Secondary fermentation into multiple containers?

Just skip transferring for secondary. Leaving in primary until finished is fine in most cases.

You could do a secondary in multiple vessels- I do it all the time when I want to dry hop with different hop varieties or age on different wood, fruit, etc. but I wouldn't do it if it wasn't necessary.

 

There are no real benefits to doing a secondary.

Yes, I know that some people think there are benefits

 

If you are making a moderate gravity beer its best to just skip secondary

 

I agree with what everyone else is saying. You probably don't need to do secondary, and you probably shouldn't. Tell us what you are brewing and you'll get a more definitive answer, but for most beers, I would transfer from primary to a bottling bucket, and then proceed to bottling.

You do have all the equipment you'll need for bottling, right? If not, that's where I would spend my money -- bottling bucket, spring action bottling wand, racking tube and siphon tubing (or autosiphon if you prefer), crown sealer, etc.

 

It seems like you'd be tripling the surface area of beer exposed to oxygen, assuming you re-combine the beer in a bottling bucket. Count me among those that do not use a secondary vessel in most situations.

 

Do you suppose there are reasons why the retailers say to use a secondary in their ingredient kit instructions, given that homebrewers in the last 10 years or so have tended to avoid using secondaries?

Is it a entrepreneurial greed (sell everybody fermenters when one would do) or is there something that newbies (typical kit users) do that might make secondaries useful -- for example, pitch less yeast, exert less control on temps, might result in more off-flavors during fermentation that dissipate over time? Why did we ever end up with the idea that secondary was a good thing, as was professed in the literature I read when I first started?

 

I assume you don't brew lagers.

 

Extended primary followed by packaging and lagering in the package seems to work pretty well. There isn't really a need to move the beer into a secondary vessel and then, later, into a package, IME.

 

I view the kegs I lager in as the secondaries. Going into bottles and lagering there would be a secondary.

 

I am in agreement here, but this is not what the homebrew shops are selling/telling you to do if you buy an intro kit and an ingredient kit.

It was just one cynical idea. There may be something else going on. In any event, if you bought the extra fermenter, you probably won't regret it if you start brewing more, to the point where you need more fermenters, or start playing around with sours or fruit beers, which typically do want a secondary fermenter.

 

Old habits die hard. That advice has been around before I started brewing, and is probably a carryover from the little bits of industrial lager brewing (that is just about all people could find back in the 70s) practice found its way into the hobby.

 

From primary to keg. I agree that this can be viewed as a secondary, but the key is only one transfer vs. two with a "traditional" secondary.

 

I would not bother with a secondary for any of those beers.

 

Agree with others that these will do just fine without a secondary. But, don't short change them on conditioning. Here's a pretty good article on what's going on inside that fermenter:
https://www.morebeer.com/articles/conditioning

Also, when you do start secondary'ing, it's important to match the quantity of the brew to the vessel. That is, you want minimal headspace to prevent oxidation. A purged keg is ideal here, if no CO2 is available for purging you really want that carboy to be full to the neck. Welcome to the obession . . .

 

But then I bottle for competitions.

 

See that is where you made a mistake, you should never do that 2nd transfer, just enter the whole keg in the competition

 

Someday I will go to Blood and Sweat. A keg only competition.