This week has seen some classic babbling, with a superb debate about a product which just doesn't happen in Belgium: draught gueuze. This is a product specially made for the US market to satisfy the demand there for all things draught. It also goes to a few other bars overseas. Having heard about this, Joris was adamant that if it wasn't in a bottle it couldn't be proper gueuze. There followed some excellent research and some fascinating input from those in the know. As the whole debate was so informative and enjoyable, I have decided that this one should be preserved on this special page as a stand alone classic.

This is the posting that started off the discussion:

Click here for the thread which started the discussion

However, it was Joris's reply that really started the debate:

Click here for Joris's posting

Bob J then took matters into his own hands and emailed Shelton Brothers for more information, and Joris did the same with Cantillon. We soon had the definitive verdicts from both sources.

Firstly, here is the reply from Sheltons - surely one of the most informative posts we have ever had on the Babble Belt:

Click here for Shelton Brothers' response

And we soon had the reply from Jean Van Roy at Cantillon via Joris:

Click here for Jean Van Roy's response

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to making this a very memorable and informative debate.

And just in case you can't be bothered clicking the above links, here are the superb replies from Sheltons and Cantillon in full:

Dan and Will Shelton's reply

Greetings. Will Shelton here . . . filling in for Brother Daniel while he's on the road. What follows is a very sketchy reply, pieced together from previous rants and from some more recent ruminations dictated to me over the phone. A more comprehensive and better structured reply will no doubt turn up on our web site within the next week or two. Anyway, here, more or less, is what Daniel has to say . . .

Bob Johnston has asked me to comment on some hot issues raised by Joris Pattyn in the middle of a thread about traditional lambic, and specifically about kegged Cantillon ‘Gueuze.’ I’m really pleased to be asked, and happy to give a reply. In fact, I could go on and on, and probably will. I’m not very guarded in my opinions, either . . . and hey, you asked.

I could happily agree to a convention whereby we all only refer only to blended lambic as ‘Gueuze’ when it’s re-fermented in the bottle, but for the moment, for ease of writing and comprehension, I’ll continue to refer to the kegged stuff as Gueuze – using the French spelling.

Let me point out first that Cantillon is selling this same kegged Gueuze – under the name ‘Gueuze’ – in Finland and Sweden, so it’s not just us Americans who are impure. And by the way, it’s not a matter of money. The kegs actually cost us more per liter of beer than the bottled Gueuze does, and we make much less money selling it. We bring it over to oblige a few very enthusiastic publicans who ask for it for two reasons: it’s much more visible and arresting as a draft item, and they (the publicans) tend to make more money on draft than they do on bottles.

Not surprisingly, Joris’s comments echo the sentiments expressed in ‘Lambicland,’ Tim Webb’s new book that Joris helped to write, and with which everyone is probably familiar. (That a quote from Lambicland was recently used by a Babbler in support of Joris’s argument is rather pointless, is it not?) ‘Draught traditional Gueuze is an impossibility,’ according to Lambicland. Of course the obvious question is: Do you mean a physical impossibility or a semantic impossibility? It would be nice to have an authority cited for the proposition either way; all we have is that bald declaration. But the book goes on to conclude that ‘[a]ny beer labeled as such is likely to be a filtered, often pasteurized, blond beer with little more than a passing acquaintance with lambic.’ That abrupt move from theory to practice is unfortunate, because in this particular case it is just dead wrong.

A keg of Cantillon Gueuze is exactly what it purports to be: a blend of 1, 2, and 3-year-old lambics, re-fermented in a keg rather than in a bottle. Quite literally, the stuff in the keg is the same stuff that goes in the bottle. The brewery blends the lambics in a stainless steel tank, and bottles it directly from there; occasionally they siphon off a little bit to put into kegs. The beer naturally re-ferments and conditions in a keg in pretty much the same way that it does in the bottle. There may be some subtle difference in the result because the re-fermentation takes place in stainless steel instead of glass. More likely, there may be a difference based on the volumes involved. We don’t really know, and neither does the brewery. (Jean Van Roy suggests that someday we should all get together and compare a keg to a bottle from the same batch, which is something to look forward to.) But even if it turns out that there is some small discernible difference, does it really matter? Jean says, for example, that the best way to ‘conserve’ the Gueuze is in a Magnum – a one-and-a-half-liter bottle. If he’s right, it follows that there can be variation in the same batch of Gueuze depending on the size of the container in which is re-ferments, whether that container is a bottle or a keg. If one is inclined to complain about the authenticity of Gueuze in a keg, one might as well complain about the authenticity of a Gueuze in a common 375 ml or 750 ml bottle, as opposed to the superior Magnum – or better still, a Jeroboam, if you can get it.

