Fermentation lengths

Hello everyone. I just brewed the Irish Blonde ale a few days back, it’s fermenting well in the primary. I’m considering leaving it there for three weeks, transferring it to the secondary for another three and then racking it to the bottles for a final three weeks. This is longer than the six weeks suggested in the recipe. I would ask some input as to what your thoughts are. Is this overkill? Do I run the risk, during any of these stages, of comprising the flavor(s) of the beer by extending the fermenting and finishing times or is this a positive move? Your opinions would be very much appreciated. Thank you, new to this.

3 weeks primary, 3 weeks secondary and 3 weeks bottled is not too long.
However, the secondary doesn’t have much benefit.
And, the secondary adds a slight risk of infection or oxidation.

Suggestion: Drop your secondary step and keep the 3 weeks in the primary and 3 weeks in the bottle.

I will humblely disagree but to each their own…

I will humblely disagree but to each their own…[/quote]

Well, even if you consider a “secondary” as merely a bright tank or cold storage/aging vessel, there are definitely benefits to be had. From my thirty five or so batches with some of them racked to a secondary vessel (before kegging) and some not, I can say with confidence that a beer that has been cleared in a secondary vessel will not transfer nearly as much sediment into the keg as one racked directly from a primary vessel. Say what you will, it’s just the way it is. And as a result, my kegged beer runs clear very noticeably quicker when it’s racked from a secondary vessel than it does when racked from a primary. Maybe this doesn’t make much difference to some. Maybe it does. To me, it’s about producing the best product possible, and to me, that means the best clarity possible. :cheers:

I will humblely disagree but to each their own…[/quote]

Well, even if you consider a “secondary” as merely a bright tank or cold storage/aging vessel, there are definitely benefits to be had. From my thirty five or so batches with some of them racked to a secondary vessel (before kegging) and some not, I can say with confidence that a beer that has been cleared in a secondary vessel will not transfer nearly as much sediment into the keg as one racked directly from a primary vessel. Say what you will, it’s just the way it is. And as a result, my kegged beer runs clear very noticeably quicker when it’s racked from a secondary vessel than it does when racked from a primary. Maybe this doesn’t make much difference to some. Maybe it does. To me, it’s about producing the best product possible, and to me, that means the best clarity possible. :cheers: [/quote]
The value of a secondary depends on how long you leave the beer in primary and how careful you are when racking it. If you move the beer out of primary as soon as fermentation is done, then yes a secondary or bright tank of some sort is needed to allow the beer to clear. But if you leave it for at least 3-4 weeks in primary, and you are careful not to stir up or pick up much sediment off the bottom of the primary, the beer will be crystal clear and there is no benefit to the secondary.

I’ve tried multiple approaches, and at least in my case it is clear: the issue is about time, not about how many vessels you use.

I think that’s one of the key factors that’s rarely part of the debate. Use of a secondary is more forgiving of racking technique, and by extension, of less compacted yeast cakes. No matter how much was at the bottom of the primary; the secondary, when used, never has more than a thin layer. It is unquestionably easier to keep that thinner layer out of the keg or bottling bucket.

I bottle my beer, but I may start tracking how thick the bottle-sludge is, to see how it correlates to use of secondary. (My wife is still pro-secondary, so we still transfer some batches…)

I think that’s one of the key factors that’s rarely part of the debate. Use of a secondary is more forgiving of racking technique, and by extension, of less compacted yeast cakes. No matter how much was at the bottom of the primary; the secondary, when used, never has more than a thin layer. It is unquestionably easier to keep that thinner layer out of the keg or bottling bucket.

I bottle my beer, but I may start tracking how thick the bottle-sludge is, to see how it correlates to use of secondary. (My wife is still pro-secondary, so we still transfer some batches…)[/quote]
I make a lot of wine, where the whole issue of sediment is of much greater importance than it is in beer, and multiple rackings is a good way to cut down the sediment to essentially nothing. First racking, you will transfer some sediment from right around where the pick-up tube is. Second racking, you’ll do it again. But the sediment that got transferred the first time has at that point spread out across the entire bottom surface of the container, so it is much less concentrated around the pick up tube. If you give enough time between rackings that everything can drop out (usually about a month), then by the 3rd or 4th racking you don’t see any sediment. Of course, by that time you are six months into the process, so not something most people would want to do with beer.

Thank you all for your excellent advice, you’ve given me much to consider.I’ve got a brown ale one week in the secondary now and, like I mentioned, the blonde is still fermenting nicely in the primary. The sediment at the bottom of the secondary is barely visible and I’m sure that’s a good thing. I’ll stick to my original schedule of 3 weeks at each stage and see how it comes out, can’t wait. Thank you all again. :cheers: