Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0841
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 (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA22704 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.144.16]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA21559 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3)
with X.500 id DAA23174; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3)
with SMTP id DAA23170; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:52:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA02734 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Wed, 1 May 1996 00:30:07 -0600
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:30:07 -0600
Message-Id: <199605010630.AAA02734 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 #841 (May 01, 1996)
Lambic Digest #841 Wed 01 May 1996
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Smokey lambics (Scott Bickham)
First pLambic (Alan Folsom)
speculative assertions (Todd Gierman)
cuvee rene and phenol redux (Jeremy Bergsman)
To Cuve'e or not..... (Norman Dickenson)
Various (Jim Liddil)
Re: spelling? (Marc Gaspard)
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: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 07:05:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Smokey lambics
My two bits about phenolics: I have 16 gallons of 6 month old pLambic
in the fermenter and there is a definite smokey phenolic. This is
being covered up by the acidity, but it's still in the background.
I used brettanomyces from several different sources, as well as
the oxidative yeast, candida lambicus.
Scott
- --
========================================================================
Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6691 E-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil
Complex Systems Theory Branch Home or BJCP: 7507 Swan Point Way
Washington, D.C 20375 Columbia, MD 21045
(202) 404-8632 FAX: (202) 404-7546 (410) 290-7721
=========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 05:39:51 -0700
From: folsom at ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom)
Subject: First pLambic
OK, my Wit is wonderful, my dubbels delightful, it's time to try a
lambic. I've not made one of these yet, but since in PA you've got to
buy case lots of beer, if I really want to drink them, I guess I've got
to make them, or sell a child for the money. I'm looking for
references on basic technique, or any clues y'all (I was born in Ky,
and it's Derby week, I've got to throw in one "y'all") might pass my
way.
As I see it, there are three basic techniques. Just expose my wort to
whatever wild creepy-crawlies are in the air, try to culture stuff from
the dregs of a real lambic, or buy some cultures. Brewer's Resource
has a Brett and a Pedio culture, so that's probably the way I'll go.
My gut feel was to make up something along the lines of a Wit wort,
about 50% malt, and 50% flaked wheat, with maybe a little crystal.
Ferment this with some normal yeast, maybe the Wit yeast I'm currently
using, and then when it calms down, pitch the pedio and brett. Then,
wait months on end and hope. Any suggestions on technique? Any clues
on how to reliably sanitize this stuff out of my carboys when I'm done?
Thanks in advance for any references or hints.
Al Folsom
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:30:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Gierman <tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: speculative assertions
> Todd writes:
> >Sift through the archived LDs and you'll see what you've been *missing*, or
> >just forgotten about. Many wild yeasts contain an enzyme that can
> >convert polyphenols (tannins) from one form to another. The converted
> >compounds can be perceived as clove-like, smokey or medicinal. Surely,
> >Dan McConnell must have discussed some of these compounds in his Spirit
> >of Belgium Brett talk.
>
> Been there... don't recall Dan saying anything about this. Furthermore, I
> would suspect that there would be little point to yeasts producing enzymes
> that broke down things and then just left them in the beer, right? If the
> enzyme is there, then the organism is probably going to use up whatever it
> has disassembled, right?
Okay, whatever happened to those transcripts of the talk that were
allegedly to be published in this forum? I had the distinct impression
that Dan discussed biochemical contributions of Brettanomyces. I wasn't
there, but intuition tells me that Dan must have talked about how a lot
of these compounds are related to other aromatic (in both senses)
compounds such as vanilla and cinnamon. I am not pulling this out of the
blue; I know that this information has been presented somewhere.
> Todd wrote:
> >The turbid mash is probably important for producing Brett character in
> >that it results in higher extraction of polyphenols from husks (does it
> >not?) in addition to starch. Brettanomyces has the ability to convert
> >these to even more aromatic compounds such as 4-vinyl guaiacol and
> >4-ethyl phenol. The latter produces that oh so oaky aspect that the
> >barrel owners seek (when it is at the right concentration). Higher
> >amounts make it smoky and medicinal.
>
> Okay, so the first part is speculation on Todd's part, but if he's right
> about the 4-ethyl phenol, that would explain why I tasted oak in Jim's
> BOS pGueuze despite it's being fermented in plastic. Ever since that
> tasting, I had suspected that something in Lambic/Lambiek was creating
> the oakiness and it was not the wood. Admittedly, I had forgotten about
> Todd's post back in Dec of 1994.
Yes, speculation based on reading and limited practical experience. The
whole point was that Brett makes these compounds but that they seem to
disappear over time. Either the Brett breaks them down further as
carbohydrate sources dwindle or they are chemically broken down. I've
always noticed a sort of tannic smokiness in the early stages of the
fermentation of p-lambic (2 months) this tends to subside or is masked by
the increased tartness or additional flavors later on. A good clean
gueuze may be low in phenolics, but I have had some Cantillon kriek that
was distinctly phenolic and acetic. My own kriek is phenolic and acetic
in a similar way. I prefer lambic that is less acetic and less phenolic
with a thinner, but more distinct "horse blanket" pungency. Add a few
mercaptans and you've got what I consider to be the highest form. This
is the best of Boon or Cantillon or CR - delicate but ripe.
