New kegger question

[croc4]

So I got myself a keg setup, and have a question as to if there is any difference between force carb and natural?, I am specifically thinking of the fermenting part with natural.
Does the act of fermenting the corn sugar besides adding the Co2 and a small amount of alcohol, does it help mature the beer differently?

Does the fact that the yeast is actively working change the flavor of the beers profile in any way that can be detected?
________
Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[danno]

croc, you must have missed the past arguments, er, discussions about this.... go click the search button at the top of the page, enter "force carbonation" and you can find many threads about this...

Tweek, you ever do the priming sugar / force carb experiment?

[Richard English]

The decision is a simple one. If you want to make chemical fizz like A-B or SAB Miller, then do as they do and use force carbonation.

If you want to make proper beer like Goose Island IPA or Fullers 1845, then do as they do and use natural carbonation.

Just don't invite me to the tasting of your A-B clone

[croc4]

Wow
________
Nasty9Teen live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Nasty9Teen)

[Brownbeard]

I was interested in this too as I am looking to get into kegging. Actually Richard, the overwhelming opinion on the threads I have found suggest force carbonation is the way to go. I will pull your invite out of my pile.

[Payson]

I would have to agree Brownbeard.... Not only is it the overwhelming opinion, but personal experience suggests that CO2 is CO2 regardless of how it gets there. Therefore, I would opt for ease and consistency and force carbonate.

[sallad]

AB *has* to force carbonate; how could you obtain natural carbonation after the brew has been pasturized? even with force carbonating, there still will be live yeast doing their thing for some all natural keg-conditioning. if anything, priming w/ corn sugar is closer to adding adjuncts than force carbonating. or you could just use DME... but i don't keg, so this is purely a speculative opinion.... :)

[croc4]

I don't wish to insult any one with this, it is merely my own observations and opinion.

I have sat back and listened (aka read) many post concerning "real" beer and I have found it quite amusing. Does something become authentic simply because it was done that way from the start and that process is then followed?(for right or wrong). I think many of the processes that were done at the start of beer making were done more so out of a lack of technology and understanding and less for making a "real" beer, I'm sure
that if they could have force carbonated in the early days of beer making they would have, and does the use of any sterilized equipment also render beer made today non real?, I'm sure the sanitization of long ago would draw horrors from many brewers today.

While I do like to see traditions being upheld, I think they should be up held with a grain of salt, tradition for traditions sake is a bit silly.

I guess as long as the final product is better than the normal swill you can buy then it can't be all bad.
________
Petite Cams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/petite-girls/)

[Payson]

I couldn't agree more Croc4. After all, if we don't or didn't move forward, beers with anything other than the "sacred 4" ingredients would not exist. The horror!

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
..... If you want to make chemical fizz ...
.


The ESB that I brewed and currently have in a keg in my beer refrigerator has LESS carbonation than either Fuller's ESB or Fuller's 1845. Actually most people would call it flat - but I force carbonated it to style. While pulling one yesterday I was actually trying to make it get a head(out of curiousity) and it wouldn't.

The best thing about force carbonation for the home brewer, IMO, is that you can consistently carbonate your beer to style with little to no guessing.

I consistently produced MORE carbonated beers(often too much so) when I still used natural carbonation.

[bigmf]

I'll have the beers he's missing out on. :D

An old freind of mine made the jump to kegging a few years ago now. He had a 2.5 gal keg and would bottle the rest. The only difference to him was that the bottled ones would have a little more yeast flavour no matter how well he poured.

I think the ease of force carbonation pays off and the downside is pretty small.

[Tweek]

It is simple chemistry. CO2 is CO2 the only diference would be that you would get extra yeast waste in your keg by priming with sugar versus force carbonating. Anyone who says diferent needs to brush up on their chemistry.

Now that is not to say that there is not a benifit to conditioning beer in the bottle, or to use a diferent yeast to condition it , but that has nothing to do with the effect of CO2 on your palate.

[danno]

well, I did try and head off the flames, but to no avail... :rolleyes:

Richard, at some point in time, to avoid becoming a caricature, you'll have to come to terms with the fact that there is very good beer out there that is force carbonated. it's not an either/or, black/white, heaven/hell only proposition...

[Richard English]

It's not just chemistry it's also physics. I am not an expert but I have seen a very erudite discussion about the behaviour of gases under pressure which makes sense to me.

