2016 Bourbon County releases

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JulianB1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
15,929
Reaction score
73,273
Location
Florence, SC
Never too early to start up the hype train! Based on the labels it's clear they aren't moving away from the proprietary bottles. It will be interesting to see if they pasteurize everything from here on forward, as Deschutes did with Abyss after the 2009 infection issues.

GOOSE ISLAND 2016 MAPLE RYE STOUT, BCBS, BARLEYWINE &PROPRIETOR’S DETAILS EMERGE (UPDATE)

Goose-Island-BCBS-2016.jpg


Goose-Island-2016-Bourbon-County-Brand-Maple-Rye-Stout-Keg-Label.jpeg


Goose-Island-2016-Bourbon-County-Brand-Proprietors-Stout-1.jpeg


There's also labels in there for Barleywine and Coffee, but they don't really reveal anything.

Maple Rye sounds like a newmoney adjunct overload.
 
I anticipate lots of dumb reactions to this by people who don't understand what pasteurization does and doesn't do.
So I am not lumped into that group, pasteurizing sours=bad because you kill off some of the unintended bacteria and yeast which would add complexity (for lack of a better word), but those are pretty much always undesirable in stouts/barleywines?
 
So I am not lumped into that group, pasteurizing sours=bad because you kill off some of the unintended bacteria and yeast which would add complexity (for lack of a better word), but those are pretty much always undesirable in stouts/barleywines?

Basically. A sour beer that has active bacteria is going to evolve over time, at least somewhat from the presence of the bacteria (beers getting more funky over time, etc.). Now obviously those characteristics are not desirable in a clean beer. In a stout like BCBS most of the changes are coming from oxidation, changes in compounds related to any adjuncts, the bourbon, the wood from the barrel, etc. Does the yeast contribute something? Maybe, but I doubt it has much effect in comparison with other factors.

Does anyone know if BCBS was bottle-conditioned in the past? If so, with what kind of yeast?
 
Basically. A sour beer that has active bacteria is going to evolve over time, at least somewhat from the presence of the bacteria (beers getting more funky over time, etc.). Now obviously those characteristics are not desirable in a clean beer. In a stout like BCBS most of the changes are coming from oxidation, changes in compounds related to any adjuncts, the bourbon, the wood from the barrel, etc. Does the yeast contribute something? Maybe, but I doubt it has much effect in comparison with other factors.

Does anyone know if BCBS was bottle-conditioned in the past? If so, with what kind of yeast?
I'd be surprised if yeast contributed anything to a stout besides autolysis, ie bad ****. But maybe there's something more complicated, duketheredeemer could probably explain more.
 
I'd be surprised if yeast contributed anything to a stout besides autolysis, ie bad ****. But maybe there's something more complicated, duketheredeemer could probably explain more.

Active Sacc in a stout might help protect it from oxidation a bit, as it may continue to metabolize stuff slowly, but in general that shouldn't be a huge effect. Autolysis can contribute some interesting things through the release of enzymes -- esterases in the yeast being released into the beer at large can sometimes make a beer more fruity during autolysis, for example. That might change some of the bacterial aroma/flavor compounds, though it could just as well make them even worse.

It's possible that Sacc might eat some of the flavor junk or simple sugars a wild yeast or bacteria excreted over a long timeframe, but in a beer with a lot of residual sugar already (i.e. most big stouts, etc.), Sacc is limited not by the lack of stuff to eat, but by the alcohol content.
 
Back
Top