Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0881
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 DAA00249 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 03:05:01 -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 DAA16113 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 03:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3)
with X.500 id DAA28692; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 03:04:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.3)
with SMTP id DAA28688; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 03:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA27435 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:30:08 -0600
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:30:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199606280630.AAA27435 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 #881 (June 28, 1996)
Lambic Digest #881 Fri 28 June 1996
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re: Lambic Digest #879 (June 26, 1996) (Paladin II Limited)
Drink more cyanide (Rick Bodishbaugh)
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: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:45:10 -0400
From: Paladin II Limited <paladin at westnet.com>
Subject: Re: Lambic Digest #879 (June 26, 1996)
At 12:30 AM 6/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>Lambic Digest #879 Wed 26 June 1996
>
>
> Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
> Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
>
>
>Contents:
> Brettanomyces contamination (Todd Gierman)
> More on Orval and brett. contaminations (Scott Bickham)
> more on cherries (Daniel S. McConnell)
> Re: Lambic Digest #878 (June 25, 1996) (Mike Sharp)
>
>
>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, 25 Jun 1996 10:01:18 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Todd Gierman <tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu>
>Subject: Brettanomyces contamination
>
>
>Scott mentions problems with Brettanomyces contamination.
>
>I can't remember whether I have mentioned it in this forum, but I, too,
>have discovered Brett contamination in 4 consecutive batches in the past
>year. It was the fourth batch that made me suspicious enough to go
>searching. The Brett was easy to find in this one. Signs in previous
>batches included: slow but continuous carbonation of beer, in spite of
>releasing pressure in the kegs on several occasions, and the development
>of off flavors if the beer sat longer than 3-4 weeks. The 4th batch had
>off flavors early on and I suspect that my starter contained some Brett -
>I had used wort transfered and frozen from previous batches without
>reboiling it.
>
>I suspect that some Brett resides in my racking cane and tubing. The
>simplest solution is to not use these items when racking non-Brett
>beers. It's easier to get a new cane and some tubing than to clean up
>the old, which may not be very effective.
>
>I don't find the Brett contribution to be very intriguing when I hadn't
>intended for it to be there. However, I agree with Scott that one is
>more likely to get off-flavors not usually associated with lambic.
>Interestingly, a friend used a large starter from the primary of my 4th
>batch to brew an ESB. This beer took 1st in its category at two
>separate, but local, competitions held several months apart. When I
>tasted it, I noticed a subtle off-flavor. More noticeable Brett
>contributions were the stripped out body and the high level of
>carbonation. So, the moral of the story is: Brett may adversely affect
>your beer style, but don't worry, because the beer still has a chance to do
>well in competition :-)
>
>Todd
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
>Subject: More on Orval and brett. contaminations
>
>There's more to the story, and I'll clarify some of my comments. The
>source of the brettanomyces was a coupling between my oxygen tank
>and the plastic airstone. There is also lactic acid bacteria present, as
>evidenced by the sour dunkelweizen I just kegged and recategorized as an
>Oud Bruin (a pretty good one, at that). I normally aerate before I
>pitch my yeast, but when I brewed 10 gallons of fresh wort to
>pitch onto 5 gallons of fermenting pLambic, I aerated the mixture
>and the brett. and pedio found a home in the tubing. Of course this
>propagated to my carboys and kegs, and because I used the airstone for
>other worts, they eventually became contaminated. The flavors that
>resulted were textbook: hoppy beers were resistent to the lactic acid
>bacteria, but were a good environment for the brettanomyces, while
>the lactobacillus feasted on the residual sugars in the low hopped
>worts. By lowly hopped, I would say 20-25 IBUs max, while the
>brett. was dominant when there is >35 IBUs.
>
>While I'm at it I'll respond to the person who inquired about
>continuous fermentation and viability. He mentioned that he was
>unable to find much viable yeast or bacteria in the sediment,
>which is surprising because there are certainly enough to ferment
>the sugars in the fruit that is added after a couple of years,
>and there are viable organisms in the dregs of some commercial
>lambics. I have done some experiments with continuous fermentation,
>and while the resulting beers ferment down below 1.004 and taste
>okay, they do not seem to have enough complexity, at least after
>9 months. I think the problem is that the fermentation is too
>rapid for the slow growing lactobacilli and brettanomyces to make
>much of an impact on the flavor. There is some brett. flavor,
>but it comes across as mousey rather than barnyard (and yes, I have
>lived on a farm). The acid levels also seem a little low, but they
>do improve with age and when fruit or another source of sugar is
>added. At this point, I will put the demijohn in a corner and see
>what happens, but if it needs some corrections, I will blend
>it with 5 gallons that have ben fermented with only brettanomyces
>and lactobacillus.
>
>My next installment with discuss my latest trick - high gravity
>pLambic brewing!
>
>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, 25 Jun 1996 11:34:59 -0500
>From: danmcc at umich.edu (Daniel S. McConnell)
>Subject: more on cherries
>
>From: msharp at synopsys.com (Mike Sharp)
>
>>On the subject of cherries, Belle Vue uses "Groechem" (sp?) cherries. I
had an
>>excellent kriek made of these while I was sampling my way through
>>their cellars last year.
>
>Other varieties to look for are Oblacinska and Stevnsbar (available on a
>very limited basis in the US). These are old world varieties used to make
>kirsch and have fruit chemistry similar to the Westerlesse Kriek. (percent
>malic
>acid = 1.77) and just slightly higher in soluble solids (16.5 [vs.
Montmorency at
>13]), very likely has similar color, and also has seeds in the pits.
>
>DanMcC
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 08:32:05 PDT
>From: msharp at synopsys.com (Mike Sharp)
>Subject: Re: Lambic Digest #878 (June 25, 1996)
>
>
>Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil> writes:
>> Subject: Traditional fruits
>>
>> Thanks to Mike S. for correcting my comment that peaches are "more
>> traditional" than some of the others used in the soda pop lambics.
