Creamy vs Bubbly Carbonation

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.

Piperlester

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
70
Reaction score
12
Location
Calgary
Hello all - I just got my score sheet from a competition and one of the comments was "carbonation is more bubbly than creamy", which is fair - the beer can feel almost soda bubble-ish on the palate at times. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on what might cause this - I force carbonate with CO2 to 13PSI, if that makes any difference. The beer was a dark mild, FG around 1.014 (if memory serves).

Thanks!
 
There is such an enormous amount of things that can affect the perception of carbonation. From recipe formulation all the way through to the type of bottle you're using. For the milds I've made in the past, I started priming in the keg instead of force carb. The difference was substantial, bubbly with forced carb- soft, creamy, and clingy with natural carb. My next mild will get transferred to keg with enough fermentables remaining in the beer to spund carb.
 
Carbing to 13 psi is only part of it. What temperature is the beer at? The colder the beer the more bubbly it will be. Use the handy dandy chart, select your desired volumes of co2, and go from there.

https://www.kegerators.com/carbonation-table/
13PSI @ ~45F, which puts it right in the sweet spot for a nicely carb'd 2.3 volumes.

@Homergah
I'm in the school that natural carbonation and forced carbonation are the same thing - pressure is pressure, aside from possibly how it builds (i.e. slowly from 0 with natural, rapidly from whatever forced pressure being used). If I had a programmable regulator, I'd test the hypothesis.
 
Perhaps a dark mild would be better lower than 2.3? According to the table stouts and porters are recommended in the 1.5-2.2 range.. I really have no idea as I'm no expert when it comes to dark milds...just a thought.
 
Perhaps a dark mild would be better lower than 2.3? According to the table stouts and porters are recommended in the 1.5-2.2 range.. I really have no idea as I'm no expert when it comes to dark milds...just a thought.
Fair point - 2.3 is at the higher end for the style, which combined with a lighter body may very well lead to that perception. Now I can justify a secondary regulator to the wife!
 
Crappy judge comments IMO. Too bad. It would have been much more useful to give you an informed (doubt if he had one) comment about the beer that lead to his experience.
 
Crappy judge comments IMO. Too bad. It would have been much more useful to give you an informed (doubt if he had one) comment about the beer that lead to his experience.
There were fairly good comments all around - waiting on score sheets from a 2nd competition, hopefully they'll shed some more light. I've got time to brew another batch before an upcoming competition, so I'll tune a few things and see how it goes - either way it is a solid beer that I can quaff :)
 
Crappy judge comments IMO. Too bad. It would have been much more useful to give you an informed (doubt if he had one) comment about the beer that lead to his experience.

I agree with Anyhowe. If it was only noted on by one judge, it may be an off judge, or the judges personal preferences. It is on the high side for the style. I usually aim for my dark mild to be at 1.8 to 2.0 vol. I also add 15% oats to get a thicker mouthfeel, some may perceive that as creaminess too. I'd get a second opinion from a local brew club, brewery, or lhbs.
 
There is such an enormous amount of things that can affect the perception of carbonation. From recipe formulation all the way through to the type of bottle you're using. For the milds I've made in the past, I started priming in the keg instead of force carb. The difference was substantial, bubbly with forced carb- soft, creamy, and clingy with natural carb. My next mild will get transferred to keg with enough fermentables remaining in the beer to spund carb.

My experience mirrors your's, the quality of carb with my spunded beers are far better than my force carb, using the remaining few points from the end of primary ferm. However I dont have experience priming other than a few random bottles here and there (started kegging my first batch), good to hear its the same, and i will probably do that in the near future. My only concern with spunding the beers i want more esters from is that pressure ferments can retard ester formation. I have only seen this with one Kviek fermented beer so far though.

13PSI @ ~45F, which puts it right in the sweet spot for a nicely carb'd 2.3 volumes.

@Homergah
I'm in the school that natural carbonation and forced carbonation are the same thing - pressure is pressure, aside from possibly how it builds (i.e. slowly from 0 with natural, rapidly from whatever forced pressure being used). If I had a programmable regulator, I'd test the hypothesis.

