Mo Betta Bretta vs. Brett Beer

Originally posted by SamGamgee

Originally posted by TooManyBeers

Originally posted by TURDFERGUSON

Originally posted by NobleSquirrel
After reading this thread, I’m convinced people don’t know anywhere near as much about Brett as they think they do...

This may be true and given that fact I find it irresponsible of these two well educated breweries to release a beer called "Brett beer" before any of the Brett has developed, especially to us ignorant masses. Just sayin.

Nicely said.

I have to disagree.

The point of these beers (and the original point of Mo Betta Bretta back when it was first done) is to show that brettanomyces as a genus is capable of being used as a primary beer fermenter. Using brett as the sole yeast in a beer isn’t the same as using it for secondary fermentation and aging. You don’t get the same character early on, and maybe not even with extensive aging. But that’s the point, to show that brett can be very similar to sacch if given similar treatment. There was a paper done on brett as a primary strain and Lost abbey was a participant in the research when they first did it but I’d have no idea how to find it at this point (it’s on line though).

Cultured brett as a primary yeast is a very new thing in the world of brewing and you can’t just expect them to taste like brett character from other methods of fermentation.

i will just +1 what you have said. I find it quite amusing, but quite understandable, just how ignorant people are on what Brett fermentation character can be in its entirety.

Originally posted by FlacoAlto

Originally posted by SamGamgee

Originally posted by TooManyBeers

Originally posted by TURDFERGUSON

Originally posted by NobleSquirrel
After reading this thread, I’m convinced people don’t know anywhere near as much about Brett as they think they do...

This may be true and given that fact I find it irresponsible of these two well educated breweries to release a beer called "Brett beer" before any of the Brett has developed, especially to us ignorant masses. Just sayin.

Nicely said.

I have to disagree.

The point of these beers (and the original point of Mo Betta Bretta back when it was first done) is to show that brettanomyces as a genus is capable of being used as a primary beer fermenter. Using brett as the sole yeast in a beer isn’t the same as using it for secondary fermentation and aging. You don’t get the same character early on, and maybe not even with extensive aging. But that’s the point, to show that brett can be very similar to sacch if given similar treatment. There was a paper done on brett as a primary strain and Lost abbey was a participant in the research when they first did it but I’d have no idea how to find it at this point (it’s on line though).

Cultured brett as a primary yeast is a very new thing in the world of brewing and you can’t just expect them to taste like brett character from other methods of fermentation.

i will just +1 what you have said. I find it quite amusing, but quite understandable, just how ignorant people are on what Brett fermentation character can be in its entirety.

Thanks to Sam for putting down what I was trying to convey. Good stuff.