I have 5 gallons of Tallgrass’ Velvet Rooster about a week into the primary now. Tallgrass recommends 2 weeks in the primary and 4 in the secondary. I generally don’t use a secondary, but I’ve never made a belgian style beer or 1.080 beer before.
Should I stick with my usual routine and keep it in the primary or does a beer like this demand a secondary?
The idea for the secondary is to allow the yeast to flocculate out of solution. I understand that Belgian strains are not good flocculators, so I would suggest a secondary. However, it is not necessary.
[quote=“brans041”]The idea for the secondary is to allow the yeast to flocculate out of solution.[/quote]The yeast flocs exactly the same in the primary and the secondary, so if that’s all you’re using a secondary for, save yourself the extra step.
+1 I usually just let mine sit in the primary for about 3 weeks. The last belgian I made cleared out quite nicely.
Shadetree: You don’t believe flocculation is reason for a secondary, but you haven’t shared whether you think there is some other good reason.
Could just be perception but it seems that the yeast clears quicker when I move to secondary. That said I don’t secondary my beers (except for really long bulk aging), well at least not unless you count using the keg as a bright tank. My timing typically is 2-3 weeks in primary, 2-3 weeks in the keg, then serve.
[quote=“Brick1083”]Shadetree: You don’t believe flocculation is reason for a secondary, but you haven’t shared whether you think there is some other good reason.[/quote]I’ve shared my opinion on secondaries so many times that I try not to post it any more… 
But, since you asked - I think they’re a waste of time and effort unless used for adding fruit or bugs to the beer or for long-term bulk aging, usually done in a keg though, not a carboy. I ferment in buckets for about three weeks, dryhop the last week or so, and then package, which works well for my system and the beers I make, but it might not work for someone else. Which is why the question about using a secondary always boils down to “try it with and without and then decide what’s best for your beer.”
http://forum.northernbrewer.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=111036#p978579
This post of mine has an interesting experiment on secondaries.
[quote=“brans041”]This post of mine has an interesting experiment on secondaries.[/quote]Care to post a synopsis of the results so that I/we don’t have to listen to the whole thing?
This is the same method that I use and it has served me well. I just don’t see the need any other time.
Basically the conclusion was that beers will clear in the secondary for non-flocculant yeast quicker than if it was left in the primary. You could just listen to it and draw your own conclusions.
Thanks for all the responses. I’ve pretty much bought in to the “secondaries are useless” line of thinking from the beginning. It’s just that I haven’t tried brewing anything like a Belgian Tripel before and wanted to make sure the theory carries over. Although no-one’s said it directly, based on your comments I’m going to assume this beer is no different from the rest.
