# Beer styles, geography and history in relation to beer taxonomy/nomenc



## good4whatAlesU (3/10/16)

I have started this thread for those that would like to input and discuss historical context in beer style nomenclature / style name / taxonomy.

What we are seeing with the explosion of the craft brewing industry is an ad-lib on the fly development of beer style names. These names are often based on geography (often confused as to where the ingredients and or brewer originated from), colour (described roughly - pale, brown, red, black), strength (abv.), yeast type (becoming blurred), hop ingredients and malt ingredients.

I wonder whether we be reliant on geography in defining the style name (e.g India, America, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Australia) or not?

Wine has for example many regional styles and names which are well accepted and non-transferrable. Let's take Champagne' a name attributable to a specific region. This name cannot be used by Australians making 'sparkling wine".

Can we find a better way which would be more subjective. For example I work in the soils industry, in which their are several taxonomic guides (national and international) to describe soils. These are usually based firstly on colour (we can do that with beer) and then physical (clay, silt, sand etc) and then chemistry (acidic, alkaline, salty) etc. etc. We try not to use geographical type descriptors because they are often too subjective.

Of course in beer, geographical descriptors are great for marketing and therefore preferential. But we do see "IBUs" and 'EBC" coming into many beer labels which indicates that the market is willing to take on at least some scientific taxonomy.


I wish to learn from others wiser than me on the HISTORY of the subject. Thanks for your time.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (3/10/16)

This for example is an interesting approach that cuts through the overwhelming and increasing complexity:

https://aleheads.com/2010/09/13/a-new-approach-to-beer-styles/


----------



## good4whatAlesU (3/10/16)

This for example, is an approach which cuts through some of the complexity. However risks to lose some of the inherent history within the name:

https://aleheads.com/2010/09/13/a-new-approach-to-beer-styles/


----------



## technobabble66 (4/10/16)

Have you seen the BJCP 2015 Style Guidelines? 
They've taken a significant step in the kind of direction I *think* you're talking about. 
WRT the type of taxonomy the guy in that link talks about, I think I'd say the BJCP and most others do a similar thing, but around the other way, Eg: "what's this?" 
"It's a Dubbel" 
"what's a Dubbel?" 
"Well, it's a Belgian Strong Red Ale"
"Ah OK <sips> Wow, this Dubbel is awesome!"
[emoji1]
But everyone continues to use the label "Dubbel" because it's easier, once you know what the label means. Similarly, I'd say Pinot noir, rather than "light fruity dry red"


----------



## MHB (4/10/16)

Love the odds on forming a consensus, Its a worthwhile undertaking but I suspect ultimately futile.
There have been several attempts to develop a rational style system, using both historic and taxonomic approaches. One of the earlier "modern" systems was by Michael Jackson, the introduction to Horst Dornbrusch's "the Ultimate Almanac of World Beer Recipes" and the above mentioned BJCP are all worth a look.
At least the new version of the BJCP is no longer sighting Stella Artois as a commercial example of an American Premium Lager, the fact that Stella was started 20 or so years before the US was always a great source of amusement to me.

Anyway good luck, will follow with interest.
Mark


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/10/16)

Thanks guys, I'll try and do some reading there and come up to speed. 

Just some of the names getting around in the craft beer scene were starting to get my goat: "Black Russian Imperial Australian Indian Pale Ale" anyone? Possibly brewed with a lager yeast? FFS.


----------



## MHB (4/10/16)

One point from your OP that is I think worth a bit of thought, Champagne, what makes a Champagne something other than a sparkling white wine (well apart from some pink ones).

The use of the name Champagne can only be applied to wine made in Champagne (Region) using only Pinot noir, Pinot Meuniere and Chardonnay possibly some exceptions but very strict rules on (Ingredients). the wine must be made by the "Méthode Champenoise, the way of making Champagne (Process), you would also have to be using Champagne Yeast (linking both Ingredients and Process).

There are very detailed list of naming rules describing residual sugar, exactly which grapes were used, possibly which side of the hill they were grown on...
All though I suspect a large element marketing spin might be involved, there are two noteworthy consequences, if you know the code - you know exactly what to expect, all the rules limit (stop) any creativity or experimentation. Clearly a very mixed blessing.

