I'm on my third brew and my two previous were both racked into a carboy after primary fermentation slowed to less than a bubble a minute(shoot me for not have a hydrometer yet, I know I need one). The first two beers turned out great. But I've been reading and hearing that the secondary fermentation is an unnecessary step that may cause more harm then good in most ales. Just wondering what the pros and cons of letting this third brew ride in the primary. It's an IPA that I will dry hop.
To rack or not to rack.
- Thread starter leightonp
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
This is a hotly contested/debated issue that can sometimes bring out the worst in people 
In general, there has been a shift away (at least it appears to be a shift) away from using secondary. John Palmer mentioned that secondary is no longer needed (this was a northern brewer video on how to do an all grain batch I believe). In his early additions he was advocating it so its pretty recent trend away.
I would say the answer is, it depends. Here are some factors that may help you decide, but there are many and I am sure someone will correct me on them too!
Certain Beer style: some styles favor the use of a secondary. I did a strawberry blonde ale where I racked 5 gals onto 5lbs of fresh picked strawberries in secondary. There may be a way to do this in primary but I decided to use secondary.
Clarification: there are lot of ways for get your beer clear but I sometimes rack to secondary to get the sediment layer at the bottom much less so that when I rack to keg the beer has less trub in keg. I am sure there are other ways too. Its just something I do. i am also a gluten free brewer and there is a LOT more sediment vs. barley based beer fermentables. Again, there are additives to clear beer.
Freeing up a primary bucket for parallel batches: keeping the pipeline alive! if you are new maybe you only have a bucket and a carboy. Racking to secondary allows you to free up a primary bucket for a new batch. This is often a very real issue for me! Sometimes I need that bucket if I have several batches going at once!
The downside is moving to secondary risks oxygenation leading to oxidation (cardboard off flavors) and risk of infection. I am pretty fastidious and I try to make sure I'm rackin gently to reduce o2. its also another step that take 30 mins of time. I don't always have time so I usually ferment in primary.
If you intend to dry hop make and you don't use a secondary, be sure to wait until active fermentation ceases (little or no activity on the airlock) so that you don't drive off the hops oils and aromas from the fermentation.
I post this fully knowing that many may disagree. Like I said, I know this is a highly debatable and I use a secondary when it makes sense and don't when it doesn't. YYMV.
p.s. Maybe in your case, you try an experiment and let it ride in primary and dry hop there when fermentation is mostly done? Give it a shot. I've left beer in for 4 weeks in a primary and it came out great. Other leave it alone for months.
In general, there has been a shift away (at least it appears to be a shift) away from using secondary. John Palmer mentioned that secondary is no longer needed (this was a northern brewer video on how to do an all grain batch I believe). In his early additions he was advocating it so its pretty recent trend away.
I would say the answer is, it depends. Here are some factors that may help you decide, but there are many and I am sure someone will correct me on them too!
Certain Beer style: some styles favor the use of a secondary. I did a strawberry blonde ale where I racked 5 gals onto 5lbs of fresh picked strawberries in secondary. There may be a way to do this in primary but I decided to use secondary.
Clarification: there are lot of ways for get your beer clear but I sometimes rack to secondary to get the sediment layer at the bottom much less so that when I rack to keg the beer has less trub in keg. I am sure there are other ways too. Its just something I do. i am also a gluten free brewer and there is a LOT more sediment vs. barley based beer fermentables. Again, there are additives to clear beer.
Freeing up a primary bucket for parallel batches: keeping the pipeline alive! if you are new maybe you only have a bucket and a carboy. Racking to secondary allows you to free up a primary bucket for a new batch. This is often a very real issue for me! Sometimes I need that bucket if I have several batches going at once!
The downside is moving to secondary risks oxygenation leading to oxidation (cardboard off flavors) and risk of infection. I am pretty fastidious and I try to make sure I'm rackin gently to reduce o2. its also another step that take 30 mins of time. I don't always have time so I usually ferment in primary.
If you intend to dry hop make and you don't use a secondary, be sure to wait until active fermentation ceases (little or no activity on the airlock) so that you don't drive off the hops oils and aromas from the fermentation.
I post this fully knowing that many may disagree.
Like I said, I know this is a highly debatable and I use a secondary when it makes sense and don't when it doesn't. YYMV.p.s. Maybe in your case, you try an experiment and let it ride in primary and dry hop there when fermentation is mostly done? Give it a shot. I've left beer in for 4 weeks in a primary and it came out great. Other leave it alone for months.
pablosbrewing
Well-Known Member
Pros:
Don't underestimate how much work the yeast does after it "looks done". Staying in pirimary an extra few days (at 70F) gets you clean tasting beer faster. You can dry hop after the yeast drops out in primary. If you choose to rack, wait for 3 days @ stable FG.
