Does a porter need a secondary

[Verde]

I have done several batches already using the 1-2-3 method and the results have been great. I'm doing a porter now (Brewers Best Robust Porter Kit) and was wondering since it is dark, is there any value in clarifying in a secondary.

 

[david_42]

Clarifying is the process of the suspended yeast, hop & grain particles dropping out. If you don't wait, you get heaps of crud in your bottles.

 

[Iordz]

Well, it's not so much clarification as it is conditioning, especially since it's a robust porter. Strong beers usually benefit from a little maturation time.

 

[olllllo]

Need- No.
Want- Resounding Yes.

 

[Jekster]

Question though. I've had my porter in primary for three weeks and am debating on whether to do a secondary or just bottle and wait. This is my Patience Porter which won't be opened till Christmas eve. I definitely have time, and can do either, but would secondary really give me any gains over a long bottle condition?

 

[Kayos]

Yup....get it off that original yeast cake and you will see within a few days a difference it will make....let alone a few weeks. More junk will fall out of sespension, making it taste cleaner/better.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

As a general rule, I leave all of my brews in secondary for a minimum of 2 weeks with the exception of wheats, which I leave in primary for 2 weeks or so then go straight to bottles.

 

[TheJadedDog]

Since you have time, I would definitely secondary, no reason not to. Personally I like to bulk age all my brews prior to conditioning; I find it helps bring out more of the malt profile.

 

[HuggerOrange]

I thought this was another one of those ongoing debates and that many people, including pros like John Palmer, don't really see any benefit to transfering an Ale to a secondary fermenter. I'm still relatively new to brewing and have only used a primary, but I let it sit for about three weeks before I bottle and I have to say so far, so good. I do want to try a secondary as point of comparison on one of my next brews.

 

[DeathBrewer]

gets it off the trub, mixes up the yeast and gets them into suspension, allows for a longer&cleaner conditioning period, racks much cleaner to the bottling bucket/keg

need a secondary...no, but there are some advantages.

whether they make an enormous difference is a subject to debate, but i believe it helps make a cleaner, clearer beer

 

[Iordz]

Jamil and John are big proponents of using only a primary. While they believe that most ales can be done with a primary fermentation, I bet they would agree that any big ale (barely wine, imperial stout, imperial IPA, wee heavy) can benifit from some bulk aging/conditioning.
I mainly use secondaries for clarity and aging.

 

[olllllo]

Jamil and John are big proponents of using only a primary. While they believe that most ales can be done with a primary fermentation, I bet they would agree that any big ale (barely wine, imperial stout, imperial IPA, wee heavy) can benifit from some bulk aging/conditioning.
I mainly use secondaries for clarity and aging.

Bear in mind that Jamil entered 20+ entries in the AHA and 16 placed. I believe that his primary only strategy is born out of the fact that he has a steady job at 3M and also brews a tremendous amount of beer.

He doesn't take the time to secondary because he just doesn't have it [the time].

I'm paraphrasing, but I know he's said as much on BN.