary too long. Leaving a brew in secondary for 3 weeks means you may miss out on some of the freshness if you are making a nice apa or ipa. Irish Moss may help with your clarity, if you haven't tried it yet and are concerned.

Brulosophy: http://brulosophy.com/2014/06/02/the-great-trub-exbeeriment-results-are-in/

 

[KeninMN]

Thanks everyone for your replies, that's very useful. As most my beers so far have been IPAs I've dry hopped and therefore secondary is quite essential. Now I'm branching out into Belgian style abbeys and lagers I don't really need to dry hop, so 2ndary isn't too necessary, but I have done it out of habit I guess.

Interestingly enough, when I tried my Belgian ale Archduke Franz Ferdinhandz (based on a Westmalle clone recipe) it tasted nicer out of the primary than it did out of secondary.

MindenMan - that's a great idea you have! Thanks for sharing.

So you have your answer: It depends! Also, whatever works best for you. I'm space-limited, so I don't have a lot of extra space to store multiple primary fermentors and still maintain an every-other weekend brewing schedule; therefore I always rack to secondary to free up my primary for the next brew, but I have done brews that only required two weeks from boil to bottle, so no secondary for them...

 

[kombat]

my beers are noticably clearer coming out of secondary than going in, even if I left the beer in primary for several weeks to let everything drop.

I'm still not convinced that there's any scientific basis for this claim. Logic would dictate that leaving beer for 6 weeks in a single fermenter should result in clearer beer than beer that was "disturbed" at the 3 week point and racked into another vessel for 3 more weeks (i.e., same total time overall in both cases, but one was transferred midway).

I know your comment was merely anecdotal, but how do you explain what you claim to have observed? What physical process would result in clearer beer if you transferred it midway versus leaving it undisturbed for the entire 6 weeks?

But in answer to the OP, pretty much clarity is the only possible difference in foregoing secondary, and as mentioned above that is debateable at best.

Agreed. Cold-crashing is best, but I still believe that leaving your beer alone for X weeks will result in clearer beer than beer that was left alone for Y weeks, then transferred to another fermenter for Z weeks, where Y + Z = X. The alternative just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[LandoLincoln]

Thanks everyone for your replies, that's very useful. As most my beers so far have been IPAs I've dry hopped and therefore secondary is quite essential. Now I'm branching out into Belgian style abbeys and lagers I don't really need to dry hop, so 2ndary isn't too necessary, but I have done it out of habit I guess.

Interestingly enough, when I tried my Belgian ale Archduke Franz Ferdinhandz (based on a Westmalle clone recipe) it tasted nicer out of the primary than it did out of secondary.

MindenMan - that's a great idea you have! Thanks for sharing.

I think most guys on here don't transfer to secondary when dry-hopping either. I don't. I don't think it's affected the hop aroma either. Give it a try and see if it works for you.

 

[jceg316]

I think most guys on here don't transfer to secondary when dry-hopping either. I don't. I don't think it's affected the hop aroma either. Give it a try and see if it works for you.

So do you keep in primary and one week before bottling/kegging do you add the hops?

We primary ferment in those plastic buckets so common with homebrews, but as they are permeable to air we rack to glass carboys for secondary. I guess for you there is no secondary fermentation, so how long do you leave it in primary?

 

[LandoLincoln]

So do you keep in primary and one week before bottling/kegging do you add the hops?

We primary ferment in those plastic buckets so common with homebrews, but as they are permeable to air we rack to glass carboys for secondary. I guess for you there is no secondary fermentation, so how long do you leave it in primary?

I typically leave my IPAs in primary, fermenting, for about 2 weeks, and then I dry hop it for a week and then rack to a keg for carbonation.

 

[Yooper]

I think most guys on here don't transfer to secondary when dry-hopping either. I don't. I don't think it's affected the hop aroma either. Give it a try and see if it works for you.

