Is secondary fermentation necessary? I’ve been reading that some say your beer will be just as clear without one. I’m going to dry-hop this beer too and not sure if that was a factor either.
I added a whirlfloc tablet to my boil so that should help keep it clear too.
I’m in the camp that does not use a secondary and believe that it does little for clarity in the packaged beer, but I would rack if dry hopping. I think the hoppy characteristics were muted when I used to dry hop in “primary.”. Now that I keg, I rack to the keg before dry hopping.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
I would agree, adding dry hops is one of the still-valid reasons for using a secondary. I do like kdbeersnob and dry hop in the keg, but if you plan to bottle you want to give the beer time to allow the hops to settle out first in the secondary container.
Dry hopping in the keg sounds good and would love to try it but I hear if you leave hops in too long, it give off a grassy smell,taste…thoughts on that?
P.S. I already took your advice and put the beer in the secondary.
I’ve never experienced grassiness from dry hops. I suspect that is something that might only happen with poor quality hops, or certain varieties.
There are a handful of ways to dry hop in kegs and be able to separate them from the beer when you want to. I use one of these: http://www.stainlessbrewing.com/Dry-Hop … p_155.html
Another way is to put a stainless braid over the intake end of the liquid dip tube, then push the beer to another sanitized keg when done dry hopping.
I have only left hops in the keg for an extended period once and I felt like it tasted more grassy than normal. I was surprised, because I heard several guys say they don’t have that problem. This was also a recipe that I’ve made a few times, so I know what “normal” tastes like.
