Warranties exist to protect you, the consumer, against defects in materials or workmanship, not against deliberate damage.

The purpose of a bike lock is to help avoid your bike being stolen, so if it has prevented a theft of the bicycle then it has done its job well.

Perhaps you can ask Decathlon and report back to us by answering your own question for future readers, that would be most useful.

You would have to explore if the damage is covered by any of your insurances, check local laws on any time limits to report the attempted theft by (to police etc).

Sometimes lock companies will offer private schemes to replace stolen goods, like this number one Google hit , but you would probably know about such a scheme if it was advertised on your product and you'd likely need to have registered the purchase.

In this case, you bought a lock to protect the bike, and it worked, which is great.

Some locks offer "insurance" where you can get a payout if their lock fails to protect your bike.

Of course there are caveats like "lock must be used" and "thief must leave lock behind" (for inspection for weakness) and so on, and even "lock must be registered with company"

The only places that can tell you details would be the supplier and the manufacturer.

Half-related, the lock has worked this time, but thief knows what is needed next time and may return with the right tool.

I'd add another lock, or store the bike inside from now on.

You've had your warning, don't ignore it.

It still doesn't hurt to contact the manufacturer, but do not talk to as if they owe you anything.

Do an open inquiry and see if there's anything they can do.

Companies can actually do things out of the ordinary and isn't only bound by warranties.

Maybe they'll want your lock back to examine how it survived a theft and give you a replacement.

Locks are consumables.

Just like helmets, seatbelts and airbags, you're supposed to get a new one after it's used, even successfully.

In general, physical security devices are never about denying access.

They are about delaying access.

Delaying long enough that the chances of getting caught rise to the point that the risk becomes unacceptable (compared to the value of the items being stolen).

Anyone can defeat ANY lock, given enough time.

That's by design.

Your lock worked as it should.

The bike was saved, your move now is to thank the manufacturer for a job well done and buy another lock.

There is no claim to be made.

Just like there is no claim about brake pads getting smaller from use.

As others have said, they MAY give you one for publicity, but that's quite far fetched.

You've misunderstood what a warranty is for.

A warranty protects you against a defective product due to, e.g., errors in manufacturing or possibly design.

For example, your lock's warranty might offer you a replacement if the locking mechanism jammed unexpectedly soon, or if the plastic coating on the shackle became brittle and cracked off.

Warranties do not protect against people actively trying to destroy the product.

That's what insurance is for.

So i went to Decathlon and as expected the guy told me that he couldn't replace the lock (Oxford Sentinel plus btw).

I asked him if he thought i should replace the lock and he said that unless, the guy had a lot of time or an electric saw thingy, the lock should be fine because he only removed the cover bit of the lock.

Anyway thanks for all your help!

Question: Someone attempted to steal my girlfriend's bike tonight and they damaged the lock.   Do you guys know if we can use the warranty to get it exchanged? The lock has a 2 year warranty and I'm planning to take it to Decathlon to check what they can do but in the meanwhile is there anything we could do?

Warranty on lock damaged during attempted theft

S0: Warranties exist to protect you, the consumer, against defects in materials or workmanship, not against deliberate damage. The purpose of a bike lock is to help avoid your bike being stolen, so if it has prevented a theft of the bicycle then it has done its job well.   Sometimes lock companies will offer private schemes to replace stolen goods, like  this number one Google hit , but you would probably know about such a scheme if it was advertised on your product and you'd likely need to have registered the purchase. It is advised to keep the bike inside to avoid attempted or actual theft.

Warranties protect against defective products, not deliberate damage. This lock slowed the thief down enough to prevent the theft, and should be replaced if necessary. Insurance may protect against this kind of damage, and some companies will replace damaged or destroyed locks. Since you know that your bike has been targeted, you may want to lock it up more securely or store it inside in future.


You can do it, but it will be much more expensive to buy the Tiagra-equipped bike and then buy Ultegra parts piece-by-piece.

Bike manufacturers get the parts much more cheaply than you can, and that price difference is reflected in the price of the bike.

Also, consider this: Ultegra is an 11-speed group.

Tiagra is 10-speed.

This means that you will need to upgrade the cassette, rear derailleur, and shifters all at once anyhow.

There is nothing about the wheel or frame that is incompatible with Ultegra R8000.

You might need an adapter for the bottom bracket but that's about it.

However, as others have said, groupsets are much cheaper when they come on a bike than bought separately, so you will not be saving money by upgrading incrementally.

Additionally you will still have 'Tiagra level' alloy frame, wheels and everything else, which will negate having a better groupset to a large degree.

The only way to make this viable (economically speaking) is to find the parts you're looking for on discount during things like Black Friday.

It's not impossible as I have done so myself, however you'll still have to install everything by yourself or the savings

will vanish when paying the shop to do it for you.

You could perhaps consider (if you go for the upgrade instead of the different bike route) to only replace some (the most important) parts with ultegra(or 105 if you want to save some money) and leaving the rest of the drive train parts as is (spec wise) or replacing them with higher spec but lower than ultegra/105.

In my opinion the rear derailleur/shifter are the most important/first parts to upgrade since you shift a lot more with the rear derailleur and adjustment and such needs to be a lot more precise to produce clean shifts than in the front.

Shifters will last you a very long time and shifting performance is very much related to proper shifters.

Also make sure your shift cables are in good condition to get optimal shifting performance.

Example setup:

Rear derailleur: ultegraFront derailleur: 105/tiagraChain: 105/tiagraShifters: ultegra

In my opinion this is a good compromise in terms of price/performance.

You could change the example by replacing Integra by 105 and 105 by tiagra to get a cheaper but still adequate option.

The modern tiagra parts are quite good imo.

Regarding ultegra being 11 speed and 105 being 10 speed: in my experience derailleurs are not speed specific and Shimano derailleurs with different 'rated' speeds can be used interchangably when using the correct shifter (same number of gears) for the casette/freewheel.

So you could also consider 105 shifters, ultegra RD and 10 speed chain as an option In regards to cutting costs: try finding the parts used but new (bought but never used) on eBay or another second hand marketplace.

Good deals can occasionally be found :)

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/34221/Maarten -Monica for president

Another point that could trip you up, is that tiagra 10 speed is unique and weird in its cable pull.

This means Tiagra 4300 is not compatible with any other 10 speed groupset parts.

So its an all-or-nothing change for you, have to do the right brifter and rear derailleur together.

Question: Can I change group set of this bike from Tiagra to Ultegra 8XXX without changing wheel? If yes, does it depend on geometry of rear fork?  I am asking because I would like to know whether it is cheaper to buy a new bike like this and occasionally change group elements (with used) Ultegra and you will get after some months one pro bike :).  Thanks for your time  More about what I want to buy  here

Buy cheaper bike and upgrade

The general consesus is there is little point upgrading the group set and cheaping a cheaper frame and wheels. Parts are more expensive when bought separately and a large part of the bike is still the lower quality version. Bikes are generally cheaper when bought as a whole item. That being said, there are no real incompatibility between the Tiagra and the Ultegra parts in question.

Upgrading a bike piece by piece is more expensive than upgrading the whole bike, and will also leave you with some lower end parts. If you want to do this, try replacing only the most important parts and look for good deals on Ebay and elsewhere. The sheel and frame are compatible with the Ultegra R8000, but the bottom bracket  may need to be adapted.


I personally have found that anything with a lever that moves the internal clapper works best.

Unfortunately, those seem to only come in large size.

Here's a photo of the one I have lying around:

I thought the spring in the internal mechanism had worn out which is why I wasn't using it, but now that I looked at it again it turns out it just needed a bit of oil.

Here's what the insides look like: The clapper's attached to the lever with a spring so any contact with the lever won't dampen the clapper's movement.

I ride a lot on busy roads, and given that modern cars are too well insulated for a petite "ding ding" noise to penetrate, or the vehicles are doing 80+ km/h

, I find an airhorn to be an excellent solution.

I happen to own four of these AirZound horns, one for each of my regular rides.

They're mounted for actuation by the left hand, because my right hand is used for front brake and rear gear changes.

I wear leather gauntlets in the winter, somewhat tending toward motorbike gloves, and have never had a problem actuating the white lever with a thumb.

Rain, wind, darkness, sleet and hail have all done their worst.

I've not tested it in snow yet, still holding out for a good snow dump.

For next winter, I intend on making some pogs (overbar mitts) for the bent from some treated slink skins.

These will completely encase the brake lever and handlebar grip, and the horn lever on the left, and the gearshift on the right.

I will leave the horn mouth exposed though.

I NEVER EVER use this on pedestrians - its too loud and would give the elderly a heart attack, and would provoke a fight/flight response in anyone.

Here I simply use my voice, in a non-threatening manner.

This is the better photo showing the airhorn's noisemaker.

This one is mounted upside down because that's how I hold these bars.

This position will hold water so in a heavy rain it may gargle and spit a bit.

Here's the same airhorn mounted more conventionally on a drop bar road bike.

This one drains properly so won't hold water.

The whole unit looks like this: Downsides the air reservoir takes up a bottle cage.

On my bent which has no cages, I have it taped to the underside of the frame with double sided tape and a couple of cable ties, its not a heavy bottle.

Its loud - really loud.

To the point that car drivers hear it with the windows up and their music playing.

One might think this is good, but it does limit the times where one might reasonably sound the horn.

The hose is nonadjustable for length.

You can either coil it up or make-do.

No pressure indicator - its good for ~50 short burst or maybe 10 seconds continuous, so I top it up when I do the tyre pressures.

Postitives:

No batteries, and the whole thing is surprisingly light.

Only needs a schrader pump to charge the tank, and can hold ~100 PSI.

I tried multiple ones and the only thing loud and reliable enough is my voice.

I usually use the word "Attention" ("Achtung").

The vocal a is good because it's easy to do loud with little practice.

Use cases: Pedestrians: Make sure to yell early enough and to reduce loudness if you get nearby without them noticing.

Once you are just behind them and slowed down already, just talk at normal loudness.

