Is Secondary fermentation really needed???

[chefmike]

According to Mr. Malty's calculator, you'd only need about about 86ml of yeast slurry to pitch into 5 gallons of 1.050 SG wort. There's significantly more than that in a used cake.

Is there an advantage to using the whole thing over the amount recommended by Mr. M?

or

Is it advantageous to scoop out most of the slurry (with sanitized utensil of course) and be closer to the recommendation than to use the entire cake?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

I have been beaten into submission by an unnamed, yet knowledgeable brewer that one should use a calculator (such as mr malty) and determine the correct amount of slurry to pitch and to do so into a SANITIZED fermenter. So you are pitching the slurry, not racking into a used, dirty, nasty fermenter because that would be bad. very bad. You get smacked with rolled up newspapers for doing it.

So yes, it likely is advantageous to pitch the calculated amount of yeast for the highest quality finished product. You can have less desirable results dumping new beer on old cakes. Still good. Still beer. Still done by me on occasion (5 in a row this fall...)

But it is BETTER to scoop out the slurry and put the measured amount in a sanitized fermenter and add your fresh wort.

 

[Austinhomebrew]

Actually the real concensus it that you should use a secondary. Ask any professional brewer or brewery. Find out what they do.

Sure there are lots of things you should do but dont absolutely have to. Like stopping at red lights and not saying "no its your butt that makes your butt look big".

Why would there be a risk of contamination? You guys sanitize don't you? It is alcohol by then, you would have to have a pretty hardy strain to contaminate once it is alcohol. It is more likely to cause a infection to use a primary.

J/K I say skip the primary, go straight to a secondary for fermentation and a tertiary for claification. J/K

Use a secondary, it makes better beer. Sure it is drinkable without but it is better with.
Your favorite brewery right now uses a secondary.

Forrest

 

[pjj2ba]

I agree with Forrest. I find beers that are moved to a secondary have cleaner flavors. I like to use a secodary. That doesn't mean it needs to be done though. It is the individuals choice (as Revvy keeps harping on somewhat deaf ears)

If one is concerned about contaimination, then maybe one should reexamine their technique because as Forrest said, once fermented, it is even less likely to get infected - unless your technique is suspect to begin with, in which case it probably is already infected

 

[TexLaw]

Why would there be a risk of contamination? You guys sanitize don't you? It is alcohol by then, you would have to have a pretty hardy strain to contaminate once it is alcohol. It is more likely to cause a infection to use a primary.

Use a secondary, it makes better beer. Sure it is drinkable without but it is better with.
Your favorite brewery right now uses a secondary.

I'm in the same camp. If you do it right, the risk of contamination or oxidation is no greater than the risk of autolysis for leaving your beer in the primary for a month (i.e., nil).

I've only had two batches that I did not rack to secondary. Both of those have been within the last couple years, and I was not happy with either one for quite a while. Both eventually became very good beers, but it took longer than it should have. I'll keep racking.

As for the time and effort involved, there's hardly any of either required. Hands-on time for sanitizing and siphoning is very little, and cleaning a secondary involves little more than some hot rinsing.


TL

 

[ibbones]

As for the time and effort involved, there's hardly any of either required. Hands-on time for sanitizing and siphoning is very little, and cleaning a secondary involves little more than some hot rinsing.


TL

I feel the same. i have a batch in the secondary right now and I think it helps to clean it up. It's also not really hard to sanitize a carboy and racking cane and transfer.

 

[Hoosier]

Please keep in mind that we are not professional brewers and the things that work well on the large scale are not necessarily what we need to do to make great beer. Professional brewers do not use a secondary fermenter. They use bright tanks that they clear, carbonate and package/serve the beer from. If you consider that a secondary then every time I keg I am using a secondary.
The only time I use a secondary is for a beer like a flanders red where you let the yeasties do what they do and then txfer it to a secondary so that the bugs can do what they need to do over time (years not months) without having to deal with yeast autolysis. There are very few beers that you need a secondary for.

 

[mugglesport]

Interesting that there seems to be geographic differences between people who use a secondary and people who don't (most of you that say you use a secondary are Texans). I'm just getting started (and am a Texan), but I'm using a secondary and my LHBS (located in Texas) recommends it too.

 

[Orfy]

I rarely us a secondary vessel. The style of beer I make don't generaly require it.
My beer's are fine by me and others that drink it.

I'd say it's a personal choice unless the method of brewing dictates it.

 

[Hoosier]

Interesting observation. I hadn't noticed. I was in the Marines so naturally I knew alot of Texans (I think half of the damn Marine Corps is from Texas) and I know you guys/gals stick together. I see a secondary fermenter in your future...

 

[smizak]

Please keep in mind that we are not professional brewers and the things that work well on the large scale are not necessarily what we need to do to make great beer. Professional brewers do not use a secondary fermenter. They use bright tanks that they clear, carbonate and package/serve the beer from. If you consider that a secondary then every time I keg I am using a secondary.
The only time I use a secondary is for a beer like a flanders red where you let the yeasties do what they do and then txfer it to a secondary so that the bugs can do what they need to do over time (years not months) without having to deal with yeast autolysis. There are very few beers that you need a secondary for.

+1,000,000,000000...............................

They reason they use a bright tank in commercial breweries is simply because it's easier to filter after. I don't filter. I don't secondary. I need a little yeast for bottle conditioning. My beers are clear and clean. I've never had a single scoresheet from a competition where a judge make a remark about the beer not being "clean" or comment on any other flavor or aroma that could possibly be from not doing a secondary.

*DISCLAIMER* I am not implying that doing a secondary is wrong or bad, just that it is unnecessary if you follow certain steps in your brewing process. *DISCLAIMER*

 

[cheezydemon3]

My beers that go into secondary have less sediment in the bottle. That is it.

What I am sipping now was in primary for 3 months with no secondary. It is a delicious slightly roasty porter.

It does have a visible layer of yeast in the bottom of the bottle....I am sipping from a glass.

 

[smizak]

Interesting that there seems to be geographic differences between people who use a secondary and people who don't (most of you that say you use a secondary are Texans). I'm just getting started (and am a Texan), but I'm using a secondary and my LHBS (located in Texas) recommends it too.

I don't know.

I'm from Buffalo, NY and I got into an argument with a guy who told me I CANNOT dry hop because I don't secondary. *bangs head on wall*