There in lies the rub, does a good naming/descriptive system curtail new beers? It would be great if the label meant something and the name of the beer gave a very realistic idea of what to expect, but we don't want to stifle experimentation.
Mark


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/10/16)

Absolutely, experimenting with new things is the spice of life!

But I do understand someone trying to protect their intellectual property/ trademark - fair enough. Can go both ways though, didn't DB breweries trademark the term "radler" a while back, quite controversial as it was a style developed entirely outside NZ (Bavarian I understand?) and now other NZ breweries can't make a "Radler". Or at least they can make a radler 'style' but they can't call their beers a "Radler". 

Back in the 40's and 50's In soils we used to use funny classification terms like "Womboota clay loam" "Russian Krasnozem" and "Chocolate Soils". 
But pretty soon (in the 70's, 80's and 90's) a move to more hierarchical systems came on line. We effectively used colour charts (Munsell colour chart), pH, horizon boundaries, textures etc. to key out the soils into a classification groups in a language that all (scientists) could understand. This could be visually displayed via a flow chart or tree diagram or using codes. 


E.g. Typical discussion I might have with a farmer in the paddock goes like:
Me. "What's that soil down the back paddock like Frank"
Frank: "Oh that's one of those gutless yellow sands"

Me: "Ah goodo - I know those (thinking, okay knowing he's got and Aeolian Yellow Siliceous Sand down the back" - but to Frank it's a yellow gutless sand, fair enough, not very scientific though). Edit: Actually this soil is now called an "Arenic Rudosol" according to the latest classification. 

Anyway as I say, I'm very new to beer so I'm going to have to do some reading, I'm sure all this stuff has been worked out before but does not seem apparent in the bottle labeling I'm seeing around the place.


----------



## barls (4/10/16)

http://www.beerhunter.com/publications.html
any of these books are a good read.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/10/16)

A few years back I was invited to a wedding where the dress code was "Stylish" .. Let's just say it did not go well.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/10/16)

Okay so I'm reading about the EBC/SRM colour methods. Colour seems a good starting point for any beer taxonomy as it is the first thing that grabs our attention.

Before SRM the Lovibond system was used. Based on coloured slides it required interpretation and therefore was subject to opinion (not ideal). Once we got colorimetry, we discovered we could point a beam of light at something(at a certain wavelength) and determine it's absorbance.

For beer (SRM) the wavelength 430nm, good at browns but not great at differentiating shades of red and copper etc. This is a problem.

I think I prefer the soil Munsell system which uses a multi-axi three dimensional system (hue, value and chroma) allowing much stronger definition of colour.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system

Beer taxonomy step 1. Get rid of SRM and come up with a better colour system. (?).


----------



## Danscraftbeer (4/10/16)

I find it all fascinating. Then making my own brews it can never be authentic with ingredients so its influenced by respected styles.
I go by balance in software. Plug in a style in your software and then add ingredients into a balance of that style. Go for it! I advocate for that. That means I cant be bothered to get my beer tested by trained judges that I also have a respect for. To be a judge of taste testing is a high qualification above my head. Use whatever ingredients you can get. Refining a technique is most important.
$0.02.


----------



## Rocker1986 (4/10/16)

Appropriate ingredients for the style, yes. You could use Maris Otter and Citra to get the style indicators right in the middle for a Bo pils but it wouldn't taste anything like one.


----------



## manticle (4/10/16)

Most beer style names are either a product of marketing (now and in them days) or retroactively applied.

I understand what OP means but styles and names evolve in a variety of ways. Agree, disagree, drink, don't drink but never stress.

Black IPA is an oxymoron but I can live with that if the beer tastes good.

Hell; american india pale brings to mind Nobody from Dead Man asking me if I have any tobacco (or hops).

What's altbier mean?*

*yes I know the literal meaning and explanation but what does it really say?

History is fascinating, evolution is also. The latter should not be constrained by the former; it should become part of it.


