Belgian monks resurrect 220-year-old beer

You're right, I probably am confusing the word. Maybe I meant open fermentation? Not sure what word I am looking for. I just meant if yeast was not yet discovered then, how would brewers know to use it?

 

The Germans had a word for yeast. God Is Good. They did know that krausen was important and whatever was going on with the krausen was going to make their wort become beer. So they protected the krausen and everything that came in contact with it. They knew what good beer tasted like, and they knew to do the same thing next time. The Germans. Belgian monks. Ancient Egyptians. No idea about yeast but there it is.

In fairness, until recently most beer was not very good by our standards. A lot of it was sourish. Cloudy (though very few had glass to see it anyway). Yeasty. Warm. Flat. Not our idea of a good beer.

They didn't have thermometers. Or hydrometers. No water profiles. Not much of anything. If you had a good supply of brewing water, were near grains and hops (no trucks or railroads of course) and your krausen was working, then God must happy and you must be doing something in his favor. And if your beers went sour and were undrinkable, well, go to Church and pray.

Cheers.

 

Yeah, the barrels could be infected. Of course. After they have been sitting around in a funky barn or rat infested ship. Though the ancients weren't stupid and did know enough to keep food stuff clean... and today's professional brewers maybe not so much...

Complete WAG, but I think the Belgian monks using whiskey barrels is, at best, merely convenient. If they could get a supply then sure. I'm not so sure there is a healthy does of marketing in this news story.

Which is, so unlike the Abbey brewers.
Cheers.

 

The problem with the "whiskey" barrels could also actually arise from translation difficulties. Some of the records were in an older version of Latin, etc. and they had volunteer translators... Then there's probably translation involved in writing the English language article that gets into The Guardian. Even fairly proficient bi-lingual authors can introduce errors. And as I mentioned in my post just above, its not impossible that there actually could have been whiskey barrels in use back in the day...

 

Or Irish Whiskey.

 

I can't say I've read a lot about pre-industrial brewing in Belgium but I've just never seen much evidence that used barrels that would transfer the taste of the previous contents were ever commonly used by brewers.

The distillers employed coopers that build their barrels and brewers did the same, or they bought them from barrel makers.

By tradition in most regions, sizes were different, in case of beer barrels used for carbonation via "bunging" or to hold the already carbonated beer (transferred from larger casks), the wood was thicker to handle the carbonation, etc. Germans were pitching their barrels by the 1200s for the primative "cleanliness" of the time, to prevent the transfer of wood (or other) flavors, etc.

Typically beer was fermented and aged in larger casks, horizontal or vertical, that held enough beer to fill numerous "trade" packages / barrels of various sizes - in the US eventually, the standards were 1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/2 and "full" barrels - probably even hogsheads in the early 1800s. Those trade packages were used over and over by, and belonged to, the brewers.

 

Before Carlsberg sends us all on a wild goose chase we should consider quite a few things, a few of which have been mentioned by jesskidden. Also. Do we concieve of the whiskey of that time to be akin to today's aged product stored in charred oak barrels (and the drawing out of the wood sugars through aging)? Or do we concieve of it as unaged white spirit stored in uncharred barrels during transportation to the nearest tavern (when it was produced at a commercial scale as a side business in a brewery or a stand alone distillery)? Ireland had its uisce beatha, Sweden (and the Scandinavian countries) had its brännvin, Germany its branntwein, Russia its vodka. The US its whisky. Consumed in massive amounts, enough to create a public health problem in most countries where it was produced and consumed.

 

It seems like the only news here is the plan for the brewery construction (and with a "visitor centre")... and that it will be marketed as being part of a historic story (which is nothing unique).

From one article:

But according to how people on this site describe the best selling beers in the world, it sounds like many people "would like the taste of the beer made back then."