The main difference is how the CO2 is absorbed. With spunding or natural ferm, not all the c02 being created with natural ferm is actually leaving solution. As single molecules of C02 are being created by the yeast they remain dissolved in the beer. Whereas with forced carb you are putting co2 back in. Now i will fully admit i have no scientific background to give reason to why one makes larger bubbles than the other, but anecdotally and it seems @Homergah agrees, the naturally carbed beers have smaller bubbles and are just "better" in this regard
 
without constant measuring, how do you know when that is?
Familiarity with your yeast helps. Trial and error will come into play. If you transfer a bit too soon, your spunding valve will just release the excess pressure. If too late, you may not get to the carb level you desire. You could then finish it off with your co2 tank. That's the simple answer. Possibly more to it.
 
...
The main difference is how the CO2 is absorbed. With spunding or natural ferm, not all the c02 being created with natural ferm is actually leaving solution. As single molecules of C02 are being created by the yeast they remain dissolved in the beer. Whereas with forced carb you are putting co2 back in. Now i will fully admit i have no scientific background to give reason to why one makes larger bubbles than the other, but anecdotally and it seems @Homergah agrees, the naturally carbed beers have smaller bubbles and are just "better" in this regard
This is sciency sounding gibberish. When the CO2 is in solution, no matter how it got there, there are no bubbles in the liquid. The CO2 molecules are dispersed evenly throughout the beer.

Don't worry, there is no such reason, in fact it just doesn't happen. Ask any physicist or chemist for confirmation.
Correct.

The differences in the foam and bubble size after pouring is all about how the CO2 comes out of solution. Lots of neucleation points will create more and smaller bubbles vs. few neucleation points creating fewer, larger bubbles. Also beer viscosity and compounds in the beer which affect the surface tension of the beer will affect the stability of small bubbles, and also foam stability. Lower surface tension favors greater stability of small bubbles. Higher viscosity favors stability of small bubbles. Proteins and other components of the beer can also affect the stability of smaller bubbles and foam.

Brew on :mug:
 
13PSI @ ~45F, which puts it right in the sweet spot for a nicely carb'd 2.3 volumes.

@Homergah
I'm in the school that natural carbonation and forced carbonation are the same thing - pressure is pressure, aside from possibly how it builds (i.e. slowly from 0 with natural, rapidly from whatever forced pressure being used). If I had a programmable regulator, I'd test the hypothesis.
We are certainly all entitled to our varying opions. Be they shaped by scientific findings, or shaped by decades of experience. If the scientists findings agree with the decades of experience, great. If not, that scientist better have more data points than just a few lab experiments. Even then, I'm probably not going to buy it. Scientific gibberish is just that, regardless of what scientist it protrudes from.

As to the subject at hand: Do you truly believe that co2 that is forced into solution will have the exact impact on an identical beer that has had active yeast primed with fermentables to achieve a similar saturation? If you do believe that, it's fine. I just can't. It's saying that a living organism has done nothing to affect its environment. Try both, if your setup will support it. One keg forced. One natural. You may detect zero difference.

Regardless of what is actually happening, the PERCEPTION of a sizable amount is there. Is it a difference in carbonation? Idk. Idc. But the perception is that it IS the carb that is different. Hell, it even looks different in the glass. Once again, is it the extended yeast activity? I mean beyond the obvious of just creating more co2 and alcohol. My belief is that it is utter nonsense to believe the yeast has only created those two constituents during this extended time.
I might add, I force carb everything. I don't have time to wait.
 
13PSI @ ~45F, which puts it right in the sweet spot for a nicely carb'd 2.3 volumes.

@Homergah
I'm in the school that natural carbonation and forced carbonation are the same thing - pressure is pressure, aside from possibly how it builds (i.e. slowly from 0 with natural, rapidly from whatever forced pressure being used). If I had a programmable regulator, I'd test the hypothesis.
The first time I primed in the keg, I took that keg to a beerfest. Before the doors opened, a fellow member of my club and BJCP judge came by for a sample. First words out of his mouth were "Did you prime this in the keg? The bubbles in this seem creamier, like you only get from bottle conditioning."

