Primary Vs. Secondary

[arbadarchi]

I've got my first batch in day 2 of primary. In a couple days it will be time to rack to secondary, however I keep reading different arguments for or against secondary fermentation. I brewed a SMaSH IPA with pale malt and mosaic. I am concerned about oxidization if I do rack to secondary, and am not concerned about cloudy beer at this point. I just want something that tastes good. Should I just leave it in primary for the duration it would be in secondary? Does secondary actually help flavors develop or is it more for visual clarity?

Thanks!

 

[firerat]

Should I just leave it in primary for the duration it would be in secondary?

You'll get a lot of yes to this question.

Does secondary actually help flavors develop or is it more for visual clarity?

Visual clarity.

 

[m00ps]

definitely dont rack it to secondary. especially IPAs. Two common issues with racking are oxidation or picking up infections during the transfer. You want to minimize any contact your IPA has with air or it will strip that precious hop aroma

 

[Spartan300man]

My new philosophy is to keep it in the primary, unless there is an unusual amount of trub (which might get stirred up during cold-crashing). It seems on my latest brews where I have used this strategy, the longer it sits in the primary, the more it settles out and the secondary doesn't add anything to the game except another chance for infection.

I don't see how flavors would develop in the secondary but not in the primary.

In upcoming batches, I am going to be doing a better job of cold-crashing before I transfer over to the bottling bucket as a second step in the clarity process, that seems to do more for me than transferring to a secondary.

 

[Gavin C]

In a couple days it will be time to rack to secondary.

Why?


Even the most dyed in the wool proponent of secondary usage would not advocate doing that.

 

[Gavin C]

Does secondary actually help flavors develop or is it more for visual clarity?

Thanks!

Neither

 

[joshesmusica]

Why?





Even the most dyed in the wool proponent of secondary usage would not advocate doing that.

Maybe he's hoping for a stuck fermentation?

No but really, don't rack. Not on this style.

 

[Gameface]

For that beer just ride it out in the primary. Secondaries don't really do anything for clarity.

Only time I'd use a secondary would be for long term storage or if I was going to use fruit (which I don't) or something along those lines. Some people feel that the yeast starts to impart a flavor if the beer sits on the trub for too long, like anyhting around a month or more. Others say it doesn't. I'm not sure, but I keg, so after my beer is finished in primary it goes into a keg. If it needs to age the keg would act as the secondary.

 

[Kharnynb]

Unless you do a fruit addition or a very long 3 month+ aging, there isn't really any big benefit to racking to secondary, just a lot of chances of messing up.

 

[brew703]

I'm not concerned with clarity yet either- just want good beer. With that said, I have 6 brews under my belt and all were left in primary for two-three weeks than bottled.
I've read conflicting info so I decided to stay in primary. If I brew something like a strawberry ale I may rack to a secondary but for now I'm staying with primary.

 

[joshesmusica]

I'm not concerned with clarity yet either- just want good beer. With that said, I have 6 brews under my belt and all were left in primary for two-three weeks than bottled.

I've read conflicting info so I decided to stay in primary. If I brew something like a strawberry ale I may rack to a secondary but for now I'm staying with primary.

So what you're saying is you like a little of the yeast flavor in your beer? [emoji6]

 

[joshesmusica]

No but really there's nothing that would scientifically make the yeast floc out better in a secondary than in the primary. So if clarity is what someone is trying to obtain by racking to secondary, they're logic as to why is off.
I think one of the main reasons that people used to say to rack to secondary to allow the beer to clear has nothing to do with that they thought it would clear better off the yeast cake. It has everything to do with that it takes time for the beer to clear, and they believed the proven wrong myth that yeast cake-derived off-flavors occur so quickly. That's why most of the big name homebrewers have stopped using a secondary for most of their beers.

 

[55x11]

I've got my first batch in day 2 of primary. In a couple days it will be time to rack to secondary, however I keep reading different arguments for or against secondary fermentation. I brewed a SMaSH IPA with pale malt and mosaic. I am concerned about oxidization if I do rack to secondary, and am not concerned about cloudy beer at this point. I just want something that tastes good. Should I just leave it in primary for the duration it would be in secondary? Does secondary actually help flavors develop or is it more for visual clarity?

Thanks!

read thru this experiment:

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."

