Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0478
From postmaster at lance.colostate.edu Tue Nov 8 03:14:07 1994
Status: O
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["15155" "Tue" " 8" "November" "1994" "00:30:15" "-0700" "subscription requests only" "lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu" nil "313" "Lambic Digest #478 (November 08, 1994)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA29841
(5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Tue, 8 Nov 94 03:14:04 -0500
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.9/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA12020 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 00:30:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199411080730.AAA12020 at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply-To: lambic at lance.colostate.edu (postings only - do not send subscription requests here)
Errors-To: lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu
From: lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here)
To: lambic at lance.colostate.edu
Subject: Lambic Digest #478 (November 08, 1994)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 00:30:15 -0700
Lambic Digest #478 Tue 08 November 1994
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
On bottle and pure cultures (Michael Sharp)
brussels (Jose Francisco Pereira Martins)
culture(d) observations :-) (Todd Gierman)
Framboise Noir (blackberry gueuze), blended and bottled (Todd Gierman)
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
Phil Seitz' series on Brewing Belgian Beer is available; the index
from the archives lists individual topics and the complete set.
Start with the help message above then request the index.
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: Mon, 7 Nov 94 09:42:09 PST
From: msharp at Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp)
Subject: On bottle and pure cultures
Tom Ayres writes:
> Subject: Boon/Cantillon Sediment Query
>
> I'm finally ready to take the plunge into lambic brewing. I quaffed Frank
> Boon Framboise and Cantillon Framboise Rose de Gambrinus last weekend and, on
> a whim, blended the sediment from both bottles in a starter in my Erlenmeyer.
> The starter is now foaming and bubbling merrily away. My questions are
> these:
>
> Has anyone worked with yeast starters begun from either Boon or Cantillon
> products?
Yes, though I don't work with _everything_. A few years ago Sheri Almeda
& I isolated strains of Pediococcus and Brettanomyces from Cantillon dregs.
> What can I expect? Will the resultant brew have lots of
> brett/pedi character or will non-brett/pedi character predominate? Should I
> inoculate any brew I make with more brett or pedi?
This was (is still?) a bottle to bottle crap shoot. I've examines bottles
to find lots of pedio, lots of pedio+brett, nothing, etc. There is no
definitive answer w/o doing some analysis of what you've got already.
This isn't something you'll be able to do at home, so just pitch what
you've got and enjoy the results in a year.
> Although I'm primarily an all-grain brewer, I'm thinking of making a relative
> "no-brainer" extract/grain brew with this starter, just to see what it's
> like. I figure I can always get a bit more elaborate next time around, doing
> an all-grain and repitching slurry from the first batch.
This was the route I took the first time. I didn't want to spent hours making
a wort that would wind up becoming oak-brach-beer. (I had a new American
oak cask at the time)
Then, on the same subject Bob Hall writes:
> From: bhall at sparc.ecology.uga.edu
> Subject: Re: Boon/Cantillon Sediment Query
>
> I don't know if anyone has attemted to examine the diversity of
> microbes in a lambic, but I'll bet it is quite high,
yes, people have looked at the microbiological diversity of a lambic
fermentation. Frank Boon is rumoured to have a chart of 80-90 different
organisms (I imagine they are really just very slightly different strains
that really fall into 6-8 species, but I digress). I've certainy found
complexity on the order of 3-4 species (Brett, Saccharomyces, Pediococcus,
Lactobacilli). Finally, a large body of analysis work has been done by
Prof. Verachtert and his students at the Katholique Universitat du
Leuven, Belgium. A small number of PhD theses from there have been
devoted to the study of lambic fermentation.
> and it is possible that
> many of these organisms are necessary to provide the correct flavor profile.
Possible yes, but indications are that as a first shot you only really
need to play with the Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pediococcus cerevisiae
(damnosus), Brettanomyces bruxellensis/lambicus, and maybe
the Lactobacilli sp. [Jim, should I expect flamage re: Kloekera 8-)]. After
some success at this level it is possible to branch out and try other stuff.
*BUT* DONT FEEL THE NEED TO PITCH EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE ON YOUR FIRST SHOT.
ITS MOST PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE WORTH IT (IMNHO).
Now, one more thing. I've mentioned four different species above. Within
these categories NOT ALL CULTURES WILL BEHAVE THE SAME. GETTING A CULTURE
WITH NAME XYZ WILL _*NOT*_ NECESSARILY GET YOU A CULTURE THAT IS GOOD FOR
MAKING LAMBIC. I'm sure (I hope) you'll agree that not all Saccharomyces
cultures are created equal. The same holds true for the other more exotic
cultures used in p-lambic making. during the few years I've been experimenting
with the style I have collected many different strains of these species.
