The Yeast of my worries

[LogicalFrank]

Anyway, I have read that gueuze brewers have said, or some have, that gueuze can be made anywhere in the world. Even though there is a lore about the fabled wild yeasts of the Senne Valley in Belgium, where these beers are made, in fact the same kind of beer can be made anywhere. There are a couple of American brewers making wild yeast beers, New Glarus is one I believe. Again Liquor Barn can direct you.
Gary

The two beers that New Glarus makes w/ a wild fermentation are called Belgian Red (cherry) and Raspberry Tart. They are absolutely delicious beers but the taste of them is not even remotely like a Belgian lambic. There is an English brewery called Melbourne Brothers that makes fruit flavored lambics too and while they are somewhat more authentic tasting they still miss the mark as does Dogfish Head's Festina Lente. There are many reasons why this could be true beyond the character of the local resident microorganisms (there's *a lot* of different things living in lambic beyond yeast) so I suppose that doesn't prove anything.

[cowdery]

Ron Ralph writes:

"All whisky producers use Saccharomyces cerevisiae, however the yeasting techniques vary tremendously between the 'modern' and 'traditional' distillers. The modern distillers have elaborate yeast laboratories and will propagate a new yeast from an agar slant every week. They are very aseptic and accurate, assuring continuity of the same flavor. The ‘traditional’ distillers use yeast stored in jugs; and though they backstock weekly, the potential for gradual yeast culture changes and contamination can lead to flavor variances. These distillers take extra effort and care to ensure that their yeasting does not cause ester, aldehyde or fusel oil variances in the distillate."

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a top-fermenting yeast.

If I remember correctly, Seagram's had something like 300 proprietary yeast strains.

I believe it is Jim Rutledge, at Four Roses, who originally said that the flavor of bourbon is 25% from the grains, 25% from the yeast, and 50% from the barrel.

[gillmang]

Right, thanks. lager yeast is "carlsbergenis" (or Latin to that effect), showing the influence of the Carlsberg brewery in the 1800's. Its founder carried a Munich yeast in his hat to Denmark and there it was single-cell isolated. All lager yeasts derive therefrom or are in that tradition. Ale yeasts are more funky, more tempermental, more fragile. Good to hear the whiskey guys still use top yeasts whether agar slant or jugged..

Gary

[gillmang]

I've had New Glarus too and I agree with you but as you said, there is lots happening in those Belgian breweries including microflora resident for generations in some cases (in the wood vessels, in the walls, in the cobwebs). I believe if American breweries would function as long, the tastes would be similar. (I am no expert, however). Recently in San Francisco I had a local sour ale that was blended 50/50 with Lindeman's raspberry lambic. It was good if a little sweet.

But anyone who hasn't tried unflavoured gueuze should do so, it is a classic beer flavor and highly unusual.

To me (since we're so good at taste notes here) it is like rhubarb, like a tart rhubarb jam mixed with a fresh beer; hence its affinity with fruited additions.

You can buy this for 5 dollars or so and while a lot seemingly for one beer it is a chance to sample a world class specialty for very little, really.

Gary

[gillmang]

On the point of some yeasts possibly being more apt to ferment corn sugars, maybe, but I don't think so. Once starches break down, they break into chains of sugar polymers that are the same (I believe) no matter the cereal source.


Gary

[cowdery]

Another point from Ron Ralph:

"Also, because of its nutrient value, barley malt is the most important constituent of yeast mashes. Corn is not used in a yeast mash because it does not contain the growth factors required for yeast and lactic bacteria growth."

[Mike]

Well blow me down and challenge my assumptions. Rye may not be as responsible for spice in bourbon as we (I?) had assumed? Even more astounding, yeast may a co-conspirator.

One thing that comes to my mind is that a change in the amount of rye in a spirit may produce more than a quantitative change.....it may lead to a qualitative change, e.g. within certain parameters rye contributes a good bit of spice, beyond that parameter it becomes more fruity and the aroma more floral.

