What is a Kolsch Style

Reads 24142 • Replies 141 • Started Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:26:02 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 Cletus beers 6349 º places 233 º 22:42 Wed 5/21/2008 Even though I firmly believe Kolsch is an ale, I also see where Ron’s coming from and think he has a legitimate argument. The name calling and profanity is uncalled for here. Ron may have a different opinion, but he is not the one coming off with a negative attitude here.
Message SacoDeToro 00:07 Thu 5/22/2008 The important distinction to draw is that lagering is a process. This is different than saying a beer is a lager, which implies that while it was lagered, a lager strain of yeast was also used in the primary fermentation. Any beer, whether it’s a lager or an ale can be lagered. Aside from wild yeasts such as brettanomyces, klockera, s. boulardii, etc... there are two primary species of yeast used to ferment beer. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and saccharomyces carlbergensis, which are ale and lager groups, respectively. Regardless of process, when saccharomyces cerevisiae is used in the primary fermentation, the beer categorically is an ale. This is a scientific and biological position on the matter.
Message deReiger beers 11 º places 4 º 01:23 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by erway No it’s much more important, in this instance, to use what science (including the zymurgists in Germany) use. They call Kolsch an ale. Every brewing scientist I have ever met calls it an ale. I consider myself a budding brewing scientist. So I’ll call it an ale. Whose science? If I understand you correctly, if American "scientists" decide that Sinterklaas looks close enough to Santa Claus, then we must give up the name we have been using for hundreds of years? I thought that science was based on objective information, not chauvinism.

Message JoeinDahlem beers 1664 º places 356 º 01:28 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by Saco_De_Toro The important distinction to draw is that lagering is a process. This is different than saying a beer is a lager, which implies that while it was lagered, a lager strain of yeast was also used in the primary fermentation. Any beer, whether it’s a lager or an ale can be lagered. Aside from wild yeasts such as brettanomyces, klockera, s. boulardii, etc... there are two primary species of yeast used to ferment beer. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and saccharomyces carlbergensis, which are ale and lager groups, respectively. Regardless of process, when saccharomyces cerevisiae is used in the primary fermentation, the beer categorically is an ale. This is a scientific and biological position on the matter. Nobody has yet countered the compelling argument that this black-and-white, clear-cut perspective--ale yeasts make ales and lager yeasts make lagers--is basically an American one. To say that it’s "scientific" and therefore somehow universal doesn’t close the deal. If I’ve learned anything from this mighty thread, it’s that the issue of ale yeast vs. lager yeast is more nuanced and complicated than that. However: I’m not prepared to call Kölsch a lager just because the Germans call it "Lagerbier." That’s not an honest translation. I certainly won’t it a lager just because the beer was "lagered," any more than I’ll call all the beer in my cellar "Kellerbier." Also, I won’t call it a lager just because it is "supposed" to have a cleaner taste (i.e. fewer esters) than most ales. There was another assertion that the ale-lager distinction is an "Anglo-centric" once. Well, why not? We’re speaking English, aren’t we? Don’t be afraid to have some respect for our own language. Even if the Germans called it a lager--and I’m not convinced that they do--doesn’t mean that we should. For my part: Like a lot of you, I’ve drunk fresh Kölsch in Köln. My mouth and my belly tell me it’s an ale.
Message wunderbier beers 1434 º places 17 º 02:06 Thu 5/22/2008 Yay! So, Kölsch is a Obergäriges Lagerbier (top-flocculating, cold-conditioned) brewed in Köln with a particular strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that has been cultivated to brew said beer. The words ’ale’ and ’lager’ are a sort of intellectual shorthand that don’t even carry the same definition across all of the English speaking world, but can be useful for getting across a general idea given the appropriate context. ’Top-fermenting’ and ’bottom-fermenting’ are misnomers that we would do well to replace with ’top-flocculating’ and ’bottom-flocculating’. Notice that saying "Kölsch is a(n) ale/lager" lacks context. But if an American beer newbie asked me if Kölsch is an ale or lager, I’d say lagered hybrid-ale. All beer in Finland is olut. Sahti is olut, uses baker’s yeast (S. cerevisiae) and could justifiably be called ale in some contexts, but not in others. Translation is great for getting across a general point but it’s just a translation and almost never conveys the full meaning of the original words to a native speaker. Styles don’t exist, but trends and history do. History is being written (and rewritten) everyday. It’s just beer. What were we talking about again?
Message SilkTork P beers 7772 º places 111 º 02:50 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by erway When those that disagree get themselves some science to back up their argument.... I’m becoming aware that there is some cross-purpose talking going on, with the science-based people (not brewing-based, as many people involved in this discussion home-brew) taking a somewhat definitive stance as is the case with scientists. A crude example might be that a scientist would say that -10 c is cold, and that is a fact. There is no disputing this. A person experiencing -10 c might have a different perspective depending on other factors such as recent exercise, body fat and adaptation to the temperature. The "perception" of cold will vary from person to person. However, -10 c will remain -10 c, and it will be technically cold as it will do certain things to certain materials. My point throughout this discussion has not been to call Kolsch a lager (please look back at what I have said) but to dispute that it can be for certain an ale because the perception is that it is a lager. I dispute the argument put forward that it is an ale because it uses an ale yeast as that in itself appears to be a circular argument as an ale yeast would be defined as a yeast that makes ale, so we would need FIRST to define our ale. The scientist here have continually gone back to look at the yeast and tell us emphatically that it is an ale yeast without considering that to call something an "ale" yeast when it is making a product that can be "perceived" as a lager looks odd. Why are people here curious about Kolsch? They are not curious about it because - as the scientist say - "it’s obvious that it is an ale because it made with an ale yeast", they are curious about it because it presents as a lager, has some elements of lager production, and yet technically it is called an ale. What is more interesting is to look at why the product ends up presenting as a lager, rather than to keep going back to the terminology of "it’s an ale because it’s made from an ale yeast, and we are scientists so we know what we are talking about so stop even THINKING about the finished product and just do as you are told!" Sorry - but we are thinkers. Kolsch presents as a lager. How are you differentiating between lager and ale?
Message SilkTork P beers 7772 º places 111 º 02:53 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by SilkTork Originally posted by erway When those that disagree get themselves some science to back up their argument.... How are you differentiating between lager and ale? And is it really that important? Should we be looking at other ways of grouping beers? I think those of us who are not scientists and drink beer can recall several beers where we weren’t sure of the production method or were surprised to be told a product that presents as an ale was in fact a lager. People note that when having certain full bodied short lagered "lagers" fresh from the brewery that the product presents as an ale.

