# Lagering



## Stuster (17/5/07)

I was hoping somebody could direct me to some technical articles on the effects of lagering. I know the reasons often given for lagering, but I'm fairly unimpressed by the rationale given by anything I've managed to turn up so far. For example, Palmer  just says



> A common question is, "If the beer will lager faster at higher temperatures, why would anyone lager at the low temperature?" Two reasons: first, in the days before refrigeration when lager beers were developed, icehouses were the common storage method - it's tradition. Second, the colder lagering temperatures *seem to* produce a smoother beer than warmer temperatures. This would *seem to be * due to the additional precipitation and settling of extraneous proteins (like chill haze) and tannins that occur at lower temperatures.


 My emphasis.

And from BYO 



> For the homebrewer there are three goals of the lagering process:
> 1.To allow yeast, haze-forming proteins, and any other suspended materials to drop out of the beer.
> 2.To improve and mellow the flavor of the beer.
> 3.To carbonate the beer.



Well, materials will drop out with time, cold or not. Carbonation will happen, cold or not. The only thing is it 'seems to' mellow the flavour. I'd like to know why (if h34r: ) this is happening. Any references would be much appreciated. Also, if anybody has done an experiment to split a batch and lager half/not lager the other half, that'd be very interesting too.


----------



## WildaYeast (17/5/07)

Hi Stuster,

I have a copy of Dave Miller's _Homebrewing Guide_. Was the first book I picked up -- it was out on a sale table. Not a beginning book, but has been a good reference.

Chapter 21, "Maturation and Lagering" is all of 3.5 pages. A few selected quotes below:

_______________________

Maturation is the time between active fermentation and filtration, or, in the case of unfiltered beers, consuption, during which the beer looses its "green beer" character and reaches its best flavor. Maturation is due mainly to two factors: first, the slow working of the yeast, reabsorbing and metablolizing by-products such as acetaldehyde and diacetyl that were excreted earlier; and second, the floculation and dorpout of suspeneded yeast cells, so tha the beer loses its yeasty taint and the flavor of malt and hops comes through.
...
The traditional method of maturing a lager beer is to lower the temperature slowly over a period of about a week, from primary fermentation temperature to around 32 F. This procedure gives the lager yeast time to adapt gradually to the lower temperatures and slowly continue to work.
...
The lager periods recommended here depend on using the modern fermentation methods described int he previous chapter, specifically, a primary fermentation temperature of 50 to 55 F, and, if required, a diacetyl rest at the end of primary fermentation. If you follow the old lager brewing practices of fermenting very cold (42 to 46 F), with no diacetyl rest, then you may have to lager the beer for months to bring down the "green beer" flavour notes.
...
Some American lager breweries do not find it necessary to go through a cold lagering. They alllow the secondary fermentation to go on at primary fermentation temperature, and crash coll the beer only 24 to 48 hours before filtration. This procedure saves energy costs and can produce excellent, fully mature beers in less time than the traditional method, but requires a cooperative strain of yeast in order to get good dropout and avoid autolysis. If, like most homebrewers, you work mainly with the European lager yeast strains, you will get better (if slower) results using the modern German method of lagering.

_______________________

So, sounds like you don't have to do it, IF you've got the right yeast... Basically, there are good reasons for tradition -- that's what worked to get rid of the "green beer" taste -- but there is also more than one way to skin a cat.

Cheers, Brian


----------



## Stuster (17/5/07)

Well, very interesting stuff. If the modern American mega-breweries do it, I am sold. I know their product is not the most wonderful drink (I'm not going to use the word beer), but they do produce a substance that is almost entirely devoid of flavour. If there were any off notes there, they would stand out a mile.

Also, the reasons given for lagering given do not convince me entirely.

Autolysis does not seem to happen very much at the homebrew level.
The yeast etc will drop out given time.
It was my understanding that the diacetyl rest was to clean up diacetyl, rather than the lagering process itself. Also, since the yeast work at their optimal level at around 10C, why would they work better at clean up after themselves at 2C? Not saying it's not possible, it's just that I've never seen an explanation for this, other than 'it's tradition'.

Anyway, thanks for posting that, Brian.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (17/5/07)

As far as traditional lager brewing goes, Noonan's 'New Brewing Lager Beer' has it all, if you want to know how and why. A bit technical, but very explanatory.


----------



## Stuster (17/5/07)

I understand the how, Dr G. Just wanted to have some info on the how online (to avoid buying the book I guess). 

Edit: I was also interested in this as I know that there are brewers who have won prizes for lagers (me included) that were not lagered (wonder what to call them exactly). It appears that the judges were not able to notice any glaring faults in these beers, and I guess I was hoping somebody had either some knowledge on this they could share, or even better somebody had done a side-by-side test to see what difference it made.

Ah, for anybody who is interested  I found this in a post by John Palmer on the Brewboard.



> Guys, I feel your pain, I have asked the same questions to the yeast experts at Lallemand, Wyeast, and Whitelabs.
> 
> How does lagering differ from cold conditioning?
> a. Not very much.
> ...



From this, I struggle to find any reason to lager.


----------



## jayse (18/5/07)

Even the noonan book doesn't go into that greater detail on whats actually happening other than whats already been mentioned in this thread. He sums up pretty much all those basics which have been posted here in a few paragraphs plus a bit more and then goes into a few pages on the 'how' you should do it etc, but as far as the 'why' and whats happening he doesn't really give a hell of a lot of the extra information your looking for.

I do remember a brewing network show with some guy from the gordon burch brewery or whatever its called discusing a few more aspects, I don't really remember it much but have vague memories of him talking about a lot of the other benefits of lagering from such things as improved foam formation and retention and a few other aspects outside of the more commonly known ones.

Maybe check it out if your interested and can track the show in question down.


----------



## DJR (18/5/07)

Stuster, that beer you brought to the last brew day - the Community Ale with 1007 - i was thinking about the taste of that afterwards and remembered that you don't CC your beers at all. It was bright, clean and with no obvious off-flavours. Doesn't really match up with what you read about that yeast - that it needs CC'ing to get clear/condition the flavour. 

I guess lager process is somewhat the same - if you have a dusty/nonflocculent yeast it will help it clear, but maybe that's a commercial requirement since trying to filter 40,000 hL of cloudy beer through kieselguhr might cause some major wastage?

I hear that Barry doesn't lager his lagers, and he wins so many competition medals he probably has about 10 fireplaces installed, so he can have enough mantelpieces!


----------



## Guest Lurker (18/5/07)

Kunze devotes all of half a page to lagering, makes no mention of yeast metabolic processes, suggests that the point of lagering at 0 to 1 degrees is to encourage precipitation of yeast and cold break particles.


----------



## deadly (18/5/07)

So are we suggesting the no lager method for lagers?


----------



## discoloop (18/5/07)

So stuster, do you just ferment, bottle (or keg), carbonate and drink? 

My first lager is currently in the bottle carbonating now. When they're all carbed up I was going to chuck a few bottles in the fridge for a month or so, then compare to the ones that were left at room tem. Sounds like a worthwhile experiment, now!


----------



## Ross (18/5/07)

I've posted this a few times in the past, that i've found no benefit in the traditional method of lagering. However long I've left the beer in a secondary cube (up to 4 months), once I've kegged & carbonated it, it's still taken another few weeks to come good. I now crash chill for 24 hours after doing the diaceytl rest, filter direct from the fermenter into the keg & carbonate. The beer can be good from day 1 but generally needs 2 to 4 weeks before reaching it's peak. I just did a Schwarzbier this way - 2 weeks in the fermenter, & kegged for 3 weeks before entering our clubs dark beer competetion - It got 1st place with a perfect score - not bad for a lager that for most wouldn't have even reached the kegging stage.  

Cheers Ross


----------



## deadly (18/5/07)

Would carbonating then lagering be better than lagering in 2ndry then?


----------



## razz (18/5/07)

That's what I generally do deadly. I chill the beer in the fermenter to get the yeast to drop out and then keg, carb and leave in the keg freezer to condition/lager.


----------



## DJR (18/5/07)

Hmm so now we have, courtesy of AHB

No chill method
No sparge method (BIAB)
No lager method

That's a pretty good list of brewing techniques busted and broken...

My lagers do taste better after a month or so in the fridge, but i put them in the fridge pretty much the day they reach terminal gravity after the diacetyl rest. Perhaps i might be better off leaving for a week, then CCing to drop the yeast, then bottle.


