[quote=“Pietro”]yeah, I wholly disagree with any perceived benefit of/need for a secondary. Just about every authority on homebrewing (Jamil, Tasty, Mosher, Palmer, etc.) has came out saying that they literally do nothing, and furthermore, the risks of oxidation, infection from transferring (while you can minimize them) far outweigh any potential benefit that could just as easily be achieved in one vessel.
This was done and did have some benefit in the earlier days of homebrewing (post Carter-legalization) because yeasts were not as stable, and there was risk of autolysis, when yeast cells actually die (as opposed to going dormant), and break down, allowing all the organic material to be released into the beer. This could produce meaty, rotten flavors that would ruin an entire batch. I had an APA place in a comp that was on the yeast for 10 weeks. It seems that most kit-makers just haven’t updated their instructions.
I think there are dozens of other ways beginners could improve their process and make cleaner tasting beer.[/quote]
But, on a bright note . . . . it is not “wasted” equipment. You can use it for another fermenter possibly (not sure what you have for fermenters - buckets, carboys, size, etc.) Also, some beers that need more age still need a secondary.
However, I agree, there is very little “evidence” that on average beers, secondary is needed. I just go with 3-4 week primary and keg or bottle. My beers end up crystal clear for the most part (unless it is a style that tends to be more cloudy).
To start with, I would just primary - because it is easiest and will help you get started with less to worry about. Once you get into it a little more, go ahead and try secondary a few times and see what you think. If you feel you get something out of it that is worth the extra step, then keep at it.