Do I need to transfer to a Seconday?!

[CraftBrewGal]

Okay, here we go....
I've been reading a lot about transfering the beer into a secondary sanatized unit after a couple weeks of fermenting....
I'm using the Brookyln BrewShop's Beer Making kit.. so i am working with 1 gallon glass jugs.
Questions at hand----Do I need to transfer to a secondary?
What is the purpose of a secondary?
Do I siphon the beer into the secondary just like bottling?
When do you usually make the transfer into the secondary?

Thank you guys!

 

[unionrdr]

In the old days, the beer was transferred to a secondary to get it off the poorer quality yeast that would soon autolyze (die). This would give the beer funky off-flavors. Not needed with today's purer yeast strains. So a secondary these days is really a bright tank to clear the beer.
However, some of us do rack the beer to a secondary when adding fruit or oaking. I guess we don't want higher levels of yeast esters to change the flavor of what we're adding so much as it would in secondary. Many of us dry hop in primary as well, but only after fermentation is done & the beer is clear or slightly misty. This would be about a week before packaging.
The beer should also be at a stable FG before racking it anywhere. Otherwise, it could stall out before it finishes fermenting.

 

[Culbetron]

Don't use the secondary.

 

[blackbeer]

simple answer is no, for most beers. but i still do. racking to secondary allows me to check the gravity and taste and to get rid of some of the sludge from fermentation.

when i started brewing 30 years ago, i never heard of secondary. then sometime in the late 80's, it came into vogue. in the late 90's, i stopped brewing for many years and restarted last year, and now it looks like the consensus is that it is not necessary unless you are going to let your beer condition for months, like with a barley wine or imperial stout.

i am not familiar with your setup but it sounds like you can just let it ferment all the way out and just bottle it. just check your gravity and make sure it is below 1.020 or even closer to 1.010 to avoid overcarb and bottle blowups.

 

[BigFloyd]

Short answer, no.

Since you're doing one gallon batches, it's better to simply ferment three weeks in primary then put the jug in the fridge for a week to "cold crash" the excess yeast to the bottom before bottling.

 

[eadavis80]

Yeah, since it's a 1-gallon jug, you're going to lose some (a higher percentage of your volume since you only have 1-gallon) so I'd just throw it in the fridge for a few days prior to bottling. Probably 2.5 weeks after you brewed.

 

[Randomnoob]

Not needed, from my two years of experience. I only do secondaries when I make lagers. I think I've made some fairly decent beers without secondary.

 

[BigFloyd]

Not sure why you'd need/want a secondary for brewing a lager. After the D-rest, I cold crash the primary at 35*F a week, rack to the keg and then lager at 35*F for a couple of months or more.

 

[CraftBrewGal]

Thank you so much guys appreciate it! and btw im brewing a porter not a lager

 

[bobbrews]

http://brulosophy.com/2014/08/12/primary-only-vs-transfer-to-secondary-exbeeriment-results/

"Another common (mis)conception is that racking beer from primary to secondary will hasten the clarity process, which simply does not appear to be true… at all. A single taster of 16 total thought the beer racked to a secondary vessel was more clear, while the large majority noticed no difference between the 2 beers. The fact more people perceived the primary-only beer as being the clearer of the 2 seems to support the notion that clarity is not a function of transferring to a secondary vessel."

 

[jethro55]

http://brulosophy.com/2014/08/12/primary-only-vs-transfer-to-secondary-exbeeriment-results/

"Another common (mis)conception is that racking beer from primary to secondary will hasten the clarity process, which simply does not appear to be true… at all. A single taster of 16 total thought the beer racked to a secondary vessel was more clear, while the large majority noticed no difference between the 2 beers. The fact more people perceived the primary-only beer as being the clearer of the 2 seems to support the notion that clarity is not a function of transferring to a secondary vessel."

Two key points in the exbeeriment to take note of. They were cold crashed - that's easier said than done. And both were kegged - and that is indeed a secondary vessel process.

But I do agree with these recommendations for the OP - it is not too hard to cold crash a one gallon jug.

 

[Gavin C]

both were kegged - and that is indeed a secondary vessel process.
.

By that rationale anyone who bottles straight from primary is actually using 50 small secondaries for a 5 gallon batch. Hogwash, I say!

I believe the definition of using a secondary is the transfer to any additional storage vessel following fermentation in the primary vessel and prior to packaging, (bottling or kegging).

To answer the OP. No. A secondary (intermediate storage vessel) in the vast majority of instances is not needed. Clarity without a secondary is a non-issue.

Below is a representative example of a primary to keg beer. An ESB

 

[jethro55]

Not really. I doubt that you pick up your keg and tilt it to the side to pour a beer. Nor do you have to see the dreggy muck in the bottom of the keg. When the dregs and hop particles are in the bottle, and you share the pour; they are floaters. Yuck.

The pictures from the exbeeriment show the signs of a rigged exbeeriment. Though it is obvious that the secondary tank had a lot less muck than the primary, secondaries are much cleaner than that one normally. There has been a trick on his part in the siphoning job on the transfer. That's one super sloppy transfer job. What is it with the suds in that transfer? Have never seen one that bad. And 3 days clearing is very short timing for that. I am confident that if you do the experiment as he did, you will get the same result. And that if it was done differently, it would get a different result.