 

[Lpera]

I like my IPAs crystal clear....and never ever racked to secundary. If you want them clear, cold crash it for a week, or use gelatiin, it does wonders.

 

[brew703]

So what you're saying is you like a little of the yeast flavor in your beer? [emoji6]

Not saying that at all. I have not experienced any yeast flavor in any or my beers. I know my brews can be a bit clearer but at this point I do not find any issues.

 

[arbadarchi]

So when would be an appropriate time to use a secondary?

 

[HoodedCrow]

There is a lot of hating on Secondary ferment here. I agree that for a simple recipe, it adds nothing. For clarity, I use Irish Moss to aid in clarification, and prefer Nottingham yeast which clarifies beautifully. By the time I go to get it off the yeast, I generally rack into a bottling bucket for dry hopping for three days and the bottle direct from there.

If you are aging with oak chips, you want to rack to secondary and get if off the yeast, because that can take a month and you will likely pick up funky flavors from your yeast (depends on the yeast, of course) in that amount of time.

I have never had a problem with oxidation or infection. Good sanitation and careful siphon work avoids that.

There is some solid advice in this thread, especially from joshesmusica and 55x11.

Good luck, and I hope your beer turns out great.

 

[stratslinger]

I was just reading through part of Jamil and Chris White's "Yeast" the other day, and got another perspective on the Secondary-or-Not question - or maybe just a clarification of what seems to be the most commonly held perspective around HBT.

To paraphrase what they had to say: many people rack to secondary thinking that it will help their beer clarify more quickly, but this actually runs counter to what logic would explain. Unless the act of racking somehow made your yeast's flocculation rate increase (hint - it does not, flocculation rates stay constant unless other variables - like temperature - are changed), racking to secondary should actually make clarification take longer. This is because the yeast that is slowly falling out of suspension in primary is now mixed back into suspension again in secondary, and has to start the process of flocculating and falling out of suspension all over again.

They also go on to talk about the benefits of keeping the beer in primary so that the yeast cake can continue to condition the beer and process compounds that lead to off flavors (acetylaldehyde, diacetyl, and others), but since the conversation here is mostly geared towards the question of clarity, I'll leave off most of that portion of what they have to say.

 

[Gavin C]

So when would be an appropriate time to use a secondary?

On this batch. It would not be appropriate IMO.

Perhaps on future batches one could be used if you wanted to dry hop a beer after fermentation was completed and wanted to avoid the theorized impact that dry hopping with a yeast cake present could have on the hops flavor imparted.

I don't do this as I don't subscribe to the theory and dry hop in the primary.

Adding fruit or oak would be another reasoned argument for a secondary.

I have yet to make a beer that a secondary could be argued to be of any benefit.

So never would be the short answer in my brewery for the beers I make.

If you feel you must rack to a second vessel make sure fermentation is complete and there is no headspace in the vessel.

 

[Yooper]

So when would be an appropriate time to use a secondary?

Whenever you want. While they may not be strictly necessary, many good brewers do use them.

I often don't use a secondary for my IPAs, but sometimes I do if I want to save and reuse the yeast. I haven't noticed any difference in the flavor or clarity of the beers.

A good time to use one is for adding fermentables, or oaking, or for long term aging, or lagering. But you can use one for other reasons as well- to free up a primary, for example.

 

[arbadarchi]

So my next question... My recipe (that the homebrew store guy made for me from beer smith) said 4 days in primary and 10 days in secondary. Do I need to leave the beer in the primary for 14 days or can I pick a closer bottling day? What is the benefit of it spending 2 weeks in the primary. It is just about fermented out. Very minimal activity in the airlock at this point.

 

[pdf2015]

There are so many threads with so many conflicting answers on this. Call it a picky subject.. Think risk vs reward you have a better chance of oxygenating your beer by racking to a secondary and a bigger chance of introducing nasties in to the beer. For reward i don't think i have one haha. Your kit being only 2 weeks till bottling I would leave it in the primary.

 

[pdf2015]

On this batch. It would not be appropriate IMO.

Perhaps on future batches one could be used if you wanted to dry hop a beer after fermentation was completed and wanted to avoid the theorized impact that dry hopping with a yeast cake present could have on the hops flavor imparted.

I don't do this as I don't subscribe to the theory and dry hop in the primary.

