Pseudo Vs Traditional Lager

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Peaty Jones

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2024
Messages
42
Reaction score
43
Location
Finland
Hi,

I found many videos and articles about pseudo lagers. So basically the idea is that you can brew lager real fast In pressure with elevated temperature and instead of lagering, you flockulate/clear the beer with gelatin or something similar and thus you can brew lager In 2 weeks

According to these sources they claim that it does all the same things than In traditional lagering. Wouldnt that mean that lagering only clears out the beer and everything about yeast digesting side products is just BS?

So my question is, is there any scientific proof or sources that yeast does anything while lagering? And no it isnt a proof if it is mentioned In any cult like status gained brewing book.


PS: My experience of lagering is that the taste really gets better In time but i do not know If its just the beer clearing out.
 
Here is what Wyeast says is happening during lagering:
https://wyeastlab.com/resource/professional-lager-brewing/

"Lagering is a time when harsh flavors from fermentation are mellowed. Yeast re-absorbs some of the ester compounds from fermentation as well as some of the sulfur compounds. Malt tannins coagulate with haze-forming proteins and precipitate out along with some sulfurous compounds."


An often quoted scientific source for these types of statements is:
Charles Masschelein. “Biochemistry of Maturation.” Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 92 1986.

https://cdn.homebrewtalk.com/data/a...schelein---THE-BIOCHEMISTRY-OF-MATURATION.pdf

Abstract: Negative and positive aspects of maturation are respectively related to aroma and taste modifications.
Vicinal diketones, hydrogen sulphide, acetyldehyde being primarily responsible for ‘green’ beer flavours an important feature of maturation is the adjustment of their concentration during the lagering period. The role of secondary fermentation in the removal of these undesirable by-products and the importance of sulphury compounds in determining the typical character of lager beer are reviewed. Particular emphasis is placed upon new enzymatic and genetic approaches to overcome vicinal diketone problems in accelerated fermentation systems using free and immobilized cells.
The presence in beer of amino acids, peptides, nucleotides and organic as well as inorganic phosphates is, in part, due to the secretion of these materials by the yeast during lagering. Most of these compounds are contained in internal pools and their actual participation in flavour maturation depends upon intracellular breakdown and accumulation, changes in cell permeability and subsequent exchange possibilities between the yeast cell and the surrounding beer. Participation and practical implications of medium chain length fatty acids in the development of autolytic and yeasty flavours are discussed.


For a recent anti-lagering perspective, see:

Bamforth, C. (2023). Provocation: prolonged maturation of beer is of unproven benefit. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 129(1), 3–14.

https://doi.org/10.58430/jib.v129i1.6
 
IMO, high temp lagers (with or without pressure) just don't measure up to traditional lagers, based on those I've tasted, which of course is a tiny sample compared with the number of people brewing them. And I've yet to see/hear of a high temp lager taking a best of show medal. So there's that. One opinion down, 999 to go.
 
my experience with high temp (above 56) lagers wasnt great as compared to my traditional lagers. (44-54 degrees)

my experience with pressure fermented lagers at warmer temps (62 to 64 degrees) was very satisfactory. and compared well with my traditional lagers to the point that i am fine fermenting my lagers under pressure at 64 degrees.

imo any lagers and ales that i ferment above 68 degrees regardless of pressure can develop esters that i am not particularly fond of.
 
Here is what Wyeast says is happening during lagering:
https://wyeastlab.com/resource/professional-lager-brewing/

"Lagering is a time when harsh flavors from fermentation are mellowed. Yeast re-absorbs some of the ester compounds from fermentation as well as some of the sulfur compounds. Malt tannins coagulate with haze-forming proteins and precipitate out along with some sulfurous compounds."

Correct me if im wrong but isnt this another way of saying these particles" drop out" In the solution?

I know Wyeast is a big player but it could very plausibly be that even the one who wrote this just believes In the "yeast re-absorbs.." part because its been said so for ages.

An often quoted scientific source for these types of statements is:
Charles Masschelein. “Biochemistry of Maturation.” Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 92 1986.

https://cdn.homebrewtalk.com/data/a...schelein---THE-BIOCHEMISTRY-OF-MATURATION.pdf
This seems interesting. I have to get to this a bit later. Kids yelling and In a bit of a hurry here. Quite much scientific english vocabulary makes my head spin. Quick glimpse at the charts shows all these products declining but could it be that they are also just gathering with the solidifying trub?
 
my experience with high temp (above 56) lagers wasnt great as compared to my traditional lagers. (44-54 degrees)

my experience with pressure fermented lagers at warmer temps (62 to 64 degrees) was very satisfactory. and compared well with my traditional lagers to the point that i am fine fermenting my lagers under pressure at 64 degrees.

imo any lagers and ales that i ferment above 68 degrees regardless of pressure can develop esters that i am not particularly fond of.
Good to hear because I just did my first pressure fermentation In 15°C and 15psi. Of course the diacetyl rest was In 18°C. Just ramping it to cold Crash 1°C/day.
 