Some are excellent for lambics, some are absolutely terrible. This applies
especially to the Brettanomyces sp.
--Mike
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 94 15:39:47 EST
From: Jose Francisco Pereira Martins <AFRMART%BRUFSM.BITNET at VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: brussels
Hello netmembers, I've just arrived from Brussels where I had a wonderful time
down the several pubs at Grand Place and Place St.Catherine. However the best
place was La Morte Subite (who said it is not infested with tourists?! Three
times I went there, three times I could hear what I wanted least: Brazilian Por
tuguese!!!). It was my first taste of lambics. I was not impressed with some
like Gueuze ("sur lie") and Framboise but I do became addicted to Faro, Peche
and Chimay. A place that is very much worth visiting is the Musee de la Biere
at the Grand Place. C'est formidable! I highly recommend. I shall be back to
Brussels sooner than I previously thaught!
Jose Martins
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 15:17:34 -0500
From: tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman)
Subject: culture(d) observations :-)
TAyres at aol.com recently asked:
>Has anyone worked with yeast starters begun from either Boon or Cantillon
>products? What can I expect? Will the resultant brew have lots of
>brett/pedi character or will non-brett/pedi character predominate? Should I
>inoculate any brew I make with more brett or pedi?
No doubt, you have received private responses and know the answer, but I
will use this as a jumping-off point. Boon Fruit lambics are known to be
filtered and any sediment that you may have seen can probably be attributed
to precipitate of some form or another. More recent versions of Boon
Gueuze and Faro seem to be populated mostly with S. cerevisiae, alas (this
doesn't necessarily rule out Brett, it's just harder to pick out, and the
bugs are still there. The Cantillon, OTOH, is probably your best bet.
I've never picked apart the Cantillon culture that I have, but I do know
that it has Brett, but don't know about S. cerevisiae.
You will probably do quite well with the Brett from Cantillon. However, I
really don't know how well the bugs are working, as I tend to pitch a pure
pedio culture with everything. It wouldn't hurt to throw in some extra
cultures to be on the safe side and _maybe_ add some complexity.
On another note...Because I had better things to do, but am a terrific
procrastinator, I took the opportunity to scan some archived versions of
the Lambic Digest. I came across this interesting observation made by Conn
Copas about a year and a half ago, or so:
> Whilst contemplating a goblet of Orval, it also
>occurred to me that part of its charm (?) is an underlying essence of dog (or
>maybe fox) which is not that far removed from a lambic. There was a comment on
>HBD a while back that Orval has an acidic character, but I suspect it goes
>deeper than that. Does anyone know the whole story?
As Paul Harvey (a syndicated) Midwestern radio-editiorialist of
questionable...oh never mind) would say: "And now, here's the rest of the
story."
This was a pretty good observation, as was the previous one to which it
alludes. The whole story is that they must use Brettanomyces during
secondary fermentation. Surprising? I thought so. But in retrospect
maybe not. The evidence? Do you think I would make wild speculation without
evidence?
Soft evidence:
1) Jackson: primary and secondary with an "acid producing" yeast.
Bottling with five bottom fermenters.
2) Rajotte: (something to the effect of) they do a primary with a top
fermenter and then a secondary with a "wild" yeast (nudge, nudge, wink,
wink) at around 60F. Then, they dose with the primary at bottling.
Whose version is more accurate. My money is with Rajotte, in spite of the
beatings he has received at times in this digest (see Hard Evidence).
Hard evidence:
1) While searching for that mythical primary yeast in a bottle carried
back from Belgium (presumably fresh) I could culture absolutely nothing (or
so I thought). After 3-4 weeks I noticed activity. Smelled acetic and the
individual yeasts looked too small under the scope to be S. cerevisiae.
Plated on CHX and got growth after an excruciatingly long incubation (about
a week or so). I thought maybe that I had inadvertantly contaminated the
culture, as I was growing up various Brett cultures at the time. However,
I felt that this culture was distinct from anything that I had. Chalked it
up to a brewery contaminant.
2) Went back to a previous bottle culture that was frozen away and plated
it with the intent of picking out the primary culture. Procrastinated and
let the plate sit for a long time. Picked colonies, including some teeny
tiny ones not even sure that they would be yeast. Results: the teeny tiny
ones are Brett - pretty much the same as the other (at least
superficially). Concerning the primary top-fermenter vs. dosage of bottom
fermenters: still don't know for sure, but suspect that Rajotte has a
better source than Jackson.
Well, now the cat, er...fox is out of the bag, so to speak. So, fire up
those fermenters. It looks like you have a better chance at an
Orval clone than you previously thought. A long secondary is probably a
good idea to allow the Brett to come up (not too long though). I would
taste it over time.
