Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Session #138: How Much Wood …

By

log
For our 138th Session, our host is Jack Perdue, who writes Deep Beer. For his topic, he’s chosen The Good in Wood, by which he means beer being stored in wood or otherwise flavored with it.
wood
Here’s his full description of the topic:

Wood has been used for millennia to store, transport and flavor beer, wine and spirits. Today, the relationship between wood and beer has regained its popularity with brewers and drinkers as observed in the prevalence of bourbon-barrel-aged beer and sours. This topic is deep and wide and meandering, romantic and historic, personal and professional.

I will suggest a few themes to stir your imagination on “The Good in Wood” but of course you can choose your own path.

  • Historic uses of wood through a beer lens
  • Physical characteristics of wood and that relationship with beer
  • Professional and personal experiences such as wood-themed beer festivals or tours
  • A favorite wood-influenced beer style or experience, e.g. your first bourbon barrel-aged beer, a special Flanders red moment or why you don’t like a lambic
  • Other, let your imagination run as crazy as a wild ale

session_logo_all_text_200

So this month I’m going to use The Session to be the old man telling the kids to get off of his lawn as he shouts into the wind. Let me start by stating this. I love barrel-aged beers. I’ll repeat that, because it may come up later. I love the complexity that’s added by a beer spending time in a wooden barrel. Over ten years ago, in 2006, I took issue with an article in a Wisconsin newspaper in which the writer — who called himself the Beer Man — declared that bourbon barrel stouts were “just a fad.” I said he was wrong twelve years ago, and I say without fear of retribution that he’s even more wrong today. If anything, they’re more popular than ever, and not just stouts, but wood-aged and barrel-aged beers of all sorts of types. They’re so popular now that many brewers have told me it’s getting harder (and more expensive) to just find barrels to use for aging their beer. And many of these beers are amazing.

But here’s my caveat, and the one that appears to make me the odd man out, the old curmudgeon. As barrel-aged beers have become more and more extreme, almost like an arms race of bourbony proportions, many of these beers have lost their beerishness. I have had many debates and/or arguments on judging panels, panel discussions and at casual tastings, which clearly show me to be the outlier, over how much wood is too much wood. I’ve found that many people seem to think there is no threshold too far, that the more a bourbon-barrel beer tastes like bourbon the better, even when it no longer resembles a beer. And I just can’t abide that.

woodchucks-chucking-wood
How much wood…

To me, it’s a bourbon-barrel “BEER.” If it no longer tastes of beer at all, it’s not really a beer anymore, but a malt-based bourbon.* Why not just drink a glass of bourbon? This type of extreme beer just overwhelms your tastebuds with only one sensation: whatever the original barrel once contained. But to my way of thinking, it should taste like the base beer style, and accentuated with the added flavor of the barrel, which should add complexity and layers of unique and/or new sensations. Instead, many just dull your senses by hitting you over the head with unbridled bourbon, or whiskey, or whatever. What’s the point? It seems to me that it’s become extremeness for the sake of extremeness, like a snake eating its own tail.

Ouroboros

I completely understand that this is simply a matter of personal preference and shifting tastes or styles. At least it is on some level. But the style guidelines for both the World Beer Cup and GABF make clear that I’m not alone in my curmudgeonly ways. To wit, the 2017 guidelines for GABF for both the “Wood- and Barrel-Aged Beer” and the “Wood- and Barrel-Aged Strong Stout” state the following:

Used sherry, rum, bourbon, scotch, port, wine and other barrels are often used, imparting complexity and uniqueness to beer. Ultimately a balance of flavor, aroma and mouthfeel are sought with the marriage of new beer with wood and/or barrel flavors.

And even though I’ve read this passage aloud to make my case, some people still prefer the bourbon bombs with no beerishness whatsoever. I get that people like what they like, but this one just confounds me, because they seem to have lost sight of what these beers were intended to be or should aspire to be.