I don’t think that Joris has much of an argument regarding the quality of the beer itself, which should be what is most important. If he is really saying that lambic beer just shouldn’t be put in a keg, ever, then I think most would agree that he’s wrong. Nowhere is it written that you can’t try new and different things with lambic if you want to. Aren’t we all happy for Fou’foune, St. Lamvinus, Vigneronne, and other unorthodox offerings from Cantillon, for example?

I’m going to assume, then, that Joris’s concerns are more abstract – blended lambic re-fermented in a keg, no matter how closely it resembles bottled Gueuze, ‘by definition’ can’t be called Gueuze. The problem is, in my view, that you can't say ‘by definition’ about Gueuze and Lambic, because there are no definitions. Or rather, there are lots of them, on which no one agrees, and it’s only a matter of whose definitions you care to adopt. In fact, I know that Armand Debelder at Drie Fonteinen very much agrees with Joris on this – whatever that stuff in the keg is, it can’t be called Gueuze. Funny thing is, the people at Cantillon agree too, technically. They happily admit that the kegs don’t strictly fit their textbook definition of Gueuze, which includes bottle re-fermentation. They just don’t think it matters all that much. As a practical matter, it was just a lot simpler to call the beer in the keg Gueuze because that is what the same beer is called when they put it in a bottle. People understand what Gueuze means. Maybe it’s taking a little liberty, but who really cares? As Jean says, ‘The beer is good.’

Jean even pointed out quite insightfully that technically the bottled Lou Pepe Gueuze is not Gueuze, because it is only three-year-old lambics, with no young lambic in the blend. In fact, this is a good example of how the definitions of lambic and Gueuze just aren’t as clear as Joris, and Lambicland, strongly state. According to Lambicland, Gueuze occurs when “a blender takes an old lambic and adds to it a young lambic.” But the book goes on to give the Lou Pepe Gueuze a solid five stars, without questioning the brewery’s right to call it ‘Gueuze.’ Thus Lambicland’s explanation that Gueuze is a blend of old and young lambics is apparently both too restrictive and too inclusive, in practice – too inclusive because it does not satisfy the purists, like Armand, who insist that Gueuze must be a blending of three different ages of lambic. Note also that, after describing the blending of old and young lambics to spark a re-fermentation, Lambicland states that ‘[t]he finished product is bottled.’ (It doesn’t say that the product must be bottled.) The suggestion is that the part about bottling is not essential to creating a ‘finished product’ – and thus that bottling is not essential to the definition of Gueuze. That of course doesn’t square with the later assertion that draught Gueuze cannot exist. Undoubtedly someone will respond that this is nothing but semantics, but semantics is exactly what we’re talking about, right? When, in practice, the definitions start to bend or crumble so fast, you have to wonder how exacting those definitions are.

I would not want to stop selling the occasional keg of Gueuze as long as people are enjoying it, but I would happily revert to calling this kegged Gueuze ‘draught blended lambic beer,’ if everyone else could agree on all the criteria that define a Gueuze. What bothers me about Joris's point of view is that he fixes on that one rather technical criterion – bottle-refermentation, with emphasis on the "bottle" part – while ignoring what are, in my opinion, much more important criteria that are not by any means strictly observed by other breweries and blenders. When Joris’s post was brought to my attention, my first thought was, “With so much crap going on in the lambic biz, he’s worried about this?

I would take the purist view myself. By all means, let there be a codified, strictly-adhered-to definition "Gueuze" as a blend of one, two, and three-year-old one-hundred-percent spontaneously-fermented lambics, unpasteurized, unfiltered, with no sweeteners added, fermented naturally in the bottle. The kegged Gueuze of Cantillon meets all of these requirements except, of course, that last little bit about the bottle. (I hope that most people would agree that that is probably one of the least essential requirements on the list.) Not many people could uphold that standard. In fact, if you want to stick to it, you'll find that there are only three producers in Belgium that regularly make Gueuze that meets that definition -- Cantillon, De Cam, and Drie Fonteinen. If you ask Armand Debelder, he would add the requirement that the beer be re-fermented in the bottle for at least ten months before it could be sold. Adoption of that view would narrow the field of traditional Gueuze-makers down to one brewer/blender – Drie Fonteinen.