----------



## MHB (4/10/16)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Okay so I'm reading about the EBC/SRM colour methods. Colour seems a good starting point for any beer taxonomy as it is the first thing that grabs our attention.
> 
> Before SRM the Lovibond system was used. Based on coloured slides it required interpretation and therefore was subject to opinion (not ideal). Once we got colorimetry, we discovered we could point a beam of light at something(at a certain wavelength) and determine it's absorbance.
> 
> ...


There has been a fair amount of work done on tint and RGB, good starting point http://rit-mcsl.org/fairchild//lovibond.html
A good look at beer colour, history, how it works, measuring... http://www.beercolor.com/ lots of interesting stuff on this site.

Mark


----------



## Danscraftbeer (4/10/16)

Good technique and fresh enough ingredients whatever it is will be good beer. Something unique no doubt.
I'll add that it seems extremely more difficult to come close to making something authentic
especially say eg. Aussie Pilsner? Were is that in the BJCP? Throw in another oxymoron.
Then the personal concoction of whatever ingredients (carefully considered and fresh is best). 

Maybe just needs another broad New World range that just concentrates on balances rather than ingredient origins.


----------



## damoninja (5/10/16)

Fosters


----------



## peteru (5/10/16)

Colour! I really don't see why every industry feels the need to re-invent it. In this age, where it should be piss easy to take semi-accurate digital colour readings, we could all work in CIE XYZ. Sure, you could go with a derivative colour space, but why bother? Any conversion will end up going through CIE XYZ anyway. Just give up on perceptual colourimetry. It won't work, almost by definition. Everyone has a digital gadget to hand, so rendering colour samples based on CIE XYZ is not going to be hard going forward. All current major operating systems have decent colour support and calibration devices are affordable.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (5/10/16)

Isn't CIE strongly influenced by Munsell? Munsell is a little easier to use and understand IMO.

Clarity is also important, in water we used to use a "Secchi Disc" to observe water turbidity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secchi_disk

It would be easy to make one of these for beer. I reckon a Munsell code followed by a Secchi code (1-10) would be easy to understand.

E.g. Colour \ Clarity

5YR34 \ 5
(Dark reddish brown \ Medium clarity)

Anyway I better stop pissing about - got a job interview today.


----------



## MHB (5/10/16)

Problem with beer colour is that it doesn't tell you anything about anything much other than the colour.
If you look at the continuum of beers Bitter, Best Bitter, ESB, IPA, Barley Wine, you could brew a fair example of each with the classic English 95% Pale, 5% Crystal grain bill with the amount of water and hops being the main variables.
You could find examples of Bitters that are darker than Barley Wines, yet have half the alcohol and residual sugars, a fraction of the hops and colour tells us next to nothing about the flavour.
Another example being Cascadian Dark Ale, the original idea was that looked dark and tasted pale.
I don't think we can categorise beer using colour.

When measuring colour we are measuring Absorbance at 430nm (ultra blue - violet), when we look at a beer we see elements of both the absorbed and reflected spectra.
Spectroscopy is remarkably effective for a single frequency measurement, in part I suspect because most of the colour development processes in beer are the same and give the same (very similar) "colour" with the intensity of the colour being the variable, diluting dark beer gives very similar results to making pale beer.
Mark


----------



## good4whatAlesU (5/10/16)

Colour is just the first component of the taxonomy. We then need to develop as you say the other levels of hierarchical taxonomy (flavour mainly).

Geography can be easily covered by a simple code for hops/malt/yeast. E.g. Aus/Aus/Aus for an all Australian beer. Eng/Amr/Aus or whatever. If multiple hops or malts from several countries then simply an Int. (or International code).

Flavour is harder.


----------



## peteru (5/10/16)

Totally agree that colour (and from my point of view clarity as well) is hardly an indicator of anything but appearance and should be a minor aspect in evaluating a beer. Then again, I believe that each beer should stand on it's own merit and trying to shoehorn beers into narrowly defined categories is counter-productive. It is helpful to know if you are picking up a sour wheat beer or a thick porter, but that is something that a brewer is very likely to indicate on the label.

