Originally posted by joeneugs I think this is a good point too. It’s one thing if it’s a decently priced beer that doesn’t put on any airs...I think id be a bit peeved if I payed a bunch for a "cheater" sour expecting it to be something it isn’t, regardless of how it tastes. Partly because I feel like my dollars should be supporting the risks and experimentation inherent to traditional sour beer brewing. |
Acidulated malt isn’t quite the same as just dumping lactic acid into the beer. The Weyermann stuff, at least, is made from some sort of sour-mash-type process at the maltster, which means it carries all the extra compounds which are produced in small amounts from lacto fermentation, and so gives you a bit more fermentation character than straight lactic acid. |
I’d not heard that about that maltster. Interesting... |
1) quite a lot of brewers in Be have been practicing adding lactic acid to sour beers (especially Flemish browns), instead of waiting for the organisms to perform. Frowned upon, but difficult to condemn, notably because of: |
I know there are a few "traditional" lambic producers that acidify down to 4.3-4.4 to avoid the enteric phase of spontaneous fermentation and speed the process up a bit. Typically, mash acidification is a full point higher than that, but as you say, lactic acid addition is a standard brewing practice and therefore hard to condemn. |
The way they phrase is it a little ambiguous between the two: |
I’ve just emailed them to find out. One thing is that spraying the malt with food-grade lactic acid might not be reinheitsgebot, whereas allowing the grains to sour would be. |
Originally posted by joeneugs This. |
Wouldn’t matter to me at all. In fact, if a brewer could do this and get the same or better results, I’d say he is an idiot for being stubborn. |
Originally posted by CLevar That’s been my understanding. |
2000- 2024 © RateBeer, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service