Force carbonating, more prominant than I thought...

Ahhh, misunderstood you. Cheers!

 

I'll paraphrase John Keeling, head of brewing at Fullers. A bottle-conditioned beer continues to develop in the bottle. Force-carbonated beer starts to deteriorate quite quickly, while a bottle-conditioned beer will reach its peak 6 months to a year after bottling. Bottle-conditioned beer has a longer shelf-life and is more robust. Bottle-conditioned beer will develop an extra layer of complexity and depth. Comparing Fullers Vintage Ale and Golden Pride should make the difference clear. They're basically the same beer, but only Vintage Ale is bottle conditioned.

That's why Fullers have started bottle conditioning more of their beers.

I'm not about to argue with someone with 30+ years of experience brewing both types.

 

keep in mind that SN prides itself on just how little yeast they use to bottle condition. (for example, in the old BA forums, i saw sierranevadabill bragging about this when asked.) seriously, very few breweries have mastered it as perfectly as SN has. a bottle of SNPA these days barely has any sediment in it.

 

If I had to put a guess out there, I'd say that all the yeast in a bottle-conditioned beer allow bubbles to form on more, smaller nucleation points.

I've heard similar claims before, but I still can't help but be a little skeptical. I wouldn't want to dispute that Keeling notices differences between his bottle-conditioned and force carb'ed beers. However, that's a pretty different statement than there being a difference between any/all bottle-conditioned and force carb'ed beers.

 

I wouldn't argue with Mr. Keeling because, to tell you the truth, I have no evidence one way or another. That's the problem - many brewers and beer enthusiasts make statements but I have yet to hear why this is the case and the explanations are always a bit suspect. Here is a little more thorough explanation of my skepticism:

"Bottle conditioned beers have residual yeast" - So can & do force carbonated beers

"Bottle conditioning prevents oxidation by allowing the yeast to consume the oxygen in the headspace" - Force carbonated beers can be reliably packaged without oxygen in the headspace and most bottle conditioned beers are packaged without introducing oxygen anyway. The bottles are purged.

"Bottle conditioned beers develop with age and force carbonated beers don't" - Really? Not only can I tell you empirically that's not true, but wine is packaged without any carbonation or viable yeast and it seems to develop in the bottle just fine.

"Bottle conditioned beers have smaller, finer bubbles." - Nonsense. Last time I had an Orval, one of the bubbles ate my cat. My own homebrewed beer that is undercarbonated has very fine and small bubbles. I have no reason to believe bubble size is anything other than a function of carbonation level and temperature.

I admit I am no scientician and also admit there are many fine examples of bottle conditioned beer that have stood the test of time. However, could someone provide me with evidence as to why bottle conditioning benefits the beer? I've yet to see it.

 

They also use only whole leaf hops, which is a huge PITA, but they believe in it. Is either necessary? Most would say no.

 

I would guess that forced carb beers are the significant majority of beers available. If anyone can tell the difference, I would be surprised. I've even heard Hedwig Neven wonder aloud if it's necessary and if Duvel Moortgat should continue to bottle condition (don't think they would actually stop bottle conditioning).

 

I've been under the impression that the reason we don't see kegs of Duvel is because they were not satisfied that it was identical to what comes from a bottle conditioned Duvel.
A few years ago, I had a brief conversation with Alec at Armsby Abbey in Worcester about how he was slated to get a keg of Duvel, but the plan fell through after both parties agreed that it just wasn't quite right. The details from that convo are a bit fuzzy but I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it. Maybe if Divebar sees this he can chime in and correct any bastardizations of the the event that I just made...
Shortly after that, I started seeing alot of Duvel Green at bars.

 

That's the way I understood it. That's also why it's distinguished with the "Green." I'm wondering, though, if the "quite right" part of it is the carbonation level by the time it reaches the consumer.

 

Founders force carbs....good enough for me!

 

Really? Zero oxygen? Highly unlikely. A good target is 50 ppb, but I'm unaware of any line that gives zero oxygen.

 

When pouring commercial beer into a glass, especially if it is a flagship/mass produced offering, I tend to assume that I can pour the entire bottle without worry of yeast plopping into the glass. This of course, is save the exception of most Belgian styles, lambic/gueuze, etc.

99% of the time my assumption doesn't bite me in the ass. As such, I'd wager that 99% of the larger commercial (U.S.) breweries force carbonate. I could easily see where smaller ones and more traditional/heritage carrying European breweries wouldn't for a multitude of reasons. As stated, there are a ton of reasons why force carbing is more efficient, consistent, and likely cheaper too.

