What's with Hops and Aging?

This is a topic that causes a lot of confusion, and understandably so.

The question usually comes from people who are just getting into craft beer, enough that they have tried various styles, and have done some reading about the history of beer, brewing, and various ingredients.

"If hops are a preservative, why do people say it's best to drink IPAs and other hoppy beers fresh?"

Well, here's where it's important to separate the way hops got into beer from the reason that we use them today.

Hops were originally used as a preservative in beer.  This was before pasteurization and refrigeration, and especially refrigerated transportation and storage, were a thing.  Hops kept harmful bacteria out of our ancestors' beer, which is the origin of their use in beer.

The safety of beer, however, no longer depends on hops.  We now have pasteurization, effective packaging, and refrigeration from the brewery right through the consumer. So while it is true that beer was originally hopped for preservation, this is no longer the case.  Yes, it's even true that some popular styles of beer we drink today have their origins (in a loose, rough, kind of way) in beers that were intended to have an incredibly long shelf life while traveling through various climates.

That being said, many beers, and in particular those styles originally intended for long life and travel (IPAs), are now hopped more for flavor and aroma than anything else.  In fact, there are hops bred and engineered to emphasize particular flavors.  Individual flavors from hops, like any other flower, don't hold up particularly well with age.  They don't go bad, per se, they just don't fade.

So the reality of it is, if you were to open two beers, the same in every way, but one hoppier than another, and leave them out for a week, the hoppier beer might be "better," "safer" or "fresher" than the unhopped beer in a scientific way.  It is less likely to be affected by harmful bacteria, or to make you sick.  On the other hand, while it hasn't necessarily gone bad, it is unlikely to have the same citrus, pine, resin (think marijuana), or grassy notes that it had when it was fresh.

The same principal goes for aging beers still in their containers.  Hoppy beers don't go "bad," and in fact, are probably less likely to do so than some of the beers we age (in barrels or in bottles) more frequently, but they also aren't as great.  In fact, since many of the beers we age are more malt (sugar) focused, brewers generally have to make sure they have a significant alcohol content, and are also constantly testing barrel aged beers for the presence of harmful bacteria.  You probably wouldn't have to be as vigilant if barrel aging an imperial IPA.  On the other hand, the very fresh, floral, piney, grassy, skunky, or other flavors that make people go nuts for IPAs would be lost

So, the answer is that hops are, in fact, a preservative.  They are, however, used in "hoppy" beers more for flavor and aroma, which fades over time.  You would be perfectly safe drinking an IPA that has been in your fridge for a few months.  It's just not going to have the clean, bright flavors it would have if drank while fresh.

Why is my beer hazy, or even muddy looking?

So, you've probably read my post on sediment in beer, but if not, that's okay.

Every once in a while, the sediment or haze gets extreme, or, if you've had the beer before, unusual even for the particular beer you're drinking.

This is usually the case in draft beers which are unfiltered or undergo secondary fermentation in the keg, and there's a few reasons this happens.

First of all, it is perfectly natural, and perfectly normal, and not a sign of a flaw in the beer, and definitely not that the beer is unsafe to drink.

As the post above discusses, sediment or haze is usually caused by the dead yeast cells remaining in an unfiltered or bottle/keg conditioned beer.  This is why unfiltered beers, such as hefeweizens, wit beirs, and various Belgian beers are usually hazy and opaque.

On the other hand, sometimes the haze goes beyond opacity to actually make the beer darker, or almost muddy in appearance.  While in hefeweizens, these beers usually pour within the normal color range for the style, and unless you are familiar with the particular beer you're drinking, you might not even notice, it can be particularly alarming in Belgian wit beers, golden ales, tripels, etc.

The reason this happens is fairly simple.  Dead yeast cells are heavier than water and the other things that make up the majority of your beer.  If a keg of beer sits stationary for a while, the yeast will start to make its way toward the bottom of the keg and become concentrated there, causing a darker, more murky appearance.

