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 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.
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.)
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.
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.)I thought that warmer temperatures were used to reduce diacetyl, ie in the diacetyl rest. :unsure:
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.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?
Rats.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:
Funnily enough I actually really like the taste of young lagers. I love a touch of sulfur in a pils. :beer: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.
Hey Stuster, I reckon you should get a copy of Continental Pilsener. Somehow I think it would really speak to you.
"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."
Do all the filterers out there now find that their filtered ales/lagers are missing something compared to the unfiltered versions?
As long as (if?) there is alpha acetolactate in the beer, oxidation will produce diacetyl.
Well to this point I've basically stuck with facts, but here are some of my beliefs. Sorry for the length of the post!what specifically is lost in terms of flavour?
Enter your email address to join: