chromosphere

Couldn’t give a stuff. Does it taste good?

That’s all I have to add. And until this footnote, the title was longer than the content. Blown it now though.

Photo credit: Ian Britton, via: freefoto.com, ref: 09-15-53

On Saturday 12th Nov, the London and South East Craft Brewing Festival took place in Wimbledon. I was there bright and early (9am…) to help out as a steward.

During judging, a steward is required to fetch entries for and assist the judges in their duties. As part of the educational aspect of this (yes, there is learning to be done here!), the judges very usually share the beer with the stewards to discuss the quality of the beer after completing their feedback forms.

Judging in Progress...

I was steward to John Hatch (from the Ram Brewery in Wandsworth) and to BJCP judge Ali Kocho-Williams (@alikocho), our flight consisting of Ordinary Bitters (8A) and Mild (11A) along with one Southern English Brown Ale (11B). Having been to similar competitions in previous years over in Sutton that were organised by Richard from Cheers, I found it interesting to see how the beers entered compared to those from previous years.

Overall, the standard of beers entered was very good as usual, with much greater range of styles entered, and many more adventurous beers submitted. However, I found the standard in our flight to be somewhat lower than previous years in these categories – there were a variety of problems including: infections, beers having vegetal/”cooked” characteristics, under attenuated beer (“worty”), beer that was thin or lacking in finish, and unfortunately, one gusher. There were some stylistic issues such as milds that were too hoppy, and there were some beers that unfortunately were entered into the wrong category. While, as a steward, this it’s great for learning about flavour defects, it also backs up the idea that the hardest beers to brew are the lowest gravity styles – there is often little to hide behind and any defect sticks out like a sore thumb.

Not a great beer...

Defects aside, for ordinary bitters and milds, it is hard to get sufficient malt character into the brew – I think some of this comes down to yeast choice (e.g. I find WLP002 leaves a much stronger malt profile than, say, Nottingham). But, interestingly, Ali pointed out that the mashing process could well be the key here.

On large scales (several BBL), the sparge will take hours, rather than 20min or so in a homebrew situation (1/8BBL!). Does the shorter sparge result in less malt character being carried over in the malt? Seems like a possible reason. Perhaps as he suggested, the no-sparge technique could be used to compensate here by using a larger proportion of the rich first runnings? Commercially, Fullers ESB (parti-gyled with London Pride) has a very rich malt profile – almost certainly with a strong influence from the mash/sparge process as well as their unique yeast.

Additionally, related to the yeast choice is the pitching rate of the yeast you are using – it’s easier to under or over pitch in a homebrew setting. Perhaps the balance between getting good yeast derived flavours and not having enough healthy yeast to fully ferment the wort is an even finer one than maybe I previously suspected?

On the subject of “entering the right category”, I saw several examples of this on Saturday. Now, before we get into a “the guidelines are wrong” type argument (again), these are the pre-set conditions for judging this competition – the judges have to use these guidelines to make their choices, so as an entrant, you need to do a bit of making sure that you’re giving your beer the best possible chance of doing well.

So, from our set of beers, we had a strong mild (in the style of Sarah Hughes Ruby Mild) which actually did well in the flight – but it was discussed if it could have performed better in another class? The flavour profile and strength of Victorian/Edwardian style milds are a fair way outside of the mild guidelines (but of course, they are guidelines and not concrete limits…). Sarah Hughes itself (though slightly stronger than our example) is actually listed in Old Ale as an example of the style – would it have scored better there perhaps, or even entered as a lower hopped porter?

And, as odd it is trying to place a real life distinction between classes 11B and 11C (Southern/Northern Brown), there will be an expected difference from a judge’s perspective. Manns and Newcastle Brown Ale are quoted as commercial examples in the guidelines – try them out to see the obvious difference. One is quite sweet and caramel with dark fruit, the other has much firmer bitterness.

Some beers landed up being entered into Speciality (23A) on the basis of them being “too bitter” or “too hoppy” for the English bitter classes. There was one such speciality beer I tried in the tasting afterwards that was a very good APA, but I would happily have expected it to fall into the APA category rather than speciality, especially given the strong influence from the Columbus hops used.

Possibly the best (or worse, depending on viewpoint…) example of “great beer, wrong category” (even by his own admission) was Fergus McIver’s (@fergusmciver) excellent “Taste the Darkness” that deservedly won the “People’s Choice” award. It was a great beer, heavily hopped with American varieties giving a strong resinous and citrus nose with a dark roast coffee/slightly plummy undertone. Citrus complimented the coffee/chocolate flavours very well, and bitterness was firm but not overwhelming. It was entered into Imperial Stouts (13F) which was a real shame – had it been entered into 13E (American Stouts), I think it could well have been in with a shout of winning!

