How to get pillowy foam

[Bilsch]

If you can get that kind of foam using a single temperature mash rest with carafoam, in a lighter OG 1.044 FG 1.008 beer like the one in my pic, without wheat or unmalted barley, then I'll stand corrected.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Logic dictates that if there's substantial market demand among experts (i.e.: pro brewers), then odds are that the product actually works. By contrast, products available through the "as seen on TV" medium typically have a short life cycle, and we don't see many experts buying products that way.

Carapils works. It's just not always necessary, as there are other ways to improve foam retention.

Logically no. Actually a logical fallacy. But point taken.

Many pros are just as stuck in their ways as many homebrewers (don't take that as directed at you).

If it works for you, carry on. As with everything else, there are multitudes of real world variables at play.

 

[couchsending]

For those adamant that Carapils is causing better head retention do you have experiments with the exact same beer with and without Carapils?

 

[rhys333]

Logically no. Actually a logical fallacy. But point taken.

Many pros are just as stuck in their ways as many homebrewers (don't take that as directed at you).

If it works for you, carry on. As with everything else, there are multitudes of real world variables at play.

Logically, yes. My claim is supported by impirical evidence, and I noted there are numerous ways to improve foam stability... carapils being just one.

Now, claims that carapils doesn't work because a homebrewer used it to detrimental effects would be considered a logical fallacy... because it assumes that correlation implies causation.

I've used carapils in perhaps three batches in two years. It's not my go-to ingredient, but I'm not averse to it either.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Logically, yes. My claim is supported by impirical evidence, and I noted there are numerous ways to improve foam stability... carapils being just one.

Now, claims that carapils doesn't work because a homebrewer used it to detrimental effects would be considered a logical fallacy... because it assumes that correlation implies causation.

I've used carapils in perhaps three batches in two years. It's not my go-to ingredient, but I'm not averse to it either.

You supported your claim with anecdotal evidence, not empirical.

The leap that "pros use it therefore it must work" is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

The evidence that it does work is anectodal, and work by Bamforth et al showing its foam negative properties (published study in a scientific journal) is far more empirical than "it works for me".

As I said, my experience is that it does nothing to improve head (and I've done the same beers with and without it in the past, which is why I stopped using it) and in larger percentages is detrimental. In small amounts it probably doesn't hurt. But it costs more than base malt. So just use more base malt. Or, use wheat. Same study as above showed wheat overwhelmingly foam-positive.

Hell, even Brulosophy got this one right.

 

[bierhaus15]

Where exactly does Bamforth call out carapils (Breiss) as being foam-negative in particular? While he consistently mentions crystal malts in particular being inhibitory, I've not seen him mention that particular malt in his papers or otherwise. The BeerSmith podcast? That said, we know for a fact that carapils is foam-positive, given its principle components and Breiss analysis: long-chain unfermentable dextrins, non-starch polysaccharides, and proteins. All things that greatly help mouthfeel and foam retention. If you don't believe it, email Bob Hanson.

That said, some malts contain more foam inhibiting compounds than others, including high lipid malts and crystal malts that have already been called out by Charlie. Carapils is not a crystal or caramel malt. Moreover, wheat malt and roasted malts (black malt) are greatly foam positive, as is high kilned melanoiden rich malt. Stuff like flaked oats, barley, and high lipid malts are not. That is to not say their inclusion negates the total benefit of foam positive malts and brewing processes.

While I don't typically use carapils malt, it is not going to inhibit foam in normal usage, nor totally transform a beer with poor foam properties into one with crazy, instagram worth head. Also, I don't put much salt into the Brulosophy trials as they have virtually no control over the things that matter when testing foam; linoleic acid, isohumulone, proper trub/lipid removal, lack of non-divalent salts, proteinase A, and impact of things like gelatin on positive protein content. Food for thought.

 

[rhys333]

You supported your claim with anecdotal evidence, not empirical.