The fact remains that naturally-conditoned beers, whether they be bottled or draught, generally taste better than those which are force-carbonated. That there are some quite good beers that are force-carbonated does not alter this fact. The finest beers, like the best champagnes, are naturally conditioned.

The other question I would ask about force-carbonation is - why bother? Natural conditioning is easier and cheaper and the end product tastes better. Unless you want a sterile product with ten year's shelf life (like A-B's unspeakable concoctions) the natural product is far better.

I have just been on a tour of some London pubs with Kalleh (who posts here). I will let her give the details when she returns but I will say that her remarks, after drinking English draught Real Ale for the first time in her life (previously she drunk bottled Fuller's 1845) were extraordinarily complimentary about non-pressurised, non-pasteurised, non-chilled British beers. Those of you who have not had her good fortune will be unable to judge and understand what I am speaking about.

[Tweek]

Richard I would love to see that study that made sense to you.

I understand that you believe that naturally carbonated beer tastes better than force carbonated beer, and you are definately entitled to your opinion, but that is all that that is.

As far as why bother, I believe that question has been answered several times. There are many reasons to force carbonate, among them are hitting exact carbonation levels, which is nearly impossible to do via natural carb without sophisticated equipment. Another reason could be to avaoid the yeast cake that gets created, I know you like that cake but not everyone does.

Force carbonation has nothing to do with sterility. The reason that the beers you speak of have a long shelf life is because of add preservatives, not because of their carbonation method.

I am happpy that you and Kalleh had a good time touring your local pubs. It is great to make friends and drink good beer, however I dont see how your findings there caould possibly have any bearing on this topic. This truely is a matter of chemistry, and possibly physics (though if properly done and target levels are achieved I believe what you are referring to here will be out of the picture).

Cheers!

[Fast_Eddy]

I want to make a little addendum to Tweek's comments just to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. A little comparison:

The process by which a real ale carbonates is (in a nutshell but paraphrasing the CAMRA site) the cask is dosed with some sugar and then sealed using either a soft or hard plug.

This allows the yeast to consume the sugar and create CO2 that pressurizes the cask. Once the pressure in the cask reaches a certain point(depending on the temperature of the beer) the CO2 begins to be absorbed by the beer. This closed system is maintained until the cellar man decides that the beer is sufficiently carbonated at which point the beer is tapped and served.

----

Contrast with force carbonation by a home brewer...

The keg is pressurized to a level appropriate for the style(read approx the same amount of pressure that is created by the yeast in the real ale scenario). The CO2 is absorbed by the beer(shaking is not necessary it just expedites the process). The closed system is maintained until the brewer decides that beer is sufficiently carbonated at which point he drinks it. Note that if a consistent pressure(and temp) for the style is maintained then the beer will not continue absorbing CO2.

**Edit - few typos

[Richard English]

In fact there is a connection.

Sterile beers are that way because they have been pasteurised and filtered. The resulting flat liquid must be force carbonated; there is no alternative. Therefore all sterile chemical fizz beers are force carbonated. The converse, I agree, does not have to be the case, although it often is.

All beer is a matter of taste, indeed. More people in the word seem to prefer the taste of A-B Budweiser than of any other beer, since A-B sell more beer than any other brewer. That does not mean that they are right, nor that A-B beers taste better than any other.

Few would disagree that Champagne (bottle conditioned) tastes better than artificially carbonated wine and those who tried to maintain that it does not would be laughed out of town. I submit that the same applies to beer.

And it is not a complex procedure to adjust the level of natural carbonation any more than it is a complex procedure to adjust its strength. It's just a matter of adding the right amount of sugar.

Far more difficult is it, I suggest, to set up a complex pressure system with cylinders of gas, pressure guages, pipes and relief valves!

A measured amount of sugar into the finished fermentation and the carbonation level is reliably achieved. After all, that's how Fullers, Youngs, Goose Island and all those other bottle-conditioned ale brewers do it.

Fast Eddie's point is not 100% accurate although essentially so. In a bottle-conditioned beer the carbon dioxide will be absorbed by the beer and the amount of absorbtion will depend on the amount of priming sugar added.

In a cask conditioned beer there will be little absobtion since the pressure will not rise much above atmospheric - because a CASK is not a pressure vessel! The excess pressure will be vented through the spile and the beer will not become gassy. In a KEG(which is what the fizz-beer makers use) the pressure can be very high indeed and the beer can become very fizzy. Kegs are not used to dispence real ale in the UK.