----------



## Stuster (18/5/07)

I don't have any method of lagering, but I can keep the ferment at the right temps for lagers during the winter. I made a couple last year which were ok to my tastes and was considering whether to bother doing some lagers again this winter. On doing some reading I was struck by the complete lack of detail when having a look for some info on lagering. It's very interesting that supposedly pedantic books like Noonan have little/no info on it either.

Ross' experience is really great to hear. All this suggests to me that lagers do need a fair amount of post-fermentation conditioning (makes sense that you'd need this to get a smooth tasting beer), but nothing I've seen so far has actually given a reason (other than yeast settling) why this shouldn't happen at warmer conditions than lagering temps. Lager yeast will be more active and less stressed at 10C than at 2C.

It certainly seems worthy of an experiment anyway. discoloop, sounds like one good way to test it. I'll have to try the same thing. One thing that may bias this experiment is carbonation level. You'd need to put the non-lagered bottle into the fridge a couple of days before the experiment so there is no difference between the carbonation levels of the two beers (they might be different if the bottle's only been in the fridge for a few hours say). Anybody willing to do a split batch experiment to test it out?

Pat, eat your heart out.  



D'oh, think I'm still a thousand words short. :lol:


----------



## deadly (18/5/07)

I've got 1 cube lager from 12/06 at 1 lagering
1 cube lager from 02/07 at 12 cold condition cellering 
and 1 cube lager at room temp in 2ndry all were fermented at 12
In the fermenter from yesterday is Ashers GT Rice lager maybe I could split that?


----------



## Stuster (18/5/07)

Well, if you did, you could have a method named after you. :lol:


----------



## devo (18/5/07)

i find that my lagers responded much better through extended kegging and conditioning(min 4 weeks) rather than secondary fermenting. Eitherway I still let it sit in the secondary for b/w 8- 10 days before kegging.


----------



## tangent (18/5/07)

I've found 2 weeks in the keg (little or no pressure) beats 2 weeks in a cube. i don't know why, but stainless steel and cold is beer goggles for beer. rack or filter out of the stainless after 2-4 weeks and the difference is astounding compared with a cube in the fridge. maybe it's just the curved arse concentrating the yeast?


----------



## oldbugman (18/5/07)

Stu,

Who needs an earth!

Wire it up big fella!


----------



## PostModern (18/5/07)

Stuster said:


> Well, if you did, you could have a method named after you. :lol:



The "deadly" No Lager Method... yeah, I can see that catching on


----------



## /// (18/5/07)

PostModern said:


> The "deadly" No Lager Method... yeah, I can see that catching on



Or no Larger Method.

Since the economists came to town, who dared lager at more than -1 c for 4 days then filter the crap (it is lager after all) ? Not many majors would do any different it would seem!


----------



## Weizguy (18/5/07)

I just checked my copy of Brewing Science and Practice (2004), and there is significant info re maturation/lagering, including a bit about yeast metabolites and temperature. In fact, and entire chapter, Chapter 15 

I found the book as a free download on the web. It's about 850 pages in size.

An excerpt states:

Beer changes or treatments after primary fermentation but before
packaging therefore comprise:
maturation; flavour and aroma changes
stabilization against non-biological haze
carbonation
biological stabilization (pasteurization or sterile filtration, Chapter 21)
clarification and filtration.

and another:

Several important groups of compounds have been identified as changing during the
maturation of beer with consequent positive effect on beer flavour. The most important
are: diketones (especially diacetyl), sulphur compounds, aldehydes, and volatile fatty
acids.

Try to find the book and you'll see that there is a yeast effect on flavour profile during extended lagering.

Seth


----------



## sstacey (18/5/07)

This is an interesting post because I have just been reading through university brewing textbooks (also used as commercial brewing textbooks) to find out what chemical changes take place in the beer during lagering. All the textbooks are very brief on the subject. More importantly, a number of mass produced lagers are run through a filter-like system that contains yeast, the idea being that the yeast rapidly cleans the beer of diacetyl precursers, negating the need for a long lagering process. 

If I do a diacetyl rest and the sulphur has also gone then I tend to agree that the majority of work has been done and the beer should be pretty drinkable.

I have not found any authoritive text that really explains the biochemical changes during lagering, but I think these are the main issues.


----------



## sstacey (20/5/07)

I filtered my no lager lager yesterday, kegged it and it tastes fantastic.
To be fair it's a dark lager so it could hide off flavours.
Fermented at 12C, diacetyl rest at 17C, chilled for 1 week while I fined the beer.
Filtered, kegged, tastes really smooth. :beer: 

I don't know how a pils would go but from now on I won't be lagering my dark lagers for any length of time.
This means it can be an everyday beer because I don't have to tie up fermenters and fridge space.


----------



## Stuster (20/5/07)

Wow! That's fantastic! Sounds like a huge difference in time, effort and fridge space.  :super: 

What yeast was that with?


----------



## sstacey (21/5/07)

Saflager 34/70

It will be interesting to know how a light lager goes. 
I am really happy with how clean this beer tastes. I did let it attenuate very well. I think this is important for brewing lagers, particularly to clean up diacetyl.


----------



## Darren (23/5/07)

I suspect all that "lagering" does is allow the brewer to make a clearer beer.

Thats it!


----------



## Stuster (23/5/07)

That was my suspicion, Darren. 

Les, those are important changes that happen during maturation, but how are those changes affected by temperature? The time lagering is maturation time, though that could be done quicker at higher temperatures I'd have thought, since 10C or so is the yeast's optimum temperature for activity. :unsure:


----------



## DJR (23/5/07)

Next lager i do (a Boh Pils) is going to get the following process to test out the "no/reduced lager time" theory

Ferment at 8-10C with a large starter for 7 days or until gravity reaches 1020 (target FG 1015)
Get out of the fridge to allow a d-rest at ambient temp (about 18C atm) for 4 days
Rack after the 4 days (add a bit of sugar for headspace protection) to a secondary and leave for 1 to 2 weeks at ambient temp
Lager in the fridge for a week or two after that

Total process time about 3.5 to 4 weeks

Hopefully the end result should be as good as the last lager i did which was lagered just after the d-rest for 3 months, but i'll be able to tell once it's lagering whether it needs longer still. If i save even 1 month of the lagering time then it's worth it.


----------



## neonmeate (23/5/07)

this is interesting stuff.
i am no biochemist and i haven't brewed a lager for the last year since stuster came and took my brewfridge, but i have REALLY noticed the difference between beers i have lagered longer vs beers that have had brief lagerings but matured in bottle at room temp. this has been most pronounced with some of the czech yeasts like WLP800 and 802 that had big diacetyl and sulfur contents. the 34/70 didnt seem to need lagering at all but i find this yeast produces pretty safe, shallow beers.

i certainly notice the difference between australian microbrew pilseners that are full of esters, DMS, diacetyl and hop resins, vs traditionally brewed czech/german pilseners (i'm talking the good ones) that are lagered for 3 months+. they're chalk and cheese. i always assumed it was the lagering time, perhaps it is just the initial fermentation that is carefully looked after.


----------



## DJR (24/5/07)

I've looked into some of the Czech brewing practices and i found some interesting things

- german brewers use a yeast that doesn't flocculate well until about 0C, so lagering at around 0C still means you have active yeast
- Czech brewers use yeast that flocculates below about 3 or 4C, lagering at around 0C has inactive yeast because it's flocculated (crashing yeast) which leads to the residual sweetness in Czech lagers
- The Czechs seem to control diacetyl by krausening with fresh wort just before lagering - but judging by Budvar/PU's palate, they want a bit of residual diacetyl

Now if the yeast has flocculated at 0C and then lagered for 3 months, there is going to be no/very little diacetyl takeup, which is why they get the buttery flavour, but the cleanup process - getting rid of sulphur etc - is going to be very slow with flocculated yeast, as well as the takeup of sugars, some of which are left over after the end of a Czech lager fermentation/maturation.

All it does is lead me to believe that if the yeast have an effect on the "cleanliness" of the beer then we might as well leave them in suspension at ferment/d-rest temp till they're done and the beer tastes non-sulfury and fairly clean, then crash cool it to get the yeast and tannins/polyphenols before bottling.


----------



## facter (24/5/07)

Les the Weizguy said:


> I just checked my copy of Brewing Science and Practice (2004), and there is significant info re maturation/lagering, including a bit about yeast metabolites and temperature. In fact, and entire chapter, Chapter 15
> 
> I found the book as a free download on the web. It's about 850 pages in size.
> 
> ...




free download seth? Can you post it or a link to it?


