Mason Dixon Line Mead Tasting

Jeff recently posted that our Mason Dixon Line Mead won a gold medal at the 2013 Ocean State Homebrew competition.  He had mentioned to me that he brought it to a recent homebrewing club meeting and that it was really well received.  Jeff encouraged me to open a bottle and give it a try, something I had not done for quite some time.  After it won gold, I figured the least I could do was to enjoy a glass and post some tasting notes.

Upon opening the bottle of Mason Dixon Line Mead, there is a clear hissing sound, demonstrating evident carbonation.  This is confirmed by medium sized bubbles racing up the sides of the glass when the mead is poured.  The mead appears brilliantly clear pale straw color.  It carries a delicate floral scent along the lines of honeysuckle, though not nearly as strong.  A light honey aroma is also present, especially as the mead warms. I did not detect any of the medicinal aroma that I recall from the mead shortly after bottling, more than two years ago.

The mead's flavors are delicate, much like the aroma.  The initial flavor perception is floral and smooth.  This fades to a slightly herbal or spice-like character, perhaps something warming like cinnamon  though this could be related to the alcohol strength.  The end of the taste is slightly sweet on the tongue, though it fades rather quickly.  There is also a lasting alcohol warmth in the back of the throat that is rather pleasant   The carbonation level is light and provides a mild mouthfeel.

Overall, I would say Jeff is correct.  The Mason Dixon Line mead has completely turned around.  It lacks its former medicinal and abrasive flavor characteristics.  It is enjoyable to drink now and has a positive character all its own, supplemented by the back story of where the honey was sourced.  In many ways, I am glad that I did not like it at first, so I still have a decent stock to age for years to come.  Congrats to the mead for winning gold!

Photo credit: The mead appears with a picture drawn by my daughter, who nicely granted the rights so that it could appear on this blog.

Cheers,

TW

Oatmeal Stout Aging - Revisited

I have been given a rare gift by a good friend, a bottle of oatmeal stout that we brewed together three years ago.  My friend, Tres, possesses an amazing ability to resist the urge to drink well-aged beer.  We visited his family several weeks ago and before we left, he presented me with a bottle labeled "Oatmeal Stout March 2010."  I had assumed that all of the beer was polished off, but now have an opportunity to taste it again and see how it has aged.  I last posted about this beer almost two years ago, when I was able to taste it next to a much younger version of the same recipe.  At that point, I preferred the younger beer, as it tasted more in line with what an oatmeal stout should taste like.  This time I do not have a comparison beer, other than having brewed this recipe, originally from Brewing Classic Styles, with some variations, at least half a dozen times.

The aged oatmeal stout pours midnight black, with no highlights at all.  I put it up to a strong light, but did not get ruby highlights as I expected.  After the initial pour, the beer produced a thick off-white head comprised of tiny bubbles.  The initial head volume decreased rapidly, but left a thin layer of foam on the surface of the beer that lasted throughout the session.

The stout delivered a strong aroma of unsweetened bakers chocolate.  This was supplemented with an oxidized sherry character, with sour cherry notes.  The beer also had some alcohol notes to it, but lacked the coffee smell that younger versions of this beer often possess.

The beer initially tasted of unsweetened bakers chocolate, reinforcing that element detected in the nose.  This character moved towards a slight tartness in the middle of the flavor.  I did not detect a sour note, so I doubt the bottle had an infection, but the tartness was more in line with that from a cherry or raspberry.  The flavor then moved to an oxidized sherry character that was rather pleasant.  The beer was appropriately carbonated, but the middle of the taste was flat, missing some of the mouthfeel I find in younger versions of the recipe.  It did have a very long finish, over 30 seconds, that I rather enjoyed.

Overall, I would say the oatmeal stout held its age very well.  There was no real evidence of infection or beer degradation, but the stout had obviously changed over time.  Younger versions of this beer clearly have more coffee and roast character, but this has faded leaving a well-blended chocolate flavor.  The younger versions also have the slickness in mouthfeel that I so like about the style.  But, the older version was more complex in some ways and the finish was fantastic.  Like I mentioned in the last post, I think I prefer the younger version, but would love to age a few bottles again to see what they do.  Perhaps I should just give them to my friend, as he has better luck doing so than me.

Have you ever conducted aging experiments with your homebrewed beer?  If so, leave a comment and tell us what you found.

Cheers,

TW

Super Hopped Pale Ale and Peanut Brittle

A few weeks ago, I posted about an all-grain brewing class I taught at my local homebrewing store, The Fermentation Trap.  The class was divided between one night of lecture and a practical brewing demonstration on my equipment.  The goal being to reinforce what the students learned through slides and talking with a brew day, and to let them ask questions regarding the actual process.  Given my goal of brewing mostly session beer recipes, I elected to make a recipe created by a San Diego homebrewer and Stone Brewing Company, called San Diego County Session ale.

