Lambic, A topic of discussion…

Reads 15043 • Replies 101 • Started Monday, May 15, 2006 12:07:31 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message Oakes P admin beers 30677 º places 1135 º 21:19 Mon 5/15/2006 My two cents: One of the reasons why the use of the term lambic is so contentious is that the best-selling beers are basically misrepresenting the style. Lambic isn’t supposed to be candyish, not even faro. Belle Vue Kriek is the biggest selling "lambic" in the world but there’s more cough syrup in each glass of that then there is real lambic beer. So what happens is that people come to know lambic as a bland, fruity drink that at its best is an inoffensive refresher. Whereas lambic historically is a sour, complex drink. That’s pretty much the complete opposite. The market for traditional lambic is not very big, and is shrinking at the corruption of the image of lambic beer is a significant part of that. It is not inconceivable that we’ll see with our own eyes the closing of the last lambic brewery that is even remotely traditional. This is why people get passionate about it. I feel strongly about this issue. It doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the odd Lindeman’s Peche (but definitely not Chapeau Banana) but it’s just not representative of lambic. The two products (sweetened, fruity flavoured examples and traditional ones) are so different they really ought to have different names.
Message matta beers 1140 º places 91 º 08:12 Tue 5/16/2006 I too am very passionate about the term “Lambic” with its old world imagery and magical story of how the beer was crafted. I am a strong believer that like a true Trappest brewery, there should be a consumer symbol to identify only Traditional Lambics and only those that brew in a determined Traditional style should be able to call themselves Lambics. All others are Lambic imposters and should be called “Lambic Styled” or “Fruit Beer.” I believe somewhere in this direction is where Dan Shelton is going to take this article in the future… I’m assuming???? -& Just to make clear, I work for a craft beer distributor here in Florida; Unique Beers, who represents Shelton’s portfolio. Take in part the retail coast of a Traditional Lambic, the consumer knowledge, and the overall availability of Traditional Lambics; there is VERY little money to be made selling them. They are almost a novelty at this point… and may remain that way eternally. From what I have experienced, Florida is one of the least progressive states in the country when it comes to Brewing and Commercial Craft beer. Although momentarily, Florida is in a big state of growth in relation to Craft beer, this is still an industry and a consumer that is being cultured almost from the ground up.-Not to discredit those Awesome consumers that already get it, but they are all still the large minority. It is VERY important to me, since I seemingly have a blank slate of Craft beer consumers here, to upfront distinguish the facts about beer. -One being that “Kriek Lambic” is NOT anything akin to a Shirly Temple…. http://drink.allrecipes.com/az/ShirlyTmpl.asp Best, Matt A.
Message Dalle beers 1202 º places 6 º 10:22 Tue 5/16/2006 Sometimes I would prefer if Dan Shelton said "nothing at all". Sure, his love and devotion to traditional/authentic lambic is worth applause. I just don’t applaud the way he says things - am I too european? In his ’Lambic primer’ article and previous postings on the babblebelt , and elsewhere, he shows an unsympathetic lack of respect for some lambic producers. It is my understanding that Lambic producers such as Boon, and the Girardin and Hanssen families (etc.), have done a lot of good for the lambic industry - and judging by the raings on this site - for beer lovers worldwide. Michael

Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 14:19 Tue 5/16/2006 Originally posted by BuckNaked Originally posted by SilkTork Dan Shelton may have gone on to explain himself in more detail, and I’m sure he knows a lot more about lambic than I do - but at that point it felt like I was having an enthusiastic and less than accurate assertion ramned down my throat by someone who was perhaps more passionate than thorough. I can well see why most (all?) of Shelton’s emailed information didn’t make it into the New York Times article. The information is unreliable. I don’t see this as any different from your posts on scottish ales in the american homebrew styles vs. rest of the world thread. How is his information any more unreliable? When writing an article I do a lot of research. Sometimes months. I read a variety of books, documents and internet sources. It is not my intention (or style) to write heavy academic articles with lots of references, but I do try to show where appropriate that my findings are supported by facts. I tend to be more spontaneous in forum postings and I do stray into speculation in the forums now and again to test out ideas. RateBeerians are a knowledgable crowd and great to debate with. The homebrewers here are particularly useful. Shelton is writing an article in which he intends to tell us something true and informative about Lambic, and he begins with a wild claim that "lambic is the oldest existing beer style in the world", followed by the supporting evidence that "Since at least the 3rd Century B.C." beer has been fermented by airborne yeasts. I read on, and the article then started to wander a bit, but there appeared to be no further supporting material for his excited, spittle spraying claim that lambic is venerable stuff. While I enjoy and applaud enthusiasm, I don’t enjoy hearing or reading nonsense passed off as fact. I get as irritated by poor or non-existant research as Shelton does by beers he doesn’t enjoy the taste of. Shelton likes certain lambics. Should he be writing about how much he enjoys drinking those lambics? By all means! Is he a beer historian? No. Should he be writing about the history of lambic as though he has some knowledge? No. Why not? Because people might - just might - think what he says is true. Some people might start to believe that lambic is the oldest beer style in the world. Dating back to the 3rd century BC, even! A claim could be made that lambic as we know it today is based on beer from the mid to later 1400s, as it was around that time that brewers in Brabant started to use wheat and hops. But actually, it could be more recent than that, because lambic uses pale malt. And pale malt was developed in England and used in pale ale. Pale lager was developed from those pale malts that were used in England. And then the lambic brewers used the pale malts. It is quite likely that there are common beer styles such as Old Ale and Mild and Stout and Porter and Pale Ale, etc, which are older than lambic. But I don’t want to take anything away from lambic. I just dislike it when I read claims which go against what is currently known about beer history, and those claims are supported by nothing but waffle and hot air. I’m not knowledgable enough about lambic and its history to get into an involved debate, but from the little I do know, it strikes me that Shelton isn’t well informed.
