Roosterfish Brewing  Hop Warrior

Style: Double IPA 
Color: dark orange-amber
ABV: 8.7% 
Price Point: $7 for 22oz 
Technical Notes: OG 1.081    TG 1.015    Color 14.68  IBU 120.2

Hedonic Notes:

The pour is a slightly hazy orange amber color with a light caramel colored crown of foam.  The bubbles fade quickly, but the beer remains somewhat effervescent.

Citrus hop notes form the bulk of the aroma with a great deal of lemon and grapefruit.  Some grassy notes and a very strong sweet caramel malt backbone.  A bit of alcohol solvent aroma rears its head as the beer warms.

At first, the flavor is of strong sweet malt.  A strong American-style Cascade-like bitterness follows.  The citrus notes that are present in the aroma are backed up by a strong piney bitterness , but the grass flavor does not appear as much, or is perhaps  overwhelmed.  The beer is quite bitter, but the malt is strong enough to balance it and make the beer drinkable despite the alleged 120+ IBUs.  The beer finishes quite clean with a nice lingering citrus note.

After the very strong sweetness and high bitterness, one might expect a viscous and dry {mouthfeel}.  Such was not the case, as the beer was very well-balanced and felt medium-bodied.

For being 120+ IBUs, the beer does not taste overwhelmingly bitter and is perhaps almost easy to drink.  There isn’t too much in the area of earthy or spicy hop notes, but that is permissible in some American double IPAs.  One nice feature of this, however, is that it will pair well with spicy foods that have earthier flavors—ribs perhaps.  Overall, it is an enjoyable experience, but it is very difficult to compete in the American double IPA category these days.  Indeed, with everyone making their own extreme IPA, it’s difficult to stand out in the category.

Rating:  3 out of 5 corks .

Crystal structure of barley alpha amylase from PDB entry 1AMY.

The mashing process hinges on the activity of two enzymes: alpha amylase and beta amylase (genes named AMY1 and AMY2 respectively, among other isoforms).  These two enzymes break down complex starch structures into simple sugars.  By controlling the precise activity of each enzyme, one may plan a specific sugar profile for a beer, producing flavors ranging from complex and sweet to straightforward and alcoholic.

Beta amylase has the ability to break nonreducing alpha 1,4-glycosidic linkages.  Thus beta amylase yields maltose (dimmers) or maltotriose (trimers).  Yeast are not able to metabolize maltose and maltotriose quickly, and this results in a sweeter beer and a thicker mothfeel.

Alpha amylase may cut any alpha-1,4 glycosidic linkage, ultimately leaving sugar monomers.  These monomers are easily metabolized by yeast, leaving a crisp taste with a higher alcohol content.  An important function of this enzyme is that it is able to cleave beta amylase products into even simpler sugars.  Check out PDB’s February 2006 Molecule of the Month feature on amylase.

A barley stalk thanks to net_efekt at Flickr. Also, check out net_efekt's discussion of barley types.

Each enzyme operates optimally at a slightly different temperature, allowing the brewer to precisely plan the beer’s texture and flavor.  Beta amylase operates optimally at 60C to 65C while alpha amylase sees optimal activity at 72C to 75C.  Both enzymes are irreversibly denatured above 80C, leaving no activity.  By selecting mash temperatures and times within these ranges, a brewer can control the beer’s taste.

Both enzymes bind and unbind randomly, leaving chains of random lengths.  At first, the enzymes tend to diffuse between large chains, but as the chains become smaller, the enzymes tend to break the smaller portions more quickly since they diffuse to the active site more readily.  Indeed, this is a common feature of enzymatic systems and a challenge in a similar system: breakdown of cellulose for biofuel production.

Amylase enzymes work by using water to hydrate the glycosidic linkage (hydrolysis) and leave two stable sugar ends.  The resulting chains both have hydroxyl groups in a conformation identical to the bond that linked the sugars previously.  Check out this great animation from the University of Indiana.

Chapman, Pallas and Mendicino.  ”The hydrolosys of maltodextrins by a beta-amylase isolated from the leaves of vicia faba”  Biochimica et Biophysica Acta – Enzymology. 1972.

Fix, George. Principles of Brewing Science.  Brewers Publications: Boulder, CO.  1999.

Kadziola et al. “Crystal and molecular structure of barley alpha-amylase” Journal of Molecular Biology. 1994.

Svensson.  ”Protein engineering in the α-amylase family: catalytic mechanism, substrate specificity, and stability” Plant Molecular Biology. 1994

                          

by Richard Pliny, Beer Correspondent

Style: “Blended IPA”
Color: Orange-straw
ABV: 9%
Price Point: $8 for 22oz
Technical Notes: From the Southern Tier website, “High in the winter sky, two parallel stick figures are visible & known as “the twins,” or the constellation Gemini. The astronauts of the 1960s flew as teams of two in a program named after the celestial pairing. At Southern Tier, we have our own fraternal twins, Hoppe [reviewed here] & Unearthly. Blended together & placed in this vessel, the mission of our Gemini is to travel high & take passengers on a journey far into the heavens.”

Hedonic Notes: The beer pours a translucent pale orange with very little foam.  That foam which does form is characterized by large bubbles and a brilliant white shade.  There is a slightly cloudy appearance and the bottom of the bottle has a healthy amount of sediment. Floral, aromatic hop notes pervade the aroma.  A slight bit of citrus follows, accompanied by a thick, almost honey like malt backbone.  The hop notes are complex yet subtle, with hints of pine and grass mixing with the stronger floral and citrus notes.