I hadn't told anyone how I was carbonating this batch. It is certainly not a common technique in my club. I don't know why he would come up with this out of the blue unless there really is a discernible difference.
 
Based on my experience, I don't think beer carbonates nearly as fast as we think it does, and this leads to some perceived difference in bottle conditioning vs force carb. I typically set-and-forget to force carb my beers, and after a week or two, they're carbonated, but over the following few weeks, they're always better: Finer bubbles, better head retention. I suspect those that say that force carbonated beer isn't as good just aren't giving it as much time as the bottle conditioning people are.
 
This is sciency sounding gibberish.

And I fully agree with you on my gibberish, I am just trying to put a reason to the observed differences.

I was attempting to write a reply to convey exactly what @Homergah just did, but he did FAR better than I could. The only thing I'll add Homer, is that if you spund, its even faster than force carb, assuming you add the spund with enough extract remaining, then your beer is fully carbed by the time primary is complete. Cool that beer down and its done. I should add I ferment in Corny's, but like you Homer, end up force carbing most things just cause its easier.

The one thing I did find of interest in the internet journey this thread took me on, was CO2 purity. The yeast are producing chemically pure CO2 whereas what is in your gas tank is not, even if its 99.999 CO2, whatever is in that .0001 could have an impact. I dont know what specifically, maybe its something totally separate from this conversation

In case anyone is interested i was able to find the full Bamforth paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1985.tb04359.x
 
The one thing I did find of interest in the internet journey this thread took me on, was CO2 purity. The yeast are producing chemically pure CO2 whereas what is in your gas tank is not, even if its 99.999 CO2, whatever is in that .0001 could have an impact. I dont know what specifically, maybe its something totally separate from this conversation
They also scavenge oxygen. No matter how many times you purge, it is always going to leave a little oxygen in there.
 
I keg my beers, I used to force carbonate them, and now I spund them. My unscientific observation:

The carbonation from spunding does seem finer and smoother from the outset.

Forced carbed beers also seem to achieve a fine quality if allowed to lager or condition under carbonation for a long enough time period.

Spunding is easier once you get used to it, the carbonation is more pure, and also free. Once in a while I miss spunding and full attenuation is reached before I keg, no problem, then I just force carb.
 
I keg my beers, I used to force carbonate them, and now I spund them. My unscientific observation:

The carbonation from spunding does seem finer and smoother from the outset.

Forced carbed beers also seem to achieve a fine quality if allowed to lager or condition under carbonation for a long enough time period.

So this is where I am most interested in the topic. What is causing this difference? What is enabling the yeast to do its job faster with the original extract that force carb cannot?
 
@BeerFst My next home batch will get the spund treatment. I finally got my adjustable prv rigged up. Next beer planned is a bitter.

I had just finished fitting 3 unitanks with spunding valves at a brewing gig right before I left. I didn't get to see the fruits of my labor. Going back there soon, I hope! Just got to talk them into hiring an old cripple.
 
It's kinda relevant to the OP I think but I wanted to make an observation that backs a few of the comments above.
There seem to be a number of factors potentially that influence the "feel" of the carbonation... other than simply the volumes of CO2 as calculated by the temperature and pressure.

So I have a 3 tap kegorator and at present, not 3 way CO2 regulator... so all 3 kegs sit on the same PSI and temperature. What's amazing is the difference in the carbonation mouthfeel of different styles of beer. I have a Belgian Saison (FG 1.009), a Helles lager (FG 1.012) and an IPA (FG 1.014) sitting in the kegs at the minute. The saison has a soda bubbly bite to it's carbonation, the IPA is much creamier and the Helles is right in the middle of the 2. I listed FGs as I am assuming that the density of the beer is playing a role, but there is probably a lot more going on than just that!

I need to invest in a proper regulator!
 
So this is where I am most interested in the topic. What is causing this difference? What is enabling the yeast to do its job faster with the original extract that force carb cannot?
The yeast is in all 1,155 cubic inches of the beer so when they make CO2, it is already IN the beer. The only thing limiting them is how fast they can eat. Force carbing relies on how long it takes to permeate just 56 sq inches and disperse from there into the beer.
 
