Emerging styles?

I would love for this to come to pass, but I feel like I am the only guy drinking Von Trapp Dunkels in the Portland area, so I will guess there is not enough interest. I really want more craft brewers to really explore the German traditions.

 

I too am a great fan of Von Trapp Dunkel beers (I still have a few bottles left from a recent 6-pack purchase). I also agree with you that this is likely not a beer style to be greatly enjoyed by the craft beer community at large.

I hope that Von Trapp continues to produce this beer because it is an excellent example of the Dunkel beer style IMO.

Cheers!

 

I wanted to disagree with you, but upon closer inspection, you're probably right.

 

There might be space for Dunkel yet, as I’m noticing more of an interest in Schwarzbier or black lagers recently. Still will probably be both be niche styles though.

 

Back when I was home brewing, I made a lot of flavored hefeweizens, my ex wife liked them, and it was god awful hot in Mississippi, they were pretty refreshing. I wouldn’t mind seeing those or if someone starts a bitter/ESB craze

 

The whole point of adjuncts is to use the enzymes from malt to extract fermentable sugars. By so doing the nitrogen content is lowered which enhances beer clarity. This is why Budweiser was able to brew using domestic malt.
There is a difference between adjunct and additional ingredients; there has been too much misuse of specific brewing terms by people who assume that they know more than they do.

 

This is still not an an adjunct thread, believe it or not.

What about a sour brewed with so much fruit, vanilla, and lactose that it can really be described as dessert-like. Examples are these various Parfaits from Fieldwork. Not exactly what I would think of in an American Wild Ale. More like a Dessert Beer or Lactose Ale.

 

Bummer I missed this when it was posted. I nearly died laughing when I read that you just said that one of the most knowledgeable brewing chemists is wrong. It’s made even more comical by how adamant you are and how wrong you are at the same time. I literally laughed out loud, so thanks for that!

For what it’s worth you don’t have to take Dr. Bamforth’s word and if you want to talk about “classic brewing terminology,” on page 94 of the 3rd international edition of Technology Brewing and Malting, sugar is listed as an adjunct and simple syrup is described in the text.

 

Yes, it might be but many respected reference books perpetuate misunderstandings and errors.. Perhaps unlike patto1ro the authors do not rigorously and thoroughly check their output for accuracy. Original sources are all too often overlooked or ignored.
Ron lives and breathes research and his findings do not always agree with the common view.Including those of Dr. Bamforth incidentally.Both these gentlemen are internationally recognised experts in their own field.
My own brewing reference works make it clear that many brewing materials contain starch which needs breaking down into fermentable sugars. This can be done by adding them to malt which contains excess enzymes which do just this.At the same time the nitrogen content is reduced. So the malt and the other materials work together, needing each other which is why the term adjunct was applied to the process. Non chemically altered brewing materials are simply ingredients.To call them adjuncts devalues the word.

 

Unfiltered/hoppy pilsners and sour IPAs.

 

Weedy, I am reticent to jump into these waters but....

Ron does a lot of research on beer making. For example he will research old brewing logs and report on this information on his blog and in publications (e.g., articles, books,...). Having stated that to the best of my knowledge Ron has never brewed a beer (@patto1ro, please correct me if I am wrong here). When I read the material that Ron publishes (and his posts in BA threads) I try my best to keep in mind that he has a differing experiential basis than I do (as a brewer).

It is not uncommon for individuals to try and 'label' others because they have written something not correct. Even Ron will do this with other folks who write about beer. Nobody (except for maybe Dr. Charlie Bamforth?) 'bats 1.000'.

Cheers!

 

FWIW... I wouldn’t normally be so ready to jump on a person like I did, except when someone speaks so strongly as to call it a “schoolboy error” when talking about one of the most knowledgeable brewers in the world, it is ridiculous. Especially when it also goes against one of the most highly regarded brewing science textbooks.

 

I understand.

Ron also has used 'strong language' about others in the beer industry.

He kinda reminds me of an old boss of mine who would characterize the business we were in (we were called the "SI" by our customer): "The SI is often wrong but never in doubt!"

Cheers!

 

To be honest, Ron is just as critical of himself when he puts his foot in it.
I'm sure that Dr. Bamforth was talking loosely and is aware of the origin of the word adjunct in brewing. A bit like when Michael Jackson to his regret termed Porter an Ale for the sake of simplicity.
Brewing books are not Bibles and are commonly regurgitated material including errors and omissions. At least Ron researches with diligence and the willingness to realise that commonly held views sometimes are mistaken.

 

Only way to know if he was speaking loosely would be if he chimes in himself. However, I doubt he was using the word loosely. Even if the origin of a word had one meaning, the language is always evolving. Lots of words have different meanings than what they had 100+ years ago. If brewing chemists consider sugars and syrups to be adjuncts, their students accept their definition, and use the word that way, than it would signify that the definition has changed. From what I understand, many of the large breweries have cut out the use of rice and corn in exchange for syrups made from those ingredients. Essentially making an adjunct extract. It is not really different from using liquid malt extract instead of grain. I don’t know if anyone that would make the claim that beer made from extract isn’t beer since it didn’t actually use malted barley in its original form.

 

The trouble with this is that when a word invented to convey something very specific gets devalued and misused what can replace it?
The non-malt content of "adjunct lagers" is crucial for the brewing process, not just extra ingredients.

 

Yeah, in the past 200 years or so (around the time US brewing industry's methods, terminology and ingredients broke from that of the UK's) even before the introduction of "lager" yeast in the US, things have changed.

Here are some post-Repeal quotes on the topic, pulled from a US brewing industry text (note the last line, in particular):

 

I was actually making a joke.

 

You're wrong. I have brewed beer at a homebrew level. But it's been a while.

 

See also: Bruery Bruesicles.