As the beer warms, the subtler hints become more pronounced.  Hop bitterness reminds one of an American style IPA, with prominent pine and citrus.  A delightfully sweet caramel malt forms a subdued yet appropriate contrast and highlights the more delicate aspects of the hop bitterness.  Grapefruit and orange notes dominate, while grass does not play as prominent a role as in the aroma.  Earthy notes are not as noticeable as one may expect in the finish, which is more dry than bitter.

In spite of the 9% alcohol, any sort of solvent texture is minimal, even as the beer warms.  The finish is very dry and imparts a clear astringency that quite distinct from a hop bitterness.  A surprising smoothness accompanies this dryness and astringency, making for a very unique finish.

Overall the beer is very drinkable.  It is more drinkable than Hoppe, though arguably not as good a vessel for exploring the many facets of hop bitterness.  Personally, I found Hoppe a more interesting experience, but perhaps this beer isn’t trying to compete as much as complement.  It should be noted that this beer was aged for a few months, perhaps subduing the hop flavors.  That said, it was quite unique and a delight to drink in general.

Rating: 4/5 Corks. Gemini is a delightful IPA to drink, but perhaps not as high in the sky as Southern Tier’s Hoppe.

The final frontier: beer in space!

In 2001 Kirsten Sterett, a graduate student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted experiments brewing beer in space.  With the help of Coors, Sterett had a small fermentation experiment fly on a shuttle mission, with a control sample on earth.  Experiments looked at cell counts and protein expression levels.

Sterett's brewery apparatus. Thanks to NASA for the image.

Under the influence of gravity (i.e., on Earth), cells form aggregates and settle out of solution.  This results in a layer of sediment at the bottom of the beer and is largely responsible for the slow progression of aging.  In microgravity, however, the cells remain in suspension throughout the length of the fermentation.  Moreover, carbon dioxide bubbles don’t leave the system since there is no bouyant force in the absence of gravity. In remaining in suspension, the cells are able to consume sugars more rapidly since the diffusion limitations are lessened.

Sterett found, somewhat paradoxically, that total cell counts are reduced when fermentation is conducted in orbit.  However, certain proteins were expressed in higher levels. Later experiments focusing on pharmaceutical production would find that bacterial cells are able to produce better target molecule:biomass ratios in microgravity.

Though the precise mechanism is not clear, efforts are underway to engineer organisms that are able to produce similar results in gravity. The bulk of earlier microbial experiments in space focused primarily on pathogenic bacteria.  Findings from Salyut in 1982 and Spacelab D1 in 1985 seemed to indicate that microbes have increased antibiotic resistance in microgravity.  It appears microbes are able to form more dense biofilms in the absence of gravity, making mass transfer to the center of the population difficult.

The ISS would make a great place for a pub. Image courtesy of NASA

So is beer production possible in space?  The question is currently unanswered, but appears promising.  Sterett did taste about 1ml of her beer, but noted that it did not taste very good.  Space beer would no doubt be a rather different drinking experience without a proper head forming (not to mention drinking from a straw and having limited aroma due to container constraints).

Japanese brewer Sapporo offered a beer brewed with barley descended from samples grown in orbit.  The beer launched in early 2009, with a mere 100 liters were produced and sold to a lucky 250 customers chosen from a lottery for 10,000 yen (roughly $110US) per six-pack.  (as an aside, if any readers out there happen to have a bottle of this sitting around I would love to write a feature on it!) Is space beer going to be the beverage of the future?  Probably not… and I’m still waiting for my jetpack.

“R&D Report for ‘Space Barley’” Sapporo.

Suds in Space. NASA.  2001.

Wilson et al. “Space flight alters bacterial gene expression and virulence and reveals a role for global regulator Hfq.“ PNAS. 2007.

                          

Style: “Chocolate Stout”
Color: Black
ABV: 10.6%
Price Point: $22 for 750 mL
Technical Notes:
From the bottle, “Brooklyn Black Ops does not exist. However, if it did exist, it would be a robust stout concocted by the Brooklyn brewing team under cover of secrecy and hidden from everyone else at the brewery.  Supposedly Black Ops was aged for four months in bourbon barrels, bottled flat, and re-fermented with Champagne yeast, creating big chocolate and coffee flavors with a rich underpinning of vanilla-like oak notes.  They say there are only 1,000 cases.  We have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Hedonic Notes:

The beer pours an inky black with a coffee colored head.  Bubbles in the foam are small and persistent even as the beer warms.

A malty caramel smell with faint bourbon notes make up the aroma.  As the beer warms a very distant solvent flavor can be detected.  Vanilla notes come out as the beer reaches near room temperature along with slight coffee scents.

Sweet, thick, roasted malt flavors form the start of the taste and are followed by a vanilla and oak notes, with a faint red fruit flavor in the middle.  Cocoa and toffee form the transition to the finish along with some more sweet malty notes and hints of coffee following.  The vanilla, in particular, comes out nicely as the beer warms.  As in the aroma, an ethanol solvent character comes out slightly as it warms.

From the start, the {{mouthfeel}} has a noticeable viscosity and feels very heavy and mouth-coating.  The alcohol character comes out a bit as the beer warms, but does not feel like a 10.6% beer.

Both the flavor and aroma have great balance.  Though complex, the flavors complement each other and strike a balance between the smoky and sweet notes that is simply remarkable.  The beer is, despite its robust and formidable character, surprisingly palatable.  That said, it is certainly not a lawnmower beer, but would be great with smoked salmon and plenty of time to drink it.  Serving as a dessert beer would also work very well.  Even when warm, the beer does not taste as alcohol-solvent like as one might expect for the content, I suspect that aging will improve this characteristic.  Overall, Brooklyn’s Black Ops is a great beer that is definitely worth the investment.