Good to hear because I just did my first pressure fermentation In 15°C and 15psi. Of course the diacetyl rest was In 18°C. Just ramping it to cold Crash 1°C/day.

It seems like you are really interested in warm fermented lagers or pressure-fermented lagers rather pseudo lagers (which on HBT generally means lager-style beers fermented with kveik or other ale yeasts). Lots of breweries, including famous Bavarian breweries, brew warm-, pressure-fermented lagers. But they do it to save money, not because it makes better beer. I'm a homebrewer. I don't have to worry about that. I want to brew the best beer (by my standards), not the fastest beer. And so I lager my lagers.

Correct me if im wrong but isnt this another way of saying these particles" drop out" In the solution?

In the newly published book Modern Lager Beer: Techniques, Processes, and Recipes by Jack Hendler and Joe Connolly, they lay out the "four main purposes of lagering" (paraphrasing the book Practical Handbook for the Specialty Brewer: Fermentation, Cellaring, and Packaging Operations Volume 2, edited by Karl Ockert):
  1. Flavor maturation; eliminating the undesirable flavors and creating desirable ones
  2. Clarification through the sedimentation of yeast and other insoluble materials
  3. Chill stabilization by promoting the creation of protein tannin complexes that can be removed by sedimentation or filtration
  4. Development of carbonation
On the next page: "One thing is certain when it comes to flavor maturation: yeast is the key component. Such modifications only happen in the presence of yeast."

You are focusing on numbers 2 and 3. The long lagering crowd believes in the importance and validity of number 1 in addition to 2 and 3.

I am also a fan of natural carbonation, although that doesn't always require long lagering times, depending on how you do it. There are many ways to brew lagers. Brew what makes you happy!
 
It seems like you are really interested in warm fermented lagers or pressure-fermented lagers rather pseudo lagers (which on HBT generally means lager-style beers fermented with kveik or other ale yeasts). Lots of breweries, including famous Bavarian breweries, brew warm-, pressure-fermented lagers. But they do it to save money, not because it makes better beer. I'm a homebrewer. I don't have to worry about that. I want to brew the best beer (by my standards), not the fastest beer. And so I lager my lagers.



In the newly published book Modern Lager Beer: Techniques, Processes, and Recipes by Jack Hendler and Joe Connolly, they lay out the "four main purposes of lagering" (paraphrasing the book Practical Handbook for the Specialty Brewer: Fermentation, Cellaring, and Packaging Operations Volume 2, edited by Karl Ockert):
  1. Flavor maturation; eliminating the undesirable flavors and creating desirable ones
  2. Clarification through the sedimentation of yeast and other insoluble materials
  3. Chill stabilization by promoting the creation of protein tannin complexes that can be removed by sedimentation or filtration
  4. Development of carbonation
On the next page: "One thing is certain when it comes to flavor maturation: yeast is the key component. Such modifications only happen in the presence of yeast."

You are focusing on numbers 2 and 3. The long lagering crowd believes in the importance and validity of number 1 in addition to 2 and 3.

I am also a fan of natural carbonation, although that doesn't always require long lagering times, depending on how you do it. There are many ways to brew lagers. Brew what makes you happy!
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear enough on my posts. I didnt mean that I am searching a path how to brew. I have lagered beer the Traditional way myself and I also know for fact that the taste really gets better while lagering. My question of this topic has nothing to do with my past or present brews.

I'm just curious that is there really something biological or chemical reactions happening or done by Yeast while lagering. Or is it just an assumption that every Brewer just blindly repeats. Does yeast really consume the byproducts of the fermentation when lagering? Only proof of it is that I have so far is that the taste gets better, but it could as Well get better for the reason that it has clarified/solidified everything extra out of the beer. Is the "maturing" part just a myth?

If yeast really does something while lagering, wouldnt it be better to lager on top of the yeast bed rather than moving it to a secondary vessel?

If it turns out a myth am I doing much trouble for nothing? such as slowly dropping the temp for days Into lagering temperature to not stress the yeast?