I personally really like beers that give you the list of the key ingredients and some basic stats. For example, Tuatara ITI has this description, which gives a good deal of useful information and certainly had me excited even before I opened the bottle:


ITI

Little Big Hop APA
ITI (te reo Maori for “small”) uses US hops base but its lighter malt base showcases the hop flavour and brings the beer in at a very friendly 3.3% alc/vol, creating the perfect sessionable APA.
*Taste: *Refreshing citris notes, good malt body with appealing bitterness.
*Look: *Golden amber
*Aroma: *Mango and sweet citrus
*Try With: *Bangers & mash
*Hops: *Amarillo, Cascade, Chinook, Nelson Sauvin.
*Malt: *NZ Lager, NZ Ale, NZ Light Crystal, NZ Medium Crystal
*Alcohol (ABV): *3.3%
*Bitterness (IBU): *25


----------



## good4whatAlesU (5/10/16)

If only all beer labels were as informative! However I must say some of it is without doubt marketing ploy "appealing bitterness" and "friendly alc/vol" and "refreshing citris" ... Sounds great but not entirely scientific / objective.

I'm currently reading up on and wrapping my brain around BU/GU ratios and the inherent limitations due to confounding malt flavours over-riding these values it's not simple...


----------



## good4whatAlesU (6/10/16)

Relative Bitterness Ratio (RBR) looks a good index: http://www.madalchemist.com/relative_bitterness.html

But does not take into account the confounding effect of the malt flavour (roasting degree/ caramelisation). This might be estimated on colour except it's non-linear (i.e. the middle roasted malts are sweeter than the higher roasted malts (?) and length of malting etc. so some sort of algorithm based on a non-linear curve along which the different malts are placed, and then a (edit: weighted) percentage of each of those malts in the grain bill. 

It's complicated. Each small error to the algorithm adds up to a big error at the end.


----------



## MHB (6/10/16)

Been following and thinking about this, my conclusion is that its impossible!

I suspect that what we are dealing with is a "Complex System" there are too many components to the problem for it to be subject to a simple categorisation.
The only way I can see to move forward is to define the original question better, in the OP it was mainly a focus on historical names, which has its uses and limitations.

Step back and try to define what you are trying to achieve.
Mark


----------



## good4whatAlesU (6/10/16)

Sound advice there and probably right! Absolutely complex. I guess I'm just new to learning about beer and tackling in my own mind a classification system one step at a time to work out something that is relatively universal. The marketing of various geographic and historical"styles" in the modern context is quite difficult to wrap the brain around for the newbie. Working on "Styles" seems decidedly 1960's the work in most fields have progressed onto taxonomic systems. Of course food and drink (e.g. wine) and sensory related products are going to be the most difficult of things to work on (given the historical factor and the differing senses from person to person in taste) and the money and marketing involved. 

My mind is telling me that any objective classification would take on some basic characteristics (senses) already well known about in beer characterisation and taste. . then shoehorn these into a six or seven coded graphic that could present on a label: 

Colour
Bitterness
Sweetness
Saltiness
Sourness
Dominant flavours
Smell etc. (?)

Hence taking it a step at a time. Firstly colour, now the interest in bitterness (an important one - but from my reading I don't think there is consensus that IBU's (or BU/GU ratio's) catch the full story (?).

Having said all this history is still very interesting to me (and many people nowadays) with the advent of Google a little knowledge can be dangerous. 

Anyway this has not really clarified anything (more confused the situation I guess), it mostly it just gives me a reason to read stuff about beer and learn about it. So that's good  and when people say something about a "Style" e.g. I want to brew an "Australian Indian Pale Ale" - it makes me think .. hmmm exactly how would that be classified (?), taste like, differ from other products on the market, and how/does it warrant being called what it is .. and how does my own limited knowledge of history make me interpret (if at all) that product.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (6/10/16)

In summary I think the Simpsons stonecutters song keeps playing in my head when i (a newbie) think about the current beer style system:

"Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, we do
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do
Who holds back the elctric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do, we do
Who robs gamefish of their site?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE


----------



## peteru (6/10/16)

A well defined labelling system is unlikely to be voluntarily adopted by any marketing department at a brewery. From their point of view it's all about differentiation, not conformity. So, any idea of a consistent taxonomy being visible at the consumer level is pretty much dead in the water, even before it gets defined.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (6/10/16)

Anything is dead in the water until the consumers start preferencing products with that type of label. 

