So I'm not quite new here but I've been away for a while. And apparently my search capabilities are infantile... Have an IPA that has been fermenting for a week steadily. There are still a few bubbles on the top but I'm wondering can I transfer it to a secondary now and leave it for another week until it stabilizes? Thanks...
Second fermentation..... When?
- Thread starter bourkeco
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
brettg20
Well-Known Member
Leave it in primary until it's done
Punx Clever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 575
If you choose to secondary, do it after the gravity is stable.
Wait until the beer has reached final gravity and then dry hop right in the primary fermenter. You don't have to move the beer at all for dry hopping.
Second fermentation? What the heck is that?
Unless your talking about those very few styles that are taken through a multiple fermentation process (i.e., certain abbey ales), there's no such thing.
A "secondary" vessel is useful for bulk aging/lagering, conditioning on wood chips and/or adding fruit, but that's about it. Otherwise, it's an unnecessary extra step that can cause some problems if done too early or not correctly.
Unless your talking about those very few styles that are taken through a multiple fermentation process (i.e., certain abbey ales), there's no such thing.
A "secondary" vessel is useful for bulk aging/lagering, conditioning on wood chips and/or adding fruit, but that's about it. Otherwise, it's an unnecessary extra step that can cause some problems if done too early or not correctly.
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
Secondary is for secondaries! Be a Prime!
Likely it is time to move it to secondary. You should take an FG measurement though, before doing it. If it is close to FG, then the time is ideal to transfer to secondary.
I leave most of mine in primary for 4-5 days and then transfer to secondary. They clear up 3-5 days after that and then into the bottles without using any finings or additives. The time that it takes depends on the health and amount of yeast that is pitched, and it's ability to flocculate.
BTW, you'll find that the primary cleans up pretty easily in this process. The idea that transferring to secondary introduces issues over and above a primary only process is false. Whatever processes are used to brew, normal sanitation is needed.
Leaving in primary for 3 weeks is excessive, but some do leave it in primary for that long.
One way is not better than the other. You just need to get some batches under you belt and see what works for you.
I leave most of mine in primary for 4-5 days and then transfer to secondary. They clear up 3-5 days after that and then into the bottles without using any finings or additives. The time that it takes depends on the health and amount of yeast that is pitched, and it's ability to flocculate.
BTW, you'll find that the primary cleans up pretty easily in this process. The idea that transferring to secondary introduces issues over and above a primary only process is false. Whatever processes are used to brew, normal sanitation is needed.
Leaving in primary for 3 weeks is excessive, but some do leave it in primary for that long.
One way is not better than the other. You just need to get some batches under you belt and see what works for you.
It is almost never time to move to secondary unless you are doing a process that requires it and most beers don't. If you do move to secondary you don't want to rush it. Moving your beer away from that yeast cake can cause a fermentation to stall.
Read through this thread. As far as I can tell, all of these infections are in the secondary. https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/post-your-infection-71400/
Leaving the beer in the primary is not excessive. Many of us leave it that long or longer without any issue. It lets the yeast settle out more in the bucket instead of in the bottle so we get less yeast to deal with when we pour.
sigh.... here we go again.... I hear another echo to the effect of "if it's not the way that I do it, then there must be something wrong with it".
It might not ever be time to move to secondary for some.
It is always the right time to move it when it is done.
It might not ever be time to move to secondary for some.
It is always the right time to move it when it is done.
i was gonna say all this, but you beat me to it.
when are we gonna get past all this post-modern bull****. that is one of the biggest lies we all currently engage in, "what works for me is the right way for me." maybe there are some small grey areas in life that aren't worth debating, but for the most part this phrase pops up when someone can't/won't argue their point with proof to back it up.
the best thing to do would be to brew one beer and split it between a primary-only batch, and a batch using a secondary vessel. then we could see if secondary actually makes a difference and is worth the time and effort to do so.
http://brulosophy.com/2014/08/12/primary-only-vs-transfer-to-secondary-exbeeriment-results/
From GHBWNY just a few days ago....
