Lagering

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Poland ?
sorry ... :(

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

cheers

Darren
 
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.
 
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 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 :eek:

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!!!
 
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
 
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\\ :D
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
Thanks for bringing this thread back from the dead, mal. Interesting points.

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?

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. :p
 
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.)
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.
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:
:D 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.
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:
 
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:

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?
 
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 :D

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

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.
 
Back
Top