Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Lactobacillus acetotolerans FWIW

 

I am not a scientist or a brewer, so this is just a layman's understanding of what was said.

It took a long time and a lot of effort to get the bacteria to grow. Once they knew how to identify it, they could only find it in the coffee and barleywine and could not find it in the regular or prop. Jared went on to say something like "but we all know how to test pH levels" and that clearly there is something going on with the regular and prop that most likely has something to do with the bacteria. Even though it is no longer alive in the beer they sampled, it could still have an effect.

 

So... Refunds round two?

 

So if it is no longer alive, why would it have taken so long for Prop and Regular to show issues? Dead bacteria shouldn't cause it to go sour over time, right?

 

Again, just someone with no experience going off of what was said. They absolutely did not find any live bacteria in regular. They realize something is clearly not right with regular. Science happens, the dead bacteria is a likely culprit.

 

The pod cast at the end said "stay tune for announcements on how GI is going to show their fans some love in all of this". So I assume that means some kind of reimbursement. I thought it was a very good explanation. only complained is that He didn't clearly say Drink all your Reg BCBS NOW!!!! or if only certain batches were affected.

 

Next to Nero, probably my least favorite Roman emperor. Talk about a Class A sourpuss.

 

I love that AB-InBev is paying for this kind of public relations.

 

This is interesting to me. Drank '15 BCBCS, '15 BCBBW, and '15 Prop together and they ALL had the same nose, were equally sour and had a metallic finish.

Would be odd for Prop & regular to be tainted by something else but have the same end result, or maybe not.

 

10/23 batch for me is sour as well.

Purchased in Los Angeles. Drank 1 within the first month, tasted fine. Opened one last week, tasted sour. Gave it to two other people and we all agreed it tasted off. I've drank a decent amount of BCBS over time (used to live in Chicago) and this was the first time it tasted way sour.

 

Going forward the problem will be, no matter how sincere or how much they go above and beyond to make things right, there will be a lot of cynicism given the price increases, bottle sizes, and AB-InBev connection.

And I don't care what they say or how unwilling they are to admit it, there are a lot of other brewers out there happy that GI is getting what they feel is its comeuppance (deserved or not).

 

No way. No way at all.

Brewers know better. AB-InBev distribution practices might be BS, and Goose might well be guilty by association, but none of that has anything to do with brewery operations like this. Goose Island is still run by Goose Island. The ABI stuff happens at a level well outside the walls of the brewhouse.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a brewer who, vocally or not, would be happy to see this happening to Goose.

 

Thanks for that.

 

It may not be dead at all, just not active until certain conditions occur. There are known instance in other situations of bacteria simply going dormant for long periods of time before they re-awaken and start doing damage. Given how new this one appears to be the labs might well have not known yet what to do to the cultures to "awaken" the bacteria.

@toastjeff

 

Actually given the information that is emerging I'd think that any brewer that has a barrel aging program in place is going to be scared s***less that it could happen to them as well.

 

Not OddSide..."Keep Refrigerated, Drink Fresh"

 

And we all know quite well that distributors, retailers, and beer geeks all take such comments quite seriously and do exactly that.

 

this was what i contemplated, possibly dormant.

i wish he spoke on what they originally perceived was the problem with coffee. i suspect the unusual coffee bean they went with complicated the matter, especially if they honestly dumped a large portion just on : "It tasted off" without finding a lab conclusion as to why : "It tasted off".

 

I've been assured by more than one of the BAs posting in this thread that lab testing is not needed as to tell why it is off and that taste is all that is needed to tell that it is infected.

My current guess about the question you raise is that there wasn't the same perceived need for the relatively expensive lab testing of each and every barrel that tasted off. I'd bet they (GI) are regretting that decision now, but I'd also guess that lots of barrel aging programs go first with "tasted off" since they typically feel they have the "educated" palate that will allow them to taste a problem and recognize it's source. But in this case they are apparently dealing with a bacteria that was only recently identified and they may simply have not known about it.

 

The breweries that flash-pasteurize their barrel-aged beers won't be scared.