Mouthfeel

@hoptualBrew, permit me to recommend this article:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1993.tb01143.x/pdf

Cheers!

 

In this connection, it's worth noting that Brettanomyces yeasts tend to produce little (no?) glycerol, whereas saison yeasts are known for producing significant amounts. Here's a quote from the Mad Fermentationist blog (Mike Tonsmeire):

Despite their high attenuation many saison strains do not leave an overly thin beer thanks to high glycerol production (making them a good pairing with Brettanomyces, which does not exhibit strong glycerol production).

And there's a new post on Scott Janish's blog about brewing beer with wine yeast, making the following observation:

Another potential benefit from the addition of wine yeast is increased glycerol production, which could theoretically boost the mouthfeel of the beer. For example, Alchemy II [a wine yeast] advertises glycerol production (with grapes) to be at 5-7 g/l, whereas a NEIPA I had tested for glycerol production fermented with WLP007 and came back at just 1.8 g/L.

 

On the mineral point, the argument about levels of chloride and sulfate vs. the ratio of the ions is well known, no need to rehash it here, other than to point out that the absolute amount of chloride might also be a variable some people would want to take into account.

Also, on minerals, I have read that a modest amount of sodium also enhances a soft, rounded, full mouthfeel. It is also said to enhance sweetness. I can't remember where I've read this, but I believe it is true based on my experience. Actually I think people can push sodium up quite a bit before it starts to create an actual salty taste (as opposed to enhancing other flavors), at least if my goses are any indication.

 

Adding sugars that the yeast cannot ferment is another one. As is using yeast strains that are bigger ester formers.

 

For. Me carapills, oats, extra roast , like over 1.5 lbs per item per 5 gallon batch, mash temps over 156, hard maple and oak 4 oz and more per 5 gallon batch for 1 month or more, using hop pellets in the bottleing bucket and other stuff I can't recall right now.

 

PH
Pitch Rate
NA
Ferm temp
Step Mashing
Foam and it’s stability
Natural Carbonation vs. Forced

Also the saison yeast known for its glycerol production, 3711, is also diastatecus. So be somewhat aware.

There are some interesting studies out there about heat shocking yeast to increase its glycerol production.

 

Can you share more of your thoughts on this topic?

I have heard people opine that natural carbonation (e.g., bottle conditioning) will yield smaller bubbles as compared to forced carbonation. Have you seen any studies which quantified this? Is there a law of physics that would explain this phenomenon (assuming it exists)?

I will confess that my homebrewed (bottle conditioned) beers seem to have better qualities as compared to commercial beers but I would like to learn if their is science behind this.

Cheers!

@honkey

 

Yeast attenuation & selection
Short mash (just 20-30 minutes)
Rye

 

I'm pretty sure that's been balonified, but I'm not sure where. People can develop all sorts of theories to support their beliefs that until tested, who knows.

 

So if I’ve read the previous 9 posts correctly, basically everything contributes to mouthfeel haha

 

That article was a 'summary' of many technical articles on the topic of mouthfeel; as in the title " - A REVIEW".

Are you making a comment upon the many technical articles that were discussed/referenced in that specific paper?

Cheers!

 

No, I didn't even look at the paper.

 

My apologies. I was not reading carefully.

Yeah, if you can provide some information (e.g., links) on the natural carbonation vs. forced carbonation topic I would appreciate reading it.

I am not well informed on the science here but based upon what I learned in college physics (which was quite some time ago) I am inclined to think that the physics of carbonation should yield the same size bubbles regardless of method but I would like to learn more.

Cheers!

Edit: There is some discussion in the Mouthfeel paper I linked concerning carbonation and “fine foam” vs. “coarse foam”:

“In preference tests, panelists preferred beer with a fine foam and described this beer as being “well balanced”. Alternatively, beer having a coarse foam was described as having a weak carbonation and low bitterness and was “too soft and dull”.

The above taste tests were based upon varying the methods of pour.

I would suspect that if natural carbonation yielded a “fine foam” and forced carbonation yielded a “coarse foam” this could be a factor as well?

 

Hell, I e. Had big medium and small bubbles in my bottle conditioned brews.. I suppose more or less bubbles ay contribute to mouth feel,,,,, but I contribute excess bubbles more to belching and farting and a needed pause in beer consumption due to belly bloat.

 

Are those coarse bubbles or fine bubbles!?!

Cheers!

 

One

Maybe coarse, maybe fine. Perhaps we,ll never know

 

I think it has less to do with the size of the bubbles vs how the bubbles are created.

Noonan specifically speaks of krausening beer and how it “entrains CO2 in the beer, and gives fuller, mellower flavors”.

 

Foam is more than CO2. A bubble of CO2 in foam is the gas and envelope bubble that is composed of proteins (wheat is know to aid head formation), things like hop oils (those dry hopped beers can have great foam), and glycerol from the yeast fermenting. Spunding can give a really nice foam, or Krausening too.

 

At high levels diacetyl can contribute a full, ‘oily’ mouthful. Probably not the best way to skin that cat, but worth noting.
Also, I’m sure there is ‘perceived’ mouthfeel that certain flavors can contribute. I’ve noticed it in beers with vanilla added fwiw.

 

Can you explain this to a lay-person such as myself?

What exactly does "entrains CO2" mean? Does this happen during natural carbonation (e.g., bottle conditioning) but not during forced carbonation?

Some scientific papers (if they exist) would be helpful here.

Cheers!

 

This was a quote from Noonan, not my words... it came from New Brewing Lager Beer. Trying to find my copy of Brewing Lager Beer which if I remeber had a slightly more scientific explanation.