Cons:
Secondary is a second chance for infection and oxidation. It is worth the risk and needed for some beers, but for my Pale/IPAs/IIPAs I just avoid it now.
BlueHouseBrewhaus
Well-Known Member
Another possible reason to use a secondary is if you want to dry hop and want to harvest yeast without possible hop flavors. Dry hop in secondary and harvest the yeast from your primary. Also, I use a secondary for lagering so I don't have to worry about leaving the beer sitting on the yeast for too long (not a big concern) and also so I don't have to tie up my primary for so long.
Many people, myself included believe that secondary is unnecessary. However, the reasons for/against secondary some often exaggerated.
Racking to secondary doesn't keep the yeast from "finishing up" The yeast that is actively continuing to process stuff in the beer is the yeast that is still suspended in the beer. The yeast that is left behind is mostly doing nothing anyway. It's the yeast most likely to cause off-flavors, though that's not a concern for most people nowadays if they use healthy yeast, pitch enough of it, and ferment at proper temps.
Racking also doesn't mean a greater chance of infection. Well, not a risk great enough to not use a secondary. Secondaries, have been used for centuries without problem. The beer is even less conducive to infection AFTER primary, when the alcohol level is up and the pH is down. Also consider that many breweries ferment clean beers using open fermentors. With care and the proper setup, you can even rack to a secondary with no exposure to outside air, if you wish.
For myself, I consider a secondary to be a matter of choice. It's not strictly necessary, but the downside is also minimal enough to make it a even out. I some use a secondary, and other times I simply rack to my keg. If I know I'm going to bottle a beer, I use a secondary. I find I get less stuff in the bottling bucket that way. If you are able to consistently lift your fermentor high enough to transfer your beer without stirring it up, or careful enough to siphon without sucking up a bunch of gunk, then by all means, don't fret about an extended primary.
If you are dealing with a beer that is going to be "aged", then you may consider a secondary that limits headspace, or can be purged with CO2 and sealed positively. I ferment in buckets right now and though I love them for primary, I wouldn't want my beer sitting in them for a couple of months if I had a carboy of some sort (plastic or glass).
I recommend doing whatever makes you most comfortable. If you think bacteria are sitting there waiting for you to open the lid on your fermentor so they can jump in and ruin your beer, maybe try an extended primary. If you take a RDWHAHB approach, then do a secondary. It's all good, baby!
Racking to secondary doesn't keep the yeast from "finishing up" The yeast that is actively continuing to process stuff in the beer is the yeast that is still suspended in the beer. The yeast that is left behind is mostly doing nothing anyway. It's the yeast most likely to cause off-flavors, though that's not a concern for most people nowadays if they use healthy yeast, pitch enough of it, and ferment at proper temps.
Racking also doesn't mean a greater chance of infection. Well, not a risk great enough to not use a secondary. Secondaries, have been used for centuries without problem. The beer is even less conducive to infection AFTER primary, when the alcohol level is up and the pH is down. Also consider that many breweries ferment clean beers using open fermentors. With care and the proper setup, you can even rack to a secondary with no exposure to outside air, if you wish.
For myself, I consider a secondary to be a matter of choice. It's not strictly necessary, but the downside is also minimal enough to make it a even out. I some use a secondary, and other times I simply rack to my keg. If I know I'm going to bottle a beer, I use a secondary. I find I get less stuff in the bottling bucket that way. If you are able to consistently lift your fermentor high enough to transfer your beer without stirring it up, or careful enough to siphon without sucking up a bunch of gunk, then by all means, don't fret about an extended primary.
If you are dealing with a beer that is going to be "aged", then you may consider a secondary that limits headspace, or can be purged with CO2 and sealed positively. I ferment in buckets right now and though I love them for primary, I wouldn't want my beer sitting in them for a couple of months if I had a carboy of some sort (plastic or glass).
I recommend doing whatever makes you most comfortable. If you think bacteria are sitting there waiting for you to open the lid on your fermentor so they can jump in and ruin your beer, maybe try an extended primary. If you take a RDWHAHB approach, then do a secondary. It's all good, baby!
+1 on everything.
the idea of transfering to secondary for a clearer beer is illogical,its not gonna flocculate faster. in fact it do the opposite, the yeast and particule present at the bottom, that is not compact, will be disturb and probably tranfert to secondary and put back in suspension.
