How important is clear beer to you?

[unionrdr]

I think they definitely taste better clear than with trub & yeast floating around in it.

 

[mattdee1]

Yeah, so far I just haven't found myself caring about the beer being clear. If I ever get around to trying to make a lager, I might care then, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I definitely "get" the idea of clear beer being a more approachable look for people who don't typically drink homebrew or craft beer, but I think that if they are so sure of what beer is "supposed" to look like that a little bit of haze will make them shun a beer, then they are beyond help anyway.

 

[slym2none]

I only cold-crash, and most of my light beers come out pretty dang clear. Not as clear as what I've seen gelatin do, but still clear enough to read through. I'm happy with that.

Do I really care? A little...but really, as long as it tastes good, I'm good.

 

[GHBWNY]

I definitely "get" the idea of clear beer being a more approachable look for people who don't typically drink homebrew or craft beer, but I think that if they are so sure of what beer is "supposed" to look like that a little bit of haze will make them shun a beer, then they are beyond help anyway.

Blue Moon is a favorite with some of my non-HB-drinking friends. They've come to accept the hazy appearance. But "hazy" and "crap sitting on the bottom" are certainly two different levels of visual appeal.

 

[BrewerBrad82]

I always strive to make clear beer. Yeast and trub in the keg/bottles can alter the taste of the beer quite a bit. I make sure my water has a good amount of calcium (80+ ppm), select a flocculent yeast strain like Wyeast 1335, 1272, or 1099 or White Labs WLP007, and cold crash. My beers usually all come out pretty damn clear. If I'm in a hurry to keg it, gelatin does wonders.

 

[bucfan1234]

I like clear beer. They are clear when I keg them, but sometimes I get what I think is chill haze when they go in the kegerator.

Rolling boil, wort chiller and still sometimes a batch will haze. Usually an extract batch.

Sometimes, I forget the irish moss, and that is on me.

Past that, I am not sure how to get rid of it.

 

[Kent88]

Unless I plan on giving a majority of it away (or maybe I'll enter some in a contest one day) I don't care about clarity. Taste is tops, but I do feel better when I can mostly see through a good tasting beer, it makes me feel like I'm doing a better job brewing.

Although most of my beers lately have been inky black stouts, and when I make one of those I love not being able to detect light through it.

 

[Brewernaut51]

When my beer comes out really clear - which is most of the time - I am happy and say "look at how clear it is! Tastes great!".

But it when the result is not clear i am happy and say "whatever, tastes great!"

That's how I feel in a nutshell. When I pull a draft and it comes out clear I do get a little sense of pride. If not I just shrug my shoulders and enjoy it anyway.

I've never had anyone complain about cloudy beer before though. Craft beer newbs are usually so mystified by homebrew they don't even know if it's supposed to be clear or not.

 

[mattdee1]

That's how I feel in a nutshell. When I pull a draft and it comes out clear I do get a little sense of pride. If not I just shrug my shoulders and enjoy it anyway.

I've never had anyone complain about cloudy beer before though. Craft beer newbs are usually so mystified by homebrew they don't even know if it's supposed to be clear or not.

In my experience, “mystified by homebrew” is usually an understatement. It’s more like, they know this guy at work, or their uncle Bob, who went to a U-Brew shop and came home with a keg full of a BMC-knockoff called “Cool’s Light” that tasted like complete ****, but ended up defining for them what “homebrew” tastes like. Heck, after stealing some of my dad’s U-Brew back in the early 90s when I was underage, that’s what I used to think.

 

[BrewingTravisty]

In my experience, “mystified by homebrew” is usually an understatement. It’s more like, they know this guy at work, or their uncle Bob, who went to a U-Brew shop and came home with a keg full of a BMC-knockoff called “Cool’s Light” that tasted like complete ****, but ended up defining for them what “homebrew” tastes like. Heck, after stealing some of my dad’s U-Brew back in the early 90s when I was underage, that’s what I used to think.

This was basically my brothers reaction when he first tried one of my homebrews. He looked a little worried before he took a sip, and then his face lit up with surprise and said "wow, this is actually good! I thought homebrew was always crap alcoholics make to get drunk cheap!"

 

[Yooper]

This is the beer I want to drink tonight:



Does it taste better than a murky beer? Yes, in some cases it does (depending on what's causing the haze).

