1885 article on Berliner Weisse

Discussion in 'Beer Talk' started by Crusader, May 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. herrburgess

    herrburgess Grand Pooh-Bah (3,077) Nov 4, 2009 South Carolina
    Pooh-Bah

    I can understand about the (lack of) knowledge about Brettanomyces, but would sanitation still have been so poorly understood and/or so much of a concern for these brewers 20 years after pasteurization (and more than 100 years after artificial refrigeration) that their beers were in danger of spoiling that quickly? I know Gose was rather temperature-sensitive -- the way it was typically served especially required some deft cellarmanship. Was it the same for Berliner Weisse?
     
    #21 herrburgess, May 12, 2014
    Last edited: May 12, 2014
  2. WhatANicePub

    WhatANicePub Zealot (712) Jul 1, 2009 Scotland

    herrburgess likes this.
  3. herrburgess

    herrburgess Grand Pooh-Bah (3,077) Nov 4, 2009 South Carolina
    Pooh-Bah

  4. unterhopft

    unterhopft Initiate (0) Dec 20, 2008 Minnesota

    The big difference with Berliner Weisse and other sour beers is the lack of a boil. Without that sterilization, you open the door to all sorts of other kinds of infections (ever smelled an dirty lauter tun in the middle of summer?). Producing good, consistent quality Weisse was a challenge, which lead to the introduction of the Francke method of kettle souring in 1906 that is used by a lot of craft brewers today. This was a way to produce a weisse of consistent sourness, then sterilize the beer before fermentation. It was there that the Brettanomyces was probably picked up in the wooden barrels and thrived with the lower pH . And Weisse was only served from heavy stone crocks or bottles, not on draft, but they too required a certain amount of skill to pour as the carbonation would continue to build in the bottle.
     
  5. herrburgess

    herrburgess Grand Pooh-Bah (3,077) Nov 4, 2009 South Carolina
    Pooh-Bah

    Thanks for all the info. I assume that even after the Franke method was introduced, the traditional processes of lautering, krausening, and/or blending were still, to a large degree, retained by Berlin brewers (including but not limited to Schultheiss)?

    EDIT: Actually it looks like the Doerfel piece from 1947 answers my question(s), assuming they aren't talking exclusively about Schulheiss....
     
  6. nogophers

    nogophers Initiate (0) Jun 28, 2011 Minnesota

    Right on. Besides, isn't there only one Berlin brewery left that brews Berliner weisse (Schultheiss)? To ignore the copy cats would leave you with few options.

    BTW, I love what Schell's does with their limited release BW's. Better than New Glarus by multiples.
     
  7. unterhopft

    unterhopft Initiate (0) Dec 20, 2008 Minnesota

    Thanks. We make ours as traditional as possible, and I think that makes a big difference.
     
  8. patto1ro

    patto1ro Pooh-Bah (2,084) Apr 26, 2004 Netherlands
    Pooh-Bah

    Schönfeld described in great detail the interaction of yeast and lactobacillus in the fermentation, but it wasn't until the 1980's that the role of Brettanomyces was recognised.
     
    JackHorzempa, azorie and cavedave like this.
  9. Crusader

    Crusader Pooh-Bah (1,725) Feb 4, 2011 Sweden
    Pooh-Bah

    I found an interesting table containing two analyses of Berliner Weisse from 1878 which I thought I'd share.

    1. Berliner Weisse
    Stammwürze: 12.67
    Alcohol: 4.87% abv
    Extract: 4.85

    2. Berliner Weisse
    Stammwürze: 10.94
    Alcohol: 4.1% abv
    Extract: 4.28

    Those analyses are thus 7 years older than the 1885 article referenced in the OP. With the two wort strenghts of 10.94 and 12.67, one can see how the author in the OP would find the average to be 12 if various samples showed wort strenghts within a range similar to the two samples above.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.