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

[good4whatAlesU]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[good4whatAlesU]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. (?).

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]

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]

Fosters

 

[peteru]

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]

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]

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