----------



## Stuster (24/5/07)

Here you go.


----------



## facter (24/5/07)

thats awesome, thanks... another ebook for my collection ..im pushing over 100 different books and files now hehe

<3 ebooks


----------



## hopmonkey (24/5/07)

I have a few thoughts, from a chemical side of things.
Yeasts produce hydrogen sulfide as a byproduct of fermentation, lager yeasts more than ale.
In a normal ferment the yeast will rework this h2s and reduce it somewhat but most of it is reduced by evolving co2.
In a cool lager ferment the yeast action is slower, than ale, so there isnt the massive amount of krausen and c02 evolved, therefore more h2s in solution.
So how to get it out?
The solubilty of h2s is lower at lower temps, so cool it down and hey presto it starts to come out of solution.

Perhaps our yeasts are much better these days at minimising initial h2s production than of 10-20 years ago, much like our malts are more highly modified, and this is why we are seeing cleaner non lagered beers? It maybe even asomething to do with the malts?
Perhaps soon we will have a 'lager' yeast that fast ferments at room temp and produces clean beer as fast an easy as an ale? Hope so!


----------



## Stuster (24/5/07)

Well, according to Brewing Science and Practice that Les mentioned



> Generally, undesirable concentrations of hydrogen sulphide are reduced during cold storage times of 5-7 days.



So for H2S, a week of lagering should be fine. But they also say it might depend on the presence of DMS. This can be reduced by a long, strong boil. How much is present will depend on the malts, with Australian malts having much lower concentrations of the precursors to DMS (SMM). So, it seems to me that you are right, that the malts we have will lead to less sulphide production. They also suggest that strong fermentations might purge hydrogen sulphide from the beer due to the vigorous production of CO2. (All that on pp.562-3).

The book mentions three other changes during maturation. Diketones (diacetyl and others), aldehydes (acetaldehyde and others), and volatile fatty acids. Diacetyl is removed by a rest at a higher temperature. Aldehydes are mainly to do with oxidation from poor transfer techniques. Volatile fatty acids they say that 



> Maturation is seldom controlled specifically from the viewpoint of controlling volatile fatty acids.



So, I can't see any reference in this to ways in which cold temperatures might be important to the maturation of the beer. What is mentioned is that the beer is often chilled to settle out the yeast, and to clear haze. This is very important to commercial breweries to give long shelf life in any conditions. They also say that for commercial breweries they can



> At least one successful system comprises: fermenter filling 20 hours, primary fermentation 72 hours, warm storage 48 hours, cooling 48 hours, cold storage at 1 C (30 F) 36 to 48 hours. Total time is less than ten days.



I can't find any more information on lagering mentioned in the 863 pages.

Wow. I've had a PP moment. Time for a beer. :chug:


----------



## matti (25/5/07)

Thanks Stuster and everyone for this thread.

I have not got a fancy filtering system and will continue to lager my lagers.



> - The Czechs seem to control diacetyl by krausening with fresh wort just before lagering - but judging by Budvar/PU's palate, they want a bit of residual diacetyl



I tried this and got a very close profile to Chech pilsner but I prefer German lagers which are generally lagers for some time and the 

I believe the aussie lagers are all crashed and filtered and when drank at very cold temps are fairly tasteless but easily drunk.

But the megas swill have caught on and efforts are made to improve palates.


----------



## redbeard (25/5/07)

I was listening to a pope podcast recently (aka jamil) & he mentioned that he pitches yeast cold into a cold wort, then lets it warm up to ideal lager yeast temp (10'?) and then waits 3 or 4 weeks before kegging / bottling. He thinks this way avoids the diacetyl rest and allows a full ferment. I cant remember if he cc's after or just kegs it. I think it was on the show about bocks.

mm might have to try the no-lagering lager for empircal science reasons


----------



## milpod (25/5/07)

The Germans are rarely wrong


----------



## redbeard (25/5/07)

milpod said:


> The Germans are rarely wrong




Poland ?





:unsure:


----------



## Stuster (25/5/07)

redbeard said:


> Poland ?
> sorry ...


----------



## Darren (25/5/07)

Maybe Whistling Jack (is that his name, Day at the VLB??) could post on this?

cheers

Darren


----------



## goatherder (25/5/07)

redbeard said:


> Poland ?
> :unsure:




Poland was probably OK. Moscow? :unsure:


----------



## The King of Spain (25/5/07)

> I've posted this a few times in the past, that i've found no benefit in the traditional method of lagering. However long I've left the beer in a secondary cube (up to 4 months), once I've kegged & carbonated it, it's still taken another few weeks to come good. I now crash chill for 24 hours after doing the diaceytl rest, filter direct from the fermenter into the keg & carbonate. The beer can be good from day 1 but generally needs 2 to 4 weeks before reaching it's peak.



This has probably been the best tip Ross has given me. I can get a brew down every week in a catch up phase with my ales with the crash chill. I don't keg, but they are all very drinkable as soon as carbed.


----------



## PistolPatch (30/5/07)

SPS said:


> I filtered my no lager lager yesterday, kegged it and it tastes fantastic.
> To be fair it's a dark lager so it could hide off flavours.
> Fermented at 12C, diacetyl rest at 17C, chilled for 1 week while I fined the beer.
> Filtered, kegged, tastes really smooth. :beer:
> ...



Stuster asked me to check this thread out a week or so ago. Sorry it's taken so long but more importantly, congratulations on your 2000th post :beerbang: Great to see you've done a few long ones here - lol!

I've quoted SPS above because of the following...

The first AG I ever did was Ross's Schwartzbier brewed while Ross and I drank about twenty different types of beer! As I didn't have any way of fermenting at 10 degrees, I used US-56 for this 'lager.' Ten days later we had a crack at it and it was excellent. Ross then went on to use US-56 for his Schwartz. (Are you still doing that Rossco?) Any difference between the one brewed with a lager yeast and the ale yeast were either unnoticeable or probably due to slight differences in mashing or ferment temps. There certainly weren't any real negatives.

So we have the no lager, no lager yeast lager!

Full of confidence and foolishness, I then went on to do 3 'Bohemian Pilseners'* in a row using US-56. These were crap and I basically took them down to a building site to get my mates to drink the buggers and free up my kegs. They had pretty much like a kit twang to them. A little bit of the last keg though ended up being in my fridge 'lagering' at 2 degrees for, from memory, about 8 weeks. Bugger me, if the two or three glasses I ended up having from that weren't too bad. I remember being quite annoyed though that I had given the rest away.

The lesson though for me, is that you can do at least a very dark 'lager' with not only no lager but no lager yeast. With the light lager though, using a lager yeast, would have been faster in the long run.

I've never noticed much improvement in the very few lagers I've done over time in lagering. These have all been very low IBU lagers and I have found them all pretty uninteresting. (One I remember** was actually undrinkable if you had a stronger beer prior to it.) I was hoping they'd get more interesting over time but they didn't! Probably slightly smoother if anything but nothing worth the wait.

Ross mentioned about carbonating before lagering. When Matilda Bay first started, all lagers were kegged and carbonated before going into the lager cold-room. I'm not sure if this is standard practice in the craft breweries or not. Makes sense to me though. The ones of Ross's I've had were more complex lagers or pilseners than the ones I've had a crack at. I remember having many of these when very young (even as little as two weeks from pitching I think) and they were all bloody nice!

Sorry Stuster, I thought this post was going to be a short one. I'm slowly realising that I live in a world of self-delusion  

Congrats again,
Pat

*OMG! I just remembered that the first of these was one of the two stubbies I put in my first swap - lol! Worse still, it was flat by the time it went from the keg to the bottle!