Message matta beers 1140 º places 91 º 18:00 Tue 5/16/2006 Originally posted by SilkTork "lambic is the oldest existing beer style in the world", followed by the supporting evidence that "Since at least the 3rd Century B.C." beer has been fermented by airborne yeasts. I don’t enjoy hearing or reading nonsense passed off as fact. I get as irritated by poor or non-existant research I actually would venture to believe Lambic to be an even older style of beer than that of the 3rd Century BC…. or at least very much parallel to that of beer styles dating back to that of even the 5th century BC. I think this is what needs to be distinguished: What is traditional Lambic, and what exactly is needed; or not needed in some matters, within the recipe to constitute a Lambic? What can we factually say about Lambic… “Lambic is brewed from approximately 70% barley malt and 30% unmalted wheat.” “The hops that are used are not fresh but air aged.” “Lambic wort is not inoculated by human hand, yet fermentation is produced activly and spontaneously.” “The beer is fermented not in stainless steel but a wooden vessel.” Anyone want to add to this?
Message Joeh beers 2049 º places 49 º 18:15 Tue 5/16/2006 Originally posted by matta Originally posted by SilkTork "lambic is the oldest existing beer style in the world", followed by the supporting evidence that "Since at least the 3rd Century B.C." beer has been fermented by airborne yeasts. I don’t enjoy hearing or reading nonsense passed off as fact. I get as irritated by poor or non-existant research I actually would venture to believe Lambic to be an even older style of beer than that of the 3rd Century BC…. or at least very much parallel to that of beer styles dating back to that of even the 5th century BC. I think this is what needs to be distinguished: What is traditional Lambic, and what exactly is needed; or not needed in some matters, within the recipe to constitute a Lambic? What can we factually say about Lambic… “Lambic is brewed from approximately 70% barley malt and 30% unmalted wheat.” “The hops that are used are not fresh but air aged.” “Lambic wort is not inoculated by human hand, yet fermentation is produced activly and spontaneously.” “The beer is fermented not in stainless steel but a wooden vessel.” Anyone want to add to this? Spontaneously fermented beer may date back as long as beer itself but it was certainly not lambic as we know it now. Lambic refers to a specific style of beer from a specific location fermented with specific wild yeasts. The ability to produce pale malts such as those used in lambic does not date back very long at all, before that the malt would have been made in a very different way and produce a completely different tasting beer. Hops in beer are a relatively recent innovation also. A darker, possibly smoked, wild fermented beer has no relation to your Cantillon.
Message matta beers 1140 º places 91 º 19:22 Tue 5/16/2006 Originally posted by Degarth Is it ok to introduce fruits that could not possibily have been obtained locally back in the day provided all the above is followed? For example Mango or Grapes not native to the traditional lambic region? I don’t know? You know I’m not a Lambic expert, just an enthusiast. I would also like to know if there is an answer… There are many beers that shouldn’t be called Lambic but are, but that does not make them all inferior beers and many of these "fake" Lambics mentioned make very good beer compared to other Lambic-style beer makers. Still… I’m not saying one is better than the other… that a consumer choice not anyone else’s to make for the consumer. You know how there are only 6 true Trappist breweries… And those breweries can only be called Trappist because of the designated gridlines made in order to call ones brewery Trappist… Well, Lambic should have a similar state of affairs… a guidebook, IMHO. One cannot expect a Barley Wine-Style Ale to be judged in the American-Style Hefeweizen category at the World Beer Cup…. They are not the same thing for many reasons of judging criteria. As of Today, Lambic is too expansive a word, and there are beers being called Lambic that are not. That is my total point here. Best, Matt A.