Adding fruit or oak would be another reasoned argument for a secondary.

I have yet to make a beer that a secondary could be argued to be of any benefit.

So never would be the short answer in my brewery for the beers I make.

If you feel you must rack to a second vessel make sure fermentation is complete and there is no headspace in the vessel.

All beers primary to keg. Clarity problems are a non-issue

KolschView attachment 297124

AltView attachment 297125

ESBView attachment 297126

Those look great sir

 

[pdf2015]

Deleted

 

[joshesmusica]

So my next question... My recipe (that the homebrew store guy made for me from beer smith) said 4 days in primary and 10 days in secondary. Do I need to leave the beer in the primary for 14 days or can I pick a closer bottling day? What is the benefit of it spending 2 weeks in the primary. It is just about fermented out. Very minimal activity in the airlock at this point.

what style was that? 4 days in the primary? That's just insane to me, and if you don't control fermentation parameters perfectly, you're begging for a stuck ferment going that way. Just leave it in primary if it's only meant to be in fermenters for 14 days.

he's just gotta build a recipe like that so that he can sell you two carboys of different sizes. and if he's brewing his beers that way, he's an idiot and you shouldn't listen to any further advice he gives you. come straight here for recipe help. there was recently a series of articles of the top 100 (i think?) recipes in this database. start with those, once you do several of those and don't screw them up, then try to build your own. then come here for help with that recipe.

 

[kombat]

Does secondary actually help flavors develop or is it more for visual clarity?

No and no.

Visual clarity.

Myth.

If anything, racking to secondary would be detrimental to clarity.

Think about it. The beer is in primary. During fermentation, everything's swirling around. Fermentation winds down, and there's yeast and trub mixed evenly throughout the beer. Things start falling out of suspension. The stuff at the bottom falls out first, because it has the least distance to travel. The stuff at the top has a long way to fall, so it takes a while. The beer clears from the top down. If left long enough (or sped up with cold crashing), eventually all of that stuff will make its way down to the bottom of the fermenter.

Now, imagine if halfway through, you racked all that beer to another vessel. Now everything that was still in suspension is mixed evenly throughout again. Some of the matter that had already fallen halfway down must now start all over again, falling from the top.

There's no scientific basis for the notion that beer will clear faster if you transfer it halfway through the process. Big breweries do it to a) free up expensive fermenters for the next batch, and b) because of dramatically higher hydrostatic and osmotic pressures on the yeast that accelerate yeast autolysis. Such pressures don't exist on the homebrew scale, so the reasons are inapplicable.

 

[kombat]

So when would be an appropriate time to use a secondary?

• You have a limited number of expensive fermenters, and you need to free one up for another batch.
• You want to re-use the yeast, but the beer it's currently in is still conditioning.
• You plan on adding post-fermentation flavourings (fruit, dry hops, wood chips) to the beer, but want to re-use the yeast, so you rack it to secondary to separate the beer from the yeast, so you can re-use the yeast before contaminating it with the flavourings.
• You plan on adding post-fermentation flavourings (fruit, dry hops, wood chips) to the beer, but you're worried about suppressing the flavour infusion if they drop to the bottom and sink into the yeast cake, flavouring the yeast instead of the beer.
• You plan on aging the beer for an extended period of time (2 months+) and are worried about eventual yeast autolysis producing off-flavours in the beer.

 

[kombat]

So my next question... My recipe (that the homebrew store guy made for me from beer smith) said 4 days in primary and 10 days in secondary. Do I need to leave the beer in the primary for 14 days or can I pick a closer bottling day?

Your beer is technically done fermenting when you've taken two identical gravity readings, 3 days apart. However, the yeast may still be "cleaning up" off flavours and conditioning the beer. 2 weeks would be the minimal time I would wait for a low-to-moderate gravity beer.

What is the benefit of it spending 2 weeks in the primary. It is just about fermented out.

The benefit is giving the yeast time to clean up undesirable compounds produced during fermentation (the flavours typically associated with "green" - or too young - beer).

I personally just give all of my beers 3 weeks, and don't even bother with the gravity readings.

Very minimal activity in the airlock at this point.