That being said I feel like for every idea there is a scientific study you can find supporting data for it is just as easy to find a scientific study supporting the opposite idea.

Some of my favorite breweries seem to be in support of natural carbonation for one reason or another. I’ve read and heard many opinions that support it’s positive attributes in relation to foam and mouthfeel. Opinions from brewers I respect and whose beer I enjoy, therefore I believe their opinions to be true.

I’ve split batches where one was force carbed and the other was naturally carbed. I have always preferred the texture and overall profile of the naturally carbed one. Although I feel like I need to perform that experiment again now that my process is a little tighter.

 

Well, I appreciate you sharing that information. At some level this would likely be 'classified' as being anecdotal. But in all fairness my preference for my homebrewed beers (bottle conditioned) vs. commercial beers is anecdotal as well.

Maybe someday somebody (e.g., Oregon State University) will perform a scientific study of natural carbonation (e.g., bottle conditioning) vs. forced carbonation with quantitative results?

Cheers!

 

Not necessarily desirable, but ropey pedio infections look like they would impact mouthfeel.

 

I have no idea if people can reliably distinguish between comparably well-executed forced carbonated and naturally carbonated beers, but it seems to me the key difference would relate more to the presence of yeast rather than directly to the CO2. Forced carbonation adds one molecular species to beer, which goes on to react with the beer matrix in a small number of fairly quantifiable ways (acid-base equilibria), whereas yeast add CO2 plus lots more secondary metabolites. In this thread, for example, glycerol was noted as a yeast byproduct that impacts mouthfeel. Yeast cells themselves may contribute to mouthfeel.

But I'm skeptical about there being much difference of any importance, or folks who have spent careers thinking about carbonation (Bamforth) would have told us about it, or at least alerted us to controversy.

 

Do you have Bamforth's Foam book? Is there any discussion about natural/forced carbonation there?

Cheers!

 

I don’t have foam but here’s a good article on Foam by Bamforth.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...uc&s=e25b9e29890115059b0b9b8c618d4e4932390b88

Towards the end he sites studies that say mashing at 160 promotes foam and another study that says it reduces foam.

He also sites a study that says overpitching can reduce foam and one that says it promotes it.

Again seems like every study you read promoting an idea there are just as many that disparage that same idea.

 

Jack, I do not have this book. I mentioned Bamforth because he has appeared on numerous podcasts talking about foam, and because he has written articles (and books) on the subject. I suspect if he ever alluded to this supposed benefit of natural carbonation over forced carbonation, it would go viral with support from CAMRA and the German purists. I could be wrong on that (we may never know). I suspect I would enjoy reading his books, based on his various interviews.

 

I have the book. I don't recall it saying anything at all about carbonation methods.

 

I took note from the Bamforth article that @wasatchback referenced the following (with bold emphasis by me):

Carbon Dioxide

Large amounts of carbon dioxide in beer will benefit head formation during dispense. Less CO, is needed at higher temperatures to achieve an acceptable head:96 at a given CO2 content, head performance is increased with increasing temperature.122 Head is benefited by the continued and gradual release of CO2 upon standing of the beer during consumption. This is facilitated by the presence of nucleation sites either in the beer itself (e.g. fine particles) or on the glass surface (scratches or hydrophobic surfaces.”

Well, my homebrewed beers are unfiltered and consequently could have “fine particles” that would likely be removed via filtering in the commercial production of beer. This may be one explanation/difference between my homebrewed beers vs. commercial products.

Cheers!

 

A tasting exercise I wish I would have conducted last fall would be blind tasting of bottled Sierra Nevada Celebration (which was bottle conditioned) and canned Sierra Nevada Celebration (which was not can conditioned). I would like to have seen whether I detected a difference in mouthfeel of those two beers.

Cheers!

 

From Brewing Lager Beer:

“Introduction of 10 to 15 percent new beer at bottling produces a finer beer with smaller bubbles than other means of carbonation. It more completely bonds carbonic gas to the beer so that carbonation is less apparent. This is the only means by which a truly smooth beer can be brewed.” -Noonan

 

This reeks of old wives' magic... i.e., I seriously challenge its validity.

 

Put your money where your mouth is and try it yourself... it’s not hard

 

You could do it a couple ways... one way would be to make a slightly larger batch and can that 2000ish ml and stick it in the fridge and then save some yeast to get it to high krausen before adding back. Although Kai has said he doesn’t do this anymore because of potential oxidation of the original wort.

You could do it with DME or LME and a small amount of the original yeast.

Or you could try brewing the same or similar beer on a time frame where it would work. I’m very tempted to do this with my next Helles.

 

I have bottled with krauesening wort in the past, and I *did* get a very large and creamy head... BUT, I have to wonder if it was essentially an overpitch, vice anything to do with "completely bonds carbonic gas to the beer so that carbonation is less apparent". Sorry, that just sounds downright silly to me.

 

The yeast under pressure when bottle conditions produce glycerol which is foam positive.

 

I'm curious to know how much of a difference there is in krausening vs capping/spunding. Both seem to do the same thing in that it's being carbed while an active fermentation is still going on. I finally got all the pieces for my spunding valve, excited to naturally carbonate my next beer.

 

I don’t think there would be any difference from a carbonation standpoint but krausening could help to cleanup any potential fermentation caused off flavors from the primary batch. I have yet to do a textbook krausen but the batches I split and either did a quicky krausen with wort saved or a natural carbonation via sugar and additional yeast always seemed to result in a more rounded profile with less sharp edges as compared to the half of the batch that was force carbonated.