It came to be as an opportunity to make money (and I don't mean that in a bad way). They've been working on this "microbrewery" idea for a few years it seems. It's no different than what's going on anywhere else. I really appreciate your posts here that come to the defense of brewers from years past, but I'm not sure why you think this is unlike "Abbey brewers." A good marketing story or image is perfectly in sync with them. Keep in mind that there's really big beer behind some licensed abbey beer... as is the case with Grimbergen (Carlsberg and Heineken). Looking at one of the marketing videos, they are laying it on really thick. The whole "we found these old hidden recipes" shtick (BS) is fairly common. Beer-wise, even Trappist brewers (Chimay) are making the same kind of thing.

Lambic brewers used wine/fortified wine barrels. I doubt the intent was to make their beer more "winey" though.

No need to wait. From the press release:

Grimbergen Triple D’Abbaye is an already existing product. I'm gonna guess they just made it more alcoholic and did various barrel aging with it. This type of beer (Belgian strong pale) didn't even exist before the 20th century. I'm surprised we are giving this as much thought as we are. This seems pretty superficial to me.

 

Yeah, it's about time we killed that myth about Columbus and those other "explorers" were looking for a short ocean route to China and India, and later, gold and other riches - the fuckers were just after our used barrels!

Don't forget our applejack!

 

I was thinking that regardless of where the barrels were sourced (or whatever we want to call the oak fermenting chamber), once they were being used for beer there would be yeast selection by reusing the barrels that turned up good beer and discarding the barrels that turned out bad beer. Over time you could certainly segregate your fermenters by style where each 'style' would be essentially breeding a specific yeast strain

 

Chris, I would posit that you and I are of a like mind here as I stated in post #5:

"Maybe the 'highlight' here is simply a good story?"

Cheers!

 

Abbey monks and to the ultimate degree the Trappist order are very clear that they have absolutely no interest in marketing or increasing sales. They brew beer to support their monastic order and only to support the order. This may seem odd considering Chimay is a world wide phenom but Chimay is also by far and away the biggest Trappist brewer and they are really quite small. Scourmont could, if they wanted, be much larger than they are. A great example is Westy. Rare as hens teeth. And it will stay that way. Orval is very happy to make the one classic beer and they are not building a new brewhouse either. And so on.

Abbey brewers have been taking control of their products as their previous marketing agreements run their course. Grimbergen did not have a say in who would end up making their beer. Some of these marketing agreements are decades old.

So to hear see an actual Grimbergen monk from the Abbey flogging this nonsense, I am puzzled. It is not in their character. Remember, these are individuals that have taken a vow. That vow decidedly does not include capitalism. It's just not in their nature.

Cheers.

 

You mean these guys?



And these guys?

https://www.bendbulletin.com/business/5317818-151/danish-beer-giant-leans-on-its-roots

 

Each beer fermentation leaves you with more yeast than you started with, deposited at the bottom of the fermenting vessel (or floating to the top during fermentation depending on the yeast and way of collecting it). As soon as brewers started using this new yeast in subsequent batches of beer you had a process of domestication. From my understanding this meant that many different strains could make up the yeast, and possibly other organisms. It was common for breweries to exchange yeast with one another, so that a brewer got his yeast fresh from another brewery which had finished fermenting a batch of their own beer, and so it went on for centuries. If the yeast went bad, i.e turned out bad beer, sour beer etc., they used yeast from another brewery instead. If fresh yeast couldn't be used there were ways of drying the yeast for storage.

From my readings it seems that through this domestication process came yeasts where the yeast strains were dominant over any bacteria or other organisms present in the blend, they grew more quickly and outcompeted the other organisms for the nutrients in the wort (helped by the antibacterial properties of hops once those came into use). But once the yeast strains slowed down their reproduction and started settling there was a danger of infection and sour beer etc. So the brewer had to ensure that the yeast got off to a good start during primary fermentation so that the yeast strains were in charge, and not any spoiling organisms. As long as the yeast was healthy and viable to begin with it was possible to carry out the primary fermentation with a reasonable degree of predictability. The problem starts when the primary fermentation has ended, the yeast becomes less active and there are still nutrients present for other organisms to feed on. Most countries have had beers which were consummed young, and others which were stored for longer periods of time. The young beer presented the brewer with fewer problems since the beer would be consumed shortly after primary fermentation and possibly a short secondary fermentation (more or less a continuation of the primary fermentation by residual yeast feeding on residual sugars), and shelf life as we understand it today did not exist.