Ignore the airlock. It's a liar. Airlock activity does not necessarily mean fermentation activity is ongoing. An airlock will bubble whenever there is gas escaping the fermenter, and that could be for any number of reasons, only one of which is "active fermentation is occurring." Things like barometric pressure changes (a warm front passing), temperature changes, disturbing the beer, adding additives like dry hops creating nucleation points, and more.

The only way to know for sure that fermentation is complete is to take a series of gravity readings over multiple days. The only way to know for sure that conditioning is complete is to taste the samples. But if you just ignore it for 3 weeks, it's almost certainly done both.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Ever push a stick into a wasp's nest? LOL

This discussion gets kicked around ad-nauseum on this and every other beer brewing thread out there.

First off: Your beer is done fermenting when it is done. No particular time frame can be applied. Test it with a hydrometer and when you get two or three day's readings in a row that are the same then it is done. Move to secondary then? Totally your choice.

Do not use a secondary if you think it will enhance clarity. For the most part clarity is affected by suspended proteins (such as in a hefe or wit). These can be removed to some extent by fining agents, cold crashing, filtration and other methods. Suspended trub will simply settle out over time regardless of whether the beer is in primary, secondary or if it's in the keg or the bottle. Let it set long enough anywhere and the stuff that can settle out will settle out.

If you ferment your beer at the right temperatures there are few "off flavors" created that need to be cleaned up. That is why most commercial breweries move their beer as soon as primary fermentation is complete. Leaving the beer on the yeast is of limited value to them and, if we are that scrupulous with our fermentation temps, is of little value to us as well. But (for home-brewers) neither does it do any harm to leave it on the yeast for up to several weeks in most cases.

However, at some point the yeast will actually start to impart some flavors to the beer that you may or may not enjoy (I am not talking about autolysis). And the surface area of the beer exposed to the open headspace in the primary fermenter increases diffusion of O2 into the beer. So at some point (3-6 wks. probably) the risk of oxidation and/or yeasty off-flavors begins to increase.

For most beers that you'll package within 2-4 weeks no secondary is needed. Hold it longer than 4 weeks and you probably should move it to a secondary that allows you to fill all the way into the neck to reduce surface area exposed to O2.

So the upshot of this is: Use of a secondary vessel is probably best when you; 1) want to get the beer off the yeast before dry-hopping or adding other stuff, 2) want to harvest the yeast, 3) want to free up a primary fermenter for another batch, or 4) when you want to hold the beer for long period.

Cheers!

 

[arbadarchi]

I assumed that secondary and primary containers were the same. What makes one different than the other in order to free one up?

 

[arbadarchi]

What makes a primary different than a secondary so that you would need to free one up? I assumed they were the same type of container?

 

[Yooper]

What makes a primary different than a secondary so that you would need to free one up? I assumed they were the same type of container?

Primary:


Secondary:

 

[Puddlethumper]

What makes a primary different than a secondary so that you would need to free one up? I assumed they were the same type of container?

I love Yooper's pix!

Primary fermenters are usually around 6 1/2 gal. for a 5 gal. batch. That usually leaves enough headspace for the fermentation process. (See Yooper's pic of the the 6.5 gal. bucket). Sometimes it doesn't leave enough space and the krausen blows through the airlock and you have a bunch of stuff all over the place. This can be alleviated with a blow-off tube. Lots of stuff posted here and elsewhere on how to handle an eruptive fermentation.

A secondary vessel (I do not call it a secondary fermenter on purpose) is usually just exactly 5 gal. (see Yooper's pic of the 5 gal. carboy). Once the sometimes violent initial fermentation is completed everything settles down a whole lot. Now you no longer need be concerned about stuff blowing out of the top of your vessel. What you do need to be concerned about is O2 absorption into your beer. So you want a vessel you can fill all the way into the neck to reduce surface area exposed to that O2.

Hope this makes sense.

Cheers!

 

[arbadarchi]

I love Yooper's pix!

Primary fermenters are usually around 6 1/2 gal. for a 5 gal. batch. That usually leaves enough headspace for the fermentation process. (See Yooper's pic of the the 6.5 gal. bucket). Sometimes it doesn't leave enough space and the krausen blows through the airlock and you have a bunch of stuff all over the place. This can be alleviated with a blow-off tube. Lots of stuff posted here and elsewhere on how to handle an eruptive fermentation.

