Ale vs Lager

From a practical brewing viewpoint it's true that there are two basic methods and for example ales and porters require similar skills, equipment and processes whereas lagers are different.It's logical that brewers should lodge ales and porters together.But this does not make them the same thing because it ignores the background. I don't call you all Canadians because you all come from North America , despite similarities your background sets you apart.

 

Keeping with the Kölsch concept - for those that have had a Wiess (unfiltered Kölsch) from the source - how potent are the esters for it?

 

Porters are part of the ale family of beer according to the vast majority of the beer world.

You can continue trying to convince us we're wrong and the British are right, but you may as well talk to your mirror. I don't think anyone else is listening.

 

Us Brits are always right.

This thread is the thread that keeps on threading.

 

Is there one web page or document that shows the British, German, and US/Homebrewing definitions of all of lager, ale, beer, porter, stout, etc. for reference and comparision?

It would be helpful to just point people to one place and give them see it all at one time.

 

Ron Pattinson is speaking at the NHC this year. Maybe he can straighten out all of the Homebrewers and the yeast vendors such as White Labs and Wyeast, on the difference. Or maybe not.

 

I wonder if he will start his presentation with: “I try to stay out of arguments with certain American homebrewers. The ones who lurk on beer forums. That's where you find all the self-appointed experts. People who've read a few homebrewing texts and think they know everything. I'm not calling every homebrewer a smug idiot. The majority aren't, I'm sure. Just the Homebrew Twats*.

Cheers!

 

Just to stir the pot a bit , another American example from the pre-Prohibition era, before the ale/lager division terminology became (near) universal here. From the Wahl-Heinus Institute's Beer Bottlers Handy Book (1906)
[bold font as in the original]:

Ale, Stout, Porter and Weiss Beer​

​

Properties, Compared to Lager Beer.​

These beers differ from lager beer principally in the taste and flavor. The differences are caused mainly by the type of yeast used in their fermentation, and partly by the method of manufacture. Ale, stout and porter are also called English beers, because they originated in England and are almost the only kind used there. Weiss beer is strictly a German beer.​

Top Fermentation​

The yeast with which these beers are fermented is called top fementing yeast, on which account the beers are also called top fementation beers.
The difference between the action of bottom fermenting, or lager beer yeast…, and top fermenting or (as usually called) ale yeast…​

 

Jack, I and others are looking forward to meeting Ron and listening to his talk. I am sure the AHA will welcome him, and he will have a good time at the NHC. It is always good to put a face to the name, and shake hands. People come off different in person, as opposed to the internet. Hey, you even met me last year at the Philly NHC!

 

What

What a wonderful concept you portray, that because the vast majority (where is your evidence for that by the way?) believe something it somehow becomes correct.Flat Earth anybody ? Believed by the vast majority at the time.
Another expression which suggests itself is "popular fallacy"
On the one hand is a mass of authentic documentation and a continuous thread, on the other "it just is"

Ron won't, I think, enter into the fray because he's tired of banging his head against a brick wall of people who would rather accept an unresearched statement than one which bears examination. I notice that Jesskidden seems to remain unconvinced, I quote "(Personally, I cringe a little when I read "Porter and stouts are ales" and I cringe a LOT when I see "German ales").Martyn Cornell has written on the subject.http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/look-will-you-all-stop-misusing-the-word-ale-thank-you/
These are three people who are probably the best informed and knowledgeable in the beer world. They speak from scholarship and research.

 

Jeff, I am also very much looking forward to meeting Ron and I had already posted about that in this thread:http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...philly-today-3-12-5-8-pm.160249/#post-2240404

"Hey, you even met me last year at the Philly NHC!" It was a genuine pleasure to meet you and your wife and I look forward to re-new our acquaintance at NHC 2014!


Cheers!

 

The actual difference is in the fermenting temperature; the yeast selection follows. Bottom fermenting yeasts work best at low temperatures and top fermenting yeasts are used for warmer fermentation. But you can of course use a "lager" yeast at warm temperatures, you just don't end up with a lager. Neither does an "ale" yeast magically cause an ale to appear.That fallacy is perhaps one of the roots of this thread.

 

What are the sources that Ron and Martyn use that are the only correct sources in the world? They seem to dismiss any other sources (in one of his blog posts, Ron dismissed a source that contradicted his statement simply because it was written in English).


Is a black and white photocopy of a newspaper print a reliable source to show that a liquid was called an ale vs. a lager?

 

this is a poor analogy to apply in this debate.
the world is round and can be proven to be. some may call it flat, but that don't make it true.

the color red is the color red because we make it that way. the fact that red is red and not blue is only because we have decided this to be. if 300 years ago red were blue and blue were red, that don't make it true today. and it is irrelevant. further, offering any historic evidence is real nice and can make you feel like a scholar. but red is still red and not blue.

some who write beer blogs seem to have an opinion that to disagree is evidence of stupidity and therefore deserving of ridicule and name calling. call someone a twat directly to their face. try it at my bar!
Cheers.