The 2015 BJCP guidelines for “Wood-Aged Beer” also makes the same point:

Flavor: Varies with base style. Wood usually contributes a woody or oaky flavor, which can occasionally take on a raw “green” flavor if new wood is used. Other flavors that may optionally be present include vanilla (from vanillin in the wood); caramel, butterscotch, toasted bread or almonds (from toasted wood); and coffee, chocolate, cocoa (from charred wood). The wood and/or other cask-derived flavors should be balanced, supportive and noticeable, but should not overpower the base beer style

In the end, it comes down to what a brewery can sell. If consumers want bourbon-barrel aged beers that taste more like bourbon and almost nothing like beer, that’s what breweries will keep making. If they sell out of every vintage, who am I to say they’re wrong? But I still find it a crying shame that it’s become harder to find the truly exquisite barrel-aged beer that really does deliver a complex melange of unique flavors, that “marriage of new beer with wood and/or barrel flavors” that doesn’t “overpower the base beer.” Those beers are sublime; a thing of beauty. Give me one of those beers any day.

beer-barrel

*: For purposes of this discussion, I’m ignoring Utopias, the Brew Dog/Schorschbräu world’s strongest beer fracas, and all other beers made to prove a point about beer strength, pushing boundaries, etc. Is that fair of me? Maybe not, but I’m going to do it anyway.

Patent No. EP1979462A1: Use Of Cacao Polyphenols In Beer Production

By

patent-logo
Today in 2008, US Patent EP 1979462 A1 was issued, an invention of Herwig Bernaert, for his “Use of Cacao Polyphenols in Beer Production.” Here’s the Abstract:

The present invention relates to a solvent-derived, cocoa extract comprising between 25 and 65% by weight of polyphenols, and uses thereof for improving a beer production process and the resulting beer product. The invention further relates to a method for improving a beer production process as well as the beer product resulting from it. The invention further relates to a beer product with improved quality such as enhanced colloidal, taste and flavor stability. The invention also provides a beer with exogenous polyphenols and a beer comprising at least one cocoa polyphenol. Furthermore, the present invention includes a use of exogenous polyphenols as process enhancer and a use of cocoa for enhancing filtration processes.

Cacao-roasted

Patent No. 3679431A: Wort Production

By

patent-logo
Today in 1972, US Patent 3679431 A was issued, an invention of David Henry Clayton and John Karkalas, for their “Wort Production.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes these claims:

This invention is concerned with improvements in or relating to wort production.

– Wort contains in addition to fermentable carbohydrates, soluble nitrogeneous compounds. Barley malt is the traditional raw material for the production of wort since it provides a source of carbohydrates and “nitrogen com pounds and in addition provides the enzymes capable of degrading the carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds to the soluble components of wort.

Malt is manufactured from e.g. barley by the process of malting. This consists of first germinating and then drying barley grain under controlled conditions.

The manufacture of malt is expensive because (1) large capital investments are necessary for the malting machinery, (2) a skilled labour force is required to operate the malting machines, (3) malt can only be made successfully from the higher qualities of barley which are expensive and (4) during the malting process a physical loss in dry matter occurs; this is known as the malting loss.

It is an object of the invention to provide an improved method of producing a wort in which the use of barley malt is reduced or virtually eliminated.

We have found that wort may be produced by treating an aqueous slurry of starch and protein-containing plant material for example unmalted cereal grain e.g. It appears that said hydrodynamic conditions result in the formation of a homogeneous mass very suitable for the action of the starch liquefying enzyme. Examples of starch and protein-containing plant materials other than cereals include roots, fungi material and by-products of processes to which ‘cereals have been subjected.

Examples of suitable materials include tapioca and rice, as well as wheat, barley and maize.

