Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0301
From postmaster at longs.lance.colostate.edu Wed Mar 16 03:36:48 1994
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA08903
(5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Wed, 16 Mar 94 03:36:44 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA13901 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Wed, 16 Mar 1994 00:30:09 -0700
Message-Id: <199403160730.AAA13901 at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply-To: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu (postings only - do not send subscription requests here)
Errors-To: lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here)
To: reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu (subscriber distribution list)
Subject: Lambic Digest #301 (March 16, 1994)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 00:30:09 -0700
Lambic Digest #301 Wed 16 March 1994
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Heresy and making p-lambic fast (Jim Liddil)
send faq from lambic (Bradley Baker)
Re: More Liefmans (Jim Busch)
aeration again (Ed Hitchcock)
The New Boon Geueze: filtered and re-yeasted? (Todd Gierman)
Re: Brasserie Dupont (Conn Copas)
Re: Brasserie Dupont (Conn Copas)
Observations at Leifmans (C.R. Saikley)
On the Popularity of Lambics; Brewpub rant (yeebot)
various (as usual) (Michael Sharp)
Send article submissions only to: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Send all other administrative requests (subscribe/unsubscribe/change) to:
lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Back issues are available by mail; send empty message with subject 'HELP' to:
netlib at longs.lance.colostate.edu
A FAQ is also available by netlib; say 'send faq from lambic' as the
subject or body of your message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 7:48:26 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Heresy and making p-lambic fast
%
% Mike Sharp comments:
%
% > I've heard that others have tried the Leifman's strain and had
% One remaining option is that the sample we collected didn't contain all
% the needed bugs. I'll defer to others for the specifics, but perhaps
% some of these couldn't survive on the media we were using?
%
I have now made 2 beers with the "liefmans" yeast. A pale ale that came out
very clean and also a barley wine. It attneuated in 8 days from 1.110 to
1.040. I also had kreausen about spewing out the top of my 7.5 gallon palstic
bucket for 2 days. The beer also taste quite clean. Just a couple of data
points.
Russ writes:
% > I'm _amazed_ that so many are interested in such an exotic style.
% > ...
%
% Exotic? How so?
Well how manybrands of really good lambic do you find locally even if you live
in DC or Boston. And how many times have you offered a lambic like Boon or
Cantillon to someone only to have them go BLECH! Also real lambic is only made
in one very small part of the world. Sounds exotic to me.
%
% PS. Some may take this as heresy, but has anyone done any work on decreasing
% the time from conception to drinkability in a lambic? I realize authenticity
% demands years of aging, but there are some obvious benefits in a shorter
% maturation.
This seems to be part of the goal of some of the research at Leuven. Many of
the papers and dissertations from there suggest ways of shortening the process.
But these experiments have been mostly failures. You can't force fastidious
organisms to grow faster :-)
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 10:01:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Bradley Baker <bbaker at dmso.dtic.dla.mil>
Subject: send faq from lambic
send faq from lambic
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 10:06:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Re: More Liefmans
Al writes:
> Subject: Leifman's
>
> Leifman's uses copper-lined open primaries and (stainless, I assume) steel
> secondaries. There is no wood in the process. They do simmer the wort
> overnight, which no doubt adds to the character of the beer, if that's
> any help to you Goudenband fans (like me). Jackson says "The beer was
Sorry, AL. Dated info. As soon as the Jackson book was published, Liefmans
was bought by Riva, and all the wort is made in a modern Riva facility. Its
the fermentation that keeps the character there, whatever they ferment with!
JB
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 11:10:08 -0400
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca>
Subject: aeration again
Jim Busch writes:
>I usually dont try to seperate my comments with respect to "professional"
>technique or "homebrewers" methods.
I am sorry I offended. I did not use the term "professional" I
used the term "commercial". I see no reason to *not* distinguish between
commercial breweries and home breweries which, as you say, have adapted (as
oposed to adopted) methods from commercial breweries.
> ... I think brewers who brew at home
>can improve thier beers by learning how the pros do it, and where
>practical, adapt the methods to the home.
Oops! Now whose using the term pro? :-)
>I was implying direct oxygen into the fermenter. This is what I do.
>Filtered air will work too, but at 20% O2 fraction, it is much less
In response to Aaron's comment jim wrote:
>>I would always use good aeriation techniques. I believe this
>>under-aeriate stuff is yet another Rajotte based claim, and not a
>>requirement for the yeast. I think the flavors will still be there
>>with good O2.
I missed the direct O2 injection part. Sorry. My point was that
the "Lower aeration" that Aaron referred to was thorough *aeration*, as
opposed to *oxygenation*. In other words, lower *aeration* rates for a
commercial brewery means regular thorough aeration in the home brewery.
