Cantillon Analytics

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.

SourBrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
569
Reaction score
1,182
Location
Macho Grande, California
With all the conflicting information out there I wanted to get some real values on traditional lambic. I considered sending 2 bottles to White Labs, but first I offered up the Bruery to see if they had any interest. Luckily, Patrick did and offered to do it for free.

I wanted to do 3 bottles of the same base beer to see how it ages. We tested 2013 Classic (CG), 2014 St Lam (SL) and 2014 Grand Cru (GC).

ABV(%v/v):
CG-5.57
SL-7.01
GC-5.35

pH:
CG-3.38
SL-3.35
GC-3.42

IBU:
CG-30.15
SL-15
GC-26.35

Titratable Acidity (g/0.1L):
CG-.825
SL-1.095
GC-.96

Apparent Extract (Ea):
CG-2.59P (1.010SG)
SL-1.83P (1.007SG)
GC-2.90P (1.011SG)

Real Extract (Er):
CG-4.59P (1.018SG)
SL-4.32P (1.017SG)
GC-4.82P (1.019SG)

Original Extract:
CG-12.99P (1.053SG)
SL-14.81P (1.060SG)
GC-12.89P (1.053SG)

None of the beers are super attenuated. Oddly enough the oldest, GC a 4 year old beer has the most residual sugar. While the youngest SL, a 15 month is the driest. IBUs are all over place from 15-30. ElkSherpa says he tested a bottle of Classic at 47 IBU. These OE numbers also suggest about 15% evaporation during cooling if they stop the boil at 1.045SG.

Once the PVPP comes in we will have SRM, lactic acid and acetic acid.
 
IN.gif
 
This is about the coolest thing.

As for the oldest having the most residual sugar, that is pretty weird. I have a hypothesis, though. These are all different products. While I believe Canty Classic and Grand Cru are pretty much the same recipe, spontaneous fermentation is somewhat chaotic and with that variability in mind, JVR presumably selects the barrels that go into each based on different criteria. Basically, there's a fair bit of variation between barrels, and then intentionally different final products are blended to make the classic, etc. That is, perhaps JVR is selecting for qualities in the Grand Cru that correlate to a slightly less-attenuated beer.

That all said, the variation is pretty small and we really can't say much about it at N=1, so it could just be that they both end up at the same degree of attenuation by the time the bottles are on the shelf, +/- some variation.
 
Very interesting. I would say though that this doesn't give much indication of how they age because they are all blends of different barrels, and we all know that lambic varies quite a bit.

Also interesting that the Grand Cru has the same FG as my sour stout that I was thinking may have stalled out. Guess it's not that abnormal after all?
 
Is it known how the bottles were sampled (specifically, if the contents of the bottle including the dregs were homogenized)?

Very cool stuff, thank you for doing this and for posting the results!
 
Lamvinus up at 7%?

Interesting. I wonder if bottles from the same batch are the same or it's a blending quirk?
Pretty unsurprising to me that a lambic of about 5% with grape must added is stronger. I've along assumed all the Cantillon beers being "5%" was for expedience, not accuracy.
 
Is it known how the bottles were sampled (specifically, if the contents of the bottle including the dregs were homogenized)?

Very cool stuff, thank you for doing this and for posting the results!
Dregs were not homogenized. Bottles were opened carefully and samples poured first for testing before sensory analysis. Dregs were then pipetted from the bottom for both parties.
 
aka "then we drank those ****ers" ;)




really awesome idea, not sure the cost of these types of analytics, but it would be really cool to see variability over time/batch to batch and bottle to bottle within a batch (so repeatability and reproducibility).
White Labs charges about $100 for 2 beers. I would like to see how Boon, Girardin or Drie compare.
 
I'm shocked that aged hops are capable of delivering that degree of alpha acids and isomerizing them to a level most regard as bacteria-arresting.
That was what jumped out to me as well when I read the first results. I don't have a lot of experience with St. Lam, but I recall it being much more funky than the Classic. Maybe the combination of lower AA and additional sugars from the grape must provides a more favorable environment for the bacteria develop those flavors in a shorter time.

SourBrewer Interesting findings, thanks for taking the time to do this!
 
Interesting. I recently received some data on NMR analysis of a slew of barrels. Same wort added to each barrel, all around the same FG. ABV varied from 5.8-7.4% ABV.

OP, shoot me a PM. I'm in socal and doing some of this science with help from our local uni.
 
Interesting. I recently received some data on NMR analysis of a slew of barrels. Same wort added to each barrel, all around the same FG. ABV varied from 5.8-7.4% ABV.

OP, shoot me a PM. I'm in socal and doing some of this science with help from our local uni.