> Please also note that none of you except Jeremy have posted "oh yes, I get
> lots of clovey character in Cantillon" or "Boon Geuze has a significant
> medicianl note." You all pointed to literature or to common sense, not your
> taste buds. I agree with John that there are certainly a lot of sources
> for polyphenols in the production of Lambics/Lambieks, but the chemical
> reactions that take place in these beers are probably an order of magnitude
> as complex as those in "normal" beer production and there are said to be
> over 200 chemical reactions taking place in the making of "normal" beer.
> Given that complexity, nothing at all would surprise me even organisms that
> simply remove all of a particular character from a beer.
Well, you started out with the assertion that Brett didn't produce
phenolics because 1) you hadn't read about it and 2) you had never tasted
them in lambics. We weren't really talking about lambics anyway and the
differences in wort content, fermentation conditions, etc. may affect
they way Brett performs.
> Todd -- If you could post your reference for the creation of 4-ethyl phenol
> by Brettanomyces, I would be most grateful.
>
I'll have to dig it out. However, it is an article about the effect of
Brett/Dekkera on wine spoilage. It is a chapter in a series about
chemistry and society. This particular year (1993 or 1994) was devoted
to brewing and fermentation. I believe that George Fix may have posted a
review in the HBD 2 years ago. I'm certain that others who participate
in this forum are familiar with it.
> I still stand by my assertion that what most of us would agree are "good"
> Lambics/Lambieks simply do not have significant levels of "clovey," "smokey"
> or "medicinal" aromas or flavours.
>
I don't think that this issue was ever in contention.
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:18:30 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: cuvee rene and phenol redux
Dave Sapsis defends Cuvee Rene:
> I gotta say I find his comparisons to
> Boon quite baffling. Now, I am of the opinion that the Boon products
> indeed show quite a range of variation, but in terms of overall trend,
> they seem to be becoming distinctly less "aggressive" shall we say.
snip
> A few weeks ago, me and few folks got together and we did a straight
> up comparison of Boon with the C R. [snip] All five of us were in agreement
> that not only was the C R considerably more challenging, we preffered
> it ;->. Thats not to say that the Boon isnt nice, its just there's
> not as much there there. Its quite possible that Jeremy has been
> getting different character Boon than I (older?) but my suggestion
> would be to do a side-by-side comparison. The difference was much
> more pronounced than I would have expected based on past experiences
> drinking the two beers at different times.
Let me start by making clear the fact that my disapointment was a result
of a huge build up. It is a good lambic; IMVHO the second best one can
buy in CA. I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up.
To be fair I will admit that the side-by-side is a good idea if I want to
make comparisons (I was really just trying to illustrate how it seemed
rather than to make a value judgement against CR vs. Boon). It is true
that I have been drinking mainly old Boon from a multi-case stash I aquired
a while back. It is also true that last week I had a recently purchased Boon
Kriek that was very disapointing, but I have found that Boon has huge variability.
Two bottles out of the same case consumed side-by-side can differ significantly.
When I have a "bad" one I have been writing it off to variability but maybe I
should be looking more at trends.
I still stand by my description of CR:
the brett flavors were very subdued. Maybe this is also bottle-to-bottle
variability? I have another and if Dave wants to invite me to his next
side-by-side tasting we can talk about our perceptions over identical
materials :).
> One other note concerning comments regarding the sweetness that Norm
> spoke of and the dryness that Jeremy detected. I think both are
> right. Namely, dryness in traditional lambics is relative, and when
> Norm spoke of sweetness I think he would agree that C R is quite dry,
> just that it has a beautifully delicate malt sweetness that rounds off
> the assertive acidity. Compared to a Cantillon I had recently, C R is
> absolutely sweet. However, if you are looking for something that is
> really sweet, better stick with Belle Vue or somesuch. Those of you
> that like traditional unsweetened lambics, however, should indeed seek
> the C R out.
I knew that after a post where I described a lambic as very sour and not
sweet that I would have to defend my manhood. Granted: Cantillon is dryer
than CR. I found no sweetness to CR, but also no aggressive dryness. For
me there is a middle ground where neither character suggests itself. I don't
want a sweetened lambic nor was I comparing CR to one. I was going to say
it is as dry as a Boon, but I'll wait for the side-by-side.
> And don't expect a Boon diluted with "blond ale".
It sure is easy to step on toes around here. Could you all pull your feet
in a little?
>From Al:
> Please also note that none of you except Jeremy have posted "oh yes, I get
> lots of clovey character in Cantillon" or "Boon Geuze has a significant
> medicianl note."
> I still stand by my assertion that what most of us would agree are "good"
> Lambics/Lambieks simply do not have significant levels of "clovey," "smokey"
> or "medicinal" aromas or flavours.
I don't think you were attributing that quotation to me but just to be clear:
what I tasted was not clove or smoke but just plain phenol. I agree with Al
that I don't expect to find these in lambic, hence my musing in my previous
post.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:14:35 -0700
From: Norman Dickenson <norman.dickenson at sonoma.edu>
Subject: To Cuve'e or not.....