As a matter of fact, when Tim Webb told me about the lambic book he was writing with Joris’s assistance, I wrote to him that if he was really going to stick to the subject of traditional lambic, it would be a pretty thin book. He wrote back that Joris was on the case, and more skeptical than I was, but wouldn’t agree with me that so many self-described lambic brewers or blenders were cheating. Indeed, now that I have the book, I can say that it is quite a thin volume, but not thin enough in my view. It contains a number of descriptions of traditional Gueuzes from various producers that wouldn’t fit the most basic definitions.

It’s no secret, of course, that they’re cutting corners all the time at the bigger, more commercial places – such as Lindemans, Timmermans, De Keersmaeker (Mort Subite) Alken-Maes (De Neve) and Interbrew (Bellevue) – and the problems extend to the beers that they claim as ‘traditional’ Gueuzes too. Hey, spontaneous fermentation is really a pain in the ass, and who needs that? But a lot of the breweries/blenders who are usually thought of as traditional have been given free passes. At this point, I’m thinking that it will just get me in trouble if I spill exactly what my own research has turned up (I’ve been poking around for quite a while), but I don’t mind telling you in general terms that:

1) At least one ‘traditional’ producer, whose beers were once favorably described to me as ‘more accessible than Cantillon,’ makes a habit of using saccharin in its bottled Gueuze – though may have switched recently to something a little less detectable and identifiable, but no less artificial – to ‘balance’ their natural acidity. Why saccharin (or the like)? Sugar would only ferment out quickly, leaving no sweetness. (This same producer also claims to use only real fruit in one of its fruit lambics, but rather obviously uses something like a fruit essence, but I guess we should stick to Gueuze for the moment.)

2) At least two ‘traditional’ producers feel the need to give nature a helping hand by pumping a little carbon dioxide into the Gueuze that they bottle.

3) At least two ‘traditional’ producers don’t feel that old lambic is really essential to a bottled Gueuze, and don’t blend anything older than two years, which results in a much lighter, less acidic flavor.

4) At least one ‘traditional’ producer pasteurizes every lambic it brews, then blends this dead lambic beer with a beer made with cultured yeast in order to create a line of bottled Gueuzes. (This same ‘traditional’ producer made a lot of the sweetish ‘traditional’ Gueuzes that were on display from some of the larger commercial breweries at the Grote Dorst in March.)

5) At least one ‘traditional’ producer has for a few years now been covertly blending its own lambics with lambics made by the aforementioned ‘traditional’ producer who is addicted to pasteurization and cultured yeast in order to make a much lighter bottled Gueuze that hardly resembles the bold, acidic stuff that it used to make.

To sum up, if that’s possible, it seems to me that the definition of ‘Gueuze’ has gone through a lot of warping and morphing in recent years. I guess that Joris’s assertions regarding those definitions come from a traditional, historical standpoint. I agree completely that we should impose those traditional standards on any beer labeled ‘Gueuze,’ and judge it accordingly. I know for a fact that Cantillon and Drie Fonteinen would certainly support that. But let’s be more rigorous and less selective about what rules we enforce. Let’s remember that the history itself isn’t always very clear. And let’s also keep some perspective on the situation. In this case of a lambic brewery very openly kegging a little bit of ‘Gueuze’ and ignoring a debatable historical rule that ‘Gueuze’ is always put in bottles, we have a rather minor infraction. It could be completely cured simply by striking the word ‘Gueuze’ in favor of ‘blended lambic beer’ or something of the sort. It is important to note that most of the Gueuze that Cantillon blends by far goes into bottles, and no one disputes the authenticity of that stuff in the bottle.

Far more insidious is the more or less secret breaking of the other more important rules – rules that are not in doubt historically, rules that go to the heart of what lambic and Gueuze are. You can taste in the beers what is happening. Why get caught up in a minor technical argument when the world of lambic is under assault from within?

Anyway, the Cantillon brewery remains unapologetic and unembarrassed about the quality of the blended and kegged lambic beers that they have perhaps too lightly called ‘Gueuze.’ Shouldn’t the quality that you taste be all that matters in the end?

Jean van Roy's reply and Joris's translation

Here's the original text from Jean:

Je sais que les bières au fût sont très importantes pour les U.S et il y a 3-4 ans, les Shelton m'ont demandés si il était possible de mettre de la Gueuze en fût.

Ma réponse était non, une vrai Gueuze est un assemblage de Lambics refermentés en bouteilles punt aan de lijn.

Tu connais les américains, quand ils ont une idée derrière la tête... Dan est revenu à la charge et je lui ai proposé de mettre en fût des assemblages de lambics lors des embouteillages. La bière en fût que j'envoie aux Etats-Unis est donc EXACTEMENT la même bière que je vend en bouteilles en Belgique ou ailleurs.