As can be seen by the recipe, the beer calls for a ridiculous amount of kettle and dry hops.  The hop bill is more in line with a double IPA, than an approximately 4% ABV session pale ale.  To be honest, I do not think I have ever hopped a 5-gallon batch to this level, and it caused several interesting issues during the brew day.  The most significant of these was that I only ended up with 5 gallons of wort from the kettle - it is amazing how much liquid hop matter can absorb.  Now that the beer is carbonated and ready, I wanted to post some tasting notes on it, along with a peanut brittle I made using it for Valentine's Day (my lovely wife is a huge hop head).  The peanut brittle recipe is from Sean Paxton and has been made in my house many times.  I would encourage our readers to give it a try.

Beer pours a very hazy clover-honey color, with a few bits of dry hop at the bottom of the glass.  The head is off white and about a half inch thick and leaves a nice lacing on the glass.  The beer has a very strong grapefruit aroma, almost like fresh pressed grapefruit juice.  The aromatics are layered with hints of pine needles and something slightly dank or herbal.

The initial flavor impression is very reminiscent of the aroma, with lots of grapefruit juice character.  This fades to a bitterness with the slight character of lemon pith.  The bitterness is present in the end, but nothing like what one would expect given all of the hop matter in the beer.  The bitterness lingers on the palate for some time, but not in an unpleasant manner.  There is little malt character in the beer and its lack of alcohol or malt body leaves the beer tasting a bit thin.  For all the raw hop presence, I feel the beer is missing something.

When tasted with the peanut brittle, the beer holds up surprisingly well.  The caramel sugar flavor seems to fill the missing body component in the beer, as well as the the sweetness of the brittle, the saltiness of the peanuts, and the citrus of the beer combine to make an interesting flavor on the palate.  By itself, the peanut brittle is very good, but I get little of the citrus character that is supposed to come from the beer.  But, tasted with the base beer, I think a flavor in between the two elements comes through and makes it better than either of the parts.

In the end, I think the beer needs some adjustment, if I ever make it again.  But I must say, I love the peanut brittle.


Cheers,

TW

Amarillo Mild with Wine Yeast Tasting

Last month, I posted about an experiment of using beer and wine yeast together to produce a unique and interesting beer.  The idea was to pick a beer recipe that would go well with the characteristics of Lalvin 71B-1122, the only commonly-available wine yeast that will co-exist in the same fermenter with beer yeast.  I picked an interesting mild recipe that uses first-wort hopping with Amarillo hops, as their fruity character might pair well with the wine yeast.  I also hoped that the wine yeast might provide some increased mouthfeel for the low gravity ale.

The mild has had a chance to age and condition for over a month now and I wanted to write down and share some tasting notes.

The beer pours an extremely dark brown color that is more reminiscent of a stout than a mild.  It features a pillowly off-white head that lasts for several minutes into the tasting.  The carbonation appears very light on the beer, with no visible bubbles, though with the dark color, it would be hard to tell.  The beer aroma is reminiscent of bread crust and toast, with notes of chocolate milk and whipped cream.  The nose is very pleasant and I find myself smelling it extensively, if I take the time to enjoy the pint properly.

The beer has a very smooth overall flavor, with subtle notes of milk chocolate, caramel, and bread crust.  Its finish is almost silky and the milk chocolate aftertaste lasts for several seconds.  The beer has little to no bitterness and no discernible hop character.  The mild has a full and creamy mouthfeel, which is very prevalent in the overall flavor of the beer.  This has improved dramatically since I lowered the carbonation level on the beer.  I initially had it carbonated up to standard pale ale levels (2.5 volumes), as I only have one gas regulator for all three kegs.  But then I remembered a trick a fellow CAMRA member taught me, where you leave the beer off the gas and only add enough to keep it flowing.  This results in a much lower carbonation level that really fits the style, which is worth the work of occasionally hooking up the gas disconnect.

Overall, I must say that I like the beer very much.  I find its aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel inciting and, at 3 percent ABV, I can enjoy several pints in a row.  Regarding the two parts of the experiment, the hopping and the wine yeast, I am not sure what conclusions to draw.  I picked the recipe to because of its use of a citrus-based American hop and hoped that it would subtly blend with a wine yeast known to produce fruity flavors.  The end product does not have much fruity character at all, but is still pleasing.  I do think the wine yeast provided much of the mouthfeel that I love in the beer.  I mashed quite low (148 F) on this lower alcohol beer, but the mild still has a substantial mouthfeel - one that I think could only have come from the wine yeast.  In hindsight, I should have split the batch and fermented a control beer with only beer yeast and then done a side-by-side comparison.  Perhaps sometime in the future.