Another interesting moment during my judging flight came when dispensing a beer from our flight for judging – this was a mild presented in corny keg with party tap, and upon first serving into a jug, I got a lot of foaming which blew out any condition the beer had – and the beer itself seemed somewhat thin and lacking in aroma. After reducing the serving pressure by venting the keg off, the beer was markedly different – body increased and so did aroma, and the condition was much improved. Surprising how the tap used, or the pressure at which it is forced out makes such a difference to the same beer. There was a marked difference in the quality of the beer between the two versions of the same beer.

Perhaps this is somewhat akin to the sparkler argument? (no sparklers on milds for me, thank you!). And, even more controversial, perhaps CAMRA are right regarding their method of dispense arguments for certain beers, but perhaps not for the reasons they think the argument should be based around! I think with a freeflow tap and slightly longer line, that mild would have been fine served as was. Temperature does make an enormous difference here to serving and foaming, and it’s not necessarily the brewer’s fault in these instances. My “Boeuf de l’Ouest” (strong saison) also suffered from unbelievable foaming in the temperatures of the school hall, whereas it served flawlessly at 8-10C at home – arguably, the carbonation could have been reduced on it, but it’s tricky to predict how these things will behave ahead of time…

So there we go – a very interesting, and tiring day. Congratulations to the winners (especially Tom Greasley for his winning Sweet Stout (“Sarcastro’s Stout”) and to the multi-talented roaming photographer Gregg Irwin (@dredpenguin) who not only picked up a 1st and a 2nd (Dry Stout and Belgian Speciality) but who also walked off with the award for best label design! Congrats! Check out Gregg’s post for a selection of photos of all the prizewinners.

Thanks also to the guys from the London Amateur Brewers for organising the day – a lot of behind the scenes work takes place, and no event like this would take place without all their hard work!

(Red Sparrowhawk picked up another award with 2nd place in IPA/American Ales – when getting the rosette presented, I had my photo taken next to a Swedish guy called Ingemar Jansson, who is possibly the tallest person I have ever met…! Check out Gregg’s post for a ridiculous picture of me…)

Increased duty on two out of these three...

Something I noticed while reading the HMRC document assessing the (then proposed) impact of the High Strength Beer Duty. In the assessment of the changes, it states under “Other Impacts”

The reduction in consumption of high strength beer resulting from these measures is likely to have a health benefit.

Small breweries will not be significantly impacted upon, as beers over 7.5 per cent abv represent only 2 per cent of their total production.

There is no adverse impact on competition as all producers and importers of beer with a strength exceeding 7.5 per cent abv are liable to the new duty for high strength beers.

I’m not sure this is all correct.

1. The change was designed to ‘reduce the availability and affordability of “super strength” lagers associated with problem drinking’. If the change is likely to show health benefits, you need to also increase the tax on super-strength ciders, wine and spirits to make those less affordable. An alcoholic will either not care about a price increase (it is an addiction that they must satisfy), or will move to drinking other cheaper forms of alcohol. A 2 litre bottle of cheap cider is way cheaper than most equivalent beers anyway. Putting a sensible minimum per unit price and preventing the sale of alcohol at lower than cost would have far more effect.This also seems to be a little narrow minded in the definition of “problem drinking” – in no way does this impact the person who causes trouble/gets themselves into trouble/difficulty after necking 10 pints of strong lager (~5% ABV) in a club/pub.
2. While small brewers may only have 2% production of strong beers, it doesn’t take into account that some breweries specialise in these products and are likely to have an increased percentage of high strength beer production compared to the norm.
3. The duty payable by a large brewer (>60000hl/yr production) has just increased by 25%. For a small brewer (<5000hl/yr), the duty payable on the same beer, though still less than that of the large brewer, increases by a whopping 50%. Given the way profit margins work,  and the likely lower margins for a smaller brewer, how does this represent a level playing field for all brewers?

If you’d like to have a play with a spreadsheet I generated to work out what duty is payable on your beer, try this out:  Beer Duty Spreadsheet (.xls) (NB: I believe this spreadsheet to be accurate as of 26-Oct-2011, but this should not be used for any official duty purposes! If you spot any errors, then please let me know!)

And, if you haven’t already, get over to http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18346 and sign to campaign against the duty.