Moving cars: People in cars won't hear a bicycle bell at all, or just barely.

Shout at the top of your lungs.

The trick is to open your mouth wide and to spend time only on the vocals exactly as if you were singing.

If you are doing it right, pedestrians within at least a 50m radius will turn their heads to see what the problem is, but that should be none of your concern, car horns are much worse for pedestrians.

Stopped cars: Slap your hand against the chassis instead of yelling.

If you are in a good mood, politely knocking as if on a door works too.

I had the same problem originally and found that the easiest solution was actually to have better fitting winter gloves that have the glove tips snugly against my own fingertips, rather than having a flabby bit that extends significantly beyond.the fingertip.

There are bells that are designed mostly for MTB that ring on their own.

They are meant to work like "bear" bells in that the roughness of the terrain causes the bell to ring and alert hikers up the trail.

On smoother terrain, the bell does not ring as much

but you can make it ring by shaking the handlebars slightly.

Personally, even on a "road" bike this is my favorite bell.

Very easy to get a sustained ring that gets attention.

The bell works well for pedestrians, but I can't imagine any bell that would work to alert car drivers.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/8445/Fred the Magic Wonder Dog

Question: In the winter, I often ride with mittens and find it impossible to use my standard bell (the one where you bend the clapper and let it hit the body), because my thumb touches the body and mutes the sound. Even in normal gloves I find it difficult to ring the bell. What types of bicycle bells work with winter gloves?

What type of bicycle bell is easy to use with winter gloves?

A bicycle bell with a lever works best with winter gloves. Moreover, there are bells designed for MTB that ring on their own. However, people in cars cannot or hardly hear a bell. It really only works for pedestrians and then not always. Some cyclists find using their voice a better option.

A bell with a lever that moves the internal clapper works better, and there are some bells that work passively with the vibration. Better fitting gloves are easier for avoiding contact with the bell. Many bells are too quiet, so using your voice or an airhorn with cars can be a better way to be heard.


Chances are you were turning it clockwise when it broke.

By tapping it anti-clockwise with a small drift or cold chisel, it may unjam it, when a magnet along with gravity and tapping should release it.

Option 1:

You say you've tried a magnet; was it a regular ferromagnet or a rare earth magnet?

It might be worth trying to extract it using a strong rare earth magnet.

I have a pair of small ones that are about 15mm dia

, that are strong enough to cause damage if they snap together with any part of you between them.

I'd clamp the magnet in a pair of locking pliers first

so it's easier to handle.

Option 2:

(Only if option 1 fails) Tool steel is usually pretty hard, but you still might be able to drill it enough with a carbide bit to get a small screw or screw extractor to engage inside it and pull it out.

You could try using an angle grinder or Dremel or similar multitool or iron saw to cut a slot into the bolt in which you can insert a flathead screwdriver to remove the old bolt.

Then replace it with a new one of the same size.

Similar to the method of removing broken bolts (where the head has broken off and the thread are still in the part you want to save for example an engine block) where a slot is cut into the remaining part of the bolt (that is stuck) and this part is removed using a flathead screwdriver..

You could try gluing something (for example the part of the tool that broke off that is still attached to the multitool handle) to the part of the hex key that's stuck and wiggling it out.

Alternatively you could perhaps drill through the bolt (

drill size just a bit smaller than the bolt itself) and chase the threads with a tap of the correct size (when there's just a thin piece of the bolt left after drilling).

I would advice center punching the bolt and drilling from the non-bolt-head end of the bolt (for easier centering).

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/34221/Maarten -Monica for president

Another option could be to put a tiny drop of CA adhesive ( cyanoacrylate , aka "super glue") on the broken end of the hex key still attached to the multi-tool, and then touch that end to the broken end stuck in the socket.

You'd want to be very careful with the amount, because if adhesive squirts out of the break then it could attach the broken piece to the socket even more securely.

For that reason, I'd try this method as a last resort before replacing the derailleur.

How about a shop-vac?

Use some thin tubing, seal everything well with duct tape on the vacuum hose and some oil or something at the other end.

With a strong enough vacuum, might work.

Question: While trying to replace the yoke of my derailleur I made the mistake of using a multi-tool hex key that was not able to handle the torque necessary for the task and snapped while the head stayed inside.I tried using gravity, a magnet, shaking and all combined to make the head fall down, to no avail. I've no idea on how to proceed further and am really thinking of getting a new derailleur.

How to remove the broken ball end of a small hex key that is now stuck inside the socket

Options for removing the broken ball end of a small hex key that is now stuck inside the socket include: tapping anti-clockwise with a cold chisel, using a strong magnet, vacuum hose and oil, vacuum cleaner, drilling through with carbide bit and gluing something to it and wiggling it out

A stronger battery could work, or you could tap the broken bit to try to dislodge it. A strong vacuum with a thin hose and good sealing around the area could release it. Try drilling through the bolt or cutting with a dremel to allow the bolt and broken bit to be removed with a flat head screwdriver. If this does not work, try gluing the broken ends together and wiggling the tool free.

Try gluing the broken ends together and wiggling the tool free.


The main reason is that bicycle tyres are much, much thinner than car tyres.

A little tetrahedron of broken glass or a drawing pin that would puncture both tyre and tube on a bicycle won't trouble a car's tyre in the slightest.

A secondary reason is that bicycle tyres with tubes have additional ways to suffer punctures: an under-inflated tyre is susceptible to pinch flats.

It's pretty much as simple as that.

An unaddressed reason is speed-induced wind and the shape of modern roads.

Motor vehicles travel in a lane, and a roadway is generally two or more lanes in opposite directions.

As such, these two lanes meet at the centerline, which tracks the highest point on the sealed road surface.

For drainage, the road is not flat - all roads are intended to have some minor slope to assist rainwater to flow off.

Also, some corners are cambered, so that the shorter inside of the corner is lower than the longer outer edge.

Bringing it back to the question - we cyclists do not generally ride the centerline.

I ride on the outside of the road, which is where road detritus gets washed by rainwater, and debris also gets pushed here by the passage of cars.

You can see a similar effect on a flat road just before a traffic island - here's an extreme example, which is mostly gravel and organic leaf matter.... ...

but I'd expect to find metal wire shards in there and possibly fragments of glass and plastic.

Nails, screws, and staples are normal road rubbish too.

Basically anything that can be "swept" by the passage of vehicles travelling at 50 or 80 or 100 km/h which creates a respectable breeze to sweep the lane clear and push the jank downhill to the sides.

The side (or shoulder) of the road is where we end up riding.

All of these items lie on the road surface, and get concentrated on the sides, and this contributes to punctures along with the other points raised in other answers.

Essentially all modern car tires have steel puncture-protection belts under the tread surface

As someone who's had three car tire punctures in 200'000 km, and one bike puncture in maybe 20'000 km, I'd say an individual result is simply not statistically significant.

With a car, if you do mostly highway and city driving, punctures are rare.

If you go on mountain or country roads, of frequently visit construction sites, railroad depots, junkyards and the like, you'd better have a spare tire ready.

The same is true for bicycles: going all-terrain is not the same as riding on dedicated bike lanes.

Other than that, causes of car and bike punctures actually have not that much of overlap.

Small glass shards which damage a bike tire are not a threat to cars, and sharp rocks / metal scraps which are dangerous for a car tire can be easily avoided on a bike.

There are puncture-resistant versions of popular road bike tires.

I've got some on my bike from a well-known brand as I bought it

and I haven't had a single puncture yet.

For the same distance I would have expected 3 or 4 punctures on the tires I used previously.

However, this comes at a cost - higher rolling resistance.

Using the site linked below, I see a 9.3-watt power loss versus the race tires of the same brand at 8.3 bar pressure.

At lower pressures, the power loss is higher.

I'll probably get different tires when these wear out.

Conclusion: it's possible to make bike tires more puncture resistant, but at a cost.

It's much easier to change the tubes on a bicycle than to change the tires on a car, so the trade-off for bicycles is different: people prefer to go faster with the occasional additional puncture.

Site that has a Rolling Resistance Test Result comparison option

Question: I have driven in my life 200 000 km by car and 20 000 km by bike. In my car, I have never had a single puncture. In my bike, my puncture count probably exceeds 5.  Why do bicycle tires suffer from frequent punctures whereas car tires do not?

Why do bike tires suffer from frequent punctures whereas car tires don't?

Bike tires puncture more than car tire because they are thinner. Moreover, an under-inflated bike tire is susceptible to pinch flats.  There are puncture-resistant versions of bie tires but they are more expensive. Furthermore, bikeS travel more frequently in areas where sharp objects are likely to be found like off-road, edge of main roads, country roads, ETC.

Bike tyres are much thiner and less reinforced than car tyres, so they are much more sensitive to small sharp pieces of glass or other material. Reinforcing the tyres carries a penalty in weight and rolling resistance that reduces speed more on a bike. Bike and car tyres are threatened by different hazards, and the risk depends on the type of surface travelled on. Even on the same road, debris tends to get swept away from the centre and onto the part used by bikes.

Bike tyres are much thiner and less reinforced than car tyres, so they are much more sensitive to small sharp pieces of glass or other material. Reinforcing the tyres carries a penalty in weight and rolling resistance that reduces speed more on a bike,


Two things could happen: You pump up the tube, and after a while, the side of the tire yields.

Usually when you´re sitting on the bike, because that increases the pressure a bit more.

Looks like it has the plague or something, develops a well visible bulb.

The bulb grows, and after a few moments or minutes poof (or bang if it´s a racing tire at 8 bars)

you´re out of air.

Can happen at a dangerous moment.

Usually you hear a funny sound of the bulb touching your frame before and have time to slow down.

You brake, and the side of the tire disintegrates under the sudden stress.

Perhaps more likely with lower pressure (otherwise (1) occurs before).

Complete loss of control

if it´s the front wheel.

Both of these only happen when the carcass of the tire is damaged, due to riding on a flat (likely invisible), a maladjusted brake pad, or something else that has been making quite some noise while rubbing off the rubber down to the carcass.