Yes I know there are lots of sources which say that lagering does this and that but to me it sounds like theres not much proof about the real science behind it. Its just assumptions of the writers which they repeat because they have been thought that this is how it is.

Theres also groups who still believe the earth is flat and their beliefs are based on assumptions rather than proof. And they also have written books which claim the earth is flat but obviously it isnt the case.


PS: I really dont mean to insult with this post even it could seem so. Just trying to be clear with my thoughts because there could be much things lost In translation because im not native english speaker. And i really dont belong to any "camp" which would say that maturing really does or does not. Im just trying to get to the bottom of this. Im still going to keep lagering my lagers In the future but i would want to understand it better.

"I can see that sun rises but i want to know If its the earth that is revolving rather than the sun."
 
Does yeast really consume the byproducts of the fermentation when lagering?
Yes. See post #3. Exactly what would you accept as proof for this?
If yeast really does something while lagering, wouldnt it be better to lager on top of the yeast bed rather than moving it to a secondary vessel?
For homebrewers, I would imagine that practical considerations like freeing up the FV and carbonating while lagering favor lagering in a keg. For commercial brewers, yeast autolysis really is a thing.

Budweiser is "Beechwood Aged" to give the yeast something to attach to during lagering so that contact with the beer is increased. They use spirals. Since I'm pretty sure that ABInBev processes are all about the bottom line, I bet they'd use sawdust if it worked as fast and as well with the yeast on the bottom of the tank (or if it was purely a marketing gimmick).
 
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear enough on my posts. I didnt mean that I am searching a path how to brew. I have lagered beer the Traditional way myself and I also know for fact that the taste really gets better while lagering. My question of this topic has nothing to do with my past or present brews.

I'm just curious that is there really something biological or chemical reactions happening or done by Yeast while lagering. Or is it just an assumption that every Brewer just blindly repeats. Does yeast really consume the byproducts of the fermentation when lagering? Only proof of it is that I have so far is that the taste gets better, but it could as Well get better for the reason that it has clarified/solidified everything extra out of the beer. Is the "maturing" part just a myth?

If yeast really does something while lagering, wouldnt it be better to lager on top of the yeast bed rather than moving it to a secondary vessel?

If it turns out a myth am I doing much trouble for nothing? such as slowly dropping the temp for days Into lagering temperature to not stress the yeast?

Yes I know there are lots of sources which say that lagering does this and that but to me it sounds like theres not much proof about the real science behind it. Its just assumptions of the writers which they repeat because they have been thought that this is how it is.

Theres also groups who still believe the earth is flat and their beliefs are based on assumptions rather than proof. And they also have written books which claim the earth is flat but obviously it isnt the case.


PS: I really dont mean to insult with this post even it could seem so. Just trying to be clear with my thoughts because there could be much things lost In translation because im not native english speaker. And i really dont belong to any "camp" which would say that maturing really does or does not. Im just trying to get to the bottom of this. Im still going to keep lagering my lagers In the future but i would want to understand it better.

"I can see that sun rises but i want to know If its the earth that is revolving rather than the sun."
Good Points, I'd like to see some solid research about this topic as well.
 
Yes. See post #3. Exactly what would you accept as proof for this?
What part do you mean? The one which has Wyeast as a source or the biochemistry of maturation? The Wyeasts statement on my mind is just their assumption and the biochemistry of maturation research goes quite over my head. I think you need a PhD to understand all of it. I understand the part that those products decline In the solution but i dont understand what trial of it shows its the yeast what does it. It could be that its the flockulation. But i really admit that I dont understand it fully. Its a factor of my knowledge and also the factor of my understanding the vocabulary.

As a proof I would consider a fair trial done nowadays. Maybe someone has tried to like divide a batch In two and pasteurize and filter the other batch to eliminate the yeast as a factor In lagering.

Budweiser is "Beechwood Aged" to give the yeast something to attach to during lagering so that contact with the beer is increased. They use spirals. Since I'm pretty sure that ABInBev processes are all about the bottom line, I bet they'd use sawdust if it worked as fast and as well with the yeast on the bottom of the tank
This is quite interesting. This makes me think of why not trying it myself.
 
The Wyeasts statement on my mind is just their assumption and the biochemistry of maturation research goes quite over my head. I think you need a PhD to understand all of it. I understand the part that those products decline In the solution but i dont understand what trial of it shows its the yeast what does it. It could be that its the flockulation.
I think you should maybe stop using words like "myth" and "assumption." Healthy skepticism is one thing; dismissiveness is another. Maybe that's not your intention but it comes across that way.

