Once and for all...is a secondary neccesary??

[reverendj1]

Next I think we should discuss whether blue or red is the best color! Put that whole thing to rest too.

 

[salb29]

Next I think we should discuss whether blue or red is the best color! Put that whole thing to rest too.

Best color is green...

 

[JohanMk1]

there is no wrong way to eat a Reases...

Smartass answer given, now here is the deal.

The question you are asking does not have a single right or wrong answer.

IMO, it is up to personal preference. Some folks think secondary offers a cleaner or clearer beer even in the absence of the addition of fruits or dry hopping, others don't seem to care.

The right answer to your question is one that you will discover on your own for you after you have many brews under your belt.

I personally do secondary for dry hopping and other post fermentation additions, this works for me. Others don't consider this necessary, Am I right or wrong? Or are the naysayers?....Actually neither because our each individual style is what counts.

Have fun brewing...that counts most

I have made beer without using a secondary.
Clearly the answer is no.

Water, hops, malted grain, yeast and a container to put them in are the only necessary things.
Everything else is optional.

These are both good answers.

 

[julioardz]

Guys I really appreciate all the feed back, I'm doing my second batch this weekend an American cream ale and will not secondary this one, my first batch I did which is a nut brown ale, so ill compare the two and make my decision in a couple of months---thanks!

Sounds like a good plan, but don't forget that a Cream Ale is lighter beer with a faint hop and malt character. Any off flavors produced from any step in your process will be more easily perceived than in a brown ale, which is much more malty. Any bold flavored beer will mask off flavors better.

 

[julioardz]

It is not necessary but often it would improve the final product. Its not to say you can't make good beer without it, you would need to be careful and have a good process for transfering out of you fermenter (or filtering)

I'm not looking for an argument, but I think it's a misconception that a secondary improves beer. Merely transfering into a secondary fermentor will not improve your beer just because you are transfering it. You make good beer from the combination of a good recipe and a good process, and that may or may not include a secondary fermentor.

I've done both, and feel that as long as other factors like sanitation, yeast selection, pitch rate, fermentation temperature, use of finings, quick cooling of the wort after the boil, etc. are taken care of, you can produce equally great beer, regardless if you use a secondary fermentor or not. Bulk aging for many months is probably the only time you really see a benefit to using a secondary fermentor. Other than that, you can produce egually good, clear beer by simply tweaking your process for the use of a single fermenter. Even dry hopping and fruit, spice, or wood chip additions can be done in your pimary fermentor. But like I stated earlier, each brewer has his or her own reasons for doing the things they do and on this matter, no one way is correct or better as long as the rest of your process is solid.

 

[Darwin18]

I can't believe how worked up people get about the primary vs secondary "debate". Read through these threads and decide which you prefer. Do you what you prefer. Ultimately, it doesn't matter as the likelihood of any of us trying your beer is very low.

 

[user 98891]

Make your beer the way you want it to be made, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. At the same time, remember to heed the advice of the giants who's backs you stand on. That is how you grow your ability and become a great brewer.

You want to know if you should stop using a secondary? Stop using a secondary. You will know when you drink the beer if you made the right decision.

 

[phuff7129]

I used to transfer to secondary and I made good beer. I don't anymore and I still make good beer although it is less work so to me its a plus to not do a secondary.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Really, I believe that the clarity that some achieve when racking to a secondary is simply because they are letting the beer age/condition extra time.

For a person who ferments in the primary bucket for 3 weeks and then goes straight to bottling for 3 weeks is conditioning the beer for 3 weeks after terminal gravity is reached.

For a person who racks to secondary, they may use the primary for 3 weeks, then the secondary for a week (After terminal gravity), then bottle for 3 weeks. The extra week in the secondary is very similar to bottle conditioning, thus helping the clarity of the beer.

In other words, you could just use the primary and give your beer an extra week to bottle condition and more than likely, I believe, you will end up with a very similar product in terms of clarity.

To answer your question: Needed? No. Not at all. That doesn't mean you can't use one, or that there aren't other (good) factors why people use them (late additions such as hops/chips or space for more product) but those are all factors that are arbitrary, fluid, and will change from brewer to brewer.

Do what you want, and be happy. Your beer is going to come out just fine either way as long as you do the important stuff ahead of time, such as cleaning, proper brewing techniques, etc. After that, everything is arbitrary.

 

[DougK]

From what I can tell, being fairly new to brewing myself, this is by and large a "Coke vs Pepsi" type of thing.

By and large it seems like secondary is not needed, though there are a couple of reasons why you might want to. One is to harvest yeast from the primary. Another is if you have some additions that won't mix well with the yeast/trub bed.

I'm rethinking my shipping list for the lhbs now, based on what I have found. Instead of getting a couple carboys for secondaries, I'm thinking I may buy one for long-term fermentation and another bucket. I may avoid the carboys all together. I haven't decided yet.

 

[jethro55]

From what I can tell, being fairly new to brewing myself, this is by and large a "Coke vs Pepsi" type of thing.

By and large it seems like secondary is not needed, though there are a couple of reasons why you might want to. One is to harvest yeast from the primary. Another is if you have some additions that won't mix well with the yeast/trub bed.

I'm rethinking my shipping list for the lhbs now, based on what I have found. Instead of getting a couple carboys for secondaries, I'm thinking I may buy one for long-term fermentation and another bucket. I may avoid the carboys all together. I haven't decided yet.

Not really. Pepsi has a sweeter taste. If someone can tell the difference between two batches of the same recipe prepared with and without secondary, then their taste senses are much more powerful. The differences here much more subtle and further clouded by the beer buzz.

 

[DougK]

Not really. Pepsi has a sweeter taste. If someone can tell the difference between two batches of the same recipe prepared with and without secondary, then their taste senses are much more powerful. The differences here much more subtle and further clouded by the beer buzz.

I try not to drink either actually.

personally I don't see a reason to bother with a secondary.