Why use a secondary?

[Trrance]

Hi all. First time poster here, with my first batch of brew in it's fourth day. Everything seems to be going according to plan, suffered a bit of blow-off during the 30 to 40 hour period but reading the forum seems to indicate that's not really a problem.

Since this is my first time I'm not intending to do a secondary, but to go straight to bottles ... strictly impatience ... I'll do better next time.

On to the question; I'm here for advice, so please feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

What I gather is that the Secondary isn't actually a fermentation stage, but more for settling / aging / conditioning. So what's the difference if the beer settles / ages / conditions in the bottle rather than in a secondary bucket?

I'm not doubting that using a secondary would make the beer better – the question is how come?

 

[cweston]

What I gather is that the Secondary isn't actually a fermentation stage, but more for settling / aging / conditioning. So what's the difference if the beer settles / ages / conditions in the bottle rather than in a secondary bucket?

I'm not doubting that using a secondary would make the beer better – the question is how come?

It's largely because the stuff the settles out in the carboy during secondary stays inthe carboy (you siphon the beer off th trub), whereas anything that settles out in the bottle will remain in the bottle. It's mostly an aesthetic issue, IMHO, although I suppose it's possible that the yeast in the bottle could start feeding on itself and creating off flavors.

 

[Kaiser]

What I gather is that the Secondary isn't actually a fermentation stage, but more for settling / aging / conditioning. So what's the difference if the beer settles / ages / conditions in the bottle rather than in a secondary bucket?

If it settles in the bottle, there will be more sediment in the bottle which may cause stability problems later on. But that doesn't matter to you if you finish your batch within 1 to 2 months.

You can also let your beer settle another week or two in the primary, but I would make sure that it will not stay longer than 3 weeks on the trub/yeast.

Kai

 

[homebrewer_99]

You should check your final gravity also. If your brew has been in the primary for 1-2 weeks it still may not be down to the final gravity range . In addition to getting the brew off the old yeast a secondary allows the beer to mellow and age a bit.

Most new brewers are way too impatient to bottle and start drinking. However, I promise you if you maintain a cool and allow a natural process to take its own time your reward of better tasting beer will be greater in the end.

 

[chillHayze]

It sounds like you are out to answer your own question. By brewing this batch w/o a secondary, and a future batch with one, you will know the fruits of your labor when you draw the first pint of that future batch.
Try making the same recipe both batches. It will taste like a different beer altogether.

The following is from www.allaboutbeer.com
...During secondary fermentation, the yeast reduces or removes certain undesirable flavor components (diacetyl, acetylaldehyde, and some sulphur compounds), thereby maturing the beer into a more drinkable condition. During this latter phase of fermentation, the majority of the yeast in the beer also settles to the bottom of the fermenter, leaving the beer clear and bright. Thus, at the end of secondary fermentation, beer is generally ready to be carbonated and consumed. ...

So it makes it taste less like butter and matches. Always a good thing.

 

[Kaiser]

Most new brewers are way too impatient to bottle and start drinking. However, I promise you if you maintain a cool and allow a natural process to take its own time your reward of better tasting beer will be greater in the end.

But if you are a beginner, you don't know how much better the beer can be if it ages and you will think that the beer is already great after 3 weeks

Kai

 

[Trrance]

Thanks, all. Very informative.

I hope my second batch is as clear as your answers.

 

[homebrewer_99]

But if you are a beginner, you don't know how much better the beer can be if it ages and you will think that the beer is already great after 3 weeks Kai

You know it. We've all been there. ...wishing we had another case of it when it was in its prime while we're drinking the last bottle....

 

[Rethin]

I was just listening to John Palmer (of How to Brew fame) in an interview.
He said that a secondary just really isn't that important. He even mentioned he lagered his last beer entirly in the primary with no ill effects.

He summed it up with something along the lines of a secondary is best practice but not always required.

 

[Monk]

I was just listening to John Palmer (of How to Brew fame) in an interview.
He said that a secondary just really isn't that important. He even mentioned he lagered his last beer entirly in the primary with no ill effects.

He summed it up with something along the lines of a secondary is best practice but not always required.

That's interesting, because I've always heard that the "secondary question" was a point of dispute between the Papazian/Palmer camps. Many times I've seen people strongly take sides, and Palmer is usually the man they quote for an "always secondary everything" opinion.

 

[SteveM]

I think the answer here is the usual and universal answer to all questions about brewing: "It depends."

Some brews don't gain very much from a secondary, others virtually require it, and it is likely that whatever comes out of our fermenters will be better than anything you can buy, so it depends (oops, there it is again) on what you are hoping to achieve.

 

[Trrance]

Have any of you ever tried bottling part of a batch straight from the primary and putting part of the same batch into secondary?

Suppose on bottling day I put four gallons into bottles and put the rest into a one gallon glass jug for two weeks before bottling it ... anybody foresee any problems with that idea?

How likely is it that a homebrew newbie would be able to tell the difference a couple of months later?

 

[the_bird]

Sounds like a fun experiment to me!

Give it a try, can't see how it would hurt. I imagine it would prove to me more trouble that it is worth to be part of your standard operating procedure (it's a lot easier to bottle everything at once rather than do everything twice). If you've got a decent stash built up, an extra week or two in the secondary won't be that big a deal anyway.

 

[Rethin]

That's interesting, because I've always heard that the "secondary question" was a point of dispute between the Papazian/Palmer camps. Many times I've seen people strongly take sides, and Palmer is usually the man they quote for an "always secondary everything" opinion.

Maybe he's come around.
You can listen for yourself.
http://www.basicbrewing.com/radio/
Episode: January 19, 2006 - John Palmer on Lagering

 

[loopmd]

All I've got to say is try it.....you'll like it.

I brewed for the first 3 years going right from primary to bottles. You know what? I loved all of my beers. Tasted great, got a good buzz. Then I bought a carboy. Started brewing primary to secondary then to bottles. You know what. I love all of my beers. They taste great and give you a good buzz. Is there a difference between the 2? Yep. I probably won't ever go back to the old way as the subtle differences between the 2 are enough to make me want to use a secondary. If the carboy breaks and I don't have time to get a new one will it make me stop brewing? Nope, I'll go back to the old way. This stuff isn't rocket science!!

cheers,

Loop