Subject: Time: 10:21 AM
OFFICE MEMO To Cuve'e or not..... Date: 4/30/96
In LD #840 Dave Sapsis said while commenting on Jeremy's
dissapointment with Lindeman's Cuvee Rene:
>A few weeks ago, me and few folks got together and we did a
>straight up comparison of Boon with the C R.
What a coincidence! A friend and I did the very same thing
just this past weekend.
>All five of us were in agreementthat not only was the C R
>considerably more challenging, we preffered it ;->
Exactly the conclusion we arrived at. A far more complex
product.
>dryness in traditional lambics is relative, and when
>Norm spoke of sweetness I think he would agree that C R
>is quite dry,just that it has a beautifully delicate malt
>sweetness that rounds off the assertive acidity.
Yes, my comments were cloaked in the realm of relativity. Of
course C R is assertively dry (though not like a Cantillon),
BUT, the sharp edges have been very pleasantly rounded.
Perhaps I should reserve using the term sweetness for Belle
Vue or DeTroch type products.
Now, I know the literature says that young lambic (4 months to
one year old) is blended with old lambic for a refermentation
in the bottle. Has anyone logged comparative gravity readings
of lambics of various ages? One would assume that traditional
bottle conditioning practices would apply here and that the
gravity of the lambic to be bottled and refermented would need
to be raised by 4 gravity points in order to achieve adequate
carbonation. It might equally be true that this blending
practice began with another goal in mind, that being to make
something greater out of two lesser things. I can't really say
as my current plambic had ANY malty sweetness left in it after
4 months. I'm wondering if in the real world of Lambic production,
sugar for bottle conditioning isn't added in precisely measured
amounts of fresh wort or ??? rather than from what
to me seems like a massive blending process (2 parts young lambic
to 1 part old lambic for example?)? Comments?
Lanny Hoff said in the same issue:
>A container with approximately 250 cases of Traditional De Troch
>Gueuze has left Belgium, and will be in the United States within
>three weeks.
I hope this IS different than the De Troch Gueuze I recently
purchased and commented about.
-norman-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:24:35 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Various
Norman said:
> While I now suspect that the traditional approach to
> producing a pGueuze will probably work just fine, I see
> no problem with discussing or even utilizing "artificial"
> (read non-traditional) processes to achieve any brewing
> goal (blasphemy, you say?) I personally don't want to
> invest 60 gal. of pLambic in oak for two years and not
> talk about options. If I can nail the narrow flavor profile
> I'm shooting for by pasteurizing and can figure out how
> to do it at the scale I'm working, I will not let
> traditionalism stand in my way.
I think we can do waht ever we want, since this is not Belgium. Blending,
Fermenting different batches at different temps, using sterile filtration for
part of the beer. Force carbonation. Alternative sugars (saccharin,
maltodextrins). WHat ever floats you boat. Believe me I certainly have been
experimenting with the use of science in plambic making
>
> Of note: I came across a DeTroch Chapeau Gueuze the other
> day. It was the first time I had seen any but the sweet
> fruited DeTroch products here in California. Despite it's
> label claims of being bottle conditioned and the fact that
> there was some sediment at the bottom, this product was
> absolutely still! It had been corked and capped. It was also
> cloyingly sweet and not to my liking. It's underlying lambic
> character was interesting leaving me wishing that someone
> would suggest to the brewer to tone down the sweetener.
>
It is allowed to conditon for a while and them pasterized I think.
> From: DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS)
> Subject: To Cuve'e or not to Rene
>
> In LD 887, Jeremy writes of being dissapointed with Cuvee Rene. As
> the Jim reponsible for stockloading Northern California beer geeks
> with the cases he alluded to, and the proud owner of a (sadly
> shrinking) stockpile myself, I gotta say I find his comparisons to
> Boon quite baffling. Now, I am of the opinion that the Boon products
> indeed show quite a range of variation, but in terms of overall trend,
> they seem to be becoming distinctly less "aggressive" shall we say. A
> few years ago, when I first had them, they struck me as intensely
> sour, quite goaty/cheesey, and barnyard top to bottom. Over time,
> they seem to have become less sour, distinctly less complex, but still
> lots of Brett. Of course during this same period, my exposure to
> lambics has undoubtedly led to a change in point of reference, so my
> observations are confounded. However, numerous other local
> lambicophiles have come to the same contention, namely, that Boon is
> concertedly trying to make a more approachable product.
I am sure you are correct about the Boon stuff. But I would also venture to
guess that there is more to the CR than meets the eye. For aproduct that has
been in the bottle for 2 years it certainly has a great deal of "body".
I just wonder what Rene Lindeman and Dr. Muscche have up their sleeves.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marc Gaspard <mgaspard at mailer.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: spelling?
To all in the Lambic digest:
I know this is going to sound like a stupid question but I've only been
lurking on the digest for a few months and need to know. Why do I often see
"lambic" spelled "plambic"? Is this some variant of "lambic" I'm unaware of
or is it simply hasty typing? Thanks.
Marc
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
