When is a secondary fermenter a good idea?

[davidabcd]

I agree with @D.B.Moody in some respects (especially where a stout is concerned). Oxygenation has far too much emphasis placed on it. I used to abuse my beer with air and never experienced any noticeable difference from introducing it. Eliminating oxygen to near zero might be fine and far better; that's for the high-tech brewer to decide, but from experience, I can't get on board with those methods because I've seen, first hand, that a good product results from what I do. I don't own any tanks of any gas and I get by fine.
I do know, from personal experience, the secondary is not needed (feel free to disagree), in general.
I don't want to go round and round; it's all good.

 

[z-bob]

[I wrote this this morning and forgot to hit the Post reply button] Unless you're doing something unusual (like adding fruit, or more wort) there is just one fermentation. I usually use two vessels; I transfer the beer when fermentation is not quite complete to get it off the trub; often I add a tablespoon or so of sugar so the yeast will quickly scavenge the oxygen that gets picked up during the transfer. Then a week to a month later I bottle it directly from the second vessel. (usually the first vessel is a bucket and the second is a carboy)

I suspect most people who do the entire fermentation in a single vessel transfer the beer to a bottling bucket. That's still 2 vessels. Oxygen gets picked up during this transfer too and there's less yeast to scavenge it, but then priming sugar is added so the yeast probably does use up the oxygen.

I doubt there is much difference.

 

[davidabcd]

I doubt there is much difference.

Double like! I would have never started making beer if it was as difficult as can be portrayed here at times. I still use the basic method from years ago and haven't been disappointed. I don't own gas tanks of anything. I'm careful to quickly and quietly transfer to bottles and that's as far as I'll go.
I mention this because I'd like to make sure a new brewer knows basic processes make good quality beer.
Post isn't directed at you, particularly, but you reminded me of the thought.
Cheers.

 

[z-bob]

Double like! I would have never started making beer if it was as difficult as can be portrayed here at times.

But can be as difficult as you want to make it. Some people get off on complicated processes. That's a good thing; more power to them.

 

[davidabcd]

But can be as difficult as you want to make it. Some people get off on complicated processes. That's a good thing; more power to them.

That must be a universal truth about folks (getting off on complicated processes). It's all good and I don't mind seeing how it plays out. I'll say though that I would never have come anywhere near to being a beer maker if it hadn't been presented in the simplistic form that enticed me.

 

[Rikk]

Going from the number of posts here proves the point there is no one way to brew. That said the OP asked when it is necessary. Maybe in a big beer. I’ve been home brewing for 30 years. My technique has changed drastically since those early days. I haven’t used a secondary in many years. Even big beers sit for 3-4 weeks in pressure fermentation then kegged. NEIPA is only in fermentation for 10 days then kegged.
So many old school ways have been proven wrong or not necessary.
I’m just about to go to a 30 minute boil for certain small and medium beers. Times change.

 

[McMullan]

Going from the number of posts here proves the point there is no one way to brew.

True, but there's only one way the brew beer X.

So many old school ways have been proven wrong or not necessary.

Practices change due to progress, i.e., development and availability of improved equipment, ingredients, etc. I'm not so sure the idea that personal preferences prove 'old school ways' to be wrong. They all worked at some point in time. Many still do. My personal preference is to get beer off yeast as soon as. I think the beer tastes so much better a lot sooner. I'm really struggling to understand why I wouldn't want to do that really. Get my beers off the yeast and stabilised as soon as. Maybe I'm just old school

 

[Oleson M.D.]

So many old school ways have been proven wrong or not necessary.

After reading many of the online articles published by Brulosophy, it appears that many of the old time-honored brewing practices are simply old-wives-tales.
But we still do 90 minute boils, and believe in decoction mashing.

 

[McMullan]

Well, if we took all the old-school innovators, going back centuries, out of the equation, we'd all most likely be stood around scratching our heads and looking very confused.