I happen to have a PhD in microbiology. You definitely don't need one to understand the basics of yeast metabolism. You especially don't need one to understand the conclusions of peer-reviewed scientific papers, even if you don't understand all of the experimental details.

Small molecules like acetaldehyde, esters and sulfur compounds can't flocculate. If the yeast weren't reabsorbing them then they would remain in solution. Macromolecules like proteins can coagulate and flocculate.

Simple experiment that even a homebrewer could do - ferment a small batch of lager; split the batch as soon as final gravity is reached; filter half, don't filter the other half; complete your usual post-fermentation processes; taste for differences.
 
Last edited:
Simple experiment that even a homebrewer could do - ferment a small batch of lager; split the batch as soon as final gravity is reached; filter half, don't filter the other half; complete your usual post-fermentation processes; taste for differences.

And then have a small number of people participate in a triangle test, small enough to lack power needed to have a reasonable chance to reach a p-value < 0.05, even in light of (potentially) real differences. Get a p-value of, say, 0.10, and declare that participants "were unable to reliably distinguish" between the two beers. Nah, nobody would so such a thing. :)
 
And then have a small number of people participate in a triangle test, small enough to lack power needed to have a reasonable chance to reach a p-value < 0.05, even in light of (potentially) real differences. Get a p-value of, say, 0.10, and declare that participants "were unable to reliably distinguish" between the two beers. Nah, nobody would so such a thing. :)
Ooh, let's not get started down this path! 🤣
 
In my own view...

"Lagering" = conditioning, or aging for some non-specific length of time ("long enough"?), to allow off-flavors to disappear, resulting in a cleaner product than you would have had if you were to pour straight out of active fermentation into your glass. Whether this conditioning happens in the cold, or at room temperature, or anywhere in between, it's all beneficial. I'm not certain whether the exact temperature or pressure even matters all that much. My hypothesis is that what matters most of all is time. And so then, how much time is enough time? Is 2 weeks enough? Is 2 months too much? Where is the sweet spot? Well of course, it depends! There are dozens of variables in any given batch of beer, it's difficult to say for sure when conditioning is complete. The only right answer, I think, is that when it tastes right to YOU, then it's enough time for YOU.

I don't know if I believe in any of the hocus-pocus over pressurized fermentation. What I do know from much experience is that I'm making some pretty darn tasty lagers fermented with pastorianus yeast close to room temperature (mid to upper 60s Fahrenheit, or around 19 C). And my beers are always atmospheric pressure, no additional pressurization. Are these beers finished quickly in 2 weeks? Hell no. They'll be done fermenting by then, but they definitely still do benefit from a bit of aging, and the longer the better it seems. About a month is good, but 2 or 3 months is better, and 4 or 5 months is often where the WOW factor comes in.

So... do what you want. Only believe peer-reviewed scientific experiments if you want. Only believe your own experience if you want. Personally, I trust my own experience WAY more than ANYBODY else's. You can condition cold for a long time. Or condition warm for a short time. Or anywhere in between. Play around with these variables yourself and see what you like best. Personally, I condition at ANY temperature (basically ignore temperature), for at least a month if not 2 or 3 or 4 months, before it hits that sweet spot where it's like WOW, yes this is a great lager. Maybe the cold matters, maybe it doesn't, I'm not sure yet. But I'll keep on playing. And you should too. And of course, YMMV.

Prost!
 
Last edited:
I think you should maybe stop using words like "myth" and "assumption." Healthy skepticism is one thing; dismissiveness is another. Maybe that's not your intention but it comes across that way.
Was never my intention and i apologize if you felt that way.

I used those words In different context, not saying that it is a myth.
I happen to have a PhD in microbiology. You definitely don't need one to understand the basics of yeast metabolism. You especially don't need one to understand the conclusions of peer-reviewed scientific papers, even if you don't understand all of the experimental details.
I think your underestimating the stupidity of People (especially mine). May seem like piece of bread to you but to me its not.
Small molecules like acetaldehyde, esters and sulfur compounds can't flocculate. If the yeast weren't reabsorbing them then they would remain in solution. Macromolecules like proteins can coagulate and flocculate.
This is something I want to hear more of. You just translated it from the paper.
 
In my own view...

