"100% Brett. Sours"

If someone is aware of what happens and how to brew, they would know that Brett will not make a beer "sour", in the way that beer drinkers view a sour. You can get some tartness, but generally, people will make sours with bacteria, not just brett.

You can make a sour with Sacch, and Lacto.. Such as a berliner, or gose.

You can make a sour with Sach, Lacto, and Brett.

If you make it sour with Pedio, then most people also use Lacto, and if you use Pedio, you want to use Brett to take care of the by products and ropey sickness, of Pedio.

So Pedio beers, usually ALL have Brett in them.

I however though, don't think it's any smoke and mirrors by breweries, more or less them just not needing to name off their bacteria. They can ferment a beer 100% of the way with a brett culture. And then sour it with Pedio and Lacto later in the process. More of a play on words, and not feeling the need to explain something complex to the masses.

 

Science IS awesome! Is this the beer geek equivalent of sports science? Love it.

 

I agree, but as pendantic as it is to note that any lactic acid production via conversions of sugars makes it not "100%" fermented, is just as pendantic to argue the labeling as a "100% Brett" Ale.


I've done, and other breweries as well, have done a sour mash, or sour wort. Depending on what wild stain present of lacto, you can get an anerobic or aerobic strain. One will eat sugars present, and the other will not. Both will give you lactic acid from their production.

If I then boil, killing said lacto, and ferment with a sacch, or even brett strain, I would technically have a 100% Sacch or Brett fermented beer, and it will be sour. It wouldn't be a lie, as the bulk of my fermentation when I deem to have "pitched" the bulk yeast to do the main fermentation.

To me, thats little difference of when a brewery will ferment with brett, and then sour after.

It's science, and it's fun, but at the core of your arguement, is the labeling that the issues arises. Not really a lie, and not really the full scientific truth to the beers. A brewery has to add all kinds of things to a label per the guidelines for the gov't, such a added flavors that don't completely spell the truth, for better or worse.

But, for what it's worth.. I don't feel it's widespread. I've had some Allagash beers that are 100% brett fermented, or with Brett added, and no sign of any sourness. While some beers are sour, and make no note of any Brett.

 

Neat, I like your approach.

Also interesting, but I have the sense you're playing more devil's advocate rather than describing a real commercial brewing situation? And still I'd argue that a sour mash or wort followed by Brett fermentation isn't 100% Brett-fermented, as we're using 'fermentation' to signal which bi-products of fermentation to expect the beer to taste of, rather than using it out of some, say, philosophical interest in knowing the full fermentation 'step' was performed by Brett yeast.

Also as a note of curiosity, do you know of commercial beers that do a sour mash?


edit:

you beat me to it!

 

@cookiequiz

I am playing a bit of devils advocate. As someone who is into science, who holds a job dealing with chemisty/chemicals, and who also brews on the side, I find healthy debate in science fun, probably just like the OP.

He's completely correct in his assertations, that some brewerys will label a sour beer as 100% brett fermented. While, technically, they won't be. I know that, he knows that, and the brewery knows that at the core. The consumer, however, will not.

I completely get his stance that some people in the craft following will assume that brett means "funky and sour", which is NOT the case. I made a point to say, that people who aren't really, really into beers, who don't brew, or who don't understand yeast and bacteria used in beer, wouldn't know the difference. The average joe will assume that sour=brett, which in fact, it does not.

My point is, that while I understand the science, I understand the process, and understand the reasoning, I also understand the breweries point of view in keeping it layman, for the average consumer.

While a brewery may introduce some lactic acid via mashing with the wild lacto on grain in a sour mash, or sour their wort via grain or a commerical stepped strain of lacto, that some fermentation is taking place. With fermentation being considering any change in gravity, and/or any sugars reserves being used in the process. I still understand a brewery noting nothing on their labels about the strain used, or the process. Some do, and some don't.

If I brewed a berliner, one would assume that it's not a "funky" beer, but simply sour and used with a sacch strain of yeast. I could brew a berliner with brett complete, sour it in the traditional sour mash method. I wouldn't feel the need, nor think a brewery should explain their process to me on the label. I can be an ale, and labeled for the style.

One can assume lambics, wild ales, berliners, gose, fruited sours, flemish red, oud bruins, etc will be just that... wild, bacteria laden, and usually involve brett.

Brett isn't a bacteria though, and I think thats where the OP is trying to prove the point. It won't "spoil" a beer, but can spoil a breweries intentions on a beer!

That said.. plenty of breweries use a sour mash/wort method. CCB, Orpheus, Westbrook.. those are just immediately off the top of my head. They have the ability/equipment to sour a mash in a sour mash tun, monitor the pH level to where they want, and the move it to the BK, add their hop levels/adjuncts and ferment it with a strain of their choice, be it sacch or brett. It allows a brewery to offer a sour beer, without the worries of packaging, or introducing bacteria into their cold side process. Alot of homebrewers do this, or attempt to do this, to avoid contamination in their own brewhouses.

Point is.. it's a label issue, or an identification process. I'm a white male. My drivers license says so. The state didn't feel the need to spell out the specifics of my heritage. Similar idea.

 

Agreed, but I would also argue that the BULK of fermentation is where most brewers decide what it's by. If I did a wild ale, and it was bulk fermented with the wild brett and sacch, and lacto strains on the skins of a fruit, it would be labeled as so.

If I sour mashed it, and used a clean sacch strain to finish the fermentation after my pH drop, I wouldn't call it an american ale if it wasn't the style I was going for.

Wild yeast COULD ferment a beer even a point before the sacch/brett strain overcome it. With that idea, I could say many breweries would be in the wrong to call their beer clean, no?

FWIW, I appreciate you putting some smears on the dish of what you found, most drinkers would be horrified, even breweries horrified to see anything other than what they wanted on the dish. It happens, and usually doesn't cause any issues.

 

Sure.. so if you want to spread a bunch of beer on a dish.. I sour worted it with lacto, boiled it, killed the lacto and fermented with 100% brett brux...

Then put 100% Brett fermented on my bottle.

You'd find pretty much no lacto, unless it was loose in my brewhouse, and probably a very, very high percentage of brett.

Where would I be wrong legally to put on my bottle, "fermented with Brett"? The lacto was killed and didn't ferment my beer to the final gravity.

Feel free to keep wondering and posting about whats a labeling and issue with the breweries, and what they consider what their beers are.

While you are at it, lets argue breweries that call their beers stouts and porters too.

 

Most larger breweries will run a HPLC in their quality labs to assure they haven't pushed product, or previous product through the process and look for contamination. They also so the same with held bottles throughout the process to check against claims when people say they have infected bottles.

Doesnt mean they wouldn't label it whatever they want.

What about when a brewery says "natural flavors" as they have to add on a label per the regulations.. If it's vanilla, would you assume it's vanilla or beaver ass gland?

Regardless, you and I won't see eye to eye on the problem you have. It's a matter of educated drinkers, which isn't something the breweries should care a ton about. If I sells and people love it, and they like sour brett beers, then who's to complain.

It's a matter of breaking down semantics, and I'm with the brewers, no reason to spell out the process for the sake for the few who needs specifics.

 

My uncle is a chemist. He lives brewing. It a giant science experiment.

 

Whilst I can see both points of the argument, I don't like the idea of brewing a sour beer and putting "100% Brett" on the label if for only the reason that this will contribute to the continuing misinformation that Brett = Sour.

 

That labeling always bugs me...

More like, "100% Brett* sour.

(*Primary fermentation)"