Those who have not drunk British cask beer will not appreciate the difference. I am not trying to make a chauvinistic point here, simply the point that nobody can appreciate that which they have not tried.

It'a a bit like trying to argue that a Ford is a better car than a Rolls Royce when you've never ridden in a Rolls Royce. When you've tried both you have a basis for comparison; if you haven't, you don't

[Brownbeard]

So, the difference here is not sugar or CO2 at all. It's water, miles and miles of water.

[sallad]

i love the few beers i can get around here from the handpump; nothing compares to them. i can't wait til i get the chance to do some pub hopping in UK in order to - using richard's analogy - drink my rolls royce!

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English ..............................
Your point about bottle conditioned ale is accurate but incomplete. The amount of sugar dosed into a bottle does control the amount of carbonation that is in solution while the bottle is sealed. Once it's open then it's at the mercy of temp and pressure. For example, if it's overly warm then the excess(excess is relative to temp and pressure) CO2 will come out of solution. It would be, in effect, over carbonated for that temp and pressure.

You keep saying that forced condition beer is "fizzy". But all of it is not. The ESB that I have I matured for as long as any brewery matures their ales. After it matured it was force carbonated to carbonation levels that are less than or equal to any cask conditioned ale. So unless you're saying that cask conditioned ales are "fizzy" then you cannot say that all forced carbonated ales are "fizzy". Also the implication that all beers that are force-carbonated are A-B clones is preposterous and it also implies quite a few traditional British Ale's are A-B clones

Also, note that I have tried and enjoy cask conditioned and bottle conditioned ales. I drink them fairly regularly as a matter of fact. They are delicious - but that is not the point of this discussion. The point is whether or not you can make an admirable quality beer using forced carbonation.

[Richard English]

Please don't misunderstand me or put words into my mouth (or hand) I did not say that all forced carbonated beers are fizzy. My very words were "...the pressure can be very high indeed and the beer can become very fizzy..." Note: can, not does. In fact, most commerically produced keg beers are very fizzy but I agree there are some that are not. I would imagine, too, that many home brewers would not use the high pressures that the commercial manufacturers do.

I use the word "chemical fizz" to denote the awful rubbish that the likes of A-B produce and I think it is an excellent description. I did not, though, say that all force carbonated beers are A-B clones; I did not even imply it except in my humerous comment at the beginning of this thread.

There has been much discussion in CAMRA on the use of a carbon dioxide blanket, which I think is what you are talking about with your own beer if the pressure you are using is a low as you say. Those who support its use point out that the blanket keeps the oxygen away from the beer, thus helping to preserve it; this is true. Those who oppose it claim that it interferes with the normal process of fermentation (remember, English cask beers are fermenting all the time they are being served) and therefore does not allow the beer to mature. I prefer the second theory, since any pub that kepts its beer so long that it needed a blanket to preserve it would not be a pub I'd care to use.

A blanket is not, of course, force carbonation since the pressure is so low that little carbon dioxide dissolves. CAMRA does not recognise as "real" any beer that is pressurised. Indeed, beer cannot be pressurised to any extent in a cask since a cask is not a pressure vessel. Indeed, a few traditional brewers still use wooden casks (take a look at the GBBF pictures).

The point about the different characteristics of bottled beer exhibited according to opening temperature is quite true. However, this is nothing to do with incorrect carbonation. It does, though, have everything to do with incorrect serving. Racing driver have a rather silly habit of spraying each other with Champagne on the winners' rostrum; that is not a fault of those who have made the Champagne!

In any case, regardless of what method you use for carbonating bottled beer, you cannot change it to allow for serving conditions. It is conditioned and that's an end to it.

[ray m]

Kids! Kids!! Kids!!! Am I going to have to send you to your rooms?!?! lmao

[Tweek]

Richard. While I respect your opinion, I am still waiting to hear some science behind your stance, after all beer making is science, not religion (though the lines can be blurred at times :) )

[croc4]

And to think this all started from what I thought was going to be a straight forward question. ................lol

I will have to re-think my questions in the future ;-)
________
apartments Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
The decision is a simple one. If you want to make chemical fizz like A-B or SAB Miller, then do as they do and use force carbonation.

If you want to make proper beer like Goose Island IPA or Fullers 1845, then do as they do and use natural carbonation.