"Lagering" = conditioning, or aging for some non-specific length of time ("long enough"?), to allow off-flavors to disappear, resulting in a cleaner product than you would have had if you were to pour straight out of active fermentation into your glass. Whether this conditioning happens in the cold, or at room temperature, or anywhere in between, it's all beneficial. I'm not certain whether the exact temperature or pressure even matters all that much. My hypothesis is that what matters most of all is time. And so then, how much time is enough time? Is 2 weeks enough? Is 2 months too much? Where is the sweet spot? Well of course, it depends! There are dozens of variables in any given batch of beer, it's difficult to say for sure when conditioning is complete. The only right answer, I think, is that when it tastes right to YOU, then it's enough time for YOU.

I don't know if I believe in any of the hocus-pocus over pressurized fermentation. What I do know from much experience is that I'm making some pretty darn tasty lagers fermented with pastorianus yeast close to room temperature (mid to upper 60s Fahrenheit, or around 19 C). And my beers are always atmospheric pressure, no additional pressurization. Are these beers finished quickly in 2 weeks? Hell no. They'll be done fermenting by then, but they definitely still do benefit from a bit of aging, and the longer the better it seems. About a month is good, but 2 or 3 months is better, and 4 or 5 months is often where the WOW factor comes in.

So... do what you want. Only believe peer-reviewed scientific experiments if you want. Only believe your own experience if you want. Personally, I trust my own experience WAY more than ANYBODY else's. You can condition cold for a long time. Or condition warm for a short time. Or anywhere in between. Play around with these variables yourself and see what you like best. Personally, I condition at ANY temperature (basically ignore temperature), for at least a month if not 2 or 3 or 4 months, before it hits that sweet spot where it's like WOW, yes this is a great lager. Maybe the cold matters, maybe it doesn't, I'm not sure yet. But I'll keep on playing. And you should too. And of course, YMMV.

Prost!
Agree 100%
 
I think you should maybe stop using words like "myth" and "assumption." Healthy skepticism is one thing; dismissiveness is another. Maybe that's not your intention but it comes across that way.

I happen to have a PhD in microbiology. You definitely don't need one to understand the basics of yeast metabolism. You especially don't need one to understand the conclusions of peer-reviewed scientific papers, even if you don't understand all of the experimental details.

Small molecules like acetaldehyde, esters and sulfur compounds can't flocculate. If the yeast weren't reabsorbing them then they would remain in solution. Macromolecules like proteins can coagulate and flocculate.

Simple experiment that even a homebrewer could do - ferment a small batch of lager; split the batch as soon as final gravity is reached; filter half, don't filter the other half; complete your usual post-fermentation processes; taste for differences.
Application of the scientific method. However need to operationalize taste differences. Perhaps a sensory panel of blind evaluators?
 
I have seen many experienced beer judges on other forums say that they can easily tell a pseudo-lager in a comp from a traditional lager. Whether that is true or they just don't want to admit that they can't, well, who knows. But I guess one way to find out is two brew two identical lagers, one fermented traditionally and one fermented at ale temps and send both of them to a good size respected comp that will most likely have more experienced judges. Who's up for that experiment?
 
I am on the side of Mac here. The tone of your initial post as it read from my perspective is - "I don't believe, prove me wrong". I think a more healthy approach would be - "help me understand because I have not done the research..."

The main thing to focus on is the yeast in the whole lagering scenario. Specifically - how is it really handled? Is it live and active or dead?

Homebrewers are generally not in the practice of lagering with live yeast floating around. "Crash Cooling" is the favored method because it is quick. To get the true benefits of "lagering" and not just "settling" one needs to have live, active yeast in your beer during lagering. This means a lot of care needs to be taken to keep the cells alive all the way down to 1C/33F. So unless anybody's fermentation process includes this slow ramp, they are not really "lagering" per se. They are Cold Conditioning.

Traditional German lagering practice is to start the slow temperature ramp down during high krausen, transfer the beer away from most of the (now dead or inactive) yeast to a lagering vessel with just a little fermentation left (3 gravity points) and cap it. So the beer still has active yeast that slowly eats and carbonates the beer at the same time. It takes a lot of trust in your yeast and process because you need a fair amount to happen in a very cold environment over 3-8 weeks.

So forget about scientific papers, the folks that wrote the papers study the traditional processes. All you need to know is these processes have been in use for many years and are not a myth. What is a myth is the idea that one can cut corners and get the same result.

I see this play out in the homebrewering/craft world quite a bit. Something is learned about from the homebrewing sources which is already limited in full scope, it gets questioned, new processes are built around it and some "new" way comes about. Meanwhile, the original process is still the best way to make the best product. The new way might make a good product, but "Good" and "Best" do not cancel each other out. They can both exist. The choice is yours if you want to pursue the best way.
 