Visible cracks in the rubber can grow for many years before the reinforcing fabric below is destroyed.

If you bend the tire, and pieces fall off, yes, then it´s had it.

The crack growth is sped up a lot by riding (or even letting the bike stand in a dry shed) with too low pressure.

Rubber that is bent + ozone from the air =

environmental stress cracking.

Can someone explain the full consequences of a damaged tyre and whether it should be replaced or not?

Depends on the level of damage.

Things like scuff on the sidewall that don't penetrate to the carcass (reinforcing fibers), cuts in or chunk taken out of the tread are generically not a problem.

If the damage is something that could cause the tire to fail, that's a safety issue and the tire should be replaced.

That includes any damage to the carcass, a hole that would allow the tube to herniate out of the tire or the rubber tread missing so that the carcass is visible and would contact the road, or damage to the bead.

A really damaged tire may puncture more readily, suddenly blowout, negatively affect braking or traction while cornering or come off the rim.

Most of these things may cause a crash.

If a tire failure doesn't cause a crash the wheel rim may be damaged.

Beside the obvious potential crash damage there is potential damage from the tire failure.

If the tire rolls off the rim you could ruin the rim on the pavement before you can safely stop.

There is the chance the tire could catch the brake caliper damaging that also.

I once damaged my tire by pushing the bike when the tire was flat.

It was a quite new tire actually.

One day, when I came back to where I had parked my bike, it was flat.

Closer inspection revealed that the tire had exploded while the bike had been parked!

This was in winter and under a roof, so absolutely not temperature stress.

The point is a damaged tire can explode at any time.

You cannot trust them anymore .

Now, it's not a problem if it explodes while being parked.

However, if it explodes while you are riding downhill through a corner at 60km/h, it'll get you at least a free ride into the hospital.

Unfortunately, tires tend to explode when they are stressed in one way or another, that those situations are those where an exploding tire is most dangerous.

Your life depends on your tires.

So ride tires that you can trust.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/36555/cmaster - reinstate monica

A sudden failure of the front tire is very likely to cause you to crash.

The tire can come off the rim or otherwise make you lose traction.

If you are lucky you are going straight at a slow pace.

If you are unlucky you are going through a turn at 50km/h

and there is a 100m drop at the side of the road.

A sudden failure of the rear tire is still bad but more stable and manageable.

As a very minor side effect, as a tyre wears and is damaged, the more rolling resistance it acquires.

Check out this https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-endurance-test where the sample tyres have added a watt of losses between new and the first 1000km checkin.

After that losses still grow but more slowly.

I get through two pairs of tires a year.

My rule is to replace a tire if...

There is a hole I can see through.

I can see any part of the white nylon/fabric layer from the outside It gets

more than one unexplained flat It has more than 5000 miles (for a road tire)

It has any bulges or a broken bead If you don't replace a damaged tire you will eventually get a flat which may cause you to crash.

Flats caused by damaged tires tend to be blow outs and cause serious crashes.

Note that the rear tire wears faster than the front.

Some people will move their front tire to the rear and put the new one on the front.

You don't always have to replace both tires at the same time.

Question: I have seen / heard of cases where bike tyres get damaged (like for example riding on a flat).  But what I don't fully understand is why the damage becomes a problem or whether the tyre actually needs replacing after being damaged or not.  Can someone explain the full consequences of a damaged tyre and whether it should be replaced or not?

Why is a damaged bike tyre a problem?

If the damage is something that could cause the tire to fail, that's a safety issue and the tire should be replaced.  A really damaged tire may puncture more readily, suddenly blowout, negatively affect braking or traction while cornering or come off the rim. A sudden failure of the front tire is very likely to cause you to crash. If the tire rolls off the rim you could ruin the rim on the pavement before you can safely stop.

A tyre can explode due to damage, and this is more likely to happen when it is under stress (e.g. when turning at speed). A blowout in the front tyre is likely to cause a crash due to loss of control. More minor surface damage may not be a problem, but damage can grow and affect the rims or brakes if the tyre rolls off the rims.


Ale yeast strains are best used at temperatures ranging from 10 to 25°C, though some strains will not actively ferment below 12°C (33).

Ale yeasts are generally regarded as top-fermenting yeasts since they rise to the surface during fermentation, creating a very thick, rich yeast head.

That is why the term "top-fermenting" is associated with ale yeasts.

Fermentation by ale yeasts at these relatively warmer temperatures produces a beer high in esters, which many regard as a distinctive character of ale beers.

Top-fermenting yeasts are used for brewing ales, porters, stouts, Altbier, Kölsch, and wheat beers.

* Lager yeast strains are best used at temperatures ranging from 7 to 15°C.

At these temperatures, lager yeasts grow less rapidly than ale yeasts, and with less surface foam they tend to settle out to the bottom of the fermenter as fermentation nears completion.

This is why they are often referred to as "bottom" yeasts.

The final flavour of the beer will depend a great deal on the strain of lager yeast and the temperatures at which it was fermented.

Some of the lager styles made from bottom-fermenting yeasts are Pilsners, Dortmunders, Märzen, Bocks, and American malt liquors.

* (All information from BeerAdvocate .)

A pictty good summary: (Source: BeerSci:

What Is The Difference Between A Lager And An Ale? )

The first part of the picture depicts the description in my answer about where the yeast "works," the temperatures at which they work, and then some common types of ales/lagers.

The second picture shows S. cerevisiae (common ale yeast) and a wild yeast S. eubayanus making some new cold tolerant yeast strain babies that are the common lager yeast (S. pastorianus).

Note: my biology is rusty but from my reading and looking at the picture, this is what I derived.

(From @Grohlier's comment)

This is pretty good explanation Source:

Twenty Things Worth Knowing About Beer.

Ales and lagers are brewed with different types of yeast.

Ale yeast ferments at the top of the brewing vat at a comfortable room temperature while lager yeast ferments at the bottom of the vat at a lower temperature.

The "low and slow" lager fermentation brings out more complex flavors.

The primary difference is the yeast used to ferment the beer -- ales use yeasts strains which work at a warmer temperature (10-25 deg C)

than lager yeasts strains (7-15 deg C).

You may hear the terms "top-fermenting" for ale yeasts and "bottom-fermenting" for lagers, but I think that's more-or-less happen-stance -- the yeasts themselves are not inclined toward a particular altitude.

The main difference between the two is the different types of yeast that they both use.

Lager yeasts are more tolerant to cold temperatures and so are fermented at a lower temperature.

This is what gives the lager a crisp flavour.

The ale yeasts ferment at higher temperatures and take less time to complete as the yeast is more active the higher the temperature.

Both types also use very different hops and malts... Source: http://www.homebrew-zone.com

Question: Apart from coming out of different taps, some ales seem very similar to lagers (although there are clearly a much greater variety of ales). Is there a difference in the way they are made?

What is the difference between an ale and a lager?

Ales and lagers are brewed with different types of yeast.  Ale yeast ferments at the top of the brewing vat at a comfortable room temperature while lager yeast ferments at the bottom of the vat at a lower temperature.  The "low and slow" lager fermentation brings out more complex flavors.

Ale yeasts tend to rise to the top during fermentation (top-fermenting) and develop a thick, rich yest head, while lager yeasts stay at the bottom. The temperature of ale fermentation is also warmer, leading to differences in taste.


That depends on what you mean by "naturally".

There are some strains, such as the "Super High Gravity Ale Yeast" by WyLabs, which can handle up to 25%.

But there are techniques, such as freezing the beer to create a more concentrated product, which have been used to get up to 60+%.

In this case, alcohol is not added , but rather, water is removed , altering your ABV.

The reason there's a limit is once the alcohol content is too high, it kills the yeast, so fermentation stops and no more alcohol is produced.

I think it's generally around 15% alcohol by volume, but the exact amount will depend on the type of yeast.

EDIT:

The Wikipedia page on yeast in winemaking has some details on when different types of yeasts die out.

I am taking this from a website cited at the bottom.

Popsci has a LOT of cool beer articles.

Fractional freezing is the best way to increase the alcohol content of beer.

Fractional freezing --

"jacking" in old parlance -- has a long history in the United States.

The beverage applejack was produced using this method by first fermenting apple juice into hard apple cider.

Then barrels of this cider were left outside during the winter and the connoisseur would occasionally fish out the frozen chunks of water, leaving an ever-concentrated batch of hard alcohol behind.

At some point in the 20-25 percent ABV range, the liquor would stop freezing at ambient temperatures and the booze was ready to consume as "Jersey Lightning.

" It was also used as currency.

Moving into the malt-beverage world, brewers in Germany use fractional freezing to make eisbock.

These brews are usually just regular bock beers, which clock in at 6 percent ABV, freeze-concentrated to something in the 13 percent ABV range.

Frankly, there are probably easier ways to get high-proof beers (make a barleywine, for example) than by starting with a mid-strength one and concentrating it, but there's a market for eisbocks and it's possible to find them in the US as well.

A more infamous set of freeze-concentrated beers was made by the Scottish brewery BrewDog in their quest to make "the strongest beer in the world.

" The first was Tactical Nuclear Penguin, a beer that started with an ABV in the teens and ended at 32 percent ABV.

Then a little brewing war started up between BrewDog and German brewery Schorschbräu to make ever-stronger beers.

Schorschbräu made a Schorschbock at 40 percent ABV, BrewDog countered with Sink the Bismarck at 41 percent ABV.

Then came another beer at 55 percent ABV (that's 110 proof, my friends).

Schorschbräu is current record-holder with Schorschbock 57, at 57 percent ABV.

Article

Note that Ann Hagen ("Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink") argued that the strongest naturally brewed drinks available in Anglo-Saxon times were probably strongly brewed meads

at least 20% abv.

Her basis is in discussions of specific gravity of the resulting beverages in historical records.

I think it is likely close to that and no more because I see other reasons to wonder if specific gravity could have been reduced by other additives (in particular henbane).