It takes 0 work to make a nice looking beer- so why wouldn't you? I don't get that. I spend a lot of time and energy to make a great tasting beer, so why not enjoy it looking nice as well?

 

[ShizuokaBrad]

There's a massive difference between clear beer, unclear (hazy), and beer with trub/crap floating in it. When I posted my question I was referring to clear beer vs. hazy beer.

Do people really think using things like whirlfloc or gelatin is part of a 'good process'? You can have the worst process in the world and use either of those things to make clear beer.

And for those claiming they can taste the difference between a clear beer and a hazy beer...? LOL... Really?!

 

[BrewingTravisty]

This is the beer I want to drink tonight:

View attachment 321579

Does it taste better than a murky beer? Yes, in some cases it does (depending on what's causing the haze).

It takes 0 work to make a nice looking beer- so why wouldn't you? I don't get that. I spend a lot of time and energy to make a great tasting beer, so why not enjoy it looking nice as well?

I feel like as long as you have a good process, you should end up with a clear beer. So to me, I wouldn't say it's extremely important to have a clear beer as in I spend extra time to get my beer clear. But it is important to me, in that it reinforces the fact that I did a good job on that beer. Now I'm not terribly upset if one of my beers comes out slightly hazy, because it's a learning process. I can usually tell you what I did wrong in that brew that it didn't come out clear and I make sure I fix it the next brew.

So I guess it's both important and not, depending on how you look at it. It's not important in the way that I need the beer to be clear to enjoy it. It is important in the fact that it shows whether or not my processes were on point to a degree.

 

[Gavin C]

Do people really think using things like whirlfloc or gelatin is part of a 'good process'?

They do not equate with good or bad practice IMO. They are simply optional tools some brewers make use of.

Both Irish moss and animal products such as isinglass have been used for centuries by many breweries. They are very much part of mainstream brewing.

Guinness brewery has recently elected to halt it's use of isinglass. I think most folks would recognize Guinness' past 250+years of brewing as probably involving some sound principles.

You can have the worst process in the world and use either of those things to make clear beer.

No. That is not accurate. Both gelatin and Irish moss will augment good process. They will not work effectively with bad methodology and will not correct a variety of haze forming errors.

I want my beers to taste, feel and look the way I want them to. Same applies when I cook food.

I like brewing to style so for me clear bright beer is important. There is no extra labor involved in achieving this goal. I hold homebrew and commercial beers to the same standards. If they are supposed to be clear, they should be regardless of where they were made or on what scale of brewery.

Homebrew Lager

 

[ShizuokaBrad]

They do not equate with good or bad practice IMO. They are simply optional tools some brewers make use of.

Both Irish moss and animal products such as isinglass have been used for centuries by many breweries. They are very much part of mainstream brewing.

Guinness brewery has recently elected to halt it's use of isinglass. I think most folks would recognize Guinness' past 250+years of brewing as probably involving some sound principles.



No. That is not accurate. Both gelatin and Irish moss will augment good process. They will not work effectively with bad methodology and will not correct a variety of haze forming errors.

I want my beers to taste, feel and look the way I want them to. Same applies when I cook food.

I like brewing to style so for me clear bright beer is important. There is no extra labor involved in achieving this goal. I hold homebrew and commercial beers to the same standards. If they are supposed to be clear, they should be regardless of where they were made or on what scale of brewery.

Homebrew LagerView attachment 321619

Pointing to the practices of macrobreweriers as models for good homebrewing doesn't make any sense to me. As far as I know, many commercial breweries use those types of finings because it helps them speed up processing their products for distribution.

 

[Gavin C]

I simply mentioned Guinness as an example to rebut your suggestion that use of these ingredients is not consistent with "good process".

I view using them as neither good nor bad. I view them as normal and mainstream ingredients useful to a wide variety of brewers making a wider variety of beers on any scale, macro to femto.

Are they required? Certainly not.

But the idea that something "craft" or "home-brewed" should qualify itself by having a certain rustic or less polished look, taste or feel to me is complete nonsense.

There is no requirement that one should strive to make clear beer of course. This is a hobby and we all derive enjoyment in differing ways from it. Brew what you want, how you want as often as you want.

