I’ve been working on a series of pieces for the New York Cork Report discussing the science of biodynamic and organic winegrowing. I’m up to my ears in Rudolf Steiner, Nicolas Joly, Maria Thun, Jamie Goode, and a whole bunch of scientific literature.

My first post went up last Thursday and has generated a slew of comments in spite of containing little controversial content.

I’ve also been interviewed about this project for the popular wine blog saignée, and that interview has also generated significant feedback.

The interview explains a lot about my motivation behind this project, which I have been meaning to undertake for quite a while. Hopefully by the end of the series, we’ll discover which biodynamic practices have some scientific merit and which ones are better left in the realm of the spiritual.

Throughout the series, I will be referencing my posts on NYCR and adding extraneous or supplemental information on this site. The official posts will go up on Thursdays over the next several weeks at The New York Cork Report.

                          

In the mean time, check out the Mermaid Tavern (Guam’s only brewery since Pacific Universal Brewers and San Miguel closed), Samoa Breweries and Palau Brewing Company.

                          

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.

                          

For the time being, check out an article by Jon Abernathy about indigenous American beer styles over at the Hop Press.  For all of you still trapped in Europe, here’s a helpful language primer: how to say “cheers” in forty languages from Beeriety.

Skál!

                          

Sheldrake Point Gamay 2007

Gotta love Sheldrake's labels. In a world of simply awful labels, Sheldrake's labels are always elegant, classy, and informative.

Appellation: Finger Lakes
Grape: Gamay Noir
ABV:12.5%
RS: 0.1%
Price Point: $18
Closure: Natural cork

Technical Notes: Info from the website. TA: 6.7 g/L, pH: 3.44. Hand harvested at 22 Brix, 8.2 g/L TA, 3.29 pH. Seven days on the skins. Six months in neutral French and American oak.

Hedonic Notes: Dark ruby color in a normally lightly-colored grape, but 2007 was a hot, dry year in the Finger Lakes, so I guess a high tide raises all boats.
Cherry and raspberry on the nose, a hint of spice, and a little floral component. Like many Finger Lakes wines, acidity supports the structure, but it’s not as zingy as a Riesling might be. A bit of woody oak on the finish. There’s also a persistent dairy-like flavor on the palate. It’s kind of like cheese, but it’s OK among the other aromas. A slight bit of {astringency} reminds us that it’s a red, but for the most part, it drinks like a white. Try it lightly chilled, too.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 corks . It’s not bad, but you can do better for $18.

Most people participating in this event were reaching for the under-represented Crus Beaujolais (the quality value of which is so much of an open secret that its repetition is becoming trite.) I decided to reach right into my cellar (that is, the wine rack next to the kitchen table) and pull out some local Gamay from Sheldrake Point. Only a handful of producers in the Finger Lakes make a Gamay, likely due to consumers’ lack of familiarity with the grape (or aversion to it from a bad Beaujolais Nouveau experience…).

I like to say that every wine has a purpose. To me, this wine fills a similar niche to some rosé wines as one to sip lightly chilled on a warm afternoon. It’s not for serious analysis. The savory “cheese” note, explained in more detail below, could help with food pairings, especially picnic food.

If you’re familiar with malolactic fermentation (MLF), (or if you’ve ever had a buttery California Chardonnay or even microwave popcorn) then you are likely familiar with the aroma compound known as diacetyl. (If you’re not familiar with MLF, then study up in this article I wrote for Palate Press a few months back.)

Diacetyl is found naturally in all kinds of dairy products like butter, cheese, and yogurt. It is produced naturally by yeast, and in beer brewing there is often a step called “diacetyl rest” to allow its degradation (perhaps R. Pliny will expound on this in a later brewing-related post).

