To Secondary or Not to Secondary???

[Burtlake1985]

After doing several months of reading on this site and other books and articles. It isn't very clear on whether secondary is a good or bad thing or even a necessary or unnecessary thing to do.

Beer kits use instructions and "recommend" a secondary for clearing beer off spent yeast and other matter. And I see people on here saying it's not necessary and it only causes trouble for your beer.
While on the other hand some people say it's good to get in the habit of doing to help refine your beer especially when oaking/dry hopping/adding special ingredients.

However most of the information I've read and the way I'm understanding this extra step seems to be subjective or "personal preference".

What I'm trying to find out is, is there information on here or elsewhere that states when it is necessary to secondary or not to secondary? What are the tangible benefits of using a secondary?

Please refrain from subjectivity in responding to this thread. I don't want this to get carried away on one's "taste".

 

[kombat]

Offhand, I can only think of 4 good reasons for using a secondary:

1.) You need to free up the primary fermenter for another batch and cannot wait;
2.) You need to re-use the yeast for another batch and cannot wait;
3.) You plan on adding post-fermentation ingredients (dry hops, fruit, wood, other) and plan to re-use the yeast and don't want to contaminate it;
4.) You plan on adding post-fermentation ingredients and are worried their flavour will get lost in the yeast cake.

Clarity is not one of them. Racking to secondary is actually detrimental to clarity, because particles that were slowly making their way down to the bottom of the fermenter are instead mixed back into even distribution, and must start precipitating all over again, starting from the top.

Risks of secondary include oxidizing your beer or exposing it to elements that can contaminate it and cause an infection.

Sent from my camp fire using smoke signals

 

[Xpertskir]

If only there were threads with hundreds of posts to read on the matter.


There are no tangible benefits to a secondary, beer can be left on yeast for months without ill effect.

Transferring beer provides an opportunity for oxidation, infection, and a typically yields a large 02 rich head space. IMO it's a waste of time, effort, and energy to secondary. I have added fruit, hops, oak, coffee, ect in the primary.

You can make good beer with or without a secondary, better to focus your time and effort on other aspects, it's relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of brewing.

 

[Xpertskir]

Please refrain from subjectivity in responding to this thread. I don't want this to get carried away on one's "taste".

Also, most things in brewing are personal taste. There are probably only a half dozen or so "truths" in brewing...the rest of the processes and techniques are personal preference and different ways to go about achieving slightly different results.

 

[kh54s10]

Unfortunately for your desire to keep subjectivity out of the conversation, for the most part it IS subjective.

It IS for the most part a personal choice. Either way will produce great beer. To my knowledge there is no scientific evidence that one way makes a superior beer.

I like kombat's 4 reasons.

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

For the most part its up to you what you'd like to do. Your beer will be fine without racking to secondary, and many times most people don't find it necessary unless they're dry hopping, oaking, fruiting. Which some people do that all in the primary too. If your not adding anything to the beer then there isn't exactly any need to rack it out of the primary. Using a secondary at that point is just an extra step in the process and can be a risk of oxidation or picking up an infection. Now many people use secondaries for all their beers and there isn't anything wrong with that as long as the beer is finished fermenting before its racked over. Again it just comes to it not really being a necessity.

When I first joined my LHBC some of the guys couldn't believe I never use a secondary. We ended up doing a club brew where half the batch was primary only and the other half was primary, then secondary. In the end you couldn't tell the difference between the two beers. So to me I don't think it makes any damn difference just do what works for you. The only thing I stress is to leave the beer in the primary until its finished then if you want to rack it to secondary go for it.

 

[brew_ny]

If only there were threads with hundreds of posts to read on the matter.

that would be great

 

[jjw5015]

I've always done secondary in my dozen or so batches for dryhopping. Not this time. Doing it all in the primary. Now my 5 gal carboy is open for a batch of Apfelwein

 

[Homercidal]

Sorry to disappoint, but there really is no right answer. It depends on the situation and brewer. I don't LIKE to use a secondary, because most of the time it's just an added step. But there are times when it makes the brewing process easier, like when I really want to use that yeast, or when I'm not kegging, I prefer to rack to secondary to reduce headspace while I cold crash. In that case I wouldn't HAVE to secondary, but I find it's easier to avoid yeast when racking to the bottling bucket.

Other than sometimes picking up extra yeast when bottling from the primary, I don't know that I could tell the difference between using a secondary or not, at least for beer with a normal aging process.

I think Charlie Papazian said it best:

"Relax, Don't Worry, Have A Homebrew!"

 

[jjw5015]

Sorry to disappoint, but there really is no right answer. It depends on the situation and brewer. I don't LIKE to use a secondary, because most of the time it's just an added step. But there are times when it makes the brewing process easier, like when I really want to use that yeast, or when I'm not kegging, I prefer to rack to secondary to reduce headspace while I cold crash. In that case I wouldn't HAVE to secondary, but I find it's easier to avoid yeast when racking to the bottling bucket.

Other than sometimes picking up extra yeast when bottling from the primary, I don't know that I could tell the difference between using a secondary or not, at least for beer with a normal aging process.

I think Charlie Papazian said it best:

"Relax, Don't Worry, Have A Homebrew!"

Does the extra yeast result in a quicker bottle carb?

 

[Burtlake1985]

Hello All

Thanks for the responses. This is pretty much what I was looking for, general guidelines to go by why I would and would not use a secondary. I should have clarified on "subjectivity" I was not looking for, I didn't want information on theoretical/philosophical reasons for using or not using a secondary.

But the 4 reasons Kombat laid out pretty much sums up my quest for answers. As long as there is no scientific reasons behind this then i will just use my secondary as another primary so I can brew more beer.

Thanks guys/gals for your help!

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

then i will just use my secondary as another primary so I can brew more beer.

Now your getting it

 

[kombat]

I will just use my secondary as another primary so I can brew more beer.

That's fine, but be aware that most secondary carboys are 5 gallons (to minimize head space of a batch that has finished fermenting) and thus do not provide sufficient head space for the krausen of a fermenting 5 gallon batch of beer. Attempting to ferment 5 gallons of beer in a 5 gallon carboy is a recipe for a blowout.

Sent from the wild west using the Pony Express(TM)

 

[RonPopeil]

depends on the brew for me. most prefer secondary. hoppy stuff gets it just for the dry hopping. anything else will spend at least 2 weeks in a keg chilled before i pour.