But lets call a spade a spade, a hazy beer in a style where this is not appropriate is a flaw. Whether or not one cares about the flaw is up to the individual drinker or the brewer. I guess that's the thrust of the question in post 1.

Me: I care about, flavor, mouthfeel, appearance, head retention, aroma etc.
All very important to me.

 

[unionrdr]

There's a massive difference between clear beer, unclear (hazy), and beer with trub/crap floating in it. When I posted my question I was referring to clear beer vs. hazy beer.

Do people really think using things like whirlfloc or gelatin is part of a 'good process'? You can have the worst process in the world and use either of those things to make clear beer.

And for those claiming they can taste the difference between a clear beer and a hazy beer...? LOL... Really?!

As for myself, I was referring to a beer with trub & yeast still in suspension to whatever degree. I can definitely taste the difference with versus without the trub/yeast. The beer's true flavor is masked by the stuff in suspension. As for a hazy beer, not so much...sometimes a little different flavor, other times, like a heavily dry-hopped IPA, not so much.

I simply mentioned Guinness as an example to rebut your suggestion that use of these ingredients is not consistent with "good process".

I view using them as neither good nor bad. I view them as normal and mainstream ingredients useful to a wide variety of brewers making a wider variety of beers on any scale, macro to femto.

Are they required? Certainly not.

But the idea that something "craft" or "home-brewed" should qualify itself by having a certain rustic or less polished look, taste or feel to me is complete nonsense.

There is no requirement that one should strive to make clear beer of course. This is a hobby and we all derive enjoyment in differing ways from it. Brew what you want, how you want as often as you want.

But lets call a spade a spade, a hazy beer in a style where this is not appropriate is a flaw. Whether or not one cares about the flaw is up to the individual drinker or the brewer. I guess that's the thrust of the question in post 1.

Me: I care about, flavor, mouthfeel, appearance, head retention, aroma etc.
All very important to me.

I must agree with all of this one. If the beer should be clear, & isn't, it's a flaw. Whether you consider this or not is up to you, of course. Some of us just figure it in as part of our process to making a good beer with the flavors intended & a more polished look. Where hop haze can be considered normal in some beers, it may be considered a flaw in others. Like starch haze from incomplete conversion in the mash shining through in the final product. So it comes down to what you care about, & what you don't. That seemed to me to be the gist of it?

 

[kombat]

Do people really think using things like whirlfloc or gelatin is part of a 'good process'?

Yes, of course.

The "process" consists of all of the steps you undertake in order to make the desired beer. For some, their goal is to make a beer that conforms as closely as possible to a particular style. If the style guidelines prescribe crystal clarity, then Whirlfloc and gelatin are two good steps in order to achieve that clarity.

You can have the worst process in the world and use either of those things to make clear beer.

Maybe, but so what? Everything else being equal, the clear beer will score higher than the hazy beer (again, assuming the style dictates a high level of clarity).

And for those claiming they can taste the difference between a clear beer and a hazy beer...? LOL... Really?!

Yes, absolutely. Are you suggesting that yeast does not impart any perceptible flavour to a beer?

 

[GHBWNY]

I like clear beer. They are clear when I keg them, but sometimes I get what I think is chill haze when they go in the kegerator.

Rolling boil, wort chiller and still sometimes a batch will haze. Usually an extract batch.

Sometimes, I forget the irish moss, and that is on me.

Past that, I am not sure how to get rid of it.

Clear when warming up, haze when cold = chill haze. Only a fast cold break will drop those suspended proteins out of suspension. Although finings or gelatin at kegging will help, the cold break is the answer.

 

[bucfan1234]

Thanks. I use a 50' IC and chill to pitching temps in about 20 minutes. Groundwater here seems too warm to do much better than that.

I seem to get the chill haze more in extract batches. My last all grain batch poured clear.

Ironically, I have a wheat beer on tap that is pouring crystal clear too. Who knows. I may give the gelatin a try.

 

[unionrdr]

Or fridging the bottles for a week or so. That'll give the chill haze a chance to form & settle out like a fog.

 

[Terek]

could care less. and anyways, after a week in keg/bottle, it clears up pretty good anyways. Then you get some dregs in your bottles too, if you like harvesting yeast. Just gives me another thing to do when im waiting to brew again

 

[ShizuokaBrad]

Yes, absolutely. Are you suggesting that yeast does not impart any perceptible flavour to a beer?

