Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0368
From postmaster at longs.lance.colostate.edu Sat Jun 11 03:04:37 1994
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA11757
(5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Sat, 11 Jun 94 03:04:33 -0400
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA01732 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Sat, 11 Jun 1994 00:30:10 -0600
Message-Id: <199406110630.AAA01732 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 #368 (June 11, 1994)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 00:30:10 -0600
Lambic Digest #368 Sat 11 June 1994
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Blizzard Bock ("RKESSLER")
Turbid Mashing 2 (Jim Liddil)
Hopduvel Pub List - Part II (Michael Sharp)
Re: Lambic Digest #367 (June 10, 1994) (Michael Sharp)
Blessed Sacrament (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Ed's Comments ("McGaughey, Nial")
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: 10 Jun 1994 10:01:10 EST
From: "RKESSLER" <RKESSLER at HR.HOUSE.GOV>
Subject: Blizzard Bock
Hi, I'm a Lambic brewer wannabe from the Washington, D.C. area.
I've been subscribed to the Digest for about a month now and have
been hanging out on the sidelines since then. I'm not nearly as
advanced in my techniques as most of the subscribers seem to be,
but I am learning alot from the Digest. I just hope I don't
sound too clueless!
By way of introduction, I currently have a pLambic sitting in my
closet that was made from extracts, brett and pedio cultures.
I've also recently added the dregs of a Boon Gueze and now have a
nice white mold growing in my carboy. My lambic is about 4
months old.
The reason I've decided to jump into the forum at this point is
that yesterday I tried a Blizzard Bock which is put out by the
Buffalo Brewing Company. It is the first American micro-brew
that I've ever had that has undergone some kind of lacto
fermentation. Although certainly not a lambic, it has a
pleasantly sour taste to it (in fact, it tasted a bit like my
plambic at 2.5 months!). I was wondering if anyone out there
knows anything about this beer or any other domesticly produced
sour-fermented beers.
I was also wondering if anyone from the Washington, DC area can
1) direct me to a good Lambic source other than Chevy Chase
Liquors and;
2) Provide some information on joining BURP.
Thanks for the help.
- --Rick Kessler (rkessler at hr.house.gov)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 7:47:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Turbid Mashing 2
Aaron writes:
%
% Jim Liddil referred to guinards procedure. As i recall, it was rather
% sketchy, and took only about 1 page. Was there another place where he
% went into more detail???
See pages 60-65 and 66-69 for what I think is a reasonable description.
Guinard told me that this is the sort of procedure Cantillon was using as far
as he could remeber. It will be interesting to see what Boon does.
%
% I seem to remember that after taking about 3 turbid mashes, he
% re-introduced them to the grist, the arrows of mikes drawing seem
% to support this, but mike kept on talking about not re-introducing, for
% fear of converting too much starch. Am I mis-interpreting you, mike?
% It seems like bothe the diagram and guinard talk of re-introducetion...
% but prehaps guinard went to musche's (sp?) talk???
Reintroduction is only done at the end to raise the mash temp to conversion
temp. All other temp boosts are done with boiling water according to Guinard.
% And... perhaps
% lindeman's lied. Why one would re-introduce the turbid run-off...
% I donno. was it clarification (filteration)? I'd think that we could
% leave it cloudy, since most of use are using SECONDARIES.
I hope that most people are not using secondaries. One wants all that dead
saccharomyces in there to provide food for the brett and pedio. So don't rack.
Ed and I just don't see the world the same way :-)
%
% >Probably correct. I would not expect any person working for Lindemanns to give
% >out all the details. Of course they do produce such a fine product, NOT!
%
% This random bashing of beer is out of place in this forum. If you
% want browny points for smearing breweries take it to alt.beer where young
% impressionable frosh with their first accounts will be happy to take notes.
This is not random bashing. I don't want browny points. I personally feel
Lindemanns products are not worth the effort. What is the point of spending
years fermenting something to then add a lot of sugar and mask the flavor
beyond recognition? Blandification is a bad thing.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 09:07:40 PDT
From: msharp at Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp)
Subject: Hopduvel Pub List - Part II
[this isn't from me -- I just reformatted it. The author is
[Steve George. He can be reached at 74363.26 at compuserve.com]
Hopduvel Vintage Beers (some lambics included in previous post were deleted).