Rating:  4.5 out of 5 corks .  This is an excellent stout that has a wonderful amount of balance.  Try aging this for a few months and see how it develops.

Foam is a critical component in a beer’s appearance, texture and even aroma.  Foam color tells one about the malts used and bubble size lends hints about the level of carbonation and the protein content.  Bubble size and persistence influence how beer feels when drunk.  Because of the very high surface area, foam is able to act as a great interface for mass transfer, accounting for a great deal of the aroma one smells in beer.

Bubble size and persistence are two very important features of the foam that lend insight to the beer’s composition.  The size of bubbles is an indicator of the pressure inside the bubbles and the overall carbonation of the beer.  Bubble stability or persistence indicates a large number of properties responsible for maintaining the beer-air interface.

A collection of bubbles in beer foam. Notice that some of the smaller bubbles appear to be growing into larger ones. Thanks to Placbo on Flickr.

Smaller bubbles require more internal pressure to maintain curvature.  The force on a bubble’s interior surface due to pressure difference is described as the area integral of the normal vector to the bubble’s surface (this simplifies to

, where ΔP is the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bubble and r is the bubble radius), while the force of surface tension is described as

, where γ is the fluid’s surface tension.  Balancing the two equations so that the force is zero (indicating a stable bubble) yields the solution

This equation says that the pressure of a bubble is inversely proportional to the radius and directly proportional to the surface tension.  In other words, at constant internal pressure, smaller bubbles indicate higher surface tension.  We thus see that beers which tend to have smaller bubbles (like stouts and porters) tend to be a bit more viscous and have higher sugar and protein content.  Conversely, light lagers tend to have larger bubbles due to lower content of interface-stabilizing compounds.

As demonstrated by A. Leike, beer foam decay obeys an exponential decay.  In a paper for which he won an Ig Nobel prize in 2002, Leike shows empirically that the foam height obeys the equation

where h₀ is the initial height and τ is a decay constant dependent on the particular beer.  One may thus compare foam stability of beer on a quantitative basis given measurements over time if observations are conducted carefully.

The exact parameters that determine the value of τ are quite detailed and varied.  Sugar and protein content play important roles, but so do polyphenol concentrations, presence of lipids or sterols and even alcohol content.  Foam stability in general is a topic of great interest currently and beer is just one of many areas of application for such research.

                          

Butternuts Beer & Ale’s Porkslap

Style: Pale Ale
Color: amber
ABV: 4.3%
Price Point: $7 for 6-12 oz cans
Technical Notes:
From the Butternuts Beer and Ale Website:  “Porkslap Pale Ale is brewed with 2 row North American barley and English crystal malt. The beer is flavored with crystal hop and a touch of fresh ginger to create a distinct flavor only a porkslapper can love. At 4.3% abv this beer is designed to have a good ale flavor and a crisp mild finish.”

Hedonic Notes:

The beer pours a medium red-amber with a cream colored foam.  A think, cream colored head forms with small bubbles and persists for some time.

Sweet malt makes for most of the aroma while faint hints of citrus hops dance in the background.  Even when warm, the aroma is very mild.

Malt flavors are very prevalent in the palate.  Pale malts impart a slight sweetness to the beverage, while mild earthy/spicy hops linger in the background.  A faint hint of ginger sits in the middle of the palate and imparts a unique spice like flavor that becomes increasingly obvious as the beer warms.

A medium mouthfeel is accompanied by a surprisingly mouthcoating linger hop dryness that may be described as a mild astringency.

Overall the beer is a bit rough around the edges.  The hops are present, but not as strong as one might expect for an IPA.  Indeed, the beer is quite unlike most American IPAs and is best described as a pale ale or a British style IPA.  The lingering dry bitterness is unexpected given the very mild aroma and the contributions of the ginger are almost odd.  Yet, the beer has a great deal of character.  The beer is generally palatable, but certainly not for everyone.  As an aside, it’s nice to see craft beers showing up in cans these days.

Rating: 2.5/5 Corks.  Porkslap is rather unique beer that’s worth a try.

The debate of cans vs bottles has been renewed recently with some craft brewers choosing to use cans rather than the traditional bottles.  Bottles are alleged to preserve flavor better and be more recyclable, while cans are easier to ship and preserve the contents better.

Part of the bottling process is pasteurization, which may affect the beer's quality compared to the typically unpasteurized kegged counterparts. Image via wikipedia

Jim Koch of the Boston Beer Company insists that bottles are best.  Item VI of his Beer Drinker’s Bill of Rights states that “Beer shall be offered in bottles, not cans, so that no brew is jeopardized with the taste of metal.”  While this was a concern for early canned beverages, modern advances have all but removed this risk.  Indeed, metallic flavors are more often associated with the brewing process than the storage method.

That said, aluminum does leach into beer during storage. Whether or not these levels of aluminum are sufficient to justify concern is an item that is open to debate.  Indeed, low levels of lead are detected in canned and bottled beer, and even higher levels are found in beer in kegs.

In addition to detesting bottles, Jim Koch also insists on specially designed six pack cartons to protect bottles from sunlight, which may cause beer to grow skunky.  Yet, such items are not a concern in cans, where the aluminum’s opacity shields the beer from ultraviolet light.  Moreover, the cans leave less free volume in the vessel, lowering the risk of oxygen contamination compared to bottles.

The amount of beer per unit volume of packaging of cans is much higher than that for bottles.  One may fit nearly 24 cans in the space required for 12 bottles, permitting greater shipping density.  Conversely, bottles may be recycled without needing to melt down and remake them, where aluminum cans require a great deal of processing.  Moreover, making new aluminum cans requires a great deal of energy.    It is not clear if the environmental cost of shipping offsets that of recycling or making new aluminum cans.