Just don't invite me to the tasting of your A-B clone

If you were kidding about this then there was no indicator. That's what emoticons are for. :p

[Beerconnoisseur]

Originally posted by ray m
Kids! Kids!! Kids!!! Am I going to have to send you to your rooms?!?! lmao

Don't make me open up a cask-conditioned keg of whup ass on y'all...

Sorry, I had to say it. :D

[danno]

Originally posted by Richard English
Sterile beers are that way because they have been pasteurised and filtered. The resulting flat liquid must be force carbonated; there is no alternative. Therefore all sterile chemical fizz beers are force carbonated. The converse, I agree, does not have to be the case, although it often is.
Richard, remember which forum you're posting in here, this is the homebrew forum. In this audience, your last statement (which I bolded) is completely inaccurate, which is part of the reason this discussion is so, uh, lively...

Originally posted by Richard English
In a cask conditioned beer there will be little absobtion since the pressure will not rise much above atmospheric - because a CASK is not a pressure vessel! The excess pressure will be vented through the spile and the beer will not become gassy. In a KEG(which is what the fizz-beer makers use) the pressure can be very high indeed and the beer can become very fizzy. Kegs are not used to dispence real ale in the UK.
I think this is the crux of the argument. In an older thread, we discussed how long a cask ale would last, and it wasn't very long. For the average home brewer, we're not going to finish a five gallon batch in the time before it would start tasting like wet cardboard. So, we use kegs. Right now I have about a third of a corny keg left of a 8.5% Belgian Golden Ale that's just about a year old now, and it keeps getting better, in the keg and hooked up to the gas the entire time.

To follow up on your analogy, we're not talking about "Fords" and "Rolls" here, You're talking a Rolls Royce and I'm talking about a 1932 Ford street rod that I've built from the ground up. Yeah, my Ford may not be a Rolls, but to simply dismiss it as "it's NOT a Rolls" is an insult to every hour of painstaking craftsmanship I've put into creating my 32 Ford...

The other point I'd like to make is that just because a beer is cask conditioned, doesn't guarantee that it's going to be any good. My parents just got back from three weeks in and around London, and they reported just as many dull, boring, tasteless cask ales as good ones. And yes, maybe they went to the wrong pubs, but people drink a lot of Bud because they don't know any better too...

[Richard English]

"We now have much in common with the Americans - except langauge, of course"

Oscar Wilde

One of the problems of international communication is misunderstanding - especially in the use of humour. I prefer not to use emoticons since I believe that my language can speak for itself. Unfortunately (and I should be aware of this having previously fallen into this same trap) it does not always do so. US and British humour are extremely different and mutual incomprehension is the rule rather than the exception. You need only look at our respective TV comedy programmes and see how few are popular with both our countries to realise the truth of this statement.

Maybe I'll try to remember to use emoticons when I communicate with the USA in future.

I have been again guilty of a misunderstanding about what are, presumably, common understandings about bulletin boards. This is the realbeer board and I have always assumed that all threads, regardless of where they have been posted on that board, can be about beer in general, not just about homebrewing, or beer news, or local beers, or whatever. Indeed, I have sometimes found it difficult to decide quite where a topic should go but have remained unconcerned since I see that threads can wander almost unfettered.

Can make one final point.

I used the analogy of a Ford and a Rolls-Royce deliberately since most people are familiar with both marques and their respective reputations. I did not say, or even imply, that one was better than the other. My point was that, unless you know both, you cannot knowledgably compare them. I have owned both a Ford and a Rolls-Royce and I consider myself in a position to judge their respective merits. I am also aware of the considerable skills and dedication necessary to maintain vintage vehicles - and again I speak from knowledge, being the owner of two pre-war Rudges.

My point was simply that I try only to speak from a position of knowledge, not one of emotion. If I did not get this point across, then the fault is my own (although my excuse is Oscar Wilde's)

[croc4]

Hey Richard,

I'm an Aussie living in the U.S. and I feel I have a better than average sence of pommy humour (sorry couldn't resist that , I'm from criminal stock after all;-) )

And I wasn't sure how to take your inital comment as rant or humour, maybe I have been away from home too long ;-)

Any wa, I thought this thread had lost a little life so since my question was never really answered I thought that I would just stir the water a bit more ;-)



Disclamer: the use of "hey" is a very laid back variant of "hi"
________
FriskyRose (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/FriskyRose/)

[Richard English]

Was "...Does the fact that the yeast is actively working change the flavor of the beers profile in any way that can be detected?..."

And the short answer is - yes.

