Shelflife Of Lagers Vs Ales

[Effect]

Hi there,

I thought that the market was dominated by lager beers because of a few reasons: 1) subtle in flavour so it can appeal to a larger market and 2) longer shelf life.

Assuming that all things are equal (i.e. pasturisation etc) which one would have the longer shelf life?

From an interview with dr tim cooper - Tim Cooper Interview

Q. Can you tell us a little about the Best After date on Coopers bottles something that delights those drinkers interested enough to notice. When was it introduced? Does that date indicate the time all of the yeast in the bottle should have consumed all the sugar? Do you add a little bit of sugar and yeast to the beer just before you bottle it? How long does it take for this bottle fermentation to occur? Do Coopers beers not go off like other beers do (and hence not need a best before?) Did this bottle fermentation used to occur in storage prior to bottling or has it always been a feature of Coopers beers? A. The main reason any beer deteriorates is oxidisation. Pasteurised beers such as lagers begin to deteriorate immediately after bottling and are best drunk fresh. Naturally conditioned ales, such as Coopers, are not pasteurised and contain live yeast that mops up dissolved oxygen. As a result, these naturally conditioned ales age and have a far longer shelf life than lagers.

and from accidental hendonist link

Now as near as I can figure, the bottom-fermenting yeasts carry about them a feature which makes them very attractive to large-scale brewers, namely that they are very efficient in fermenting sugars. Sure it may take longer to do so (many lagers do require a longer fermentation period than ales), but it also means less sugars left in the final product. With less sugars in a product, the longer shelf-life the beer has, which in turn means that the lager can hold value for a longer period of time than an ale.

So after having done a bit of searching on google...don't really have a decisive answer...any ideas guys?

Cheers
Phil

 

[peas_and_corn]

I'm not exactly sure how less residual sugar increases the life of a beer.

 

[kelbygreen]

I would of thought the more sugar left in there the longer the shelf life. I am no expert but lollies never go off and they 99% sugar :lol: . This is a interesting subject but one I dont think I am worried about as of yet I drink my beers quick . But I have noticed commercial lagers do not have a big shelf life going by the used by date, I also have had a lager that was out of its used by date by several months and it was horrible (yes it was VB) but it was even worse (yes it can get worse)

 

[warra48]

The thing in Cooper's reply about lagers is that he is talking about "pasteurised" beers. I'd say pasteurisation kills off any residual yeast, hence no cleaning up of the beer, and the reduced shelf life.
Our homebrew is not pasteurised, neither are most of the craft or small breweries products.
I tend to find my own beers, whether ales or lagers, take at least 3 to 4 months in the bottle before they hit their straps. Except for wheaties, which I'll get into 1 week after bottling.

 

[np1962]

Before starting I'll apologise for the length of the post
While not giving a definitive answer to the OP's question I find much of the following interesting in relation to the subject.
A pro brewer I associate with offloaded a pallet of beer for 30% of retail price as it had reached the Best before date, I still have a few cases 12 months later and they are still drinking fine. Bottle fermented ale. The brewery concerned changed from there original 9 months from bottling to BB date to 12 months. Laws and regulations force them to have a date of some sort, not 100% sure of what this date HAS to be or how Coopers can just use a Best After date.

The following is an answer to a Question put to CUB

The best beer is fresh beer.

Most brewers recommend that beer is consumed as soon as possible after it leaves the brewery. Our beers have a "best before" rather than a"use by" date because regulations for beer relate to quality and product age issues as opposed to safety and health issues. The Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code required that all alcoholic beverages produced after the end of 2002 carry a Best Before date. The date on the package signifies the date after which the product will no longer have all the quality characteristics that would be found in a freshly packaged beer.

It does not mean however that there is any health risk associated with the product as all packaged beers are pasteurised to ensure that they do not spoil. The changes that occur in package beer are gradual and generally include flavour changes, development of a haze, formation of some sediment or a combination of these. The rate at which these changes occur is dependent on the conditions under which the beer has been kept, with higher temperatures favouring more rapid change.

For many people these changes will be unappealing, but the product itself is not unsafe to drink.

And from the master Michael Jackson, Beerhunter.

The consumers should always be told when the beer was bottled, and what it contains, apart form barley or wheat malt, water, hops, and yeast. They can then make up their own minds about its drinkability. "Best before" dates are nonsense. Most beers can only go downhill from the moment they leave the brewery. There are, though, important exceptions: the minority of beers that are designed to mature in the bottle. "Best before" dates do not do justice to them, either.