** OMG again! That was my last swap beer!!!


----------



## enoch (31/5/07)

Had missed this thread until now - has almost convinced me to try a lager again.
I haven't had particularly worthwhile results with the few I have done among the squillion AG ales and stouts. 
I have a separate brewing frdige now so might give it a crack.
Enoch


----------



## Trough Lolly (31/5/07)

G'day all, interesting thread!
There are a number of reasons why lagering will have a positive effect on the final product - several of them have already been mentioned. We need to also bear in mind the properties of the wort that's being fermented and it's impact on the yeast strain in use. 
//Enter geek mode\\  
Wort has a number of sugars present (including fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, maltotriose and some others that skip my memory right now - too many APA's!!) and each of those sugars have a different rate of uptake by the yeast you innoculate into the wort to do the attenuation / fermenting. Do you recall reading in brewing books statements that effectively suggested that yeast are lazy and convert the easy sugars first and then go for the more difficult / dextrinous ones later? Well that's sort of right but more correctly the basic monosaccharides such as sucrose are "passively" consumed by the yeast cells - How? Well, the simple sugars are hydrolised outside the yeast cells and the hydrolised product then passes through the yeast cell walls. As for the more complex sugars such as maltose and maltotriose, they require energy in order for the yeast cells to consume these sugars since they freely pass through the yeast cell membrane and so the cell has to use energy to do the job of hydrolising these sugars.
Ale and Lager strains have different rates of uptake in relation to these sugars. It's also worth noting that the ability of brewers yeast to consume maltose and maltotriose is retarded when you have relatively high levels of sucrose in the wort. The genes that work on the maltose and maltotriose sugars are effectively retarded until the sucrose levels are substantially reduced - but I'm no geneticist so I'll leave that topic for others to discuss in detail!! Suffice it to say that you should avoid tipping buckets of table sugar in your wort in order to increase gravity - use malt instead!
//Geek mode ends\\ 

Pitching a good sized and healthy lager yeast starter is obviously a good idea and in many cases the lager yeast will do the job at a relatively rapid clip. That doesn't mean that lagering is not necessary, it just means that the work that you would normally expect to occur during an extended lagering phase, has already occurred!
Anyway, my glass is empty! Feck! Time for a topup - apologies for the ramble!

Cheers,
TL


----------



## matti (31/5/07)

Hurray for Throgh Lolly's come back.
Sorry if busy writing tonight.

But as an enthusiast to learn more about the benefit of lagering, and to give the Germans more credit in thinking logical about whole prospect of what yeast are able to do.
Here is the difference in crash chilling and taker the yeast out of the equation at an early stage versus allowing the yeast to give the beer its alternative character.

To conclude my argument is simply this.

If youDrink like a German or drink like and aussie you still will get drunk.

Cheer for the info :beer:


----------



## Malnourished (9/6/07)

Sorry for getting in on this thread so late, but I figure it's interesting stuff so worth bringing back up.

Anyway I know it's an obvious thing to say, but it doesn't appear to have been made explicit thus far. 

It seems like the point of lagering is that you get the benefits of yeast activity (reducing diacetyl, sulfur, esters) and colder temperatures (precipitating proteins, tannins, sulfurous compounds) without the problems associated with storing beer at warmer temperatures (formation of diacetyl, oxidation of fusels and lipids.) 

In some ways the need for proper lagering should be greater on a homebrew scale because the relatively small batch sizes should logically lead to greater proportional amounts of oxygen in contact with the beer. Of course the flip-side is that homebrewers don't necessarily have distribution, stability, etc. concerns that commercial breweries do.

The big unknown here is the relative rates of all of these reactions. Obviously yeast activity is going to be severely reduced at the lower temperatures and so will oxidation. I would (wildly) guess that it's some kind of exponential curve with the oxidation, whereas the yeast will eventually have the same effect at colder temperatures as long as you leave it long enough. 

So I think the moral of the story is that if you "warm-condition" a lager you'll get equal benefit from the yeast activity, but you provide greater potential for oxidation products. 

I guess it's up to the brewer to determine whether they think such a thing would have a significant enough impact on the finished product to justify the effort of extended lagering. 

And I agree that Noonan assumes that the need for lagering is obvious and doesn't bother to really explain why it's necessary, but he does provide some of the details for you to fill in the blanks.


----------



## Stuster (9/6/07)

Thanks for bringing this thread back from the dead, mal. Interesting points. 



Malnourished said:


> It seems like the point of lagering is that you get the benefits of yeast activity (reducing diacetyl, sulfur, esters) and colder temperatures (precipitating proteins, tannins, sulfurous compounds) without the problems associated with storing beer at warmer temperatures (formation of diacetyl, oxidation of fusels and lipids.)



I thought that warmer temperatures were used to reduce diacetyl, ie in the diacetyl rest. :unsure: 

Is there any reason why there would be fusels in a beer fermented at 8-10C? Even if there were fusels present, why would they be oxidised more if they are produced by a lager yeast than if they are produced by an ale yeast?



Malnourished said:


> The big unknown here is the relative rates of all of these reactions. Obviously yeast activity is going to be severely reduced at the lower temperatures and so will oxidation. I would (wildly) guess that it's some kind of exponential curve with the oxidation, whereas the yeast will eventually have the same effect at colder temperatures as long as you leave it long enough.
> 
> So I think the moral of the story is that if you "warm-condition" a lager you'll get equal benefit from the yeast activity, but you provide greater potential for oxidation products.



According to this which is admittedly about a totally different fluid, oxidation doubles with every 10C rise in temperature. So if you lagered it 10C higher, but for a quarter the time, there may be less oxidation. :unsure: 

Anyway, practical experience counts for a lot in my book, and there are many people who are saying that longer lager times seem to give them better beers. My suspicion is that longer time conditioning without the need for colder temperatures may give similar benefits, but that's simply a guess and I'm just trying to explore the issue. I'm current doing some lagers that won't be lagered so I'll see how they come out and try to get some unbiased feedback so I should be able to give one data point by spring.


----------



## Malnourished (9/6/07)

Stuster said:


> I thought that warmer temperatures were used to reduce diacetyl, ie in the diacetyl rest. :unsure:


Warmer temperatures are used to *accelerate* diacetyl reduction by yeast. Old school lager fermentation didn't employ a diacetyl rest, they just fermented and lagered for a long time (see the Pilsner book for details - don't have my copy handy.) 

As long as (if?) there is alpha acetolactate in the beer, oxidation will produce diacetyl.

So loooong slow cold fermentation should theoretically result in less diacetyl because you - eventually - get the same reduction from the yeast activity and you produce less in the process (assuming you get less oxidation with long, cold lagering than short, warm "lagering" - see below.)


Stuster said:


> Is there any reason why there would be fusels in a beer fermented at 8-10C? Even if there were fusels present, why would they be oxidised more if they are produced by a lager yeast than if they are produced by an ale yeast?


Noonan says that lack of oxygen and long lag times can lead to fusel production in lagers. I would also speculate that higher ferment temps (by lager yeast standards) might have an effect too.

I can't see any reason why they'd be oxidised any more or less according to the yeast, either but in a lager you theoretically have a lot less room to move. Yeast by-products are a natural part of ales, obviously.


Stuster said:


> According to this which is admittedly about a totally different fluid, oxidation doubles with every 10C rise in temperature. So if you lagered it 10C higher, but for a quarter the time, there may be less oxidation. :unsure:


  Rats. 
But yeah, I'm not sure it necessarily translates. What temperatures are hydraulic fluids used at? I can't help but think it's a bit of a simplification/rule of thumb, but I could well be wrong. This guy says that "the rate at which most chemical reactions proceed varies exponentially with temperature" in a post about oxygenation, but again he just takes it as a given without providing any real proof. I'm sure someone out there will know the answer.


Stuster said:


> Anyway, practical experience counts for a lot in my book, and there are many people who are saying that longer lager times seem to give them better beers.


Funnily enough I actually really like the taste of young lagers. I love a touch of sulfur in a pils. :beer:


----------



## Malnourished (10/6/07)

Hey Stuster, I reckon you should get a copy of _Continental Pilsener_. Somehow I think it would really speak to you.  

Here are some quotes:

(With fermentation utilising a diacetyl rest) "lagering is not required to mature the beer's flavour and is used mostly for clarification."

"Lagering traditionally served three purposes: clarification, carbonation and flavour maturation. The last of these can be eliminated by modern fermentation technique... and the second can be done artificially. It might therefore be supposed that by the use of filters for clarification, lagering could be eliminated completely. This may be true in theory, but it does not work out so well in practice." He then goes on about practical limitations of filtering and its effect on head retention, flavour and body. 

"Many American brewing companies do not use a traditional cold lager process. The beer is aged for two or three weeks at fermentation temperature to allow the yeast to settle at least partially, and the beer is chilled (perhaps for 24 hours) just before it is filtered and packaged. This method relies on the filters, along with treatments that remove precursors, to eliminate colloidal haze."

"Fusel alcohols and fatty acids also have strong unpleasant flavours that are undesirable in Pilseners. Fortunately, the low fermentation temperatures used in lager brewing make these by-products less of a problem than they are in ale brewing."

But it's not all good news:

"However there are limits. Pilseners with the traditional European flavour cannot be produced by a two- or three-week fermentation cycle."