>efficient. I dont like the shake methods, a simple fish pump and
>filter seems easy enough and are sold at various places.
Personally I don't like the fish pump for reasons I won't go into
here. I use an in-line venturi injector in my transfer line. I only use
the shake method if it's under pressure in a corny keg, much like force
carbonation. Works pretty well that way too.
>I do agree that lower dissolved oxygen levels will increase esters,
>they likely increase fusels too. What I dont believe is that "most
>Belgian brewers use low amounts of DO". The yeast strain is the
Again, I believe this simply means forced *aeration* instead of
forced *oxygenation*.
>dominating factor here. BTW, some of Rajottes numbers of DO are not
>supported by other experiments, or literature.
Hey, we all make mistakes.
____________
Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. |
Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. |
Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________|
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 11:15:08 -0500
From: tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman)
Subject: The New Boon Geueze: filtered and re-yeasted?
Well, it seems that yet another source for a reliable Brettanomyces culture
has bit the dust. Many people have taken advantage of the Brett that sat
in the dregs of their Boon Gueuze, pitching them into their p-lambics after
enjoying a bottle. If the more recent batches of Gueuze are any indication
of what is left in the bottle, then this practice will no longer yield the
desired effect.
Having received a tip that the gueuze arriving in mid-December was alleged
to be from a particularly good batch, I headed down to the local specialty
food store and purchased a bottle. I was also interested in examining the
dregs for the presence of a long, filamentous bacterium which I had
previously cultured from the dregs of a Boon Gueuze, and whose identity
remains undetermined, though I know what it probably isn't. I was
interested in finding it again, because others had indicated that they had
not found it and this raised the question of whether I had cultured up a
contaminant (I was certain that I had not, as the dregs were loaded with
this guy). Once home I examined the bottle more closely only to find that
the bottom contained virtually no sediment. I was quite surprised, but
decided to let the gueuze sit for a few weeks to allow anything that was in
there to settle out.
While pouring the gueuze, I noticed an extremely scant sediment (scant in
comparison to previous bottles). I resuspended the sediment in the last
few milliliters of gueuze and poured it into a sterile tube. Examining the
sediment under the microscope, I could find no trace of the long,
filamentous bacterium that I was looking for, nor, surpisingly, did I see
any yeast that convincingly looked like Brett. What I could see was plenty
of yeast and some small bacteria (L. brevis?), which I have seen before.
So, the dregs were plated and yeast colonies were picked and replica
plated onto a plates that were cycloheximide (+) and (-) - remember Brett
will grow in the presence of CHX, whereas S. cerevisiae will not (usually).
The outcoume was this: all yeasts picked and plated failed to grow on CHX
(+) plates and all grew on CHX(-) plates. Furthermore, the yeast colonies
exhibited two distinct morphology types. Plating the dregs straight onto
CHX plates seems to yield only bacterial growth. This is quite different
from previous bottles of Boon Gueuze, which have contained substantial
amounts of Brett, but no S. cerevisiae.
So, it would seem that the more recent batches of Gueuze have been
filtered, which removes the Brett and the long, filamentous bacterium, but
which leaves the smaller bacteria. It seems that it is then given a new
dose of S. cerevisiae (mixed culture) for bottle conditioning.
So, where can you get a good dose of Brett for your p-lambic? You might
try the Boon Faro (Pertotale), which Jackson describes as "a minor
classic." Although Jackson indicates that the faro is pasturized following
bottling, this cannot be true, as the dregs are full of active Brett. At
this point I do not know what else is in there, but clearly the addition of
a few drops of the dregs to a small amount of sterile wort, produces an
active fermentation, after several days. Examination of this culture using
a microscope indicates, by morphology, that Brett is present. It is
interesting that the faro contains active yeasts, though not a huge amount,
because faros are normally sweetened before bottling. The Boon Faro is
quite carbonated and erupts as it is uncorked (it actually propels the cork
upward as the cage is removed), and the head in the glass is effusive (an
understatement). It is definitely a nice beer and is much softer and
fuller-bodied than the gueuze.
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 16:21:58 GMT
From: Conn Copas <C.V.Copas at lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Brasserie Dupont
Chris writes (on Saison Dupont):
"In the middle of the range is Saison Dupont, which is now being exported to
the US. The Saison style is making a bit of a comeback in Belgium, and much
of Dupont's growth is attributed to the success of this beer. The key to
this style is a balance which is difficult to achieve, and exemplified by
Dupont. This beer was originally produced in the winter for consumption
throughout the summer. As such, it must be hearty enough to age gracefully,
yet still remain refreshing on a hot day. Saison Dupont has the same yeasty
and hoppy character Bio legere, with a substantial base of malt."
