Gelatin- works 50% of the time??

... I had a unique situation where I was going to transfer 2 beers into secondaries for clearing with Gelatin on the same day.

So I made up a larger quantity of Gelatin to split between the 2 beers:

Munich Helles - used Muntons premium Gold (experiementing)
Cream of 3 Crops - used S-05

This morning I check up on the beers, 3 days since the Gelatin was added. My Cream of 3 Crops was brilliantly clear but my Munich is still as cloudy as a wheat beer.

Now I can reasonably take out of the equation how I made my gelatin. I did do one thing differently however. With the Cream of 3 Crops I racked the beer onto the Gelatin. On the Munich Helles I poured the gelatin into the already racked beer.

I've heard that pouring the gelatin into the beer will not be as effective as racking onto the gelatin but it should still clear after 3 days. So what is going on? Could it be the yeast is just to stubborn to fall out with the gelatin?

Gelatin doesn't pull yeast out of suspension, it binds to proteins and tannins. Some other finings do bind to yeast (e.g., polycar), though.

To clear yeast, you need to either (1) filter with a 1 micron (absolute) cartridge, (2) cold crash at < 40F for a few days, or (3) wait several weeks at room temperature.

humm well the Munich helles was actually sitting in 36 degree temps for a week before this....

lamarguy said:

Gelatin doesn't pull yeast out of suspension, it binds to proteins and tannins. Some other finings do bind to yeast (e.g., polycar), though.

To clear yeast, you need to either (1) filter with a 1 micron (absolute) cartridge, (2) cold crash at < 40F for a few days, or (3) wait several weeks at room temperature.

Click to expand...

I'm hesitant to question you lamarguy but my understanding (or lack of it) is that gelatin and isinglass (both high in collagen IIRC) are both positively charged (at beer pH) and attract the negatively charged yeast cells. IOW, I thought pulling yeast out of suspension was exactly what these two fining agents are for.

And I remember from trying to fine a beer that I thought had tannin astringency that polyclar would be best for that.

Maybe I got lysdexic on this though.

SpanishCastleAle said:

I'm hesitant to question you lamarguy but my understanding (or lack of it) is that gelatin and isinglass (both high in collagen IIRC) are both positively charged (at beer pH) and attract the negatively charged yeast cells. IOW, I thought pulling yeast out of suspension was exactly what these two fining agents are for.

And I remember from trying to fine a beer that I thought had tannin astringency that polyclar would be best for that.

Maybe I got lysdexic on this though.

Click to expand...

Not all proteins are charged the same. Negatively charged proteins and yeast will be affected by gelatin/isinglass

Randar said:

Not all proteins are charged the same. Negatively charged proteins and yeast will be affected by gelatin/isinglass

Click to expand...

Well I didn't really say anything about getting rid of proteins per se but I agree. pH changes their charge as well.

SpanishCastleAle said:

I'm hesitant to question you lamarguy

Click to expand...

Ha, really? I just read articles and papers and post like it's fact or something.

I have been told my avatar leads some people to believe I'm yelling at them. Turns out they haven't watched Scrubs.

SpanishCastleAle said:

Gelatin and isinglass (both high in collagen IIRC) are both positively charged (at beer pH) and attract the negatively charged yeast cells. IOW, I thought pulling yeast out of suspension was exactly what these two fining agents are for.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that gelatin and isinglass are equivalent beer/wine finings. However, everything I've read says they are not efficient binders for yeast. Gelatin may encourage flocculation to some extent, but I'm not convinced it is very effective.

Here is a good, in-depth paper about the use of gelatin as a fining. It talks about the efficacy for binding to protein and tannins.

SpanishCastleAle said:

And I remember from trying to fine a beer that I thought had tannin astringency that polyclar would be best for that.

Click to expand...

Polycar (PVPP) is also excellent at binding to tannins, I was just trying to address the OP's question. It's also supposed to be an excellent binder for yeast.

Large breweries (that use finings) don't use gelatin for a reason, it's not as efficient as the synthetic finings. They're trying to get product out the door and the additional expense is justified. We, as homebrewers, are are a different timetable.

After reading Fix's book and conducting a few trial runs, I'm a firm believer in ice stabilization. That's right, gently freeze your beer (e.g., 29F) and it will love you for it.

Ha, really? I just read articles and papers and post like it's fact or something.

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone I know.

I have been told my avatar leads some people to believe I'm yelling at them. Turns out they haven't watched Scrubs.

Click to expand...

I rarely watch any TV series but saw the beginning of that like a month ago. I was like: Hey that's lamarguy! Didn't even recognize he was that Bud Light commercial dude. Thanks for the link.

lamarguy said:

I have been told my avatar leads some people to believe I'm yelling at them. Turns out they haven't watched Scrubs.

Click to expand...

So you're just mocking us with harsh sarcasm, then?

lamarguy said:

Yes, I agree that gelatin and isinglass are equivalent beer/wine finings. However, everything I've read says they are not efficient binders for yeast. Gelatin may encourage flocculation to some extent, but I'm not convinced it is very effective.

Here is a good, in-depth paper about the use of gelatin as a fining. It talks about the efficacy for binding to protein and tannins.

Click to expand...