Message FatPhil P beers 26305 º places 998 º 04:13 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by wunderbier All beer in Finland is olut. Sahti is olut, uses baker’s yeast Not all beers are olut - there’s kalja too. ’Olut’ is of course of Indo-European heritage and cognate to ’ale’ (I presume via Scandinavia). I would guess that Kalja is a Finno-Ugric word, and with the same roots as the Estonian ’kali’. I heard from a retired Estonian linguist (second hand, alas, but via a Finnish linguist) that some sahti-like home brews are brewed with a ’kali’-ike moniker (rather than the ’õlu’ one).
Message SilkTork P beers 7772 º places 111 º 05:06 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by FatPhil Originally posted by wunderbier All beer in Finland is olut. Sahti is olut, uses baker’s yeast Not all beers are olut - there’s kalja too. ’Olut’ is of course of Indo-European heritage and cognate to ’ale’ (I presume via Scandinavia). I would guess that Kalja is a Finno-Ugric word, and with the same roots as the Estonian ’kali’. I heard from a retired Estonian linguist (second hand, alas, but via a Finnish linguist) that some sahti-like home brews are brewed with a ’kali’-ike moniker (rather than the ’õlu’ one). Is Kalja actually separate from Olut, or is it a low abv Olut? And is Kalja only "ale" or is it the more general "beer" including all variations? In a number of northern European languages ale is an older term for beer, and in Britain at least, when hops were beginning to be used on the continent, the terms used were "ale" for unhopped beer and "beer" for hopped beer as the term "beer" was more used on the continent where hopped beer was coming from, while the term "ale" was still the most popular term in Britain which still used mainly unhopped beer. I think the same sort of principle was used when the lager brewing methods became popular. "Ale" was the existing older name for beer, and the new method took on the new name, while the existing beers (ales) retained the older terminology. There could, linguistically (rather than scientifically), be an argument that the term "ale" is used to differentiate older, existing or more traditional brewing methods/styles. To bring that linguistic approach to bear on Kolsch, it may be that as the brewing method used for making Kolsch is relatively modern, the application of the term "ale" (which is understood to refer to an ancient, traditional brewing method) would be inappropriate.
Message wunderbier beers 1434 º places 17 º 05:34 Thu 5/22/2008 Originally posted by FatPhil Originally posted by wunderbier All beer in Finland is olut. Sahti is olut, uses baker’s yeast Not all beers are olut - there’s kalja too. ’Olut’ is of course of Indo-European heritage and cognate to ’ale’ (I presume via Scandinavia). I would guess that Kalja is a Finno-Ugric word, and with the same roots as the Estonian ’kali’. I heard from a retired Estonian linguist (second hand, alas, but via a Finnish linguist) that some sahti-like home brews are brewed with a ’kali’-ike moniker (rather than the ’õlu’ one). Yeah, I spaced out on including that one. Ale==>öl==>olut / õlu or something like that. The best explanation I get from Finns on olut / kalja is that kalja has a lower presumptuousness about it, something more rural and rustic. But still, outside of reaching for the English ’ale’ and ’lager’ there aren’t shorthand words to describe the difference as far as I know. And it doesn’t seem like you can be wrong in calling something olut, though you might offend a brewer by calling his product kalja. Sound about right?