Ale vs Lager

I included it for two reasons; one to show that the distinction is currently in use, the second to show that it isn't just us British who do it.You will find plenty of EU current documents (France, Germany, Belgium, Czech Republic among them) which are similar.
Rest assured that Her Majesty doesn't interfere with everyday things in Canada
As for Pluto, there is an international recognised body to decide these things. Beer has no such body.

 

Martyn Cornell is a very authoritative and credible source - for explaining the origin and development of British beer terminology and definitions/distinctions. The separation of malt beverages into categories called ale and beer makes sense - if you're British. Continuing to use 19th century phrases that make distinctions like "ales and stouts" makes considerably less sense now, but is understandable - for the British. He does a great job of tracing British brewing history and showing how it was different from the rest of Europe.

The problem I and some others have with him is his narrow, anglo-centric insistence that British terms and definitions are the only correct ones and that the rest of the world should use them now, regardless of their own divergent brewing histories and different evolution of terms. I also have a big problem with his attitude in that article. His sense of superiority and condescending arrogance toward Americans and others who may disagree with him is insufferable.

 

It's hardly reprehensible that Martyn uses British terminology for British beer styles.
And he actually gives sources in support , he doesn't just say "it is because we say so".
If you keep insisting that it's only Britain;

Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION
Date: 06/06/2012
Office for Publications of the European Union
L-2985 Luxembourg
EN
Case No COMP/M.6587 -
MOLSON COORS/
STARBEV
Only the English text is available and authentic.
REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004
MERGER PROCEDURE
The proposed transaction concerns the sector of beer. The Commission's decisional
practice and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union suggest that
the relevant product market is that for th
e production and distribution of beer which
is to be distinguished from other beverages2. Furthermore, the Commission has
generally considered that a distinction between on-trade distribution (that is, beer
sold by pubs, bars, restaurants, hotels etc.
) and off-trade distribution (beer sold by
retail outlets) is relevant3. With respect
to some countries, the Commission has also
considered that a possible further segmenta
tion by type of beer (e.g., lager, stout or
ale ) or by quality (e.g., premium or
standard) might be relevant due to
demand-side considerations, but ultimately left the market definition open.

 

"The Government of Canada announced in its 2014 federal budget that it intends to modernize the compositional standards for beer under the Food and Drug Regulations. Recognizing that certain provisions in the Food and Drug Regulationsare not maximizing the potential for growth and innovation in the beer industry, the government will be updating these compositional standards to account for new styles of craft beer in the market.

EXISTING COMPOSITIONAL STANDARDS

Under the existing compositional standards, a narrow list of permitted ingredients for standardized alcoholic beverages like beer, ale, stout and porter is set out in sections B.02.130 and B.02.131 of the Food and Drug Regulations.

Seriously Marquis, do you really expect everyone to accept your self-serving interpretation that these references are evidence that other parts of the world also use British terms and distinctions?

Let me offer a more likely reason. The wording in the Canadian Food and Drug regulations reflects the nature of all government regulatory documents in that they include any and all possible terms ever applied to what's being regulated to eliminate the possibility of an omission leading to someone escaping the regulation. Because of Canada's close cultural ties with Britain, those terms were once used there, hence their inclusion in the modern document. Those distinctions are not made in Canada today, and haven't been for some time.

The EU represents numerous countries and different cultures. When they issue documents pertaining to beer, they understandably strive to include all terms used in the various individual member countries. It's a matter of being diplomatic and politically correct, as well as preventing noncompliance due to omitting a term. It's hardly "evidence" that your British terminology is being used anywhere other than in Britain.

edit: How convenient. This also provides a rebuttal to the post above as well as the ones I quoted. Saves me from needing an additional response.

 

I was ‘researching’ Sierra Nevada Summerfest (to see what IBUs it has) and I found the below on the Sierra Nevada website:

“Ale versus Lager

All beer is broken down into two camps: ale or lager. The principal difference is the variety of yeast. Ales use a yeast called Saccharomyces cerevisiae, referred to as “top fermenting” because of the frothy foam created during fermentation. Lagers use a yeast called Saccharomyces pastorianus, called “bottom fermenting” because of the slower, restrained fermentation process. Ales are fermented at warmer temperatures and generally produce more fruity and spicy aromas from the yeast. Lagers are fermented at cooler temperatures and produce cleaner, more reserved aromas, which let the malt and hops shine through.”

I thought others might be interested in reading the stance that Sierra Nevada Brewery has on this topic.

Cheers!

P.S. Bill, I am tagging you (@sierranevadabill) simply as a FYI.

 

No need to point that out. It's very understandable that, being British, he does so. I said that he's very knowledgeable in that regard.

The problem is that he(and you) think only British terminology is correct.

 

The point is rather that the beers in question are British.
We shall have to agree to disagree. I have tried to produce sources and evidence to counter "because we say so " and the fact that "common knowledge" is often not knowledge.

 

I think it basically comes down to the fact that American brewers at least, understand porter to be ale that has been colored black with roasted grain. Everything else about recipe and process are the same, so our logical minds see porter as a subset of ale. Ale + dark malt = porter, so we consider porter as part of the modern ale family. Porter is dark ale, to put it bluntly. This has nothing to do with history, just a basic fact about modern brewing practice.