The invention provides a method of producing wort from an aqueous slurry of starch and protein-containing plant material comprising the steps of liquefying starch by treating the slurry with a commercial starch liquefying enzyme subjecting the slurry to hydrodynamic conditions such that a substantial thixotropic reduction of viscosity is produced by shearing forces in the slurry to facilitate the action of the starch liquefying enzyme prior to any substantial reduction of viscosity resulting from the enzymatic liquefaction converting starch to sugar by treatment with a saccharifying enzyme and converting protein to soluble nitrogen-containing compounds by treatment with a proteolytic enzyme.

The invention also provides wort when produced by a method as set out in the last preceding paragraph.

The invention also provides a process for brewing beer including such a method.

The invention also provides beer when produced by such a process.

The invention also provides a process of producing a concentrated wort syrup by concentrating wort produced by such a method.

The invention also provides a concentrated wort syrup when produced by such a process.

US3679431-0

Patent No. 132574A: Improvement In The Manufacture Of Beer (a.k.a. “California Pop Beer”)

By

patent-logo
Today in 1872, US Patent 132574 A was issued, an invention of Charles C. Haley, for his “Improvement In The Manufacture Of Beer, which in the application he names his improved beverage “California Pop Beer.” There’s no Abstract, although this is such an interesting one that I’m showing the entire application below, which also includes a recipe of sorts.

Untitled

I think someone could probably make this beer, assuming homebrewers haven’t already taken up the challenge, even though it appears there is some general instruction, it seems like educated guesses would have to be made to fill in the unknowns.

This invention consists in a compound of the ingredients hereinafter named, used in the manner and in the proportions substantially as described, to form an improved beverage which I have denominated California Pop Beer.

In the manufacture of beer according to my invention, I first prepare the yeast as follows: For one hundred and five gallons of beer, I take of wheat flour three-quarters of a pound and dissolve it in one quart of cold water, and one ounce of hops steeped one hour in two quarts of water, and afterward strained. The dissolved wheat flour and the steeped hops are then mixed together, and the mixture is steeped for half an hour. It is then allowed to cool to the temperature of 88 Fahrenheit, after which three ounces of ground malt and one half an ounce of pure spirits are added, and the mixture allowed to stand for twelve hours.

The essence is next prepared as follows: To five ounces of alcohol I add one-half an ounce of oil of Wintergreen, one-third of an ounce of oil of Sassafras, and one-third of an ounce of oil of spruce, roughly mixed.

The yeast and essence having been thus prepared, the manufacture of the beer is proceeded with as follows: I take one-half a pound of hops, fourteen ounces of chemically prepared cream of tartar, and one-half pound of African ginger-root. These are placed in a suitable tub and steeped with ten gallons of water one hour, after which seventy pounds of granulated sugar are added. The essence prepared as above stated is now added to the mixture in the tub, and the con tents are brought to a heat of about 90; and, at this point, the yeast first prepared is poured in and the mixture allowed to stand for four hours. It is then bottled, and after standing for three days it is ready for use. The beer thus prepared is a superior and harmless beverage.

It also appears that it was sold commercially, and must have been popular enough, since it’s often referred to as “Haley’s Celebrated California Pop Beer.”

Untitled

Of course, that could be an early form of advertising puffery. Haley himself was apparently from Troy, New York and so it seems likely his brewery, “C. Haley & Co.” was located there as well, although I’m on the road and don’t have my American Breweries II book for reference and nothing’s coming up online in a cursory search. There are, however, several examples of the name appearing on bottles, generally in the northeast, primarily from New York and New Jersey.

Untitled

It seems curious that something not from California was named “California Pop Beer.” Was there some reputation California would have had at that time period that made naming the beer this way make sense?

Untitled

Some bottles even include the date that the patent was approved.

Untitled

And seems clear that multiple breweries made “California Pop Beer,” as here’s one from Brooklyn. It was brewed by G.B. Selmers, located at “104 & 106 So. 8th St. Brooklyn, ED.”

Untitled

So who wants to step up and brew “California Pop Beer?” Maybe it should be someone actually in California this time?