[bbt95762]

I've never entered a competition, but would like to.

I'm trying to find some information regarding competition results of Bottle Conditioned beer vs. Kegged and Bottled.

I'm guessing that most folks have better competition results by bottling the force carbonated beer.

I'd like to see some data.

Thanks.

[johnf]

I've never entered a competition, but would like to.

I'm trying to find some information regarding competition results of Bottle Conditioned beer vs. Kegged and Bottled.

I'm guessing that most folks have better competition results by bottling the force carbonated beer.

I'd like to see some data.

Thanks.

I don't think there is any non-anecdotal data.

If you look at the anecdotal data you will find that most of the winningest brewers are bottle force carbonated beer. However, I don't think that implies any causation.

Some judges have a bias against bottle conditioned beer and some have a bias against non-bottle conditioned beer (especially if the fill level is high). Most judges don't have a bias.

[tom]

And some think that bottle-conditioned beers will have less oxidation.
But, in my experience, it comes down to the best beer.

[Jimmy K]

Neither is supposed to be preferred. You should do whatever works best for you.

[wingnut]

I switched from bottle conditioning to keg/bottle fill this past year.  With the beers that I entered with the thought that they could win awards, I got awards every 1 in 5 with bottle conditioned, and every 1 in 6 with kegged. 

HOWEVER, the comments I received on many non-award winners suggested that I lost carbonation in the keg/bottle process and that likely had some impact on a few not winning awards.

Moral of the story: if you make good beer, it will win no matter how you carbonate it.  AND if you change your process, it will likely take you a while to learn how to master the new proces and it may imact your beer in the short term.

I would say enter the beer either way.  Getting the judge's comments have really helped me dial in my beers to be better!

Good luck!

[chezteth]

I believe it was Gordon Strong that stated in his recent book that if you are going to force carb then bottle that you need to slightly overcarb your beer.  Then when you bottle it from the keg the amount of carbonation you loose will not cause it to be undercarbonated for the style.  I do agree with the advise of doing whatever is easiest for you.  Neither way should be better than the other for competition purposes.

Happy Brewing,
Brandon

[Jimmy K]

Also, temperature changes cause CO2 to come out of solution (especially warming) so it helps to have the bottles at the same temp or a little colder than the keg.

[jeffy]

Along these same lines, I find that if I am bottling from a keg and I have enough time before I think it will be judged, I'll drop one of those aspirin-sized priming sugar pills into the bottle.  It boosts the CO2 and scavenges oxygen.

[Joe Sr.]

I asked about doing this previously, and the overwhelming response was that there would be no benefit.

My logic was the same as yours, and it seems like it would be beneficial particularly for aging bigger beers.

I assume it works fine for you?  Have you aged beers this way?  Any over/under carbonation problems?

[jeffy]

I think it works, from the score sheet comments.
An observation that my friend Jeff Renner noticed in the final round of the NHC is that bottles of light lagers with no sediment are more likely to have staling issues than bottles with sediment.  This would imply that bottle conditioned beers had a slight advantage because the yeast activity reduced the oxygen. 
It is however, important not to prejudge a beer by its sediment.

[Gribble]

As a judge I wont score a bottled conditioned beer and less than a force carbed beer, but as a personal preference I would prefer a force carbed beer over a bottle conditioned beer any day, mainly because the yeast messes with my stomach.