In wine, diacetyl is much more acceptable and sometimes desirable. It’s produced by a lactic acid bacterium called Oenococcus oeni, which makes it as a byproduct of citric acid metabolism (see figure). Basically, citric acid is metabolized into all kind of things, most of which have high aroma thresholds. Diacetyl, however, is detectable down to about 0.2 ppm (200 micrograms/kg).

Diacetyl production and metabolism. Reproduced with permission from Bartowsky and Henschke, Intl. J. Food Microbiol., 2004.

A few things to point out:

1. Increased citric acid can lead to higher diacetyl in MLF wine, which is why citric acid is rarely used to adjust acidity.
2. Oxygen can increase diacetyl concentration, since oxygen aids the non-enzymatic decarboxylation (step 11 above) of α-acetolactic acid to diacetyl. So air exposure during MLF could cause higher levels of diacetyl.
3. A host of other factors affect diacetyl concentration, including pH, temperature, and exposure to lees

The question here is whether (A) this wine has higher levels of diacetyl than other wines or (B) it is more easily perceived in this wine than in others. Almost every red wine out there undergoes malolactic fermentation, but they don’t all smell buttery. Indeed, the detection threshold for diacetyl in Cabernet Sauvignon has been reported at 2.8 ppm, compared to 0.2 ppm in Chardonnay. The explanation for this is that Cabernet presents a more varied array of aromas than Chardonnay, so diacetyl is harder to pick out in the more complex matrix. The threshold measured for Pinot Noir was 0.9 ppm. Now we’re getting somewhere.

I’ve noticed this “cheese” characteristic in some rosés as well, some of which also undergo MLF. Rosé, along with Pinot, tends to be lighter in body and more subtle aromatically. This wine is aptly compared with Pinot, its famous big brother in Burgundy. Basically, in lighter wines, diacetyl will be more noticeable after malolactic fermentation. This is one reason (besides reduction in acidity) it’s not typically done in, for example, Riesling, although Paul Brock at Lamoreaux Landing is experimenting with the concept.

There are lots reasons to allow malolactic fermentation beyond diacetyl production. Its primary purpose is to reduce perceived acidity. This, along with other functions of MLF, can also affect the mouthfeel. I have no idea what this Gamay would be like without MLF, but I can guess that it would be a bit more fruity on the nose, if thinner in body and more acidic. In the end, MLF and blending are winemaking decisions. It’s up to the winemaker (or if not, the owners) to determine which decisions will be preferable to consumers and sell wine.

                          

According to the website…

IGNITE ITHACA is a high-energy evening of 5-minute talks by people who have an idea–and the guts to get onstage and share it with their hometown crowd. Run by local volunteers who are connected through the global IGNITE network, IGNITE is a force for raising the collective IQ and building connections.

Some of the scheduled talks include:

• “Grand Theft Faust — Illegal File Sharing at the Dawn of Print”
• “Ithacka: Why Ithaca Needs a Hackerspace”
• “Childhood Dreams: Why They Are Important”
• “Sacred Cows – Anatomy of a Recycled Logo Project”

I’ll be giving a 5-minute talk on appreciating wine science and some of the biases that we can encounter when enjoying and purchasing wine, with a heavy shout out to NY state wine, of course.

Once the event’s over, I’ll try to get a video of the talk up on here.

If you’re in Ithaca, come to Pixel at 7 to have your mind blown by all kinds of crazy Ithacan ideas.

You can follow the event on twitter @igniteithaca.

                          

Hedonic Notes:

Brute pours a brilliant orange gold with a slight opacity and a great deal of carbonation.  A tall white foam forms instantly with large bubbles and dissipates quickly as well.

As soon as the cork is pulled, tart Brettanomyces barnyard scents mixed with champagne notes fill the room.  Orange peel and lemon are noticeable upon further inspection, perhaps with a hint of pineapple.  The effervescence tickles your nose as you reach for a stronger scent.