I would assume that for the bigger breweries pasteurization is a huge plus too - look at how some of our favorite beers have changed - Abyss and La Folie are not bottle conditioned anymore, and I know that at least in the case of Abyss it is to allow for flash pasteurization (post '09 infection) to prevent any future issues. How much bad PR, time, and money was spent on issuing refunds, recalls, and apologies? I presume that NB is pasteurizing or at least protecting their ass a bit by no longer bottle conditioning La Folie. Is this better for the consumer? The answer will inevitably vary - there are positives and negatives on both ends. But I would expect a bottle conditioned La Folie to be more nuanced and complex than the newer force carbonated ones. Simply put - there's much much more yeast in the earlier bottles to continue adding layers of sourness and funk that the newer bottles will likely never fully attain, regardless of age.

As for the smaller bubbles - I don't buy into the fact that bottle conditioning produces smaller bubbles than not, but I do agree that smaller bubbles are better. Commercial breweries use carbonation stones which can effectively introduce microscopic amounts of CO2 into the beer. The smaller bubbles allow for more CO2 to exist in solution vs wanting to rise to the top and break - this would be beneficial in both a brite tank and in your glass. Larger bubbles will facilitate more O2 introduction and in the glass diffuse more quickly resulting in a flat beer more quickly.

I will readily admit that I don't understand a lot of the benefits of the smaller bubbles and exactly how it works, but I have discussed it in the past with brewers and truly believe that smaller is better here.

As for Sierra Nevada Pale - their system adds such a minute amount of yeast at the bottom of the bottle that it is entirely negligible. It's also a good strain for sticking to the bottom vs becoming loose and chunky. As such, I have always haphazardly poured my SNPA into a glass without ever noticing any appreciable difference in appearance, flavor, etc from whatever yeast was added at bottling.

 

Heady Topper - forced or can-conditioned? I assume the latter based on the amount of floaties when you disregard the rules and pour it into a glass.

 

Fair enough. So follow up question - assuming that yeast in a bottle conditioned beer would consume that oxygen, what would be the effect of that extra 50ppb O2 introduced at packaging on a force carbonated beer?

 

Any oxygen is going to impact the beer, even as little as 50 ppb. Keep in mind that 50 ppb is very low, and many older lines don't even accomplish this.

 

Pretty sure that the "floaties" are hop residue, and that it is, indeed, force carbed.

 

Ok. So this point is something we can work with. So then my questions would be:
What quantifiable and decidedly negative effect does the oxygen introduced in a typical commercial (craft beer) bottling line have on the beer?
What evidence do we have that the oxygen introduced in bottle conditioned beer is completely consumed by the yeast prior to any quantifiable and decidedly negative effect on the beer? (does the yeast consume the oxygen in time to prevent staling?)
Also - in a non-mechanically clarified beer (gravity/finings only) there will be yeast at packaging even if it is force carbonated so to what degree can that yeast consume any oxygen introduced at packaging?
With the right answers to these questions I could concede that a well-dialed-in bottle conditioning process would be superior to force carbonation.

 

I've often wondered about this since a local brewery claimed the tiny bubble argument many of you mentioned above. Although I think this was just part of their marketing ploy to make their pretty unremarkable pilsner stand out from the pack.

A brewer at Great Divide told me that they (and a lot of other craft brewers) force carb because of space limitations, which makes sense. If you were really keen to see if you could notice a difference between force carb and natural, try something from Ommegang. All their bottled beer is bottle-conditioned, while anything on draft has been force carbonated. I learned this when I visited them this winter.

 

the Green was truly underwhelming.
Duvel can't be reliably served from keg but not because of any packaging issues. it is not practical for each bar to balace a line perfectly for the keg Duvel. Moortgat knows that 90% of the bars that would end up with a keg of Duvel would not bother to or even know how to balance one line in their system. Green was an attempt to soften the famous monster cloud of foam that accompanies a proper Duvel, along with some modest other recipe changes. i think it is just dumbed down Duvel personally; was there a tremendous demand for keg Duvel?

the people at Ommegang will tell you whatever you want to know about kegging Duvel, they aren't coy.
Cheers.

 

I'm not about to argue with Ron, John Keeling or you but I do know that Traquair House Ale does develop with age and its not bottle conditioned. And the ten year Before Date window on the bottle shows the brewery thinks so too.