I have seen many experienced beer judges on other forums say that they can easily tell a pseudo-lager in a comp from a traditional lager. Whether that is true or they just don't want to admit that they can't, well, who knows. But I guess one way to find out is two brew two identical lagers, one fermented traditionally and one fermented at ale temps and send both of them to a good size respected comp that will most likely have more experienced judges. Who's up for that experiment?
We've run such an experiment recently in my club. We all brewed the same recipe but compared traditional vs. non-traditional. The non-traditionals were still good, but... traditionals seemed a bit better to most people. Not all in the club are certified judges (some are), but all are beer geeks.
 
I am on the side of Mac here. The tone of your initial post as it read from my perspective is - "I don't believe, prove me wrong". I think a more healthy approach would be - "help me understand because I have not done the research..."

The main thing to focus on is the yeast in the whole lagering scenario. Specifically - how is it really handled? Is it live and active or dead?

Homebrewers are generally not in the practice of lagering with live yeast floating around. "Crash Cooling" is the favored method because it is quick. To get the true benefits of "lagering" and not just "settling" one needs to have live, active yeast in your beer during lagering. This means a lot of care needs to be taken to keep the cells alive all the way down to 1C/33F. So unless anybody's fermentation process includes this slow ramp, they are not really "lagering" per se. They are Cold Conditioning.

Traditional German lagering practice is to start the slow temperature ramp down during high krausen, transfer the beer away from most of the (now dead or inactive) yeast to a lagering vessel with just a little fermentation left (3 gravity points) and cap it. So the beer still has active yeast that slowly eats and carbonates the beer at the same time. It takes a lot of trust in your yeast and process because you need a fair amount to happen in a very cold environment over 3-8 weeks.

So forget about scientific papers, the folks that wrote the papers study the traditional processes. All you need to know is these processes have been in use for many years and are not a myth. What is a myth is the idea that one can cut corners and get the same result.

I see this play out in the homebrewering/craft world quite a bit. Something is learned about from the homebrewing sources which is already limited in full scope, it gets questioned, new processes are built around it and some "new" way comes about. Meanwhile, the original process is still the best way to make the best product. The new way might make a good product, but "Good" and "Best" do not cancel each other out. They can both exist. The choice is yours if you want to pursue the best way.
Yeast does not die because of a cold crash or lower temperatures in general. It's turning down the metabolism a lot but it's still alive and more or less active.

Maybe one thing to try would be adding some sugar once the beer is cold to get the yeast to munch on it slooooowly at a very low temp?
 
I am on the side of Mac here. The tone of your initial post as it read from my perspective is - "I don't believe, prove me wrong". I think a more healthy approach would be - "help me understand because I have not done the research..."
Ok, this must be an cultural thing because here were I live (Finland) no one would feel insulted. Here starting a topic in Forum is like shouting In the wind and waiting for someone to answer. Its nothing personal against anyone because theres no person who I am asking the question In the first place. But like I allready said I apologize if People feel insulted. It really was not the intention.
The main thing to focus on is the yeast in the whole lagering scenario. Specifically - how is it really handled? Is it live and active or dead?

Homebrewers are generally not in the practice of lagering with live yeast floating around. "Crash Cooling" is the favored method because it is quick. To get the true benefits of "lagering" and not just "settling" one needs to have live, active yeast in your beer during lagering. This means a lot of care needs to be taken to keep the cells alive all the way down to 1C/33F. So unless anybody's fermentation process includes this slow ramp, they are not really "lagering" per se. They are Cold Conditioning.

Traditional German lagering practice is to start the slow temperature ramp down during high krausen, transfer the beer away from most of the (now dead or inactive) yeast to a lagering vessel with just a little fermentation left (3 gravity points) and cap it. So the beer still has active yeast that slowly eats and carbonates the beer at the same time. It takes a lot of trust in your yeast and process because you need a fair amount to happen in a very cold environment over 3-8 weeks.
This is something I allready know
So forget about scientific papers, the folks that wrote the papers study the traditional processes. All you need to know is these processes have been in use for many years and are not a myth. What is a myth is the idea that one can cut corners and get the same result.

