When is a ‘beer flaw’...not a flaw?

Yup, in correspondence with Peter he was the one who informed me that the whole acetaldehyde in Budweiser 'story' is false. He even provided to me the values of acetaldehyde they measure in Budweiser and those values are well below the threshold of perception.

Cheers!

 

One needs to know the styles and what is allowed in a style. So as with most things, it depends.

The Czechs don’t object to Diacetyl, the Czeck beers can have it. British beers can have it at low levels.

Phenolics are usually a flaw, except it is part of the character in German Wheat beers as the clove.

DMS is usually a flaw, but besides Rolling Rock, it ok at low levels in pale lagers.

Some sulfur is also ok in Pilsners and other German beers at low levels.

 

That myth still has those that believe it.

 

Jeff, it just goes to show that myths die hard (despite the internet age we live in today).

Cheers!

 

Green bottle saisons. Give em the ol' Skunk n Funk

 

I can only barely detect DMS, so I'm willing to let that one slide as a result

 

Yeah, Yuengling was pretty small at the dawn of what would become the "craft era" - looks like they were the 4th smallest brewery in PA the year before F & M Schaefer would open it's Lehigh Valley brewery and become the largest in the state:


Damn, even Mt Carbon (also in Pottsville) brewed more beer that year (a few years later, Yuengling bought their "Bavarian" brand when they shutdown).

As such, Yuengling seems to have left (or, at least, weren't well represented) in the immediate Phila. region at some points in the late 1950s- early 1970s - previously, after Repeal into the early '50s, they even had their own Branch distribution warehouse in the city (at 2623 W. Sergeant St.).

Yuengling stayed pretty small into the late 1980s, when their own promo material noted that fully 50% of the sales were in "...Schuylkill and Carbon counties, as well as parts of Berks and Northumberland counties" with only 10% of the sales were outside of Eastern PA.

Black & Tan sold so well that by the 1990s they couldn't handle the added production so they actually had Stroh contract-brew some of the B&T at the former Schaefer brewery (now operated by Boston Beer Co.) outside Allentown.

 

I think a helpful way to look at this from a broader perspective is to realize that the difference between fermentation and spoilage, in macro view, is fermentation has a taste large numbers of people like, spoilage has a flavor most people don't like and/or a poisonous property to the resultant product. Beer, basically, is spoiled grain, only it isn't poisonous, and has a taste many folks like.

Since beer isn't and cannot be poisonous in almost all possible circumstances, it is only the tastes of the beer that can be considered flaws. There is no inherent thing that is a flaw that isn't related to a flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, or appearance of the product that not enough people like to prevent it from being considered a flaw.

 

Thanks for the 'post-modern hippie' perspective .

 

This is certainly true most of the time, but it is not as hard and fast a rule as we are lead to believe.

https://suigenerisbrewing.blogspot.com/2014/02/fact-or-fiction-can-pathogens-survive.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24674433

 

So you're leaving it up to the consumer to determine what is flawed and what isn't?

 

So, almost all the time it cannot be poisonous in almost all possible situations? I assumed "almost all the time" was implied when I said "almost all possible situations", but thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

On reflection I've become even more certain that in addition to keeping customers happy this is one of the key issues in deciding whether something is or is not a flaw in brewing. For example, diacetyl is sometimes a flaw and it is sometimes not, depending on the style of the beer and the amount of diacetyl present. So, as you say, control and consistency are important.

As customers we value consistency between our expectations and what we actually get. If I have had your beer and enjoyed it, I don't want to revisit it and find that it has a very different or objectionable aroma/flavor profile every time I try it.

While I'm personally willing to spend my money on an occasional crap shoot I want it to be when I'm deliberately trying something new and know it's a crap shoot. I don't want a crap shoot when I'm having a repeat of something I liked and have certain expectations of what I'll find.

 

No problem. Should I also clear up your ridiculous statement about beer being spoiled grain or are you OK with that one, too?

 

No, not that I or any force on earth could stop you.

I should warn you that it was my ancestor, N'gambo, who discovered after he'd left a bowl of grain out in the rain in front of the cave that later it tasted pretty good and made him feel great when he drank it. It caught on pretty well too, with many great strides that improved on, but didn't change, the basic idea of that first spoiled bowl of grain

So yeah have at it.

 

Hahaha. You're right. In all seriousness, though, all I wanted to do was share some information and perspective on that oft repeated adage that "nothing bad can survive in beer".

 

Not exactly... if you quoted my full statement I think it's clear what I'm arguing....

As long as you are part of society you are walking that slippery slope. It's unavoidable. The hivemind of society to decides these things and you are just a cog in an incredibly complex and terribly inefficient social machine. It's a messy process. You can form your own opinions and and speak out as you see fit to exert control on greater society's views, but no one individual or sub-group will have the final say.

 

But it is, isn’t it? “The dose makes the poison.”

This thread’s topic pops up on these forums in one form or another every other day. It’s a good one because it is both metaphysical and immediately practical. It brings to question authority figures, consumer protections, power of the majority...

I have conflicting opinions on it, but one thing I don’t think is that we should throw away every style and parameters to appease outliers. If you love Rolling Rock, cool, but that shouldn’t make something that was long accepted to be a flaw suddenly a-ok.

We don’t have any mandated standards here, so we rely on commonly and historically accepted flaw identification and style guidelines to protect consumer interests and product expectation.

If you enjoy something ‘flawed’ or ‘outside the guidelines’, own it! I don’t get the idea behind purposely breaking the rules and then complaining that the rules don’t include you. It would be like the Ramones creating punk rock and then complaining that radio stations didn’t take them as serious as Pink Floyd...

 

Hell yeah, and if a condition gets more pronounced over a short period of time (or 'worse' ) then it's definitely a f-up.

Btw, my batting average with NEIPASs over the past year isn't so hot- around a third have had diacetyl issues. No more risk taking for me, I've done my time and the freshness attraction doesn't make up for it.

 

Correct me if I've misinterpreted you, but you're basically saying that there is a certain fluidity to things that must be taken into consideration when you are defining them.