Jon Binkley > wrote:
> (Dick Adams) wrote:

>> If California Common can be an ale made with a lager yeast,
>> why can't lagers use ale yeast?

> "California Common" (gak, can't we just call it "Steam"? This
> NG is dead-- we won't get sued!) is a lager fermented at ale
> temperatures, not an ale made with lager yeast. As to "lagers"
> using ale yeast, well, because the most common definition
> of "lager" is "beer fermented by lager yeast". You are of course
> free to use any alternative defintion that floats your boat, but
> it might be a lonely boat.

You are correct.

So because we're pretty much on the same page, we'll agree Rouge is
free to label Dead Guy as an Ale because it's "made with Rogue's
proprietary "PacMan" ale yeast" and claim it's a Maibock becaue it
floats their boat. Maybe it's just Gringo interpretation of a
European style.

>> The problem is that, outside of judging, the guidelines don't
>> mean much.

> I agree completely, but that doesn't really excuse categorizing
> a unique beer as a well-defined (and very different) style. Call
> it a unique style, or better still don't try to categorize it at
> all.

Excellent point.

Now if you ferment malt with a wine yeast at a lager temperature,
do you have beer or wine? The first problem I see is that you
can't pass it off as wine except to someone with a blood-alcohol l
evel above .25.

Off-the-top-of-my-head, 10 lbs of LME femented down to 1.01 (which
a wine yeast like Lalvin EC-1118 should be able to do) has be over
9% ABV. Ferment it at a lager temperature to nax out attenuation
while minimizing yeast by-products and you'll have a dry, crisp brew.
If it's too dry, you can always add splenda. Besides a waste of time
and money, what would you call it?

Dick