Author: Marshall Schott

Pilsner, Helles, Dunkles, Märzen, Vienna, Bock, Schwarzbier– all different in their own terrific ways, the one thing these beers have in common is the fact they are lagers. While quality commercial examples exist, including a growing number of domestic craft options, many homebrewers avoid making these delicious styles due to how convoluted and time consuming the process is. In addition to recommendations calling for yeast pitch rates nearly double that needed for ales, step mashing, and extended boil lengths, many believe genuine lager character can only be produced by following an already lengthened cool fermentation stage with an even longer period of cold conditioning. In New Brewing Lager Beer, Greg Noonan advises determining lager duration based on the OG of the beer, allowing 1 week for every 2° Plato (about 0.008 SG), meaning that a 1.050 OG Pilsner would require nearly 6 weeks of lagering once fermentation is complete. The hesitance is understandable.

I’d brewed a couple lagers using traditional methods, they came out great, but they tied up my fermentation chamber way too long. So, I began researching the history of lager brewing in an attempt to understand why they required so much time. What I noticed was that many of the methods accepted as convention seemed a direct emulation of those used by traditional lager brewers who didn’t have access to the technology we do today. It was almost as if the methods we adopted were based off of the assumption that lager brewers of yore specifically chose the process they did, as opposed to their processes being a function of the resources they had available to them at the time. Rather than adapting, we adopted, ignoring our sophisticated temperature regulators and treating our fermentation chambers like cool, dark German caves.

Able to turn ale around in as little as 2 weeks using a ramped fermentation schedule, and fully aware that my theory could be total shit, I figured I’d apply the same logic when brewing my next lager– start cool and gently raise the temperature to encourage a quicker ferment, then cold crash to just below freezing for a few days, keg, and force carbonate. Lo and behold, this quick lager method worked, the beers came out just as good as those I’d made in the past, but they were ready in only 3 weeks. I was sold and proceeded to share the method, eventually learning that others had been using similar techniques with the same success.

Of course, many questioned this approach, some more adamantly than others, convinced that a side-by-side comparison of lager beers produced using the traditional and quick methods would be the only good way to know if the differed or not. I agreed and finally decided to put it to the test!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between two lager beers of the same recipe fermented using either traditional or quick methods.

| METHODS |

The reason it took so long to get to this xBmt is because we kept going in circles when it came to designing an approach that eliminated extraneous variables. We eventually agreed this was impossible and moved forward, making what we deemed the smallest sacrifices. Since quick lager advocates claim their method produces beer equal in quality to those fermented traditionally, we thought it best to compare beers that were ready in their typical time frames. What this meant was the quick batch wouldn’t even be brewed until the traditional batch was done with primary fermentation and had entered the lagering phase. In an attempt to keep things as organized as possible, since both brew days were identical, I’ll present them together and emphasize points of divergence.

For this xBmt, I figured a very simple recipe would make any differences more obvious to tasters.

Lager For The Lazy

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 24.8 IBUs 2.9 SRM 1.053 1.009 5.8 % Actuals 1.053 1.006 6.2 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pilsner (2 row) (Gambrinus) 9.969 lbs 100 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Mt. Hood 25 g 60 min First Wort Pellet 5 Mt. Hood 20 g 20 min Boil Pellet 5 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Bavarian Lager (M76) Mangrove Jack's 79% 46.4°F - 57.2°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 70 | Mg 1 | Na 10 | SO4 84 | Cl 62

I was concerned about potential differences in pitching rates propping liquid yeast in starters, so after consulting with the crew, I opted to pitch 2 packs of dry lager yeast into each batch. While my go-to is Saflager W-34/70, and despite the fact it’s the most popular lager yeast in the world, I refrained from using it for this xBmt due to reports that it’s actually closer to a hybrid yeast. Instead, I went with Mangrove Jack’s M76 Bavarian Lager yeast, which has a recommended fermentation temperature range of 45°F – 57°F/8°C – 14°C. I contacted Mangrove Jack’s seeking the source of this strain, which was fruitless though they did confirm M76 is a traditional lager yeast intended to be fermented at cool temperatures.

On the evening prior to the first brew day, I measured out the grains for both batches, placing the unmilled portion for the quick lager batch in a sealed bucket to await a future brew day before milling the other half. Note that the quick lager grains were also milled the night prior to that brew day exactly 5 weeks later.

Since I’d be using the batch sparge method for these 10 gallon batches, I collected precise amounts of mash and sparge water in separate kettles then adjusted them with the same amount of minerals and acid. I woke up at 5:00 AM on both brew days and promptly began heating strike water.

In order to ensure similar mash temperatures, it was important that I accurately measure the grain temperature to determine the proper temperature of the strike water, which BeerSmith made a piece a cake!

After mashing in, I allowed each to rest for precisely 60 minutes, stirring only once at the 30 minute mark.

I pulled a small sample from each mash at 10 minutes in to check the pH was pleased to discover both hit my 5.3 target.

After the hour long mash rests were complete, I batch sparged to collect the same volume of sweet wort, which was quickly brought to a rolling boil.

During the 1 hour boils, I added the same amount of hops at the same times, then proceeded to quickly chill each wort.

Thankfully, my groundwater temperature was the same on both brew days, allowing me to chill each to the same temperature (79°F/26°C) in a similar amount of time (10 minutes). Post-boil refractometer readings confirmed both batches were starting at the same OG.