Probably the biggest issue here is in the cold crash when it comes to bottling. Those that can do, and those that can't find another way to clear. Not everyone has a temperature controlled fermenting chamber. And not everyone is able or willing to carry a 5 gallon carboy to and from a spare fridge even if they had one. The fair answer to the question of whether secondary is needed or not is that "it depends". Great clear beers can be made one way or another. Not just one way. And you have found a great way - nice picture and makes me very thirsty!

 

[oakbarn]

Not needed, from my two years of experience. I only do secondaries when I make lagers. I think I've made some fairly decent beers without secondary.

I agreed with BigFloyd. No need even for a lager. Cold Crash then tranfer to final. We keg!

 

[unionrdr]

By that rationale anyone who bottles straight from primary is actually using 50 small secondaries for a 5 gallon batch. Hogwash, I say!

I believe the definition of using a secondary is the transfer to any additional storage vessel following fermentation in the primary vessel and prior to packaging, (bottling or kegging).

To answer the OP. No. A secondary (intermediate storage vessel) in the vast majority of instances is not needed. Clarity without a secondary is a non-issue.

Below is a representative example of a primary to keg beer. An ESB

I have to agree. My latest ESB came out looking reddish-amber like yours & crystal clear with no secondary. Just let it settle out clear or slightly misty then bottle. you can use a secondary if you so desire, but I don't & they come out clear, all other process things being equal.

 

[bobbrews]

Two key points in the exbeeriment to take note of. They were cold crashed - that's easier said than done. And both were kegged - and that is indeed a secondary vessel process.

You can still get clear beers in the primary without cold crashing if your processes are sound. I've done this countless times and you can see right through the beers. There are more effective methods to clear a beer than to rely on a cold crash; granted, relying on multiple methods is your best bet. And if we really want to split straws by calling a keg a secondary, then you can also call each and every bottle a miniature secondary vessel.

 

[unionrdr]

Yeah, bottling basically is a secondary fermentation, but in a closed environment to produce carbonation. And in a couple days in the bottles, they do tend to settle out very clear.

 

[ted464]

I only use a secondary in specific situations, like if I am going to make a lager and lager it for an extended period. For 90% of the ales I make I only use the primary and I have never had a problem.

 

[Gavin C]

Yeah, bottling basically is a secondary fermentation, but in a closed environment to produce carbonation. And in a couple days in the bottles, they do tend to settle out very clear.

I think this is becoming a confusing answer to a very basic question by the OP.

Bottles are now secodary vessels??? Seriously
By the same argument my beer glass is a tertiary vessel allowing any sediment to settle before I drink it via the quaternary vessel; my mouth.

A secondary is an intermediate vessel prior to packaging. Define it otherwise if you so desire but it is nonsense semantics in the extreme. I thought the exbeeriment like brulosopher's other work was great. One of the very rare individuals you can look to for experimental evidence to support an answer to an oft asked question regarding home brewing processes.

Completely comparable results can be had via bottling or kegging. The former method is no cause to use a secondary. The arguments for a secondary never include, " secondary if you bottle"

 

[jethro55]

My point is being missed in some of these replies. What I do not agree with is the presumption that we should all use exactly the same processes, or that certain steps in someone's processes are not needed. That would sound something like this - "all of the steps in my processes for making a great tasting and clear beer are perfectly acceptable to every home brewer and inn fact any different steps are a waste of time and a higher risk to the quality".
That sounds pretty darn debatable.

 

[unionrdr]

I think this is becoming a confusing answer to a very basic question by the OP.

Bottles are now secodary vessels??? Seriously
By the same argument my beer glass is a tertiary vessel allowing any sediment to settle before I drink it via the quaternary vessel; my mouth.

A secondary is an intermediate vessel prior to packaging. Define it otherwise if you so desire but it is nonsense semantics in the extreme. I thought the exbeeriment like brulosopher's other work was great. One of the very rare individuals you can look to for experimental evidence to support an answer to an oft asked question regarding home brewing processes.

Completely comparable results can be had via bottling or kegging. The former method is no cause to use a secondary. The arguments for a secondary never include, " secondary if you bottle"

You know, I don't know where you keep getting this angry, warped view of me from, but it's starting to sound like a personal attack. Can't be denied when looking at them all. It was referred to, since I came on here, as a "secondary fermentation" in the bottle. Not a secondary as in a "bright tank". Get it right, for Christ's sake & quit the politely personal attacks. I may be old, but I'm not a moron because of my age.

 

[Gavin C]

My point is being missed in some of these replies. What I do not agree with is the presumption that we should all use exactly the same processes, or that certain steps in someone's processes are not needed. That would sound something like this - "all of the steps in my processes for making a great tasting and clear beer are perfectly acceptable to every home brewer and inn fact any different steps are a waste of time and a higher risk to the quality".
That sounds pretty darn debatable.

