The Definitive Knock-down, Drag-out Cloudy Beer Debate Thread

And here is the opposite view, written by another English brewer, this time of 1888. It is Frank Faulkner in his "Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing". It is in the chapter on finings and clarification of beer:

"...I know of nothing that interferes so much with the delicate flavour of beer, especially that of only moderate gravity [5% ABV, approximately, in his time], as the semi-cloudiness which means a very intimate kind of connection between the amorphous matter and yeast in suspension and the weak alcoholic fluid".

He is saying, particularly for beers which aren't strong, a yeasty brew does not achieve the optimal flavour of a good pint, a view I share personally. English beers, even light dinner ales, were very well-hopped in this period, so I don't think we can say he's talking about the kind of commercial beers (macro) of today with little hop character. He does not refer here to aesthetic issues, just taste.

The comments above though on the different kinds of cloudiness are well-taken. I think Faulkner would have rejected the Orange Julius-type look out of hand as simply not fully "cleansed" (the rough clarification which preceding racking for conditioning, usually achieved today by cold-breaking) whereas various light degrees of haze were probably accepted as normal.

 

Just like my scotch, I prefer my beer unfiltered.

 

I'm not sure (re Breadwinner's question) as I am not a brewer either. I understand haze can be comprised of proteinaceous materials, yeast particles, polyphenols, tannins, which can derive from different parts of the brewing process. When I said cold break, I should complete that by referring also to cold filtration (when you drop the fermented brew to close to freezing to precipitate out remaining solids).

I guess each cloudy beer has a different combination of the haze-producing elements, some of which impact taste, and some don't, but in my experience tasting the same beer poured clear and cloudy I generally prefer the clear one which I believe results from not liking a yeasty overlay on the taste.

 

There seems to be a mistaken idea that somehow a cloudy beer retains more of the flavour elements than a clear one. This is as much sheer nonsense as saying that the view is better on a foggy day.The bits floating around in a badly brewed (cloudy) beer aren't flavour components. Wheat beer is through necessity, cloudy because of the physical characteristics of wheat grains which is perhaps a reason why barley remains the staple of brewing.
I brewed beer for over 30 years and regardless of any treatment it was always pretty well clear. I never filtered and rarely used finings, well brewed beers don't need them for clarity.

 

To add to the complexity of the situation, I'm not sure that the "rules" about clarity developed around lower ABV beers hold for higher ABV beers. Nor do I think we can afford to ignore the intent of the brewer. If the flavor they want to put out there is closely bound up with the factors that lead to clarity (.e.g., absence of yeast, protein haze, etc.) then the lack of clarity is not good. If however, (say as with Hefeweizen) the target full flavor expererience includes factoring in, say yeast, then it seems clarity is not to be desired. So bottom line is I don't think we can postulate a single blanket statement that covers all beers at all times.

In someways its like counting IBUs as a measure of bitterness. The problem is the resulting bitterness depends not only on the IBUs but on the other ingredients and the target flavors for the beer.

 

All true from the brewer's standpoint but of course the drinker can express his view on any particular product consumed two ways.

 

I am a brewer (homebrewing for 20 years).

As I made mention previously there are a number of things that can cause a hazy appearance to a particular beer.

Do you happen to know whether the Trillium house ale yeast creates a hazy appearance for all of their beers?

It is my guess that the brand of DDH Congress Street may be ‘suffering’ from a double whammy of yeast still in suspension and the effects of chill haze elements (proteins & polyphenols). Adding hops late in the brewing process (including dry hopping) adds a lot of polyphenols to the mix. I have zero idea which malt that Trillium uses but all malts contain proteins; some malt is higher in protein than others.

If Trillium was highly motivated to create a clearer beer (and needless to say they aren’t) they could make some brewing changes like:

· Ferment with an ale yeast strain that is more flocculent (i.e., will drop out of solution)

· Use malt that is low in protein

· Reduce the amount of late addition hops (needless to say this will not be done!!)

All of the aspects I enumerated above will have flavor impacts to the resulting beer. Perhaps using lower protein malt will have the least impact from a flavor profile perspective?

I have never had a Trillium beer but I wonder if they view creating cloudy beer as being a ‘differentiator’? In other words, it is a feature that makes their beer standout and will provide them with some cache?

You might want to read this blog entry by Stan Hieronymus where he details some cloudy beer experiences he had in Oregon: http://appellationbeer.com/blog/hey-oregon-why-the-cloudy-beers/

Cheers!

P.S. Stan Hieronymus knows all about hops (and dry hopping); he wrote the book For the Love of Hops.

 

Maybe @Peter_Wolfe will chime in with his thoughts on this topic. He is the expert on dry hopping (plus lots of other technical brewing topics).

Cheers!

 

I have to say that I usually have more confidence in a cloudy IPA being better than a crystal clear one. I don't think that problems with haze in an IPA are as prominent as problems with filtration in an IPA. Filtering (especially via a plate filter) can often times strip a lot of flavor out of what would have been a super complex and hoppy IPA.

I just usually find IPAs with organic material to be better. (of course, not all the time but it's a trend)

 

A cloudy "Koelsch" with 40 IBUs...hmmm.

 

herrburgess, I would have to agree.

Chill haze was so frowned upon even in the "new world" that the use of adjuncts was developed specifically to eradicate chill haze from beer so that it would be asthetically pleasing to post prohibtion beer drinkers. If muddy or cloudy beer was acceptable would such a great movement have begun that actually spawned our BMC history? When I get a beer that looks as cloudy as grapefruit juice I do not react favorably at first to the sight of it. It may be delicious but I am reluctant to seek those beers out again and usually don't.

 

I suspect that what we have here is just another instance of the extreme reaction against macro lagers that seems to define "craft" beer. If it's clear (like an AAL) it can't be good; therefore extra cloudy must be extra good.

 

I am uncertain about the 40 IBUs part but I can state that I thoroughly enjoyed drinking these unfiltered Kolsch beers:

Number 1: Sunner unfiltered Kolsch (which is labeled as Sunner Kellerbier for the bottled products):

“Sünner Kellerbier

By the standards of the Kölsch Könvention, only filtered, bright beer can be called "Kölsch". However, when it's taken directly from the fermenter, unfiltered and with a soft, natural carbonation, it can be spectacular!

We offer the Sünner Kellerbier only occasionally, so jump at it when you see it. You'll find it slightly yeasty, more bitter and even drier than the everyday Kölsch.”

Number 2: Freigeist Ottekolong

Cheers!

 

You (and anyone else) can enjoy drinking them all you like; still doesn't make them a Koelsch.

 

That is what I like to call bacon,cheddar and ranch thinking.

 

Amerikanische Kreativität.

 

Cheers to American creativity!!

 

LOL

^ People I want to see in the same room with me. (It's a bigger list believe me.)