Secondary Ferm

I usually do a secondary at the moment i have 5 gallons in secondary and has been in secondary for over two weeks also i had a 5 gallon batch in a primary for about a month now i know, i know time got away so im thinking maybe i should just bottle this too but id like to get some feedback to see if i should put it in secondary or not thanks alot.

Assuming you have an average strength ale there’s really no reason to “secondary” at all. If it’s been at final gravity for at least a week the beer is done, regardless of which container it’s in. I gave up “secondary” fermenting long ago will no ill effects; and I’m not alone. After you taste this batch I bet you’ll give it up too. Enjoy your extra time!!!

I like to go 3 to 4 weeks in the “primary”, the last week or two being the “secondary”. I will rack to a second vessel to dry hop, add things like oak chips and to bulk age some big beers.

Bottle as usual and you’ll have a tasty beer. RDWHAHB !

I think the main point is you should have a reason for transferring a beer to another vessel. Because the instructions said so doesn’t cut it!! Transferring introduces an opportunity for infection, spillage and oxydation. The only risk of not transferring is yeast autolysis (death and decay) which takes months. If you are brewing a standard strength ale and get it bottled or kegged within 5 weeks, transferring is a waste of effort…

I’ve had a 1.130+ mead (fg 1.030, ~17%) mead on the primary yeast, a second pack, and finally a pack of champagne yeast for close to 18 months.

Finally kegged it and then put in to bottles. Tastes fine.

That is my opinion on secondaries. 8)

Nice!! I think the biggest problem with it is the confusion it creates with new brewers. There seems to be a misconception out there that some sort of different process occurs when you transfer to a secondary vessel. The phases of fermentation occur regardless of transferring. You can’t prevent “secondary fermentation” by not “trasferring to secondary”. In fact, ironically most brewers probably disrupt their yeasts’ secondary stage by transferring, and in so doing reduce the quality of their beer. Advice to new brewers and recipie instructions should be edited to advise against trasferring to secondary vessels…

[quote=“Demus”] I think the biggest problem with it is the confusion it creates with new brewers. [/quote]Exactly. And I wish they would quit calling it a secondary fermentation/fermenter once and for all. How many noobs have racked their beer to the secondary after a week because the instructions said so?

Ditto. I’d prefer if secondary fermentation were just used to mean an actual second fermentation. Like if you wait for the primary fermentation to finish, then rack onto fruit or pitch brett or something like that.

I’m not a noob (not by a long shot), but I routinely transfer to secondary because to me (having tried it both ways) it always results in a better end product (to me).

Your mileage may vary of course…and in the end, it is always a matter of personal preference (and what you’re willing to accept in the end product).
There’s really no right way or wrong way.

[quote=“The Professor”]I’m not a noob (not by a long shot), but I routinely transfer to secondary [/quote]I’m not saying that racking to a secondary vessel for conditioning is bad procedure or wrong, I just dislike the term secondary fermentation (the title of this post), I think it’s misleading to new brewers. It implies that there are two stages of fermentation and that you need to move the beer to another container to finish fermenting.

That said, I occasionally use a secondary for bulk aging or dry hopping. For most of my beers though I’ve found that 3-4 weeks in the primary and 2-3 weeks in a keg before tapping meets my needs.

[quote=“The Professor”]

I’m not a noob (not by a long shot), but I routinely transfer to secondary because to me (having tried it both ways) it always results in a better end product (to me).

Your mileage may vary of course…and in the end, it is always a matter of personal preference (and what you’re willing to accept in the end product).
There’s really no right way or wrong way.[/quote]

I agree that there’s no right or wrong answer. That said, why complicate the brewing process and confuse new brewers? I’m sure you use better teqnique than blindly following the instructions on a kit. The potential benefit of “secondary” is lost if it’s done at the wrong time, which is very likely for new brewers. For me, I generally age my beers at least a month past terminal gravity in kegs so maybe that’s why I don’t see the benefit of an intermediate step in another vessel. I really don’t think the beer “cares” which vessel it’s in; perhaps it’s just the benefits of aging that you are attributing to your “secondary fermentation”…

I’m not a noob (not by a long shot), but I routinely transfer to secondary because to me (having tried it both ways) it always results in a better end product (to me).

Your mileage may vary of course…and in the end, it is always a matter of personal preference (and what you’re willing to accept in the end product).
There’s really no right way or wrong way.[/quote]
+1

The way I see it, it’s better for the “noobs” to get the process down, learn to follow a recipe, and when they understand the purpose or benefit to certain steps in the process decide for themselves. Yeah, I know it’s debated on here at least once a month and for some reason it seems like we all have to pick a side. Implying that a transfer is going to ruin beer is ludicrous. Unless you suck at it, there is no reason to believe that even a novice brewer is going to muck up an autosiphon. We were all there once, so give them some credit. There is a benefit to getting beer off the cake after fermentation into a bright tank or conditioning vessel. It results in a clearer beer. Sure you can skip the secondary and add gelatin and get the same results but you just can argue that conditioned beer is simply clearer.

To the OP: It’s ok if you go ahead and bottle the beer from the primary. This “mistake” will give you a chance to see what the benefits of a secondary can actually be. :wink:

:cheers:

Professor, how do you feel it improves your beer?

I’ve come to the conclusion that a transfer to secondary can be beneficial as a means of avoiding oxidation. Specifically, if I ferment a fairly big beer in a bucket that has plenty of room for krausen, I will transfer to a carboy after it mostly settles down since a carboy seals better than a bucket. The key in my mind is to transfer some of the yeast cake when doing this, otherwise I don’t find the suspended yeast is enough to finish the last couple of points and clean up after itself as far as diacetyl/acetaldehyde. I suppose I could primary in a carboy and use a blowoff but I haven’t ever tried that.

Otherwise, I don’t see where transferring does too much. Maybe helps the beer clear a little faster?

Calling it a secondary fermantation is just plain misleading to new brewers.

What they should call it is a conditioning phase that you can do in your primary with better results than racking too early to second vessel.

With that said I get crystlal cleer beer after 3-4 weeks in the “primary” and 2 weeks in the keg.

Not that cloudy beer has ever hurt my feelings.

I think that there should be an UPDATE on the old instructions. Maybe make it a new years resolution.

I started with only using a primary do to equipment limitations and then added a conditioning tank and it did help clear the beer, but have lately been only doing one carboy to get beer bottled quickly for the holidays. I don’t know if I will go back to secondaries for my house beers. as everyone else said personal preference will be the biggest factor. Cheers :cheers:

For all the work involved in transferring, I don’t do it unless there is a reason. Unless it is to be dry hopped or aged for a few months, I don’t transfer. I prefer to just let it sit an extra week in the primary instead.