 

[Joe P]

After reading "all" the secondary fermentation comments, I've decided to "try" No secondary vessle next brewing season. I gathered enough knowledge and the general consensus from all commentaters point to the second ferm isn't really necessary. So, I'll try it. No big deal. Thanks all!

 

[T Murph]

So what is it called when you add sugar to a bottle, fill it with beer and cap it? Isn't it a tiny glass secondary fermenter? Isn't yeast consuming sugar and converting said sugar to alcohol and Co2 identified as fermentation? Point is unless you are serving your beer directly from the primary fermenter any transfer to a "secondary" vessel, be it bottle, conditioning keg or other is a secondary fermenter technically. IMO this thread derailed in providing the OP the answer they were looking for. Yes I'm old school and yes there are many occasions where in the use of a secondary fermenter is not only appropriate but necessary to complete the fermentation process. Barley Wines, Melomels and most brews where fruit is added need secondary fermentation for optimal quality. The important thing to consider is does the specific type Beverage require a secondary. Equally important is the practice of getting the product into the secondary, a whole different topic. One which there should be no debate, closed transfer. IMO any beer can be successfully transfered as long as the receiving vessel has been purged with Co2 and Co2 is used to push it from one to the other. Otherwise we would all be drinking from the fermenter. OK yes I've done that many times too.

 

[z-bob]

True, but there's only one way the brew beer X.

There's the money quote. Thread's over.

 

[gunhaus]

So what is it called when you add sugar to a bottle, fill it with beer and cap it? Isn't it a tiny glass secondary fermenter? Isn't yeast consuming sugar and converting said sugar to alcohol and Co2 identified as fermentation? Point is unless you are serving your beer directly from the primary fermenter any transfer to a "secondary" vessel, be it bottle, conditioning keg or other is a secondary fermenter technically. IMO this thread derailed in providing the OP the answer they were looking for. Yes I'm old school and yes there are many occasions where in the use of a secondary fermenter is not only appropriate but necessary to complete the fermentation process. Barley Wines, Melomels and most brews where fruit is added need secondary fermentation for optimal quality. The important thing to consider is does the specific type Beverage require a secondary. Equally important is the practice of getting the product into the secondary, a whole different topic. One which there should be no debate, closed transfer. IMO any beer can be successfully transfered as long as the receiving vessel has been purged with Co2 and Co2 is used to push it from one to the other. Otherwise we would all be drinking from the fermenter. OK yes I've done that many times too.

This well put. And I would add for those who keg: What is it when you go from primary to keg, and THEN lager for 4-6 weeks or longer? How is that NOT a secondary? Of course the answer is simple enough - the "non-secondary" crowd chooses to say it is not . . . . So it is not. Whatever it takes to get through the day!

 

[RM-MN]

It's a secondary fermenter only if there is fermentation happening there. Bottle carbonation is an example as is adding fruit that has sugars to ferment. Moving beer from a fermenter to a carboy is often called moving to secondary fermenter while it is only a "bright tank" if no additional fermenting is happening there.

 

[Yesfan]

My kegs are my secondaries..........

 

[McMullan]

Which brings us logically to the inevitable concept of tertiary vessels My favourites. A serving keg, bottle or glass. The thing containing the finished beer. The beer.

 

[Yesfan]

Which brings us logically to the inevitable concept of tertiary vessels My favourites. A serving keg, bottle or glass. The thing containing the finished beer. The beer.

I've got to do this again, don't I?



My beer glasses are my tertiaries.............

 

[McMullan]

Quaternaries?

 

[Yesfan]

Quaternaries?

Stomach?

 

[McMullan]

No, quinaries Among the brightest naturally-filtered beers known, to some old-school home brewers.

 

[pc_trott]

My thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my question. I've read the entire string over at least twice, and it appears that there is some disagreement on the answer to my question. I don't have any of the fancy equipment that would allow a closed transfer, and I bottle condition all of my brews (so far), so for this brew, my first imperial stout, I think I'll take the approach recommended by @Bobby_M:

I recommend aging it in the primary for a total of 1 month from brew day and then bottle it right away to protect it. Age it in the bottle.

If the result seems lacking (after three or four months in the bottle) I'll try again and use a secondary. I have not yet acquired the ability to recognize and identify the tastes of oxygen, diacetyls, etc. in the finished product, but if I remember in 3 or 4 months, I'll come back and post a personal review of the results of skipping the NB recommended 3 months in secondary.

Thanks again. All roads lead to beer, and as the Roman bartender said, "de gustibus non est disputandum!"

 

[bwible]

Brewing under rules of democracy? Interesting.

There are definitely occasions when a secondary is useful, or even required, if you can be bothered and you have the basic skills required to prevent oxidation during transfer. E.g., if you need the beer to be ready sooner, which is why commercial breweries often use settling tanks after fermentation is done; and, ironically, why home brewers get so excited about conicals, which become secondaries once the yeast cone gets dumped. And long-term ageing of big beers, of course. The idea green beer is fine sitting on the yeast for weeks or longer is not always true. It assumes the yeast are healthy. In some cases high levels of yeast autolysis risk transforming beer into drain water.

Not to mention if you’re making a lager. You do the primary at 50ish degrees for 2 weeks or thereabout and then it has to be stored (lagered) at 35 degrees or less for a month (what I do) or some age it more. Sorry, I’m not leaving it on the same yeast cake plus whatever trub and waste for 6-8 weeks.

 

[bwible]

A friend, and former LHBS store ownwer, and head brewer at the Hofbrau in North Texas, told me there is only one fermentation.

And thats correct. There is only one fermentation. Thats why I hate that word “secondary” because its not a second fermentation. Its a settling or clearing step. Breweries do this - where its called a “bright tank.”

 

[Dancy]

I assume there’s an exception where fruit, etc. is added. Normally, I use a primary only. I bottled a 4G Troeg’s Mad Elf recipe in February 2021 and transferred (gently) to a Speidel secondary with canned Oregon sweet and tart cherries. Left it for a few weeks before bottling. By Xmas it was fantastic. My daughters and I really enjoyed. If the flavor was tainted by oxygen, I couldn’t tell — but maybe coming in at 11% or so was a factor. I have never had an actual Troeg’s Mad Elf but this was one of my very favorite home brews.

 

[RM-MN]

My thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my question. I've read the entire string over at least twice, and it appears that there is some disagreement on the answer to my question. I don't have any of the fancy equipment that would allow a closed transfer, and I bottle condition all of my brews (so far), so for this brew, my first imperial stout, I think I'll take the approach recommended by @Bobby_M:

If the result seems lacking (after three or four months in the bottle) I'll try again and use a secondary. I have not yet acquired the ability to recognize and identify the tastes of oxygen, diacetyls, etc. in the finished product, but if I remember in 3 or 4 months, I'll come back and post a personal review of the results of skipping the NB recommended 3 months in secondary.

Thanks again. All roads lead to beer, and as the Roman bartender said, "de gustibus non est disputandum!"

If the results seem lacking after 3 to 4 months in the bottle, leave it another 3 to 4 months. 6 months is where my imperial stouts seem to start getting really good and they keep on improving for quite a while after that.

 

[Joe P]

Technically...we're ALL living breathing drinking Fermenters.

 

[McMullan]

Technically...we're ALL living breathing drinking Fermenters.

Only if you get too much exercise.

 

[tracer bullet]

If the result seems lacking (after three or four months in the bottle) I'll try again and use a secondary.

Maybe consider just simply leaving the beer in the bottles even longer. Time is time.

 

[Joe P]

Only if you get too much exercise.

To many answers on that one. All good though. Funny!

 

[Malticulous]

There are a number of reasons I would use a secondary (pre-packaging) but Northern Brewer instruction isn't one of them. I have a 1/2 in SS cane and im not afraid to use it.