Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0794
Return-Path: postmaster at lance.colostate.edu
Received: from srvr8.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr8.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.81]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA18516 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:24:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.144.16]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA14348 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3)
with X.500 id EAA12764; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:19:53 -0500
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3)
with ESMTP id EAA12760; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:19:51 -0500
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA01950 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:30:08 -0700
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:30:08 -0700
Message-Id: <199602200730.AAA01950 at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
From: lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here)
To: lambic at 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
Subject: Lambic Digest #794 (February 20, 1996)
Lambic Digest #794 Tue 20 February 1996
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Odor descriptors again (BrewsMead)
Judging Lambics/SoB (Algis R Korzonas)
Sob winners (Scott Bickham)
Enteric or Not to Enteric (Norman Dickenson)
fermentation temperature / fecal aroma (Algis R Korzonas)
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
Note that the request address is not an automated server. It forwards
to a real person who may not be able to process the request immediately.
Subscription changes often take 2-5 days, sometimes more.
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, 19 Feb 1996 06:10:58 -0800
From: BrewsMead at eworld.com
Subject: Odor descriptors again
Todd says
I mean, I know that the artist's shit in a can has been successfully sold as
art, but I believe that this was based on the ironic content of the work,
rather than the contents of the can - the main idea being "what fool would
pay top dollar for shit?
I reply to each his own!
And "Maybe my perspective is biased by the issue that fecal/enteric is most
often used to disparage what is frequently the outcome of the sour mash
approach to p-lambic brewing. "
I have no idea where this comes from but I personally appreciate most funky
aromas too bad if most don't!
And more "good lambic is merely sour Budweiser with a little turd essence.
Oops! I think we've arrived. :-)"
I guess I deserve this . If sometimes I try to keep the discussion upscale ,I
forget that y'all are used to me carrying it downward from other forums in
the past and you can't interpolate fonts and intent! Sarcasm and sincerity
are tough to show in this mode of telecommunication.
And to conclude "I can't speak of the CR at the moment. The
bottom line is that buying good lambic, as well as making it, really is a
crapshoot ."
The CR that I had was complex and seriously funky. I may not have said
fecal/enteric , but I'll defend Ed's right to ....to the death. The era of
censorship is coming ! First it's fecal and next it's poop! Just
thinking out loud, Brews
PS - I needed to see if my new signature works on this damn machine's posts.
Anyone for some Belgian mead?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 08:41:53 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Judging Lambics/SoB
Sorry for the tardyness -- I've been under the weather.
Jim writes:
>Well I guess this is where we disagree isn't it? The Lindemans CR is a complex
>multidimensional product. The fact that there is acidity along with brett and
>vegetal aromas and flavors is what makes this such a nice beer IMNHO.
*Multidimensional* is truly the key here -- I think this is the mark of a
great Lambic/Lambiek. In my opinion, the dimensions need not display
themselves simultaneously -- "layers" of flavour is probably a better
description.
>How can you feel this beer only deserves a 30s score? I has all the necessary
>elements of a fine gueuze. Lots of carbonation, great head retention, good
>color. And excellent flavor and aroma characteristics. I dare say this beer
>is in the same realm as Boon, Cantillon and Hansens. Any one else care to
>comment?
I'm a little uncomfortable with Jim's implication that "lots of carbonation"
and "great head retention" are "necessary elements of a fine gueuze." While
I agree that *most* gueuze are well-carbonated, the finest I've had, a 17-
year old Cantillon, was just barely carbonated. Furthermore, while a fluffy
head often formed on the top of most gueuze/geuze I've had, it usually
collapses quite quickly and remains only as Bruxelles lace (how fitting!)
on the sides of the glass.
What do the rest of you think about head retention on Lambics/Lambieks?
Al.
> From: "Craig Jones." <Drake_Morgan at airservices.gov.au>
> Subject: Purple Mead!
>
> Chaps,
>
> I know that mead stuff does not usually belong on the
> lambic net, but does anyone know of any microorganisms that can
> make 24hr mead wort turn purple?