I see this play out in the homebrewering/craft world quite a bit. Something is learned about from the homebrewing sources which is already limited in full scope, it gets questioned, new processes are built around it and some "new" way comes about. Meanwhile, the original process is still the best way to make the best product. The new way might make a good product, but "Good" and "Best" do not cancel each other out. They can both exist. The choice is yours if you want to pursue the best way.
This is the answer that repeats to my question and I fully agree what you are saying but this answers nothing of which I asked In the first place and that frustrates me. Everyone is telling to shut up and just brew what feels good. Im trying to educate myself on the question: DOES LAGERING REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESENCE OF YEAST?
 
Did I just read that unless you slow ramp down to 33f you're not really lagering?

That be silly

On topic, I've brewed about a hundred lagers fermented at lager temps and two fermented at mid 60s. Me did not like what I got with the warm fermented beers. Not very scientific but enough for me to only ferment at recommended temps now

I also find that to my pallette most of my beer tastes better with aging, certain styles aside. I think most my lagers hit their stride about three months after brew day. I fermented and serve from same keg so the yeast is never removed
 
Sorry if there is a language barrier, and we will try to work through it. NOBODY is offended. Offended might be the incorrect word to use! :)

Anytime a person remarks about scientific brewing literature without reading it is always a red flag to me. I am not a scientist and do not always understand the papers either, BUT, I do respect them and listen to folks who do read and understand etc... Yes it is tricky.

Here is your original post:

I found many videos and articles about pseudo lagers. So basically the idea is that you can brew lager real fast In pressure with elevated temperature and instead of lagering, you flockulate/clear the beer with gelatin or something similar and thus you can brew lager In 2 weeks

According to these sources they claim that it does all the same things than In traditional lagering. Wouldnt that mean that lagering only clears out the beer and everything about yeast digesting side products is just BS?

So my question is, is there any scientific proof or sources that yeast does anything while lagering? And no it isnt a proof if it is mentioned In any cult like status gained brewing book.


1) You are taking information for questionable sources.
2) Yes, yeast do special work during true lagering.
3) "Lagering" is not just letting things settle, that is just aging or cold conditioning.
4) Books by Kunze or Narziss are not cult like, they are trusted sources of real brewing information.

Tough conversation as yes, letting your young beer age and drop yeast and stuff out at any temperature will make it better. So we all do not know the starting point of our discussion. Given good hot & cold side practices, letting trub fall out is a given and should be gone before lagering anyway right? If one needs to clear their lager beer of trub in the lagering tank they need to improve their process imho.

To be brief, most of the "stuff" should stay in the fermenter and only beer & live yeast should make it into the lagering tank. This can then work over the lagering time. What you are trying to do with "Lagering" is not related to trub or flocculating yeast, it has to do with fermentation byproducts. These can be small or large in impact based upon how sound your brewing practice is on the hot side and with yeast handling. The better the processes, the less there is to "clean up". Some things may settle as well, but you are wanting the live yeast to absorb them. That is the goal and what makes true lagering different than aging. Is there proof of this? If I say yes, would anybody believe me? :) But the great authors did say yes and I believe them.
 
Moderator's note on HBT etiquette: It is against HBT rules to publicly question another member's motives. If you have concerns bring it up with a moderator (that's one purpose of the "Report" button at the bottom of each post.) This is especially true when interacting with someone who's primary language is not English - you cannot expect them to get all of the nuances correct. Also, you cannot expect anyone to accept what you assert, just because you said it. The burden of convincing them of your argument in on you, not them - i.e. you have to satisfy them that you are correct.

It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with others' assertions, as long as you stick to the topic of discussion, and avoid making it personal.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator.
 
Nobody felt insulted. We felt like you had already decided that the yeast have nothing to do with it and were looking for validation rather than information.
Oh okay, now I get it. Thanks for clearing it out.

No I honestly dont know If the yeast has something to do with it or not. Thats what im trying to search answer to.
 
The temperature, the time in conditioning/lagering, and the yeast are variables that act up on the other variables.

I tried the A/B test... A nice blonde ale (saf US-05) ready to drink in 10 days, via pressure fermentation at 10 psi. Compared to a lager with lager yeast (saf 34-70) fermented for 2 weeks and lagered for 3 weeks before serving. And tried it again and again.

The true, do it proper !!! Lager is better and enough to notice. The blonde ale was a gorgeous European model and quite tempting but the true lager was like an angel that took you to heaven.

Just my own results and experience. My bias? I wanted the faster faster faster to win. Whether ale yeast or a hybrid like Novalager ... Time is of the essence. It takes time.
 
