Beer Clarity Experiment

This is a follow up to this thread:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/methods-clearest-beer-205923/

I am going to brew three batches of Brewer's Best American Amber kit. I want to use different combinations of methods that are used to increase the clarity of the beer and compare the results.

I intend to use the yeast that is in the kit, use the same water source (bottled spring), the same production methods, immersion chiller, maintain the same temperature through out fermentation.

I would like some thoughts on how to combine the methods in each batch in order to compare the clarity.

Methods to combine are: Whirlfloc, irish moss, gelatin, primary only versus secondary (for gelatin test I think I need to have one batch go to a secondary), whirlpool, cold crash, maybe a different yeast in one batch than the package yeast, etc.

I'm trying to come up with a plan like: Batch #1 - Irish Moss, Whirlpool, primary only, no cold crash. Batch #2 - Whirlfloc, gelatin, secondary, cold crash. etc.

The intent here is to give a noobie the best advice on what methods will have the most impact on the clarity of the beer while brewing with extract kits.

Once I move on to AG, I intend to try this experiment again.

Thoughts??

One in primary a month, one for 10 days no secondary, one for 5 days or whenever the airlock stops bubbling and then in secondary 2 weeks.

Seems to cover the 3 ways most people here do their beer.

Seems you also be able to compare what way tastes better too.

You may also want to consider the new product from White Labs called Clarity-Ferm. Some online stores are starting to carry this and it runs about $2 per 5 gallon batch, I think. I think they gave out vials on it at GABF this year.

I used gelatin for the first time on a Brown Shugga clone last month and I can't believe how clear it came out!

I don't know if I'd bother with Irish moss, if you're using whirlfloc. I mean, it's the same substance, just in a different form.

I think to provide the most beneficial evidence, I would limit each batch to one variable. For example, instead of having batch #1 with Whirlfloc and immersion chiller and secondary conditioning, I would only have the Whirfloc. Compare that to batch #2 with the irish moss, batch #3 with clarity-ferm, etc. Keep everything else the exact same: temperatures, methods, ingredients, etc. That will keep you in line with the scientific method and give you more concrete evidence.

As a sidenote, there's a Brewing Network podcast that did this exact same experiment. It's either Sunday Session or Can You Brew It (Jamil Show). I forget the results, but discussion was definitely in depth and prolonged. They also discussed how the different clarifying agents effected head retention.

akthor said:

One in primary a month, one for 10 days no secondary, one for 5 days or whenever the airlock stops bubbling and then in secondary 2 weeks.

Seems to cover the 3 ways most people here do their beer.

Seems you also be able to compare what way tastes better too.

Click to expand...

I think that may be a separate experiment, as I want to focus solely on methods and agents that are focused on clarity.

I think I'll stick to one of the above methods for all batches, include cold crashing on one of them, and then once the clarity is accounted for, re-do the experiment with those three fermenting styles to see which produces better tasting beer.

Great add, thanks!

Yooper said:

I don't know if I'd bother with Irish moss, if you're using whirlfloc. I mean, it's the same substance, just in a different form.

Click to expand...

Noted, thanks. I'll stick with whichever is cheaper at the LHBS when I go. This eliminates one method and makes things a bit easier.

BK1017 said:

I think to provide the most beneficial evidence, I would limit each batch to one variable. For example, instead of having batch #1 with Whirlfloc and immersion chiller and secondary conditioning, I would only have the Whirfloc. Compare that to batch #2 with the irish moss, batch #3 with clarity-ferm, etc. Keep everything else the exact same: temperatures, methods, ingredients, etc. That will keep you in line with the scientific method and give you more concrete evidence.

As a sidenote, there's a Brewing Network podcast that did this exact same experiment. It's either Sunday Session or Can You Brew It (Jamil Show). I forget the results, but discussion was definitely in depth and prolonged. They also discussed how the different clarifying agents effected head retention.

Click to expand...

I'm going to search for that podcast, thanks!

I thought about using only a single variable change between batches, but I don't want to brew too many of the same styles to settle this. I can do one with each clarifying agent, but then want to take a look at the methods too (whirlpool, cold crashing, primary/secondary).

Based on the early discussions here, I need to think more about what the best way is to break this experiment up.

That's a whole lot of variables for an "experiment".

Hell, it could just be the extract in your kit and you are using for all the batches of beer that make it hazy.