"If a brewer aims to make a full-flavoured, traditional Pilsener, his only choice is to allow most of the yeast to drop out naturally during lagering and thus minimise the need for filtration."

He also goes into a fair bit of detail about the importance of yeast selection:

"Traditional Pilsener beer is fermented and lagered at low temperatures, which is an important consideration in selecting a yeast strain... in recent decades, there has been a strong trend toward warmer fermentations that reduce energy costs and processing time. Yeast strains suited for this American-style fermentation may go dormant at colder temperatures." 

"Typical American yeast strains simply do not produce the hop and malt flavours characteristic in the Continental brews. I have demonstrated this with duplicate test batches in which the only variable was the pitching yeast."

So yeah, I think what he's saying is that with the right yeast, a modern fermentation program and a willingness to heavily filter, lagering is basically unnecessary. However, the yeasts suited to such a regime are unlikely to produce the desired flavour in "traditional" lager styles. Which sounds a lot like neonmeate's experience with 34-70 and its "safe, shallow beers." I'd certainly agree that 34-70 requires minimal lagering, which is probably why it's "the most widely used lager strain in the world."

But again I think we still have the same problem with this as with everything else: not enough explanation why. Miller doesn't even get close to the amount of detail Noonan gives either.


----------



## Stuster (10/6/07)

Malnourished said:


> Hey Stuster, I reckon you should get a copy of _Continental Pilsener_. Somehow I think it would really speak to you.



Thanks so much for posting all that, Malnourished. I should get that, but ATM, I can only make lagers in the depths of winter, so I'll have to get others to post it on the net for me.  

It's interesting info, though as you say, it still leaves much unexplained. At least it should point people using yeasts like 34/70 to experiment with shorter (or no) lagering period. It seems unsurprising that different lager yeasts should produce different beers, but there's still no reason given for why some yeasts shouldn't be filtered, while it's ok for some.



> "If a brewer aims to make a full-flavoured, traditional Pilsener, his only choice is to allow most of the yeast to drop out naturally during lagering and thus minimise the need for filtration."



Minimise the need he says, but AFAIK, many (most? all?) Czech and German pilsners are still filtered. :unsure: 

Do all the filterers out there now find that their filtered ales/lagers are missing something compared to the unfiltered versions?


----------



## Ross (10/6/07)

Stuster said:


> Do all the filterers out there now find that their filtered ales/lagers are missing something compared to the unfiltered versions?



I can honestly say my lagers have never tasted better  . I used to realy struggle to get a good one; now I'm loving the style... 
As for missing something - YES - yeast & haze  

Cheers Ross


----------



## Stuster (10/6/07)

That was my impression from reading about filter use, Ross. Good to hear it. So the reasons given seem increasingly tenuous to me.


----------



## Trough Lolly (10/6/07)

Malnourished said:


> As long as (if?) there is alpha acetolactate in the beer, oxidation will produce diacetyl.



...well said - good thread!  

My next "toy" is a filter setup from Ross - maybe Xmas '07!!

Cheers,
TL


----------



## neonmeate (10/6/07)

so WHAT is lost through filtration in lagers? mal no shed, does the difference in head retention youre talking about relate to the unbelievable splotchy irregular creamy heads of czech lagers lagered for months? what specifically is lost in terms of flavour?


----------



## matti (10/6/07)

First of all I have to say, I LOVE FILTERED BEER!
I drink it every time I go out side my own home, and there is nothing wrong with head retention or flavour.

Back to lagering.

The main benefit I found from lagering is, since I don't have a filter, is basically to clear the beer.
Since I bulk prime and bottle my beer, the lager gets extended lagering period. 4-6 weeks in a cube/fermenter then minimum 6 weeks bottle conditioning.

Now to the flavour issue.
Over the 2-3 months of fermenting, lagering and conditioning the hop bitterness tends to mellow out and give the beer a much smoother profile that I cannot achieve if I were to crash chill and carb straight away.

Ross said in another thread or earlier in this thread that even he found that after a few weeks in keg, after the initial chill- filter-carb, the beer has improved some.

There may be different properties in hop styles that are more beneficial to filtering then lagering, I don't know.

My own conclusion to this is that of you hop a lager to 30 IBU ,using relative soft water and applying extensive lagering, you achieve a really smooth flavoured beer versus, using crash chill and filter plus force carb. 
You would get a sharper bite, unless you reduced the IBU somewhat, or to let the beer age a bit.

It's all interesting and let the opinions flow.
Matti
(Edit language/grammar)


----------



## Malnourished (13/6/07)

neonmeate said:


> what specifically is lost in terms of flavour?


Well to this point I've basically stuck with facts, but here are some of my beliefs. Sorry for the length of the post!  

Obviously beer contains HEAPS of different flavour compounds, the vast majority of which aren't or can't be measured. But just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To say that a beer has diacetyl/sulfur/whatever levels below or above the flavour threshold says nothing about what a beer actually smells and tastes like.

Reading somewhat between the lines, it seems to me that Miller believes that the 'traditional' flavour of pilseners cannot be achieved with American-style fermentation regimes, regardless of yeast choice. This gels with my experience with Czech pilseners, and commercial beers imore widely; the breweries that are renowned as 'traditional' usually have the best-tasting beer. What Miller says is that if you want an American-style flavour profile, then lagering is not particularly important. But how many homebrewers and serious micros are trying to clone Budweiser?

I also think cherry-picking certain points of Miller to agree with (lagering isn't really necessary in certain cases) and disagree with (filtering affects beer flavour and mouthfeel) is a mistake. I can't be bothered breaching copyright further, but it should suffice to say that Miller spends as much time explaining why filtering is bad as he does explaining why lagering may not be necessary... which is to say not that much, but the point still stands.

There can be no doubt that different fermentation regimes will produce different beers. A pils fermented at 8C _will_ contain different flavour compounds to one fermented at 12C. And I doubt too many people would argue that they couldn't taste the difference either. Similarly, extended cold lagering and 'warm lagering'-and-filtering are very different processes which will produce (and remove) different flavour compounds (and proteins.) That much cannot be argued. Same goes for a diacetyl rest, or using a yeast suited to 'American-style' fermentation. That they will produce different flavour compounds cannot be argued. What you _can_ argue is that a drinker won't be able to tell the difference, or may prefer the changes.

I can't find any data on the effects of filtering a beer (though there were a couple of promising abstracts for which I couldn't get the full text) so we're stuck with subjective analyses.

Beergeekdom is full of 'conventional wisdom' about things like filtering, pasteurisation, bottle-conditioning, faster fermentations and so on. Anyone is free to disregard it of course - and it's certainly possible that people pre-judge beers based on what they know about its production - but these biases do not come from nowhere. Michael Jackson wrote that Pilsner Urquell changed for the worse when they modernised fermentation. Jackson and Tim Webb (scroll down near the bottom) have written of a similar effect at Chimay. Webb's GBG to Belgium says (referring to Westvleteren, I suspect) "The development of character (from extended cold lagering) can be profound." Mark Tumarkin says "While filtering makes for a bright pretty beer, it also strips out flavour." Kent Fletcher says the same thing in the same HBD. Miller says  "Filtration changes beer flavor in ways that are not at all subtle." The GBG to the Czech Republic cites Kruovice as a "textbook example of what's gone wrong with Czech brewing" referring to changes in fermentation. Obsessive Belgians go on and on about how Duvel, Chimay, Orval, Westmalle and more used to taste better back in the day. I could go on... That said, there are plenty of homebrewers who say they can't tell the difference. No offense to Ross, and whomever else, but I know who I'm going to side with.

And then there's the fact that yeast itself has flavour! Think about the difference between a kristallweizen and a hefeweizen, or a Czech pils' filtered and _kvasnicov_ versions.

The point of all this rambling is that you cannot refute that these changes will make a beer fundamentally different. 99.9% of tasters may not be able to tell the difference, but it's still there. But then, I don't believe the difference between prolonged lagering and 'warm lagering'-and-filtering is anywhere near that minor. Of course, each brewer is free to decide whether they think it makes a signficant difference or not. But it should be made clear that many (the majority, I'd say) well-respected writers, industry professionals and amateur enthusiasts believe these kinds of changes make significant changes to the end product. And I'd agree.


----------



## Stuster (13/6/07)

Firstly, great, thoughtful and thought-provoking post.






Ok, now I can disagree with you (or play devil's advocate at least as I'm certainly not sure that I know about this at all, I'm just trying to think it through out loud).  