It makes perfect sense to me that in a past scene where there was no lager or type of beer besides ale and porter, you would see the two main types of malt beverages, ale and porter, as distinct. In the modern brewing world, brewers commonly make all types of beer deriving from just about every main brewing nation. We understand the differences in ingredients and process between different types on a level that did not exist 200 years ago. According to modern understanding, many have agreed that it makes more sense to consider porter as part of the ale family, regardless of their history as distinct beverages.

 

As a supplement to your observations, what I think we've been witnessing is an extended discussion that has partly danced arount a core issue. Marquis effectively argues for a taxonomy of beer based on historical origins. The US brewing community, represented in this thread by Tut and others argue for a biologically based taxonomy.

Looking back into the history at what happened to taxonomies developed by medevial Herbalists after Linnaeus finished his work, I think we can also predict the long range outcome of the debate even if the issue is not resolved in this thread.

 

Very good summation. I need to point out, though, that Marquis isn't arguing for a taxonomy of beer based on general historical origins, which would include ours and several other countries. He argues for one based specifically on British historical origins, as if they are the only thing that should be considered.

 

Very good perspective. It's one thing to respect and understand the historical origin of the British distinction between ale and porter/stout several hundred years ago. It's quite another to insist that the rest of the beer world should adhere to it in the modern brewing era.

 

Thanks Jack. I actually wrote that and I stand by it.
Of course, this is a simplification and excludes the outliers (Lambic yeasts/bacterial fermentation, Brettanomyces which by-and-large folks aren't coming to SN to learn about.) I feel comfortable drawing this line because of the general nature of how the beers present and what the key elements of the finished product are. Both ales and lagers taste of malt and hops, of course, but generally speaking "Ales" have more yeast character and an estery and phenolic component that is a result of the yeast strain as much as it is a result of the fermentation temperature. "Lagers" are typically cleaner, with more pure flavors of malt and hops with little or any estery/phenolic yeast flavors or aromas.

Yes, there are thousands of different strains of yeast that each do a unique thing. (we maintain a yeast bank with nearly 600 strains.) but the fact of the matter is, yeast and the way they behave, typically fall into two camps.
"Ale" and "lager" are shorthand to denote the typical way the yeast behave. "ale" yeast tend to be happier (ferment better) and produce more desirable flavors at warmer temperatures. "Lager" yeast tend to do better at cooler temperatures.
We have made a lager beer with our house "Chico" yeast, and we've also made warmer fermented beers with our house lager strain. Yeast are not one sided. They will adapt and change depending on the environment. Using the terms "Ale" and "Lager" steers us toward what to expect in the finished product.

For us, the fermented beverage made with malt and hops is beer. Beer is divided into two camps: Ale or lager (three camps if you include "wild" beers) From there. Ale and Lager are segmented into their respective camps.

To the point about Porter and ales being different things... I have been in the brewing game for a while now, and I would be shocked to learn that many brewers regularly making a pale ale and a porter would maintain two separate strains of yeast to make one versus the other, and moreover, I can't see how the addition of roasted malts into a beer using the same yeast strain would push it into a different family of beer. Yeast maintenance is a royal pain-in-the-ass and one of the limiting factors in throughput in a commercial brewery.

The old advertisements stating the brewer makes Ales, Porters and Stout... This, in my opinion, is simply marketing. Advertising variety rather than saying "Bill Manley and Sons Brewing Co. makers of fine Ale." they are saying Bill Manley and Sons Brewing Co. Makers of Ale, Porter, AND stout" we don't just make one thing, we make many things. Depending on the popular trends of the day (e.g. Porter and Stout) Bill Manley and Sons brewery want to show they are "with it" and have the chops to do the new stuff too.
Back in the early 80s Sierra Nevada's tagline was "Sierra Nevada Ales and Beers." The thing is, we used 100% open fermentation and one yeast strain for everything. Marketing makes things sound more exciting, that's the point.


-Bill

 

Bill, it's quite simple really why ale and stout/porters have been listed separately-they come from two entirely distinct brewing industries.It isn't any intrinsic difference in recipes,plant or yeast. It's simply a matter of coming from different brewing backgrounds.Ales and porters even came in different barrel sizes, they had different trade bodies, guilds and governing laws etc.Why do you think that Arthur Guinness, an ale brewer, went to the trouble of bringing over a London family to brew his porters?
It's often difficult to explain to people so immersed in the "ales or lagers" idea that they need to unlock the "ales=top fermented" mantra in order to sort it out.This has simply been imposed on a much more diverse brewing picture.Ales are simply just one of the family of top fermented beers but the name has been hijacked to mean something it never was.
The signs are by no means a marketing scheme , they simply tell you what is available.

It's a bit like your being an American and your friends next door being Canadian.No intrinsic difference, just a matter of different history and background.
I feel the yeast argument rather less persuasive. In these days of genetic engineering it's entirely possible for new strains to be created which truly set the cat among the pigeons.A brewer may ask for a yeast with a mixture of characteristics which doesn't exist at the moment.

 

Give up the ghost, Marquis. You're flat on the canvas.

 

For hundreds of years, Brits categorized malted beverages as Beer or Ale based on them having, or not having, hops.

So why is it so bad that us "irritating" Americans want to categorize beer based on Fermentation (top fermenting Yeast, Ale and bottom fermenting yeast, Lager)?

 

I have to admit that I, too, have a hard time understanding why people who purport to be more knowledgeable than average about beer seem to want to cling to what by any account is a blatant simplification in the "ale vs. lager" dichotomy.