This would be a lot better for an AG person to do that can create one large batch of wort (say 10 gal) and split that wort into 4 diff. batches of beer. Then just alter one variable for each brew (say, whirlfloc, irish moss, gelatin, a control). Then a new experiment would need to be done testing crash cooling and primary v. secondary.

Ooops, looks like someone already said this.

funkswing said:

That's a whole lot of variables for an "experiment".

Hell, it could just be the extract in your kit and you are using for all the batches of beer that make it hazy.

This would be a lot better for an AG person to do that can create one large batch of wort (say 10 gal) and split that wort into 4 diff. batches of beer. Then just alter one variable for each brew (say, whirlfloc, irish moss, gelatin, a control). Then a new experiment would need to be done testing crash cooling and primary v. secondary.

Ooops, looks like someone already said this.

Click to expand...

I'm disappointed with the tone of your comment, funkswing. Everyone else on this forum has been polite and encouraging.

Hopefully I've just read your comment wrong?

Um, welcome to the real world? Someone can't take criticism

Thanks for the link! Everyone should prolly give it a listen, beats the real radio.

I agree with BK1017, its going to be difficult to tell which variable is causing the clearness if you use more than on variable in each method

funkswing said:

Um, welcome to the real world? Someone can't take criticism

Click to expand...

I can take criticism fine, just surprised to such sarcasm in what I thought was a friendly forum. I did some searching though, and it looks like this is just your mode of communication, so thanks for your input.

mychalg9 said:

I agree with BK1017, its going to be difficult to tell which variable is causing the clearness if you use more than on variable in each method

Click to expand...

Starting to agree as well, each time I try to figure out how to split the methods amongst the batches it just becomes too different.

Thinking now about doing just two batches, one with whirlfloc or irish moss, the other with gelatin. Then after those two batches, do two more with the agent winner and change the methods, maybe cold crashing and no cold crashing. I could always use the brewing practice and I know all my friends, even the macro-heads, will drink the american amber style.

Thanks for your input!

waldoar15 said:

http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/572

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link! I'm listening now...

I think it's a lot of variables too. Personally I dont think you need to use additives to get clear beer. At least clear enough for me. One month in primary, 1-2 weeks in keg is plenty of time for it to get very clear. Assuming you're talking ales here.

ylee21 - I'm glad you took time to develop an opinion of me. Notice everyone else saying how bad of an experiment you designed?

I wasn't being sarcastic in my original post, I just didn't read the whole thread before I posted, then I noticed that someone else said the same thing.

I brew clear beer with only irish moss at 15 min. Sometimes I cold crash, sometimes I don't. But it always "cold crashes" in the keg @ 50 F. After the first pint its nice and clear. Brew pub clear, not "triple-hopped" clear. Oh, and I siphon off the trub/break/hop material in the boil kettle (but that shouldn't matter with an extract beer), leaving behind about a half gallon in the kettle.

The best clarifying agent is time and cold as proven by the kolsch I poured last night that had been in the back of my fridge for the past 2 months. It wasn't just clear, it was brilliantly clear. I should've taken a picture.

I wish I had the patience to do that with all my beers. Someday I'll get a dedicated fridge and store everything cold.

+1 on trying to deal with too many variables. If you get the kits all at the same time I'm reasonably sure you could expect the extract to be similar enough not to worry about that, but if you are only looking to cover clarifying agents, then you need to control everything else (temp, time, volume, yeast pitch, etc) and only vary the clarifier (none, irish moss only, gelatin for example). IF you start messing with clarifying agents AND temperature (i.e. cold crashing or not) AND time you will not be able to tease apart the most significant variable.

I applaud your desire to give something like this a try, but keep it simple and make sure you run as controlled an experiment as possible. With all the ideas you gave in the original post, you have a full suite of experiments you could run - not just one.

I think your control should be absolutely NOTHING. Don't chill don't use any additives.

Next can be wirfloc.

Then Gelatin if you want

Another to try is the Clarity Ferm.

However from a scientific method point of view unless you know each kit was made with the same batch of ingredients it'll be hard to control for certain variables. Certain extracts may have more haze forming proteins than others. You might end up with hops that are a higher AA than one kit (typically hops will only affect haze in IPAs though). What if the kit has a bad packet of yeast? Plus brewing separate batches adds yet more variables which are the amount of heat you applied, how good of a boil, did you chill each batch with the same temp of water in the same amount of time?