The interaction of the rye with the yeast in different quantities may lead to qualitative changes also. What we are dealing with here (for most of us on a speculative level only) are complex organic reactions that don't likely lend themselves to a simple 'scientific' approach. The secrets may not, and probably won't, yield themselves up to a kind of, 'if I add more, or take some away, of this stuff, and don't change anything else, I can say what its influence on the whole will be'.

A few years back a gentleman spent a considerable amount of money in an attempt to get the most power from a motorcycle engine by 'analyzing' the systems........ fuel, air flow, compression, iginition, intake, exhaust, timing, etc, etc. He carefully controlled every aspect and introduced changes one at a time with the belief that doing so would clearly define the influence of that particular aspect on the whole. This approach was a complete failure because the events in a motorcycle engine are so complex that even a small change in one component can have large implications for the overall system. The effects are almost never linear. I believe the same is likely true for the interactions of water, grain, yeast, barrel, and weather in bourbon.

The marvelous thing about the human mind is that we can 'learn' these complex interactions with experience, without necessarily being able to 'specify' them. Passing them on is not a matter of imparting 'information', it is much more a matter of bequeathing knowledge through sharing 'experience'. Pappy Van Winkle understood this at a gut level with his 'No Chemists Allowed' prohibition. And, luckily for us, he did bequeath his knowledge to his decendents as witness the wonderful bourbons produced by them.

Mike Veach's experiments will be interesting because he is very knowledgeable about bourbon, is curious, has the tenacity every good historian must have, and, to top it off, he also knows the Master Distillers who may well have the keys to many of his and our questions. If he makes some interesting discoveries, bourbon will not taste one whit different.........but our enjoyment of our favorite spirit will be enhanced!

[EllenJ]

Really well put, Mike. The whole thing, with all its layers of ideas and thought.

Especially your core point, which I feel is that making whiskey is a science, or maybe even no more than a basic farm skill, but making FINE whiskey is an art. And the only way to do that is by experimenting, juggling the components until the complex interactions come out the way you like, and then passing that information on by the very human sense of feel, rather than by formula.

An extreme example might be Parker and Craig Beam's rejection of the computerized system they inherited with the Diageo (UD) Bernheim distillery. I understand that Parker has said he couldn't make bourbon with that plant, and they've spent a fortune (not to mention the lost-production time) trying to make a real bourbon distillery out of it.

But that's just one distiller's challenge. As far as the industry itself is concerned, the difference between the fine whiskey of yesterday and what we have today has a lot to do with...

(1) First and foremost, the fact that failure is no longer an option. Once upon a time there were really awful whiskeys. Like, for example, most of them. There were also some really good ones. Today, the worst bourbon whiskey in the world is, well, okay. No matter how much we like to go "Eeeeeooooo, that's awful!", the truth is that we rarely find ourselves checking into the emergency clinic because we drank a bad whiskey and now we're blind, or we can't feel our toes anymore. That wasn't always the case. And the laws that prevent poison from being passed off as fine whiskey also limit the way a truly great whiskey can be made. In my humble opinion, that's a net gain for us consumers.

..... a note here for those who participate in our occasional little tastings (yes, Marvin, I'm thinking of you)... some of those pre-prohibition whiskeys might even be dangerous. It's a risk some of us are willing to take. Please remember that, if you wish to share some with us sometime.

(2) Beginning with the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897, and extending through the Pure Food & Drug Act of 1906, the re-construction of the Code of Federal Regulations of 1934, and the FDA regulations of the 1970s and '80s, the methods of creating beverage alcohol have been progressively defined and narrowed (and universalized - is that a word? Well, it is now) until every detail that cannot be reduced to a standard number is eliminated. The result is universal acceptability, but in the process it tend to thwarts any chance of greatness.

Right now, we're seeing the transition from one important stage in that progression to another. The cutting edge producers of the finest whiskeys have, for the past few years, been creating excellent products from whiskey made fifteen to twenty years before. That stage began back in the '90s, with whiskey from the pre-Regan-deregulation '70s. That's all gone, now. And the FDA's NAFTRA & European Union-compliant "Good Manufacturing Practices" campaign of the '80s and '90s have added ever more restrictive regulations which will make it impossible to ever create that kind of bourbon again.

