[mrbounds]

Hi All,

Is making a starter with this blend a bad idea, in that will it upset the proportions of the different yeasties in there?
Would I perhaps be better off using a straight belgian yeast for the primary and then pitching this roeselare blend in the secondary?

Thanks for any advice.

[eltharyon]

The different bugs grow at different rates so you can change the balance.  And IMHO most of the sour strains produce better when not pitched at the optimum conditions.  Underaerate, underpitch.

[chezteth]

The different bugs grow at different rates so you can change the balance.  And IMHO most of the sour strains produce better when not pitched at the optimum conditions.  Underaerate, underpitch.

+1  There seem to be two different schools of thought when using the roeselare blend.  Do as eltharyon suggests above or use an ale yeast for the primary fermentation then use the roeselare blend for the secondary fermentation.  According to Jamil Z. in his book "Brewing Classic Styles" if you want the beer to be more sour then pitch the blend directly.  If you want it less sour then use a regular ale yeast first then use the blend for the secondary.

Happy Brewing,
Brandon

[hopfenundmalz]

The blend has ale yeast in it.  IIRC it has 2 Belgian wheat beer yeasts and a sherry yeast, then the bugs and critters.

[James Lorden]

The different bugs grow at different rates so you can change the balance. 

I agree with the theory.... but here's where the thought goes off the rails for me - I know some breweries are reusing cultures through contaminated barrels and other less then scientific innoculation approaches (for some reason russian river and Jolly Pumpkin come to mind, but I could be wrong).  It seems that these beer's charechteristics stay pretty consistent. However if the theory of bugs growing at different rates means that a starter will throw off the balance were true, then the same would hold true for some of these large breweries, wouldn't it.

In other words I feel like professional breweries use there previous batch of sour beer as a starter for the next batch of sour beer -  but manage to turn out a consistent product.

Personally, I've made a few sours with Roselare and did not use a starter. I did use the "Jamil" method of starting with an ale yeast.

[eltharyon]

Well ali can say about that is dumb luck.  RR and JP are using barrels for their innoculation, they do rinse the barrels out.  Maybe the bugs grow at the right rate.  I imagine if one strain were to take off and out compete the others then that barrel would be sterilized and reinnoculated, or replaced.
And years of experience and research has taught them what works. 

[narvin]

The different bugs grow at different rates so you can change the balance.  

I agree with the theory.... but here's where the thought goes off the rails for me - I know some breweries are reusing cultures through contaminated barrels and other less then scientific innoculation approaches (for some reason russian river and Jolly Pumpkin come to mind, but I could be wrong).  It seems that these beer's charechteristics stay pretty consistent. However if the theory of bugs growing at different rates means that a starter will throw off the balance were true, then the same would hold true for some of these large breweries, wouldn't it.

In other words I feel like professional breweries use there previous batch of sour beer as a starter for the next batch of sour beer -  but manage to turn out a consistent product.

Personally, I've made a few sours with Roselare and did not use a starter. I did use the "Jamil" method of starting with an ale yeast.

I think the idea is that a yeast starter, plentiful in maltose and fermented quickly in a period of a few days, is going to grow mostly sacc yeast and out-compete some of the wild yeast and bacteria, giving you less sour character.  Innoculated wood, on the other hand, is going to harbor the hardy wild yeast and other souring microorganisms that you want.  I have heard of the character of a solera changing (and getting more sour) over time, but I don't believe most wild breweries pitch any of a previous batch in new wort.

[anthony]

The big American sour beer makers like New Belgium (with LaFolie) and Jolly Pumpkin and Russian River have volume on their side and are doing a lot of blending. Besides, there are definitely subtle differences between different vintages of the same beers.

[kylekohlmorgen]

As with all sours, you've got time on your side...

If you like it sour, pitch the roselare on its own. If you want less pucker, pitch in the secondary after a clean, ale yeast in the primary.

Either way, if the level of sourness isnt to your liking, brew another batch using the opposite method and blend. After a few years of making sours, you'll be doing this anyway!

If this will be for a competition, I'd err on the side of more sour than less sour. Just like with bitterness in IPA, you usually need to be on the high side of the style for it to be perceived as "in-style" by the judges.

BJCP judges - please comment...

[mrbounds]

So as of right now, I am going to pitch the roeselare blend prior to the start of fermentation with no starter and will be seriously underpitching. My next question is can I leave this in the primary for the long aging period or do i need to rack to a secondary? I plan on this ending up as a framboise so I thought if I could leave in the primary for 6+ months and then rack onto the fruit it would be a lot less hassle.

Thanks again for any advice!

[tschmidlin]

I leave mine in primary.  Works great.