I encourage you to try experimenting with Lalvin 71B-1122, given that it is the only wine yeast that plays nicely with beer yeast.  I have found it works well with mouthfeel, but it might augment a hoppy ale's fruit flavors.  Let us know if you do what what you find out.

Cheers,

TW

Iron Brewer, Round 6, Results and Wrap-Up

As I mentioned in previous posts, I was fortunate to participate in the Iron Brewer competition this year.  When signing up for Iron Brewer, a contestant agrees to brew a beer that features the three special ingredients and to send two bottles of the beer to the judge and to each of the other seven contestants in the round.  This is the actual cost of Iron Brewer because, while it is free to sign up, the shipping costs for all of those packages can be staggering (approaching $100).  Additionally, the contestants each agree to provide a brief brewing biography and a full recipe.  My biography and recipe can be found on the Iron Brewer website, along with the others from the round.  Finally, the contestants agree to participant in a live conference-call judging session to wrap-up the round and announce the winner.

The judging session was something I was looking forward to for quite a while.  Besides symbolizing the final part of the round, it allows each of the brewers to present the fruit of their labor to a receptive audience.  My homebrewing club, CAMRA, does something similar at the end of our meetings, though not as formal, and it is the part of the meeting I most enjoy.  As a whole, homebrewers are an interested an gracious audience; one that will hopefully provide constructive criticism, but one that is also appreciative of a brewers efforts.  The Iron Brewer judging session was an hour and a half of trying other people's beer and hearing their stories.  It was very cool to see how each of the brewers could take the same three base ingredients and come up with a wide variety of styles and flavor profiles, ranging from an IPA to a beer designed to taste like Turkish delight candy.  My personal experience was further enriched by having both my wife and the owner of our local homebrewing store, The Fermentation Trap, on hand to try the contestant beers and compare perceptions with me.

Each beer's score is a composite of the Iron Brewer judges selections for first and second place, which is weighed 75 percent of the total, and the scoring from the contestants on the conference call, which is weighed the remaining 25 percent.  In the end, I did not win.  I received some nice scores from the other contestants (one first place and one second place, if I remember correctly).  The winning beer was It Must Have Been the Roses, by Amy Gentry.  It was a fantastic beer, with a wonderfully refreshing hop and rose hip combination that was augmented by ginger (the second bottle was secreted away by my wife, so she could enjoy more of it later).  Amy now moves on to the championship round to take on the other winners from the previous 2011 rounds.  I wish her the best of luck.

Iron Brewer was a lot of fun and I intend to participate again next year.  I would encourage any of our readers to consider doing the same.  If there was only a way to reduce the shipping costs somehow.  However, the judging conference call and tasting was the most fun part of the whole process, and that is only possible if all of the contestants have each other's beer.

Cheers,

TW

Homebrew "Marketing Speak"

I often disregard the "marketing speak" found on the craft beer packaging I purchase.  While some of it contains helpful information, such as designated style or types of ingredients used, much of the text is fluffy and generally superfluous.  However, following blogs like Pour Curator has shown me the amount of energy and creativity that is necessary to create a solid beer brand and marketing image.  While I may feel that such energy should be harnessed and put towards the product inside of the bottle, it is clear that such efforts are important to today's craft beer industry.

I must set aside this marketing skepticism once a year, however, in conjunction with a friend's summer party.  I have been brewing beer for this annual crab and clam fest for several years now, and my friend likes to provide tasting notes for the attendees, so they have a better idea of what can be found in the various taps.  The effort in creating the homebrew "marketing speak" always seems far greater than the resulting words on the page.  It gives me a greater appreciation for the difficulty of generating these messages, but it does not completely eliminate my skepticism.

I thought that our readers might enjoy my mediocre marketing efforts, keeping in mind the light-hearted family and friends gathering they originate from, so they can be found below.

Cheers,

TW

Hippy Hawk Bohemian Pilsner – Bohemian pilsners are more malty and rounded than their dry German cousins, while still retaining the crisp and sharp hop edge that defines the pilsner style.  This characteristic roundness is emphasized by lower mineral content water that provides a softer body, which helps bring the malt body in balance with the Czech Saaz hops.  The Hippy Hawk Bohemian Pilsner features the same name as last year, given that it is a repeat recipe.  The name originally came from a hawk that was circling over the deck on brew day, as well as the Bohemian quality of the beer that will leave you wanting more and more of this beer.  Groovy, man . . .