I'm not sure I follow. If the FGs were about the same, and the wort was all from the same batch (and thus presumably the same OG in the barrel), how are the ABVs so different? Where is the extra density coming from in the 7.4% ABV barrel?

Also, was it this report, by chance:

http://www.academia.edu/5537728/When_Beer_When_Beer_Goes_Sour-_An_NMR_Investigation
 
I'm not sure I follow. If the FGs were about the same, and the wort was all from the same batch (and thus presumably the same OG in the barrel), how are the ABVs so different? Where is the extra density coming from in the 7.4% ABV barrel?

Also, was it this report, by chance:

http://www.academia.edu/5537728/When_Beer_When_Beer_Goes_Sour-_An_NMR_Investigation

I'm not sure where the abv came from, thats the interesting part. Same wort, same OG and FG(+- .2 plato) and yet a 1.6%ABV spread.

Not that report, although I'm familiar with it. My own NMR analysis of my own barrels. ABV was a side benefit of the analysis.
 
You guys might find this interesting if you haven't already seen it. This is 2013 DDG alcolyzer results.

Top is ABV, then density, ABW (not ER, which is not visible on the picture, as it is behind the glass), OE, EA, and ADF (not RDF).
 
I'm not sure I follow. If the FGs were about the same, and the wort was all from the same batch (and thus presumably the same OG in the barrel), how are the ABVs so different? Where is the extra density coming from in the 7.4% ABV barrel?

Also, was it this report, by chance:

http://www.academia.edu/5537728/When_Beer_When_Beer_Goes_Sour-_An_NMR_Investigation
Couldn't ABV vary based on the activity of the bugs? If we think that a huge percentage of fermentation is from the bugs in the barrels and that every barrel is unique, wouldn't you expect to see some range? In that case you'd expect the lower ABV ones to have more of the other fermentation products (acids I guess, no idea what other compounds would be the end result of metabolism of the sugars), and the higher ABV stuff to have less of that. Bonus is that should be measurable.
 
Couldn't ABV vary based on the activity of the bugs? If we think that a huge percentage of fermentation is from the bugs in the barrels and that every barrel is unique, wouldn't you expect to see some range? In that case you'd expect the lower ABV ones to have more of the other fermentation products (acids I guess, no idea what other compounds would be the end result of metabolism of the sugars), and the higher ABV stuff to have less of that. Bonus is that should be measurable.

Seems legit. Some barrels could have had a heavier presence of homofermentative lacto (doesn't produce alcohol) where others had a heavier presence of hetero (produces alcohol). That is the only explanation I could offer as well. Would love to hear from those more experienced though...
 
Seems legit. Some barrels could have had a heavier presence of homofermentative lacto (doesn't produce alcohol) where others had a heavier presence of hetero (produces alcohol). That is the only explanation I could offer as well. Would love to hear from those more experienced though...
Yeah sure, blame it all on the homos.
 
Couldn't ABV vary based on the activity of the bugs? If we think that a huge percentage of fermentation is from the bugs in the barrels and that every barrel is unique, wouldn't you expect to see some range? In that case you'd expect the lower ABV ones to have more of the other fermentation products (acids I guess, no idea what other compounds would be the end result of metabolism of the sugars), and the higher ABV stuff to have less of that. Bonus is that should be measurable.
When you look at the quanities of volatile compounds produced in Chad's Brett Project, the concentrations seem to low to have that much impact on ABV. Most are a few mg/L.

http://www.brettanomycesproject.com...ng-fermentation-with-multiple-pitching-rates/

I am leaning toward residual sugars in the barrel or evaporation for my guess. My thought is if the quantity of sugar required to make 1.6% abv were converted to another compound like ethyl acetate or acetic acid, that compound would be very obvious in the final product.
 
Seems legit. Some barrels could have had a heavier presence of homofermentative lacto (doesn't produce alcohol) where others had a heavier presence of hetero (produces alcohol). That is the only explanation I could offer as well. Would love to hear from those more experienced though...
With the same OG and FG there should be a max ABV no matter which bugs produce it.
 
With the same OG and FG there should be a max ABV no matter which bugs produce it.
Not sure I understand what you are implying (though I'm sure you are right!). I don't see where max ABV comes into play with regards to what I said. Homofermentative wouldn't produce alcohol, Herero would. Can you expand?

Evaporation or residual sugars do make sense. Didn't consider that.
 
Not sure I understand what you are implying (though I'm sure you are right!). I don't see where max ABV comes into play with regards to what I said. Homofermentative wouldn't produce alcohol, Herero would. Can you expand?

