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

Well actually that may not necessarily be an accurate interpretation of what those results show. In particular the interpretation that those changes will only be noticed by those with specially trained brains. While it is indeed the case that people can learn to detect subtle differences that others may not notice, the general phenomena I was describing above are trained into humans by the world during growth and living. So while a specially trained sensory person may detect very subtle differences that others do not, but that doesn't necessarily mean without that specific training you can't/don't detect differences. It will also depend greatly on the subtlety and the training. And remember that training here can mean "self-training."

So I don't think we don't need to get in to the realm of neurplasticity or of what abilities special training can or does produce since the interest is really in noticable differences detectable by "trained by the world" humans. (Who are the folks my earlier comments were intended to describe.)

 

Whatever view one takes on the question of turbid vs. clear or translucent beers, I've always felt the cloudy stuff, initially you saw it in how most North American cask was served and later the bottled beers discussed here too, emerged because of a misinterpretation by brewers here of what unfiltered meant. It never meant in English practice the beer should look turbid. That practice is the tradition from which IPA, other ales and porter emerged. It meant the beer was not mechanically filtered as opposed to clarifying naturally through being left to stand a long time or use of finings.

There is some irony in this discussion since the desire of the English to avert mechanical filtration (i.e., viz the cask beer heritage) was precisely not to strip all yeast character from the beer. In essence, they wanted some influence but not too much.

Really one is talking in these discussions about how much yeast character - the fruity/spicy/minerally (it varies) character - is wanted in relation to the hop and malt flavours in the beer. The brewer has the prerogative to present the beer in a way that best reflects his taste. Drinkers will have their own preferences and those who differ can sometimes be drinking the same beer but in different forms, e.g. a bottle-conditioned beer poured all in or clear - even when you pour it "clear" you can adjust the pour to let a bit more yeast in if you want.

 

Much smaller degrees of difference will much more easily be noticed by those with specially trained brains. So I would disagree with you here -- and specifically in the context of this thread. "Trained by the world" folks are very unlikely to pick up on the differences between beers filtered naturally vs. "unnaturally" (or to talk about it on a site like BA). But those who have trained their senses and/or brewed enough to have experimented with different processes will most certainly be more likely to be able to distinguish between such things...assuming we haven't "forgotten" or misremembered the way the one or the other batch tasted.

 

Once again (and it's just a suggestion) it would be interesting to see a beer tasted, ideally blind, in two forms, cloudy and clear. Maybe a separate thread should be created for this. I don't have any beer at home right now that is suitable but I'll buy some and wait a week and then try this and would be happy to report my conclusions. Maybe others can do the same, even with Chimay for example it would be interesting to see what people say.

 

I consider myself to be rational, pragmatic, not prone to herd mentality, work in the industry, and have tried several thousand different beers from many different brewing traditions and countries. Probably also a beer geek, yes, but I drink what I like regardless of prior reviews and/or perceptions of trends. Sometimes these trends do line up with my tastes though.

I would say the best 10 IPAs (to my tastes) that I've had in the past few years across half a dozen breweries have shared this similar profile: intensely aromatic, citrusy and tropical hop flavor profile, with full and creamy mouthfeel, soft bitterness profile, and I don't put much stake in appearance in general, but decidedly cloudy with many examples leaning towards the opaque.

I do not know and I assume this is the point of the thread, whether this is a coincidence or whether it is a shared intentional learned knowledge/technique that is a necessary byproduct of the process to achieve that specific flavor profile shared in many of these newer IPAs as outlined above.

I have yet to come across the same IPA taste profile in a beer that was crystal clear, although I'd certainly be welcome to the prospect, which leads me to believe the appearance is a byproduct and not a lack of a process or laziness.

 

Truly those with specially trained sensory systems will do better than others. That's usually, but in fact not always, the end result of appropriate testing, etc. (Sometimes the specially trained people can actually be more easily fooled. :-)).