I love studying history.

It is useful in so many fields!

In general getting much above 10-15%abv requires specialty yeasts or concentration techniques, and getting much above 20% is going to require some sort of concentration.

I have however seen cases where these rules go out the window in wine making experiments (a friend of mine accidently brewed a mango wine with 22% abv using standard wine yeasts, which surprised us both).

There is a beer called "Snake Venom", by "Brewmeister" a scottish brewery.

The alcohol content is 67.5% .

It has been verified by Trading Standards and is officially named the world´s strongest beer.

The wiki entry states that they use the process of fractional freezing to achieve such a high percentage of alcohol.

28% ABV is the best I have managed with my yeast though it needs plenty of sugar added to whatever you are brewing apart from mead.

Getting the yeast from the boot's from

it's original 8% to 20% took 8 years getting it from 20% to 28%

has taken 25 year's

and I haven't been able to get any increase on that 28% in the last 5 years though it is getting more consistent & given enough sugar

it rarely dips below 28%.

Ignore any references to Brewmeister here

there "cold brewing" process is Fractional freezing more conmanly called Freeze distillation where they remove water by freezing it out this has nothing to do with the brewing process.

I just finished a batch of Applejack.

After freeze distillation, I obtained a 19% ABV, however the yeast kicked back on STRONGLY after it warmed up again.

I had to boil it to kill the fermentation.

Different yeasts can handle different ABV before being killed off by the alcohol.

I used Lavlin EC-118.

For your yeast it may differ.

Question: What is the highest level of alcohol you can achieve when brewing beer naturally, without adding alcohol?  I know that many strong, popular beers (~10% alcohol) are simply mixed with alcohol, but what level of alcohol can be achieved in natural brewing process?

What is the highest alcohol content achievable through brewing?

S6: In general  getting much above 10-15%abv requires specialty yeasts or concentration techniques, and getting much above 20% is going to require some sort of concentration.  The reason there's a limit is once the alcohol content is too high, it kills the yeast, so fermentation stops and no more alcohol is produced. But there are techniques, such as freezing the beer to create a more concentrated product, which have been used to get up to 60+%.

While there are some exceptions to this rule, and some yeasts that can handle higher levels of fermentation, the limit is usually about 20% with normal fermentation techniques. Fractional freezing is an effective way to concentrate a beer and thereby increase its alcohl content.

Fractional freezing is an effective way to concentrate a beer and increase its alcohl content.


The beer will not be bad in the sense of unsafe to drink, since no harmful pathogens grow once the beer is fully fermented.

So you can certainly drink the beer.

However, the beer may not taste good!

Over time, the beer will oxidize, both from oxygen introduced during packaging, but also through the release of oxygen from compounds previously oxidized in the beer.

The oxygen causes the beer to stale, producing tones of sherry, paper, cardboard.

Hop aromas are muted, and hop beta acids oxidize to produce an unrefined bitterness.

Other forms of staling can lead to a soap taste.

Generally, the higher the alcohol content of the beer

the less you need to be concerned with the use by date.

StillTasty.com has the following to say with regards to beer - particularly specifying that this applies to regular or light beer from bottles or cans manufactured by major breweries: Opened Containers Good for 1 day, refrigerated.

Tips: Keep refrigerated and tightly covered.

After opening, most commercially manufactured beer will remain safe to consume if properly stored, but it will quickly become flat and lose flavor.

Unopened Containers Good for 4-6 months, in pantry or refrigerator.

Tips: The precise answer to the question "How long does beer last?

" depends to a large extent on storage conditions - store beer in cool, dark area.

Keep beer away from direct sources of heat or light; too much exposure to light can cause beer to develop a foul taste.

To maximize the shelf life of beer, store beer at a temperature between 45° F and 55° F (colder than the typical room temperature, but warmer than a refrigerator) - if this is not possible, store beer in the refrigerator.

Storage times shown are for best quality only - after that, the beer's color or flavor may change, but in most cases, it will still be safe to consume if it has been stored properly.

How to tell if beer is bad?

If beer develops an off odor, flavor or appearance, it should be discarded for quality purposes.

Best By," "

Best if Used By," and "Use By" dates on commercially packaged foods sold in the United States represent the manufacturer's estimate of how long the product will remain at peak quality - in most cases, the beer will still be safe to consume after that date, as long as it has been stored properly and the package is not damaged.

Beer made by some micro-breweries may not retain peak quality as long as beer from major breweries.

This depends entirely on the beer.

As a rule of thumb I would say that any beer which is re-fermented once bottled, can be preserved for several years.

You need to be careful when preserving, but it's not unheard of to drink 35 year old beers.

Often these beers are the darker, stronger ones like Westmalle or Orval.

This depends on many factors, but usually best-before date is what is states, also the date before which the full quality of the product is guaranteed.

It doesn't mean you can't consume it afterwards, it just means that you can't make formal complaint about the taste or potential sickness caused by consumption of the product after that date.

The people from food industry said me, that it is general rule, that the best-before date is normally exaggerated in bottom direction, just to protect the company from potential sues.

I've often drank beer much after best-before date, and as long as that date wasn't exceeded by more than a year, I haven't noticed any big difference in taste.

It should still be safe, taste good is a personal opinion.

Some beers age well, high alcohol, sours, and smoke beers.

Others don't age as well (hoppy beers).

Plus it all depends on how the beer was stored.

Out in a hot garage?

Sitting in your window sill?

Question: Does beer really go bad after the 'best before'-date?    I hear I can drink beer even after the expiration date, but is it safe and does it still taste good?

Does beer really go bad after the 'best before'-date?

Beer can be drunk after the best before date as long as it has not been opened. Over time, however, the quality will decrease, e.g. taste, but it will still be safe to consume. Best before date protects the manufacturer as you cannot make claims after that date if you drink the beer and you get sick.

This will depend on the type of beer and the manufacturing techniques, but beer is usually safe to drink well after the best before date, which is often a very conservative estimate of its quality and not an indication of whether it is safe. The beer should be discarded if it tastes off, but in most cases it just develops a taste that may not be as pleasant.


Beer should be chilled to the proper serving temperature, which may vary according to ingredients and brewing methods, and even most of those are not set in stone, but can also vary according to taste.

Guinness, for example, has a specific serving temperature related to how it was traditionally stored in Ireland (Kegs in the "cold" room, which was often just a room carved out of the hill behind the pub or similar).

As far a why grocery and convenience stores keep it chilled, it's basically appealing to the "grab and go" drinker, who intends on consuming it in the very near future, or with a short transport.

Often they are slightly higher price than if you were to go to a liquor store.

Liquor stores have much larger selection and inventory, and refrigerating everything would be cost prohibitive.

The price is generally slightly less than the grab and go locations, although many liqour stores still keep some of the more popular and mainstream beers in the cooler as well.

For most commercially available beers, you can cool, warm and recool several times with minimal to no changes to taste.

Some craft and/or home brews may be affected more by this process, but I don't know if there is any kind of a list available.

Heat and light are the enemies of beer.

If you have a "bottle conditioned" beer -- that is, one in which live yeast are still present -- then under warmer conditions, you potentially have active yeast.

To some extent, this may just increase the carbonation and alcohol content.

However, if most of the fermentable sugars have already been fermented (that is, converted to CO2 and alcohol), the yeast will start "eating" each other, which will result in some very "off" flavors (though nothing toxic).

Under cooler conditions, the yeast will be only minimally active.

Regardless of whether your beer is "bottle conditioned" or not, the hop acids present from the brewing process don't respond favorably to heat or light.

In particular, light can cause them to turn "skunky", which is why Corona -- with their clear glass bottles -- often tastes "skunky".

Don't trust a beer in a clear bottle ... seriously.

Keep it cool

; keep it dark; keep it upright (unlike wine).

To quote Strongbad , "A one that is not cold, is scarcely a one at all."

In supermarkets you will often see the same beers stored in refrigerated and non-refrigerated sections.

Or you may be able to get a beer cold somewhere but

only warm somewhere else.

If you go to a large beer store you will see beer of every variety sitting in aisles.

The general reason for keeping beer on ice in a store is so it can be drunk right away.

The one exception I can think of is bottle-conditioned beer.

Beer where some degree of fermentation occurs in the bottle, giving it both natural carbonation and causing the flavor to develop over time.

The flavors the beer will take on during conditioning vary based on warm or cold conditioning, and the beer will have a more limited shelf life.

You will typically only see bottle conditioned beer as a product of home brewing.

When talking about the temperature to store

/serve beer

it is important to note that there is a difference between types of beer (and what we call beer in the UK and what people call beer in other countries!).

The Cask Marque website has a simple page denoting the various temperatures that some types of beer/ale should be stored at.

It is important to note that some beers also need to be stored upright to ensure any live sediment stays at the bottom of the bottle.

Every beer has a shelf life.

Beer will certainly "last" longer if refrigerated.

That is, the flavor will evolve more slowly over time at lower temperatures.

Storage at higher than room temperature will invite a turning of the beer's flavor for the worse.

In some cases, an aged beer might be considered to have an appealing taste, but still refrigeration will slow the aging process and allow the beer to be kept longer.

Additionally, the flavor of highly hopped beers will degrade fairly quickly (within several months) at room temperature, and most people would agree that very hoppy beers in particular should be refrigerated because of this.

Question: Beer is usually found in fridges in shops and supermarkets. At home, you would store it in the fridge as well before drinking. On the other hand, many liquor shops have stacks of beer cans outside fridges, and beer in kegs isn't usually refrigerated when it's transported.  What are the benefits of keeping beer refrigerated? Which kinds of beer should/must be refrigerated and which ones don't need to be?

Why should beer be kept in the fridge?

S0: Beer should be chilled to the proper serving temperature, which may vary according to ingredients and brewing methods, and even most of those are not set in stone, but can also vary according to taste.  Beer is kept chilled in shops to appeal to the buy and drink now customer. However, many beer shops and supermarkets do not keep beer chilled. Heat and light are enemies of beer so if it is kept refrigerated it will keep its quality for much longer.