Photo attribution:
6-8-10 / Smabs Sputzer / CC BY 2.0

I’m umm-ing and ahh-ing over my next few brews – here’s a couple of thoughts…

#1

Maris Otter 3kg
Flaked Rye 500g
Munich Malt 350g
Crystal 60EBC 250g
Special B 140g
Crystal 240EBC 140g
Pale Chocolate 80g

Cascade 6% 18g 60min FWH
Columbus 13% 18g 20min
Columbus 13% 24g 10min
Columbus 13% 34g 0min

OG 1.045
FG ~1.011
IBU ~33
SRM 19

Yeast: US-05 (probably)

 

#2

Maris Otter 3.8kg
Crystal 120EBC 240g
Carapils 200g
Crystal 240EBC 110g
Pale Chocolate 60g

Northdown 8% 28g 60min
Fuggle 3.2% 28g 60min
Northdown 8% 15g 15min
Fuggle 3.2% 15g 15min
Styrian Goldings (Bobek) 20g 0min
Cascade 12g 0min

OG 1.043
FG ~1.011
IBU ~37
SRM 13

Yeast to be chosen from: S-04, Windsor, WLP002, Wyeast 1028, Harveys Sussex?

And in amongst this I need to brew a weizenbock… (the recipe for which I have nailed down now thankfully…). Any thoughts/comments on the above?

The following link is a survey that is being circulated by the “Way Ahead Group” of the Craft Brewing Association. It is designed to get feedback from as many brewers as possible on the expectations of people of a national home brewing club (this covers subjects like competitions (National and Regional), local groups, communications with members, etc).

The results will collated and used to develop any required organisation to fulfil ass many of these requirements as is possible. If you’re a UK homebrewer, and even if you’re not a member of the CBA in the UK, it’d be great if you can spend 10 minutes to tell the group exactly what you feel on the subject.

The questionnaire can be found here – thanks for your time!

http://kwiksurveys.com?u=HomeBrewersSurvey

This year the National Homebrew Competition was held in Bristol on the 4th Sept. This was the first UK competition to be organised under BJCP rules. A lot has been said about the BJCP style guide (mostly, as far as I can tell, from people outside of the US criticising the representation of UK and some European styles). Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the style guide (and it is only a guide for judging – it doesn’t tell you how you *must* brew your beer!), I think that it has encouraged one of the widest and largest range of entries for a British Homebrew competition, which is excellent news.

By all accounts, there was quite some array of judges – notably John Keeling (@FullersJohn) from Fullers, Justin Hawke from Moor Beer (@drinkmoorbeer), Chris Kay from The Bristol Beer Factory, Tim Hampson (@beerhero) from the Guild of Beer Writers, beer writer Des De Moor (@desdemoor), Phil Lowry (@PhilLowry) from Beer Merchants (@beermerchants) amongst many others. Included was Ali Kocko-Williams (@alikocho) who organised the event – and what a great job he did – many thanks to Ali!

Unfortunately, I couldn’t make it along for the day, as playing cricket (and winning the league!) took precedence, but by all accounts it sounded like a great event (make sure you check out Phil Lowry’s blog page on the event with photos and video interview with Ali).

I was even lucky enough to pickup four 1st places and a 2nd place, as well as 2nd and 3rd in the Best of Show round!

I was particularly pleased with the US Amber (which I think tastes excellent), and getting such a high score (in the “Outstanding/World Class” range) for the weizen, which landed up being judged as a “kristallweizen” as it was super clear. Also, it was good to see “The Handicapper” (entered as an Old Ale – pictured) finally getting an award after sitting patiently in store for two and a half years!

Finally, big congratulations to Tom Dobson (@quadrangularus1) for winning best of show with his Vanilla Milk Stout, and well done to all the other guys (including you all on Twitter – I won’t try and list you because I’ll miss someone out!) who picked up awards, not least fellow Oxford Brewer, Matthew Hicks getting a 3rd and an HM in his first competition

My results included:

• 1st Place American Amber/Brown Ales – “Red Sparrowhawk” (10B US Amber) -  40/50
• 2nd Place American Amber/Brown Ales – “Bad Choirboy” (10C US Brown) – 39/50
• 1st Place Belgian & French – “Boeuf de l’Ouest” (16E Belgian Speciality – Strong Saison) – 42/50
• 1st Place Strong Ales – “The Handicapper” (19A Old Ale) – 39/50
• 1st Place Wheat and Rye – “Triticum” (15A Weizen/Weissbier) – 45/50 (!!)

• Runner-up Best of Show – “Red Sparrowhawk”
• 3rd Place Best of Show – “Triticum”

Coming up, it’s the Thornbridge/Nicholson Competition and the London/Home Counties in November. Time to get brewing again…

UPDATE, 9th Sept 2011: R.I.P. Triticum keg. Tash finished it last night. Only one bottle remains…