The yeast is in all 1,155 cubic inches of the beer so when they make CO2, it is already IN the beer. The only thing limiting them is how fast they can eat. Force carbing relies on how long it takes to permeate just 56 sq inches and disperse from there into the beer.
I fee real guilty about not figuring that out since I’m an engineer and all. But I did kind of say that up the thread, even if it was pseudo science about bubble size
 
It's kinda relevant to the OP I think but I wanted to make an observation that backs a few of the comments above.
There seem to be a number of factors potentially that influence the "feel" of the carbonation... other than simply the volumes of CO2 as calculated by the temperature and pressure.

So I have a 3 tap kegorator and at present, not 3 way CO2 regulator... so all 3 kegs sit on the same PSI and temperature. What's amazing is the difference in the carbonation mouthfeel of different styles of beer. I have a Belgian Saison (FG 1.009), a Helles lager (FG 1.012) and an IPA (FG 1.014) sitting in the kegs at the minute. The saison has a soda bubbly bite to it's carbonation, the IPA is much creamier and the Helles is right in the middle of the 2. I listed FGs as I am assuming that the density of the beer is playing a role, but there is probably a lot more going on than just that!

I need to invest in a proper regulator!
My point is that it is not just a carbonation issue. The elements of their beer can have a vast impact on this phenomena. For a judge to coment in a symptom rather than a cause tells me more than I need to know about the judge.

Edit: FWIW sweet under fermented lightly carbonated beer shows well in taste tests for beer guys.
 
Last edited:
As to the subject at hand: Do you truly believe that co2 that is forced into solution will have the exact impact on an identical beer that has had active yeast primed with fermentables to achieve a similar saturation? If you do believe that, it's fine. I just can't.

I can't either, but unfortunately we're not talking about the difference between priming with sugar and force carbonating without the addition of fermentables. If you add fermentables to one batch of course that batch will come out different than a batch of the same beer that has not had anything added to it.
With spunding you have the same exact mount of extract processed by the yeast, you just keep the last bit of CO2 in the beer instead of just releasing it all in the environment and then supplementing the carbonation with CO2 from a bottle. The notion that CO2 produced from the yeast is somewhat different than CO2 from a bottle is just superstitious poppycock on a par with belief in homeopathy and other such nonsense.
 
The notion that CO2 produced from the yeast is somewhat different than CO2 from a bottle is just superstitious poppycock on a par with belief in homeopathy and other such nonsense.

I don’t think anyone is arguing this. Molecule to molecule CO2 is CO2. Rather I am suggesting the gas we get for our kegs is not pure CO2, however close to 100%, where as yeast are only capable of providing pure CO2 and I am feeling this a possible explanation for the observations from this thread
 
I don’t think anyone is arguing this. Molecule to molecule CO2 is CO2. Rather I am suggesting the gas we get for our kegs is not pure CO2, however close to 100%, where as yeast are only capable of providing pure CO2 and I am feeling this a possible explanation for the observations from this thread

Impurities in bottled CO2 are just that, impurities. They do not form chemical compounds with CO2 and if they have any effect at all they have it on the beer itself, such as residual oxygen causing oxydation and staling. Yeast itself does not just produce CO2 either, some lager yeasts are well known for producing sulfur compounds that give the fermenting wort a somewhat unpleasant smell. In this case spunding could be actually counterproductive as it will also trap secondary compounds in the beer instead of releasing them together with CO2. The purity of CO2 from yeast is itself a myth, as it were.
 
Impurities in bottled CO2 are just that, impurities. They do not form chemical compounds with CO2 and if they have any effect at all they have it on the beer itself, such as residual oxygen causing oxydation and staling. Yeast itself does not just produce CO2 either, some lager yeasts are well known for producing sulfur compounds that give the fermenting wort a somewhat unpleasant smell. In this case spunding could be actually counterproductive as it will also trap secondary compounds in the beer instead of releasing them together with CO2. The purity of CO2 from yeast is itself a myth, as it were.

Agreed, but can't we say that the compounds formed by yeast are not impacting bubble size/foam creaminess? Otherwise there would be more threads about why my lager head retention, no? I'm saying the impurities in the gas are impacting the bubble size in some manner.