And the longer answer is yes - just taste the difference between Fuller's 1845 and a force-carbonated bottled beer; just taste the difference between methode Champagnoise wine or a cheap sparkling wine made with force carbonation - and let your tongue and tasetbuds be your guide.

To cover just one more point - that of "shelf life". Cask beer will not keep. That is a fact. If you must have beer that will last for a year or more then you must either pasteurise and artificially carbonate your beer and keep it under a blanket or you must bottle it. If you bottle it you have the option of sterilising and artificially carbonating or of using bottle-conditioning.

I do not know why it's not usually done to use natural carbonation in a keg (which is only like a giant bottle, after all) but it doesn't seem to be. My only thought is one of safety. An exploding keg could cause a lot of damage since there would be large amounts of energy stored in the compressed gas. An exploding bottle presents much less of a risk. Maybe somebody can enlighten me.

I do know that large-scale secondary fermentation is used to make some kinds of sparkling wine but the resultant product is still put into bottles before it's sold. And it doesn't taste as good as real Champagne or methode Champagnoise sparkling wine.

Keeping has never been an issue for me. Five US gallons is only 33 Imperial pints - say a fortnight's drinking for one person - and most cask-conditioned beers, especially strong ones, will last a fortnight (two weeks) without any problem. I don't know what size a "corny-keg" is but it would need to be huge to last me a year!

[Beerconnoisseur]

Originally posted by Richard English
I do not know why it's not usually done to use natural carbonation in a keg (which is only like a giant bottle, after all) but it doesn't seem to be. My only thought is one of safety. An exploding keg could cause a lot of damage since there would be large amounts of energy stored in the compressed gas. An exploding bottle presents much less of a risk. Maybe somebody can enlighten me.

I can help you out, somewhat here. "Corny kegs" is just an abbreviation for Cornelius kegs. These are the 2.5 - 5 gallon soda kegs most homebrewers use for storing their homebrew, and the pressure needed to keep beer carbonated is significantly less than the pressure needed to keep soda carbonated. There is virtually no risk of explosion from the kegs themselves, unless you are the creative type, and want to add hydrogen to your nitrogen and carbon dioxide mix. And take up smoking, for good measure. ;)

In the U.S. brewing industry, kegs require more equipment to operate, so homebrewers typically don't use them. The larger kegs are also inconvenient to store, unless you have a spare industrial refridgerator lying around. But they come in 1/2 (15.5 gallon), 1/4 (7.75 gallon) and 1/6 (5 gallon) barrel sizes.

All this said, most homebrewers don't naturally carbonate, since the first cup of beer from the keg usually contains a hefty quantity of yeast. Force carbonating is just a bit easier, since if the yeast don't feel like helping out with the carbonation, you're still good to go.

[Richard English]

Thank you.

The problem with the yeast sediment I can understand, which is why cask conditioned ale is stored in in barrel-shaped vessels. (often simply called "barrels" although strictly a barrel is only one of the cask sizes)

A cask is stored on its belly and the yeast can thus settle in the centre of the bottom swell and the foam accumulate in the top. The tap is inserted into the end of the cask, well above the level of the yeast and so there is little risk of its affecting the beer. When the cask is nearly empty it is normal to tilt it so as to get the last few pints out and then there is a risk of getting yeast into the beer. However, if the cellarman is adept and the landlord is not too greedy, this is a rare occurrence.

And of course, it is quite in order over here to return a pint if its condition is not satisfactory. After all, the landlord will not always be able to try every one of the beers at regular intervals throughout the day and may not realise that one of them has gone past its best.

This is not always realised by visitors to England who struggle through a poor pint and then complain later that British beer is rubbish! All of our 2000+ cask-conditioned ales are good - although each is different and will appeal to different palates. If a pint is warm, flabby, cloudy or sour, then it will be the fault of the pub, not the brewer.

[Fast_Eddy]

croc4 - try both methods for yourself. Decide which one you prefer. After all, it is your beer.

[croc4]

Thanks Richard, you answered my question.

I may try both methods, but I am leaning towards natural carbonation (even before this "discussion" was started)

I just wanted to have some idea of what my trade off's were before I blindly went with either method
________
2SEXYLUSTYGALS (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/2SEXYLUSTYGALS/)

[BufordT]

And actually have the forced CO2 down pretty well now. I suggest trying both methods then stick with whatever feels comfortable and tastes the best to YOU.

Mmmmmmm, forced CO2.