"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???!!! " end quote
This is way off the topic, but perhaps a thorough read of Thomas Anthony Harris's "I'm OK, You're OK" can shed some light. Here is a quick summary http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ok_not-ok.htm
"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???!!! " end quote
This is way off the topic, but perhaps a thorough read of Thomas Anthony Harris's "I'm OK, You're OK" can shed some light. Here is a quick summary http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ok_not-ok.htm
haha unfortunately, both of those arguments for a secondary vessel are both invalid at the homebrew level. and the argument for a primary-only brew is not "who cares" it's "why waste my time and effort on something that isn't actually proven to increase the quality of my beer?"
so go ahead and continue your use of the secondary vessel, just please stop propagating it until you have scientifically proven that at the homebrew level it truly does make a difference.
so it turns out it's not just about the argument, it's about truth. sometimes there is an absolute truth in life. if i ask you, "which one of these is the best hop?" then there can proceed with a long debate on a very subjective matter. After all flavor choices are definitely all about my perception. But the argument between the use and non-use of a secondary vessel should not be about personal perception. at all. it should be about proven evidence.
so go ahead and continue your use of the secondary vessel, just please stop propagating it until you have scientifically proven that at the homebrew level it truly does make a difference.
so it turns out it's not just about the argument, it's about truth. sometimes there is an absolute truth in life. if i ask you, "which one of these is the best hop?" then there can proceed with a long debate on a very subjective matter. After all flavor choices are definitely all about my perception. But the argument between the use and non-use of a secondary vessel should not be about personal perception. at all. it should be about proven evidence.
OK I'll bite....
Why does it need to make a difference? For the sake of clarity)) let's assume that it does not make any difference. Would there be something wrong with one or the other?
good pun. it's always better to argue with a bit of humorous air floating about.
let me ask you a question:
Firstly, before i possibly offend you, are you a religious person? if not proceed to number two. is so, then you will now know why i'm done with this argument.
2) do you enjoy it when the religious continue to push on the world that it was created 10,000 years ago? do you enjoy it when the religious tell us that certain races, sexes, sexual orientation, etc. are lower than them? do you enjoy it when they you that they're going to have a mansion in heaven because that's the way they have interpreted and experienced God and you can't debate it, because it's their experience?
3) and then do you enjoy it when they further continue to propagate these non-truths (which is the nice way to say a behemoth of a lie)?
4) why do you not enjoy these things?
my assumption is that you likely don't enjoy lies, especially when they're only backed up by a very subjective and unprovable experience. and then if i were correct in that assumption, i would go on to assume even further that you especially don't like it when they go about spreading those lies and basically forcing them upon the naive.
maybe making beer isn't as serious as religion (or maybe it's more serious). but for me, either way, a lie is a lie. i have no problem with religious people believing the dumb **** they believe. but where i stand up and draw a line is when they start imposing that belief on others. they should keep it to themselves.
now beer is not religion. in beer, there's tons and tons of science to back up processes. in the homebrew world that science gets easily skewed by opinion. but i don't see why it needs to stay that way. i don't see why those who believe that beer needs to go into a secondary religiously stick to it when there's tons of proof to the contrary.
if i told you i never controlled my ferment temps, you would likely call me crazy and tell me not that i'm wrong when i suggest to a new person that i make perfectly fine beer and i never control my temps. why would you tell me not to propagate the lie that ferment temps don't matter? because you 1) care about the truth, and 2) would wanna see a new homebrewer practicing the best brewing practices that are known so far.
moving to a secondary vessel is not only 1) proven to make no difference in the final product, granted you've used proper methods up to that point, which means 2) it's not the best practice for homebrewing as far as we know up to this point.
it needs to make a difference in the final product because the point of having a homebrewing forum is to learn and grow and become better brewers making the beers that we're making better and better with time (at least for me), and not to continue proliferating antiquated practices.
You leave no room for middle ground in your argument. And like religion, that does not lead to a possible solution for "we". And I have not read in mainstream literature that one way is better than the other. I do read that it does not make a difference.
I enjoy my hobby. Racking my beer is a part I enjoy. If it makes me happier to do so, I will continue to do so. Hobbies are things I fill my free time with. I don't consider engaging in my hobby "wasting my time."
Well said. If those who have been brewing a while find joy in moving the beer "off the yeast" and into a separate vessel, more power to you. If you have your processes nailed down, you're unlikely to create issues. Personally, I'd rather get lovely, clear beer via cold crashing since I'm set up to very easily do that.
Problems do, however, arise when a newer brewer (usually following kit instructions) unnecessarily moves the beer. They often aren't all that good at racking and don't understand the need to minimize headspace in the secondary or first purge with CO2.
I've sampled beers done by some new local brew guys in which I could easily detect the wet cardboard off-flavor of oxidation. A discussion of their processes revealed that they secondaried (simply following instruction), weren't all that good yet at transferring and/or had excess headspace. They would have been so much better off going straight from primary into the bottling bucket.
In some cases yes but not necessarily. The likelihood of a clean primary ferment-to-bottle without secondary has a lot more details involved - counter to beginner experience. And the siphon skills/sloshing issue remains either way.
And besides, oxidation is a long term effect. So many craft brews with a "born on" date and Stone's with "enjoy by". How come that is?