Sleepy Horse Cream Ale – Cream ale has long been a staple of American beer culture and was originally brewed as an ale alternative to the classic American lager.  The cream ale style was once prevalent in the United States, especially in the upper Midwest, and was also known as Common Beer or Present Use Ale.  It is one of the few American beer styles to survive Prohibition.  Genesee Cream Ale is a popular version of the style and hails from my hometown of Rochester, NY.  John seems fond of this beer because it helps get him through the numerous grass-cutting chores of summer, but has “more flavor” than other lawnmower beers.  The beer’s name comes from one of Mary’s horses, who had to be sedated for hideously expensive dental work during brew day.  The sleepy horse could have polished off several pints of this low hopped and easy-going beer after such an arduous visit from the vet.

Pissed Black Cat American Pale Ale – The pale ale style is one that has defined the American craft beer movement.  It originally came from England, where its slightly higher alcohol content and lighter color than traditional British milds and bitters made it very popular.  American brewers have made it their own by using citrus hop varieties, such as our use of Millennium and Centennial, higher hopping levels, and larger alcohol concentrations.  The beer’s name came from a pervious brew session, where John witnessed my neighbor’s black cat urinating on my smoker.  I hope she was not commenting on the quality of the dishes cooked on that smoker, or on the taste of this beer.

Smokin’ Wet Smoked American Amber Ale – Historically speaking, all beer would be considered “smoked” because the malted barley used to make beer was dried over wood fires.  The smoke from those fires would infuse the wet grain with different characteristics, depending on the type of wood used.  It was not until the 18th century, where kiln drying malt became prevalent, that smoky flavors became less common in beer.  One of the first batches of beer I brewed for John’s summer party was a smoked amber ale.  John was still trying to figure out how to properly carbonate kegged beer and half the keg was gone before the party even started because of his carbonation “experiments.”  I supposed it did not help that John enjoyed the beer so much.  In honor of that early batch, I have tried to create a beer to live up to John’s experimental standards.  The name comes from a rain storm that rolled through, unexpectedly, on brew day and soaked everyone and everything.  When the sun came back out, the steam coming off the deck gave rise to the beer’s name – Smokin’ Wet.

Midnight Breakfast Oatmeal Stout – Oatmeal stouts are derived from dry Irish stouts, though the addition of oatmeal in the grist provides a rounder and less edgy finish, which is often described as a “slick” feeling on the palate.  This style has long been a favorite of mine and it is the only beer that has been on tap at John’s party ever since I started brewing beer for it.  John has been using a stout tap to serve the oatmeal stout since 2008.  The stout tap uses a nitrogen/CO2 gas mix to carbonate the beer, which provides it with a rich and velvety finish and a dense foamy head.  The beer is dark as midnight, but the smell coming off the kettle on brew day reminds me of breakfast oatmeal.  Yum.

Homemade Cheese Tasting

I received a hard-cheese making kit for Christmas this past winter and have made several cheeses so far.  These include a farm-house cheddar, a gouda, a haloumi, and a derby cheddar.  The basic process is similar to making beer in many respects, with careful attention to sanitation, temperatures, and rest times being important.  The aging time-frames are totally different though, with most hard cheeses needing to rest for several months (the gouda was supposed to age for nine months, but I doubt it will make it that long).

With two different homemade cheeses now available, my wife and I sat down for an impromptu homemade cheese and homemade alcohol pairing recently.  The kids also got to sample the cheese.  The experience was a fun one, so I figured our readers might enjoy some of our observations.

The cheeses included:

• Gouda:  Gouda originated in the Dutch town of Gouda, near Rotterdam.  It is a washed-curd, semi-hard cheese with a smooth texture and tangy taste.  It has a recommended aging time of 3 to 4 months, but really shines if it can age up to 9 months.  Our gouda is 3.5 months old now and is much harder than I expected, with a texture similar to parmesan.  It has a rich and almost nutty flavor and is my favorite cheese that I have made to date.
• Haloumi:  Made in Cyprus, haloumi is a firm, pickled cheese.  It is a good hot-weather cheese, as the salt in the pickling liquid inhibits mold and bacteria growth.  It can be aged up to 60 days and is stored in a brine solution.  The haloumi is the most different cheese I have made, with an interesting texture and a significant salty flavor, which our kids love.
• String Cheese:  String cheese is a form of mozzarella, which is not a hard cheese at all.  In fact, the mozzarella we used is not even homemade, though that is easy enough to do, but is the Crystal Farms brand.  It was included just to have a third cheese that would be different from the other two, and it was something we had on hand.

