Optional Secondary Ferment...What are the Benefits?

[beer4myhorses]

I got a brew kit that says that you ideally shoud do a secondary fermentation, but alternately you can just leave it in your primary vessel for an extra week or so. What are the benefits of the secondary? Clarification, getting it off the trub, etc? Should I get a carboy and do a secondary to produce a superior brew, or since I am relatively new, just primary for a longer period and then bottle?
Thanks!

[jm]

I got a brew kit that says that you ideally shoud do a secondary fermentation, but alternately you can just leave it in your primary vessel for an extra week or so. What are the benefits of the secondary? Clarification, getting it off the trub, etc? Should I get a carboy and do a secondary to produce a superior brew, or since I am relatively new, just primary for a longer period and then bottle?
Thanks!

If you pitched an appropriate amount of healthy yeast in a normal strength ale there is no need to transfer to a secondary fermentor. I think I heard/read that the advice originates from the dark ages of homebrewing when people were under pitching old/unhealthy yeast in which case getting the beer off the dead yeast was beneficial; nowadays not so much (unless you're still brewing like it's the 90s). While you're still trying to get the basics down don't sweat it and just leave in the primary for 2-3 weeks then bottle and enjoy.

[Bugeater]

jm has it right. For most beers you don't really need a secondary. For big beers (1.080+ OG) I will leave the beer in primary up to a month with no problems at all will off flavors. For those beers you need all the yeast you can get for it to finish. If you rack too soon, you can easily remove too much yeast and risk underattenuation.

I use a secondary fermenter (actually it is a bright tank the way we use them) mostly in two situations. The first is when I am going to add fruit, cocoa nibs or anything else messy or if I have a beer that is excessively cloudy. The second, and more common, reason is when I need the primary fermenter for another beer. When this is the case I do make sure to siphon a little of the yeast over to secondary to allow the yeast to clean up the unwanted esters that may remain. An extended primary will take care of that for you.

The only other time I would consider secondary would be if I had a beer that I was not going to be able to package (keg or bottle) for at least a month after fermentation is complete.. I would not risk going more than 6-7 weeks on the original yeast.

Wayne

[ajdelange]

I've been brewing for over 20 years and, to be honest, I don't even know with certainty what a secondary fermentation is so I guess, unless you would consider lagering in a vessel other than the fermenter into which you pitched the yeast originally a secondary ferementation, I would have to say I have never done it.

One sometimes sees "med gisting in fles" (spelling butchered I'm sure) on Belgian beer bottles which translates as "with fermentation in the bottle" which I guess is for conditioning so those beers would, I suppose, have been subjected to secondary fermentation as would, by extension of the same concept, wheat beers conditioned by the use of speise. As cask conditioned ales are put into the casks while they are still fermenting and so finish in the cellar at the pub I guess that would be secondary fermentation as well.

Bases on these examples it would seem the advantages are:
1. All the advantages of lagering
2. Conditioning.

[beer4myhorses]

Thanks everyone, for your valuable information. I will stay with a primary-only fermentation process, unless there are additions of special ingredients.