Hey all, This is my first post here;

Within the last couple of years I started drinking more beer and it is
usually local/microbrew or imported/expensive as compared to mass
produced (I am in Oregon). My question is about carbonation. Some of
the cheaper beers seem to be over corbonated to me. I was reading
around in this group and it seems some beers are naturally fermented in
the bottle and some of the cheaper ones, I guess they just squirt in
some carbonated water, is that correct? Can someone explain all of
this to me? It seems to totally kill the flavor when that over
carbonation hits ya, whereas with good ones seem to be in balance.

A lot of beers are 'force carbonated' - that is finished flat beer has
CO2 forced into solution under pressure, not carbonated water. A lot of
microbreweries do this as well as macro brewers. Depending on style and
your personal taste any beer could be overcarbonated, it doesn't matter
if you force carbonate or add some priming sugar and bottle condition.
I know I've made a few overcarbonated bottle conditioned beers!

If by cheaper beers you mean industrial mega swill like Bud, Miller,
Pabst et al then I agree. I think it's more of a style thing. The
people who drink those beers are looking for a tasteless soda-pop like
experience. Give them anything else and they think it's "flat" (and of
course if it's not 33 degrees in a frozen mug then it's "warm").

_Randal

Cool, thanks, very helpful

I thought beer was originally only carbonated due to natural yeast
activity (or whatever the fermentation process entails). Isn't that
how it would have been in, lets say, the 18th century? What would be
the purpose of adding CO2 to modern day high quality beer?

As for my personal taste, I have had that "industrial mega swill" of
course but I never drank it because it tasted good! I only started
paying attention with the better quality stuff, I am into bridgport
currently. I love all styles (porter, stout, ipa, etc..) so far, with
pale ale being at the bottom, they can be a little boring compared to
the others. Who knows though, mabey my palate needs education!

Any good websites for this kinda info?

drinkin bridgeport esb

wrote:
> I thought beer was originally only carbonated due to natural yeast
> activity (or whatever the fermentation process entails). Isn't that
> how it would have been in, lets say, the 18th century? What would be
> the purpose of adding CO2 to modern day high quality beer?

Making large quantities quicker.

Tom W

> wrote:
>Cool, thanks, very helpful
>
>I thought beer was originally only carbonated due to natural yeast
>activity (or whatever the fermentation process entails). Isn't that
>how it would have been in, lets say, the 18th century?

Yes, and still today for some beer.

>What would be
>the purpose of adding CO2 to modern day high quality beer?

Consistency. Catering to a public that can't deal with
a bit of sediment. Probably a few other reasons as well.
--
Joel Plutchak "So you would say the beheadings are
excessive but not the dismemberment?"
- from a discussion of the movie "Sin City"

Well you can still get bottle conditioned beers that aren't force
carbonated. Lots of Belgian beers are bottle conditioned - naturally
carbonated - and those actually tend to be on the more highly
carbonated side a lot of the time, but again it's more of a style
thing.

When beer is finished fermenting, it is essentially flat. Most of the
CO2 produced during the fermentation process has come out of solution.
So to get CO2 volumes up to style levels you either need to add a small
amount of fermentables so the remaining yeast can carbonate the beer,
or force CO2 into solution some other way. There is a debate that rages
periodically among homebrewers as to which way is best. I am of the
opionion that CO2 is CO2 and it doesn't matter if it came out of a
yeast or a cylinder. Of course force carbing a beer should not be used
as a shortcut.

_Randal

wrote in news:1113534254.174050.179250
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Any good websites for this kinda info?

You can talk with a plethora of other beer geeks at ratebeer.com (and rate
these beers you love/hate). Belgian beers are the main topic of discussion
at babblebelt.com, but it's a great place for beer info and happenings in
general too.

Cheers,
Ern

Thanks for all the info people,

Ok so...

-Bottle conditioned means "extra" yeast added in the bottle just before
it is sealed up. right?

-Beer drunk 200 plus years ago would have been flat tasting to us?