You referenced a number of articles on the negative changes to famous beers. But Chimay's problems were possibly recipe changes, possibly the use of cylindro-conicals. The Staropramen article was about steel vessels against wooden vessels and yeast strains. 

The Kent Fletcher reference is very intriguing. As he says, 



> I believe that you are also stripping out flavor with filtering, and of course lagering makes for a 'cleaner' taste, read less flavor.



You mention that filtering removes the yeast, but so does lagering (not completely perhaps, but that is often cited as the reason for the lagering phase after all).

Anyway, just trying to pick at the argument. It does appear to make a difference, though why is still unclear to me. :unsure:


----------



## oldbugman (13/6/07)

How comparable is filtering on a home brew scale using pleated filter elements and how the big boys do the filtering with the Diatomaceous earth filters.


----------



## Malnourished (13/6/07)

Stuster said:


> You mention that filtering removes the yeast, but so does lagering (not completely perhaps, but that is often cited as the reason for the lagering phase after all).


I presume lagering doesn't remove all yeast, because lagers usually carbonate without added yeast after a couple of months lagering. In any case, my concern is much more with what else is removed. 



Stuster said:


> It does appear to make a difference, though why is still unclear to me. :unsure:


I think that's the point! Not every aspect of the brewing process is 100% understood... and when it comes to flavour, our senses are the best measure. A gas chromatograph printout contains a whole lot less information than a glass of beer to me, if that's makes sense. Plus most of the research into beer is funded by the megabreweries - I don't think they really want to spend money to have it explained exactly why their beers aren't as good as they used to be!

There are so many flavour compounds in beer that measuring them each individually becomes impossible (and then there are considerations like synergistic effects etc.) So you just have to trust your tastebuds. Embrace the mystery! hehe. That's why beer (and food, wine etc.) so great, IMO.


----------



## Stuster (13/6/07)

I totally agree. The science of brewing (and food) is at a fairly primitive level now, not surprisingly really considering the complexity of the subject. Anyway, I hope to prove you and your expert mates wrong  with my superb no-lager lager that's currently bubbling away at 8C.

(Or at least I hope it's drinkable.  )

I will report back with some tasting notes, hopefully before Christmas.


----------



## SJW (13/6/07)

With all of the high tech. science aside. I do not find a great difference between a Lager that has been fermented cool, racked & rested then Cold Condition for a month or a Lager that has had the same process except being bottled rather than Cold Conditioned.
Saying that I will be interested to try a Vienna that I bottled a few weeks ago now. It was fermented at 8 deg C, with Wyeast 2206, then racked until fermentation was complete then I bottled. No CCing or extended bulk conditioning. I suspect it will still be a fine Lager.


Steve


----------



## Ross (13/6/07)

Filtering on a hb scale with a 1 micron filter doesn't remove all the yeast, it just removes the bulk of it leaving a bright beer; there's still yeast there doing its job. When you crash chill a lager, the beer fairly quickly clears to the level of filtered beer. I have tried long cold conditioning in the cube & found no benefits over kegging, carbonating & letting it condition in the keg - It's still lagering at 4c either way. The benefits of filtering are in my book, that you are removing off the settled yeast, so no chance of autolysis - you can also enjoy a glass of lager any time you choose & make your own decision as to when the particular style you've made reaches its peak. As for stripping flavour with a 1 micron filter, I'd be very surprised & have seen no reference anywhere that it does. We are not filtering anywhere near the level of commercial breweries.

Cheers Ross


----------



## Malnourished (13/6/07)

Ross said:


> Filtering on a hb scale with a 1 micron filter doesn't remove all the yeast, it just removes the bulk of it... As for stripping flavour with a 1 micron filter, I'd be very surprised & have seen no reference anywhere that it does. We are not filtering anywhere near the level of commercial breweries.


Sorry to harp on this, but there's a definite reference in the quote from Kent Fletcher I posted above where he describes beer filtered through a 1-2 micron filter as tasting like 'seltzer'. A quick Google finds a sort-of one from Jim Busch (of Victory) here. 

I don't have it in front of me but I'm pretty sure Miller recommends a 4 micron filter as a commercial practice... even though he says filtering (with no specifics on pore size) will strip the beer of flavour and body earlier in the book!

But there's a fantastic explanation of all this stuff here which comes to the conclusion that:


> At present 5 micron would seem to filter fat yeast, yeast flocs, and larger
> haze flocs. Smaller yeast and *any* soluble protein should pass through.(As
> John Carpenter posted) BTW, this is Fix's preferred filter pore size, he
> likes some invisible yeast in his beer.


So if you were to say exactly what you said above, except substituting "1 micron" for "5 micron" I may well have believed you. 

Edit: fixed incorrect link


----------



## Ross (13/6/07)

Malnourished said:


> Sorry to harp on this, but there's a definite reference in the quote from Kent Fletcher I posted above where he describes beer filtered through a 1-2 micron filter as tasting like 'seltzer'. A quick Google finds a sort-of one from Jim Busch (of Victory) here.
> 
> I don't have it in front of me but I'm pretty sure Miller recommends a 4 micron filter as a commercial practice... even though he says filtering (with no specifics on pore size) will strip the beer of flavour and body earlier in the book!
> 
> ...



Interesting links Mal - I've read your links & can't find anything there against 1 micron filtering (though couldn't find the "seltzer" comment) - Most of the comments are of a "I've heard that" nature & i see no scientific or personal fact to back it up. I'm not saying there isn't, just not in what I read in those links. Also if you read some of the other posts in those links, there are some big raps for filtering "

"From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG>
Subject: Filtration

There has been some limited dialogue on the digest lately
about the relative advantages/disadvantages about filtering beers. 
I regularly filter some of my beers, depending how quickly I use
them, how much time I have and for what purpose they will be used. 
I have also been able to compare various beers which have been
filtered with unfiltered "control kegs" from the same batches. 
Invariably, I have found that filtered beers have a cleaner, more
professional quality and are brilliantly clear, however, these beers
are less stable, the latter feature I believe due to a couple of
aspects of home filtration systems. 
I think I remember that I read in Dave Miller's book on
Pilsners, that this type of beer benefits from filtration, by
removing "green beer" qualities. However, he notes that the life
of the beer is reduced by stripping the beer of it's yeast. I
concur with this. I find that a home-filtered pilsner that has
been kept at serving temperature noticeably deteriorates after
about a month to 6 weeks, depending on how much is left in the keg."

So he's saying that D Miller says filtering benefits Pilsners!
Like Jim I've actually made many beers done both ways & my personal preference is filtering.

Finally, (below) again from your links - this research seems to suggest that even a 0.2 micron filter isn't capable of stripping desired quality's yet there is anecdotal evidence that maybe it does. I personally don't like to sterile filter, hence the 1 micron - 5 micron in my experience still leaves a slightly hazy beer, tried & tested.

"The good people at Amicon Tech. (thanks for your research John Carpenter) 
say that 
> Their 10,000 MWCO(molecular weight cutoff) 
>membrane is 10 Angstroms, the 100,000 MWCO is 100 Angstroms....she said 
>1 million = 1000 Angstroms or 0.1 microns, and she thought the 
>relationship was linear. So.... 10 million MWCO is 1 micron. A 5 micron 
>filter would only filter out globular proteins with molecular weights of 
>greater than 50 million. That's a pretty big protein, <SNIP> 
>about 7-10 microns. So my conclusion is you can filter your beer through a 
>5 micron filter and remove the yeast and any remaining trub and not have 
>to worry about filtering out any of the other "flavor" proteins. 

The *most* haze forming proteins are of the order of 50,000 plus. The 
"MMWP's" of brewing are of the order of 5,000-50,000. These are the 
mouthfeel and head retaining proteins, although they overlap with haze 
forming ones. Proteins greater than 1,000,000 (HMWP) have no chance of 
surviving a 60 minute boil and end up in the trub. (One reason for a 58-60C 
rest is to reduce these HWMPs to Medium Weights that could survive the 
boil.) Thus with a 5 micron filter, *all* soluble beer protein should pass 
through except for "protein binding" to the filter medium itself. (As Chuck 
Burkins pointed out.) Some yeast would also get through 5 microns. 

>From Amicon's info above, a 2 micron or even 0.2 micron filter would also 
not seem to be a problem. However 0.2 micron sterile filtrations in 
breweries reportedly give a thinner mouthfeel although Amicon says molecular 
weights as high as 1,000,000 should sail through? Something doesn't gel 
here? I will research this further unless someone has data."