Commercially available beers can be cooled and warmed to room temperature several times without impacting taste. Chilled beers are sold for consumption soon afterwards, but beer can also be sold cheaper at room temperature for later refrigeration and consumption. Heat and light can cause beer to degrade, so keeping it in a cool and dark place is important, especially with certain types and with clear bottles.


Ok, so the basic brewing process is this (not homebrewing detail here, just a distant overview): Heat your wort with water, steep, then add hops and boil, add more hops as you begin to cool, once cool enough add yeast, ferment, bottle.

Flavored beers can be made a bunch of different ways.

You can add herbs, spices, or flavorings before or after the boil, for example.

Seeds and roots would usually be added before the boil; herbs would usually be added after.

I would probably add fruit after but this is something that folks could argue about forever.

If you buy something like smoke-flavored beer, chili flavored beer, etc.

these are probably made this way.

There's a second type of flavored beer I have seen for sale in certain bars and restaurants in Asia though.

That's where you take a fairly light beer on tap and add it to a glass along with a shot of flavoring syrup (like lychee or peach).

These usually have sweeter flavor with clearer fruit flavors than the fermented fruit beers.

If the beer is pasteurized, the flavoring could be added before bottling and carbonation.

I think that is what you are seeing.

The Rogue Voodoo Doughnut Maple Bacon Ale is an interesting example because the ingredients list shows two different ways flavors can be imparted to beer.

The smoky bacon flavor comes both from the actual inclusion of bacon and from the smoked malt:

Briess Cherrywood Smoked Malt, Weyermann Beechwood Smoked Malt, House-smoked Hickory Malt .

As discussed in Does chocolate stout contain real chocolate?

, certain flavors can be achieved through the malting process rather than through additional ingredients.

Similarly maple is fermentable and could be added directly to boost alcohol content and impart a more subtle maple flavor.

That said, this beer does contain actual bacon and "maple flavor".

To get a look at and when and how the flavors are added, we can look at this clone recipe .

Name Amount

Time UseFenugreek 0.25 oz 5.0 min BoilMaple Extract 1.0 oz 6.0 days PrimaryBacon, cooked 4.0 oz 0.0 days Bottle Here, fenugreek is added during the boil phase, while creating the wort.

The boiling helps extract the flavor from the herb.

Maple extract gets added later during fermentation.

Maple extract or syrup could be used, but syrup is more expensive and fermentable so a stronger maple flavor is being achieved with extract.

The official ingredient list calls for "Pure Maple Flavoring"

so I assume the same is being done there.

Lastly the bacon is being added at the end.

This is to add direct flavoring to the beer without interfering in the fermentation process.

I would like to add that although I have not confirmed it

I read somewhere

the purity laws had less to do with "making great beer" and more to do with them being poor.

They didn't want certain grains or things being used for beer as it drove up the price of bread and other foods.

In the following article it is states they didn't want to waste valuable grains for beer: April 23, 1516: Bavaria Cracks Down on Beer Brewers .

Some types of hops have interesting flavors.

For example, simcoe hops has a pine-y, fruity taste.

Some interesting beer ideas would be pine, rosemary, or cardamom (I've had one - it was amazing).

Also, some white beers (like Hoegaarden) have coriander and citrus peel.

There is whole style of beer, which is made with honey.

It is made by adding honey to the wort during or before fermentation.

Thanks to addition of honey in early stages you get balanced, homogeneous taste.

Nothing to add that honey will ferment along with malt.

Technically you can add anything to beer when it is ready (including honey), but then you get this aggressive flavor on top.

I just add it at the secondary fermentation stage when I homebrew beer.

I made a belgian style wheat beer and simply added some vanilla extract.

edit : I just added some cloves to a dark beer brew when decanting it out of my fermentation vessel.

Worked very well.

Additions don't need to be a liquid.

Question: I've heard of beers such as our local  brand  in the Philippines and  this  one, and though I haven't sampled them yet, I am quite curious: how do you add flavor to beer? I've drank a few style of beers but I haven't dealt with any "flavored". As I'm not familiar with the brewing process yet, I want to know how as I don't think it's as simple as adding a syrup on the beer after brewing.

How can a beer be flavored?

Many different types of flavoring can be added to beer. Some of these are herbs and spices, seeds and roots, malt, maple, honey, vanilla extract, cloves, different flavored hops.

Flavourings can be added at different stages of the fermentation process or before drinking, depending on factors like whether they can ferment along with the beer. Additions do not need to be liquid, and some flavourings are achieved using different hops. Additions at different stages of the process are suitable for different ingredients and have an influence on the flavour.


Take a bucket.

Or a bowl.

Or a cooler.

Or any other similar vessel.

Put your beer bottles or cans (sealed!

For the love of god, sealed!)

at the bottom of the bucket.

Fill it most of the way with ice.

Then fill in with water until the bottles are submerged.

Then throw in any remaining ice.

Finally, add a volume of salt commensurate with the quantity of water, both solid and liquid, you've already got in there.

Wait anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes depending on desired coldness and quantity of beer.

Enjoy!

(Rinse the rim of the bottle if you're finicky.

Also, this will probably ruin the label.

Sorry.

Why do you care about that anyway?

You weirdo.)

Another option might be some what less conservative, but instead of using ice cubes you could also use chilling rocks .

This is also often used as an alternative for cooling whisky without diluting it.

Soapstone is a non-porous, odorless and inert stone.

It is tasteless and will not absorb odors from your freezer like ice cubes do.

Soapstone has a high thermal mass, giving it the natural ability to retain its temperature for extended periods of time.

If you are a bit more patient, you can just put the beer in the freezer for about 10 minutes.

One method I know is to have large, heavy steins kept in the freezer.

That way as soon as you bring beer, you can cool it by pouring into the stein.

It won't cool your lukewarm beer to optimal temperature but it will give it a good few degrees drop.

You can use "reusable ice cubes", which are essentially tiny plastic bags with water - that way you won't dilute your beer.

There's also a stainless steel variety, it has slightly worse heat capacity but sinks to the bottom, which is less annoying than plastic bags floating in your stein.

I read somewhere about making ice cubes from beer somewhere, so that they don't dilute your beer (you need a good freezer for that though).

I can't vouch if they don't affect the taste though.

A smart method though, is to use the buffer beer.

Remove the "buffer beer" from the fridge, put the the lukewarm beer in the fridge, drink the buffer beer - meanwhile the beer you put in the fridge becomes your new buffer beer ;) edit: if you go with reusable ice cubes, use ones that contain water inside.

Don't buy in to the scam of granite ice cubes or solid steel ice cubes.

Their thermal capacity is abysmal.

To provide the amount of temperature drop a single normal ice cube provides, you'd need to fill your glass with granite cubes to nearly the brim.

At the Defcon security conference in Las Vegas, the Beverage Cooling Contraption Contest is an exciting outdoor event.

Over the years, techniques have included adiabatic cooling (using a jet engine), dry ice, liquid nitrogen etc.

In 2008, this team managed to cool a keg of beer from 80F to 33F in 35 seconds using air power, dry ice and alcohol.

It takes a lot of time to cool a beer bottle in fridge.

But it takes much less time if you put them in freezer.

However, you shouldn't forget about such bottle, if you don't want the beer to freeze and explode the bottle.

If it's not fast enough, take a few glasses, pour a bit beer into each and put them all into fridge.

They will cool down much faster than the whole bottle, but the risk of making mess with broken glass is bigger, so it's better to check them each few minutes.

One method I've used seen to good effect is to wrap the bottle in wet paper towels, and then put that in the freezer.

Once the paper is frozen, the beer is quite cool, also the paper can be removed just by twisting it

and it comes right off.

Obviously, don't forget that you put them in the freezer to start with...

Question: It's happened to the best of us: you really want a nice hefeweizen or maybe a good bitter, but all you have are room-temperature bottles.  Short of waiting an hour or so or (god forbid) putting ice in it, how can a bottle or can of beer be effectively cooled quickly?

What are some ways to quickly cool a beer?

To cool beer you can out it in the freezer for 10 minutes, keep large steins in the freezer, make ice cubes using beer so the taste isn't diluted, use ordinary ice cubes or chilling rocks or warp the bottle in wet paper towels and put in the freezer.

Reusable ice cubes or chilling rocks or steel cubes can be used to chill beer without diluting it. A freezer will chill beer faster, but there is a risk of the liquid expanding as it freezes if you leave it for too long. Wrap bottles and cans in wet paper towels, which will cool the can in a shorter time.


Serving temperature is, of course, a preference.

Serve it frozen or boiling if you want.

However, a few opinions are: CAMRA says that Real Ale (aka cask ale, usually english-style) should be served at 12-14 °C (54-57 °F), which is colder than room temperature, but warmer than your usually keg beer.

Ratebeer says the same thing regardless of whether it’s cask or not.

BeerAdvocate says 7-10 °C (45-50 °F) for an english bitter.

So, if you’re looking for a rule of thumb: “cool but not super-cold” or “cellar temp” will probably get you close enough.

There may be a general consensus for the "proper" serving temperature, which could involve questions like "what do most people seem to like?", and "what temperature does the brewer feel best accentuates the parts of the beer they want to highlight?".

So there are good reasons for beer to be served at particular temperatures.

In the case of your British bitters, age-old recipes were probably designed to allow the beer to taste its best at room temperature.

As for a modern British beer, I suppose that would depend on what the brewer had in mind.

That said, my general thought is that you should drink a beer at the temperature you most like it, so the should part of your question is self-determined, and don't let anyone tell you that your taste buds are wrong.

Myself, I tend to like my American IPAs cooler than the typical recommended serving temperature.

And before I visited the UK, I couldn't stand a room temperature beer.

Then, after a week in Tunbridge Wells, I picked up a large appreciation for hand-pumped UK beer, served at room temp.

So you should open yourself to trying new things as well.

Just like everyone else said, it's a preference.