The way kegs work is that the beer being pulled from the tap is actually coming through the stem of the barrel from the bottom of the keg.  This means that, depending on how long a beer has been sitting in a color, and how it was stored, the beer can be darker at either the beginning or the end of a keg.

If a keg has just been tapped, and is pouring with a muddy color, it is likely a sign that the beer has been in the bar's cooler for a while, and has been stored upright.  Luckily for us, most unfiltered beer styles are not harmed, and may actually get better, from aging.  On the other hand, if the keg gets darker toward the end, it is usually a sign that the beer has been on tap for a while, or was stored upside down before being tapped.  In fact, many brewers recommend that their unfiltered beers either be stored upside down, or are agitated just before serving.  The reason is that this way, the yeast is concentrated at the top of the keg.  If the keg is on tap for a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks), the yeast will slowly settle, and the beer shouldn't pour "muddy" at all.  On the other hand, if the beer is particularly popular, and moves quickly, the yeast concentrated at the top of the keg won't have time to settle/spread throughout the keg, and when the end of the keg is reached, the beer which was formerly at the top of the keg will have a high concentration of sediment, and will pour with a murky/muddy appearance.

As mentioned in my sediment post, I have heard (from very unscientific sources, of course), that the dead yeast cells are actually very nutritious.  In most draft beers, they may affect the mouth feel of the beer, but honestly, if you were to blind taste the "bottom of the barrel" against a glass from the middle of the keg, you wouldn't know the difference.

So don't let the dirty/muddy appearance of that beer scare you.  Enjoy it!

Tasting Notes: Rosatello Rosso

Appearance:  The wine pours a very clear, but bright red, and is very effervescent, and actually pours with a bit of a head. Didn't check for legs, since I didn't want to kill the sparkle.

Aroma: Smells almost like a moscato.  Slightly effervescent aroma, with slightly sweet notes of peaches and berries.

Mouthfeel:  Light bodied, but does kind of coat the mouth with an almost syrupy texture in the finish.  The effervescence is noticeable, but not as prominent as you would think from looking at or smelling this wine.

Flavors:  Confirm the nose, but stronger, and definitely sweeter.  Almost tastes like a peach melba wine.  Peaches and stone fruit with ripe raspberry, hints of strawberry and cherry.  Almost, but not quite, cloying sweetness.

Overall:  This is a semi-sparkling, sweet, red blend.  Probably not everyone's cup of tea, and not the most refined wine I've ever tasted, but it is surprisingly tasting.  It is just this side of being sickeningly sweet, so if you're not a sweet wine drinker at all, definitely stay away.  Although it's hard to imagine in Chicago winter, I'm sure this would be a great wine for the beach or the pool on a hot, summer day.  It's also only 6%.  Overall, not a terrible wine if you know what you're getting yourself into and don't mind a slightly sparkling, sweet red.

Tasting Notes: Hangar 24 Gordgeous

Appearance: Pours a dark, opaque brown, with a thin, mocha colored head which disappears rather quickly, but does leave some decent lacing on the glass.

Aroma:  Smells like when you lick the knife (am I the only one that does this) after cutting the first slice of a pumpkin pie.  A hint of pumpkin, a lot of fall spices, and even a little bit of graham cracker which reminds me of the crust.  Also do get a whiff of the alcohol on this one, which comes in at 8.5% ABV.

Mouthfeel:  Surprisingly light on the palate for me.  Goes right down, with no viscosity.

Flavors:  The alcohol is the first thing I taste on this one, then it goes into some nice, roasty, coffee flavors very quickly.  I get a lot of the pumpkin pie flavors again in the finish, which lingers for some time.  It is more of the spices than the actual pumpkin.  I get a lot of cinnamon, allspice, nutmeg, and clove, with just a hint of pumpkin.

Overall: I'm not normally a pumpkin beer fan, and I love this one.  The combination of the high alcohol and the porter base beer mean there's a lot of strong flavors going on in this beer even without the pumpkin.  The flavors are all strong, clean, and pleasant.  The alcohol hits hard at first, but doesn't burn or come with cloying sweetness.  The beer then moves cleanly into a classic, roasty, almost bitter coffee/porter flavor.  It finishes with a wonderful pumpkin pie, fall spiciness.  The flavors are different enough that none become overpowering, but because they seem to progress in order, they also never clash.  This is definitely one of my fall favorites!