There are plenty of pro filtering comments as there are anti filtering comments, I think it pays to trial yourself & then make your own assessment.
I'd be interested in hearing from those that have started filtering & disliked what it does to their beer, so have stopped - I'd be amazed if there's more than a couple & I've sold hundred's of units.

Cheers Ross


----------



## PostModern (13/6/07)

Ross said:


> ..." I find that a home-filtered pilsner that has
> been kept at serving temperature noticeably deteriorates after
> about a month to 6 weeks, depending on how much is left in the keg."
> 
> So he's saying that D Miller says filtering benefits Pilsners!



No he's not. In your own quote he says:



> "I find that a home-filtered pilsner that has
> been kept at serving temperature noticeably deteriorates after
> about a month to 6 weeks, depending on how much is left in the keg."



Keep your kegs at serving temp and Pilsners are _worse_

btw, Ross, there is no need for an apostrophe before a "s" added for plural. /apostrophe man strikes again


----------



## DJR (13/6/07)

I've got a Schwarzbier going at the moment i've used some of the (abridged) methods discussed here on. It was a 10C ferment for 4 days, D-rest at 1025 SG for 2 days, then left at ambient (about 15-16C) for a week after racking at the end of the d-rest. Yeast was WLP802 Budvar mixed with 2565 Kolsch. While it was a Kolsch yeast mixed in, at the moment (lagering for a week at 3C), it tastes very clean. Mind you, it's a schwarzbier and perhaps the strong roast/coffee flavour is hiding something, but it's very clean and malty. I think it will only need a couple more days before it's ready - i'm mainly waiting for the yeast to drop.

I'm a bit hesitant to try this method with a Pils though due to the increased chance of ester production from the raised temperature for a week. But esters are only significantly made when the yeast has Acetyl-COA ready to use as far as i know, and all the AcetylCOA should be used up by the first stages of fermentation. I'm about to pitch a Pils which will get a 10C ferment, D-rest at 1020 for 48 hours, then racked and lagered for 3+weeks. Maybe next time, after i've made this one, a simple recipe where the fermentation characteristics have a chance to shine throught might make a good experiment - maybe a Munich Helles or similar. As a byproduct of practical experimentation, i get to drink a few liters of possibly very tasty quick-conditioned beer.


----------



## Ross (13/6/07)

PostModern said:


> No he's not. In your own quote he says:
> Keep your kegs at serving temp and Pilsners are _worse_



Selective quoting yet again  

"I think I remember that I read in Dave Miller's book on
Pilsners, that this type of beer benefits from filtration, by
removing "green beer" qualities"

He doesn't say worse at all - What he claims is the life span of the beer is reduced.
& if you read on, it is blamed on the sanitation & oxidisation...

"If one thinks about it, the home filtration system is affected
by our abilities to first, sterilize it and then minimize
oxidation. Since effective filtration depends on maximizing the
surface to volume ratios of the filtration screen to beer volume,
there is a potential for a "surface" with a lot of bacteria and a
lot of oxygen, as well as a lot of "paper", as in my situation. I
try and sanitize everything but the pads--I just don't want to risk
ruining the beer with a sanitizer taste. I then "wash" the pads
with lots of sterile, de-aerated water, to remove as much "paper
taste" as possible."

Well this is not a problem I have; my system is properly sterilised & is not using paper filtration - My beers can sit on tap for many, many months & the quality is there till the last sip  

Maybe I'll have to send you a couple for tasting B) 

Cheers Ross...


----------



## tangent (13/6/07)

without trawling through another.......................... may i add

i cold condition in s/s after a long cool ferment, then if i'm really really fussy, i'll run the beer from keg to keg before carbonation through a filter. the filtering is the icing on the cake but a long slow ferment and conditioning in s/s are the backbone to a good lager IMO.

edit - but some fatties are hooked on the icing and ignore the cake.


----------



## PistolPatch (14/6/07)

Ross said:


> Selective quoting yet again



Ross, PoMo was actually just picking up on _your_ selective quoting. The original post read...



> I have also been able to compare various beers which have been
> filtered with unfiltered "control kegs" from the same batches.
> Invariably, I have found that filtered beers have a cleaner, more
> professional quality and are brilliantly clear, however, these beers
> ...



Your post pulled out the positives of the above and failed to mention the negatives. You actually said, "I've read your links & can't find anything there against 1 micron filtering." To me this is inaccurate, misleading and _very_ selective. I have said similiar things in time-consuming emails to you before and this has in no way done me any favours - exactly the opposite in fact. You don't like me much now.

In fact, that's why my posts to AHB have reduced considerably recently. I've been spending my time trying to work out a positive way of preventing....

Well, what can I say? All I can say is that thanks to a few others, we are getting close to a solution to what we see as a problem.

You certainly can't expect PoMo to read all the above links in detail and even if he did, I'm still struggling to get the point of your last post. I can't see where PoMo went wrong. I can certainly twist it that way to make him look wrong but I need no twisting at all to prove you wrong. So, what was your point exactly? Is their a point that will actually improve our brewing? Or is there another point I'm missing?

I think it's best, let alone polite, for all readers that if you know of contradictory data or information that is supportive to your point of view (not that I have seen any here), that you provide a link and at least give the poster a chance to read it and respond before accusing them of selective quoting. Accusing them of that is....

Well, I don't know what it is because I truly don't understand where you are coming from 

Spot!
Pat

P.S. Never let stuff slide in your brewing. Fence-sitters actuate and allow the worst brews ever.


----------



## Ross (14/6/07)

PistolPatch said:


> Ross, PoMo was actually just picking up on _your_ selective quoting. The original post read...
> Your post pulled out the positives of the above and failed to mention the negatives. You actually said, "I've read your links & can't find anything there against 1 micron filtering." To me this is inaccurate, misleading and _very_ selective. I have said similiar things in time-consuming emails to you before and this has in no way done me any favours - exactly the opposite in fact. You don't like me much now.
> 
> In fact, that's why my posts to AHB have reduced considerably recently. I've been spending my time trying to work out a positive way of preventing....
> ...




Don't you like debate Pat  

Try adding something constructive to the thread & leave your personal attacks to email, hey  

Edit; i will make one confession though, i thought it was Mal replying back & didn't notice it was in fact PM.
Hence my reference to the original links - sorry PM...

cheers Ross


----------



## bconnery (14/6/07)

Malnourished said:


> Sorry to harp on this, but there's a definite reference in the quote from Kent Fletcher I posted above where he describes beer filtered through a 1-2 micron filter as tasting like 'seltzer'. A quick Google finds a sort-of one from Jim Busch (of Victory) here.
> 
> I don't have it in front of me but I'm pretty sure Miller recommends a 4 micron filter as a commercial practice... even though he says filtering (with no specifics on pore size) will strip the beer of flavour and body earlier in the book!
> 
> ...



A couple of things that may have caused some confusion...

You've accidentally linked to the same hbd discussion there. Which means that the selzer comment, which was in an earlier post, doesn't appear. 

Having read that earlier post whoever it was does say he did that to a wheat ale, which would to me be a strange choice for filtering anyway, and not for something like a pilsner or dark lager. 

Having trawled through these links I would agree totally with Ross, but only where he says that there are statements in all those links for and against, but nothing that stands out on either side of the argument. 

To quote Ross, "There are plenty of pro filtering comments as there are anti filtering comments, I think it pays to trial yourself & then make your own assessment."

I've tasted unfiltered hb lagers, and some of them were brilliant. I've tasted filtered hb lagers, and some of them were brilliant. 

Ben

Proudly fence sitting despite the potential effect on brewing apparently


----------



## Stuster (14/6/07)

Mind the barbs, Ben. Seems like a bit of a spiky fence at the moment. :lol: 

I agree with Ben. There seems to be both positive and negative comments on those threads. However, they are posts from 14 years ago, and it would be more useful to have comments from those using the equipment Ross and others has been selling. It appears they were paper filters and the guy who made the comments about lagers staling in a month also says that he didn't sterilise the filters because they were paper, which may have something to do with why the lagers didn't keep so well IMO.

Ross seems to find the filters don't filter out flavour and strip the beer. So, how do filter users other than Ross find them? Do you end up with seltzer?

Sorry to the OT for going so far off topic.


----------



## AndrewQLD (14/6/07)

Stuster said:


> Mind the barbs, Ben. Seems like a bit of a spiky fence at the moment. :lol:
> 
> I agree with Ben. There seems to be both positive and negative comments on those threads. However, they are posts from 14 years ago, and it would be more useful to have comments from those using the equipment Ross and others has been selling. It appears they were paper filters and the guy who made the comments about lagers staling in a month also says that he didn't sterilise the filters because they were paper, which may have something to do with why the lagers didn't keep so well IMO.
> 
> ...