Message FlacoAlto beers 4461 º places 17 º 19:33 Tue 5/16/2006 Originally posted by SilkTork And pale malt was developed in England and used in pale ale. Pale lager was developed from those pale malts that were used in England. And then the lambic brewers used the pale malts. Not to be too much of a smart ass here, but this is one of those rumors stated as fact things that gets my goat Pale malts were in fact not magically invented for the use of Pale Ales. An ancient technique of drying malted barley has the name of wind dried malt. Not too surprisingly this malt was specifically known as producing a beer of very light color. This technique, because of its simplicity, had been around long before the "Pale-Ale" malts of the modern brewing era. I think that may be the confusing point; Pale Ale malts are a modern invention, but pale malts were certainly not. Admittedly wind dried malt would not brew beer nearly as efficiently as that dried with a heat source, but it was a technique that well predates Pale-Ale malt. Having said that I really do like this debate, good points from all around, at least in this posting. Lambic is a subject near and dear to my heart. So keep at it.
Message mdi beers 573 º places 15 º 20:03 Tue 5/16/2006 Originally posted by matta Originally posted by Degarth Is it ok to introduce fruits that could not possibily have been obtained locally back in the day provided all the above is followed? For example Mango or Grapes not native to the traditional lambic region? I don’t know? You know I’m not a Lambic expert, just an enthusiast. I would also like to know if there is an answer… There are many beers that shouldn’t be called Lambic but are, but that does not make them all inferior beers and many of these "fake" Lambics mentioned make very good beer compared to other Lambic-style beer makers. Still… I’m not saying one is better than the other… that a consumer choice not anyone else’s to make for the consumer. You know how there are only 6 true Trappist breweries… And those breweries can only be called Trappist because of the designated gridlines made in order to call ones brewery Trappist… Well, Lambic should have a similar state of affairs… a guidebook, IMHO. One cannot expect a Barley Wine-Style Ale to be judged in the American-Style Hefeweizen category at the World Beer Cup…. They are not the same thing for many reasons of judging criteria. As of Today, Lambic is too expansive a word, and there are beers being called Lambic that are not. That is my total point here. Best, Matt A. Actually, Matt, The Trappist logo appears on a variety of products made by Trappist monks, not just beer. It also has nothing to do with how a beer is made, in the physical sense...I’m not sure that’s the right word...It has nothing to do with the brewing techniques or ingredients...simply where it is brewed and who gets the profits. I think what you are wanting for lambics is much, much different...and much more difficult. I agree with you that the word ’lambic’ has very little meaning today, when used as a marketing/beer lable. I’m still undecided whether or not it should have some sort of ’protected’ status though...I think there should be truth in labling(saying what is really in the beer, instead what sounds good)...I’m wavering on some of the points here... Cheers matt
Message SilkTork P beers 7752 º places 111 º 01:28 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by FlacoAlto Originally posted by SilkTork And pale malt was developed in England and used in pale ale. Pale lager was developed from those pale malts that were used in England. And then the lambic brewers used the pale malts. An ancient technique of drying malted barley has the name of wind dried malt. Good point. Yes - it is believed that ancient beer was pale rather than dark. Though, as you know, by the Middle Ages in Europe the malts were no longer being air dried - they were direct heat dried. Originally posted by Joeh Originally posted by matta Originally posted by SilkTork "lambic is the oldest existing beer style in the world", followed by the supporting evidence that "Since at least the 3rd Century B.C." beer has been fermented by airborne yeasts. I actually would venture to believe Lambic to be an even older style of beer than that of the 3rd Century BC…. or at least very much parallel to that of beer styles dating back to that of even the 5th century BC. Spontaneously fermented beer may date back as long as beer itself but it was certainly not lambic as we know it now. Lambic refers to a specific style of beer from a specific location fermented with specific wild yeasts. The ability to produce pale malts such as those used in lambic does not date back very long at all, before that the malt would have been made in a very different way and produce a completely different tasting beer. Hops in beer are a relatively recent innovation also. A darker, possibly smoked, wild fermented beer has no relation to your Cantillon. Joeh sums it up quite neatly. One of our problems is that when casting our mind back to beers in the past we will use what we know about beer now and apply it to the beers in the past. Shelton’s and Matta’s thinking that because lambic today uses airborne yeasts and that Egyptian beers used airborne yeasts, therefore they are the same beer, is understandable. That they both ignore the specific wheat and barley mix that is characteristic of lambic, that they both ignore the use of stale hops that are a feature of lambic, that they both ignore the long aging process, that they both ignore the very specific yeasts and bacteria that constitute the unique character of lambic, etc, etc, is quite understandable. We all can be guilty of forgetting that things change, and that in the past things were done slightly (or very) differently.