Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0955
Return-Path: postmaster at engr.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 CAA06117 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 02:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA19191 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 02:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2)
with X.500 id CAA03897; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 02:58:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2)
with SMTP id CAA03892; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 02:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA14963 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:30:11 -0600
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:30:11 -0600
Message-Id: <199610040630.AAA14963 at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
From: lambic-request at engr.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here)
To: lambic at engr.colostate.edu
Reply-to: lambic at engr.colostate.edu (postings only - do not send subscription requests here)
Errors-to: lambic-request at engr.colostate.edu
Subject: Lambic Digest #955 (October 04, 1996)
Lambic Digest #955 Fri 04 October 1996
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
RE: Lambic Digest #954 (October 03, 1996) ("T.Matera")
Mysteriosus lampshadus/oak cask (Algis R Korzonas)
Phil Seitz (Algis R Korzonas)
Father Barleywine's aphorisms (Todd Gierman)
Send article submissions only to: lambic at engr.colostate.edu
Send all other administrative requests (subscribe/unsubscribe/change) to:
lambic-request at engr.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 engr.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 engr.colostate.edu).
A new FAQ is under construction at:
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb/lambic/lambic.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:08:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T.Matera" <573125 at xavier.xu.edu>
Subject: RE: Lambic Digest #954 (October 03, 1996)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 10:33:39 CDT
From: korzonas at lucent.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Mysteriosus lampshadus/oak cask
I think I've got a culture growing of something related to the
pellicle Russell has. Remember the one he wants to make a
lampshade out of? Well, I've taken to leave hydrometer samples
out for two or three days every time I brew and one of them (now
in a 500ml Erlenmyer has grown a most impressive pellicle. It
looks as if it is at least three different life forms. Two of
them are "floating" on the starter wort and one is "hovering" above
those two. No kidding. Of the two floaters, the bottom one
is medium brown and maybe a millimeter thick. The second one up
is tan and about 1/4" thick. The "hovering" culture looks like
stretched a stretched out cotton ball or white cotton candy and
is crawling up the walls of the Erlenmeyer. I don't think that
these are aerobic cultures because there's an airlock on the
flask and I'm pretty sure it's been filled all the time. It was
exposed to air only the first three days. I've got a website now
(with nothing on it) so perhaps I can take a photo of it and
put it on the website someday soon. Too small for a lampshade,
perhaps I can make an eyepatch out of it?
Here's a question... I bought a 20gallon American Oak cask a few
months ago. I've written to Jean-Pierre asking how I should
prepare it for use (understanding that this is American White
Oak and not European as J-P uses). I've yet to hear back from
him, so I've filled it with plain water and have been changing
the water every week. I have been smelling a glass of the water
that I dump and it has never smelled very oaky. In five weeks,
I think I've put four changes of water through it. None were
even 10% as oaky as Rodenbach Grand Cru. I even wondered if
perhaps I had not gotten European Oak in stead of American, so
I called L.D.Carlson and they said, nope... "made in the US from
American White Oak." Okay, fine, but having tasted Mike's
raspberry-oakbranch pLambic, I wonder if mine will taste
similarly. How long was that "oakbranch" batch in the cask
Mike? Did you treat the cask any way before use? Perhaps
a week is simply not enough to impart much character? I'm
thinking of first doing a Rodenbach Grand Cru clone and simply
taking samples until it's the right amount of oakiness...
if it's a month, okay... if it's a year, okay... if it's 3
years, okay... (if it takes more than a year, I think I'll
buy a couple more because I want higher "throughput").
I believe that I want to get most of the oakiness out of the
cask before I start making pLambic/pLambiek in it.
Comments?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 10:47:32 CDT
From: korzonas at lucent.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Phil Seitz
Phil--
Where are you? Email me at korzonas at lucent.com, korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
or korz at xnet.com . Sorry for the bandwidth use.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:50:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Gierman <tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Father Barleywine's aphorisms
I politely take issue with a number of points raised by Richard Ransom in
resoponse to a question regarding the propagation of multi-strain
cultures. Not that these points are invalid, but that I have an entirely
different perspective. Never one to believe in absolutes (or a single
way), I hate to leave budding aphorisms unchecked.
> > Date: Wed, 2
Oct 1996 12:14:13 -0600 > From: rransom at msu.edu (Richard F. Ransom)
> Subject: Re: Culturing Multiple yeast strains
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 08:18:17 Anthony Accardi <Greenrhino at aol.com> wrote (>):
>
> >Is there a standard practice for culturing multiple yeast strains as
> >opposed to pure cultures?
>
> In a nutshell, no. Almost all microbiological techniques are oriented to
> separating out and culturing single strains of organisms, not culturing a
> mixed crop of yeast and bacteria.