But... not so negative! Innovators such as Buffalo Trace, Woodford Reserve, and Heaven Hill (and I've no doubt the others will soon follow) are adding totally new products that DO conform, while offering interesting differences and specialties.

But then, I never felt the disgust that some of my contemporaries do about Disneyland/world. I find the food prepared in chain restaurants such as Cracker Barrel or Outback to be just fine, thankyouverymuch. And I fully expect to enjoy whatever new products that fine distilleries such as... well, any of the Kentucky distilleries, introduce.

Even if as I wax nostalgic over the way their current offerings USED to taste.

[bourbonv]

John,
You have said that only Four Roses can do this yeast demostration and you are right in that only they can do it to the extent that demonstrated same yeast/different mash and same mash/ different yeast. But you can actually start on this experiment at Woodford Reserve's Bourbon Academy.

Early Times and Jack Daniels uses the same basic mash bill but two different yeast strain. The flavor is very different in the white dog for these products and the yeast is big part of those differences. Old Forester and Woodford started using the same yeast, but Chris Morris says the Old Forester yeast has mutated at Woodford so that does give you some example of same mash bill and different yeast as well.

I agree that Mike is right and it is an art when it comes to making good bourbon. I just wish the accountants would let the artist have free rein in the distillery so they could make us some real masterpieces. They would be relatively expensive to make because they would involve more barrels and lower distillation and barrel proof, maybe a lot more barley, rye or wheat, and longer time in the barrel than the four year old main products such as Jim Beam White, but I think if they did it right, they could name their price.

[EllenJ]

Early Times and Jack Daniels uses the same basic mash bill but two different yeast strain. The flavor is very different in the white dog for these products and the yeast is big part of those differences.

That does give somewhat of an idea, but the fermentation cycle is also completely different and that probably has an even more profound effect on the mash and resultant white dog. And the mashbill is probably the only thing the process at Woodford Reserve shares with Old Forester, or any other bourbon. The Early Times/Jack Daniel comparison would be good one (I know you mean prior to the charcoal process). I have tasted samples of both, although not side-by-side. That would be an interesting comparison.

By the way, Jim Rutledge is conducting a demonstration next Saturday evening (3/24) at The Party Source in Bellevue in which he intends to present the same (or at least a similar) comparison. We will be there. I won't use Mark/Chris' forum to post a link, but anyone in the area can Google the store and find it. The demo's held in a part of the store that's easily accessible and no reason why one couldn't stand in the back and watch, but if you want to sample there's an admission and limited seating.

... ...I just wish the accountants would let the artist have free rein in the distillery so they could make us some real masterpieces.

If it weren't for the accountants, the "artists" would be making the same single kind of white-labeled bourbon they always made and spending most of their time smoking hams and sittin' on th' porch. And we'd all have nothing to talk about.

They would be relatively expensive to make... ...but I think if they did it right, they could name their price.

Amen
Amen!
Amen!
Amen!!
Amen!!
Maybe if we all get together and chant this enough, they might finally hear us!
(but let's not play up that last part too much)

[gillmang]

John, my experience with older whiskeys is away less than yours, but I think bourbon in the old days was generally better. There are many examples of not so great whiskey (IMO) today: Beam White, the current Ancient Age white label, the least expensive HH bourbons. They offer the taste of very young whiskey made in the modern way. While some acquire that taste (even I can), it is not to the standard of the Beam White, say, from 1980 I had last year.

But I am happy with the overall standard and whiskeys such as current KC, EC 12 years old, Elmer T. Lee, Rare Breed, ORVW 10 and 12 years old, and some of the BMH line are certainly tops.

Still, I think the average standard was higher in past decades. Old Crow, Taylor in its prime, OG in its prime - the niche they occupied (basically one expression, i.e., setting aside proof and bonding differences), fairly priced, seems gone.