Why remove 100% of the yeast? Gelatin removes a good percentage and still leaves enough top bottle carb/condition if you wish.

lamarguy said:

Polycar (PVPP) is also excellent at binding to tannins, I was just trying to address the OP's question. It's also supposed to be an excellent binder for yeast.

Large breweries (that use finings) don't use gelatin for a reason, it's not as efficient as the synthetic finings. They're trying to get product out the door and the additional expense is justified. We, as homebrewers, are are a different timetable.

Click to expand...

Commercial breweries are also overdoing the concern about the "brightness" of their beer/wort to the point that they have removed all the necessary fatty acids and adjuncts that contribute to healthy and rapid yeast growth and multiplication. They make up for it in other ways (to some extent), but I believe they are overdoing it. JMO.

Here is a summary paper on lauter turbidity and wort clarity that provides some background (and a lot of existing study references) and conveniently enough supports my position:

http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/papers/2006/G-2006-1016-468.pdf

So the conclusion to all this is Gelatin doesn't drop yeasties out... but then I have to ask... Why did it do it so brilliantly for my Cream of 3 Crops?

mhermetz said:

So the conclusion to all this is Gelatin doesn't drop yeasties out... but then I have to ask... Why did it do it so brilliantly for my Cream of 3 Crops?

Click to expand...

Gelatin helps drop some yeast and some negatively charged proteins out of the beer, but it is not a substitute for using high quality malts, generating good break, and brewing with proper water conditions and pH, IMO.

Randar said:

Gelatin helps drop some yeast and some negatively charged proteins out of the beer, but it is not a substitute for using high quality malts, generating good break, and brewing with proper water conditions and pH, IMO.

Click to expand...

okay well that's true... but both beers had equal conditions. Although Cream of 3 Crops has less malt to make room for rice & corn.

Maybe it's just the type of yeast I used? maybe Munton's Gold premium needs longer to settle out.

mhermetz said:

Although Cream of 3 Crops has less malt to make room for rice & corn.

Click to expand...

Well, you probably just answered your own question. The types, sizes, and charges of the proteins produced by the different adjuncts are going to be significantly different from malted grains...

You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Randar said:

So you're just mocking us with harsh sarcasm, then?

Click to expand...

Ha...Yup, I try my best to be smart$ass when possible.

Randar said:

Commercial breweries are also overdoing the concern about the "brightness" of their beer/wort to the point that they have removed all the necessary fatty acids and adjuncts that contribute to healthy and rapid yeast growth and multiplication. They make up for it in other ways (to some extent), but I believe they are overdoing it.

Click to expand...

There's definitely a trade off. Low turbidity wort has been show to produce beers with longer flavor stability (due to less fatty acid reactions). But, high turbidity beers show improved yeast metabolic activity (due to the increased number of CO2 nucleation sites and amino acids from the increased protein counts).

That said, I would certainly shoot for low turbidity wort, but, as you mentioned, there is a point of diminishing returns.

mhermetz said:

Both beers had equal conditions. Maybe it's just the type of yeast I used?

Click to expand...

Correct, yeast flocculation varies greatly between strains. But there are numerous other factors for haze that are being ignored for now.

US-05 is an excellent flocculator. I've never used Munton's Gold, so I can't attest to it's flocculation characteristics. I can assure you of one thing - bring the temperature down close to freezing (e.g., 32F) and, if the beer is still hazy, it's not yeast in suspension, it's protein.

lamarguy said:

That said, I would certainly shoot for low turbidity wort, but, as you mentioned, there is a point of diminishing returns.

Click to expand...

Yep, I think most homebrewers won't have to worry about stability, as the beer won't last long enough, and a moderately bright wort will be likely to supply a proper balance for most brewers who don't have laboratory-style yeast facilities and nutrient monitoring programs and desire a pretty clear beer. Good quality malts, proper water/pH, good hot and cold break formations and most brewers should be golden...

I do think we tend to go overboard while missing some of the more obvious points for improvement...

lamarguy said:

bring the temperature down close to freezing (e.g., 32F) and, if the beer is still hazy, it's not yeast in suspension, it's protein.

Click to expand...

+1 vote for this test for you.

lamarguy said:

Correct, yeast flocculation varies greatly between strains. But there are numerous other factors for haze that are being ignored for now.

US-05 is an excellent flocculator. I've never used Munton's Gold, so I can't attest to it's flocculation characteristics. I can assure you of one thing - bring the temperature down close to freezing (e.g., 32F) and, if the beer is still hazy, it's not yeast in suspension, it's protein.

Click to expand...

in which case the Gelatin should have taken care of it then..no?

mhermetz said:

in which case the Gelatin should have taken care of it then..no?

Click to expand...

Yes, at the correct dosing levels (1/4 tsp - 1/2 tsp per 5 gallons).

mhermetz said:

in which case the Gelatin should have taken care of it then..no?

Click to expand...

no, you need to use polyclar to affect chill haze. Gelatin has no (or negligible) effect on chill haze prevention.

well.... i'm home from work now and well... it's half clear. I stuck it in the fridge last night which was at 36 degrees...so I guess that's working.

Some more good discussion on this site also. http://www.brews-bros.com/index.php/topic/18569-using-gelatin/

Every brew that I've used US-05 on has cleared by itself.