 

“But you can of course use a "lager" yeast at warm temperatures, you just don't end up with a lager. Neither does an "ale" yeast magically cause an ale to appear.That fallacy is perhaps one of the roots of this thread.”

There are several differences between lager yeast strains and ale yeast strains which result in a beer being brewed with a lager yeast being a lager beer and a beer being brewed with an ale yeast strain being an ale.

One difference is that ale yeast strains will produce more esters than a lager yeast at a given fermentation temperature. If the same wort was being fermented at 68°F by both an ale yeast strain and a lager yeast strain, the beer from the ale yeast will have more esters. While it is true that a lager beer fermented warmer will have more esters than a lager beer fermented cool, the warm fermented lager beer will have less esters than the ale fermented beer.

Another difference is the ability of the lager yeast strains to metabolize certain sugars: lager yeast has the ability to process “raffinose (a trisaccharide composed of the sugars galactose, fructose, and glucose), which means that all sugars are fermented, resulting in a well attenuated beer; ale yeast only cleaves and ferments the fructose portion of raffinose, leaving melibiose, which it cannot further cleave into two monosaccharides due to its lack of melibiose, so ale remains sweeter with a lower conversion of sugar into alcohol.”

So, there is indeed some ‘magic’ that defines what beer an ale yeast produces vs. a lager yeast.

Cheers!

 

Ale wins but there are some lagers out there that I really REALLY enjoy drinking.

 

The British are fond of referencing British sources to prove to the rest of us that their terms and definitions are correct. That's kind of like a religious fundamentalist repeatedly referencing their bible to prove to an atheist that god exists.

 

As a parenthesis to this I could add that in a Swedish governmental report on beer legislation from 1936 they compare the tax systems for beer that were in place at the time in neighboring countries. Finland, which had imposed their own version of prohibition from 1919-1932, introduced a new tax regime in 1934 which had 3 taxable beer classes:
First class: malt beverages with an abv of maximum 2.8%.
Second class: malt beverages with an abv above 2.8% but not above 4%
Third class: malt beverages with an abv surpassing 4% but not 5.6%, however porter may have an abv of up to 7.5%.

So porter was treated differently in the Finnish legislation compared to other types of beer and was able to come back to its old strenght (albeit highly taxed), whereas in Sweden porter languished under restrictive abv and wort strenght limits between 1917-1995 (in the 1934 report it is noted that porter was "essentially" only brewed in one Swedish brewery, which is obviously Carnegie).

In the report it is noted that arguments had been raised for treating porter differently from other beer also in Sweden, due to it being enjoyed more like wine than a beer, but the committe in charge of the report argued that no firm distinction can be made between porter and other beer, and that it is possible that the reintroduction of strong porter might become popular as a substitute for strong beer and that porter-like export strenght beers might emerge. Additionally they fear that a return of strong porter might generate a thirst for stronger beers among the population, a thirst which they claim doesn't currently exist to any great extent. They argue however for a slight increase in the abv limit to 4.2%, and eliminating the cap on wort strenght (which was set at 10.5%), which, apart from improving the flavor of the pilsner and lager type beers, they say might enable the production of a product which is more similar in taste to the old porter, although they admit that it will probably not be equal to it.

The report's proposal for an increase in the abv and wort strenght caps were ignored by the parliament however which meant that the previous restrictions remained in place.

 

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/the-long-battle-between-ale-and-beer/

The link (above) to a Martyn Cornell blog post from 2009 is a bit of a long read, but seems to be full of juicy parts that provide information and quotes supporting as truth what a few assert to be nothing more than false "myths", including:

• Hops were used sparsely "to the north of England". This, of course, included Scotland.
• "...the pale ale which is exported in large quantities from this country {England} to India contains a larger proportion of hops than the porter exported to the same place." [The Engineer’s and Mechanic’s Encyclopædia by Luke Hebert, published in 1836]. "From the 1820s onwards ale – sweet London ale, sold unaged, or mild, not the well-hopped variety exported to India – finally began to grow in popularity relative to porter."

And then there's this final sentence:

• "Such general terms as ale, porter etc … cannot by their nature have any solid ‘correct’ definition over all time and space, in spite of the efforts of various prescriptive authorities."

 

There are two basic types of contemporary sources; articles written about the subject and actual records. Beer articles of all ages depend upon the accuracy and experience of the writer ; what he writes may be an accurate summary of what he finds but not representative of the whole.Or perhaps he just talked to a few people in the trade.
Actual brewing records , as well as being of help to the brewers were also legal documents and subject to the most rigorous examination by the tax authorities.These can be taken as reliable.Such things as hopping rates are a matter of record.So if someone says hops were used sparsely yet the brewers' records do not support this we have a myth. I'm at a loss about the pale ale exported to India in "large quantities" because the actual barrellage was small , under 20000 a year at the time, only a fraction of the porter sent to India.