Both carboys of wort were left for 10 hours in their own chamber set to 50°F/10°C, my target fermentation temperature, before receiving 2 rehydrated packs of Mangrove Jack’s M76 Bavarian Lager yeast.

And this is where the fun began…

In order to eliminate any chance of temperature compromising the data, the team decided it’d be best to let the traditional batch ferment at 50°F/10°C the entire time, going against the popular practice of gently raising the temperature toward the end of fermentation for a diacetyl rest. While activity was noticed within just 12 hours of pitching the yeast, the consistently cool environment made for a rather long fermentation period with a hydrometer reading 1 week post-pitch showing the beer had dropped a mere 0.011 SG points.

A cap of frothy kräusen hung around for weeks as the yeast slowly turned sugar into alcohol and CO2.

It took 24 days before the krausen on the traditional beer finally dropped and airlock activity ceased. An initial hydrometer measurement showed the beer had indeed dropped to the predicted FG, and with a second measurement 3 days later showing no change, I began gradually reducing the temperature of the chamber to 32°F/0°C.

It wasn’t until the traditional batch had been lagering for 1 week that I brewed the quick lager batch, exactly 5 weeks later. Again, in an attempt to reduce extraneous variables, we decided it’d be prudent to package the beers at the same time, meaning the traditional batch would be left to lager in primary while the quick batch was fermenting.

Fermentation took off equally as fast in the quick batch as evidenced by kräusen development within 18 hours. However, in contrast to the traditional batch, I began raising the temperature in the chamber after 5 days, eventually reaching 68°F/20°C just 1 week after being brewed.

As I’ve experienced many times before, all signs pointed to fermentation being finished just 12 days after the beer was brewed, with a hydrometer measurement verifying the predicted FG had been reached. I let the beer sit at the warmer temperature for 3 more days before taking a second hydrometer measurement that showed the FG hadn’t changed, and it just so happened to be the same as the traditional batch.

While I used to decrease the temperature of the beer gradually out of fear of stressing the yeast and causing off-flavors, I started going the even quicker route of immediately setting my controller to 32°F/0°C after hearing positive stories from other brewers, so that’s what I did here. Given the variable in question, I opted to forgo fining with gelatin and proceeded to keg both beers the following weekend, 8 weeks after the traditional batch was brewed and 3 weeks after the quick batch was brewed.

The filled kegs were placed in my keezer and put under 40 psi for 24 hours before I reduced the gas to serving pressure. By the following weekend, with the beers carbonated and ready for serving, I noticed small difference in clarity between the lagers.

| RESULTS |

Data for this xBmt was collected on two occasions separated by 7 days, the first occurring in my garage and the second at a monthly Tulare County Homebrewers Organization for Perfect Suds (TCHOPS) meeting. A total of 31 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was blindly served 2 samples of the traditional lager and 1 sample of the quick lager then instructed to identify the one that was different. In order to achieve statistical significance given the sample size, 16 participants (P<0.05) would have had to correctly identify the quick lager sample as being unique. In the end, 17 tasters (p=0.01) made the accurate selection, indicating tasters were reliably able to distinguish a beer made using the quick lager method from one made with a more traditional fermentation schedule.

The tasters who were correct on the triangle test were subsequently asked to complete a brief evaluation comparing only the different beers while still blind to the variable being investigated. The traditionally fermented lager was preferred by 11 of the 17 tasters with another 4 preferring the quick lager batch and 2 saying they noticed a difference by had no preference. In conversations following completion with the xBmt, the most common comments had to do with how similar the beers were in general. Interestingly, one taster, still blind to both the variable and the style of beer, remarked that the quick method beer had a subtle sulfur note it that “makes it tastes more like a Pilsner,” while another taster noted the traditional batch has tasting “a little more sweet, less crisp” than the quick batch.

My Impressions: Upon returning home from the aforementioned meeting, I put myself through 6 semi-blind triangles and consistently, easily, identified the unique sample. To my palate, both beers had a noticeable white grape-like flavor that, based off of information from others, seems to be something people are experiencing with Gambrinus Pilsner malt. I’m not particularly a fan of this character, which was more strongly expressed in the traditional beer, thus my preference for the beer made with the quick lager method, in which I detected what I thought to be a very light sulfur component that made the beer more pleasant.

| DISCUSSION |

Even before I committed to doing this xBmt, whether or not quick lager methods produced qualitatively similar beers as those fermented with more traditional techniques wasn’t really my concern. Rather, I was more interested in my ability to make a beer I thought was delicious and had what I perceived as “lager character” in a shorter amount of time. While I completely understand and appreciate folks who wish to pay respect to those who came before us by sticking as rigorously as possible to traditional methods, it’s true my anecdotal experience using these heretically hastened techniques has been quite validating, leaving me almost convinced that extended fermentation and cold conditioning aren’t necessarily the key to achieving a divine lager beer.

The fact tasters were reliably able to tell the traditionally fermented lager apart from the one made using quicker methods 5 weeks later certainly supports the notion that either method has a unique impact on beer. And with a majority of tasters who got the triangle test correct noting a preference for the traditionally fermented beer, perhaps there is something to be said about taking a more patient approach when making lagers.

As for me, I’ve absolutely no plans to integrate extended fermentation and lagering into my brewing, primarily because I’ve always been happy with quicker methods, but also because I actually preferred the quick lager batch. As always, this xBmt made me even more curious about the variables involved in the brewing of lager beers and will certainly serve to motivate more exBEERimentation in the future!

What has your experience been with making lager beers? If you’ve used traditional and/or quick approaches, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...