Although there is no clear standard, my perspective is that your best bet
is to maintain as a liquid culture. You may readily lose something when
picking from a plate. However, few cultures are worth carrying in this
manner (as a mixed liquid culture). Viable bottle cultures from _some_
(and the number appears to be ever dwindling) bottles of lambic (e.g.
Cantillon and perhaps DeTroch, and Hansens if you can get it) are one
type where it probably pays to just keep it intact. For instance, I keep
some old Boon and Cantillon bottle cultures as mixed, cryo-preserved
stocks. Although I have separated out many of the individuals from each,
I still use the mixed culture to seed p-lambics along with various other
individual strains. Maintaining the dregs of your fermenting p-lambics
between batches is one way to propagate at least the organisms required
for secondary, tertiary (etc) fermentation. Mixed
bacterial and S. cerevisiae cultures are another example that are best
left as a mixed culture (unless you have the tools and insight for
separation and propagation of individuals). Lactobugs (rods or cocci)
are fairly tricky to culture as indviduals, but often do well as part of
a mix.
> >How can you be sure that the cultured
strains are in the > >same proportion as the mother?
>
> You can't. The Belgians do it by opening the windows during a certain time
> of the year to inoculate with wild organisms, but it's simply impossible to
> get the same proportions of organisms in your beer. You _could_ set up pure
> cultures of each of the organisms, grow them up in until they're in log
> phase growth in liquid culture, and spike your wort with them at various
> times, but even then you'd get variations from batch to batch. And this
> isn't the way the Belgians do it...they open the windows, "pitch" the wort,
> and then ferment it for a while under conditions that favor Brettanomyces.
> After that they cask it and let it sit through near-ambient temps, leading
> to bacterial blooms in the summer and a funky series of different yeast and
> bacterial fermentations. First the yeast hit it, then a couple bacteria,
> then yeast, etc.
Well, this is how most people pretty much go about setting up their
p-lambic fermentations. It's pretty hard to control such a diverse lot
of microbes.
> >Will each yeast strain grow to its ideal number when pitched?
>
> No.
Ahhh, Pilgrim...What is the ideal number? This is where things get
really mystic. I don't know what the sound of one hand clapping is, but I
suspect that the sound of two hands clapping is the sound of redundancy.
> >I'm concerned with keeping a rodenbach strain viable,
> >which reportedly is made up of 5 different yeasts. Does a mixed
> >culture end up even close to where it started as far as proportions?
>
> No, and that's part of the problem with working with a mixed culture, and
> particularly with culturing from a bottle. Most Belgian beers are fermented
> with a mixed culture, and are often pitched with a completely different
> yeast for the in-bottle fermentation. The only yeast strain cultured from a
> bottle that I ever found to be even vaguely like the yeast used to make the
> beer was from a bottle of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.
Not true. Not true. Well, maybe this is a true experience, but it isn't
the only one. First of all, though, if you have an authentic 5 strain
Rodie culture then you don't really have an authentic Rodie culture.
That 5-strain b.s. appears to be the second biggest marketing fallacy since
Michael Jacksons interpretation of the fermentation process for Orval.
Furthermore, it's really hard to know how many yeast strains are used for
the production of various beers. I'll wager that far more beers are
fermented with single strain yeasts than not.
Here are some Belgian beers whose bottle cultures appear to do a pretty
good job (some are multi-strain, some are single):
Cantillon
Boon (not any more)
Hoegaarden (still?)
Blanche de Brugge
Blanche de Neige
Duvel (now pasturized)
Affligem Dubbel
Chimay Blue and Red (may be different now)
LaChouffe (for sure)
Straffe Hendrik
Dentergems
Lucifer
Orval (inconsistent)
LaBinchoise
Saison DuPont
DeDolle (variable)
Rochefort
And others
> In other words, it's a pain in the ass. I would suggest fermenting with it,
> saving an occasional aliquot from the early fermentation and propagating it
> fairly often so that you've got a good, viable sample of the early mix, and
> then using a mix of this and the late fermentation organisms to start the
> next batch. Or just use your current culture and watch it evolve and
> develop for your specific conditions, and don't worry about trying to
> replicate Rodenbach.
>
Don't expect perfection. Expect adventure. Forget the "Rodenbach"
culture would be my final advice. You will likely have better luck
approximating Rodenbach with the following: S. cerevisiae (primary),
Lactobacillus delbruckii or Pediococcus sp., one or two Brettanomyces
yeasts and maybe 1-2 years time. Of course, if you can carry a couple
dozen different fermentations for blending your chances for success will
have increased.
Todd
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