M Jackson, in a recent "Whats Brewing" article, mentioned that Saison Dupont
is a blend of aged and young brews, which gives it a winey note in contrast to
other Saisons. This struck me at the time as kind of odd, given that Saisons
are supposed to have this refreshing quality. I actually haven't tried Dupont,
which is an oversight. Did they talk about blending methods at all?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 18:35:02 GMT
From: Conn Copas <C.V.Copas at lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Brasserie Dupont
Oops, my memory has been playing tricks again. I think it was Saison Silly that
was supposed to be blended.
Conn V Copas C.V.Copas at lut.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 10:45:33 PST
From: humphrey!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: Observations at Leifmans
It never fails, one simple post, and now I'm not getting any work done
anymore. This stuff is terribly addictive!
I said :
>>The somewhat secretive folks at Leifmans say that Lactobacillus strains,
>>and not Pediococcus strains, are responsible for souring their beers.
Ans Ed said :
> I thought it was their yeast. At least, I recall that's what
>Jackson said, and didn't Mike try plating out a Liefman's culture and get
>nothing but yeast? When did they start announcing that the sourness was
>from Lactobacillus?
As far as I know there has been no public announcement per se. I visited
Leifmans last November, and was given a tour by Filip DeVolder, their
"brewmaster", and Annick DeSplenter, the heiress to the Riva brewing
empire. I simply asked them what was responsible for souring the beers.
They responded "Lactobacillus", in unison. It was either true, or very
well rehearsed!
This was probably the highpoint of my trip. After a fabulous brewery tour,
Annick took me to a food and beer fair in Gent. It turned out that if you
were a foriegn visitor, or a member of the press, you simply filled out a
form and they waived the entrance fee. If you happen to be both, they fill
out the form for you! We all enjoy beer fests, but imagine one with 50 or
so different Belgian brewers represented. Afterwards, Annick took me out
on the town and put me up for the night, but I probably shouldn't go into
details, lest I incur the rath of Phil :-)
Mike also writes :
>> I've heard that others have tried the Leifman's strain and had
>> results similar to what I'm seeing at the moment. I'm not going
>> to write it off yet, but I'm beginning to _BELIEVE_ (note that
>> word!) that this beer's character may be more dependent on the
>> brewery's cooperage than their pitching yeast.
Phil responds :
>The only problem is, they don't have any. Everything is fermented in
>stainless steel tanks. I've seen 'em; I've even sampled from 'em.
>However I agree that where they get their character from is quite
>mysterious, particularly under these circumstances.
>One remaining option is that the sample we collected didn't contain all
>the needed bugs. I'll defer to others for the specifics, but perhaps
>some of these couldn't survive on the media we were using?
And Al Korz adds :
>There is no wood in the process. They do simmer the wort
>overnight, which no doubt adds to the character of the beer,
We've established that there is no cooperage at Leifmans, so that's not the
"secret". However, it's pretty clear that the environment is crucial.
Leifmans wort is no longer produced at the Leifmans brewery, and there are
no 12 hour simmers. The Riva folks say that it took 5-7 days to produce
the unfermented wort at Leifmans, and therefore it is now made at the
nearby Dentergems brewery. It is then transferred in bulk for fermentation
at the Leifmans brewery. This transfer costs Riva money, and they wouldn't
spend it unless they had to. Instead, (yes, I'm speculating now) they would
probably do all production at the Dentergens plant if they could achieve
the desired flavor profile.
Furthermore, Filip told me that all of their is pasteurized, so I assume
that Mike's culturing attempts were not from bottle sludge, but instead
from brewery samples.
Meanwhile, a peek into Leifmans' fermentation room provides more pieces to
the puzzle. In addition to the stainless that Phil sampled from, there are
the copper primaries which Al mentioned. These open primaries are housed
in a large room with a low wooden ceiling. I was told that the ceilings here
and also over the unused coolships were made of wood to minimize the
condensation. It appeared to me that that the most significant factor the
wood introduces would be to provide a haven for life. The ceiling is dotted
with a myriad of critters. Orange, yellow, black and green growths
proliferate, and most likely get into the beer. Maybe on my next trip
I'll request some ceiling scrapings!
And yes Mike, I agree that you shouldn't be disqualified from AHA
competitions for wrapping your Old Browns in tissue paper :-)
CR
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 17:24:15 EST
From: yeebot at aol.com
Subject: On the Popularity of Lambics; Brewpub rant
>Mike writes: "I'm _amazed_ that so many are interested in such an exotic
style."
Like I'd been saying, "There's hope yet for the human race!"
