Unnatural and impure thoughts

SUPPLIED

GEOFF GRIGGS: In my experience the difference between bland beer and great beer is usually directly attributable to the quality and quantity of malt and hops used.

Relevant offers

Beer

Summer Beer Fest Wanaka Beerworks' surprising seasonals DAB golden lager great quencher Here's to your very good health Beerfest bonanza ahead Family beerfest 2011 a year of beer Make Christmas ale and hearty Questions raised over glass decision Marlborough breweries opt out

As someone who spends his time encouraging people to be adventurous in their choice of beers I find it unhelpful, to put it mildly, when brewers use confusing, ambiguous or downright inaccurate terms to describe their beers.

Take the word "pure" for example. Pure is an evocative word but what exactly does it mean when applied to beer? Since 1516 German brewers have adhered to a so-called beer purity law, the Reinheitsgebot, which decrees beer must be made with only four ingredients; malt, hops, yeast and water. But is the German definition of purity the same as the one adopted by Kiwi brewers? Who knows? And who's to say the German definition is correct? Should a beer whose recipe includes unrefined candy sugar and spices be considered "impure"? If so, many of Belgium's finest ales, including some of its most revered monastic brews, would be deemed impure. It seems when it comes to beers, even those made by Trappist monks, purity may not always be a virtue.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that to our largest brewers pure is marketing speak for "flavourless". In recent months the word has appeared on some new golden lagers and in each case the malt and hop character of the beer has been toned-down to the point of blandness.

The most well-known example of the current trend is Steinlager Pure. In the television advertisement actor Harvey Keitel admires New Zealand for its cleanness and greenness and his choice of beer seems compelling. But the advert raises a question: If this new incarnation of Steinlager is so pure, what does that make the old Steinlager? Has Lion Breweries really been selling us "impure" beer for all these years? I don't think so. Despite Mr Keitel's recommendation, as someone who loves the grassy, herbaceous aromas and flavours of this country's hops, I'll stick to the old Steinlager thanks.

Then there's that old chestnut "naturally brewed". If ever there was a term designed to confuse the unwary beer drinker, this has to be it. But, aside from sounding impressive and desirable, what does "naturally brewed" actually mean? And is there, by implication, such a thing as "unnaturally brewed"?

At beer tastings I'm often asked: "I don't like all those chemical beers; is this beer naturally brewed?"

Allow me to explain. All beer is made from a mash of grain and hot water, which is then boiled, usually with hops, and fermented with yeast. Simple. What's unnatural about that? I know brewers can sometimes be seen wearing white coats and working in laboratories, but to my knowledge they haven't yet come up with a new way of combining chemicals to make beer.

In my experience the difference between bland beer and great beer is usually directly attributable to the quality and quantity of malt and hops used.

There's also the issue of brewers incorrectly using the term "ale" to describe their darker-coloured lager beers. This practice is common in New Zealand and in my opinion should be considered as unacceptable as a winery calling its chardonnay a red wine. Let me state clearly that, regardless of the colour and despite what it may say on the can or bottle, more than 95 per cent of beer brewed and consumed in New Zealand is lager. So don't be fooled. OK? Cheers!

- The Marlborough Express

Newest First

Oldest First

Stu as "Stu"   #5   12:49 pm Oct 28 2009

Two years ago, just as the New Zealand "purity war" began, I was presented two beers in the same type of glass that looked, for all intents and purposes, to bethe same beer. I sniffed them each in turn... One smelt like a reasonably hoppy clean lager, while the other smelt like (NZ-brewed) Heineken. I never even had to taste them to know which one was the original Steinlager, the one I still drink from time to time - on tap, in the right bar, it can be quite delicious.

New Zealand's two biggest brewers are fighting hand over fist to the nadir of brewing spectrum. Let's hope they destroy themselves in the process.

Greig   #4   01:59 pm Oct 23 2009

Hi Ruth,

It's most definitely a lager. India Pale Ales are strong, hoppy, bitter, aromatic ales. Not sweet, watery, midstrength brown lagers. :)

Paul   #3   12:51 pm Oct 23 2009

According to BrewNZ and DB Breweries, Tui is a "New Zealand Draught". An award winning NZ draught at this years BrewNZ Beer Awards. Granted there no other entries in that catergory but um .....yeah.

Why is Tui allowed to be called an "East Indian Pale Ale" when by its own definition it isn't? And whats more, is there even such an IPA style called "East Indian Pale Ale"?

ruth   #2   08:07 am Oct 23 2009

tui calls its beer "east india pale ale"

so is it an ale or a lager?

Christian   #1   06:51 pm Oct 22 2009

Great column as always Geoff. There's going to be no shortage of bland lagers this summer. Think I'll stick to craft beer & homebrew and maybe the occasional Pilsner Urquell.

Ad Feedback