A secondary vessel (I do not call it a secondary fermenter on purpose) is usually just exactly 5 gal. (see Yooper's pic of the 5 gal. carboy). Once the sometimes violent initial fermentation is completed everything settles down a whole lot. Now you no longer need be concerned about stuff blowing out of the top of your vessel. What you do need to be concerned about is O2 absorption into your beer. So you want a vessel you can fill all the way into the neck to reduce surface area exposed to that O2.

Hope this makes sense.

Cheers!

Thanks! Yes that makes total sense. I didn't realize how serious this O2 thing is...

 

[prrriiide]

Visual clarity.

Disagree...

A good secondary will let the beer mellow and "get happy." Case on point...RIS. You want that RIS to have a good long (9 months+ secondary for all of the flavors to develop and meld into a tasty, unctuous, mouth-pleasing beauty. That has to happen in secondary. You can't leave it on the yeast long enough for that to happen. Same with Baltic Porter. I have had much better results with using a secondary for my IIPA.

What I have found - in MY process - is that most of my beers benefit from flavor development in a secondary, even session IPAs.

As long as you exercise good sanitation, don't splash it around, and don't get impatient, you shouldn't have any problems with a secondary.

 

[kombat]

At the homebrew level, "Primary" and "Secondary" vessels are largely interchangeable, although most folks typically use a "Primary" vessel with more generous headspace to allow for the krausen during active fermentation. After racking to secondary, it's more important to minimize headspace in order to reduce the risk of oxidation. Practically, that means for a 5 gallon batch, using a 6.5 gallon carboy for primary, and a 5 gallon carboy for secondary.

That said, the big guys do it because their primary fermenters are more complex and expensive (double-jacketed, glycol wrapped, with racking arm, yeast dump port, etc.), whereas their "secondary" (they call them "Brite" tanks) vessels are simple tanks, often situated in a cold room, to allow the beer to condition a little and for the yeast to drop out, clarifying the beer. These tanks are considerably cheaper than their primary fermenters, thus the motivation for them to move the beer to secondary ASAP, freeing up the expensive cylindroconical fermenters for the next batch.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Thanks! Yes that makes total sense. I didn't realize how serious this O2 thing is...

If you're only holding the beer for 2-3 weeks the 02 absorption will be minimal. Concern over O2 absorption isn't reason enough to move your beer to secondary on normal brews. Although many people do move beer to secondary vessels for other reasons. But the longer the beer sits in the vessel the more O2 it will absorb. At some point your beer may end up suffering from premature staling - a sort of "cardboard" taste. I start getting concerned about premature staling at about 3 weeks so I rarely hold a beer in primary longer than 2 weeks. YMMV

 

[Yooper]

Disagree...

A good secondary will let the beer mellow and "get happy." Case on point...RIS. You want that RIS to have a good long (9 months+ secondary for all of the flavors to develop and meld into a tasty, unctuous, mouth-pleasing beauty. That has to happen in secondary. You can't leave it on the yeast long enough for that to happen. Same with Baltic Porter. I have had much better results with using a secondary for my IIPA.

What I have found - in MY process - is that most of my beers benefit from flavor development in a secondary, even session IPAs.

As long as you exercise good sanitation, don't splash it around, and don't get impatient, you shouldn't have any problems with a secondary.

But an RIS (or any beer) can age beautifully in a bottle. A vessel to do it in bulk isn't a necessity- bottling and letting it age works just as well.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

But an RIS (or any beer) can age beautifully in a bottle.

Yes, I am told that they can. Unfortunately, I find that bottled beers rarely get the opportunity.

 

[stratslinger]

Yoop took the words right out of my mouth...

The beers cited above by prrriiide, given an appropriate yeast pitch and controlled fermentation temperature, will ferment out just fine and don't necessarily require bulk aging for months in a secondary. Do they often benefit from getting a little age in the bottle? Quite often, yes they do.

Look at any commercial RIS you buy - those commercial breweries, with very few exceptions, aren't keeping their beers around in a bright tank somewhere for 9+ months. They're fermenting them, letting them clarify, then packaging and shipping. And what you buy in the shop is perfectly drinkable and often quite delicious (well, depending on the beer and brewery, of course!). But many of them can benefit significantly from sitting in your cellar for a while before they get cracked open, while others don't seem to change at all. Probably depends more on the recipe, perhaps how many adjuncts were at play, than anything else, if I had to guess.