Bottles are boss and cans are cool, but casks are simply capital. Thanks to janusz I on flickr

So which is best?  The answer is not straight forward or perhaps even answerable.  Each container has its purpose and both are worth keeping around.  If one wishes to have the best tasting beer possible, the answer is quite clear in this case: neither.  Kegs and (when the style is appropriate) casks offer a better taste than bottles or cans.  This is because kegged beer is normally not pasteurized, and thus does not lose flavor from being heated, nor does it gain off flavors from preservatives.  Cask beer still has living yeast inside and will mature with age.  Kegs also use less packing material per unit volume of beverage.

That said, I enjoy seeing craft beer in cans.  The can is more convenient and easier to transport larger quantities, perhaps to a picnic or party.  Its much easier to carry cans to and from your destination than bottles, and they’re much easier to clean up.  Unfortunately, home brewers can’t reuse cans as they do bottles.  I prefer kegs whenever possible, cans for convenience and bottles for everything else.  In the end though, the container doesn’t matter as much as the quality of the beer, no matter how you drink it make sure you enjoy it.

Brendan I. Koerner. “Wear Green, Drink Greenly: The eco-guide to responsible drinking.”  Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2186219/

M. M. Vela, R. B. Toma, W. Reiboldt and A. Pierri.  ”Detection of aluminum residue in fresh and stored canned beer” Food Chemistry 63(2): 235-239. 1998.

J. C. Sherlock , C. J. Pickford, G. F. White.  ”Lead in alcoholic beverages“ Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 3(4): 347 – 354. 1986.

                          

Ithaca Brewing Company’s Old Habbit

Style: Oak Aged Rye Ale
Color: Deep Ruby
ABV: 9.0%
Price Point: $12 for 750 ml bottle
Technical Notes:
From the Ithaca Beer Company Website:  “A Robust American Ale brewed with four different Rye Malts, fresh Centennial and Crystal Hops and our proprietary Ale Yeast. It is partly fermented in Tennesee Rye Whiskey Barrels, then carefully blended. Enjoy the gorgeous ruby color, strong aromas of vanilla and black cherry, earthy flavors of nuts and oak and the warm spicy finish.”

Hedonic Notes:

The beer pours a deep opaque ruby, that is only perceived when held to the light.  Clearly this is a very malty beer.  A thick stable foam forms quickly with a slight tan tinge.

A deep sweet malty aroma is obvious, with an oaky follow-through.  Slight notes of whiskey dance in the aroma and are followed by subdued spicy and very faint vanilla notes.  No hop bitterness in the aroma, as may be expected with the use of centennial hops.

Clear oaky flavors present initially, with a few whiskey notes providing reinforcement.  Oaky tannin notes impart a slight astringency that is perceived as a faint bitter dryness.  The beer is very malty and sweet with a caramel flavor being obvious in the start, with a slight cinnamon and nutmeg flavor following.  Rye flavors mix in with the barley malt, imparting a rather specific sweetness that is reminiscent of apples.  Bitterness is not obvious, but is rather earthy, with the hops (crystal in particular) contributing spice flavors more than bitterness.  Vanilla and spice mingle with malty caramel flavors in the finish with a very slight tannin sensation.

This beer is a bit highly carbonated (as demonstrated by the head that forms), but does not feel overly bubbly.  A slight viscous feeling is noticed, no doubt due to the rye malt.  The beer is more mothcoating than one might expect and the sensation lingers pleasantly.  The lingering mouthfeel seems to due in part to an appropriate level of tannins from the oak aging.

Blending has no doubt benefited this beer, as the oak and malt flavors are very well balanced.  The beer is very complex, yet balanced enough to be very palatable.  Other beers that are in similar categories are often overwhelmingly oaky or have overpowering rye derived red fruit flavors.  Blending, however, permits the brewer to make a diverse batch and create a palatable average, which seems to be the case.  Like most of the Excelsior! beers tasted, this one is impeccably balanced and allows one to perceive and appreciate each of the distinct flavors in its own right.

Rating: 4/5 Corks. This beer is delightful example of a very well balanced rye ale.

Wood has been used in beer production since the early days of fermentation.  Since barrels were the only feasible containers for the early history of brewing, they served as fermentation and serving vessels.  Before stainless conical fermentors, barrels or open stone vessels served as fermentation, storage and serving containers.

Beyond being convenient, wood proves a unique set of flavors to beer, in very much the same way as wine.  Wood leaches tannins into the fermenting fluid.  In wine, aging is a necessary step to polymerize tannins and soften their impact in the beverage.  Most beer styles, however, consider tannins a flaw.

Structure of Flavone (courtsey of wikipedia)

Tannins impart a bitter or astringent mouthfeel to drinks.  They come from a number of plant sources, but are present in high concentrations in wood bark.  In grapes, tannins are present in the skins, seeds and stems, though addition of purified tannins and aging in barrels are often more substantial sources.  Beer gets its tannins from grain husks and small amounts in hops.

In lagers, precipitation of tannins contributes to chill haze.  This is avoided by carefully managing mash schedules.  Over-steeping grains or steeping at too high a temperature can increase tannin concentration in the wort.  A long protein rest can increase protein content and contribute to chill haze as well.  High alpha acid hops tend to also contribute greater levels of polyphenols that contribute to haze.