Not quite. The question is should I do step x in addition to the other steps in my process. That is adding a secondary in this case. If it is the addition of a step to a process which is in question, the burden of proof to validate this rests on proponents of the added step, not on proponents of it not being added. If a better beer results from the addition of a step to the process this should be demonstrable. In the case of a secondary in the vast majority of instances this is not the case. The burden of proof has not been met to justify the added step.

The old disclaimer that people are free to whatever they so please as always applies. In the same manner proponents of racking ones beer while wearing hazmat gear could be mentioned as a ridiculous non- evidence based added step, but again the burden of proof would be on the users of the hazmat gear.That is, is your beer demonstrably better as a result.

Home brewers will continue to use secondaries. The world will not cease to spin. No big deal. I think one should stop to consider why one does something though.

 

[Gavin C]

You know, I don't know where you keep getting this angry, warped view of me from, but it's starting to sound like a personal attack. Can't be denied when looking at them all. It was referred to, since I came on here, as a "secondary fermentation" in the bottle. Not a secondary as in a "bright tank". Get it right, for Christ's sake & quit the politely personal attacks. I may be old, but I'm not a moron because of my age.

Not angry in the least. Just don't understand your train of thought in confusing the issue with bottling being described as a secondary by a previous poster. This is a very confusing answer to a simple question particularly given the fact that you had previously advocating no secondary in the thread.

A very straight forward discussion. Don't know how anyone could interpret my remarks as a personal attack. An attack on what I see as nonsense perhaps. How is your age of any relevance. I could care less how old or young you are. It was not my intent to cause offense, politely or otherwise. For that I sincerely apologize and will exit myself from the thread. I do not wish to hijack it further.

 

[kombat]

Not angry in the least. Just don't understand your train of thought in confusing the issue with bottling being described as a secondary

In unionrdr's defense, bottling is indeed the closest thing to an actual "secondary fermentation" in the entire process. It's the only point at which actual fermentation occurs after the main fermentation has subsided.

The confusion is that people say "secondary fermenter" when they mean "secondary vessel" (or, more accurately, "bright tank"). There's no fermentation happening in that second vessel, so "secondary fermenter" is a misnomer.

 

[jethro55]

"The question is should I do step x in addition to the other steps in my process.... "

You missed it on two points. First - I did not mean to imply the simple addition of any one step in a complete process prescription. I meant multiple changes (deletions and additions) to the steps for reasons peculiar to a brewer, one of which might be secondary clearing. Think about whirfloc, fermtabs, straining wort from the fermenter, vorlauf, siphon skills, fluff, yeast floc, cold break, clean-up timing, time to the bottle, and cold crash as a few of the things that are variable.

And the other missed point is that it would have to demonstrate improved beer quality. No, it has to meet a full set of constraints for brew day schedule, equipment, bottling schedule, and clean-up to mention a few of these examples. It does not need to make the beer better (or more clear), it needs to fit the brewer constraints and preferences.

 

[GHBWNY]

The idea of a "secondary vessel" making the beer potentially clearer depends on how much material has to fall out of suspension to make it clear and how long it takes. But who can say? Ultimately, gravity is going to do what it is going to do whether the beer sits in one single vessel for X-amount of time, or goes from vessel-to-vessel and still sits for X-amount of time. All you are doing by transferring to a second vessel is hopefully, carefully taking it off the trub. That can be done as successfully at bottling time as it can going from one large vessel to another.

 

[jethro55]

The idea of a "secondary vessel" making the beer potentially clearer depends on how much material has to fall out of suspension to make it clear and how long it takes. But who can say? Ultimately, gravity is going to do what it is going to do whether the beer sits in one single vessel for X-amount of time, or goes from vessel-to-vessel and still sits for X-amount of time. All you are doing by transferring to a second vessel is hopefully, carefully taking it off the trub. That can be done as successfully at bottling time as it can going from one large vessel to another.

True, there are many cases like that.

Ya know what is also true, there are many cases that do not do that.

 

[Culbetron]

I'm hoping the OP didn't read this far. Nothing like listening to a bunch of dudes with nothing better to do argue about their favorite brewing controversy.

 

[GHBWNY]

Maybe we need another thread debating/arguing the difference between debating and arguing.

The argument favoring the use of a Post-Primary-Fermentation Vessel (PPFV) is: clearer beer and getting the beer off the spent yeast to avoid off-flavors. The argument discounting the use of a PPFV is: it doesn't matter! Having brewed beers both with and without a PPFV, I have zero evidence that supports "better" beer one way or the other. But that's not the point.

The point is, if whatever you do or don't do in your brewing process results in beer you like, then it's right for you. And, if whatever I do or don't do in my brewing process results in beer I like, then it's right for me. While we KNOW this issue is arguable and debatable, THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE!

The only thing this thread has proven is, once again, a PPFV is "needed" or "not needed" strictly in terms of what a particular brewer feels will make his beer turn out the best it can.

Anyway, by the time we're all standing around enjoying each others' PPFV/non-PPFV brews, WHO CARES???!!!

 

[jethro55]

We need both. Otherwise when we are standing around drinking each others' beers, some of them would crappy tasting and full of muck.