Evaporation or residual sugars do make sense. Didn't consider that.
I was thinking that you were implying some Lacto strains were boosting ABV. My bad.
 
Some lacto strains produce alcohol, some do not. Is this incorrect? Not sure where boosting comes in.

Been a while since I read 'Yeast'. Possible I need a refresher.
 
Some lacto strains produce alcohol, some do not. Is this incorrect? Not sure where boosting comes in.

Been a while since I read 'Yeast'. Possible I need a refresher.
Whether the yeast or bacteria consumes the sugars the max abv based on OG will always be the same. If the Lacto doesn't metabolize it, the yeast will. Especially since his FGs are the same.
 
Whether the yeast or bacteria consumes the sugars the max abv based on OG will always be the same. If the Lacto doesn't metabolize it, the yeast will. Especially since his FGs are the same.
maybe I'm reading Beerontwowheels incorrectly, but if non-abv producing lacto consume some sugars in barrel 'a' and alcohol producing lacto consumes sugars in barrel 'b', then wouldn't the ABV be different even if the OG and FG are the same across all the barrels?
 
maybe I'm reading Beerontwowheels incorrectly, but if non-abv producing lacto consume some sugars in barrel 'a' and alcohol producing lacto consumes sugars in barrel 'b', then wouldn't the ABV be different even if the OG and FG are the same across all the barrels?

Non-Alcohol producing lacto will only eat a miniscule amount of sugar, creating .2-.6% lactic acid. Alcohol femrentive lacto will create the same amount(arguably more, its all conjecture though) of lactic acid and ferment the rest of the sugars into alcohol. Lacto wont ferment all the sugar to lactic acid, otherwise that beer would eat your fillings before you finished spitting it out.
 
Non-Alcohol producing lacto will only eat a miniscule amount of sugar, creating .2-.6% lactic acid. Alcohol femrentive lacto will create the same amount(arguably more, its all conjecture though) of lactic acid and ferment the rest of the sugars into alcohol. Lacto wont ferment all the sugar to lactic acid, otherwise that beer would eat your fillings before you finished spitting it out.
That's what I needed to hear.
 
If anyone is interested in having any other lambics tested feel free to PM for for an address, I will start with the sensory analysis and if there is any beer left over I will see what i can put together for the rest of the numbers. Also I will only charge you $25 per beer. ;)

I would want to burden you with that task.

There is already a second more detailed round of testing being done courtesy of olympuszymurgus.

This time we have Cantillon Iris, Tilquin OG, Timmermans OG, Beersel OG, Drie OG, Allagash Coolship, Lindemans Renee Cuvee and JK Aurelian Lure. In addition to the usual pH, IBU and density, NMR analysis is being done too.

If anyone has an extra 375ml Boon, Girardin or Beatification PM me.
 
Couldn't ABV vary based on the activity of the bugs? If we think that a huge percentage of fermentation is from the bugs in the barrels and that every barrel is unique, wouldn't you expect to see some range? In that case you'd expect the lower ABV ones to have more of the other fermentation products (acids I guess, no idea what other compounds would be the end result of metabolism of the sugars), and the higher ABV stuff to have less of that. Bonus is that should be measurable.

Absolutely! Existing literature shows a fair bit of ABV variation between barrels of spontaneously fermented beer. What's strange is that these two beers have the same OG, the same FG, but a different ABV. Most people treat this is a simple three-variable system: if you know two of the variables {OG, FG, ABV}, then the third one is fixed. Obviously reality can be more complicated, but for most fermentations the three-variable simplification works really well. Given that alcohol makes up a large mole fraction of the finished product and has a markedly different density than water, SourBrewer's results indicate that there must be some other fermentation product whose concentration varies considerably between the two beers and has a markedly different density as well. In essence, a hidden fourth variable.
 
Absolutely! Existing literature shows a fair bit of ABV variation between barrels of spontaneously fermented beer. What's strange is that these two beers have the same OG, the same FG, but a different ABV. Most people treat this is a simple three-variable system: if you know two of the variables {OG, FG, ABV}, then the third one is fixed. Obviously reality can be more complicated, but for most fermentations the three-variable simplification works really well. Given that alcohol makes up a large mole fraction of the finished product and has a markedly different density than water, SourBrewer's results indicate that there must be some other fermentation product whose concentration varies considerably between the two beers and has a markedly different density as well. In essence, a hidden fourth variable.
In the Cantillon testing OG is estimated from FG & ABV. In Olympuszymurgus's case it is a known OG and FG with different ABV, but that could be influenced by the barrels from things like residual grape sugars and evaporation. Would be a better experiment to ferment a batch in stainless to reduce variables.
 
Back
Top