The leap that "pros use it therefore it must work" is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

The evidence that it does work is anectodal, and work by Bamforth et al showing its foam negative properties (published study in a scientific journal) is far more empirical than "it works for me".

As I said, my experience is that it does nothing to improve head (and I've done the same beers with and without it in the past, which is why I stopped using it) and in larger percentages is detrimental. In small amounts it probably doesn't hurt. But it costs more than base malt. So just use more base malt. Or, use wheat. Same study as above showed wheat overwhelmingly foam-positive.

Hell, even Brulosophy got this one right.

Perhaps anecdotal, however I am referencing both my own findings as well as credible secondary sources: professional brewers. Appeal to authority cannot be easily discounted as invalid, where appeal to ignorance can. Also, I believe you're using the 'argument from fallacy' logical fallacy.

Do you know if the Bamforth article is peer reviewed, and how many citations it has? This goes a long way to establishing credibility.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

The thing about actual empirical evidence is that it tests things under variables that are tightly controlled. Never would there be a true scientific conclusion,”Carapils and Carafoam are foam negative.” It would be something like “Foam thickness at 60 degrees when using 6% Carapils vs. a control of all base malt.” Did the test have hops in it? How was the testing done. Real science becomes removed from the real world in application until multiple tests are done with multiple variables tested. Not to say that it isn’t worth doing or that it should be ignored. Like every type of truth finding it is just a part of a bigger picture.

In my case I have used different amounts of Carapils and my experience is that it works as advertised. Maybe that’s because it needs to be combined with late addition hops, which I use a lot or maybe the way I mash leaves the dextrines more intact. I don’t know, but it’s not like an off flavor or a smell that can be perceived as tropical by one person or appley by another. It’s right there to see. It’d be like trying to tell me an ounce of black malt won’t turn my beer red. I can see it, I don’t need empirical evidence.

 

[shortyz]

i made a pumpkin beer this year without the pumpkin, just the spices and the head was no where near if i used pumpkin puree like years before.

solution boys, pumpkin puree. and stuck mashes with pounds of rice hulls!

FECK

 

[Ozarks Mountain Brewery]

funny you guys all talk about Carapils, I've preached this for years that it works and every time I get 5 people saying it doesn't, that leads me to believe they are just not using enough or they just don't know how to brew very well or
are negative posters and those are the worst

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

funny you guys all talk about Carapils, I've preached this for years that it works and every time I get 5 people saying it doesn't, that leads me to believe they are just not using enough or they just don't know how to brew very well or
are negative posters and those are the worst

Obviously, I’m with you based on my previous posts. There is something to the detractors though. The Brülosophy exBeeriment with Carapils vs. none in a simple grist shows that there is something to the idea thay Carapils has little to no effect. I believe the Brülosophy guys aren’t trying to pull a fast one, so that’s why I’ve gotten so militant about expressing my experience on this thread. I would love to know what gives?

Here’s the exBeeiment.

http://brulosophy.com/2016/11/28/de...ous-beer-characteristics-exbeeriment-results/

 

[Sadu]

So this just happened. Finally got some pillowey foam happening!

I'm pretty sure it was in the pour. I poured a glass with a warm tap. Poured half foam so I left it 5 mins then topped it up and got it to sit above the glass without overflowing. Head retention on this beer seems pretty good generally.

I think what is happening is the old dry foam sits on top of the new wet foam and that is how it can go above the rim.

Recipe is nothing special. 5% porter with no adjuncts and 90 min single infusion mash.

 

[Mer-man]

Roasted barley is very foam positive. There’s a Bamforth lecture on YouTube where he presents a relative comparison among malts of foam contribution. I’ve posted the screenshot before.

 

[brewbama]

[It’s] in the pour. I poured a glass with a warm tap. Poured half foam so I left it 5 mins then topped it up and got it to sit above the glass without overflowing.

+1. Watch how a glass is poured. They pour, wait, then finish.

What Kunze says about foam:

View attachment 624139