MAIS, j'ai aussi prévenu les Shelton que la refermentation en bouteille ne serait pas la même et donc le goût de cette bière allait être différent de la même Gueuze refermenté en bouteille. Vu le succès, les frères m'ont demandé si il était possible de faire la même chose avec les autres bières et depuis deux ans, chaque fois que je fais un embouteillage de Gueuze, bières à fruits, Lou Pepe ou Iris, je remplis quelques tonneaux pour les States pour Akkurat à Stockholm ou pour Olli Sarmaja. Je précise donc bien que toutes ces bières ne sont pas des cuvées spéciales, ce sont les mêmes assemblages que les bières existant en bouteilles. D'ailleurs pour les cuvées du type Fou'foune, Lou Pepe Kriek Framboise Gueuze, Iris, Saint-Lamvinus et Vigneronne, il n'y a qu'un seul embouteillage par an et donc Dan, Stene ou Olli savent qu'ils doivent réserver leurs bières à temps.

Maintenant la définition Gueuze. Pour moi, c'est très clair une Gueuze est un assemblage de lambics de 1, 2 et 3 ans d'âge refermenté au moins 6 mois en bouteille. Bouteilles couchées pour avoir un maximum de bière en contact avec les levures.

Les bières au fût sont donc des Gueuze, Kriek ou Framboise car elles sont issues d'un assemblage de jeune et de vieux lambics, mais on ne peut pas parler de Gueuze, Kriek ou Framboise puisque la refermentation n'est pas exactement la même. C'est donc de l'half en half.

Le problème des fûts se pose aussi au niveau du gaz utilisé. Lorsqu'un fût n'est pas vidé dans la journée, le gaz se mélange à la bière et celle-ci mousse "artificiellement", même le Lambic !!

En conclusion, je ne suis pas contre ce type de bière, ce sont avant tout des produits fabriqués avec des Lambics traditionnels, des fruits frais et ces bières au fûts représentent bien ces produits. Mais, en tant que puriste, on devrait faire une différence entre la Gueuze bouteille et la Gueuze fût.

I'll try my best at a translation:

I know that draught beer is very important for the U.S.A. About 3-4 years ago, I was asked by the Shelton bros. if it would be possible to have gueuze in keg. My answer was: "No, a real gueuze is a blend of lambics, refermented in the bottle period."

You know the Americans - if they've got an idea in their head... Dan kept asking, and finally I suggested that, during the bottling phase, I could keg a part of the beer for bottling. The beer that I send to the USA is thus EXACTLY the same as the beer that in Belgium would be sold in the bottles.

BUT - I warned Shelton that the refermentation in the bottle would not be the same, and that the taste of the beer would differ from the same gueuze that would come out of the bottles. Seen the succes they had with the beer, Shelton bros asked me to do the same with other beers if possible, and since two years, at every bottling of gueuze, fruit beers, Lou Pepe or Iris, I fill some kegs for the States, for Akkurat in Stockholm or Olli Sarmaja (ntrad. in Helsinki). I want to stress that those beers are not one-offs (cuvée speciales), that they are made of exactly the same blends as the bottled versions. Anyway, for the beers as Fou'Foune, Lou Pepe Kriek, Framboise, Gueuze, iris, St. Lamvinus and Vigneronne - there's only one annual bottling, so Dan, Stene and Olli know that they have to reserve well in time.

Now, as for the definition of "Gueuze". To me, it's very clear that a gueuze is a blend of lambics, of 1,2 and " years of age, refermented AT LEAST 6 monthes in a bottle. Bottles LYING DOWN (ntrad my CAPITALS), for having a maximum contact between beer and yeast (ntrad. now didn't I say exactly the same some time ago when we discussed ageing????)

The beers in the keg are gueuze, kriek or framboise because they are the result of blending young and old lambics, but we cannot speak properly of gueuze, kriek and framboise, because the refermentation is different. It's a half-and-half situation.

There is an additional problem with the carbonation. If a keg is not emptied in one day, the gas dissolves in the beer, and the beer gets an artificial carbonation, developping head - even lambic (ntrad - my CAMRA friends would LOVE this passage)!!

Concluding, I cannot say to be against this type of beer, after all, it's produced from traditionally made lambics, fresh fruit and they show their pedigree. But, as a purist, one should discirminate between a gueuze in the bottle and a kegged gueuze.

Jean Van Roy

I have nothing to add more. Remark that if, in the text there's a note between brackets (ntrad.) I added this, not Jean.