>
> It seems to have purple/dark brick red colloidal clots
> collecting on the edge of the fermenter (that look rather like
> the stuff you get out of a wine bottle), I'm using a new recipe,
> but all the stuff I'm using I've used before apart for a bottle
> of lime essence (thrown in just for the hell of it) which
> contained ethanol, lime oil, tartrazine, and a common blue dye
> (whose name eludes me). Any ideas. Could it be the 10g of
> Tannin (in 60L)?
Sounds like a lactic bacteria thing but I am just throwing out speculation.
Jim
- ------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:18:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Sob winners
Congratulations again to all of the winners. The first place entries
were all very solid beers, with perhaps the exception of my gueuze,
which was only brewed in November. Amazingly enough, the judges
thought it needed more time to develop complexity. I'll post
some of the recipes when I am more competely recovered from
Saturday night, but here are my comments on the beers I was
able to taste:
Belgian Pale (9 entries): My Orval clone won, though it was originally
brewed to be an altbier. It was a double decoction mash, with 3# each
of Vienna, Munich and Pilsner malt and it had 50+ IBUs and some Spalt
flavor and aroma. As it aged, the hops faded and it picked up
some spicy brett. character from a cross-contamination. Although
it still has too much bitterness, it is very similar to Orval.
The judges thought the other Orval-like beers were too sweet,
so I think the key is to overhop it slightly and allow the
brett. to develop for at least 4 months in the bottle. The intensive
mash schedule is probably also a good idea, though not essential.
Belgian Strong (28 entries): Finally Jim Busch gets some recognition
for the beer he brewed for the AHA conference. It tasted young
back in June, but the coriander and orange peel have mellowed out
and blended with the esters from the LaChouffe yeast. It goes
without saying that the competition was very tough, and I was
impressed with the number of well-made brews.
Belgian Dubbel (10 entries): The winning beer was very solid - it
won Best of Show out of 170+ entries in the War of the Worts a few
weeks ago. The judges thought it was a little estery and needed
more plum/raisin, but it definitely deserved to be there. Tom
Cannon thought this beer was better than the one entered by
Andy Anderson last year.
Belgian Triple (10 entries): The winning beer was again brewed by
Chuck Henning. I though the alcohol was a little too noticable,
but that's only when it was pitted against the other BoS beers.
I imagine the same yeast was used, but I'll post both recipes.
Belgian White (20 entries). Larry Grays brewed a nice wit, and
it was definitely better than the two I entered (they scored in
the 30s, and one had the brett. contamination that was in my pale).
Larry used lactic acid to get the sourness, so maybe he can give the
details.
Oud Bruins (11 entries): The judges had to combine the fruit and
non-fruit, simply because there were too many beers that were too
far out of style. I didn't get to taste any of these, so maybe
Tim Artz can give us his impressions when he has more time.
pGueuze (5 entries): See my first paragraph. I'll be interested
to see what happens to mine as it ages, but at the moment it has
more of a winey character than lambic. Maybe the candida has
overwhelmed the brett. and pedio, in which case some blending
might help.
pLambic with Fruit: The winning beer, brewed by Paul Edwards,
went straight to the top during the Best of Show judging. The
judges thought it was very balanced, though Paul says that it
hasn't done well in local competitions. No surprise there,
since it's often tough to find judges who are familiar with
the nuances of the style.
Scott
- --
====================================================================
E-Mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil FAX:(202) 404-7546
Office: Naval Research Laboratories Home and BJCP:
Code 6691, Complex Systems 7507 Swan Point Way
Washington, D.C 20375 Columbia, MD 21045
(202) 404-8632 (410) 290-7721
====================================================================
- ------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:43:58 -0700
From: Norman Dickenson <Norman.Dickenson at sonoma.edu>
Subject: Enteric or Not to Enteric
Subject: Time: 2:00 PM
OFFICE MEMO Enteric or Not to Enteric Date: 2/12/96
In the February 12 issue of L.D. Ed Westemeier wrote:
>On 2/10/96, Jim Liddil wrote:
>>I finally got my hands on a bunch of Lindemans Cuvee Rene. This is a truly
>>great product.
>I just had some at the Spirit of Belgium gathering (congratulations to the
>organizers and to BURP for a fabulous weekend!!!). It certainly isn't like
>anything else I've had from Lindemann, and it's certainly interesting, but
>the enteric/fecal notes were frankly a bit much for my palate.