We paired the cheeses with the following homebrewed beverages:  Belgian Wit, Bohemian Pilsner, 2009 Melomel (made with clover honey, raspberries, strawberries, and blueberries), and the Mason Dixon Line Mead.  The general process was to try each beverage with each cheese and pick a favorite and a least favorite.  Our observations, organized by beverage were:

Belgian Wit:  The Belgian Wit paired well with all of the cheeses.  It is such a food friendly beer that I try to make a batch in the late Spring and early Summer and it usually only lasts a few weeks.  Our favorite cheese to pair with it was the gouda and we did not have a least favorite.

Bohemian Pilsner:  The Bohemian Pilsner is fairly hoppy and the hop intensity clashed with some of the cheeses.  In particular, we did not like it with the gouda.  It paired best with the haloumi, as the salt could stand up to the hops, but even then there was a bit of a flavor clash.

2009 Melomel:  This Melomel is perhaps the most acidic mead I have made.  It pairs well with dishes that have heavier flavors, as the acidity helps clear the palate.  We were in dispute over which cheese paired best with the Melomel, as my wife preferred the haloumi and I enjoyed the string cheese with it.  The acidic natureof the Melomel seemed to fight with the texture of the gouda.

Mason Dixon Line Mead:  As this Lug Wrench Collaborative mead has aged, it has favored the Rhode Island honey character, which has a strong herbal note (oregano and mint).  The intensity of the herbal character almost makes it seem like a Metheglin, though no herbs were added to the mead.  The herbal nature of the mead clashed with the cheeses and we only preferred it with the plain flavor of the string cheese, though even then it clashed slightly.

The experience of creating the homemade cheese to beverage pairing was very enjoyable, as is making your own cheese.  I would highly recommend our readers give it a try.

Cheers,

TW

Oatmeal Stout Aging

Oatmeal stout has long been one of my favorite beer styles.  The roasty and chocolate notes of the darker malts pair well with the smooth mouthfeel derived from the oats.  I was first exposed to oatmeal stout years ago in a German restaurant, of all places, that had bottles of Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout.  The flavor of that commercial example drove me to try to make my own.  I tried several extract recipes and then settled on a favorite, the "McQuaker's Oatmeal Stout" recipe from Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer's book Brewing Classic Styles.  The recipe goes a bit heavier on some of the specialty grains than other recipes I have encountered, but it produces a wonderful product.

I brewed a double batch of this recipe with a friend who loves stouts back in March 2010.  My friend received half of the recipe, bottle conditioned, and I kegged the other half.  He surprised me with a gift of a bottle recently, almost a year and a half later, and stated he thought the beer aged wonderfully.  I currently have a batch of the same recipe on draft and though comparing the two would be an excellent way judge the stout's ability to age.

The most striking difference between the appearance of the two beers is the head.  The older bottled version (pictured on the left) had a thin head with very coarse bubbles.  These dissipated rapidly and left a thin film of a head within a few minutes.  The kegged version had a thick pillowy head that lasted through most of the tasting session.  The color of the beers was slightly different, with the newer version showing strong ruby highlights when back lit, while the older version being almost completely black.

The aromas also differed between the two beers.  The aged version featured less roast character than the younger beer, while they both exhibited a dark chocolate aroma.  The aged version also had a hint of oxidized alcohol in the aroma, much like sherry, but far more subtle.

The largest difference between the two was in flavor and mouthfeel.  The aged version, as suggested by the aroma, had a fair amount of oxidized alcohol character.  This flavor was complex and even featured a warming effect, which was unexpected.  The roast coffee and chocolate flavors were subdued and the mouthfeel was missing the "slickness" often found in oatmeal stout.  The newer version featured much more of the smooth roast and chocolate that characterize the style, which sometimes reminds me of what I loved about chocolate milk as a kid.

My overall impression is that the older beer presents a more complex flavor profile, with its oxidized sherry notes and warming alcohol.  The newer beer seems more in tune with what I expect in an oatmeal stout, particularly in the mouthfeel.  While I liked them both, I prefer the younger one.

If you have ever had the opportunity to taste the difference between an aged and young version of a beer, please leave a comment and let us know.

Cheers,

TW

Midnight Mini-Wheats

Back in April, I posted an article about how to make a big beer smaller, but still keep the flavor.  The basic idea was to take a high alcohol beer recipe, in this case, our Midnight Wheat - Wheat Wine Braggot, and make a version of it that was lower in alcohol.  The base recipe is one of my favorite beers that Jeff and I have done together, but at 11% alcohol by volume (ABV), it is not a daily drinker.  Using some techniques I described in the previous article, I hoped to make a session beer with much of the same flavor as the original.  The recipe, entitled Midnight Mini-Wheats, can be found at the bottom of this post.

