after trying a long primary, anyone back to using secondaries?

[progmac]

i'm not beating a dead horse. i swear. or maybe i am.

but i've noticed that it seems like absolutely everyone is on board with not using secondaries.

is there anyone out there who has tried a long primary but gone back to using secondaries?

fwiw, i've only done long primaries.

i don't mean for this to be a "there's no need for secondaries" thread - we have plenty of those

 

[kh54s10]

I have. But that was because I wanted the larger Better Bottle for a new batch.

I have not seen much difference in clarity. I have not done a big beer with long aging. And I have not added things where I wanted to do that in secondary... Yet.

 

[Peppers16]

I always like to point people to the latest episode of Basic Brewing Radio whenever they're considering secondary for beer:
http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/6/a/4/6a49...id=4557587&h=0ebdd1ee2a57c1333f8f4dc997e1a4c8

I think the most interesting thing they find is that the extra clarity you get with secondary is actually just temporary, as the primary clears just as well during conditioning anyway.

 

[HawksBrewer]

Nope. Always done primary w/o secondary vessel, even w/ adjuncts (shame on me lazy brewer I know). No problems yet.

 

[igliashon]

It depends. I still secondary if I want a really clear beer and the beer hasn't cleared in primary after two weeks. I do notice a difference. However, since adding whirlfloc, I've noticed my beers tend to clear just fine in primary about 90% of the time.

 

[Brewmasters Warehouse]

I am at about 5 years straight of no secondaries except when I want to dry hop or add something to the beer after the primary is done.

I do recommend to people that are newer brewers and bottle to secondary so that when they bottle they will have less trub in the bottle. This is for purely cosmetic reasons, and new brewers tend to try to get every last drop of beer out, so getting the beer off the cake just helps them leave stuff behind. If they say I don't care about that then I say don't secondary.

 

[nulfis]

When I was still pretty new, secondaries were valuable because I always did a kind of **** job racking and would get lots of trub. Now that I've done it enough and have my method and equipment hashed out, I don't see the need. Irish moss and a 2 week primary do me just fine. Lately on some Ales, I've been doing 7 day primaries and then 1-2 week bottle conditioning, and beyond the expected "green-ness" of the beers, no clarity problems to speak of.

 

[Brew-boy]

I never use them and cant see why you would, maybe for fruit I could see. I dry hop in the primary, Oak in the primary or use a keg. So for me I never rack into a secondary.

 

[barmyarmy]

I always secondary despite what the homebrew gods say. I do this for several reasons:
1. I brew lagers
2. I brew a lot of fruit beers
3. I save and reuse my yeast
4. Keeps me honest with my sanitation
5. Let's me fiddle with my beer more
6. If its not broke, don't fix it. The evidence for not doing it is not strong enough to stop. It does save time and work, and for that it's valid. I'll do anything that works well, but my reluctance to stop using a secondary, besides the reasons stated above, is the attitude of the people who are totally against it. When a question is asked that involves a secondary the thread is hijacked and the question is not answered. There are some great knowledgable brewers that regularly help me out in a pinch, some of these people answer questions while talking out of their ass. If I get good science based evidence that my beer will be better I will change my practices ( other than o2 exposure). After all better beer is the goal.

 

[merlin306]

A little bit ...

How much trub are we talking about in a primary-only bottle?

I've used secondaries on all of my brews (only 4), so I've never had a huge pile of trub in the bottle. I think beer > trub, so I would think less trub in the bottle would be a good thing. Is it a staggering amount?

 

[Hammy71]

I am at about 5 years straight of no secondaries except when I want to dry hop or add something to the beer after the primary is done.

I do recommend to people that are newer brewers and bottle to secondary so that when they bottle they will have less trub in the bottle. This is for purely cosmetic reasons, and new brewers tend to try to get every last drop of beer out, so getting the beer off the cake just helps them leave stuff behind. If they say I don't care about that then I say don't secondary.

What Ed said.

 

[Denny]

I don't have rules....I decide on a batch by batch basis. I usually don't use a secondary, but I will if I decide the beer would benefit from it.

 

[Sambecker1]

I think secondary is necessary with large dry hop and/or fruit addition. Ive done mango ipas that go to tertiary.

Otherwise secondary is no need unless trub is huge I'd think.

 

[blakelyc]

I have now done both, and I am back to using secondaries. No, I am not the most experienced brewer ever. I just prefer my process that way and I think it is fun .

 

[corax]

I would go back to secondaries if I brewed lagers, or if for whatever reason couldn't keg after 3 or 4 weeks. As it is I always keg before 3 weeks (and usually 10 days or less).

 

[jbsengineer]

I always like to point people to the latest episode of Basic Brewing Radio whenever they're considering secondary for beer:
http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/6/a/4/6a49...id=4557587&h=0ebdd1ee2a57c1333f8f4dc997e1a4c8

I think the most interesting thing they find is that the extra clarity you get with secondary is actually just temporary, as the primary clears just as well during conditioning anyway.

Good episode. What I'm curious about is that they decided depending on beer style that they would prefer secondaries when kegging and not bottling due to the secondary being faster at clarifying. Does it matter? Wouldn't it eventually clarify in the keg as well?

 

[barmyarmy]

+1 on Denny. I would consider no secondary on a beer to beer basis, but no when a certain god of homebrew decrees it.

 

[amandabab]

I've tried the long primary, I'm back to using a secondary.

 

[Peppers16]

Good episode. What I'm curious about is that they decided depending on beer style that they would prefer secondaries when kegging and not bottling due to the secondary being faster at clarifying. Does it matter? Wouldn't it eventually clarify in the keg as well?

I'm not sure either. Something to do with kegs being for faster turnover/ shorter storage than bottles, perhaps? Can't really imagine they're endorsing rushing a beer through conditioning though...

How much trub are we talking about in a primary-only bottle?

I've used secondaries on all of my brews (only 4), so I've never had a huge pile of trub in the bottle. I think beer > trub, so I would think less trub in the bottle would be a good thing. Is it a staggering amount?

My first batch I actually stirred priming sugar straight into the primary, after just a week, and bottled directly from that shortly after... and despite that horrific method/ lack of bulk conditioning I don't seem to have an offensive amount of sediment in the bottles! Of course I have no point of comparison but we're talking less than 1mm in a tall 75cl bottle so certainly not a shocking amount.

 

[progmac]

I've tried the long primary, I'm back to using a secondary.

why?

 

[Oter]

I secondaried my first two batches. I don't anymore for ales. 3 weeks on the yeast and into the keg.

 

[dermotstratton]

If you have a significant amount or trub (like 2"+ in bottom of carboy) in primary, should you use secondary?

Is there a negative impact of letting beer sit on trub for 3 weeks?

 

[Beerbeque]

For my ales I primary for two weeks and bottle, where a true secondary fermentation takes place.

 

[amandabab]

why?

I find it the easiest way to get a crystal clear beer into bottles without using fining agents, cold crashing or anything else. just rack and forget it.