Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0349
From postmaster at longs.lance.colostate.edu Sat May 21 03:15:48 1994
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA04566
(5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Sat, 21 May 94 03:15:41 -0400
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA01150 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Sat, 21 May 1994 00:30:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199405210630.AAA01150 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: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Subject: Lambic Digest #349 (May 21, 1994)
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 00:30:08 -0600
Lambic Digest #349 Sat 21 May 1994
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re:Drie Fonteinen (Norman Farrell)
Thar she forms: I have a pellicle! (Todd Gierman)
Corking champagne bottles (STROUD)
Re: Lambic Digest #348 (May 19, 1994) (John Lenz)jel3 at cornell.edu
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 (to netlib at longs.lance.colostate.edu).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 07:33:43 -0500
From: nfarrell at ppco.com (Norman Farrell)
Subject: Re:Drie Fonteinen
Sarah White writes:
>This book must be the same I have seen on display for sale
>at Drie Fonteinen, Place Herman Teirlinck 3, 1650 Beersel.
>Exit 14 (Beersel) off of the E19 (Ring 0 toward Charleroi
>from Zaventem); it is the second Exit 14.
>Armand DeBelder, the chef and blender (one of two remaining
>blenders in the world) is a charming guy who speaks excellent
>English. His Gueuze has just been given the appelation
>controlee by the ECBU.
I was lucky to make a stop at the "Three Fountains" in Beersel,
My wife and I tried both the Gueuze and Kriek. Both were intensley
sour; as sour as any lambic I have tried. Both beers were
served in tall flared glasses. Two good sized sugar cubes and
a long metal rid with a waffle surfaced plate (on one end) came
along with the beers. The purpose of the accessories became clear
after one taste: put the sugar cubes in the beer and mash them up
with the rod. I'm not sure it sweetened the beer very much.
I have since gathered that the rod is called a "stomper" (sp).
Can others shed light on this practice?
Also, as I recall, there was a choice of beer from the cask or
from a bottle. We chose the cask. Any ideas as to the difference?
Best Regards,
Norman (nfarrell at ppco.com)
May your last beer be your best!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 09:03:16 -0500
From: tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman)
Subject: Thar she forms: I have a pellicle!
Just wanted to report on another milestone recently reached with my first
p-lambic. Yes a pellicle has finally formed! This is nearly as exciting
as baby's first bowel movement - a sign that all is well and a relief to
anxious parents everywhere.
Let me back up. I posted on this "baby" shortly after conception back in
December - well, actually, I think that it might have been entering its
formative months at that time. This was a fairly standard grain bill and
mash procedure so I won't go through it again. Besides, the fermentation
part is the most interesting part, IMHO. I pitched with, I think, 300 ml
Hoegaarden yeast, 50 ml Boon Gueuze dregs starter (that was the "old"
Gueuze, using a different method of blending as compared to the "new"
Gueuze, or so I am told - plenty of Brett and bugs in the "old") and a 5 ml
pedio starter (which may have been too little). I believe that this
"primary" fermentation lasted roughly 3-4 weeks (slowed down by cooler
temperatures in the winter) and ended at a gravity of 1016. There was
quite abit of Brett character at that point but no souring. However, in
subsequent months and tastings I noticed that the Brett character had
diminished in intensity (surprisingly so) coinciding with a drop in gravity
to 1010. Between then and now, I received a sample of homebrewed p-lambic
which was quite tart and reasonably horsey/goaty (well balanced overall).
Having realized that I had meant to save the dregs, but forgot and dumped
them, I poured several ounces into my fermenter from the glass I was
drinking from (couldn't hurt, right?). Also, several months ago, I
obtained some Cantillon Rose de Gambrinus and poured the dregs into the
fermenter.
So, back to the pellicle. This appears to be a yeast pellicle, rather than
a bacterial one, formed by oxidative yeasts spreading out their
pseudomycelia across the surface of the p-lambic - probably Brett. The
pellicle is white and finely wooly, for lack of a better description, not
slimy or waxy. I believe that my P. damnosus is not one of those slime
forming strains (ick!). The pellicle formed from small islands of yeasts
that gradually grew together. I was planning to pitch some Candida yeasts
to form the oxidative mat before this pellicle appeared. Now I am not
sure. Oh, okay, twist my arm...I'll pitch them. I am now reluctant to
break the pellicle to gain access to a sample for tasting. I suspect that
the presence of a pellicle may now encourage the pedio to go to work.
_The Turbid Masher (TM)_ : Somebody better jump on this quick before a
certain HBD gadfly gets a patent on it. I haven't attempted to deconstruct
the turbid mash outlined in previous LD's. Just wanted to point out that
some people augment their "standard" mashes by high mash out temps and very
hot sparges to pull out any remaining starches - not necessarily a superior
approach but a potentially easier one. Adding malto-dextrin to the boil
would be even easier (if you could bring yourself to break with tradition).