My friend, John, my wife, and I recently had an opportunity to taste the two beers side-by-side (wheat wine braggot is on the left in the picture).  This is the best way to compare similar beers, as it is easier to compare subtle differences when the flavor and aromas are so fresh in your mind.

Midnight Wheat - Wheat Wine Braggot (10.8% ABV)
Appearance:  The braggot pours extremely clear deep amber color, with a thin white head.  The carbonation bubbles are very fine, almost like champagne.

Aroma:  The braggot has a complex sugar aroma that is very apparent.  It contains hints of brown sugar, toffee, caramel, and even a bit of molasses.  The sugar character is also mixed with the sweet aroma of alcohol.

Flavor:  The braggot tastes much as it smells, with a layered complex sugar character.  Molasses is the key dominant character, and reminded the tasters of shoofly pie.  There were also elements of brown sugar and caramel in the flavor.  The tasters compared the braggot to a commercial beer, Lagunitas Brewing Company's Brown Shugga.

Midnight Mini-Wheats - American Wheat (3.8% ABV)
Appearance:  The beer pours a hazy deep amber color, with a thin white head.  The carbonation appears lower than the braggot.  The tasters suspect that the beer has not aged as long as the braggot and has not had a chance to drop out some of the malt fines, which makes it cloudy.

Aroma:  The beer is very neutral in smell, with a very faint malt aroma, but little else.  The tasters noted the lower carbonation level between the two recipes, which could prevent as much aroma development.  Additionally, braggot's higher alcohol may well have driven its complex and layered aroma.

Flavor:  The beer has a distinctive grainy character, much like one can get from straight pilsner malt.  The beer also has a slight bitter and sour edge to it, which was even more noticeable when the beer was younger and less carbonated.  The beer lacks any of the sugar complexity that makes the wheat wine braggot so interesting.  On flavor alone, they are very different beers and, as my wife said, the drinker would likely have no idea they were related unless told so.


In conclusion, the experiment to get the interesting flavors of the wheat wine braggot into a session beer failed.  While the Midnight Mini-Wheats is a good beer, it was definitely found lacking.  However, I am going to take some of the lessons I learned here and try again in the future.  For one thing, I will only try to get down to 6% ABV, as the braggot's alcohol contribution is so important.  The braggot also had a much larger honey character, so I will try to boost the honey percentage in the next batch, while increasing mash temperature to keep a solid body to the beer.  The next batch will also receive a higher level of carbonation.

Cheers,

TW

-------------------

Midnight Mini-Wheats

Recipe Specifics

-------------------

Batch Size (Gal): 5.0

Total Fermentables (Lbs): 8.5

OG: 1.039

FG: 1.010

SRM: 11

IBU: 29 (Rager)

ABV: 3.8%

Wort Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Grain/Extract/Sugar

---------------------

3.25 lbs Maris Otter Malt

2.25 lbs White Wheat Malt

0.75 lbs Torrified Wheat

0.90 lbs Caramel Wheat Malt (46 L)

0.33 lbs Caramunich Malt (56 L)

1.00 lbs Honey

0.50 lbs Rice Hulls

Hops

-----

0.75 oz Perle Pellet Hops (7.7% AA) at 60 minutes

0.75 oz Williamette Pellet Hops (5.6% AA) at 15 minutes

0.75 oz Hallertau Pellet Hops (5.0% AA) at 15 minutes

Extras

-------

1.0 Tab Whirlfloc at 15 minutes

1.0 gram Chalk in mash

1.0 gram Calcium Chloride in mash

2.0 grams Baking Soda in mash

1.0 gram Chalk in boil

1.0 gram Calcium Chloride in boil

32 drops of Foam Control in the boil

Yeast

-----

11 grams – Safale US05, Dry Yeast

Mash Schedule

-------------

60 min at 156°F

Results from Single Hop Beer Experiment: Round 2

Back in January, we posted the set-up for a Single Hop Beer Experiment, wherein each brewer brews the same American pale ale, but with a different hop variety.  After suggesting the concept to my local area homebrew club (Rhode Island Fermentation Technicians), Round 1 of the experiment took place in the February/March timeframe.  During Round 1, the following hops were used:
Williamette, US Goldings Northern Brewer, Cascade, Amarillo, Centennial, and Summit.

The Single Hop Experiment was so enjoyable to the club that a second round was planned with brewers picking new hops to utilize.  As he did before, fellow clubmember Tom H. took notes from the tasting and posted the results on his blog, “And Another Thing…”. Tom H.’s summary notes are reproduced below.