If you build it, they will come.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (8/10/16)

Mucking around today whilst waiting for the boil to finish - noticed that the Relative Bitterness Ratio guy mentioned it would be good to incorporate SRM.

I attempted to make a quick graph and weighing that might be applied albeit a very big assumption that colour is in part an indicator of bitterness buffer.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (8/10/16)

On an aside I read with interest the history section of AHB the 'style' "English Pale Ale" as being directly descended from Burtons 1822 Pale Ale.

However a cursory search of historic British (and Welsh) newspapers we see the term "Pale Ale" occurring in many dozens of entries in the 1700's.

The term "Pale Ale" being in use for at least a century prior to 1822 however perhaps without as clear or consistent recipe (?).


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (9/10/16)

good4whatAlesU said:


> My mind is telling me that any objective classification would take on some basic characteristics (senses) already well known about in beer characterisation and taste. . then shoehorn these into a six or seven coded graphic that could present on a label:
> 
> Colour
> Bitterness
> ...


Basically amounts to constructing an N dimensional vector space and assigning values along the N axes. You could then define a central style locus and acceptable variational radius for each style.

As an example, if the style is within x units of locus Z Z 9 Plural Z Alpha it's an English Bitter.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/10/16)

Hmm a bit out of my league, would that be like a 3 dimensional PCA with each variate along an axis. A statistician once told me PCA's were a bit like reading tea leaves.

If the axis values were real according to a set scale it could work. It would give a unique multidimensional coordinate value for ever 'beer' and that would be interesting. Whether or not interpretable for inclusion on a label....(?). As you say nominal coordinates could be set for"styles' if desired, however there would be some overlap.

The first thing to do is set the vector names, scales and values.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/10/16)

.example:


----------



## Bribie G (9/10/16)

Most beer styles are classified in the BJCP framework which is pretty well USA-centric.

And in many cases they get it wrong or have no idea about the real histories.

I could name lots of UK beers both living and extinct that don't fit into any style guidelines or have been changed over the last few decades. 

Example John Smiths bitter represents a fusion between Scottish 70 Shillings and Yorkshire Bitters. Once dark brown it was typical of a whole family of dark or ruby 1040 working mens beers such as Lorimers Scotch, Camerons Stongarm etc. 

They were common throughout the North but when you got midway through Yorkshire they butted up against a raft of pale Bitters, many of them base malt only and lager coloured. For a dark beer you would have to step down to a typically 1035 mild.

Stones. Theakston. Tetley. Boddingtons.

Last time I was in the Old Dart I noted that John Smith has been lightened as part of some feelgood mythology built around Yorkshire Bitter and both Theakston and Boddingtons are now darker gold similar to Southern bitters.

I use BJCP for my comp entries but when I have put in a lager coloured bitter or a ruby red Strongarm it's dismissed out of hand as not to style as mandated out of San Diego wherever.

Best of luck but I think you're nailing jelly to the ceiling.


----------



## Feldon (9/10/16)

This old bloke was on the right track.




No, not an aging craft brewer, but Dmitri Mendelev.

He, "formulated the Periodic Law, created a farsighted version of the periodic table of elements, and used it to correct the properties of some already discovered elements and also to predict the properties of eight elements yet to be discovered." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev )

Substitute beers for elements and this latter day 'Periodic Table of Beer Styles' can organisie the apparent complexity of beer, its origins etc., into the same straightforward and time-honoured format.




Note the KEY in the bottom lefthand corner.

(Low res pic limited by the AHB upload limit. But go to https://www.google.com.au/search?q=periodic+table+of+beer+styles&biw=1280&bih=866&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjt0ujGsMzPAhUIG5QKHd8aBHYQsAQIGg to find and download this and other versions in higher resolution.)