I alway say that the darker the beer, the warmer it has to be, so here are my rules: - Light beer/White beer/Kriek :

In the fridge and goes in the freezer for a couple of minutes before serving - Golden beer : In the fridge - Amber beer : In the fridge and stay at room temperature for a couple of minutes before serving - Dark beer : At room temperature and goes in the fridge before serving - Stout : At room temperature at all time.

The basic rule is that beers should be served at the temp they were fermented.

Lagers should be served at about 40°F and ales around 50°F - 55°F.

Having said this

I usually like my beers a little colder on a warm summer day.

Try this experiment: chill your beer to 35°F - 40°F and pour about 2/3 of it into the proper glass for that beer.

Drink at least 4 or 5 sips, gulps, or

however you typically consume it.

Then put what is left in the microwave for about 20 seconds (time will vary with the output of the microwave).

This will reduce the carbonation some so pour the other third right in the middle of the glass without tipping the glass to get some head, on the beer that is.

It makes a big difference on some beers.

less on others.

Also try different types of glasses and see what you like.

Remember, everybody's palates are different and yours will vary depending on several factors such as, what you've been eating or drinking, how much beer you've already consumed, and how tired you are.

It's a good idea to eat a bite or two of good bread like a baguette to cleanse your palate between samples.

The above does not apply to mass produced lagers.

It's always going to be a matter of preference.

I prefer most beers around 55-60 but do not hesitate to drink beer at room temperature.

Some styles are more enjoyable approaching room temperature.

Historically, most beer was served at cellar temperature to room temperature, depending upon what was available.

That isn't just an English tradition.

Any beer can be consumed warm and drinking it ice cold as mass produced lagers are usually served tends to hide most of the flavor that you are paying for in a good beer.

Give it a try and see what you like.

Maybe you don't like your beer a little warmer.

Enjoy what you like.

First, let's say there is what is considered "proper", and then there is personal-preference.

To be a good Cicerone, know what is "proper" but also show tolerance for personal preference.

With that out the way, it's definitely considered the "proper" thing to do to serve English beers warmer than ice-cold.

Many of the delicate malty flavours you get from English malt, the fruitiness from esters produced by the English yeast, plus grassy, herbal or floral tones from the hops are muted greatly when the beer is served too cold.

Some people say it's served at room room temperature.

Modern room temperature of around 20°C/68

°F is too warm.

The ideal serving temperature is a cold cellar - typically around 12°C;55°F.

Question: Given that the British tend to drink their beer at a higher temperature than those of us in the US, should beer brewed in an English style be consumed that way? The justification I can think of is: the people developing the taste of the beer probably consumed it at a certain temperature, which might have not been the ice-cold levels that predominate in the Colonies.

Should English/English-style beers be served warmer, since that is how the taste was developed?

The basic rule is that beers should be served at the temp they were fermented.  Lagers should be served at about 40°F and ales around 50°F - 55°F. However, people have their own personal preference. Nevertheless, it's definitely considered the "proper" thing to do to serve English beers warmer than ice-cold.

This is a matter of preference, although English beers are usually not served ice cold. Some people develop a taste for this style, and it can depend on factors like weather and activity. While English beer is often called warm, the proper serving temperature is generally that of a cold cellar rather than room temperature. This is closer to the fermenting temperature and allows the flavours to be tasted better.


Most beer has a lot of calories.

Just like any other calorie intake, if you consume more than you burn, you will gain weight.

So, yes, drinking "too much" beer will "increase the size of belly".

What "too much" means, however, is dependent on your other habits.

The typical "(beer | pot)

(belly | gut)" is usually " Abdominal Obesity " which, by definition, means obesity in the abdominal area specifically, i.e. the belly.

A beer belly comes not so much from beer and the frequent drinking of it as it does with the food that is typically associated with beer (for example, burgers, pizza, etc... very high in calories).

Well, yes, beer has some calories, according to this article; The Truth About Beer and Your Belly : A typical beer has 150 calories – and if you down several in one sitting, you can end up with serious calorie overload. but read further Alcohol can increase your appetite.

Further, when you're drinking beer at a bar or party, the food on hand is often fattening fare like pizza, wings, and other fried foods I've heard from a lot of people that beer increases appetite more that other alcoholic drinks, and in fact beer pairs very well with such calorie rich food as pig knuckle, or similar... as well as pizza, chips etc.

If you compare calories in beer and pig knuckle you'll see what is more likely to cause obesity.

Calories are calories.

A typical middle-aged male needs about 2100 calories per day.

Consuming more calories than this per day will increase your weight.

If you drink four 12-ounce regular (5%) beers per day, you will add between 500-700 calories to your daily diet -- depending on the style of beer you consume, meaning its sugar content, which will vary with beer style.

This calorie range translates into around 3500-5000 extra calories per week, which is equivalent to gaining about 1.0-1.4 lbs of weight per week if this calorie intake is above your body's minimum requirement (ie: 2100 x 7 days).

After 3 months you will have gained anywhere from 13-18 lbs.

It doesn't matter what you eat or don't eat along with your beer.

If your beer drinking brings you over the 2100 calorie per-day threshold, those calories will show up as fat in your body.

All of this assumes no exercise.

If you are active and can burn off 300-500 calories a day through a combination of working out and regular body movement (general walking, going up and down stairs, prolonged upper-body activity), then you will cut into that calorie gain in proportion to your activity.

Drinking beer alone does not cause you to get a big belly, it's the amount food that goes along with it.

People usually drink beer in the evening, and tend to eat a lot of food at the same time.

And this is great and dandy, but what people forget about is that they eat late (here combined with drinking beer so even more calories), and then go straight to bed.

The body does not have a chance to break down all of these calories, and instead all of this excess fat is being stored.

In short, the beer alone does not cause the fat, it's the food that goes along with it.

Yes it does!

A beer belly is caused by excess calorie intake and reduced calorie expenditure because of a sedentary lifestyle.

Read in detail: http://healthmeup.com/news-weight-loss/the-truth-about-beer-belly-fat/5947

Yes.

Also taking up several glasses of beer in a day can increase your blood pressure level.

People already suffering from high blood pressure are advised not to take in consumption at all.

Question: Someone told me that drinking beer will increase the size of our belly. Is it true? Since I don’t drink beer, I don’t have any idea about that.

Will drinking too much of beer increase the size of belly?

S0: Most beer has a lot of calories. Just like any other calorie intake, if you consume more than you burn, you will gain weight. A beer belly is caused by excess calorie intake and reduced calorie expenditure because of a sedentary lifestyle. Further, when you're drinking  beer at a bar or party, the food on hand is often fattening fare like  pizza, wings, and other fried foods   a lot of people say that beer increases appetite more that other alcoholic drinks, and in fact beer pairs very well with such calorie rich food as pig knuckle, or similar... as well as pizza, chips etc. In other words, it is not just the beer but also the food that tends to be consumed with it.

Beer contains a lot of calories and can take you over your healthy threshold, especially if you consume several at a time. Beer also tends to increase your appetite, and the food eaten is often unhealthy and high in calories. Some of the effect can be reduced with regular exercise, or exacerbated by eating and drinking late without allowing the body to process the food properly.


As a complete novice to food pairings with beer, I've been looking at this nifty pairing chart on http://www.craftbeer.com

[PDF]

whenever pairing questions have come up on Beer.

SE.

According to it, the suggested pairing for an IPA is Strong, spicy food (classic with curry!); bold, sweet desserts like carrot cake and for a Double/Imperial IPA is Smoked beef brisket, grilled lamb; Southern chicken-fried steak.

I found a great little summary by Michael Agnew (2012) that explains some of the rationale behind these pairings (emphasis mine hereon):

When pairing IPA with food you have three basic flavor hooks at your disposal; bitterness, hop flavor (spicy, grassy, herbal, earthy, and citrus), and caramel.

Hop flavors have a great affinity for spices and light fruits.

Bitterness has a cooling affect.

Paired with spicy dishes , IPA will fan the flames at first, but douse them in the end.

Bitterness also amplifies salty and umami flavors .

The caramel flavors in the beer will latch onto the sweeter side of a dish, tying into things like caramelized onion or the crispy skins of roast poultry.

And the hop acids and carbonation make IPAs great palate cleansers to take on even the fattiest deep-fried delights.

Samuel Adams has a "Pair with Sam" tool, and looking at its suggested pairings for their Whitewater IPA (hoppier than their Latitude 48 IPA), pork appears to be the meat of choice: pulled pork, barbeque ribs, chorizo, roasted pork tenderloin, and sweet sausage ; and the rest of its suggestions align with the salty-and-spicy pattern we've seen.

We seem to have found strong consensus already, but just one more to make sure.

In Blue Point Brewing Company's words , its IPA pairings are meant to complement intensely flavorful, highly spiced dishes, such as curry, and bold, sweet desserts like flourless chocolate cake and crème brulée or rich, aromatic, spicy and smoked foods such as chili, BBQ ribs, grilled chicken, and beef.

Actually, I think they stole those words from Wegmans' Guide to Beer and Food Pairing .

CHEESE!

Extremely sharp cheddar is best.

A sharp Vermont or New York white cheddar will do as well.

My personal favorite is Tillamook Special Reserve Extra Sharp.

Cured meats - the saltiness of the meat and bitterness in the IPA play well together.

Spicy foods.

My personal favorite is stir fry.

Something that isn't heavy on carbs is ideal, so with stir fry I go light on the noodles (or rice) and heavy on peppers, onions, and meat (usually chicken or beef).

Again, don't use the milder sauces like teriyaki, use something with some kick.

Be mindful of the variety of IPA on the US market -- the average New England IPA is a different beast than the average west coast IPA.

I'll call out a few excerpts from the serious eats article Andrew Cheong quotes above: IPAs that lean extra-heavily on bitterness can be a bit tricky to match with food, which can make the beer seem astringent. ... ...IPAs that emphasize hop flavor and aroma over bitterness...

I especially like these beers when served with Indian food.