It should be noted that the first round had a number of classic American hops, a large number of which were fairly low in alpha acids. This round included some lesser known hops and alpha acids were generally higher than the last round. As before, we decided to taste these in ascending order of alpha acid strength, to reduce any risk of blowing out our taste buds. Here are the tasting notes from the June 2010 RIFT meeting.

Sterling
Very clean, with spice and clove in the nose. It contributed to a "malty nose". This was thought to be good in Belgians and Wits.

Mt. Rainier
Notes of clove, anise, licorice, and a minty flavor.

Premient
Strong complex nose. Metallic, grassiness, lemon citrus, grapefruit. Would be good in a copper ale.

Centennial
This is a brew from the first round, brought back for comparison. Citrus, lemon, dry grapefruit, smooth, piney.

Sorachi Ace
Phenolic, cat urine, pine sol. Raw hop, green hop. Smooth bitterness. This was a bit of a surprise, as we did not detect any of the "lemon" character that this hop is supposed to have. It is also a surprise after tasting Brooklyn's Brewery's Saison that features this hop and has a completely different character. This is a hop that needs to be carefully integrated into a brew.

Chinook
Papaya, fruit. Strong nose of grapefruit. Bready, yeasty. Classic American "Big C" hop for bittering.

Simcoe
Piney, papaya. Tangy, fruity, smoother than Summit. Similar to Roxy Rolles.

CTZ
The Columbus/Tomahawk/Zeus offspring. Ok, John cheated a little bit here, deviating from the base recipe to make a darker, maltier, better integrated Pale Ale. That being said...
Flavors: Candy cigarettes, neutral, clean, malty, earthy. Very tasty.

While many of these hops were not the prototypical hops most people brew with, being able to taste and experience each of their flavors was a great learning experience.  I'd have to say that I was the most impressed with Chinook (which I wouldn't have expected walking in to the tasting) and plan to use it in the future.

Have any other clubs out there tried similar experiments? If so, please post a comment and let us know your club's experience and what, if anything, could be done to improve upon the event.

Slainte!

-JW


"The mouth of a perfectly happy man is filled with beer."
-Egyptian Proverb

Results from Single Hop Beer Experiment #1

A month or two ago, my local homebrew club, the Rhode Island Fermentation Technicians (RIFT) decided to undertake a Single Hop Beer Experiment. As described in an earlier post on this blog, this exercise asks each brewer to brew the same American pale ale recipe, but each with a different single hop.  Volunteers got to choose which hop variety they wanted to use on a first-come, first-serve basis.  Not surprisingly, Centennial, Amarillo, and Cascade were the first hops to be 'signed out'.

By having only a single hop in each beer, the resulting brew exhibits the characteristic aroma and flavor of the selected hop variety.  It provided an excellent tasting opportunity, as tasting them side-by-side is a great way to judge the similarities and differences of each variety.

For the RIFT Single Hop Beer event, seven volunteers brewed beers with seven different hop varieties, with the beers being tasted during the February club meeting.  Fellow clubmember Tom H. took notes from the tasting and posted the results on his blog, “And Another Thing…”. Tom H.’s summary notes are reproduced below.

Willamette - "Inoffensive"
Bitterness: Not discernable
Flavor: Like flowers
Aroma: No real aroma
Overall: Session beer

US Goldings - "Tea- Like"
Bitterness: Not discernable
Flavor: Tea-like flavors
Aroma: Tea and floral aromas
Overall: Another good session beer

Northern Brewer - "Evil"
(What can I say Jeff? You weren't here and made us work!)
Bitterness: Some bitterness, the most so far.
Flavor: Crisp
Aroma: Minty
Overall: Tastes like an Anchor Steam

Cascade - "American"
Bitterness: The bitterness pops up in the finish
Flavor: Oranges, some Ivory soap in the finish
Aroma: Caramel (this ale was darker than the others), Cascade
Overall: Well integrated, balanced, what you think an American Ale should taste like

Amarillo - "Citrusy"
Bitterness: Clean bitter finish
Flavor: Grapefruit, some Orange, Tropical Fruits, Mangoes
Aroma: Subtle
Overall: First 'hop forward' beer of the bunch, a little more carbonated, nice

Centennial - "Coppery"
Bitterness: Smooth
Flavor: Subtle evergreen, earthy, piney,
Aroma: Malty, subtle
Overall: Nicely integrated, copper ale type notes

Summit - "Wow"
Bitterness: Pronounced bitterness
Flavor: Strong Piney Flavor
Aroma: Big Piney nose,
Overall: Bordering on IPA, hop forward taste with a big hoppy finish.