Now I'm curious, what specific beers (assuming there are still some
authentic recipes being used) were people drinking 2 hundred plus years
ago? I have had beers such as, Guiness, Bodingtons, and Belhaven
Scottish Ale, all of these claim to have been drunk in the 1700's or
1800's but I would assume they are modern day recipes. Anyone know?

Thanks again for all the info

Cheers!

Not extra yeast, extra sugar - fermentables - food for the residual
yeast.

And no, beer 200 + years ago would not have been flat because just like
today, once the fermentation was complete they would have added
additional fermentables to the finished beer to get it to carbonate.

_Randal

In article .com>,
says...
> Not extra yeast, extra sugar - fermentables - food for the residual
> yeast.

Some breweries do add yeast: more specifically, some breweries filter
the beer, then add yeast back along with some sugar for carbonation.
Often this is not the fermentation strain - I've heard that lager yeasts
are commonly used because they are less prone to autolysis (note, I
don't know that the last point is factual, just somethin' I heard).

--
Bill

Yeah I've actually heard this with Paulaner Hefe.

_Randal

Randal wrote:

> Yeah I've actually heard this with Paulaner Hefe.
>
> _Randal

Y'know, Randal, you sometimes have good stuff to say, but if you answer
a post without quoting at least some small part of it, there's a good
chance that a thread will get cut off and nobody will know what you're
responding to.

I think there's an option to make sure Google Groups includes the
quoted posting when you follow up.

Just a friendly suggestion is all.
--
dgs

"Randal" > wrote in news:1113597963.082915.126040
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Not extra yeast, extra sugar

Extra yeast is often added at bottling time for commercial beers, either
with or without extra sugar.

Cheers,
Ern

wrote:
> Thanks for all the info people,
>
> Ok so...
>
> -Bottle conditioned means "extra" yeast added in the bottle just before
> it is sealed up. right?

Usually no. What is added is sugar, malt, or something else yeast can
east and turn to alcohol and CO2. You can use fruit juice, honey, etc.

The reason most commercial brewers remove the yeast and force in CO2 is
that bottle conditioning leaves dead yeast on the bottom of the bottle,
and most people don't like the taste. So you pour from the bottle to a
glass and stop before you quite get the last of the beer out. And do it
in a single pour to avoid shaking out the yeast.

Yeast won't hurt you, most people (including me) don't care for the taste.

>
> -Beer drunk 200 plus years ago would have been flat tasting to us?

Probably true, the technology to storage beer under pressure was more
expensive in those days. You would probably get a head from a keg, which
would be cask conditioned (live yeast again), but even into the 1900
beer was sold by the pail, pulled from a keg and rushed home to be
shared before it went flat. Needless to say drinking at home was less
common until modern bottling arrived. I can't give you a date other than
to say beer by the pail was still sold in the 1915-1920 time frame.
>
> Now I'm curious, what specific beers (assuming there are still some
> authentic recipes being used) were people drinking 2 hundred plus years
> ago? I have had beers such as, Guiness, Bodingtons, and Belhaven
> Scottish Ale, all of these claim to have been drunk in the 1700's or
> 1800's but I would assume they are modern day recipes. Anyone know?
>
> Thanks again for all the info

--
-bill davidsen )
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
Beer blog: http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/beer

Bill Riel wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
>
>>Not extra yeast, extra sugar - fermentables - food for the residual
>>yeast.
>
>
> Some breweries do add yeast: more specifically, some breweries filter
> the beer, then add yeast back along with some sugar for carbonation.
> Often this is not the fermentation strain - I've heard that lager yeasts
> are commonly used because they are less prone to autolysis (note, I
> don't know that the last point is factual, just somethin' I heard).
>

Pretty rare in commercial beer, I've tried it in homebrew and can't say
it made a huge difference. Using two strains in the primary and
secondary fermentation is used in some recipies, both commercial and
micro scale. That does make a difference, particularly if you mix an ale
yeast and a beer yeast (top vs. bottom fermenting) in primary and
secondary fermentation.

I believe some microbreweries in Europe use a wine yeast in secondary,
but I can't recall any details.

--
-bill davidsen )
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me