>> More common would be closer to the mark, although we shouldn't get
>> in the trap of being narrow-minded about what fruits and spices are
>> traditional in Belgian ales.
>
>OK, first and foremost, I think everyone should be free to experiment
>as they wish.
>
>Certainly I won't disagree with peche being "common" since Timmermans,
>Lindemans, St.Louis and other brands all have a peche version now.
>If this interests you, go for it -- you'll probably need extracts
>to get an assertive flavor/aroma, but I'll leave that for another post.
>
>
>On to the question you posed...
>
>> ...while most fruit lambics are
>> made with cherries or raspberries, others have certainly been used over the
>> long history of lambic brewing. While we can certainly say that certain
>> aspects of the brewing and fermentation process are traditional,
>> what the Belgians add to the secondary is another ballgame. With so
>> many peach orchards in the low countries, my guess is that Lindeman's
>> is not the first brewer to experiment with using them in lambics. So
>> what defines a fruit as being traditional?
>
>While it is certainly conceivable that some Belgian somewhere put
><insert fruit/spice of choice> in lambic somewhere in the time of Breugel,
>this doesn't make something common practice. In my opinion, an
>act can be considered "traditional" if its generally accepted by those
>of a given craft (not amateurs attempting to recreate it) and has been
>done in that manner a sufficiently long time that those currently
>practicing the craft cannot recall when it was done
>otherwise. (i.e. my father's father did it this way...)
>
>>From Webster's
> tradition: ... 3. the delivery of opinions, doctrines, practices,
> rites, and customs from generation to generation by oral
> communication. 4. a statement, opinion, or belief handed down
> orally from one generation to another.
>
>A good example of "tradition" that doesn't relate to fruit is the
>spontaneous fermentation of lambics. I don't think anyone here will
>argue this point.
>
>Lambic, Gueuze, Faro, and Kriek all fit this definition as they predate the
>memories of the current brewers, there is historical evidence of their
>having been made, and the current brewers all accept these as styles
>widely made by their predicessors.
>
>More recent arrivals are Framboise (though generally having been
>accepted now -- does anyone have the date? I think it was in the 60s?
>Martin?), Cassis (black current, Mort Subite), Peche (Lindemans),
>Apple (Cantillon as an experiment only), Plum Strawberry Banana Pineapple
>(DeTroch). Some of these varieties are now being made by more than one
>brewer.
>
>Sure, perhaps some knowledge has been lost. I'm willing to accept that.
>After all, we lost all evidence of the space aliens that helped build
>the pyramids.
>
>(-8 sorry, just had to put that in. 8-)
>
>Yes, its possible that knowledge has been lost, but as much as I can't
>disprove the possibility, nobody can prove its existence. We're stuck.
>The best we can do is say that it _could_ have been done because the
>materials where at hand. This, however, doesn't make for a traditional
>practice, just possible practice.
>
>> I don't know, but as Will Durant
>> once pointed out (I could have the numbers wrong), "95% of history is
>> guesswork, the rest is prejudice."
>
>Interesting quote. I assume it was meant to be applied to historical
>events on which we can't question a group of individuals who experienced
>them. Lets play with this anyway...
>
>Is it a guess that the existing brewers inherited the styles they know?
>
>Is it a guess that certain combinations, previously unavailable, have
>appeared within our own lifetimes?
>
>Is it prejudice to not consider a historical possibility (i.e. no evidence)
>to be tradition?
>
>Is it prejudice to separate that which we have evidence for from that which
>we believe might have been?
>
>If we confuse that which we have evidence for with that which we believe
>might have been aren't we doing a disservice to researchers who follow?
>
>
>
>I'll leave these as points to ponder. Lets not rat-hole this any further.
>
>This has been fun. We should have philosophical debates more often...
>
> --Mike (in the mood to debate I guess...)
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>End of Lambic Digest
>************************
>-------
>
please
unsubscribe
please cancel our subscription
_______________________________________________________________________
Stan Sheppard - Paladin II Limited - 400 Toni Ln - Mamaroneck, NY 10543
paladin at westnet.com -- Phone: (914) 777-3000 -- Fax:(914) 381-2756
_______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:58:27 -0400
From: Rick Bodishbaugh <dfb at yrkpa.kias.com>
Subject: Drink more cyanide
>From LD#878:
> From the MSDS for Sodium Cyanide, we get these LD-50s:
>
> TOXICITY: LD50 (ORAL-RAT)(MG/KG) - 6.4
> LD50 (IPR-RAT)(MG/KG) - 4.3
> Assuming that Human toxicity is the same as Rat toxicity, the fatal
> dose for a 70kg human (154 lb) would be approximately 1/2 gram.
>
> I haven't been able to find the typical cyanide concentration in a
> cherry pit, but I'd assume it's in the PPM range. Even if it's in the
> PPT range, you'd have to consume close to 500g of cherry pits to get
> a fatal dose.
The news gets even better. The tox data above are for the sodium salt,
which yields 100% free cyanide ion (CN-) in solution. CN- is very toxic.
The cyanide in fruits and most other natural sources is virtually all bound
up into organic compounds, such as nitriles and cyanates, which are not so
toxic. The acid in your stomach and enzymatic digestion of the
organocyanide compounds will yield some CN-, but it will be far less than
100% of the quantity indicated by standard analytical methods which measure
total CN (all forms). So relax, don't worry, have another cherry pit. I
doubt you could eat enough to do any harm to yourself (at least from
cyanide), and you would certainly die from alcohol poisoning before cyanosis
from kriek consumption. Might be an interesting experiment though. Any
volunteers?
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