Fining techniques may also be used to remediate tannin enhanced chill haze.  Addition of negatively charged substances to the fermenting fluid encourages proteins to agglomerate.  Common choices for this are plastic beads made of PVP, egg whites and Irish moss, a seaweed extract.  These tend to encourage proteins to crash out of solution while providing no detectable contribution to the flavor.

Beer aging in barrels thanks to sunbeer on Flickr

Ales, however, are less affected by tannin content because the characteristically stronger flavors tend to mask the subtle tannin contributions.  In some styles (lambics and big beers notably), the tannins are considered to play a role very much akin to that in wine.  Ithaca’s Old Habit falls in to the latter category.  Here, the tannins provide a soft lingering sensation in the mouthfeel.

Aging beer in oak also permits the absorption of other compounds.  Used barrels contribute subtle hints of the prior contents.  Whiskey and sherry barrels are two common choices in beer production, contributing a smoky and sweet flavor respectively.  Though not common, new oak may also be used to age beer, contributing higher tannins and an “oaky” flavor.

Fix, George.  Principles of Brewing Science.  Brewers Publications: Boulder, CO.  1999.

Mosedale, J.R. “Effects of oak wood on the maturation of alcoholic beverages with particular reference to whiskey.” Forestry 68(3): 203-230. 1995.

Sparrow, Jeff. WildBrews: Beer Beyond the Influence of Brewer’s Yeast. Brewer’s Publications: Boulder, CO. 2005.

                          

Style: India Pale Ale
Color: Amber
ABV: 7.5%
Price Point: $8 for 6-12 oz bottles
Technical Notes:
From the Ithaca Beer Company Website:  “Enjoy the clover honey hue and tropical nose. Simultaneously Punchy and soothing with a big body and a finish that boasts pineapple and grapefruit. Flower power is hopped and dry-hopped five different times throughout the brewing and fermentation process.”

Hedonic notes:

The pour is a rich amber color with a slightly off white foam.  The carbonation persists at an appropriate level throughout the tasting though the foam dissipates in a few minutes.

A strong citrus hop aroma dominates and is clearly composed of Amarillo hops.  A pine scent floats around faintly in the hop scents.  Very slight honey malt notes rest in the background.

Citrus/floral hop flavors dominate the palate.  A sweet grapefruit and grassy note characteristic of Cascade hops forms the middle of the hop flavor, followed by an almost pungent or spicy, earthy lingering finish reminding one of Columbus hops.  A light malty sweetness balances slightly, but does not disrupt the hop flavor and does not linger.

The mouthfeel is somewhat light despite the low yet appropriate level of carbonation.  Mouthcoating bitterness lingers as a reminder.  One would never guess that this beer is 7.5% alcohol.

This beer is quite delightful to drink overall.  As far as American IPAs are concerned, this is a very good example.  The clear dominance of Cascade and Amarillo (Amarillo is often described as a “super cascade”) hops imparts a clear citrus flavor and aroma that clearly places this beer in the American style category.  Though not as balanced as some, the malt flavor is present merely to mask undesirable aspects of very high hop beers, allowing the beer to showcase the pleasant side of the selected hops.  That said, it is perhaps not the most drinkable beer for those who do not enjoy IPAs as it is quite bitter (Ithaca Brewing Company reports 75 IBUs).  Within its style, however, Flower Power is a great example of an American IPA that is able to showcase citrus characteristics of hops.

Rating: 4/5 Corks.  This beer is a prime example of an American IPA.

This week’s review was published to commemorate Ithaca Brewery’s Flower Power IPA making it to the top 8 in Brewing News’ Third Annual National IPA Championship.  Flower Power made it to the final four last year so it should show well this year.  I will depart from the usual format of beer and science to instead discuss beer history.

The pale ale style finds its origins in the mid 1600s, when malters began the practice of using coke fired kilns to dry the malt.  Prior to this point, malt was difficult to dry properly to create a pale grain.  Moreover, these ale styles demanded a harder water than was typically available.   Lacking sufficiently hard water, London is known more for its brown ales and the pale ales never caught on in Colonial America.  American Colonists used their cheap pale malt to make lagers, which would become the dominant style of American beer for some time.

The need for hard water meant that Burton-on-Trent  became the epicenter of pale ale production, where brown ales remained the dominant beer in London.  Today, Bass beer (brewed in Burton-on-Trent) is a good example of this style.  The high sulphate concentration brings out the hop flavors.  Addition of gypsum was discovered to emulate this effect in other water sources, bringing about pale ale production in London in the late 1700s.

In most of Britain, pale ale and bitter are synonymous words (except in Burton-on-Trent, where it denotes their unique local style).  A number of brewers in Britain lost their export licenses to Russia (a huge beer market at the time) in the late eighteenth century, causing the consolidation of a number of well known pale ale breweries in the area.  Reeling from the loss of a large market, brewers pursued contracts with the British East India Trading Company.

One of the first brewers to win a British East India contract was Samuel Allsop and Sons Brewer located in Burton-on-Trent.  Allsop made a pale ale in the style of Hodgson, a previously famous London pale ale that had failed due to the loss of the Russian market.  The beer was very light with a stronger hop flavor than most pales of the time.  It is unlikely that this beer was much stronger than the contemporary bitters, though it was hopped more aggressively.  These beers were fermented to a very low residual content, creating a very dry flavor and mouthfeel.

It happened that the Indian market very much enjoyed this beer.  Its lighter taste made it well suited for the warmer climate and the bitter flavor appealed to customers.  The legend that the beer was developed as a high alcohol and high hop beer for the lengthy sea voyage to India is probably not true.  Porters of the time survived the trip despite higher residual sugars and lower alcohol content than IPAs of the time.  It is sometimes said that these beers would be infected with Brettanomyces during the voyage, resulting in the characteristic horse blanket flavor.