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/10/16)

Mendelev looks an interesting fellow! Could mistake him for a hipster brewer by his appearance. Won the 'Davy' medal. Now, Davy... there was another smart fellow - discovered quite a few of the elements. Edit: Davy preferred inhaling Nitrous oxide to drinking beer though and nearly blew himself up a few times. Did not live a long life (chemists did not have much WHS back in the day).

Whilst elements and compounds are relatively orderly in nature (few components and set ratio's) believe it or not, beer has a larger range of options and difficult to fit into a 2 dimensional space than elements of the periodic table.


----------



## manticle (9/10/16)

Any system you attempt will have limits.
Any limits will get pushed/stepped over/broken.

I think acceptance of blurred boundaries and the natural evolving of parameters is integral to understanding beer and its past, present and future.

If you think craft beer names get ridiculous, have a look at underground music genres - particularly post industrial, extreme metal and techno/dance/house.

I agree - some names are blatantly silly but that's mostly marketing and when has marketing ever been sensible? Shit, attention grabbing gimmicks rule that world.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/10/16)

Actually now reading about it; H Davy was the first to liquefy carbon dioxide in 1823.

In 1800 he also instructed "Robert Southey - the poet, to be on the lookout for Cornish 'White Ale' as a delicacy of that region. So perhaps he enjoyed more than just a whiff of laughing gas.


----------



## warra48 (9/10/16)

One of my recent brews fits neither the published BJCP styles nor the Periodic Table of Beer Styles.

Dark American Wheat.

Come along to Bitter & Twisted in early November at the Old Maitland Gaol to find out for yourself. It's one of the beers to be used by HUB in our education/popularity sessions.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/10/16)

warra48 said:


> One of my recent brews fits neither the published BJCP styles nor the Periodic Table of Beer Styles.
> 
> Dark American Wheat.
> 
> Come along to Bitter & Twisted in early November at the Old Maitland Gaol to find out for yourself. It's one of the beers to be used by HUB in our education/popularity sessions.


Cool, what are the ingredients? American malted wheat, American hops, American yeast? 

Sorry but I don't do Gaols .. went to Port Arthur once and the place had a smell like death, misery and violence all mixed into one. They should bulldoze the place and be done with it IMO. I won't go into a goal voluntarily. History be damned.


----------



## pcqypcqy (10/10/16)

Feldon said:


> This old bloke was on the right track.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a bad idea, but what did you use to group the columns/rows? Elements are 

_ordered by their atomic number (number of protons), electron configurations, and recurring chemical properties. This ordering shows periodic trends, such as elements with similar behaviour in the same column. It also shows four rectangular blocks with some approximately similar chemical properties. In general, within one row (period) the elements are metals on the left, and non-metals on the right._

Elements are easily classified this way, but I'm guessing beers may not be? Still, can't hurt to try. Could the beer styles be listed in order of ABV (analagous to molecular weight), with rows indicating colour ranges and perhaps 'blocks' used to group certain broad style families (eg 'sour')

Dunno really, it's a big challenge.


----------



## warra48 (10/10/16)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Cool, what are the ingredients? American malted wheat, American hops, American yeast?
> 
> Sorry but I don't do Gaols .. went to Port Arthur once and the place had a smell like death, misery and violence all mixed into one. They should bulldoze the place and be done with it IMO. I won't go into a goal voluntarily. History be damned.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/10/16)

Looks delicious!!

American, German and Scottish ingredients. Let's go with "International Wheat Beer"


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/10/16)

Interesting the beer recommended by Sir Davy to R. Southey (author of Goldilocks') is supposedly about to make a 'comeback.

Meet 'White Ale' brewed, apparently, with eggs.

http://www.devonlife.co.uk/food-drink/the_history_of_white_ale_in_devon_1_4693185

and according to a 1542 writer looked on appearance like "pigs had wrestled in it.

Although I must admit that this does not sound particularly appetising.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/10/16)

More informative link;


http://www.awashwithale.co.uk/2013/12/06/on-the-trail-of-devons-white-ale/


----------