With long stored beers, stock beers if you will, the problem with, or risk of, infections and growth in lactic acid and acetic acid bacteria and a host of other organisms became greater. With these beers it is likely that most exhibited influences from organisms other than the yeast. The notable exception to this would be the Bavarian lager beer, which was stored orginally in chilly cellars (before the advent of ice cellars and artificial refridgeration). The way that Bavarians could store their lager beer for a long time without having sour beer in the end was the process of cold storage and slow secondary fermentation. First off they stopped brewing their lager beer by Georgi, 23rd of april, and the beer was then stored in cool, mostly underground cellars (unless the brewer had access to caves). The colder temperatures during both the primary fermentation and storage helped protect the beer somewhat against other organisms, and the continued action of the yeast, feeding on a significant amount of residual sugars left after primary fermentation, helped to preserve the beer (along with a generous helping of hops in the boil). If the temperature in the cellars rose to be too high, in the peak of summer, there was risk of sour beer, also if the beer stopped its secondary fermentation. Additional protection was offered by the pitching of the storage casks. The pitch coated the wood and served as a barrier between the beer and the wood, and any organisms present within it.

 

I thought I would provide a translation of a letter in German sent by JC Jacobsen of Carlsberg to Gabriel Sedlmayr of Spatenbräu in 1884 which touches upon alot of the points raised in my discussion about yeast. They appear to have taken down the website where the transcribed letters were kept which is a bummer, but here it goes anyway.

I think the letter helps elucidate in a good way the fact that pre-Pasteur and pre-microscopes there was already an ingrained knowledge about yeast handling and fermentation which was based on experience, if not scientific knowledge. Brewers had yeasts, they used those yeasts to good effects, they shared them with others, and other people could achieve similarly good results with those yeasts which they shared, if they learned to handle them properly.

To some people this level of practical knowledge might seem like science fiction after hearing about yeasts being "discovered" by Pasteur.

 

Patrik,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to provide that translated letter. It was indeed an interesting read.

Secondly, as a homebrewer I too do not brew much in the summer months (June, July and August) since I am aware that the amount of wild yeast in the air is significantly increased and the risk of infection by unwanted yeast is increased. Tomorrow (5/24) I will brew an English Bitter Ale and then basically 'shut down' my homebrewery. I use the word "basically" since in all likelihood I will brew a Saison in August using a Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus strain - these types of yeast 'eat' everything leaving very little 'food' for any unwanted microorganisms to consume and therefore low chances of noticeable infection.

Cheers!

 

When thinking about the Bavarian legislated halt on brewing between Georgi (23rd of april) and Michaelis (29th of september) it is worth noting that it was only the brewing of bottom fermented braunbier (lagerbier and schenkbier) which was banned, the brewing of weissbier (most common in the form of barley weissbier) was still allowed and in fact was said to reach its high point during the summer months as a thirst quencher. Bavarian brewers distinguished between the unterzeug used for braunbier and oberzeug used for weissbier, and the legislation distinguished between the resulting beers if not between the yeasts themselves.

On a different note I wonder how many homebrewers would feel comfortable transfering a bottom fermented lager beer over from primary to the dreaded secondary at 1.024 SG (i.e 6% Balling) sometime in March, putting the secondary in their cool basement over the summer months and rely on the insulation of the cellar and ambient temperature therein to keep the beer sound. I can just envision the avalanche of "stuck fermentation" threads that would ensue. Such a difference in mindset and process, which I find to be both interesting and enlightening when thinking about brewing historically.

 

I suppose if the batches of Weissbier were consumed quickly the potential effects of infection (e.g., off flavors) would likely not be noticed?

Do you have any documentation that Weissbier of the past (e.g., 1800s and earlier) had Hefeweizen yeast produced flavors of banana and clove? Maybe these unique flavors of Hefeweizen yeast 'masked' any off flavors that could occur via infection?

Cheers!