The great bubble debate

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
14,260
Reaction score
786
Location
Southwest
I've seen all sorts of speculation about bubbles in beer. Some think that natural carbonation results in finer bubbles than force carbonation. Others think that priming with table sugar results in coarser bubbles than priming with dextrose or malt extract. Still others say that yeast type will impact bubble "fineness" (i.e., champagne yeast makes fine bubbles, while ale yeast makes bigger ones).

I contend that temperature, dissolved CO2 content, viscosity, sugar content, protein content, hop compounds, etc are the things that impact how a beer "bubbles." After all, dissolved CO2 doesn't care about its source; it simply wants to be in equilibrium, bubbling to the surface when released from the confines of a pressure vessel (i.e., bottle or keg).

Discuss.
 
i agree for the most part. bubbles form in nucleation points, which are just tiny pits in a surface and CO2 is CO2. the composition of the finished beer and what is used to carbonate the beer will coat the inside of the bottle or keg. this will affect the formation of nucleation sights.

temperature and dissolved CO2 content will affect the quantity of bubbles but not their quality.
 
I agree, natural vs. force carbonated has no affect on bubble size. If it does, I've never seen any credible argument to support it. From a chemistry perspective it shouldn't matter.
 
I generally keg most of a batch and naturally carb 6 or 12 bottles. I haven't noticed any difference in the appearance or feel of the CO2 bubbles between the keg and the bottles.

The recipe has everything to do with the texture of the head and the mouthfeel of the beer.
 
Oh come on guys, we all know that CO2 bubbles are sentient life forms that spring to life in different ways. If you force carb, the CO2 creates different bubble-lives than the CO2 farted out by the yeasties.
Gosh.... IDIOTS!
 
I think CO2 is CO2. No matter if a yeast farted it out, or a 20lb tank farted it out. There is likely 100 different factors for bubble size, texture, etc., but I doubt the source of CO2 is one.
 
CO2 is CO2. I don't think that anyone would disagree with that concept. The thing that intrigues me is the "source" of co2 and the method of introduction into the beer. Wouldn't the creation point make a difference?

If the CO2 is created within the liquid, and the liquid itself is bubbling, shouldn't it react different than CO2 that is dissolved from the top down?
 
I'd like to know the direct path to finer bubbles when and in whatever beer I choose.

I've noticed it more in my darker beers, but I have no clue why and how, but I like it. Not so much in pales or IPA's...and that's cool, too.

I don't like viscous or sweet in any of my beers, and it would seem protein would be close between the pales, IPA's, browns and stouts that I prefer. :confused:

Hasn't this been discussed and solved by at least one of the many brewing book authors?
 
Come to think of it, the beers I've made that had really low FGs (1.002-1.006) had coarser bubbles than the beers I've made that had higher FGs (1.010-1.024).
 
If the CO2 is created within the liquid, and the liquid itself is bubbling, shouldn't it react different than CO2 that is dissolved from the top down?

answer... no. it doesn't matter how the CO2 got in there it is still CO2. the only thing that would affect bubbles in beer is the nucleation sites in the bottle. now what affects the nucleation sites on the other hand. the bottle/glass its poured in and the composition of the beer would affect the bubbles.
 
Come to think of it, the beers I've made that had really low FGs (1.002-1.006) had coarser bubbles than the beers I've made that had higher FGs (1.010-1.024).

That makes sense, the lower FG beers are less dense. The density of the beer will have a lot to do with the bubbles formed, and denser beer may be exerting more pressure on the attempting-to-expand bubble.

Protein concentration can definitely have a lot to do with it. Think of it like head creation/retention. The beers with more proteins have thicker, creamier heads because there are more protein molecules to trap and surround the off-gassing CO2. This results in many tiny bubbles, and thanks to the extra proteins, those bubbles hang around longer on top of your beer. Lighter, less proteinaceous (sp?...word?) beers can't trap the CO2 the same and the bubbles are bigger because there are less proetins to form around the bubble. This also creates poor head retention because once the bubble reaches the surface, the much more spaced out proteins can't hold together as well and the expanding CO2 is able to break free and become an addition to the greenhouse gases.

Long story short, brewing lighter and thus lower protein beers contributes to global warming. So if you think about it, AB/InBev is likely the worlds leading contributer to global warming!
 
That makes sense, the lower FG beers are less dense. The density of the beer will have a lot to do with the bubbles formed, and denser beer may be exerting more pressure on the attempting-to-expand bubble.

Sounds good, except champagne FG is <1.0 and it's got the smallest bubbles.
I'm leaning toward the yeast. Big fart / small fart theory - I don't even know if that makes any sense. Carbon dioxide is a fixed size, so the bigger bubbles are clusters of CO2. So, bigger bubbles are bigger farts, because once they are in the beer, the bubbles act like spheres and will bump into each other and bounce away from each other and not combine.

This is almost entirely made up; not impossible - but has no foundation in science whatsoever. :drunk:

-OCD
 
Sounds good, except champagne FG is <1.0 and it's got the smallest bubbles.

Good point, that is likely due to the level of carbonation, and champagne is highly carbonated. It's going to try to escape as quickly as possible to reach equilibrium and thus the bubbles rush to the surface much faster and end up being small as they take less time to form. I've never actually compared champagne bubbles to beer bubbles, but from memory I'd still say a porter generally has smaller bubbles than champagne.
 
that is likely due to the level of carbonation, and champagne is highly carbonated. It's going to try to escape as quickly as possible to reach equilibrium and thus the bubbles rush to the surface much faster and end up being small as they take less time to form. I've never actually compared champagne bubbles to beer bubbles, but from memory I'd still say a porter generally has smaller bubbles than champagne.

I like the reasoning in the beginning, but porter isn't normally HIGHLY carbonated - is it? Someone needs to split 2 different gravity batches of wort and ferment using 2 different yeasts. This would test high/low gravity and then different yeasts. So the next thing would be to decide on a tiny bubble yeast vs a big bubble yeast.

-OCD
 
I like the reasoning in the beginning, but porter isn't normally HIGHLY carbonated - is it? Someone needs to split 2 different gravity batches of wort and ferment using 2 different yeasts. This would test high/low gravity and then different yeasts. So the next thing would be to decide on a tiny bubble yeast vs a big bubble yeast.

-OCD

I wasn't saying the porter is highly carbonated. The bubbles are small in a porter for my previously stated reasons (proteins and whatnot). I was only relating the carbonation level to the champagne.

As for the yeast, there is absolutely going to be no difference unless the yeast is also excreting something into the beer that will change it's density/consistency.
 
Anyone else compared cheap sparkling wines that do "method champagnois" (i.e. bottle condition) versus those that are forced carbonated? I've always found the method champagnois to taste better and not give a hangover compared to the force carbed ones, where even a little can make you feel icky. Obviously an apple to orange comparison b/c you aren't drinking the same wine carbed two different ways, but it seems like there is something to the natural carbing, at least in sparkling wine. Thoughts on how this might relate to beer?
 
OK, head hurts. Can't find an answer by googling. Most answers are related to head retention - smaller bubbles = longer lasting head. Some promising abstracts would only show the full article upon subcribing to the service. I'll just sit by and hope for a better googler to come along.

-OCD
 
And what about the effect of temperature on the finished product? Does a warmer beer allow co2 to come out of solution to reach equilibrium faster/easier than a really cold beer?
 
Maybe if this got moved to the science forum we could get someone to answer....

-OCD
 
Back
Top