Are you suggesting that yeast is the only thing that causes haze?

A quick comment about style: It's hard to create something unique when you lock yourself into thinking that the style of the beer is more important than the beer itself. For me, taste before anything else.

 

[ShizuokaBrad]

Yes, of course.

The "process" consists of all of the steps you undertake in order to make the desired beer. For some, their goal is to make a beer that conforms as closely as possible to a particular style. If the style guidelines prescribe crystal clarity, then Whirlfloc and gelatin are two good steps in order to achieve that clarity.

Can you make clear beer without using either of those products? If the answer is yes, then why use them? If the answer is no, then can you really claim your process if good?

 

[Yooper]

Can you make clear beer without using either of those products? If the answer is yes, then why use them? If the answer is no, then can you really claim your process if good?

Well, that's sort of a troll-ish question, isn't it?

I can make clear beer without using any products- but the whirlfloc means it happens quicker and faster. Does that mean I suck as a brewer, or don't have good process?

I would like to think my beers don't suck, and when I brew to style and win a competition, I think my BJCP friends may agree.

Like I said, I never use isinglass or polyclar or gelatin, as I want a vegetarian (and plastic-free) beer. But it is wrong to use it? I don't think so.

Just like I choose to not eat wheat products or add shellfish bladders to my beer, I think we can all make those choices for ourselves without judgement.

 

[Yooper]

Are you suggesting that yeast is the only thing that causes haze?

A quick comment about style: It's hard to create something unique when you lock yourself into thinking that the style of the beer is more important than the beer itself. For me, taste before anything else.

Yeast is one of the main things that can create haze, certainly not the only thing, but many non-flocculant yeast strains do indeed cause haze and there is a flavor impact.

Other things, like chill haze, are about colloidal instability and may create flavor issues as well.

 

[BrewingTravisty]

Can you make clear beer without using either of those products? If the answer is yes, then why use them? If the answer is no, then can you really claim your process if good?

Why not use them? It's a cheap step that helps make sure your beer turns out how you want. It doesn't add anything extra to your brew day, and that along with good procedure will assure your beer is clear.

 

[ShizuokaBrad]

Well, that's sort of a troll-ish question, isn't it?

I can make clear beer without using any products- but the whirlfloc means it happens quicker and faster. Does that mean I suck as a brewer, or don't have good process?

Not trolling at all. It was an honest question. Obviously you don't suck since you can make clear beer without using those products. Furthermore, I like quite a few of the recipes you've posted and have one of them on my 'to do' list in the near future.

The thing is, I used to care about getting clear beer too. I'd add Irish moss and even occasionally gelatin too... and my beer was clear. Then I stopped caring so much about it and stopped using any fining agents at all... and my beer is still clear.

 

[ShizuokaBrad]

Why not use them? It's a cheap step that helps make sure your beer turns out how you want. It doesn't add anything extra to your brew day, and that along with good procedure will assure your beer is clear.

But if you don't need it then why use it? It's like an athlete winning a race while using steriods and then claiming he doesn't need steriods to win a race.

 

[joshesmusica]

Not trolling at all. It was an honest question. Obviously you don't suck since you can make clear beer without using those products. Furthermore, I like quite a few of the recipes you've posted and have one of them on my 'to do' list in the near future.

The thing is, I used to care about getting clear beer too. I'd add Irish moss and even occasionally gelatin too... and my beer was clear. Then I stopped caring so much about it and stopped using any fining agents at all... and my beer is still clear.

It's called being efficient. You may produce clear beer, but with those products, you could do it faster - if you wanted to. Some yeasts take quite a bit of time before dropping clear on their own. If people don't prefer the flavor of yeast in suspension, but don't want to wait for the yeast to drop on its own, why fault them for using a more efficient process? If the end result is the same, and one process gets you to the end result quicker (and basically costs nothing), then why not employ that process into your brewing style?

Do you cold crash? If so, according to your logic, it's a poor process, because it's cutting corners. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of very popular craft breweries use clearing agents and cold crashing (if they don't just simply filter it) in order to obtain clear beer quicker. Are you going to say that there's something wrong with their process?