Second FV ?

[Sean_Mc]

Can I raise the subject of transferring to a second FV

Since back to brewing I keep reading that its necessary to transfer to a second FV to help clear a brew...really?

I get using a second FV if your batch priming, but why transfer then prime individual bottles. I'm not saying the process is wrong I just want to understand the thinking behind it and why its important.
Autolysis I believe wont happen for months? I like a brew to clear it self up, minimize disturbing the bottom crud as much as possible and siphon straight off the crud (a small bit of patience and skill involved).
I was told the rule of 10:-
10 days to ferment (temp 18-21c)
10 days in the bottle after priming (temp 18-21)
10 days in the cool before you sample (temp 5-8c if you can)

I get nice bright pales with compact sediment, that are easy to pour. I'm not saying my way is the only way to skin a cat, I just want to understand others processes

Sean :drink:

 

[rich27500]

Not necessary at all. It makes a difference sometimes. I secondary lager but leave ales in the primary for two weeks.

 

[carl_saint]

I've never used a secondary and all my brews are crystal clear. Good brewing practises and plenty of time in the primary and your fine!

 

[DeanoD]

i brew kit brews , and ive always left mine in primary for just under 3 weeks in a temp between 18-20 i prime my bottles then syphon from my primary fv into bottles , i then leave them in same cupboard for 2 weeks then move them into a cooler dark room for 2 weeks then take what i need and put into fridge for drinking its worked so far like this so thats what im going to keep doing :thumb:

 

[jonnymorris]

I thought you'd opened a can of worms with this thread... there is much debate on the merits of racking to a second FV but I agree with all above. I don't do it and see little point in doing so unless perhaps you are dry hopping.

 

[eggman]

I don't transfer to secondary either, I leave mine in the fermenter a couple of weeks and even if i'm bottling I just bottle straight from that too. Never had any problems and always have crystal clear beer :

 

[jonewer]

Only started doing it when I started using cornies an bottling - to reduce sediment. I brewed for years just using one fv with little trouble.

 

[neddy]

Im the same as jonewer. Ive got a brew fermenting in fridge, been there a week so far so may try leaving it for 3 weeks and go straight to cornie and see how it goes

 

[Ian...]

It's personal preference. Never bothered with a 2nd FV myself. But I do give it 14days in the primary fv. Never had a problem.

 

[pittsy]

yep just the 1 for me too

 

[StevieDS]

There are a lot of brewers who do use a secondary so just wondering what the arguments for this practice are?

 

[RobWalker]

it's good for a few things but somewhat unneccessary sometimes.

fruit (secondary fermentation) will be more apparent if fermented after the malt. so it's useful then, albeit not neccessary.

dry hopping and batch priming are both a great way to employ a secondary. dry hopping is better in clear beer, and many people clear the beer in a secondary too as you can stir in finings and get it off the yeast, which can also produce off flavours after fermentation via autolysis...and there's more chance of sucking some of the trub up without using a secondary. so a secondary + clear beer = less sediment in the bottle = better overall drinking experience. particularly with speciality beers (chocolate stout with cocoa for example) or spiced beers (winter ales) and beers containing sugar, the trub is less solid and easily ends up in the finished product, so a secondary can be useful there.

against it, sometimes its just not neccessary. standard bitter for example - what's the point? just get it in the bottle, let it clear and get it down yer neck.

 

[bunkerbrewer]

There are a lot of brewers who do use a secondary so just wondering what the arguments for this practice are?

I think the reason was not leaving the beer on the yeast cake "for too long". People seem to have got the notion that over 10 days was too long, while accepting that you need time for the yeast to clear up their byproducts (diacetyl etc).

So it seemed to become accepted, unquestioned practice that you must rack to a secondary, especially for US brewers (could be wrong here, it's always seemed like an American thing to me).

Actually you can leave the beer in the primary FV for three weeks without problems.

 

[artyb]

i personally pitch the yeast then leave everthing untouched for 3 weeks...

the beer is as clear as a bell.. :thumb:

 

[jonnymorris]

...and there's more chance of sucking some of the trub up without using a secondary...

I rack to a bottling bucket after 3 weeks in primary in order to batch prime and bottle but I don't consider this to be 'secondary'.

 

[StevieDS]

I've always racked to secondary after a week cos I thought it was the "right" thing to do, this is the first that I've seen so many brewers say its unnecessary so I probably won't bother in future.

 

[RokDok]

...and there's more chance of sucking some of the trub up without using a secondary...

I rack to a bottling bucket after 3 weeks in primary in order to batch prime and bottle but I don't consider this to be 'secondary'.

Same here.

RD

 

[RobWalker]

fair! more the use of another vessel than a secondary for sure, but it does get referred to a lot in home brewing books...