I agree with Stusters comments above, 14 years is a long time ago and I am sure that the technology has improved since, comments from the users of this equipement today would be more conclusive.
Sadly I am still on the fence regarding filtering, and since I don't have a filter I can't really add to much to the topic, except to say I have 2 cubes of my Australian ale waiting to keg, both brewed on the same day with identical ingredients. I would be happy to run one through a filter and keg both on the same day and do a side by side comparison. Anyone up my way who has a filter we could use for a test?

Cheers
Andrew

Oh and this also might sway me one way or the other as well :lol:


----------



## SJW (18/6/07)

Do you find it necessary to rack the beer a second time prior to cold conditioning? As there is a fair yeast cake on the bottom of the fermenter after secondary fermentation especially the beer was racked with a few gravity points to go. Keeping in mind that the beer could be in contact with the yeast in the secondary for several weeks while CCing.


----------



## matti (19/6/07)

There are no real risks for autolysis at lagering temps.
I asked the same question with my initial lager.
My 3 year experiencing brewing tells me there should be no problems.
I did a lager last winter that sat in second fermenter 6 weeks and had no ill effects. 
matti

edit Only trouble is that you occupying a fermenter that should be bubbling another lol


----------



## SJW (26/6/07)

Would cold conditioning at very low temps, say with the Fridgemate set on -2 with the probe in the air effect the viability of the yeast to carry out it's job of carbonation when bottled? Keeping in mind that the air temp variant with the fridgemate set on -2 is from -3 to -0.99 Deg C.

Steve


----------



## matti (26/6/07)

No not really.

I have been assured time after time that there should be plenty of yeast left for bottle priming.
It will just take a little longer. 
I raise the temp to 14-16 before I prime.
Then leave them at that temperature for 2-3 weeks. before storing around 7- 13 degrees at winter time.
I cannot control that part as it all happens in garage.


----------



## DJR (13/4/08)

Stu

Apologies for the grave dig... but how did your no lager-lager turn out in the end? 

Without a fridge here but fairly cold ambient temps i am thinking about trying a ferment with Budvar or W34/70 and just leaving it in primary for 3-4 weeks - using the same yeast for 2 beers, one lighter either a simple pale lager or Vienna then a big fat not-to-style Schwarzbier/Cerny Pivo on the cake. 

Both yeasts in my experience were pretty clean even before lagering (mainly sulfur and a bit of "green" flavour), but i can't remember how quickly they got better with lagering, i remember vaguely the best improvement came between about 5 days and 7 days of lagering.

If it's all too hard i think i'll just go a mix of US05 and K97 which seems to have worked well in my latest Altbier, although it is taking a while to flocc out the K97.


----------



## Stuster (13/4/08)

Not so well, Ben, but I haven't given up yet. (Just too stubborn, I guess.) Last year I used 802 and 838 on a split batch of German pilsner. The 802 was ok in time, the 838 less so. I also split a batch of Czech pilsner between 802 and 1007 and the ale yeast was far better far sooner. Two years ago I did a Munich dunkel, no lagering, using the 2278 yeast and it worked fine. Dark beers are much more accommodating of slight flaws of course. This year I'm going to use the S-189 dry yeast and see how that goes.


----------



## DJR (13/4/08)

Stuster said:


> The 802 was ok in time



How long do you reckon? Was that "in time" being in bottles in the fridge for a while? I have a oldish smackpack of Wyeast Budvar (thanks PJO), i may be better off just going a clean ale yeast though.



Stuster said:


> also split a batch of Czech pilsner between 802 and 1007 and the ale yeast was far better far sooner.



Was it good with the 1007, i'd assume it turned out a bit Kolschy unless you fermented real cold?



Stuster said:


> This year I'm going to use the S-189 dry yeast and see how that goes.



Me three


----------



## Tony (13/4/08)

My dubbelbock was firmented with the S-189. IT got cooked at 22 deg for a day half way through firmentation and never got CC'd. IT sat in secondary on my work bench for 3 months at about 25 deg actually. I just bottled it a few days ago. 

It tasted ok going into the bottle but time will tell.

As said....... bigger flavour beers hide flaws and this beer was a 1.103 decoction mashed beer. Its BIG.

Will give it a month or 2 and crack one to see if its drinkable but from what ive heard about this yeast, its very tollerant, even when brewed at full ale temps.

I have 2 beers going now with it, both will be brewed at 11 deg and CC'd for a month.

cheers


----------



## Stuster (13/4/08)

DJR said:


> How long do you reckon? Was that "in time" being in bottles in the fridge for a while? I have a oldish smackpack of Wyeast Budvar (thanks PJO), i may be better off just going a clean ale yeast though.
> 
> Was it good with the 1007, i'd assume it turned out a bit Kolschy unless you fermented real cold?
> 
> Me three



The 1007 is supposedly an alt yeast. It's pretty clean, especially cold of course. I think it was fermented around 14C so it came out pretty clean.

The 'in time' was just stored in a cellar under somebody else's house, and they were kept till summer after being fermented in the middle of winter. The clean ale yeast might work well, or you could split a batch.  

Tony, let us know how that big lager goes. That yeast is supposed to be the Samichlaus yeast so it should be good with big beers. Hmmm, maybe I should have a crack at a doppelbock on the yeast cake from a smaller beer.


----------



## Tony (13/4/08)

Is that the 833 yeast?


----------



## Stuster (13/4/08)

No, Tony, the S-189. It's apparently the same as the White Labs Zurich lager yeast which comes from a Swiss brewery. Good alcohol tolerance. Know any more about it Ross?


----------



## bconnery (14/4/08)

To put some words into Ross's mouth, he does know a bit about it...
All indicators are that this does come from a Swiss brewery, someone posted a liquid yeast number in another thread that it was supposed to be equal to. 

This yeast works well at higher temperatures apparently. Ross has a customer who against all readings and advice uses this yeast at ale temps and apparently the beers come out alright. I can't vouch for this personally but it has come up a few times at club meetings. Apart from that story everyone I know just treats this like a lager yeast, but my point is Tony's 22C lager might be alright...

Ross made a dopplebock with this yeast (I'm assuming it was actually, just because I know he uses it a lot. I could be wrong, in which case this point will be null and void ...) and it was drinkable ridiculously early in the process for such a high gravity beer...Even if it wasn't this yeast it certainly lends weight to the no lager method...

From my readings on threads on this yeast it appears to be a very good one for the 'no lager' method discussed here and elsewhere. 
It seems to either not produce many by products or else clean up very well in a short time. 
I haven't done a strict side by side recipe comparision but my last lager used w34/70 and it definitely took longer to come good. I still used the same method, ferment, crash chill and keg, and the maturing time was a lot longer. 
A simple german pilsner made with s-189 can be drinkable at just over 3 weeks from brewday...
4 weeks and you'll be throwing them down  My keg made for christmas drinking was entirely gone just over 5 weeks from brewday...


----------



## Stuster (14/4/08)

Thanks for that, Ben. I think it was me that posted the number for the White Labs yeast. :lol: 

Will definitely be giving this yeast a run in a couple of months time and will post back with the results.


----------



## DJR (15/8/09)

Apologies for the massive gravedig but I thought i'd update with a bit of info

I brewed a Munich Helles, nowhere for much to stick out in that style with 1042 OG, 20 IBU and about 5 EBC. Did it with WLP833, (1.5L starter with olive oil) pitch temp 12, got up to 17C at one point, averaged about 15C. Waited for fermentation to complete (bit of diacetyl and quite a bit of sulfur as expected), then got temp down to 8C for about 2 or 3 week (didn't rack the beer as i wanted maximum yeast activity still). The beer turned out quite well and i'm just waiting for it to carb up now. I should note i used Polyclar VT and Gelatin - Polyclar VT at around 1015 SG and Gelatin once fermentation was complete. Going into the bottle i could have sworn this is the brightest beer i have made yet.

I saved some yeast cake and will brew an Oktoberfest very soon using a very similar method (so it will be ready for October) but judging by the results of the Helles, it could be that 2-3 weeks at a somewhat lower temp than primary is all that is needed rather than 2-3 months at 0-4C (of course this depends on the yeast strain etc, some of the Czech strains may still need a bit longer to clean up their loads of diacetyl). Might enter the Helles into a couple of comps and see what judges can pick up.


----------

