Secondary a blue moon clone?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ArizonaGoalie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
412
Reaction score
301
Location
San Diego
I'm a little old school - I secondary most beers. However, I stopped putting my hazy IPAs in secondary altogether.

Now, I've got a blue moon clone that's 2 weeks primary. I've brewed this many times with good results. Always move to a secondary after 2 weeks in primary. However, is this old school thinking? Is this necessary?

I realize there are brews that need secondary still. But is a hazy wheat beer one of them?

Thanks in advance. I just recently started using electricity in my home, so I'm obviously behind the times.

(kidding, of course :) )
 
Secondaries are for clearing and aging off the cake (autolysis, which doesn't really happen anymore). Clearing is nemesis to a Hazy (as if Hazy is real beer), so why secondary a Hazy?
 
You'll never know until you try.

I've gone six weeks in the primary fermenter which was 5 weeks after it finished fermenting and had a really good tasting and clean beer.

Do you need some up to date thinking on dry yeast vs liquid?

Though before all the pro-liquid yeast people come out from everywhere, let me say I don't have any objection if you prefer liquid yeast because you enjoy messing with it. I don't enjoy messing with it.

Nor do I want the bother of storing and reviving liquid yeast. Direct pitching dry yeast in un-aerated wort just makes things simpler for me.
 
You'll never know until you try.

I've gone six weeks in the primary fermenter which was 5 weeks after it finished fermenting and had a really good tasting and clean beer.

Do you need some up to date thinking on dry yeast vs liquid?

Though before all the pro-liquid yeast people come out from everywhere, let me say I don't have any objection if you prefer liquid yeast because you enjoy messing with it. I don't enjoy messing with it.

Nor do I want the bother of storing and reviving liquid yeast. Direct pitching dry yeast in un-aerated wort just makes things simpler for me.

I always use Safale US-05 dry yeast for my blue moon clone. Turns out great.
 
You'll never know until you try.

I've gone six weeks in the primary fermenter which was 5 weeks after it finished fermenting and had a really good tasting and clean beer.

Do you need some up to date thinking on dry yeast vs liquid?

Though before all the pro-liquid yeast people come out from everywhere, let me say I don't have any objection if you prefer liquid yeast because you enjoy messing with it. I don't enjoy messing with it.

Nor do I want the bother of storing and reviving liquid yeast. Direct pitching dry yeast in un-aerated wort just makes things simpler for me.
The only way to know for sure if you're trading quality for lazy is to split a batch and try both types of yeast. Taste them blind and then you'll know. Maybe liquid is worse. Maybe it's better. Maybe if it's better, it's not better enough to justify for you.
 
No need for secondary with a beer like that. I've brewed a BM clone several times with both US-05 for a true Blue Moon clone as well as with WLP400 for a Belgian twist and they've always come out great.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top