Agreed. I sometimes rack to another vessel for dryhopping, but that's only if I"m going to harvest the yeast and don't want a ton of dryhop particulate in it!

What I do is leave the beer in the fermenter (a bucket is easiest when dryhopping) until it's done and clear (or clearing). When yeast drop out of suspension, it can pull some of the hops oils down with it so you want to dryhop generally when the beer is finished and fairly clear.

About 5 days before packaging the beer, I add the dryhops to the fermenter gently without splashing. Then, on bottling/kegging day, I just rack the beer off of the dryhops (many are still floating) and the trub without any issues. I don't use bags for dryhopping, but many people do if they have trouble with their siphon clogging.

 

[jceg316]

Landolincoln and Yooper, this is really helpful stuff, I appreciate your input here. If I don't have to waste time with 2ndry then that would be awesome. Some recipes call for 2ndry for long periods of time. For example I have just made a Hardcore IPA clone (Brewdog) which is an imperial IPA 9.2%. It says rack to 2nd for for 8-10 weeks then dry hop in the last week. Would it be the same if I left in a fermenter, dry hopped in the fermenter (after fermentation was complete) then bottled?

I assume I would leave in the bottle for a while to condition? I do notice that when I leave beers for a few weeks/month in the bottle the taste does improve a lot, especially with IPAs with a higher IBU.

 

[eadavis80]

I always secondary beers even if I'm not dry hopping or adding fruit, but I do it - basically - to free up my primary bucket. I have only one primary fermenter so if I leave my beer in the primary a month, that means I have to wait 4 weeks before I get to brew again - too long for me! I usually go 2 weeks primary and then transfer to one of my two secondaries. It probably helps clear some, but it's more about keeping the beers a comin'!

 

[jceg316]

I always secondary beers even if I'm not dry hopping or adding fruit, but I do it - basically - to free up my primary bucket. I have only one primary fermenter so if I leave my beer in the primary a month, that means I have to wait 4 weeks before I get to brew again - too long for me! I usually go 2 weeks primary and then transfer to one of my two secondaries. It probably helps clear some, but it's more about keeping the beers a comin'!

Do you use those glass carboys for secondary? That's what we use for it but they can be used for primary as well. If this is the case then it could sav e you having to keep transferring and disturbing the beer/trub as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread.

Also it's pretty cool to see fermentation the glass carboys!

 

[Yooper]

Landolincoln and Yooper, this is really helpful stuff, I appreciate your input here. If I don't have to waste time with 2ndry then that would be awesome. Some recipes call for 2ndry for long periods of time. For example I have just made a Hardcore IPA clone (Brewdog) which is an imperial IPA 9.2%. It says rack to 2nd for for 8-10 weeks then dry hop in the last week. Would it be the same if I left in a fermenter, dry hopped in the fermenter (after fermentation was complete) then bottled?

I assume I would leave in the bottle for a while to condition? I do notice that when I leave beers for a few weeks/month in the bottle the taste does improve a lot, especially with IPAs with a higher IBU.

I never age IPAs long term in the fermenter. The only things I age long term are things like oaked imperial stouts, etc. And those are racked to the carboy, with as little headspace as possible. So yes, if you are going to age something for 8-10 weeks, then it should be racked to a new vessel. I just don't see the need for a long term aging in a secondary for an IPA or IIPA.

 

[eadavis80]

My primary is a regular old plastic 6.5 gallon bucket, but my secondaries are 1) glass 2) a better bottle - both of which are 5 gallons. I wouldn't mind getting a clear primary down the road just so I could see the fermentation process, as opposed to just waiting to see bubbles in the airlock and/or peeking inside a week after pitching, but it's not a big deal. Though I have yet to make the same beer using both the glass and better bottle carboys, thus far anyway, I have not detected a quality difference between the two. That being said, since I got the Better Bottle I have not used my glass one just because the BB is easier to deal with. But, this fall I'll probably have 2 beers in the secondary at the same time, thus I'll be using my glass one again soon.