The birth of the modern American IPA would not be until sometime after the British IPA was well established.  In the early 1990s, with the rapid growth of the American craft brewing industry on the west coast, the American IPA as we know it today developed gradually.  Availability of American hop varieties (Cascade, Centennial and Willamette most notably) enabled brewers to make the distinctly citrus aromas that are characteristic of American IPAs.

Cascade hops (photo by michaelstyne on Flickr)

Invention of the Double IPA marked the formalization of the American Style IPA.  In 1994, Vinnie Cilurzo (now of Russian River fame) made a mistake in producing an IPA while working at Blind Pig Brewery.  He accidentally added 50% too much grain, and made up for the balance by adding double the hops.  It should be noted that some often credit this invention to Rogue Ales’ I2PA, first brewed in 1990, which followed a similar formula of increased malt and hops.

American IPAs have relied on the development of super hop strains that provide sufficient bitterness.  While Cascade, Centennial and Willamette provide great aroma, varieties like Warrior and Chinook lend a bittering kick to any beer.  More recent developments (called super alpha hops) like Summit, Tomahawk and Apollo have enabled American brewers to take the IPA and double IPA to a new level of bitterness.

Further Reading:

Bamfroth, Charles. Beer: Tap Into the Art and Science of Brewing. Oxford University Press: Oxford.  2009.

Daniels, Ray.  Designing Great Beers.  Brewer’s Publications: Boulder, CO.  2000.

Woolsey, David Alan.  Libations of the Eighteenth Century.  Universal Publishers. 2002.

                          

Style: Double Pale Ale
Color: Amber to Red
ABV: 10%
Price Point: $10 for 22oz
Technical Notes:
From the Middle Ages Brewing Co. Website:  “Brewed in the style of an American Double IPA in celebration of our 10th anniversary. This beer is golden in color, has medium to full body, intense hop bitterness, flavor and aroma. Ten additions of American hops are made throughout the brewing process.”

Hedonic notes:

The beer pours a deep red with a slight orange hue.  A slightly off white head forms and persists for some time.

Citrus hop notes dominate the aroma and are joined by a faint pine/grass like hop scent.  Sweet malt smells are reminiscent of caramel and form the backbone of the aroma.

As in the aroma, citrus hop dominates the palate.  A slight earthy hop note is present, in addition to a slightly stronger pine flavor than is present in the smell.  Sweet malt flavors are largely caramel-like and balance the hops very well.

The beer is medium bodied and has an appropriate level of carbonation for a double IPA.  Despite the strong malt flavors, the mouthfeel is not too sweet.  There is very little hint of alcohol though the beer is 10%.

Overall, Middle Ages’ X IPA is a very well-balanced beer.  It is not as aggressively hopped as many other double IPAs, but the bitterness is rounded out very well with malty sweetness.  The hop notes are largely citrus and pine/grass, with less earthy notes.  This nearly single aspect of hop flavor makes the beer seem a bit one-dimensional, but the properly proportioned malt flavor works to compensate for this shortcoming.

Rating: 2.5/5 Corks.  Though very well balanced and drinkable, the beer does little to set itself apart in a sea of American IPAs.

Science!
Hops are generally added to beer for two reasons: aroma and bitterness. These components come at different stages of the beer brewing process.

Isomerization reactions in the boil process make hop oils soluble and have profound consequences for beer flavor.  During the boil process, humulone reacts to form isohumulone, which is far more soluble.  One key difference is the absence of the aromatic ring structure, which makes the compound more stable in solution with water.

Beer bitterness is measured using international bitterness units or IBUs.  One IBU corresponds to one part per million (microgram per liter) of isohumulone.  This figure is typically measured using spectrophotometry or liquid-liquid extraction.  The precise value of this measurement is often of little importance since a malty flavor easily mask the bitterness.

Typical bitterness levels for India Pale Ales is often in the range 40-60 IBUs.  Double or imperial IPAs represent a wide range from 60 to 120 IBUs.  Most wheat beers are under 20 and lagers tend to be in the range of 10 to 30 IBUs.  These figures are in accordance with Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) guidelines that define style parameters.

Breakdown of these compounds is often blamed for stale flavors in beer.  Decomposition of isohumulone in the presence of oxygen and sunlight results in the formation of 3-Methyl-2-butene-1-thiol.  This compound imparts a distinct stale taste and skunky odor.

Other soluble compounds from hop oils are responsible for a substantial portion of the beer’s flavor profile.  Efforts to characterize the precise flavor contributions and taste thresholds hold promise for further understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of the brewing process.  Additionally, such knowledge enables brewers to very accurately plan the precise flavor profiles of beers.  Characterization of these compounds also has applications in beer haze and foam stability.

Fix, George.  Principles of Brewing Science.  Brewers Publications, Boulder CO: 1999.

Pozdrik, Richard, Roddick, Felicity A., Rogers, Peter J., Nguyen, Thang.  Spectrophotometric Method for Exploring 3-Methyl-2-butene-1-thiol (MBT) Formation in Lager. J. Agric. Food Chem. 53(17): 6123–6129. 2006.

Weiss, A., Schönberger, Ch., Mitter, W., Biendl, M., Krottenthaler, M., Back, W. Sensory and Analytical characteristation of reduced, isomerised hop extracts and their influence and use in beer. J. Inst. Brew. 108 (2) 236:242. 2002.