Tasting Notes: 2012 Sutter Home Pink Pinot Grigio

Appearance: Pours an almost transparent peachy pink.  After swirling, you get a film which seems to pool down the glass, rather than legs that run.

Aroma:  Slight peach and stone fruit, with a sharp acidity (lemon and grapefruit).

Mouthfeel:  Light on the tongue, although a little bit of a syrupy feel after it goes down.

Flavors:  Definitely heavy on the peach.  Also get a little bit of melon, kiwi, and a touch of strawberry.  The citrus notes from the nose are absent, although it finishes with an acidity which leaves the mouth watering.  A lingering finish of peach, and the strawberry becomes more prominent in the finish than it was on the palate.

Overall:  This is, I guess, what you would expect from a pink wine from Sutter Home.  Like other low-end pink pinot grigios I've tried, it is interesting how different it is from a traditional pinot grigio.  The flavors and the mouth feel both have a definite sweetness to them which white pinot grigios lack.  While hardly complex or refined, the flavors are pleasant, and I would consider drinking this again on a hot summer day, as it is a refreshing, easy drinking wine.

Tasting Notes: Lagunitas Cappuccino Stout

Appearance: Pours a thick, dark brown, almost black, and almost entirely opaque.  Has a nice, frothy caramel colored head to it, which has a good hold and some pretty nice lacing after it settles.  When poured, the head develops almost as if the beer were on nitro (will have to look into this actually), kind of cascading up the beer to the top of the glass.

Aroma:  Strong coffee with a hint of chocolate as well.  The aroma is more like coffee beans than already-brewed coffee.

Mouthfeel:  Flows pretty freely over the palate for coming in at over 9% ABV, although it does coat the tongue toward the finish, and the astringency dries the palate for the finish as well.

Flavors:  Initial flavors are strong on coffee, like a fresh brewed, black coffee.  Very strong coffee flavor, and none of the chocolate I picked up in the nose.  As the beer rests, the bitterness changes from a coffee bitterness to a hoppy astringency.  Finishes with just a touch of heat from the relatively high ABV, and a dry, astringent pucker from the hops.

Overall:  Not an easy-drinking stout for sure.  At almost 10% ABV, and with a healthy dose of both coffee and hop bitterness, this one is probably better served in a snifter than a pint glass, but hey, I'm at home and not driving anywhere, right?  Definitely not a smooth transition from someone whose only exposure to stouts is Guinness or something similar.  A serious beer with a lot of complementary flavors.  The bitterness is prominent, but not overpowering, and the interplay between the hops, the dark malt, and the coffee is fun.  The bitterness never goes away, but it does morph as the beer sits on your palate, which makes it a little intriguing and more interesting than some other stouts, or some other "bitter" beers.  Probably not an everyday choice for me, but definitely a great beer for a fall night.

Is it whiskey or whisky?

A quick and short post today.  This is a common question people have, and everyone seems to think they're right about it.  Well, in this particular case, everyone is actually right.

The dark, distilled-from-grain alcoholic beverage can be spelled either way.

In Scotland, Japan, and Canada, it is most commonly spelled whisky.

In Ireland and the United States, it is generally spelled whiskey.

A seemingly ridiculous, but useful way of remembering that is that, at least as far as the 5 major whiskey producing countries go, if there is an "e" in the country, there is an "e" in the whiskey.  If there's no "e" in the country, there's no "e" in the whisky either.

This question is further complicated by the locavore and craft spirits movements, particularly in the United States.  In particular, there are some whisky producers who produce Scotch or Canadian style whiskies (heavy on the rye or the malted barley), who choose to spell the word without an "e," to reflect the style of the whiskey.

But long story short, both whisky and whiskey are correct spellings for the word.