Chimay Cinq Cents 1985 75 cl 450 BeF
Ada 10 degree 1981 33 cl 200 BeF
Stropken Kerstbier 1986 25 cl 150 BeF
IDE 1981 75 cl 350 BeF
Kluizenaar 1980 33 cl 100 BeF
Cosmos 1978 33 cl 100 BeF
Breughelbier 1981 33 cl 250 BeF
Felix 1981 750 ml 300 BeF
Boon Mariage Parfait Kriek 1980 75 cl 300 BeF
Boon Framboise 1981 75 cl 300 BeF
De Keersmaeker Gueuze 1973 375 ml 250 BeF
De Keersmaeker Gueuze 1974 75 cl 450 BeF
De Keersmaeker Superkriek 1974 25 cl 150 BeF
De Keersmaeker Kriek 1974 75 cl 550 BeF
De Troch Gueuze 1987 375 ml 150 BeF
De Troch Kriek 1987 375 ml 200 BeF
The menu notes that De Keersmaekers and a few of the others are no longer
making product under that name. I believe De K now manufactures as
Mort Subite.
Steve
BTW, Jim Liddil, this will be the last of the menu postings. I wanted to
relay these lists as I figured someone back in the States might want to
pursue some of these products through the local distributors. Some of
you folks have some pretty good contacts!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 09:43:30 PDT
From: msharp at Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp)
Subject: Re: Lambic Digest #367 (June 10, 1994)
abirenbo at redwood.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim)
> Subject: more on turbid mashing
>
> I seem to remember that after taking about 3 turbid mashes, he
> re-introduced them to the grist, the arrows of mikes drawing seem
> to support this, but mike kept on talking about not re-introducing, for
> fear of converting too much starch. Am I mis-interpreting you, mike?
You're right that I don't want to re-introduce the wort that has already
been taken off. You're also right that I don't want to convert too much
of the sugars in what has been taken off, but thats not the only reason
for not reintroducing it (as I see it). The other reason that comes to
mind is that you would then have to re-extract all of this from the grain
bed. Why bother with the extra work?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca>
> Subject: Must I keep saying this?
>
> I really hate to do this...
so do I
[minor flame (cigarette lighter sized) omitted]
Yes Ed, you're right, we shouldn't be bashing commercial producers.
It doesn't win points with anyone. Sometimes, however, its best to let the
occasional stray comment go by. You can read many different meanings
into an e-mail comment.
Lets all shake hands & make up before degrading to a flame war (please).
--Mike
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jun 94 16:52:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Blessed Sacrament
Could someone please give Jim Dorsch a pat on the back from me for
his wonderfully nasty April Fool's article. While you're at it,
please pass along to him one glaring error that really tipped me
off: the beers were allegedly handpumped. Belgian beers are virtually
all very effervescent/highly-carbonated. Handpumps are used for low
carbonation beers like Bitter. Since I knew the size of Kokomo, I
was suspicious from the start, but then the handpumps were the final
verification that something was rotten in Indiana.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 06:51:00 PDT
From: "McGaughey, Nial" <nmcgaugh at hq.walldata.com>
Subject: Ed's Comments
>From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca>
>Subject: Must I keep saying this?
>I really hate to do this, but once again snarkiness rears it's ugly head:
>>>Probably correct. I would not expect any person working for Lindemanns
to
>>>give out all the details. Of course they do produce such a fine product,
NOT!
> This random bashing of beer is out of place in this forum. If you
>want browny points for smearing breweries take it to alt.beer where young
>impressionable frosh with their first accounts will be happy to take notes.
____________
>Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. |
>Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. |
>Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________|
Does anyone else here see hipocrisy rearing _ITS_ ugly head?
Ok. Ed, what about your .SIG? does/could not the 'Oxymoron' part of it
qualify as a brand related slam?
Consider the indirectness of your .SIG's slam being offset by the frequency
of the message.... (every time you post..)
In advance, I'm sorry about the negative tone this post leaned towards, but
I couldn't let this one go.
Ob Lambic: Ok. so if a 'Wit' can contain coriander and orange peel, (both of
which contain color component that aren't "white") what is considered 'true
to style' for additions/adjuncts? (... yes I _have_ tried several times to
get the lambic.FAQ with absolutely _no_ success)
I hate ragging on people, I've seen enough of the JS/KBaughman wars on HBD
to make me ill, not to mention look at JSP's products with a severe eye...
Yours In Froshbashing (tm), redundant posts, and FAQ hell..
Nial McGaughey
Wall Data Product Development
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