These brews are either not filtered or pasteurised, or are given a dosage of fresh yeast and sugar in the bottle, so that they can have a slow further fermentation. They are not totally bright -- they have a yeast sediment -- but their flavours are lively and complex. These are less like fresh bread than mature fruitcake.

An example at a conventional alcohol content, such as Worthington White Shield or the Oddbins bottle-conditioned range, may develop for 18 months. A stronger one will hit its stride at five years, and can mature for 20 if kept in a dark, cool place (but not refrigerated).

This applies to many Belgian specialties, especially those from Trappist monasteries, and to products from Britain such as Gale's Prize Old Ale, Thomas Hardy's Ale or Courage's Imperial Russian Stout. The Campaign for Real Ale and similar organizations in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia have been lobbying in Brussels for a European Community ruling in favour of bottling dates. They would like to get rid of unqualified "best before" dates, and have ingredient labeling.

Then from the Slowbeer blog, brewing/bottling date(not sure which one)in relation to Best Before dates. I don't believe any of these beers are pasteurised, but am open to any more correct information.

Chimay
Dore: 4 years from best before ('BB') date
Blue: as per vintage year
Red: 4 years from BB year
White: 3 years from BB year

St Bernadus (our educated guess - happy to hear confirmations)
Triple: 3 years from BB date
Pater: 3 years from BB date
Prior: 5 years from BB date
Abt: 5 years from BB date

La Trappe
Blond: 2.5 years from BB date
Dubbel: 2.5 years from BB date
Tripel: 2.5 years from BB date
Quadrupel: 3 years from BB date

Orval
As per label bottling date

Oud Beersel
20 years from BB date

Rochefort
6: 5 years from BB date
8: 5 years from BB date
10: 5 years from BB date

Westmalle
Dubbel: 2 years from BB date
Tripel: 2 years from BB date

Gouden Carolas
Classic: 3 years from BB date

From my reading of this and for what my humble opinion is worth I think the explanation given by Dr Tim with regard to oxidisation being the major factor in beer spoilage is the most plausible.
Agree with warra, talking here of pateurised beers, not necessarilly lagers v ales. Some beer styles would mature in a way that enhances the beer while others would move away from what you expect from the style but may still be 'good' or 'drinkable' beers be they ales or lagers.

Cheers
Nige

P.S. Great topic Phil

 

[Bizier]

My 2c is:
You also have the antioxidant properties of roast malt in a beer.
You also have the rapid oxidisation that occurs in heavily hopped, especially dry hopped beers.

AFAIK Lager yeasts are particularly aggressive and strong yeasts, that is why they can be used at temperatures that render ale strains useless. They are more likely to continue to scavenge oxygen and available sugars at low temps. They may also be slower to autolise than the average ale yeast. This is why many weiss beers and even hoppy beers (LCPA) use a lager yeast to bottle condition - for greater product stability.

 

[manticle]

At a rough guess, I would say Dr Tim was talking about the majority of well known commercial beers (being filtered lagers) and comparing them with cooper's ales as opposed to suggesting that cooler bottom fermented beers would somehow last less long than warmer top fermented ones, all other things being equal. The residual sugar thing sounds like complete bollocks to me and some of the information given by Nige supports that.

 

[MarkMc]

:icon_offtopic: Just a side note, I used to occasionally drink bud in the UK, they have a born on date.... some more marketing crap me thinks.

 

[DUANNE]

i listened to an old episode of the session today with dan gordon were he said that residual sugars are one of the first things to oxidise in beer.

 

[manticle]

Wouldn't that suggest that big beers like stouts, barleywines and trappists be oxidised super quick? These are the beers that are usually suitable for cellaring/ageing (unless oxidation is considered part of the profile?)

 

[DUANNE]

yeah didnt think of that.there was mention that dark beers may oxidise slower because of anti oxidant properties in roast maltand also that a slight oxidised flavour is considered normal with big pale belgians. got me thinking now but.

 

[Bizier]

"Good" oxidation is definitely a part of the aged beer profile. This is from the inevitable tiny bit of 02 in the beer. It can do wonderful and subtle things with malt profile in a strong beer.

"Bad" oxidation from excessive oxygen post-ferment is your wet cardboard/paper etc characters. This is like buying the average bottle of English Pale Ale at a bottle shop that keeps them warm, and finding a big bland dusty hole where the wonderful flavour and aroma should be.

ED: Hands up anyone that has spend $10 on a revered UK bitter that you have always wanted to try, only to sorely, sorely disappointed.