Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0835
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 EAA04122 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:09:48 -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 EAA20367 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:09:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3)
with X.500 id EAA22394; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3)
with SMTP id EAA22384; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA29537 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:30:09 -0600
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:30:09 -0600
Message-Id: <199604250630.AAA29537 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 #835 (April 25, 1996)
Lambic Digest #835 Thu 25 April 1996
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re: Lambic Digest #834 (April 24, 1996) (Todd Gierman)
Wild fermentations (Algis R Korzonas)
Blending (Norman Dickenson)
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: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:30:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Gierman <tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: Lambic Digest #834 (April 24, 1996)
> From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com
> Subject: Re: Orval
>
> Al sez:
>
> >I do believe that Orval tends to dry out very nicely as it ages. Further
> >evidence that there is significant fermentation in the bottle is the problem
> >(?) of Orval increasing in alcohol while in the bottle. I don't recall
> >where I read this, but it is definitely a problem for the brewery. I
> >believe that the alcohol level rises from 6-point-something percent to
> >over 7% after bottling!
>
>
> Al, that was in the info that Paul posted:
>
> "The label indicates that the beer's alcohol content is 6.2% by volume
> which in accordance with the current regulations covers the full 5.2 to
> 7.2% range. Six weeks after bottling Orval leaves the storage rooms, where
> it is kept at a controlled temperature of 15 deg C, for distribution. At
> this stage, the beer has an alcohol content of approximately 6 percent by
> volume, but refermentation in the bottle will continue for another 8 or 9
> months. The yeasts exhaust the fermentation sugars which are turned into
> CO2 and alcohol. Once the fermentation process has finished, the beer will
> have reached 7.1 percent."
>
> Sounds like voracious Brett activity to me, but whether it is from very slow
> secondary activity or from Brett added at bottling (or both), I do not know.
> We may never know. Paul's posting indicates 6 days primary fermentation, then
> three weeks "lagering", then six weeks bottle conditioning before release for
> distribution. Paul's post indicates that bottle conditioning occurs at 15C
> (59F) but says nothing about the 'lagering' temperature. Is it possible that
> the secondary is cold enough that there is little yeast activity and that the
> Brett doesn't go to work until it is warmed up to 15C?
>
Rajotte refers to the "lagering" as 1 month at the "unusually warm"
temperature of 60F. I would think that this is a fermentation
temperature and there is no reason to think that Brett wouldn't be
working at this temp.
I don't think that there is any question about refermentation in the bottle,
both yeasts are present regardless of how they get there. The point that I
wanted to make was that from a homebrewing standpoint, the Brett should
probably be done as a secondary fermentation. Even if the real secret
of Orval is to skip a Brett secondary and add it at bottling, I think
that the practical approach is to do the secondary. Two reasons come
to mind. The first is that many homebrewers, myself included,
frequently produce slightly underattenuated beers due largely to
underpitching of the primary. The second is: how much Brett would you
add at bottling? I think that the addition at secondary gives you a
little more control. Besides, I still favor the idea that they really
add it during the secondary.
I've come to the conclusion that there is a fine line between a good
Brett beer and a bad Brett beer. Orval is an example of both. As a
young beer it is very good. Frequently what we get here is bad in that
the phenolics can be very objectionable, so much that you really have to
be open-minded to convince yourself that they are not. Admittedly, my
perception is based on limited experience, as I am reluctant to pay $5
for a bottle of beer that I might not enjoy.
The DeDolle products that I have had have been examples of very good
Brett beers. Again I have not bought in volume, but the half dozen or so
that I have had have been consistently "good". I'd like to know more
about how they structure their fermentations. These are high gravity
beers that seem pretty stable in spite of Brett in the bottle. They tend
to have Brett character that is not overly phenolic. I think that they
are more enigmatic than Orval from a microbiological/fermentation
standpoint. How'd they do that?
WRT, Conn Copas' assertion/query about the growth rates of bacteria vs.
yeast: make no assumptions, as conditions will dictate which one is
favored. However, I suspect that the yeast will have the advantage under
typical conditions.
