Cans v. Bottles

Plus the cap liner in a bottle does not come in direct contact with the beer (unless the beer is stored horizontally), while the liner in a can is in full contact with the beer at all times.

 

One thing that doesn't seem addressed at all in this paper is, to be non-technical since I'm solely a drinker and not a brewer, "stuff yeast does." Makes sense seeing as it's about staling and freshness, but I imagine there's a parallel universe of yeast related chemistry at work too.

 

You made mention of "stuff yeast does."

Are you asking this within the context of commercially bottled (and canned) beers? If so, the majority of commercially packaged beer is filtered prior to packaging. There will be no yeast in those packaged beers and therefore are not a consideration wrt the chemistry of beer aging in that context.

In the paper there is some mention concerning bottle conditioned beers (pg. 16) of: “Especially, bottle refermented beers, in contact with an inactive yeast layer during storage, may become more susceptible to biochemical transformations (Vanderhaegen et al., 2003a).”

I can certainly testify that my homebrewed bottle conditioned beers resist staling as a consequence of the bottle conditioning aspect. As to the chemistry of the phenomenon the best that I can relate is the yeast has the ability to process oxygen and within that realm it is an antioxidant. Whether this is the sole (or principle) reason for increased beer stability of bottle conditioned beers I really don’t know.

Cheers!

 

Yeah, I was thinking of bottle conditioned beers and, in particular, brett beers or other wild / sour stuff. In the context of aging, those seem to be a "special" category to me.

We can all agree that IPAs and hoppy beers shouldn't be aged.

Stouts, barleywines, and such similar high abv and often barrel aged beers are often noted as candidates for aging ... but I wonder if that's just a kind of degradation that many people find appealing (oxidation increasing sweetness, decreasing any bitterness, etc). IMHO extended aging shouldn't be necessary for a lot of these styles and it is, in some cases, a cheap out for people that are making some sub-par product ("age it and it will mellow!" ... yeah, because it's oxidized.) particularly bourbon or other spirit aged stouts where the barrel is an over-whelming factor.

Which leaves me thinking that beers that are living / transforming due to yeasts are the easiest to make a case for cellaring.

 

Did I miss someone clarify whether or not the can and/or bottle was then poured into a glass before drinking?

To this date, I have very rarely drank out of a craft can and/or bottle. I pour into a glass and enjoy. So to answer, I personally cannot tell the difference. I know some of you can tell the difference and refuse to buy cans. I respect that. Also, I recently had HT for the first time, and although it says on the can to drink right from it, I pour.

 

“We can all agree that IPAs and hoppy beers shouldn't be aged.” The best that I can offer here is that I personally agree with that statement.

“Stouts, barleywines, and such similar high abv and often barrel aged beers are often noted as candidates for aging ... but I wonder if that's just a kind of degradation that many people find appealing (oxidation increasing sweetness, decreasing any bitterness, etc).” Well, the utilization of the term “degradation” is a somewhat biased descriptor. Many folks like the oxidation derived flavors like sherry in a Barleywine or dark fruit flavors in a Quad/BSDA.

"IMHO extended aging shouldn't be necessary for a lot of these styles and it is, in some cases, a cheap out for people that are making some sub-par product ("age it and it will mellow!" ... yeah, because it's oxidized.) particularly bourbon or other spirit aged stouts where the barrel is an over-whelming factor.” Your opinion is duly noted. I do not personally agree with that opinion since I think that a number of beer styles from high quality breweries can benefit from aging. For example, last year I bought a case of Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout with the intention of aging that beer over multiple years. I have not opened a single bottle yet. That beer is not a “sub-par product” but IMO it improves with time in the bottle. That beer is not bottle conditioned.

“Which leaves me thinking that beers that are living / transforming due to yeasts are the easiest to make a case for cellaring.” Again, I recognize your opinion but I do not share it. Bottle conditioned beers can be good candidates for aging. I have a homebrewed Quad that I bottled on 5/14/13 (that beer is 17 months old now) that is aging beautifully and it happens to be bottle conditioned. As I made mention above I am also aging the Brooklyn BCS which is not bottle conditioned. The fact that a beer is bottle conditioned is not a defining factor for aging beer IMO.

Cheers!

 

I've had good beer from cans, so I don't mind them. And of course they are great for golfing. But when pushed, I prefer bottles.

 

Cans have a lot of advantages, but I guess that I'm just a bottle guy.

 

The yeast is typically dead by the time you buy the bottle, even for most bottle-conditioned beers, so all yeast actions are done and should not affect the flavor of the beer. That's what the sediment at the bottom of the bottle usually is. As for affecting the flavor, most brewer's use bottle-conditioning to carbonate and increase the ABV, but it doesn't usually do a whole lot to affect flavor when aging the beer. Beer naturally, unless kept under pressure, is flat at the end of fermentation. Typically the brewer does one of two things: run a secondary fermentation under pressure to take care of the flatness and get rid of any remaining fermentable sugars, then filter everything out, package the beer, and/or pasteurize to kill any possible contaminations and yeast; or they will add some priming sugar to the batch and bottle condition the beer. Any yeast left from primary fermentation will be kickstarted, carbonating the beer and bumping up the ABV bit. At the end of fermentation the yeast dies and settles to the bottom of the bottle (this is why a number of breweries will warn against drinking this). The second method is easier for a number of smaller breweries since it requires less equipment. If you get any other off-flavors from a beer as you age it, that is usually caused by any host of microbes that got into the package.