                          

Style:“Rustic Pale Wheat Ale”
Color: Pale to Amber
ABV: 8%
Price Point: $10 for 750 mL
Technical Notes:
From the Ithaca Beer website: “A Belgo-American Ale brewed with domestic barley and French wheat malts, the finest Continental and U.S. grown hops, and fermented with Belgian, English and Wild yeasts.” Bottle-conditioned.

Hedonic Notes:
The beer pours dark gold and opaque with thick white foam.  Very effervescent with bubbles rising through the glass throughout the tasting.  There is a good amount of yeast at the bottom of the bottle, as one would expect from a bottle-conditioned wheat beer.

Lemon zest and citrus notes dominate the aroma with a slight bit of funk almost akin to {Brettanomyces} horse blanket.  A slight earthy, hoppy smell is present along with a traditional Belgian clove taste.

Citrus pervades the palate to start, reinforced by a wheaty maltiness.  Initial flavors subside to a faint lingering sour taste.  The finish is drier than expected for a wheat beer.  A slight acidity may be perceived initially, possibly due to the high carbonation.  Also, this beer surprisingly lacks any solvent-like taste despite being 8% alcohol. Its dry mouthfeel with a great deal of carbonation creates a Champagne-like texture.

This beer is fairly palatable overall, with no single flavor overwhelming.  That said, the balance almost makes this beer boring.  Though the label says English yeast it’s not easily discernible, with any sweetness being dominated by the clear Belgian presence.  Belgian yeast flavors (fruity ester and spice) dominate the first flavors while lingering flavors are almost sour in composition. 

Rating: 3 out of 5 corks . With regard to other wheat beers, White Gold sets itself apart, almost reminding one of a Berliner Weisse.

Wheat beers are traditionally left cloudy and have a thicker mouthfeel.  This is due in large part to high protein content, but also to elevated beta-glucan levels.  Glucose monomers may be linked together between the 1 and 4 carbons in one of two conformations (α-1,4-glycosidic linkage).  As seen below, alpha conformations are formed when the oxygen atom attached to the number 1 carbon pointing downward, beta conformations see this same bond pointing upward.

The difference may look subtle, but the beta connection is the reason cows need 4 stomachs to digest grass, while starch begins breaking down in plain old saliva.

Polymers of beta-glucans are akin to cellulose, while alpha-glucans include starch.  Barley malt contains a very high proportion of alpha-glucans, while wheat contains a large fraction of beta-glucans.  The primary difference of concern for beer brewers is the ability to break down these sugar structures.  Amylase enzymes (to be discussed in more detail in a future post) are able to break only alpha glycosidic bonds.

Being more easily broken down, alpha-glucans yield simple and highly soluble sugars that may be metabolized easily by the yeast.  By contrast, beta-glucans can not be broken down by the barley enzymes that enable the mashing process, resulting in complex sugar structures in the wort.  These sugars help to contribute to the often sweeter final taste, relatively high final gravity, and increased viscosity prior to fermentation.

These sugar structures also have consequences for the beer production process.  Studies have shown that increased beta-glucan concentration and molecular weight result in increased viscosity of the fluid.  Even in low concentration ranges, there is a noticeable increase in viscosity.  This change in viscosity may make it more difficult to drain the wort from the grains in the lautering or sparging process.

Further Reading:
Jin, Yu-Lai; Speers, Alex; Paulson, Allen T. and Stewart, Robert J.  “Effects of Beta-Glucans and Environmental Factors on the Viscosities of Wort and Beer.”  Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 2004.

Daniels, Ray.  Designing Great Beers.  Brewer’s Publications: Boulder, CO.  2000.

                          

I lost the picture of this bottle, so here is the 2004 vintage label. It was the same for the 2007 vintage.

Appellation: Lehigh Valley (Pennsylvania)
Grape: Chambourcin (pronounced sham-bor-SAN with that uppity French nasal “in” sound)
ABV: not determined (labeled “table wine”), but given Brix at harvest, I would guess around 13%
Price Point: $16
Closure: Natural cork

Technical Notes: {Brix} at harvest: 23.5-24. pH: 3.95, TA 6 g/L after malolactic fermentation and stabilization with potassium carbonate. Destemmed, pumped into bins and inoculated. Extended maceration (3 weeks) with punchdowns. 16 months in Hungarian oak. (Thanks to Pinnacle Ridge owner Brad Knapp for the detailed info!)

Hedonic Notes:
Pours a dark ruby red. Whoof, smoky oak on the nose. A little {heat}, with some raspberry fruit. There is just the slightest sulfur off-aroma on the nose, like opening a hard boiled egg. In the mouth, light and fruity if a bit thin, with slight {astringency}. It’s got a very short finish, but acidity lingers long after. When I approached this wine the second day, it was already badly {oxidized}, which I would attribute to some Acetobacter. The relatively high pH of this wine (close to 4) makes it susceptible to spoilage in the presence of oxygen.

Rating: 2 out of 5 corks .

Chambourcin is promoted highly on the Lehigh Valley Wine Trail as its signature grape. If you know the hybrids produced up in the Finger Lakes, then Chambourcin may not be as familiar as Cayuga White, Seyval, Foch and others. That’s because it’s not grown extensively in the Finger Lakes.

In terms of hybrids, Chambourcin is not well-suited for the Finger Lakes because it is relatively cold-tender, with tissue damage occuring anywhere from 0 F to -5 F (compare to DeChaunac’s -15F). Pennsylvania, especially the southeast corner, is warmer than New York, with fewer extremely cold days and more frost-free days, so it’s a bit of a safer environment for Chambourcin vines.

