exBEERiment | Force Carbonation: Set-And-Forget vs. Burst Carbonation In An American IPA

Author: Brian Hall

There’s no shortage of topics brewers will debate endlessly, but one thing virtually all of us agree on is that beer tastes better when it’s carbonated. While many continue to champion natural carbonation via priming sugar or spunding, our recent survey indicates an increasing number of brewers are turning to force carbonation using external CO2, which delivers quick, clean, and consistent results. Of the various force carbonation methods, the burst carbonation approach has gained popularity recently.

Rather than leaving a beer on CO2 set to serving pressure over a week or more, a method referred to as set-and-forget, burst carbonation drastically reduces the time it takes to fully carbonate a beer, allowing one to enjoy their product in as little as a day after packaging. This occurs by keeping the kegged beer under 30 to 50 psi of CO2 for 15 to 36 hours then venting the keg and reducing the gas to serving pressure.

As convenient as this method is, some brewers have asserted burst carbonating negatively impacts the quality of the carbonation as compared to the set-and-forget method, claiming it can lead to poor head retention and a less refined mouthfeel. I’ve used both methods numerous times and have come to appreciate burst carbonating for age-sensitive IPA because it allows me to serve it quicker. Curious if my impatience was having a negative effect, I decided to test it out for myself.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between beers carbonated using either the set-and-forget method or burst carbonation method.

| METHODS |

For this xBmt, I designed a nice West Coast IPA.

Vitium

I started my brew day by collecting the water, adjusting it to my desired profile, then using a combination of propane and a heat stick to warm it up.

Next, I weighed out and milled the grain for this 11 gallon/42 liter batch.

Once the water was properly heated, I incorporated the grist then checked to make sure it hit my target mash temperature.

While waiting on the mash, I prepared the kettle hop additions.

When the 60 minute mash rest was complete, I sparged to collect the expected pre-boil volume of sweet wort then brought it to a rolling boil.

Following the 60 minute boil, I quickly chilled the wort before taking a hydrometer measurement showing it was at the target OG.

Identical volumes of wort were racked to separate sanitized Brew Buckets that were placed next to each other in my chamber controlled to 66°F/19°C, at which point I pitched a single pouch of Imperial Yeast A378 Juice into each batch.

After a few days of fermentation, I added the dry hops to both beers then left them alone another 5 days before taking hydrometer measurements confirming they’d reached the same target FG.

The beers were racked under pressure to sanitized and CO2 purged kegs.

I placed the filled kegs next to each other in my keezer and, using a secondary regulator, hit one with 12 psi while the other was set to 40 psi.

After 28 hours, I reduced the gas on the burst carbonated batch to 12 psi and left it alone for another 12 days before both were ready to serve to tasters.

| RESULTS |

A total of 23 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the beer carbonated using the set-and-forget method and 1 sample of the burst carbonated beer in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 9 (p=0.35) did, indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish an IPA carbonated using the set-and-forget method from one carbonated using the burst carbonation method.

My Impressions: I attempted 3 semi-blind triangle tests and guessed on every attempt, choosing the unique sample just once. Despite knowing the variable, I perceived the beers as being identical, and both were delightful.

| DISCUSSION |

It’s commonly believed that different carbonation methods produce different sensory experiences in finished beer, impacting the taste, aroma, and mouthfeel, as well as head retention. While some past xBmts have shown certain methods do seem to produce a noticeable difference, others have produced inconclusive results. The fact tasters in this xBmt were unable to distinguish beers carbonated using either the set-and-forget method or burst carbonation seems to suggest either can be used to achieve the same end result.

One possible explanation for the similarity between the beers in this xBmt is that the burst carbonation occurred immediately after packaging then sat at the same serving pressure as the set-and-forget beer for nearly two weeks before being served to tasters. Perhaps differences caused by the carbonation methods would have been perceptible had the burst carbonation occurred a day or two before being served, something I feel is worthy of more exploration and a future xBmt.

Having carbonated plenty of beers using both methods, I can’t say I’ve ever personally noticed a difference. I’ve heard from others who claim quicker carbonation methods can lead to an undesirable “carbonic bite,” but I’ve just not experienced this or any other issues when burst carbonating. Regardless, I’ll still rely on the more standard set-and-forget method for many beers because it’s simple and allows time for cold conditioning, but I’ve no concern burst carbonating beers I want to turn around quickly.

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!