In any case, it seems like the answer here is time is key. Spund is the "fastest" way to get the best foam, but i do agree that in time, foam quality in a force carb should be similar. So I'll keep spunding when it makes sense in my processes, but i have no issues force carbing when that just doesnt make sense (which is often).
 
As usual with all Brülosophy experiments it's quite useless. The two batches were handled quite differently, any number of variables that had nothing to do with spunding could have led to the perceived difference. When asked to describe the perceived difference unsurprisingly none of the tasters indicated that they could perceive a difference in quality of carbonation.
 
While an extremely qualitative observation, with plenty of confounding variables (who knows when the beers were poured, how, etc) the spunded one does show the higher foam quality i am referring to. Smaller bubbles, higher density
 
Heh - welcome to every debate ever between CAMRA members and the non-believers....

Without going into too much detail - as someone who has grown up with pubs that have cask-conditioned beer and force-carbed keg beer side-by-side, sometimes with the same beer on - I can tell the difference every time. In general traditional British styles just don't suit kegs in general, the mouthfeel ends up all wrong. Nitro is less bad than CO2 carbing, but still not the same. And it's not just with beer - I've done blind tastings of sparkling wines and can easily tell the difference between the bottle-conditioned, the Charmat process (effectively secondary fermentation in a secondary tank before bottling under pressure) and force-carbed wine. The bubbles are just different, even when the bottles have been cellared a while.

Whilst the fact that the yeast is distributed throughout the volume of the liquid and is producing "microbubbles" of CO2 with a huge suface area : volume ratio that dissolves very quickly and uniformly is part of it, you also have to consider how it comes out of solution. All those yeast cells, dead or alive, produce huge numbers of nucleation points, to form lots of small bubbles, even if most of them are dropped out. I don't really buy the impurity argument from a bubble perspective, but the presence of oxygen will certainly affect flavour.

Also - sparklers.

Hello all - I just got my score sheet from a competition and one of the comments was "carbonation is more bubbly than creamy", which is fair - the beer can feel almost soda bubble-ish on the palate at times.

As a Brit who drinks cask mild maybe once a month on average - I'd say the judge is absolutely right to pull you up on that. To be honest, mild at 2.3vol and 45°F (7°C) with soda bubbles sounds rather unpleasant.

British styles are all about balance, and skewing that balance even slightly one way or the other makes a big difference. Particularly with excess carbonation, which not only affects the mouthfeel but also puts carbonic acid into the beer and skews the flavour that way. Which is particularly noticeable on a "slight" beer like mild, particularly if you're killing what flavour there is by serving too cold.

The official recommendation is to serve cask beer at 12-14°C (54-57°F) - personally I like to start my bitter at 9-10°C (48-50°F) so that it warms up through the sweet spot as I drink my pint. Mild I'd probably want a touch warmer, maybe 11-12°C (52-54°F). Whilst I've had cask mild come out so lively it didn't even need a sparkler (!) I'd guess I'd expect it to be 1.7-1.8 vol on draught, and aim for 2 vol in bottle as bottles always seem to need a bit more?

If you're doing another one - partigyle it off a big dark beer, you can save the big beer for Christmas whilst still having something to drink immediately.
 
@Northern_Brewer Years ago my quest for the perfect homebrewed Bitter pint led me to CAMRA. I was easily convinced that their koolade was indeed drinkable. Especially since I had already experienced identical beers that were split with one served through a beer engine and the other served from a forced carbed keg, and I fell in love with that beer engine device and everything that goes with it. Anyway, I finally got what I wanted. A perfect pint of bitter, pulled from my keg. My visiting London friends forsook their New England family to live at my house for two weeks. They didn't care for me all that much, but they loved my beer.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate all the insights, responses and debates! I got my sheets from another set of judges for the same beer and another noted low carbonation as an issue (though, some other comments seemed out of place, so perhaps it was a bad bottling job). All 4 judges scored the beer between 32 and 36, with all indicating it was very well made - it seems like some minor tuning is perhaps in order. I might even try splitting a 10G batch for force carb and spunding and do a side-by-side of them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top