I suspect that there are other breweries using Brett, besides the lambic
ones, anybody care to speculate?
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:29:41 -0500
From: tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman)
Subject: Framboise Noir (blackberry gueuze), blended and bottled
Okay, as long as I am still procrastinating, I might as well post on my
blending and bottling effort.
Recall that 11 months ago I initiated my first batch: grist= a little of
this, a little of that and 30% raw wheat, pitched with appropriate cultures
(Boon Brett and bugs mostly, but some additional Brett and pedio, along
with S. cervesiae and bayanus). Recall, too, that after reading about
one-dimensional results, I got on a "blending for complexity" soap-box.
Well, I have just put into practice what I have preached, having blended
and bottled a Framboise Noir, from portions of 3 different ferments.
Parameters and logistics are as follows:
Ferment #1a - 11 month old p-lambic, 2.2 gallons on 6-7 lbs blackberries (2
months); TG prior to blackberry addition = 1004; characteristics = sour (pH
3.6), thin, some ethyl lactate and ethyl acetate (Brett) character, but no
horsey/goaty traits; interesting for being warm and uncarbonated; TG after
blackberry addition = oops, forgot to check, but still have some unblended
to check (whew!); very tart from blackberry acids, a little astringent,
nice blackberry color and aroma, with more Brett aroma coming up with
refermentation, which lasted about 2 weeks.
Ferment #1b - 2.2 gallons of 11 month old, not used, still sitting for a
later blending.
Ferment #2a (Boon) - 1.25 gallons (roughly) of 2.5 month-old (young)
p-lambic. I posted previously on this 10 gallon split batch, but it was
pitched with Boon S. cerevisiae, S. bayanus, Boon Brett + bugs, a couple
of other Bretts, Candida lambica and Candida sake and pedio. Gravity at
blending = 1009; characteristics: mildly sour (pH not taken), some residual
sweetness, lightly oaky, (smoky), phenolic aspect (either polyphenols from
the high temp sparge or metabolic products from the Brett or Candida
yeasts), okay, but not drinkable as is. I cleared some of the haze by
cooling it to 40F for about a week, then let it warm up. No pellicle
evident.
Ferment #3a (Cantillon) - 1.25 gallons of 2.5 month old p-lambic (the other
5 gallons from the 10 gallon batch) pitched with Fullers S. cerevisiae, S.
bayanus, Cantillon Brett and bugs, additional Brett cultures, Candida
yeasts, and pediococcus. Gravity at blending = 1011; characteristics:
mildly sour with some residual sweetness, lightly oaky, etc, but not as
much as the other batch, nothing special, but more drinkable than the other
batch. This was also cleared somewhat of haze by cold conditioning.
Again, no pellicle.
Ferments #1a, 2a and 3a (that is sub-portions of batches 1, 2, 3) were
blended and primed with 1/2 cup corn sugar. This batch was bottled in
champagne bottles and capped (American bottles) with crown caps or
stoppered with plastic stoppers and wire bales (European bottles and
splits).
Some observations:
1) Bottling method: champagne bottles should help offset the
unpredictability of the remaining attenuation and CO2 production. Crown
caps will allow for venting if needed. I think that the plastic corks will
be a washout, as I suspect that the seal on the splits and other bottles is
not tight enough (the diameter of the neck seems to be slightly larger than
that of American bottles, as the plastic stopper fits much more tightly in
an American bottle). These will probably need to be primed and re-bottled.
2) Blending/priming for CO2 production. I figure that the "young" lambic
could drop down to 1004-6, but who knows for sure? Some rough calculations
suggest that this alone may be sufficient for carbonation (does 3/4 cup
corn sugar add 2 pts to 5 gallons? somebody help me out here). Of course,
I couldn't help, but add some corn sugar (my head said one thing, but my
heart said another). So depending on how refermentation goes, things could
be fine or really ugly.
3) Flavor: the blended product is fairly tart, but not overpowering,
especially with the little bit of corn sugar softening it at this point.
Color is a deep burgundy and the fruit flavor fairly pronounced. The
blending seems to have added decent amount of depth to the flavor. I am
very optomistic. Now, if it would just take on some goatiness, I would be
extremely satisfied. Carbonation will also enhance the flavor, I believe.
I tried to explain to the cat who insisted on helping by rubbing against
the bottles that "catty" was not a flavor attribute that I was going for.
"Barnyard" and "Outhouse" are fine descriptors, but I have yet to see
"house pet" in any judges comments. Now, if this were an Orval clone...:-)
Todd
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
