Well, thank goodness I worked ahead before coming to Halifax, as my regular columns are providing me with ready content. The latest is May’s Beer 101 at sherbrookeliquor.com. This month I start a two-part series on beer flaws – the common off-flavours that can spoil your experience of a beer. Having already discussed oxidation and skunking, I move on to the next three most common flaws: phenols, diacetyl and astringency (if you don’t know what any of these are, this is THE column for you…).
The goals for this series are straightforward. I offer some sensory descriptions to help beer drinkers identify the flaw when they taste it, and then include some insights into WHY they occur (because knowledge is always a good thing). I realize many of you are quite familiar with these flaws, and some of you likely know more about the causes than I do. But give it a read anyway and feel free to add your thoughts to the comment section here. The more information we put out there, the better.
May 16, 2011 at 11:04 PM
Interesting article. As I was reading the diacetyl section I was thinking “hmm maybe thats why i don’t care for Innis and Gunn all that much…” and well sure enough, you pointed that out. not that its a bad beer, I just don’t care for that over-butteryness.
But one question I had while reading was, are these flaws issues that are constants with certain beer companies (ie. always present with certain companies)? Or things that occasionally occur within small batches of even great craft breweries? I know that contamination issues can occur with craft breweries but are the examples you are referring to more common in the former or the latter?
May 17, 2011 at 5:39 AM
Chris,
The short answer to your questions is – both. Small batch, and even single bottle, infection can occur to even the best of breweries (and most quality craft brewers will quickly and happily take back a sub-standard beer and replace it with a fresh new one). However, I find most issues that affect small numbers of bottles are usually the post-production ones – skunking, oxidation, etc. – which can develop through age and poor handling after packaging.
Which is to say that my experience is that the kinds of flaws I mention in the column – diacetyl, astringency, etc. – show up consistently in a brewery’s beer (or in one of their beer). That is because they are process oriented. Maybe it is their choice of yeast, or when the rack a beer. Maybe it is the malt they use in a light lager that leads to harshness. That said, even process issues can occur only once (maybe they were rushed to empty that fermentation vessel, or an inexperienced brewing assistant sparged too hot, and so on).
So, not unexpectedly, the longer answer is complex. It is both and either. But I think you are thinking in the right way.
Thanks for posting.
Jason
May 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM
There is an interesting line of thought that if breweries intentionally use “off flavours” as part of their house character (ie; acetyldehyde in Budweiser, diacetyl in Innis and Gunn/Pilsner Urquell/Samuel Smith), then they are not really considered flaws.
I am anxiously awaiting part II!