Belgian Stout Beer Style

It’s not really about the country of origin, Belgian is a distinct style that happens to be from Belgium. Same with New England or India for pale ales. A New York pale ale doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as a New England pale ale. I personally find it annoying when breweries choose add the name of the country or state when naming beers when it doesn’t really call for it.

That aside, this thread just made me realize I’ve never had a Belgian style stout, sounds tasty.

 

I don't think that's an accurate comparison because English IPAs, West Coast IPAs, and New England IPAs are very different beers. They use traditionally use different types of malts, hops, and yeasts from each other. You're also putting the emphasis on/making light that the name of the region of origin is an absurdity for classification, but that's not what's important. Well, I mean, it is important, but it's also incidental. It's the fact that say, American (style) and Belgian (style) IPA will use a very different type of yeast that's important, because they're going to taste quite a bit different and inquiring beer purchasers are going to want to know that.

 

I understand that their recipes and flavors are different, but there is an infinite number of variations so if each is made a style, in time we'll have thousands. The question at hand is "what is the point of a style?". I believe the answer is to provide a limited number of styles based on a consistent and limited classifications system. Can you imagine the mess we'd have if animals were classified this way?

I envision no more than 20 main styles, and then a few dozen sub-styles. At least let's group stouts under porters, which is what they are. But there is no reason for NEIPA, Pumpkin Ale, etc. They would fit nicely under a descriptive and consistent style classification system. Right now we have 104 (plus or minus) styles, based on brewing method, color, country/region of origin, target market, adjuncts, flavor, ABV, etc. Folks propose new styles and classifications daily, which just hilites the confusion over the purpose of styles.

A glaring example are pumpkin beers. They could fall under Pumpkin Ale, Fruit/Vegetable, or even their base style which could be any of a dozen. If it's a lager, then it's a lager and if it's a porter then it's a porter - why call it a Pumpkin Ale style?

 

I will admit that the biggest problem would be defining what counts as a style as opposed to some slight variation of an already existing style. To that end, I don't know what the perfect method to determine a style would be. I admit that. But, something could probably be worked out. I just don't know if like that generic/simple of classifications because some styles, (particularly IPAs, but also sours and maybe saisons/farmhouse ales) can be so very different from one another that some amount of sub-categorization needs to exist, for the benefit of the consumer.

 

Fussing about beer styles when talking about Belgian beers is like provoking my step dad to talk about Korea and Scott Paper world-wide.

 

I'd suggest that this whole issue could be resolved quite simply by adding a short sentence to each existing stout description. E.G. "If Belgian yeast is used in brewing the beer expect some fruity flavors, such as dark fruits, as well."

Then there'd be no need for a whole set of new categories and it would be clearer that when the brewer calls it a stout of some kind it should in fact be entered into the stout category where it fits, e.g., an Oatmeal stout brewed with Belgian yeast would be an Oatmeal stout, not a Belgian Dark Ale.

 

It would appear to me using a key ingredient in any beer makes it a bit different, in this case Belgian Yeast to stout, it makes it worthy of being classified as its own style. At least as much and maybe more so than calling ipas a West Coast style, or increasing the hops and making it a Dipas. At least with NE style ipas they're adding some oatmeal to the brew to give it a creamy turbulent texture, it is different.

 

If changing an ingredient warrants a new style, then we're doomed to ultimately having thousands of styles, and styles will become more ambiguous and pointless than they already are. Why are folks so quick to suggest a beer warrants a new style when there are already several it should/could fall under? Does designating a new style somehow make it better or more distinctive? If it isn't a new style will it be confused with lesser beers? Besides having different ingredients, what makes a beer worthy of further propagating style proliferation?

 

Wheat beers are a seperate category because they use wheat and not barley. Classifying beers because of ingredients makes some sense, fruit, peppers etc. Agree there a ton of overlapping styles though. And styles by name only get tedious for competition purposes that's about it imo.

 

Playing devil's advocate here for anyone who wants to reply: The stout style is currently listed here on BA for American, English and Irish. If you purchase a stout that was brewed by a Belgian brewery without using a Belgian yeast because they want to showcase their brewing flexibility for their followers, and suppose "Belgian Stout' was listed as a choice here on the BA style list, and now you want to list that beer on the brewery's BA page, do you list it as a Belgian Stout?

 

I can remember stouts from belgium that had been already around before us breweries put "belgian yeast" in every style and called it "belgian something": Hercule Stout, De Dolle Foreign Export Sout,and then there is Noir de Dottignes by De Ranke, which may be labelled "belgium dark ale" but which also reminded me always a lot of a stout...
...and I bet there are more. The ones I mentioned are very different from one another because, guess what, belgians often don't really care about strict style "defnitions"..

 

No, because then it probably wouldn’t be a Belgian style beer, just a stout made in Belgium.

There wasn’t any real governing authority, it became recognized as a style because of its popularity and uniqueness, which prompted people to write articles like this https://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/15649/its-official-new-england-india-pale-ale-is-a-style/

Fact is there are tons of styles listed on this site and you might say some of them don’t warrant having their own category. New England IPAs are one of the most recognized new “styles” of beer right now. Beer Advocate doesn’t have it listed, yet it does list ones like “American Dark Wheat Ale”, so it’s all subjective.

 

Waaaaaaaaait a minute.
If an american brewer puts some "belgian yeast" in his stout beer, it becomes a belgian style beer, but if a belgian brewery brews a stout with local ingredients for their local market that does not have that stereotypical yeast flavour, it is not a belgian beer but a stout made in belgium?come on, please. so belgian style=the idea that americans have about belgian beers, not the way beers are actually made in belgium?

 

So in which category do you list it if you don't know any more info about the beer? This is the problem with too many categories.... too many of us don't know the info to try to be precise, yet we still jam a new beer into a category on a guess. Not that this is an earth-shattering situation, but we all like some accuracy. Classify it as a plain ol' stout, and then write in a review that you know it uses Belgian yeast or some other characteristic that makes it American, English or Irish. Sub-categories shouldn't be listed here on BA.

 

I’d say the stereotypical yeast flavour is a big part of what makes it a Belgian style but if the brewer was able to capture the style without using Belgian strains of yeast then of course I’d still consider it a Belgian.

 

What do you consider a sub-category? There has to be a balance between giving a good basis of the beer style and not being redundant.

 

You're right, there is not a "correct" answer. It would just be nice to have consistency between this site, other beer sites, beer judging organizations, etc.

I probably should have extended my above statement, 'Sub-categories shouldn't be listed here on BA" by adding 'without covering all bases'. That means that maybe there should be an Australian category, German category, etc. but that goes counter to the "balance" that you mention. But you could justify them because brewers in those countries are brewing IPAs using local malts and hops much like what justifies the existence of the English category. And those same English brewers are probably brewing American types of IPAs too. As consumers, we just don't know the ingredients often enough to be able to categorize the beer correctly if we are responsible to place them into the BA database. It all just opens Pandora's box to have inaccuracies in the records so that you can't really trust the info.

And I don't have a good definition for a sub-category because of the inconsistencies that exist now. For example, here in the US we have West Coast Style of IPA, a New England Style of an IPA, and we have American brewers making English-style IPAs as well as IPAs that don't fit any of those. So there is also a need for just an American IPA sub-category too. Maybe when all is said and done what we need is a Style, which is IPA, and then instead of 'sub-categories', how about if we just call them Types?