Author: Will Lovell
It’s often said that beer is made from just four ingredients – barley, hops, yeast, and water; however, it can be argued that carbonation is a fifth crucial ingredient, responsible for providing the delightfully refreshing fizz expected in a nice pint. While most modern brewers rely on force carbonation whereby exogenous carbon dioxide (CO2) is “forced” into the beer via pressure, traditionally, effervescence was developed by capturing naturally CO2 produced during fermentation.
The typical approach to naturally carbonating beer involves adding a dose of some sort of fermentable product before sealing the package, with a common being table sugar, or sucrose, which is said to contribute minimal perceptible qualities. However, some brewers opt for more flavorful priming sugar sources with the hope it will impart a unique flavor to their beer. Honey is one such option that is notably flavorful while being approximately 95% fermentable, pretty close to the 100% fermentability of sucrose.
I force carbonate the vast majority of the beers I brew, though occasionally, particularly when making highly carbonated Belgian styles, I prefer naturally conditioning in kegs. Historically, I’ve relied on either dextrose (corn sugar) or sucrose for this task, though recently began wondering what impact honey might have when used for priming sugar and designed an xBmt to test it out for myself!
| PURPOSE |
To evaluate the differences between a Belgian Single naturally carbonated with either sucrose (table sugar) or honey.
| METHODS |
Known for possessing relatively high levels of carbonation that’s often naturally produced, I went with a simple Belgian Single recipe for this xBmt.
Between Two Pews Patersbier
Recipe Details
| Batch Size | Boil Time | IBU | SRM | Est. OG | Est. FG | ABV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.5 gal | 30 min | 41.1 | 4.4 SRM | 1.047 | 1.004 | 5.64 % |
| Actuals | 1.047 | 1.004 | 5.64 % | |||
Fermentables
| Name | Amount | % |
|---|---|---|
| Llano Pilsner | 10 lbs | 80 |
| Candi Syrup | 1 lbs | 8 |
| Cara 20 MD | 1 lbs | 8 |
| Honey | 8 oz | 4 |
Hops
| Name | Amount | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnum | 8 g | 60 min | Boil | Pellet | 16.5 |
| Saaz | 45 g | 30 min | Boil | Pellet | 4.4 |
| Saaz | 45 g | 5 min | Boil | Pellet | 4.4 |
Yeast
| Name | Lab | Attenuation | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triple Double (B48) | Imperial Yeast | 78% | 64.9°F – 77°F |
Notes
| Water Profile: Ca 61 | Mg 8 | Na 0 | SO4 75 | Cl 75 |
I started my brew day by adding identical volumes of water to separate Delta Brewing AIO units, adjusting each to the same mineral profile, and setting the controllers to heat them up before milling the grain.
When the water for each batch was adequately heated, I incorporated the grains then set the controllers to maintain them at the same target mash temperature.
While the mashes were resting, I prepared the kettle hop additions.
Once each 60 minute mash was complete, I removed the grains then proceeded to boil the worts for 60 minutes, adding hops as listed in the recipe.
When the worts were done boiling, I took refractometer readings showing they were at the same target OG.
I transferred identical volumes of wort to Delta Brewing FermTanks that were attached to my glycol system and left to finish chilling to my desired fermentation temperature. Within 20 minutes, both worts were stabilized at 66°F/19°C, so I pitched a pouch of Imperial Yeast B48 Triple Double into each.
With signs of activity absent 8 days later, I took hydrometer measurements showing both beers were at the same FG, which is unsurprising considering the variable had yet to be introduced.
At this point, I prepared the priming solutions for each batch. Aiming for the same carbonation level in both beers, and given the difference in fermentability, I used 103 grams of sucrose for one batch and 136 grams of honey for the other, both dissolved into 60 mL of boiling water.
Next, I gently added each priming solution to separate sanitized kegs then pressure-transferred equal amounts of beer from either batch to each one.
The filled kegs were left in an area in my house that maintains a steady 68°F/20°C for 6 weeks before I moved them to my keezer and attached them to CO2 for serving. After 1 more week of cold conditioning, the beers were ready for evaluation.
| RESULTS |
A total of 20 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer naturally carbonated with sucrose and 2 samples of the beer naturally carbonated with honey in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. In order to reach statistical significance, 11 tasters (p
The 11 participants who made the accurate selection on the triangle test were instructed to complete a brief preference survey comparing only the beers that were different. A total of 2 tasters reported preferring the beer carbonated with sucrose, 4 said they liked the beer carbonated with honey, and 5 had no preference despite perceiving a difference.
My Impressions: Out of the 5 semi-blind triangle tests I attempted, I correctly identified the odd-beer-out 4 times. As similar as these beers were overall, I perceived the one carbonated with sucrose as being a bit more dry while the one carbonated with honey had a hint of sweetness in the finish. If forced to choose, I’d opt for the one carbonated with sucrose, as the dryness fit my expectations of a Belgian Single, but both were quite delicious.
| DISCUSSION |
Carbonation is a key element in beer, especially for styles that are expected to be on the fizzier side such as Belgian Single. Force carbonation is a quick, easy, and effective option, but some brewers prefer to naturally carbonate their beers by adding a dose of priming sugar at packaging, and while it’s common to use sugars such as sucrose, it’s been claimed that more flavorful options such as honey can improve the overall quality of the finished product. Indeed, tasters in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a Belgian Single that was naturally carbonated with sucrose from one that was naturally carbonated with honey.
Considering the relatively small amount of priming sugar required for natural carbonation, many presume it minimally affects beer flavor, though these results call that belief into question. Contradictorily, tasters from a past xBmt were unable to reliably tell apart a Blonde Ale carbonated with table sugar from one carbonated with honey. While small, the delta between the amount of sugar and honey used in that xBmt was smaller than the present xBmt, which may help explain these results.
Having been aware of the prior xBmt on this topic, I admittedly expected this one to return similar results, and the fact both tasters and myself could tell them apart was pretty surprising. Given the time it takes to naturally carbonate a batch of beer, I’ll be sticking with force carbonation for the most part in the future, but I like the idea of using alternative sugar sources for keg conditioning as a way to contribute unique flavors not associated with sucrose priming sugar.
If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
Related
