Secondary or no?

[drinkindinkins]

I don't always prefer to rack to secondary, but when I do....I have better beer.

No but seriously, I normally do have a much clearer, better looking final product when racking to secondary. On the other hand, I have heard plenty of talk about this being an un welcomed step due to the possibility of contamination.

So what's to really blame for the contamination here? The exposure to air? The exposure to racking equipment? Both happen when bottling and in fact, the beer is exposed to more racking equipment when I bottle. For racking to secondary it just runs through the siphon.

I would like to feel out the general opinion on racking to secondary or not?

 

[doug293cz]

It's just a matter of how many opportunities there are for something bad to happen. In general, the more operations you perform, the more opportunities you have to make a mistake (or have something unfortunate happen.)

Brew on

 

[LLBrewer]

I'm not worried about infection I just think that for normal beers it's a waste of time and effort.

 

[Flipadelphia]

This is a new and interesting topic.

 

[Jman_01]

I secondary mainly for looks and clarity because I tend to be anal about making the best beer I can.. It's also fun


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

There was a recent experiment posted by a HBT member who compared the results of a split brew. Half the brew got just primary and half got secondary. He actually found that they were very close but the primary-only brew was slightly clearer. I have no idea why and it was just one batch but it's interesting anyway.

 

[Schecter]

Let me summarize this entire thought for you.

This exact conversation has been ongoing for years in brewing circles, and there is still so much debate.

In my opinion, general consensus is you don't NEED a secondary, and it may be beneficial to NOT USE a secondary. It is claimed that further clarification that occurs in secondaries is not more than what occurs in primaries, as long as it is left undisturbed.

Furthermore, a major concern is oxidation. Less transfer of fermented beer is preferable, as oxidation is a vile concern; the less it is handled the better.

On a perhaps stray thought, if you feel you have an inappropriate or undesirable amount of trub on the bottom of your primary, consider straining your wort as it enters your primary either through a funnel's filter or a mesh bag on the end of a siphon.

Best of luck friend.

 

[C-Rider]

Because of a trip my last beer sat in the primary for about 6 weeks it came out clearer than the one's I've cold crashed a week after 3 in the primary. Go figure.

 

[SmellsLikeYeastSpirit]

You have to weigh the pros and cons for your situation:

How far along are you in brewing? If you are a beginner brewer, the aesthetics aren't as important as just getting a decent beer. If you are an advanced brewer, racking to secondary improves clarity when you aren't able to crash cool or filter.
How much time do you have? Racking to secondary (in my opinion) is a huge time suck. To thoroughly clean, sanitize, and rack--it better be worth it. And sometimes it is! But I have 10 gallons of a porter sitting in primary right now and I'm not going to rack any of it because a) it's a darker beer and no one is going to notice a clarity issue and b) racking 10 gallons to secondary leaves me open to more contamination than I am comfortable with.
But this is the beauty of homebrewing! Do what makes you happy with your beer! Happy brewing!

 

[firerat]

To me, slightly clearer (questionable) beer is not worth the effort or the risk of infection and oxidation (the biggest risk for me).

I'd rather my beer cloudy and anaerobic.

 

[blizz81]

And if you do secondary, use glass, or plastic? *brewing world explodes*