While this sounds like a bad april fools joke, Tilquin will be releasing 'Petite Gueuze Tilquin' a 4% ABV canned gueuze. Tilquin brewery posted this on FB: Very happy to announce the release of our PETITE GUEUZE TILQUIN (4%) from this Saturday 21st of June. No April fool here, this is the first gueuze in a can ever ! Can-conditioned at 100%. This PETITE GUEUZE TILQUIN is a blend of 70% 1-year-old light Meerts and 30% 2-year-old lambics, all spontaneously fermented and matured in oak barrels. Unfiltered and unpasteurized, this beer was given 2 months to spontaneously refermented in the can. It will surely keep evolving but its ready to drink, super refreshing, ideal for the coming summer ! It was canned with the help of our friends from Brasserie Minne (Somme-Leuze). 12.000 cans were produced. It will be available at the blendery from this Saturday 21st of June. Distribution will then follow. Come to pick your 12-pack !
That's convenient for sure in size and likely price. I think it won't age long in cans, and would want to drink within 4 months if not two.
Why do you think that? From the OP: "Can-conditioned at 100%." "It will surely keep evolving..." Cheers!
Someone on BA recently wrote that the acidity of lambic would or could eat through the can liner as the reason why these types of beers only go into glass. Admittedly, I was skeptical of that claim, but that’s way out of my beer knowledge base.
I've seen people claim that you can't use soda as a comparison. There are a lot of factors at play: - different can linings (differences between various beer can linings and the differences between soda-grade can and beer-grade can linings) - titratable acidity - fermentation - lactic and acetic acid (organic) vs phosphoric acid (inorganic), carbonic acid (inorganic) and citric acid (organic) - alcohol - sulfer dioxide - additional ingredients (fruit, etc.) - time in the can - etc Brewing companies, can manufacturers, and consumers have all experienced can failures with acidic beer. The industry knows that the risk is there and some companies take precautions. It's not that it's an issue in every case, but it can be an issue. It could be an issue if Tilquin released this without having companies do corrosion testing for their product first. If this is imported to the US and the product is subjected to heat over time, then the potential for an issue increases accordingly. Side note - I'd also assume that this product has lower carbonation levels than what can be achieved with bottled gueuze, but I don't know what "Can-conditioned at 100%" means. This could be a great product, but I'm not the type who sees the definite upside to it. To each their own. @LAFreeway
Thanks for the post, you make a lot of good points. While this wasn’t your main point, it’s interesting to me that carbonic acid is considered inorganic. I think we tend to consider that things from nature are organic, while man made substances are inorganic, but I know it’s not that simple, you’ve given me some bed time reading.
Yeah, I've read that in a few places over the years but anytime I've Google it lately haven't found a trusted source. There was also the case of that PNW brewery/beer, "Church Key" whose gimmick was canning in steel cans with no "pop top" mechanism, so that an opener (aka "church key") was needed. Seems to me I recall they went out of business, in part, because the linings failed - but I'm not sure if it was the case of the lining not being compatible with the steel can or the beer. (I remember thinking, "What? The can company doesn't remember how to line steel cans?" I guess not.) Anyway, here's an interesting "science experiment" type of video about aluminum can lining (in this case, for pop cans) I figured I'd post the next time the topic of can linings came up:
I was wondering about the validity of soda-grade / beer-grade as actual terms used by the manufacturers. I have no idea if that's the case. I could see it possibly being terminology from an earlier time. I've also seen people talk about varying liner thickness, but I also have no idea if that's a real thing. Much of the talk of can lining today seems to be focused on the turn away from BPA due to health concerns. The older epoxy coating with BPA was considered to work relatively well. Then with the shift to BPANI Gen-1, people weren't happy with the performance. Now I think most US brewing companies use cans with BPANI Gen-2. An anecdote from Almanac Beer Co was that they were told from two can manufacturers that their BPANI cans (I don't know if they were Gen-1 or 2) would perform well with Almanac's sour beer. Fortunately, Almanac decided to do their own tests. They found that the BPANI lined cans from one manufacturer didn't perform properly with their sour beer, but the cans from the other manufacturer seemed to work fine.