Actually, to echo your feelings, I was amazed by how wide and deep commercial
distribution of some Lambics have gotten (and exotic beers like Samiclaus! in
general). Here in NYC one can get Boon, Lindemans, or Liefmans in 1 out of 5
street-corner Bodegas! (ok, maybe slightly exaggerating) Of course, I dunno
how well they sell at $9.00 for the 750ml size. But judging by the growth of
this digest, I would venture to say that due to wider availability
nation-wide (or more people travelling to BELGIUM?), more people are being
turned on to Lambics than ever before. Good!
>C.R. wr
ites about the first Brewpub in Belgium: "The two house beers were a well
made xxxWit, and a loosely interpreted Flanders Oud Bruin. In Belgium,
brewing beers of this complexity is merely the price of entry. Otherwise, no
one notices. For the first time in my life, I realized that it was relatively
easy to build a successful brewpub in the States."
WhY IS IT most Brewpubs in these here United States insist on brewing the
Same Old Same Old when they have a fabulous opportunity to brew better
"exotic" beers like a Wit? Even the soon-to-be-too-trendy usual offering of
a rasberry beer (_Don't_call me framboise) is their standard golden ale with
pancake syrup in it. Go figure. Celis Brewery's relatively quick rise is
proof that we Americans have tastes that go beyond Coke and Cheez Wiz. So why
not? If there are brewpubs that are worthy, please email and make me eat my
foot. er else, I swear, I'm gonna go to Brewing School and start a brewpub of
my own! ;-)
Thanks for letting me rant,
Mike
PS I dare say this digest is a better read than HBD! Keep up the great
articles!h
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 16:26:08 PST
From: msharp at Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp)
Subject: various (as usual)
"Phillip R. Seitz" <p00644 at psilink.com> writes:
> Subject: Liefmans cooperage
>
> Mike Sharp comments:
>
> > I've heard that others have tried the Leifman's strain and had
> > results similar to what I'm seeing at the moment. I'm not going
> > to write it off yet, but I'm beginning to _BELIEVE_ (note that
> > word!) that this beer's character may be more dependent on the
> > brewery's cooperage than their pitching yeast. The Felix is just
>
> The only problem is, they don't have any. Everything is fermented in
> stainless steel tanks. I've seen 'em; I've even sampled from 'em.
oops. I stand corrected.
> One remaining option is that the sample we collected didn't contain all
> the needed bugs. I'll defer to others for the specifics, but perhaps
> some of these couldn't survive on the media we were using?
Anything is possible.
*******************
abirenbo at redwood.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim) writes:
> Subject: Traditional Yeast Maintainence
>
>
> Mike, which old brun brewery did you say was still allowing their
> mixed-culture yeast to continue to evolve?
I don't think I did, but if I where to say I'd say Rodenbach.
?any objections? did I get it right?
> Reguardless of the answer to this question... I'd like to ask...
> Does anybody know anything about pre-pasteur yeast maintainence methods?
> How does one use a mixed culture, and continue to "let it evolve"?
I only have the slightest idea of what was done from reading various
pre-pasteur texts. From what I understand you either had something akin
to a 'magic cask' (pre infected wood) or kept a portion of a previous
batch to add to the new batch. There wasn't any understanding of why
this worked, just that it did. If you ever managed to kill off your
culture you got some from a neighbor, etc. Think about your average
(non-microbiologist) housewife/husband keeping sour dough starter -- you
'just do it', you don't know why it works.
*****************
Mark Stickler <mstickle at lvh.com> writes:
> Subject: Care of a used cask
>
> I was fortunate enough to locate an old cask...
> It seems to be a little "soft" to be
> oak to me. Is there a way to tell and if it isn't oak is it okay to use?
I haven't a clue. (at least not one that I can convey electronicly)
> What do I need to do to clean this thing and make it water tight (right
> now it ain't)? How do you swell a barrell?
First swell it back up. Do this by soaking until it finally seals. I tend
to use boiling water just to help things along. This may take a week or two.
you can try to tighten the bands by moving them toward the center of the cask
with a hammer and a wood shim. (put the shim against the hoop and hit the
other end of the shim with the hammer - thus protecting the staves of the
cask) If all else fails and it doesn't leak like a sive you can try using
wax to seal remaining leaks - just drip molten wax onto the spot where its
leaking (but not when its leaking, when its dry).
To clean it: soak ash washes are what I usually do. Its been a long
time since I've done it (I just keep them filled and only rinse between
batches now) so I don't have the formulation. Some of the older digests
address this issue, but I don't know which ones.
*****************
korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) writes:
> Subject: Leifman's
>
> Jackson says "The beer was
> being pitched with a yeast that had some 'house' character, perhaps a dash
> of lacto-bacillus [sic]..." so if you cleaned up the yeast, Mike, you
> may be better off using the raw culture instead.
Nope, I didn't 'clean up' the yeast -- I don't do this with the Belgian
cultures unless I'm trying to isolate something specific.
--Mike
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