Shakporo, and the indigenous sorghum beers of Sub-saharan Africa. Very
interesting piece. John Arnold gives considerable attention to the
practices sorrounding these beverages in his 1917 work commissioned for
the Wahl-Henius Institute (can't remember the title). One of the beers
listed in the LD Shakporo article, pombe, was the original source from which
Schizosaccharomyces pombe was isolated. That's one clue as to the
microbiology of these beers. However, their tartness is probably due to
lactobacilli. Although I don't think that Brettanomyces is known to be
involved, it is interesting to note that the ATCC has Brett isolates
that came from equipment at Sorghum Beer Breweries (South African, I
think). Gee, with a few substitutions we could easily make shakporo, or
would that be p-shakporo.
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 10:24:22 CDT
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Wild fermentations
Kinney writes:
>Some of you know that the tart, Belgian style ales I've been brewing at
>Cottonwood (formerly Tumbleweed) are innoculated with a Pediococcus culture
>I discovered in a 5 year old keg of homebrew that was stuck in a dark
>corner of my basement. I've never scoped or streaked this critter out so I
>have no idea what it really is. All I know is it imparts a crisp tartness
>to the beer. Compared to a lambic, it's one dimensional. But it stands
>well on its on, just as it is.
Coincidentally, I found a one-year-old keg with some dregs in the bottom
that had a similar nice sourness and a slightly horsey aroma. I always keep
some sterilized vials around so I opened five or six and poured the dregs
in. I do plan to brew something with this in the future. I too have no
idea what it is, but have taken some steps in finding out. Via Spencer
Thomas, I gave two vials to Dan McConnell in the hopes that maybe something
interesting will be plated out. If it is Dekkera (formerly known as
Brettanomyces) perhaps it can be called "Dekkera paloshillsiae?"
>I know a couple of people in this forum have tried similar experiments. I,
>for one, would like to hear how these wild beers developed. I'll be
>tasting this batch when we keg and will report back at that time. I'm
>hoping to achieve a more complex tartness with this method. How would
>some of you describe the beers that were fermented in like manner?
I left a hydrometer sample out in my kitchen and it took on the typical
phenolic aroma of some of the beers I used to make in the summer before I
got the filtered aeration system. The phenolic aroma lasted a few weeks
and then went away. Eventually, the beer smelled quite horsey and tasted
decidedly lactic. The moral of this story is that you should not give up
on it just because it has become phenolic especially if you have some
Dekkera yeast and lactic bacteria which often munch on the byproducts of
other microbiota.
Al.
Palos Hills, IL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:25:19 -0700
From: Norman Dickenson <norman.dickenson at sonoma.edu>
Subject: Blending
Subject: Time: 11:06 AM
OFFICE MEMO Blending Date: 4/24/96
In LD #834, Kinny Baughman said in reference to the soured beers
produced in his brewery,
>If you let it go long enough, it'll get
>as tart as you can stand! I always have to blend it with a newer beer to
>get the tartness level down to an "accessible" range for the palates of
>our customers. I now fully appreciate the art of blending new beers with
>old.
While sipping on a 750 ml bottle of Lindeman's Cuvee Rene recently
(you haven't lived until you've sucked down a whole bottle of this
by yerself), I focused on the residual sweetness left in this product
which very nicely balanced it's sourness. This bottle was dated 1994.
My personal experiences with Pediococcus and Brettanomyces in producing
plambics is that the product goes bone dry and becomes quite sour.
I too can appreciate what blending can do.
My question is, how does one stabilize such a blended beer so that it
doesn't continue to ferment out dry. The obvious answer is
pasteurization. Anybody out there know anything about how Lindeman's
achieves this flavor profile or have other ideas about stabilizing
a sour beer? Any comments about what is blended in? Given their extensive
experience with sweetened framboise and kriek, I suspect C R is pasteurized
as well. Anyone out there developed a process to pasteurize beer
at the homebrew level?
-norman-
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