>I would give it a score in the 30s if I were judging it at a competition,
>but I think "truly great" goes a bit too far.
This is an interesting development! Would Lindeman's Cuvee Rene receive
a score in the 30's BECAUSE it's enteric/fecal notes are "a bit much for
my palate", or because of something else? I too have had the pleasure of
tasting Cuvee Rene and found it to be absolutely supurb. It's enteric
qualities provided a welcome additional flavor component not so readily
perceivable in Boon or Cantillon, while not so massively enteric as
Hansons (which was borderline being a bit much for MY palate). Now, while
I realize that my exposure to "real" lambics (as opposed to those
syruped products) is somewhat limited by West coast availability, I had
assumed that the aforementioned products represented some of the best lambics
(gueuze) available. I felt Cuvee Rene on a par with Boon's Mariage Parfait
and superior to Cantillon and Hansons (personal preferences).
Regardless of my personaltaste preferences, I feel that each of these products
would be a 40+ point beer with diverse flavor profiles.
My point is that I am confused, and feel less than competent to be a
judge of Gueuze until I resolve why I see Rene Cuvee as a 40+ point
beer whereas Ed would score it in the 30's. My training and experience
as a judge tells me to use "classic" commercial examples of a style for
evaluative comparison and to judge & score based on how well a beer
represents the style, not my personal preferences for or against
particular flavor components. I invite comments which might help me
resolve my quandary.
-norman-
- ------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
- -------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 11:27:55 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: fermentation temperature / fecal aroma
Steve writes:
>Lambics are traditionally brewed during the cooler months of the year, but
>what does this really mean in terms of cellar (and barrel) temperature
>during the initial period of fermentation? How warm do the cellars get in
>summer? I have a number places where I could ferment my plambic, all at
>different temperatures and I'm looking for some input on what is most
>appropriate.
Well, at Cantillon there are as many (if not more) casks of fermenting
Lambic at ground level as in the cellar. I did ask Jean-Pierre about the
temperature of the fermentations and he said that the very *best* years
are from casks in which the Lambic has lived through a particularly warm
summer. How warm is warm I did not ask, but we were there in the first
week of August on a particularly warm summer for Belgium. The cellar was
probably somewhere between 55 and 65F and the "first floor" (actually only
1/2 story over the street level -- the cellar is 1/2 story below street
level) was maybe between 60 and 70F.
***
On the subject of fecal odours in Lambieks/Lambics, I wrote about my
first experience with this character a few years ago. It was from a
bottle of St. Louis Gueuze. It smelled very faintly, well, like poop,
but this was well behind a thick blanket of a dozen different fruits
like bananas, raspberries, cherries, strawberries, grapes... No, this
was Gueuze, not a fruit lambic... I checked the label several times.
I must admit that it took some getting used to, but by the end of the
bottle, I was very pleased with the beer and very respectful of the
difficulty in making it. It, as you well know, was not sour by Cantillon
or Boon or Cuvee Rene standards, but complexity it did not lack.
I must disagree with the person who has smelled a fecal character in
Cantillon. I can conservatively estimate that I've tasted from well over
four dozen different bottles of Cantillon over the course of the the
last four years and have never noted a fecal note in any of them. I've
tasted from far fewer bottles of Boon (maybe only two dozen) and again,
no fecal character. No fecal odour in any of the Girardin, Oud Beersel,
Fond Tradition or Drie Fonteinen I had in Belgium last summer. I've yet
to try the Cuvee Rene that has recently reached our shores but am looking
forward to it.
Overall, I only recall a noticable fecal note in that one bottle of
St. Louis Gueuze (back in 1991?) and a homebrewed pLambic at the 1994
Kansas City HB competition (remember that one John? Ginger?). I was the
only one brave enough to drink it and regretted it the next day.
Personally, I think that a very minor fecal note (whatever you want to
call it) is permissable, but if it is dominant, I don't think it is
appropriate.
To add a final monkeywrench in this discussion, I'd like to mention
that I believe Guinard says that the enteric bacteria adds a fruity
character and not a fecal one -- I'm afraid I don't have my copy of
"Lambic" here at work. Could someone check this?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
P.S. Regarding the Copyright issue, please see
http://www.clari.net/brad/copyrightmyths.html
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