If you wanna harvest the yeast, wait 12 hours to 24 hours after the fermentation has finished, rack to secondary and rinse the yeast layer. the yeast thats gonna settle in the secondary, you dont want it.its the most attenuative and less flocculating cells.
Everybody whos making beer should read this book :http://www.brewerspublications.com/books/yeast-the-practical-guide-to-beer-fermentation/
Last edited:
kombat
Well-Known Member
You guys call this a thread on secondary-vs-not-secondary? Come on! Where's all the name-calling and questioning of intelligence? Psssh! Pathetic.
But seriously, there's been some great information already shared here. The practice of racking to a secondary vessel (it's not actually a "secondary fermentation") I think was just carried over from pro brewers because we (early modern homebrewers) didn't know any better. Pro brewers do it to free up expensive primary vessels and separate the beer from yeast at risk of succumbing to autolysis that can occur under the severe osmotic pressure inherent in such large volumes of liquid (but that don't exist at the small volumes home brewers typically deal with).
But seriously, there's been some great information already shared here. The practice of racking to a secondary vessel (it's not actually a "secondary fermentation") I think was just carried over from pro brewers because we (early modern homebrewers) didn't know any better. Pro brewers do it to free up expensive primary vessels and separate the beer from yeast at risk of succumbing to autolysis that can occur under the severe osmotic pressure inherent in such large volumes of liquid (but that don't exist at the small volumes home brewers typically deal with).
Now leightonp -
Go get that dang hydrometer before you post about bottle bombs
This hasn't happened to me yet so you probably jinxed me. I store bottles in a Rubbermaid tub, just in case. I have a hydrometer and a thief on the way. Next stop is AG, putting together a mash tun tomorrow.
jrgtr42
Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't normally do a secondary - number one, I don't want to do any work that won't drastically improve the beer, and #2, besides potential for infection, there is also the potential for oxidation.
There are exceptions of course - if I'm aging the beer on wood, fruit or souring, or need to leave it in bulk for extended times.
I do secondary my cider when I make it - it ends up much clearer when I do that.
The short version is, do what you feel is best - if you think your beer is better if you do secondary, then go ahead - it's no skin of my or anyone else's teeth...
There are exceptions of course - if I'm aging the beer on wood, fruit or souring, or need to leave it in bulk for extended times.
I do secondary my cider when I make it - it ends up much clearer when I do that.
The short version is, do what you feel is best - if you think your beer is better if you do secondary, then go ahead - it's no skin of my or anyone else's teeth...
I'm somewhat OCD about sanitizing (I considered wearing a mask while racking my first brew until I realized I couldn't drink my friends homebrew at the same time) so that's not a huge concern. When you are racking to a carboy there is a chance for oxygenation that you can't really do anything about. My first couple beers didn't go stale or have off flavors, but my thinking is why risk racking for minimal gains at the end. Il update in a few weeks after tasting this IPA done all in the primary. For the dry hop I used nitrogen sealed hops and sanitized scissors and dumped them straight into the bucket. I did suck a tiny bit of vodka into the beer from the airlock when I opened the bucket, but it was a minimal amount so no worries there.
That's an excellent read. I learned a lot in a short time period. Thanks for sharing
I dry hopped in the primary for this one so I'm anxious to see how that goes. I'm making my first move to AG next and really want to crunch numbers on my entire set up for awhile so I won't be reusing yeasts for the next few brews at least. Although it would be cheaper and cost is half my motivation to go all grain. LME and DME is much more expensive. I'm at $.95ish/beer using extract. And assuming 75% efficiency, I'm thinking I can at least get that down to around $.70ish/beer depending on the recipe. When you factor in my friends, wife, and self all drinking my beer it adds up. I will say I want good beer and not cheap beer though. Which is a whole other thread title entirely. I don't know how many times I've told people people I've started brewing my own beer to hear the question "it must be a lot cheaper than buying beer for all that work". My answer is "It's not cheaper, but it's worth it."
kombat
Well-Known Member
Just a minor terminology nitpick: "Oxygenation" is adding pure oxygen directly to the beer, and is done with a tank of pure O2 and a diffusion stone, generally prior to fermentation. "Oxidation" occurs when hop oils in the beer react with oxygen in the surrounding air and spoil the beer. "Aeration" is mixing plain old atmospheric air into the wort/beer via splashing, stirring, shaking, aquarium pump, paint stirrer rod, or other means.
Similar threads