_Saccharomyces delbrueckii_
Okay, not to nitpick, but to add a little bit of info: S. delbrueckii has
been reclassified in the last 10-20 years to fall into the genus
Torulaspora (many Saccharomyces species have been bumped around over the
years). The good news is that Torulaspora species yeasts often turn up in
the primary ferment of lambics. So, everyone says that the Weihenstephan
yeasts #66 and #68 are single species S. cerevisiae. Previous claims about
the old WYeast 3056 (?) were that it was a mixed culture containing a S.
cerevisiae and a S. delbrueckii (aka Torulaspora delbrueckii). So, if
previous claims are accurate, then it would not be unreasonable to use the
old Wyeast 3056 as a primary fermenter of a p-lambic - is anything
unreasonable in a p-lambic? How about some E. coli K-12? Having grown
cultures of #66, #68, Torulaspora fermentati and two strains of Torulaspora
delbrueckii, I will say that I have found nothing remarkable about
Torulaspora in terms of Weizen-like qualities. However, different strains
have different attributes.
Todd
------------------------------
Date: 18 May 1994 11:04:42 -0500 (EST)
From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com
Subject: Corking champagne bottles
There was recently a discussion in this forum about corking champagne bottles.
It seems that it is impossible to come across real champagne corks. The
options are 1) to use plastic ones, or 2) use normal corks, push them in only
about half way, and use the normal champagne wires to hold them in place.
I'd like to offer another option.
Use normal corks (the right size to fit your bottles!!) and go through the
normal procedure of filling the bottles, softening the corks, and _fully_
inserting them into the neck of the bottle. [please make sure that you only use
champagne bottles for safety reasons].
Here is the key to keeping the cork in place, from an article on making hard
sparkling cider by Jacques Pepin:
1 - To hold the cork inside the bottle during the secondary fermentation, you
must secure it with wire. Use a soft, pliable piece of wire about 15 inches
long. Seven inches from one end, twist a small loop; twist another loop 1 inch
further along, facing in the same direction. One inch from the second loop,
make a third facing in the opposite direction.
2 - Insert the long end of the wire into the single loop and pull. You now
have a large sliding loop to go around the neck of the bottle.
3 - Insert the large, sliding loop on the neck on the bottle, just under the
ridged rim. Tighten it. Holding it tight with your thumb, bring the wire over
the top of the cork and down the other side of the neck.
4 - Making sure that the wire is tight, secure it by twisting it around the
nearest loop.
5 - Repeat with the remaining loose end of wire, bringing it across the top of
the cork at right angles to the first and twisting it around the adjacent loop.
The bottle should now be fastened and secure with wire. Leave the bottles
standing up right for a day or two to settle, then store them on their sides to
keep the cork wet. When secondary fernmentation has occurred, you should see
that the corks have pushed out slightly.
A nice touch is to reuse the metal shields from bottles like Chimay or some of
the French biere de gardes. The shields should be placed over the cork before
the wire is crossed over the bottle.
Steve Stroud
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 06:13:05 -0400
From: (John Lenz)jel3 at cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Lambic Digest #348 (May 19, 1994)
Hey Phil, in #348 did you really mean to say
> . . . that most of Liefman's beers are blended, filtered, and
> sweetened, . . .
Unfortunately, I've yet to visit the brewery, or Belgium for that
matter, but from the reading, and drinking, I've done I think you
should have said Rodenbach here. According to Jackson (I'm working
from memory here) Goudenband is Liefman's well aged beer bottled
straight, bottle conditioned, and then (for the U.S. market at
least) pasteurized (anyone know if it is alive in Belgium?). Isn't
it also the case that the Rodenbach Grand Cru is the aged
Rodenbach pasteurized and sweetened but not blended with the young
Rodenbach?
Has anyone out there had a chance to compare the import
Rodenbach Grand Cru side-by-side with the Belgian version? I'd like
to, because the one bottle I've had that was brought back from
Belgium was an incredibly complex, rich beer. While the import is a
fine beer in its own right, I don't think it is nearly the beer that
the Belgian version is. When I discussed this briefly with Michael
Jackson, at one of his beer dinners here in Ithaca, he was also of
the opinion that the two versions were different, but he didn't
seem to have any solid information in that regard, or if he did he
wasn't sharing it.
Dan, have you used the Oerbier dregs more than that one time?
I'm planning to experiment with this yeast if any of the bottles I
brought back from Washington (Cairo Liquors, 1618 17th St. N.W.) has
a viable sediment.
Op uw gezondheid,
John
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
