Lagering

[Stuster]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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

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]

..." 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]

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]

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]

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]

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
are less stable, the latter feature I believe due to a couple of
aspects of home filtration systems.

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]

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....

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.

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]

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:

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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