I tried the A/B test... A nice blonde ale (saf US-05) ready to drink in 10 days, via pressure fermentation at 10 psi. Compared to a lager with lager yeast (saf 34-70) fermented for 2 weeks and lagered for 3 weeks before serving.
Apples and oranges. Or maybe mangoes and watermelons.

I'd like to go back to @Witherby's post #3 and quote just one sentence from Charlie Bamforth's "Provocation":

"In terms of flavour, the advocates for lagering insist that there needs to be a handling of vicinal diketones, acetaldehyde, and hydrogen sulphide. However, all of these can be controlled through attention to primary fermentation."

So here at least, he's not suggesting that lagering doesn't do anything. He's saying that there may very well be other ways to accomplish the things that lagering does. And frankly I'd be shocked if there weren't. There's always more than one way to get from point A to point B (except in certain parts of Maine, where you really can't get there from here). But it also wouldn't surprise me if there are a whole bunch of pseudo-lagers that don't actually get to point B because the brewers were just looking for a short cut rather than actually paying attention to what had to be accomplished along the route.
 
Just want to say excellent thread.
The temperature, the time in conditioning/lagering, and the yeast are variables that act up on the other variables.

I tried the A/B test... A nice blonde ale (saf US-05) ready to drink in 10 days, via pressure fermentation at 10 psi. Compared to a lager with lager yeast (saf 34-70) fermented for 2 weeks and lagered for 3 weeks before serving. And tried it again and again.

The true, do it proper !!! Lager is better and enough to notice. The blonde ale was a gorgeous European model and quite tempting but the true lager was like an angel that took you to heaven.

Just my own results and experience. My bias? I wanted the faster faster faster to win. Whether ale yeast or a hybrid like Novalager ... Time is of the essence. It takes time.
Just a thought but I think comparing an ale with 05 (very clean) with a lager 34-70 is comparing apples to oranges a bit. Though both are clean yeasts it seems it might be difficult to get a good assessment, though I'm sure they both were great.

OP, if you want to see the difference between the fermentation profiles, why not isolate everything but that? And I think 34-70 would be a great choice for this. I've never pressure fermented anything, but I would love to do a traditional long-lager with a really slow cool-down ("traditional" - don't have Noonan or a German source handy at the moment, but something like Braukaiser's "traditional" - 2 days 43, 4 days 48, 8 days' rest at 48, 4 months' very gradual cool down and hold at 32. Might even go to 8 months or so for a traditional Festbier or Märzen) v. my usual (typical - primary x 7 days at 52, 4 days D-rest at 60, 6 days cool-down to 34F, 2 1/2 months lager).

edit: lol, crossed in the mail with @mac_1103.
 
Last edited:
To be brief, most of the "stuff" should stay in the fermenter and only beer & live yeast should make it into the lagering tank.

I agree with this sentiment, but unless we're willing to wait a really long time before moving beer to its lagering vessel, there will be more that just yeast left in suspension, even with the tightest process. Some proteins and polyphenols will still be there, because cold crashing for a few days or a week doesn't drop them all. (Though at some point, a long cold crash becomes lagering...thus my qualifier of "a really long time.") During the lagering period, they will gradually settle out. But I agree 100% that "trub" should be excluded.
 
I have my opinions about traditional lagering and all the other short and shoddy methods to simulate a lager but I'll just ask this question to provoke some thought. If there was a way to achieve a beer that can't be distinguished from a traditionally long cold-aged lager, wouldn't every CFO of macro breweries be all over it? Shorter production times are profit.
 
I have my opinions about traditional lagering and all the other short and shoddy methods to simulate a lager but I'll just ask this question to provoke some thought. If there was a way to achieve a beer that can't be distinguished from a traditionally long cold-aged lager, wouldn't every CFO of macro breweries be all over it? Shorter production times are profit.
I am sure I could do research about how much liquid is lagered / fermented at one time for the big boys. that amount of liquid weight adds pressure to the overall tank. Just my thoughts verses small batch brewing.

I have had half barrel pressure fermented bohemian lagers and not sure my pallet would be able to tell the difference. If i had the $ i would be all in for nice SS conical with pressure abilities.

but if I were to make an Oktoberfest traditional it would be.

Edit
I may have missed stuff about yeast, but lager yeast should be in lager beer.
 
As for the, is yeast doing anything during lagering question this is what I know. A program on Discovery channel called Factories did the AB brewery in St Louis where the cellar master showed the horizontal LAGERING tanks being stuffed with boiled beech wood lath (looking like a fish crib). He stated it gave the yeast 4-5 times the surface area then just the flat bottom so the yeast can complete there job.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top