Is racking to secondary optional with a stout?

[MooDaddy]

Just made my second batch of chocolate stout 3 days ago and it is happily bubbling away in the primary. In my first brew many years ago which was also a chocolate stout, I simply left it in the primary for 4 weeks, transferred to bottling bucket, and then bottled it. I then left it in the bottles for another month or so and it was very good. Question: is there any big advantage to transferring the beer to a secondary, or am I ok to simply leave it in the primary until bottling day.

Also, I hear home brewers sometimes mention 'big' beers or 'small' beers. Are they referring to alcohol content or something else?

Much appreciated.

 

[slayer021175666]

Yes. alcohol content. You have to add more grist to acheive higher alcohol levels so, when someone says, "big beer" its in reference to the big amount of grain and higher alcohol.
As to the secondary thing, I never use a secondary. This is a matter of preference and opinion. If you want really clear beer, racking to a secondary is good because it leaves the trub in the bottom of the primary. Or, if you are of the opinion that beer needs to clarify or "clean up" by letting it sit longer. I am of the opinion that all ales (top fermenting beers) should be drank at the peak of freshness and there is no benefit to aging (lagering) an ale. Others will differ.

 

[D.B.Moody]

As to the secondary thing, I never use a secondary. This is a matter of preference and opinion. . . . Others will differ.

I agree with this, and I have done and do secondary fermentation, probably because that's the way I learned to do it too many years ago.

 

[Dovage]

I'd say it's optional with any style, but especially with a stout there's no need for clarity. I wouldn't do it personally.

 

[slayer021175666]

Yep. No need to clarify a stout. And just my own opinion but... No need to clarify any beer. Clear beers make me think along the lines of - fake, low value, cheap, fizzy, pee colored, throat burning, burpy, Budweizer, etc..

 

[Calder]

Unless you know why you are using a secondary, you shouldn't be using one.

 

[C38368]

When I first started, I racked to secondary. Haven't bothered with it for years, though, for a few reasons: one, it's a great way to oxygenate your beer, at a point in it's life where oxygen is a very bad thing. Two, it exposes your beer to to a potential new source of pathogens. Not that you will necessarily infect it with anything, but it's just one more chance for it to happen. Three, I never found it to be particularly useful in making my beer any clearer. I have much better luck with a Whirlfloc tablet, bazooka screen, and a lot of whole cone hops loose in the boil kettle to eliminate trub, and move my fermenter into place for transfer a couple of days before I actually do the transfer, to allow the yeast to settle back down.

I might consider using a secondary again at some point, but only after upgrading to allow for full pressure transfers under CO2, into a dedicated brite tank. So, probably never.

 

[D.B.Moody]

Unless you know why you are using a secondary, you shouldn't be using one.

And I should probably rethink my habit. I am a fan of keeping it simple.

I started that way in 1996 because Papazian (The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing) said he did it in case he didn't bottle within two weeks. The problem being avoided was yeast breakdown producing off flavor. Since I retired in 2006, it's not like have free time problems.

If I had ever had a problem with oxidation I might have rethought this before now. Thanks

 

[CJ-3]

With a stout you can skip secondary unless you need to age it for a longer period (with oak cubes for example).

 

[RM-MN]

And I should probably rethink my habit. I am a fan of keeping it simple.

I started that way in 1996 because Papazian (The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing) said he did it in case he didn't bottle within two weeks. The problem being avoided was yeast breakdown producing off flavor. Since I retired in 2006, it's not like have free time problems.

If I had ever had a problem with oxidation I might have rethought this before now. Thanks

Yeasts have changed quite a bit since 1996 and so has our understanding of yeast health. Papazian's information would have come from commercial brewers with huge conical vats for fermenting in. These collected big quantities of yeast that then would get too warm and lots of it would die and start to decay. Your little 5 or 10 gallon batch won't have that problem and your beer can stay in the fermenter for weeks without a problem.