If I were doing it for a science based trial I would use an electric cook top with a temp controller to ensure consistent heating. I would do one mash then thoroughly mix the wort and divide up into equal preboil volumes. Then I wouldn't chill any of the wort so that the only variable affecting its clarity would be what you added to the beer. I would use all the same hops and evenly divide up a big starter by weight into each batch.

You could emulate that in a way by buying some bulk hops, and making a starter.

Now for the fermentables as a variable. I think you could go with DME but open all the bags and mix then divide it up equally. Or if you go to the LHBS get it all from the same bulk drum if they do bulk lme.

funkswing said:

ylee21 - I'm glad you took time to develop an opinion of me. Notice everyone else saying how bad of an experiment you designed?

I wasn't being sarcastic in my original post, I just didn't read the whole thread before I posted, then I noticed that someone else said the same thing.

I brew clear beer with only irish moss at 15 min. Sometimes I cold crash, sometimes I don't. But it always "cold crashes" in the keg @ 50 F. After the first pint its nice and clear. Brew pub clear, not "triple-hopped" clear. Oh, and I siphon off the trub/break/hop material in the boil kettle (but that shouldn't matter with an extract beer), leaving behind about a half gallon in the kettle.

Click to expand...

Funkswing, everyone else is giving me their opinion in a way that doesn't come across as condescending as your opinion is coming across.

I apologize that I misread your first comments.

Also, I didn't design a bad experiment, I didn't even design an experiment yet, this thread is asking for opinions on HOW I should design the experiment. So again, your comment of "Notice everyone else saying how bad of an experiment you designed?", can't you see how comments like that can come across a certain way? Everyone else is raising serious concerns with the experiment in a fashion that does not come across as arrogant or sarcastic.

I'm a n00bie at the beer brewing thing, but not a n00bie on forums in general, and I did a search on your comments and can tell you've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, even having comments deleted by the administrators. So I've formed an opinion of you that is based on your own comments and posts.

It's a big forum, you're welcome to post and act in whatever fashion you want, I'm just going to ignore you from here on out.

In terms of the experiment, In light of all the comments and suggestions, I think it's best that I wait until I have moved on to AG and can get better controls of the ingredients, like both funkswing and smokinghole have suggested.

Thanks again for everyone's input!

BrookdaleBrew said:

The best clarifying agent is time and cold as proven by the kolsch I poured last night that had been in the back of my fridge for the past 2 months. It wasn't just clear, it was brilliantly clear. I should've taken a picture.

I wish I had the patience to do that with all my beers. Someday I'll get a dedicated fridge and store everything cold.

Click to expand...

I had this same experience with one of my first homebrews. I got lost in the back of the fridge and was found about a month of two later.

One of my best homebrews, and yes it was brilliantly clear!

ylee21 - I'm a maverick. I'm glad you listened to me before you stopped listen to me.

Yep, at that point you're pretty much lagering it in the bottle. It was so clear my girlfriend asked if I was drinking champagne, hahaha. She couldn't believe it when I told her it was one of my beers. It was beautiful. *sheds tear*

ylee21 said:

In terms of the experiment, In light of all the comments and suggestions, I think it's best that I wait until I have moved on to AG and can get better controls of the ingredients, like both funkswing and smokinghole have suggested.

Thanks again for everyone's input!

Click to expand...

You can still do it with extract just get all LME from one bulk barrel, or buy the DME and mix it all together then divide evenly. I think that would satisfy MOST when it came to variable inconsistencies between extract lots.

Positive suggestion: instead of spending money on clarifying agents, pick up more fermenters. If possible, move to kegging. My fridge lets me have two kegs on tap and two in the back conditioning and getting clearer.

I used to freak out when my keg went empty because I had to clean, refill, carb and chill before I had beer! Now I have another keg all set and ready to ROCK!

What about a control batch? One w/ nothing done to it besides fermentation and bottling with no additives?

Then I would do one with no additives and only cold crash and gelatinize it.
The third would be a 10 minute Whilflock addition, gelatin and cold crash.
A fourth would be cool with Whirlflock only.

BrookdaleBrew said:

Yep, at that point you're pretty much lagering it in the bottle. It was so clear my girlfriend asked if I was drinking champagne, hahaha. She couldn't believe it when I told her it was one of my beers. It was beautiful. *sheds tear*

Click to expand...

Nothing else is quite like the beer tear.