As Tom H. eludes to in his notes, I was unfortunately not able to attend the tasting, as I was out of town on business. However, I did receive a bottle of each single hop beer and I was able to work through them after the meeting (tough job, eh?). All the beers came out very drinkable, each having its own unique hop character (as indicated above). The beer that stood out the most different was the Summit hopped beer. Summit has this garlic/onion/herbal quality that shines through fairly strong in the beer along with its bitterness (great beer to try cooking with!). This results in a very unique tasting experience that sets the beer apart from all the other more ‘traditional’ hop flavors.
 
Overall, the Single Hop Beer Experiment was a great success amongst the participants (brewers and tasters).  While it is inevitable that there will be flavor contributions from each brewer's personal brewing process and therefore the flavor differences cannot be attributed totally to the hop varieties, it was still very clear the hops made a remarkable difference in each beer.  In addition to allowing tasters to target their palates with these hop flavors, it was just plain enjoyable to taste the entire flight – we will definitely return to the concept and do it again in the future.

Have any other clubs out there tried similar experiments?  If so, please post a comment and let us know your club's experience and what, if anything, could be done to improve upon the event.
 
Slainte!
 
-JW
 
 
“Ah, beer. The cause and solution to all of life’s problems”
-Homer Simpson

Beer Blogger Brewoff – Cool Concept

Erik Myer over at Top Fermented recently posted about a Beer Blogger Brewoff he and several other bloggers started back in December. Simply put, the nine beer bloggers all brewed the same stout recipe, with each blogger being able to alter a single element of the recipe to make it unique to them.

Upon completion, everyone ships their beer to one another and a virtual tasting/evaluation via conference call is planned occur where all the bloggers get the chance to discuss the beers and the process.  Furthermore, the conference call will be recorded and posted as a podcast for anyone who is interested.

This is what I love about beer, blogging, and the intersection of the two: creativity, collaboration, and camaraderie. Good on Peter at Simply Beer for conceptualizing the event – don’t let this just be a one-off experience!

Slainte!

-JW


“The brewery is the best drug store.”
- German proverb

Tasting Homebrew at Club Meetings

Conducting homebrew beer tasting events are one of the most central and important things that a club can offer its members. Tastings are important for a variety of reasons:

• Tastings allow club members to get feedback on their homebrew and collaboratively troubleshoot problems.
• They provide the opportunity for club members to be exposed to new beer styles.
• Tastings support internal competitions, such as the American Homebrewing Association's Club Only Competitions
• They create an enjoyable social forum that club members that I have spoken with consider some of the most important events they attend.
  

But conducting a homebrew club tasting event at a public or commercial establishment may have legal ramifications. In Virginia, where my club is located, alcohol laws and regulations are governed by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Like many state alcohol regulations, the Virginia laws regarding homebrewed beer and its transportation and usage are vague and subject to interpretation. Specifically, ABC laws indicate that our club should be able to conduct tastings in a private room with two ounce pours, so long as the events occur for the purpose of judging and/or offering feedback on each entry. However, we have had ABC agents state that bringing homebrew to any public venue is strictly illegal because the beer has not gone through Virginia's three tier distribution system. This is in spite of the fact that the regulations state otherwise and that other homebrewing clubs in the state have received permission to conduct tastings in private rooms at bars and restaurants. These inconsistencies make it hard for commercial establishments, such as a brew pub or restaurant where our club might meet, to agree to allow homebrewed beer in the door. This reluctance is understandable, seeing how conducting such tastings improperly could cost the establishment their liquor license.

So, how do you find out if there are legal restrictions on homebrew tasting events in your areas? What is your club to do if it is in search of a commercial location to both hold meetings and homebrew tastings? I can offer some pointers from our experience, though take it with a grain of salt, as we have not received official approval to conduct such tastings yet.

• Do your research. Most state alcohol governing bodies post their regulations on the internet (for example, Virginia regulations can be found here). The more research you can do up front, the stronger your case.
• Contact other homebrewing clubs in your state to determine how or if they conduct tastings. In cases where the actual regulations are vague or confusing, showing how the regulations are actually put into practice can be persuasive.
• Formalize your findings into a written letter that can be sent to an agent of the state's regulating body. It is easier to present arguments in a written form than trying to do so on a telephone call. Additionally, the letter gives you something to fall back to, if needed, at a later date.
• Work with commercial establishments that are interested in hosting your club meetings and be up front about your club's intentions. Their business would most likely be the one held liable if a formal inquiry regarding the tastings is started by the state's regulatory body. If this is the case, your club's relationship with them might be damaged.

Hopefully, these tips are helpful for clubs looking to hold meetings and tastings in a public place. If you have a moment, please fill out the homebrew tastings survey we have posted on the blog. We are interested to know how our reader's clubs currently conduct tastings.