Hop flavor melds wonderfully with common Indian spices like tamarind, coriander, and cardamom. ...

Mexican food mixes light and dark flavors like cilantro and refried beans, lime and roasted chilies.

Those combinations make great partners for IPA with its own caramel/citrus combo.

Stick with lighter-bodied beers here, since bigger brews can easily overwhelm.

My personal experience -- I predominantly drink IPA these days -- is that I haven't had a memorably bad pairing, save for once where an overly sweet cupcake clashed with the bitterness of the IPA.

But that was likely an exceptionally high-IBU beer.

(I suddenly feel the need to gather more data).

Question: Consider your average american IPA.  What food would go well with it?

What food pairs well with an IPA?

The suggested pairing for an IPA is: Strong, spicy food (classic with curry!); bold, sweet desserts like carrot cake and for a Double/Imperial IPA is: Smoked beef brisket, grilled lamb; Southern chicken-fried steak.  Other people suggest: cheese, cured meats, spicy foods, stir fry, Indian food and Mexican food.

IPAs mix well with strong flavours, including cured, barbecued and roast meats, mature cheese and spicy foods. The three main flavours are bitterness, hops and caramel. Bitterness cools a dish and amplifies salty and umami flavours, hops pair well with spices and fruit flavours, and caramel matches with sweeter ingredients and dishes.


Most importantly, a good head helps release the aromas of the beer, especially the hops.

Aroma is everything for enjoyment of a good brew.

When enjoying a super-hoppy IPA, you should always use a glass that provides a large surface area for aromatics to rise from.

It can also provide the a pleasant mouth feel.

Stouts definitely benefit from a thick, silky head.

And lastly, it's eye candy.

As for the right amount of head, it varies.

Generally in an average pint glass you want 1-2 finger-widths of head.

Some hefeweizens and wit beers are best with a bit more.

Apart from the simple explanation of people liking the foam, the lack of head could indicate problems with the beer.

For example: It could mean that the glass is dirty, or there is left over soap residue on the glass.

This can affect the taste of the beer.

It could indicate that the beer has lost its carbonation (the head being formed by the gas quickly coming out of solution in the beer).

For many forms of storage a lack of internal pressure will indicate that they are no longer sealed properly, which makes it easier for infections to enter the beer or for it to oxidise.

As for the ideal amount of head, to some extent it will depend on the style of beer.

One of the most important tasks of the foam is to protect the beer against oxidation.

This is why some beer glasses have a rough patch at the bottom so the bubbles will have place to "sprout" from.

In a Duvel glass for instance it is a laser engraved Gothic "D".

When the beer is in the glass (Duvel is highly carbonated)

you can see the bubbles rising from the rough spot and creating a protective blanket on the beer, thus preserving the taste long after you poured it.

Here in the Netherlands, we mostly drink poured beer with like 1/4 of the glass filled with foam and we think the beer is not as good anymore when there is no foam in it as the carbonation is gone.

But I don't know how it is in other countries, so I believe it is beer and country-specific how much foam there is in a glass.

I must say that before starting to brew myself I disliked the head, but when you start to deal with low carbonated beer, it becomes interesting.

Just bought this weird "head maker" an ultra-beer thing it is really weird, looks like a sex toy, but creates head with ultrasound.

Just stick it in the beer and press the bottom.

With some beers it definitely adds flavor, especially hoppy beers.

Question: I've seen people complain when served a beer without foam. Equally, getting a glass full of foam is no use.  When serving a beer, how much is the right amount of foam and why is this important?

Why is it important to have foam on a beer?

S0: Most importantly, a good head helps release the aromas of the beer, especially the hops. With some beers it definitely adds flavor, especially hoppy beers. Apart from the simple explanation of people liking the foam, the lack of head could indicate problems with the beer.   One of the most important tasks of the foam is to protect the beer against oxidation. It can also provide the a pleasant mouth feel. Stouts definitely benefit from a thick, silky head. The amount of foam, however, appears to be culture-specific with some countries, like the Netherlands, expecting more than others.

The head helps to release the aromas and add flavour to the beer, especially with hoppy beers. Sometimes the lack of a good head can indicate problems with the beer, or increase the chance of oxidisation. The ideal amount of head will depend to some extent on the type of beer and the culture.


First, I love this question because it is actually interesting.

I researched this when I noticed that bottled coke tasted so much better than canned coke.

Cans keep out all light so the contents actually never become tainted.

The reason that most like bottled over canned is because they like the taste with those impurities.

Some complain that they can taste aluminum with cans, but this is more than likely in their head since cans are lined with a thin layer of plastic.

I like certain beers better in cans and certain ones better in bottles.

I would try both :)

As a member of a Studentenverbindung, having one principle of scientia, we of course tested this a long time ago with around a dozen or maybe a bit more testers.

We poured beer from the same manufacturer (fresh batch) into glasses and had people taste them, and for every glass (everyone had multiple ones)

they had to say if they think it was from a bottle, a can, or a keg, and which tasted better.

After around 50 or 60 glasses, there was no statistical evidence whatsoever that any of the three could be identified, or tasted better.

From my personal experience though, I always think that a keg is better than a bottle is better than a can.

But why is that so?

I only have the theory that due to the feeling of the container you drink from, your taste is altered (just like food with the same flavour/taste somehow tastes different, with a different texture).

Additionally I think the amount of beer that flows into your mouth is different, as well as maybe the turbulence, causing a different amount of carbon dioxide (or nitrogen, depending on your beer culture) to leave the beer before you can actually taste and swallow (which again changes the texture).

I heard a quote from the revered Charlie Bamforth , who basically said that packaging beers in cans was a far better way to preserve the beer from brewery to customer than packaging in bottles, but bottles are still more aesthetically pleasing to the customer, so they are usually preferred.

And that's from a man that has been head of Quality Assurance for a number of years.

It's purely in the mind - there isn't any real change to the beer.

If anything, the difference with bottled beer is that the canned version is better preserved.

I actually do not think that the can itself changes the taste of the beer as much as the beer placed in the can may be a little different.

I think that the real difference is going to be between keg beer and can/bottle beer.

Canned

/bottled beer has a longer shelf life than keg beer.

Canned/bottled beer has a shelf life of roughly 45-60 days, whereas a keg is only 25-40 days 1 .

This means that worst case scenario for comparison you could be tasting a 2 month old canned beer versus a 3 week old draft.

It can cause a difference in taste, there is a "freshness date" after all.

(See this excellent answer from @mdma for more information on what happens as beer ages )

But where does this date come from?

Almost all imported retail beer is pasteurized.

The reason for pasteurizing the beer is from a business standpoint.

It basically allows the beer to last longer and be shipped at room temperature (this applies to kegs, cans, and bottles).

An alternative to the pasteurization process is bottle conditioning.

Most domestic beers follow this path.

Essentially this process involves beers being sterile filtered and chilled to the point that any surviving bacteria, which could ferment the beer, become dormant 2 .

So basically the probability that the beer begins to ferment is higher over time.

A canned beer and a keg beer can taste the same if they both left the brewery at the same time, and both experienced the same conditions during the time it took them to reach you.

It is just that kegs have a better chance of taking less time and of being better preserved.

From a practical standpoint though, bottles can cause broken glass, kegs weigh close to 50 lbs.

full, and cans allow for shotgunning.

Make sure your container of choice fits your environment :) 1.

How long will a keg of draft beer remain fresh?

What is pasteurized and non-pasteurized keg beer?

I don't know how/if the actual storage in cans vs bottles affects the taste, however you should expect that they are not filled with the same beer.

Many companies will have different production logistics, and the can will often come from a different site than a bottle of the same brand, and will have slightly different water and production process, so the beers will taste slightly different before they even touch the can; and they may even have intentionally different production and additives.

If you are drinking beer directly from the can or bottle, then one measurable difference is the speed at which it warms up while you are drinking it.

As glass is an insulator and aluminium is a conductor, you'd expect the can to be more efficient at transferring heat from your hand and the environment into the beer.

So a glass bottle should keep the within the optimum temperature range for longer than the can.

This result is backed up by some research done by students at Worcester Polytechnic Institute , which compared the rate at which refrigerated liquid warms up to room temperature in glass and aluminium bottles.

The heating rate differences should be even more noticeable if the bottles were in contact with a body temperature heat source.

This effect can be minimised by insulating the can using a stubby holder/beer cozy.

In another experiment comparing cans held in a person's hand , over a 30 minute period an uninsulated can rose in temperature by about 14°C while the insulated can rose only 3°C.

Question: My favorite beers come in bottles and in cans. I always buy it in bottles because I've heard that cans negatively impact the flavor of the beer.  Is this true?  If so, how does it work?

Do cans change the taste of beer?

Cans keep out all light so the contents actually never become tainted. Some complain that they can taste aluminum with cans, but this is more than likely in their head since cans are lined with a thin layer of plastic. Many consider that a keg  is better than a bottle is better than a can. If anything, the difference with bottled beer is that the canned version is better preserved. The real difference is between keg beer and canned/bottled beer. Moreover, the beer that goes into cans and bottles is probably different from that sold from the keg.

The flavour of the beer is unlikely to be changed by the container, and cans are better at keeping out light and preserving the beer inside. However, bottles are often preferred for aesthetic reasons. Drinking from different containers may change the taste slightly due to the rate of delivery, turbulence and other factors, and beer in cans will warm up faster than beer in bottles. It is also likely that bottled and canned beer is distinct when manufactured, which may cause the main difference in taste.

It is likely that bottled and canned beer is distinct when manufactured though, which may cause the main difference in taste.


TL DR; No. Beer flavor changes over time (hops fade away, oxidation takes hold, etc.), and this process happens more quickly at warmer temperatures than colder ones.

But there are no additional chemical reactions caused by temperature changes, so warming to room temperature and re-chilling multiple times is not going to have any added effects on the beer.

Assuming you are drinking it within a few weeks, you won't notice the difference with bottled or canned beer.