As for your disagreement and your supposition as to what can or can not be the case, that's all in the realm of being empirical questions and not something that either of us can dictate claiming belief one way or the other. We can speculate all day on what the "world trained" can or can not do but until the appropriate empirical testing has been done its all speculation and in fact could come out either way. Sometimes it requires specialized testing procedures but just because they can't talk about it the same way as the specially trained sensory expert doesn't mean they don't detect it.

 

If you do this, get some help and use the "triangle" test. Have someone blindfold you and serve you three portions in three equal amounts in three identical glasses. Two portions are from one bottle the third portion is from the second bottle. Then your goal is to identify the odd man out. Have the results recorded and repeat 10-20 times if you want to get enough data to be sure of your ability. Also, if you do do multiple trials, ensure that sometimes it is one beer that is being poured in two portions and sometimes it is the other. With your task in every trial being to pick the odd man out. With enough repetitions you should be able to tell if there is a large enough difference to be sure. Have fun!

 

Some of the studies I mentioned actually did the appropriate empirical testing on mice, and clearly demonstrated new neural pathways that were developed as a result of the specialized training.

 

Yes I'm aware fo some of those, but I'm not sure what relevance it has. The question is not what specialized organisms are capable of doing after speicalized training and have going on in their brains over time. The question is bound up with what normal humans can do when given appropriate tasks to perform.

 

There were and are many cask beers not using isinglass. According to Ron Pattinson the beers from Burton weren't fined because they didn't need it.Isinglass in any case only removes some things, it has no effect on haze.
Looking at @Peter_Wolfe #s post it seems that filtration affects hop aroma but , I quote "centrifuging, by the way, did not remove any measurable hop aroma" This is a pretty clear indication that the cloudy gunge , which can be removed by centrifuging , does not contribute to hop aroma.I never thoughy it did.

Once again to some posters, if beer is clear that does not mean it has been filtered.

 

"Haze is fine and sometimes even desirable"

except when sitting outside in a biergarten crushing Helles Lager. Sorry man, want a clear blonde beer with a beautiful white alpine snow fluffy head on that steez - CRUSH-O-MATIC! :-)

 

If your average BA is "normal," then maybe you have a point....

In all honesty, most of the real devotees of "craft" beer I know were anything but "normal" -- either as adults or as kids. In fact, many of them strike me as having a sort of innate predilection for intense tastes -- kind of "sensory seeking" behaviors.

To bring this back to the OP, perhaps these predilections for more intense flavors lead many hardcore "craft" beer fans (like the ones on BA) to enjoy the fuller mouthfeel and added "flavor" that the residual yeast/proteins/etc. provide.

 

All understood, of course when pouring in the settled yeast to half the glass of beer, you are adding twice as much as if the beer was poured all-in. (Not that the yeast in the bottle is an "ideal" amount for drinking purposes anyway, but just saying).

 

By the way it may well be that American hops as used in current APA and IPA answer better to a more yeasty glass of beer than English hops. The taste is typically very forward and citric and perhaps, or in the view of some, the overall sensory appreciation of the beer is enhanced with an extra charge of yeast versus a traditional English pale ale.

 

Okay sure, yes. But anyway at the extremes of the process - very turbid glass from all-in pour vs. carefully decanted pour that looks crystal or almost, it would be interesting to hear how people react with different styles and brands of beer. Blind tasting is the way to go to avoid the neural pathway issue from learned behaviour...

I can actually report some prior experience with Creemore in Ontario. The keller version is lightly cloudy if you pour it all in, not heavily cloudy (so maybe not the best example). I find it very similar to regular Creemore.

 

Cheers to that!

 

I homebrew. I try to make my beers clear, but I'm still learning. Whirlfloc at flame-out, racking to secondary, cold crashing before bottling, fining agents after secondary - there's a lot you can do to make your beer less cloudy. But a crystal clear beer is not always achievable, regardless of your excellent technique.

That said, I'll drink anything without too many floaties.