Gary

[bourbonv]

John,
I get your point about accountants. They are a necessary evil because the distillery has to make money, but they should not be allowed to make production decisions when it comes to quality.

Pappy had the right idea - But always fine bourbon! He made it in such a way that people would come up with the few extra bucks when they wanted a really good bourbon. It is still true today with Stitzel-Weller bourbon from the Van Winkle era selling on ebay for hundreds of dollars. You would think that Heaven Hill or Buffalo Trace would wake up and say "Let's make it just like this bourbon, even if it does cost more. People are willing to pay for it." This concept gives the accountants nightmares.

[EllenJ]

Mike,

Just don't forget the nasty little truth about bourbon. Which is that, although WE think of these as bourbon distilleries, their REAL function is to maintain a presence in a niche-market for a larger company whose core products compete with bourbon and are cheaper to produce and market. Every bottle of bourbon sold, at whatever price, represents a much cheaper-to-produce bottle of tequila, gin, vodka, or whatever, which just might be the company's flagship brand. In a market-share-oriented environment, there's not a lot of incentive to undermine sales of your core product, even at a profit.

And when craft distilling explodes toward the end of this decade, as I feel it will, bourbon's gonna lose even that. With some exceptions. Buffalo Trace will be right up there with the winners. Probably Kirin's Four Roses, too. And don't count Heaven Hill out. At all.

When the craft brewers caught fire, they really weren't a threat to the Big Boys, but they put some serious hurt to the Pabsts, the Rolling Rocks, the Hudepohls, Schmitz's, Shlitz's, Oly's, and Yuenglings. Craft distillers today (and yes, Chuck, I mean the real ones, not the re-bottlers of ethanol selling "craft vodka", whatever that is, that you correctly chastize) are making vodka (for lack of a legal name), selling some, and aging more. Some will fail. Many will be successful with a young spirit that mixes well, like white rum or tequila today. I believe that those who hang in there long enough to have a decently aged brown liquor (and they will be a minority) will present a significant threat to bourbon as we know it today.

Those of you with children who are not quite teenagers, yet...
When your son or daughter is twenty-one, "bourbon" will be something un-cool that Dad or Mom used to drink (before their liver freaked out on them). Other than each other, and the rest us surviving graduate geezers, you won't have anyone to support your conviction that there never was a better beverage than good old Knob Creek, Buffalo Trace, Old Rip Van Winkle, or whatever. Of course, Preston Van Winkle will be as famous as his father was for the quality of his product, if not more so, but don't count on it being bourbon or rye.

[rickduff]

This is a very interesting subject.

Location can make a big difference when it comes to wild yeast.

San Francisco Sour Dough is unique due to the specific type of yeast that is airborne there. It is one that is similar to the type found in yogurt.

In old French wine making areas, they always used to keep pigs close by, as something with their diet (and what exits from their diet) helped with the wild yeast spores.

On another front, one of the Lake Erie wineries in Ohio that is very traditional French style (been open since 1968) uses wild yeast. However to insure they get a desirable type, they imported a cellar mold that is all over the walls and ceiling of their winery cellar, where all wine is fermented and aged.

[MikeK]

An extreme example might be Parker and Craig Beam's rejection of the computerized system they inherited with the Diageo (UD) Bernheim distillery. I understand that Parker has said he couldn't make bourbon with that plant, and they've spent a fortune (not to mention the lost-production time) trying to make a real bourbon distillery out of it.

This reminds me of a topic in a book about the Scotch whisky industry I recently read (The Whisky Men). In one section they contrasted the old days when many "artist" workers were employed who knew just the right way to do each step, purely by experience. Today the distillery is run by one or two workers sitting at a computer screen. They have very little knowlegde about what is going on in the plant, they just push buttons at certain times.

The conclusion was that the industry had gained efficiency and consistancy, but that the spirit was not as good as the old timers could make it. The consistant mass quantity spirit the computer can make is an accross the board compromise. The old timer was able to hand adjust every part of the process to produce the best quality spirit under variable conditions.