To answer this point, some will be able to get a hint of aluminum in the beer due to the fact that the can lid is not coate\d. An open glass is always better than drinking straight out of either the bottle or can.

 

I'd guess we're actually closer to agreeing than it seems. By no means was I being absolutest when saying "let it mellow" is the rallying cry of bad brewers alone; definitely there are beers that I enjoy more after a year or two. But I do think it's an easy out for people that haven't really honed their craft. And I'm still a bit skeptical of realllly long term aging since with all the variables involved it seems more of a crap shoot than a guarantee of repeatable results. One person may say "x beer after so many years is AMAZING" and another may disagree ... and based on experience, they may both be right! Hell, look at people making scotch - they'll do everything to control the variables on a barrel and one barrel will be amazing and the one sitting right next to it, not so amazing. (I found this article, though kind of a fluff piece, substantial enough to be pretty interesting: http://www.coolhunting.com/food-drink/the-macallan-rare-cask-single-malt-scotch.php)


And I suppose I'm more thinking of brett beers than just bottle conditioned.

Cheers indeed!

 

"Typically dead" ... is that true of wild beers / brett beers? I assume not ... that stuff is still going on in the bottle.

 

Brett/wild beers are intentionally given a specific wild yeast strain (and typically a Lactobacillus and/or Pediococcus strain), though it is still typically dead by the time you buy them in stores. If it's intentional, the brewers do one of three things: ferment with the wild yeast strain from the beginning; do a secondary fermentation in open-air or wooden fermenters which contain the desired microbial strains; or via bottle-conditioning. As such, most brewers won't ship it out until it's ready to drink with the intended sourness. Unless the beer says otherwise on the label, any and all microbe (bug) activity has ceased (they're either dead or dormant in the form of spores, neither of which can actually be harmful). It really doesn't take long for the bugs to consume all available food and die (a matter of days, really). If the wild/Brett aspect is due to an unintended micro infection just prior to bottling, then there is definitely a chance that bugs can still be alive when you buy the bottle.

 

In the US, the majority of breweries at this point are probably "force-carbonating" - (what used to be referred to as "artificially carbonating" before it was adopted by so-called "craft brewers") - injecting CO2 (either collected from fermentation tanks, or, more typically these days, purchased) in-line or in-tank before packaging.

The additional alcohol created during bottle-conditioning is relatively negligible - additional fermentation in the bottle that would significantly increase ABV would also mean enough CO2 to shatter the bottle.

Of those two "natural" carbonating methods, only the latter would be considered "bottle-conditioning". The former would be "kraeusening" (if the secondary is done using fresh wort added to the fermented beer) or "bunging/tank conditioning".

Interesting that you've mentioned pastuerization in several of your posts, since it seems to confirm that Boston Beer Co. does tunnel pasteurize its standard 12 oz. bottled beers, which is somewhat unusual for "craft" brewers. BBC beers have always been bottled at pre-craft era breweries - originally under contract, and now by BBC themselves in pre-craft era built breweries in Cincinnati (Schoenling- 1930s) and Allentown, PA (Schaefer - 1970s) - so pasteurization would be standard in such facilities. I once read (but have never found the quote again) Jim Koch noting that he liked the "slight caramelization" which tunnel pastuerization gave SABL, when he was asked about pasteurizing his products.

 

@jesskidden, thanks for the post of: “I once read (but have never found the quote again) Jim Koch noting that he liked the "slight caramelization" which tunnel pasteurization gave SABL, when he was asked about pasteurizing his products.”

I have always wondered about the flavor impacts of pasteurization on beer.

Are there other specific flavors impacts beyond caramelization that you are aware of? I have seen some beer authors used the descriptor of “cooked flavors” but that description is too ambiguous for me to understand.

Cheers!

 

Homebrewers make starters from the dregs of bottle conditioned beers. The yeast is not dead. Dormant would be a better term.

 

Golf + beer = tons of WONDERFUL choices. All Day is my go to for golf now if I can get to it before a round.

 

I have always heard that beer is better on tap but it seems that where you are greatly influences this. On tap at a brewery where people know what they are doing vs on tap at a restaurant where they don't understand beer at all. I have had beer on tap and thought it was not very good but later tried it again in a bottle and thought it was really good. Thoughts?

 

I think you are about right. Or at least have a valid point here..

Hit and miss... in a pub where they know what they are doing or brewery it tends to be great but when there is a lack of knowledge or caring then it is not so good. Also some Beers like Guinness just don't travel that well on Tap. I swear the Guinness outside of Ireland is not as good as it is in Ireland and outside of the Northern half of Europe it is close to undrinkable. But part of me wonders is this just the bars not knowing how to look after the pipes when it comes to the black stuff...

 

I've always preferred beer out of a bottle (poured into a glass). I feel like I notice more subtleties when it comes from a bottle. Then again, the drinking environments are much different. Perhaps I am more focused on what I am drinking at home than in a bar.

 

Depends on the bar and depends on the beer, that's basically all that can be said on the issue.