The first sips remind one of a sour candy as sweet citrus and sour Brettanomyces flavors mingle.  Champagne with a clear grape flavor fills the middle of the palate, bringing balance to the mouth-puckeringly tart Brettanomyces flavors.  The oak used to age this brew is quite faint, masked almost entirely by the drink’s sourness, but lingering on the palate a bit longer.  A hint of caramel malt eases the transition from citrus sour to lingering faint oak.

This beer, more than most others, drinks like champagne.  The high carbonation adds a distinct lightness to the body that is reinforced by prominent champagne notes in the flavor. Despite the apparent sweetness, the beer feels quite light.

In all, this beer is very drinkable.  It is very nice to see more American brewers pursuing American wild ales, with Ithaca Beer Company offering several beers featuring Brettanomyces.  That said, this beer lacks the distinct Brettanomyces character that one may expect from beers in this category.  However, its balance should be commended as a way to make an introduction to an often difficult to understand beer category.  At times the beer is more like a sour candy champagne than a beer.  The faintest hints of malt remind one that it is indeed a beer, while the champagne texture and flavors remind the drinker that it is something unique.

Rating: 4/5 corks. Ithaca’s Brute is a great introduction to wild ales and a good example of an American wild ale.

Lambic aging in barrels. Thanks to cizauskas on Flickr.

In addition to fermenting over longer time periods than S. cerevisiae, Brettanomyces yeasts are able to metabolize a wider range of carbon sources.  In addition to the smaller dextrins that nearly all microbes eat, Brettanomyces is able to break down beta glucans and even structures like cellobiose.  Indeed, beers brewed with Brettanomyces are often observed to have a lower final gravity.

Brettanomyces is used almost exclusively in a very narrow category of beers: sour ales.  Traditionally these are Flanders ales, Lambics.  Flanders red and brown ales are, as the name may suggest, brewed in the Flanders region of Belgium.  Lambics, too, hail from Belgium, and are typically fruit ales.  Berliner weisse is a unique style of sour wheat beer, but relies on Lactobacillus rather than Bretannomyces to lend a sour flavor.

Flanders red ale is a traditional style from west Flanders, while brown ales hale from east Flanders.   The red ales are often aged for up to two years in used barrels that contain a variety of microorganisms that give the beer its unique flavors.  Brown ales, however, are not aged in oak and are typically served young.  The Flanders brown ales tend to be based as very light ales with some caramel malt for color, where red ales are made largely of slightly darker malts.  In either case, low alpha content hops are used.

Brettanomyces photo from Cal State Fresno: Note the formation of chains that contributes to their ability to form biofilms.

Lambics are often made using a Flanders brown ale as a base malt, but with the addition of large amounts of unmalted wheat.  Traditionally these are made almost the same way as red wine, with large open slate casks serving as primary fermentation of fruit and wort mixtures, after which the fruit is pressed and the remaining liquid is fermented and aged in barrels.

In addition to the classic styles, Brettanomyces has been the subject of interest recently in brewing.  Brewers like Ithaca, Russian River and New Belgium have started Brettanomcyes to make unique sour ales that are quite distinct from their classic forefathers.  Branching out from S. cerevisiae has lead to a return to classical brewing styles and emulating wild fermentation.

Careful management of fermentation time and conditions allows one to make very complex beers with Brettanomcyes.  In wines, the yeast is notorious for destroying delicate fruit aromas and flavors, but in beer it lends a degree of complexity that is difficult to replicate with S. cerevisiae.  They are known for their ability to create ranges of flavor from earthy to spicy and from fruity to sour all at once and sometimes at levels that do not offend or obfuscate the beer’s character.

Though very useful if used properly, Brettanomcyes is notorious for being very difficult to eliminate when not desired.  Because it is able to eat nearly anything and is very durable to a wide range of conditions (even very high alcohol content) and ability to make biofilms, Brettanomyces is able to elude many cleaning strategies.  Many brewers who use multiple types of yeast tend to use different sets of equipment for each yeast genus in an effort to avoid contamination.

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

                          

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.