Chambourcin is one of few hybrid grapes that still exists in France, along with Baco Noir, Seyval Blanc, and a handful of others that survived the Order 66-like purge of American hybrids from France in the mid-20th century. It’s predominantly found in the Loire Valley, but you won’t find it in any of the top-quality AOC wines, at least not legally. It turns out that this grape is handy to have around, though, since it produces monoglucoside anthocyanins. Why is this important?

Example of a vinifera anthocyanin, with a sugar in the 3- position. Diglycosylated anthocyanins also have a sugar in the 5- position. Figure "borrowed" from G. Sacks, Cornell University.

Red hybrids are generally high in anthocyanins, the compounds that give red wine its color. Often, these have sugar groups conjugated to them to improve solubility. Many hybrid varieties add TWO sugar groups, creating diglycoside anthocyanins. Vinifera grapes only add one sugar, leading to monoglucoside anthocyanins. The test for mono vs. diglucoside anthocyanins is relatively simple (thin layer chromatography, or TLC) and can be used to determine if a wine has been “adulterated” with “inferior” hybrid grapes (e.g., unfit for AOC classification). However, since Chambourcin’s anthocyanins are monoglycosylated, they are difficult to distinguish from those of European vinifera grapes, at least at first pass. So, if you were a French winemaker and your wine needed a little color, for example…. ah, perhaps I have said too much.

Further Reading:
Wine Business Monthly overview of Chambourcin
Detailed info on Chambourcin from Iowa State
Article from the New York Cork Report on the connection between mono- and diglycosides and foxy aroma
Review of more-advanced wine adulteration analysis: García-Beneytez et al., “Analysis of Grape and Wine Anthocyanins by HPLC-MS”, J. Ag. Food Chem., 2003.

                          

Style: Wild American Ale with Blueberries
Color: A translucent red stream leaps from the bottle, recalling a Lambic almost instantly. Pinkish foam forms with large bubbles and dissipates quickly.
ABV: 5.0%
Price Point: $17 (Note: this beer was very limited production. I am told that it is sold out. -Ed.)
Technical Notes: Fermented with Brettanomyces and finished with champagne yeast. Blended from several sour beer barrels.

Hedonic Notes:
Bubbles rise up the length of the glass and seem to spring forth out of the glass as the beer sits. A sour smell dominates the aroma, calling up images of {Brettanomyces} and {Acetobacter}. Hints of blueberry and champagne appear in the background. Slight red fruit scents are present throughout and mask blueberry notes.

The first sip is very sour initially and fades into sweetness. Faint blueberry notes are masked yielding to Brett horse-blanket. Blueberry mingles with and is virtually indistinguishable from red fruit in a sweet finish. The precise balance of Brett sour and fruity sweet make for an almost sour fruit candy taste. Indeed, the funky flavor of Brett does not overpower any single characteristic of the beer, merely reminding the drinker of its presence. Champagne notes form an ever-present backbone, conjuring images of a sparkling fruit wine. Very high levels of carbonation combined with a specific sweetness make for a champagne mouthfeel.

The beer is light overall, but the effervescence makes it easy to overlook the nuances of its body. The technique using Brettanomyces, and a variety of barrel aged samples is characteristic of Lambics. Indeed, the flavor reminds me a great deal of Lindeman’s brews, a delightful balance of sweet and sour. As an aside, the Wild American Ale category is largely underdeveloped and it is nice to see a brewery pursuing an often overlooked category. The beer, as most of the Excelsior! brews, is very well balanced. Surprisingly, the beer offers a distinct Brettanomyces flavor without being off-putting. It is magnificently palatable overall, and like the aforementioned Lindeman’s beers, may form a delightful introduction to beer and wild beer for the uninitiated.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 corks .

Science!
Prior to the advent of defined yeast strains and careful genetic management, brewers of wine and beer often used blending techniques to produce consistent and reliable final products. The techniques of blending select not only yeast strains for desirable qualities, but involve the mixing of young and old beers or wines with very different characteristics and compounds in solution, exposing old microbes to new materials.

Microbes may exist in solution or on the surface of the fruit (many wild yeasts reside on the skins of fruit), but rely on molecular diffusion for sugars and nutrients to reach the cells. Compounds must diffuse through the fruit’s cellulosic matrix to reach the yeast cells. In the case of Lambics, fermentation may demand up to three years to completely mature.

Depending on the time of year and immediate conditions at the time of brewing or preparing grapes (especially the amount of time since the last rain), different wild microbes may infect the wort or must. Add in the very long maturation time and these fermentations require either very precise control of the fermentation process or a number of different permutations of a particular fermentation, each with different flaws and strengths.

Mixing these different permutations has the potential to produce a consistent and desirable product. The often unpredictable nature of fermentations necessitates such approaches in large-scale endeavors. Mixing old beer with young beer (a three year and one year fermentation is often used when making Gueuze) reinvigorates fermentation. Certain oxidative yeasts (Brettanomyces, most notably) take a very long time to ferment completely, often in excess of 8 months before the yeast fully start autolyzing and/or falling out of solution.

For comparison, Saccharomyces are bred to be rapid fermenting yeasts and typically finish their work in two weeks before they start dropping out of solution and begin fining the product. Some other participants in the fermentation process (e.g. Pediococcus taking up to 4 months) also are slow fermenting, necessitating long maturation times. Most bacteria in wild fermentations, however, tend to work very rapidly and play little role in aging. Indeed, it is very often that the dominance of the bacteria reproducing very quickly that makes controlling the process difficult and introduces undesirable flavors. Blending different vintages is almost always necessary in making wild ales that are consistent and perhaps merely even palatable.

Further Reading: Sparrow, Jeff. WildBrews: Beer Beyond the Influence of Brewer’s Yeast. Brewer’s Publications: Boulder, CO. 2005.