longer primary or rack to secondary?

[Eliterunner1]

So I bought a NB basic starter kit and the Lefse Belgian Blonde ale extract kit after much consideration. Last weekend I cooked it up and have it racked into the primary right now, but the directions call for it to be racked into a secondary after two weeks of fermentation. I have heard some positives and negatives concerning this issue, mostly about the increased risk in contamination when moving the beer. I'm still not sure what I want to do!

 

[helibrewer]

There is no requirement to rack it at all. What is the SG right now? What is your expected FG?

 

[Eliterunner1]

My OG was 1.054, according to beersmith my expected FG after primary should be 1.018, and 1.011 at the end of secondary, then at bottling 1.009. But i haven't tested it again yet since my OG.

 

[helibrewer]

It's only been a week and Belgians are complex. Give it at least another week then take a SG reading to see where you are. You should be at about 68F for that fermentation (wort temp, not air).

 

[Eliterunner1]

I have been keeping it in the warmest part of my room with the heat on, and the fermentation was really getting to work the few days after pitching, now slowing down. which i expected with this brew. I read the reviews on it and people have said this one is notorious for its very fast fermentation

 

[homebrewdad]

My first two beers, I did secondaries for. Had really nice, clear beer.

My third beer, I simpy did a one month primary. Despite my best efforts, I ended up picking up a fair amount of trub and such when racking to bottle - so much so that I had to stop after 43 bottles; the last five just were not going to happen.

Seconary/no secondary is almost a religious choice, but for me, it will be secondary for at least a week from now on. I find that clarification/trub reduction to be well worth the effort.

 

[Eliterunner1]

Yeah im sort of leaning on the same side of things. I did use some Irish Moss with 15 minutes left on the boil, but I think I will just move it into secondary when the time is right.

 

[helibrewer]

My first two beers, I did secondaries for. Had really nice, clear beer.

My third beer, I simpy did a one month primary. Despite my best efforts, I ended up picking up a fair amount of trub and such when racking to bottle - so much so that I had to stop after 43 bottles; the last five just were not going to happen.

Seconary/no secondary is almost a religious choice, but for me, it will be secondary for at least a week from now on. I find that clarification/trub reduction to be well worth the effort.

I prefer them also....but sometimes I'm just too lazy and stick them in my 38F cold box for a couple weeks

 

[mr_bell]

It's personal preference. Homebrew dad mentions his experiences have convinced HIM that it makes a better beer, so he uses one. I've only done it on one batch, my first, and have had good results without it since then. More recently and certainly with more brewing experience now, I'm considering trying it again just because I believe I'm in a better position to evaluate my results now.

I taught my neighbor how to brew (a good idea btw), at the time told him it was not really necessary, but he wanted to find out for himself. He has used a secondary on all his batches (5 total) and they've turned out good, well one was just ok to be honest. For him, it results in good beer and he's told me he will keep using a secondary.

Maybe a split batch scenario, with and without secondary? I'm anxiously awaiting the basic brewing radio/brew your own collaborative experiment on this. The link is very long so I didn't post, but it's the March 15, 2012 episode describes the experiment. The results are not out yet, but should be soon.

 

[blakelyc]

My preference is to secondary, but that is just because it is my process to do so and I am used to it. I havent had any problems or infection. I was thinking about trying an extended primary on my next batch, though.

 

[Stauffbier]

I used to secondary when I first started. Now I only do a primary for 2-4 weeks depending on the beer. In most cases I get real clear beer, but if it's not super clear I don't really care.

 

[YeastHerder]

Like the OP, I'm also still wondering about this and so I'll piggie-back some questions on this thread.

First, it seems like there are different meanings for 'secondary' floating around.

For example, when I recently bottled my first brew, I first siphoned it off the primary into a 'secondary' container (a bottling bucket) for the sole purpose of mixing the sugar in and then bottling (all done within a few hours). I understand how this makes it 1) easier to mix the sugar in, and 2) results in less trub in the bottle since most of it got left behind in the primary.

But it sounds like some people are talking about siphoning into a secondary container and then leaving the beer there for days or weeks. It is this latter kind of 'secondary' that I don't understand. Is this latter method doing something fundamentally different to the beer or are these two methods just variations aimed at the same end goal (less trub in the bottle)? Also, if you do this latter kind of secondary, are you later doing another siphon into a bottling bucket before bottling or do you bottle right out of this secondary?

Thanks!

 

[wilsojos]

Typically secondary is another container, usually a carboy, where the beer sits for a period of weeks to months. It is virtually unanimous that this method should be used when adding something, oak chips, fruit, etc or when extended aging is required. That's where the agreement ends...as someone else pointed out it is like a religious choice otherwise. And yes, most would go from secondary to a bottling bucket when ready to bottle.

 

[duboman]

To secondary just means you are moving the beer to a second vessel for whatever reason you choose, there is no right or wrong.

Even if you move to a second vessel it is still advisable to then rack to a bottling bucket for the sole purpose of bottling.

Some people will secondary to aid in clarification, convenience, free up primary or longer term conditioning of the beer as is done on some high OG beers to allow flavors to develop more. In addition people will use a secondary to dry hop or add fruit or other adjuncts as well.

 

[Stauffbier]

The sole purpose for the secondary was originally to give the beer more time to clear and mellow while removing it from the primary yeastcake. In the past (10-20 years ago) people believed that leaving the beer sitting on the yeastcake longer would cause off flavors due to autolysis of the yeast, but in recent years it has come to be known that autolysis of the yeast takes much longer to happen than previously believed. People started to realize that they could indeed leave the beer in the primary without any worry of sitting on the yeastcake for too long. It progressed from there. The main reason you wouldn't bottle directly from a primary or secondary is because it would be difficult to mix priming sugar with the beer without stirring up the yeast into the mix. This is why we rack to a bottle bucket on bottling day. This is not considered doing a "secondary"..