I think this myth took hold from left-over kegs after parties: A half-empty keg that was dispensed by pumping air into it will start to oxidize much more quickly since oxygen is being added to it.

When it warms the oxidation speeds up and it tastes stale within a day or two.

Keeping it cold slows that down a bit, but even cold it won't last very long.

A keg being dispensed using CO2 is a different story: that will last as long as bottled beer and can be warmed and rechilled without ill effects.

In all of this, I am referring to room temperature.

Beer left in a car in the sun for hours will start to stale much more quickly, even if bottles are protected from the sunlight.

You won't get the skunky flavor caused by the light, but it will taste stale.

Repeatedly cooling and warming (to ambient temperatures)

a beer can induce a permanent haze, where proteins and tannins bond to create semi-soluble molecules.

While this can have an aesthetic impact, it does not impact flavour, aroma or mouthfeel.

This is mostly an issue in beers where the knocking-out, or rapid cooling of the beer may not have been effective at precipitating what is known as cold-break proteins.

Which generally leads to chill haze (haze when the beer is cool, but not when it is warm).

This generally isn't an issue with most commercial beers (especially if filtered), and is more often found in home-brewed beers.

I did some experimentation at home to answer this question.

My results indicated that room temperature and temperature fluctuation had no impact on flavour.

Very high temperature (140° for 24 hours) seems to create a very slight hard to define harshness.

Check out my results here:

Beer Experiments: Sunlight Exposure and Temperature Regulation Beer Experiments: Temperature Regulation Part 2

Cooling and warming a beer does have an effect , but it is minor in the beginning.

If you heat, cool, repeatedly many times, there will be evidence of damage and it will become staggeringly obvious!At Budweizer

they gave us a beer that was cycled over a 100 times!

It was shocking how many off-flavours such a delicately flavoured beer can get!

I am now drinking a beer from a keg from last weekend.

I left the beer keg inside my storage with door open and it's been warm this week (100°F).

Five days later the beer tastes almost same exept that the beer foam has gone which in my opinion the beer foam gives it a better taste.

Question: I typically prefer my beer only a bit cold, so when I buy a 12-pack from a store's cooler I typically just leave it out. The excess I'll refrigerate at the end of the night, and sometimes repeat the process with the same beer on a different night.  Does this affect the quality of the beer in some chemical way? I almost exclusively drink IPA's and personally never notice a difference, but many of my friends have commented on the habit of mine to let beer warm.

Does beer suffer from being warmed and then rechilled?

It is said that beer flavor changes over time (hops fade away, oxidation takes hold, etc.), and this process happens more quickly at warmer temperatures than colder ones. But there are no additional chemical reactions caused by temperature changes, so warming to room temperature and re-chilling multiple times is not going to have any added effects on the beer. Other people consider that cooling and warming a beer  does have an effect , but it is minor in the beginning. Obviously, once a beer keg has been opened and air pumped in it will start to deteriorate anyway.

If the beer is drunk within a few weeks, warming to room temperature and cooling is unlikely to have a noticeable effect. Howerver, higher temperatures are more likely to change the taste and cause the beer to degrade quicker. A half-empty keg will have a different flavour if dispensed by pumping air into it, and leaving it in the fridge will slow the effect.

Higher temperatures are more likely to change the taste and cause the beer to degrade quicker.


Oyster stout traditionally uses oysters as part of the brewing process, and that is the flavour that differentiates them from other stouts.

While it is traditional to use oysters, some modern breweries use artifical flavours in their oyster stouts, or simply say that they are intended to be eaten with seafood.

You mention Marston's Oyster Stout, which is one example of an oyster stout that doesn't use actual oysters in the brew.

From their website : Marston’s Oyster Stout is a dark, creamy, smooth, clean tasting English stout.

It doesn’t contain oysters, just called Oyster Stout as this style of ale is a great complement to shell fish dishes.

Just had a bottle of Marston's Oyster Stout two days ago (10/25/14), the label states it is brewed with oyster shells.

Oyster stouts are indeed brewed with oysters.

The occasional offering that we sell (Niagara College Teaching Brewery), uses oysters at the end of the mash regime (hot soaking of the grains).

The idea here is that you are extracting calcium carbonate from the shells, which helps reduce the tannic astringency that can result from the roasted grains used in stouts.

This is the same reason/benefit that stouts are traditionally brewed in areas with relatively hard water.

It also happens to be the perfect temperature for cooking oysters.

Oysters cooked or uncooked could be added at other parts of the process, but may not have the same impact on reducing astringency.

There is a subtle undertone of the oyster that makes it into the finished product, but your palate may vary and may or may not detect it (depending on process and quantity used).

If it is an Oyster stout

then it probably should have contact with ACTUAL oysters.

Using the shells is a cop out that is like stone soup .

Checkout new brewery Hammertown in London who do it properly:"In 1938

the original Hammerton Brewery was famous for being the first in the world to use Oysters as part of the brewing process.

In this new recipe we’ve used a variety of flavoursome malts, including a good dose of oats.

Fresh wild Maldon oysters are then added to the boil to add a subtle extra complexity to the taste of this stout."

Oysters used to be served as an accompaniment to beer in pubs in Victorian England, so the first beers called Oyster Stouts were probably beers intended to compliment oysters rather than containing them.

Later someone discovered that you could use crushed Oyster shells as a fining agent in beer and later still someone actually added the oyster meat, probably as a marketing gimmick since oysters aren't going to add much to the flavour.

So it's fine for oyster stout to not contain oysters.

This, "The idea here is that you are extracting calcium carbonate from the shells, which helps reduce the tannic astringency that can result from the roasted grains used in stouts."

from John, was most helpful and logical.

Understanding how chemistry functions in brewing becomes logical once you ponder the explanation.

Thanks, John.

Question: One of my favorite stouts is  Oesterstout by the Schelde Brewery .  The website states:   During the brewing process, the  wort  of the beer is pumped across the oyster shells.   Is this what gives it it's distinct taste? In Denmark, another more easily available Oyster stout is  Marston's Oyster Stout . Do all Oyster Stouts follow this particular process, or is it more of a sales pitch?

Is Oyster Stout really made using oysters?

S0: Oyster stout traditionally uses oysters as part of the brewing process, and that is the flavour that differentiates them from other stouts.  While it is traditional to use oysters, some modern breweries use artifical flavours oroyster shells in their oyster stouts, or simply say that they are intended to be eaten with seafood.  However, oysters used to be served as an accompaniment to beer in pubs in Victorian England, so the first beers called Oyster Stouts were probably beers intended to compliment oysters rather than containing them.

There is some disagreement on whether traditional oyster stouts came from oysters as an ingredient or accompaniment. Modern oyster stouts are generally brewed with oysters or oyster shells, although some use artificial flavourings or are merely intended to be eaten with seafood. When shells are used, the calcium carbonate reduces the tannic astringency of some stouts.

Oyster stouts are generally brewed with oysters or oyster shells, although some use artificial flavourings or are merely intended to be eaten with seafood. When shells are used, the calcium carbonate reduces the tannic astringency of some stouts.


There are strains of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae (brewer's yeast) such as WLP099 - Super High Gravity Ale Yeast that reportedly can tolerate up to 25% alcohol by volume.

The world's strongest beer is Snake Venom coming in at a colossal 67.5% abv.

Sources cite it as freeze-distilled, where the beer is frozen and the ice (pure water) is drawn off, leaving a more concentrated beer behind.

Although, comments in the same link cast doubt upon if the beer is truly the abv claimed.

There has been a bit of a battle recently, with Brewdog and Schorschbräu constantly topping each other's efforts: BrewDog Blog.

Currently it's a Schorschbräu Schorschbock 57% finis coronat opus, which comes in at 57.7% , beating Brewdog's latest effort: Schorschbräu Schorschbock 57% finis coronat opus.

I'd say the strongest commercially viable option (these 50% beers only ever have a few bottles in the batch and cost a silly amount) in the UK anyway, is Watt Dickie , also by Brewdog, which comes in at 35.0% : BrewDog UK.

EDIT:

Oops, I didn't know about Snake Venom, 67.5% : Brewmeister Beer.

Brewdog's The End of History, at 55% is currently the world's strongest beer.

Take a look at the Brewdog Blog .

I suppose it depends on how one defines beer.

Following the German Reinheitsgebot, beer may contain only 4 ingredients: Water Yeast

Hops Barly malt Beverages which do not adhere to these restrictions may not be labeled as beer in Germany, and several other countries.

To my knowlege, the strongest beer of kind is Schorschbock 57 , an ice-distilled doppelbock with 57,5% alcohol content.

This might be a duplicate question , but since as far as I know beer uses fermentation and no distillation, I expect the maximum alcohol level to be around the same maximum as for wine, which I believe is somewhere around the 13% to 15% level (by volume) as this is the level around which micro organisms seem to die .

I know some beers in the 10% to 12% range, like the Dutch het Kanon ("the canon") by Grolsch at 11.6% and Grand Prestige by Hertog Jan at 10%, both of which I like.

They have a bit of a sweet caramel-like flavour, but I'm not sure if that related to the amount of alcohol in any way.

It depends on your definition, commercially available is Kwak, around the same as wine, if you go to the Grand Place it comes in those horse & cart designed bulbous glasses (like a mini yard of ale).

Once you go above that the others are all pretty specialist.

The strongest beer I know - made without distillation - is a Belgian beer called Bush Prestige, with 13%.Source and description of taste: Dubuisson

Question: I've always wondered what the strongest beer in the world is and how would taste.  Are there reliable historical records of a very strong beer? What would be the highest % alcohol that's Brewable for a beer? And also of course it would be great to know where to get such a beer from.

What is the strongest beer?

The world's strongest beer is  Brewmeister Beer Snake Venom  coming in at a colossal 67.5% abv.

The strongest beers without concentration, distillation or other techniques are about 13-15% by volume. Stronger beers such as Snake Venom or beers by BrewDog or Schorschbräu can be 55% or more, achieved by freezing and removing the ice from a beer with lower alcohol content.