6 of 1, half dozen of the other...
And besides, oxidation is a long term effect. So many craft brews with a "born on" date and Stone's with "enjoy by". How come that is?
6 of 1, half dozen of the other...
again, nobody said to stop doing it the way you like.
but stop telling people that they should rack to a secondary. sometimes in life there's no grey area, sometimes there is. as far as a secondary vessel, at the homebrew level, it's not a grey area anymore, fortunately. it's great if you don't consider it a waste of time. but it is. if there's no actual, proven benefits to it, then it's a waste of time. just because you enjoy that waste of time, does not make it any less a waste of time. so again, while it's fine that you enjoy wasting your time, at least let the new brewer know when you're advising to rack to secondary that it is a waste of time (unless it falls under the exceptions mentioned already in this thread).
if you just look for it, it's making it to mainstream literature and podcasts these days. by the respected and professional homebrewers, even the very ones who used to tout that it was necessary. people like john palmer, jamil zainasheff. those types of guys.
but stop telling people that they should rack to a secondary. sometimes in life there's no grey area, sometimes there is. as far as a secondary vessel, at the homebrew level, it's not a grey area anymore, fortunately. it's great if you don't consider it a waste of time. but it is. if there's no actual, proven benefits to it, then it's a waste of time. just because you enjoy that waste of time, does not make it any less a waste of time. so again, while it's fine that you enjoy wasting your time, at least let the new brewer know when you're advising to rack to secondary that it is a waste of time (unless it falls under the exceptions mentioned already in this thread).
if you just look for it, it's making it to mainstream literature and podcasts these days. by the respected and professional homebrewers, even the very ones who used to tout that it was necessary. people like john palmer, jamil zainasheff. those types of guys.
Oh not at all. I am saying that it can be done properly either way - in agreement with literature. No one says that you need to avoid it except a few that prefer one way for everyone. But you can if you like and get the same result. Caveat ""same result" to exclude additives, kegging, clean-up, and time to bottle.
Waste of time has no definition in a hobby.
Waste of time has no definition in a hobby.
JustLooking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 125
Such a small world you live in, but I bet it's cozy there.
Such a small world you live in, but I bet it's cozy there.
Probly not cozy in Norway yet, but is about to get cozy here in Ohio this week - finally spring is beginning.
Such a small world you live in, but I bet it's cozy there.
it is a small country, only 5 million people. it can get chilly outside if you don't wear the proper amount of clothing, but norwegians love keeping their houses at about 23-24c.
i'm all about grey areas actually. i'm all for those that want to legalize weed, allow lgbt community to marry, tons of liberal "large world" issues. but even in those worlds, i don't, personally, enjoy seeing people coerce a new guy into believing some antiquated truth. again, i said, if you want to rack every single one of your brews to secondary, i'm fine with it! but don't go telling the new guy that there are pros and cons to it when there's not. everyone who chooses to forgo secondary on some of their beers will even give exceptions to the rule, or reasons that one SHOULD be racking. those that rack to secondary usually don't give such exceptions. that is until they're pressed to prove the pros and cons, and prove why there's a benefit in doing so. then they usually resort to "what works for me, works for me. what works for you, works for you. so let's just leave it at that."
Josh, I'll challenge the claim that there are no pros and cons.
Let's start with ease of cleaning the prumary vessel. Is it easier to clean it after 4 days or 3 weeks? After 4 days I can rinse it with hot water and light sponge rub and then Starsan to sanitize.
You can pick the next one.
Let's start with ease of cleaning the prumary vessel. Is it easier to clean it after 4 days or 3 weeks? After 4 days I can rinse it with hot water and light sponge rub and then Starsan to sanitize.
You can pick the next one.
JustLooking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 125
It's small minded, blanket statements like this show your lack of experience.
IDoBleedBrew
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2014
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 17
I'm just a n00b myself, but couldn't a pro also be to free up that 6-gallon fermenter for your next batch? If you wanted to get another batch going but you didn't want to wait until that initial batch was ready to bottle... you would get it over into your 5-gallon fermenter with less head space to continue doing its thang while you clean up that 6-gallon fermenter and get another batch going.
For the moment, I plan on spacing my brew days apart to where bottling of an existing batch happens before (but on the same day of) brewing my next batch. But if I get a little froggy and want to jump ahead, I could see where that secondary could come in handy if for nothing other than to free up the primary for my next batch.
For the moment, I plan on spacing my brew days apart to where bottling of an existing batch happens before (but on the same day of) brewing my next batch. But if I get a little froggy and want to jump ahead, I could see where that secondary could come in handy if for nothing other than to free up the primary for my next batch.
Similar threads
