First Cider of the Fall

My homebrewing club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale (CAMRA), has been taking part in group cider purchases for several years now.  Central Virginia has a long history of apple growing and there are a number of established orchards here.  In recent years, there has been a growing interest in heirloom apple varieties that were historically used to make cider.  This interest has fueled the use of such apples, including one of my favorites, the Albemarle Pippin, by small-scale cideries.  CAMRA is fortunate to have established a relationship with one of these, Showalter's Orchard, located in Harrisonburg, VA, and we purchase bulk cider from them several times through out the fall.

For those who have not tried it before, the cidermaking process is simpler than making beer.  On a typical day when the cider is purchased, a few club members leave in the morning with vehicles full of empty carboys and buckets.  The cider is back and ready for pickup locally in the early afternoon.  Because the cider is fresh and unpasteurized, it must be picked up and handled immediately.  If not, the wild yeasts in the cider itself will be fermenting it by the next morning, which leads to unknown results (either good or bad).  The easiest method to process the fresh cider is to pull some of the fresh cider off the top, as there is no head space when it arrives, and pitch yeast directly into it.  If for some reason, the cider needs to be stored before pitching, you must refrigerate it and/or metabisulfite it to kill the wild yeasts.

Just like in beer, yeast selection plays a large role in the resulting flavor of the cider.  However, given that cider is comprised of simple sugars, the cider maker can use either beer or wine yeasts to ferment it.  These lead to drastically different flavors, depending on if you use a white wine yeast that produces subtle and nuanced mouthfeel to the phenolic characters produced by a Belgian yeast.  My personal favorite is the use of an English ale strain, like Safale S-04, as it produces a balanced and quafable product.

Once the yeast strain is pitched, the cider maker's main other job is determining when to halt the fermentation.  Given that cider is comprised of simple sugars, it will ferment out completely, below 1.000 specific gravity.  Cider that dry is abrasive to drink, in my opinion, and does not have much taste or mouthfeel, and certainly does not taste like apples.  To leave residual sweetness in the cider, the cider maker must either let the cider ferment out and backsweeten it or stop the fermentation early.  I prefer the latter, as it is simplest for my homebrewing set-up.  Basically, I test the specific gravity of the cider and when it gets between 1.017 and 1.020, I crash cool the cider in the fridge.  This makes the yeast go dormant and I can rack the cider off of the yeast several days later.  However, using this method, the cider must be kept cold in a keg afterwards, because with fermentable sugars and live yeast still in the cider, it will start fermenting again if it warms.

There has been a resurgence of interest in cider recently and many smaller cideries are springing up all across the country.  I suggest you consider making your own cider, as it is an easy and fun process to do.  I also suggest you try any local hard cider you can purchase and see what works in your area.

Cheers,

TW

More Variety and More Efficiency

I have maintained an internal debate within my homebrewing-obsessed mind for quite some time - variety versus efficiency.  Having a variety of beer styles available to taste keeps the hobby new and interesting.  It allows the brewer to experiment with a number of different beer styles and learn new techniques.  Given homebrewing's currently increase in popularity, there is no shortage of interesting ideas in the magazines, podcasts, and online forums.  There is certainly no way to ever try all of those ideas, but brewing greater variety allows the brewer to at least pretend to chase that fleeting dream.  Variety appeals to the creative side of the homebrewing hobby.

Brewing efficiency, on the other hand, allows a brewer to dial in their brewing process.  If the brewer constantly switches recipes, it is hard to lock down the process and truly improve as a brewer.  Many educated sources state that the most technically difficult brewing task to complete is to brew the same recipe several times and have the batches taste the same.  This is the challenge of the professional brewer, who's clientele demand that their favorite brand taste the same or they may look elsewhere for quality beer.  Efficiency can also relate to time, our most precious commodity.  With the appropriate equipment, a brewer can produce significantly more beer in the same period of time that it would take to produce lesser amounts of beer in smaller batches (think 5 gallons versus 15 gallons - it does not take much longer to get triple the production volume).  Consistent use of the same brewing process also provides familiarity and time-saving techniques during the brew day - see Brew Your Own magazine's March-April 2012 on Speeding Up Your All-Grain Brew Day).  In many ways, efficiency is the ideal driving the technical side of the homebrewing hobby.

But, I ask, why is it not possible to strive to have a little bit of both.  This question is driven primarily by an article I read in the September/October 2010 issue of Zymurgy, entitled More Beer from Your Brew Day.  In the article, Drew Beechum explains that he likes the efficiency of brewing 10-gallon batches, but gets bored of drinking the same beer day after day.  The boredom has driven him to explore ideas to get more beer variety out of the same base beer.  The techniques he developed feature alterations of the base beer during the boil, fermentation, aging time, and packaging processes.  I interested enough in his discussions of aging beer on different products, such as oak, fruit, and cocoa nibs that I decided to attempt it myself.

My local club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale (CAMRA) have started conducting fun internal competitions using the Iron Brewer model.  The latest competition featured white wheat, Chinook hops, and grapefruit.  I did not want to have an entire batch of grapefruit-flavored beer, so I elected to use some of Drew's ideas.  I brewed an oatmeal stout recipe with a significant amount of wheat malt and a bittering charge of chinook hops.  After the beer fermented out, I transferred some of it to two sanitized and CO2-purged 1-gallon glass jugs.  In one of these, I put 1.5 pounds of frozen sour cherries I had bought at a farmer's market.  In the other jug, I put 1.5 oz of cocoa nibs I had left over from another beer.  I plan to dose the remainder of the beer with a tincture I made from the zest of two grapefruit soaked in vodka, using a technique I outlined in a previous post.

I hope to end up with three distinct beers (one kegged and the other two bottled) from one brew day.  This should give me some variety, while using efficiency gained from brewing a familiar recipe at a comfortable 5-gallon brew size.

Cheers,

TW

Bourbon Barrel Project - Overview

My local homebrewing club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale, have been trying to organize a bourbon barrel project for several years now (photo from Barlow Brewing).  Aging beer in bourbon barrels has become a popular treatment in the craft beer industry.  The general process is to take a finished beer and transfer it to a used bourbon barrel.  The beer, which is often a stronger darker ale, is left in the barrel for a period of time, depending on the oak and bourbon character profile desired in the finished product.  When that time arrives, based on taste testing, the beer is transferred out of the barrel and moved to packaging.  At that time, a new beer is usually transferred into the barrel to keep it from drying out.  As subsequent batches of beer are moved through the barrel, aging time must increase to receive similar flavor characteristics because the oak and bourbon flavors gradually leach out of the barrel into the beer.  At a certain point, the barrel is deemed flavor-neutral and is either retired from service (i.e. cut in half for planters) or is used to make sour beers where the barrel is simply the place for the wild yeasts and bacteria to live.

The transfer and sale of bourbon barrels has long been a steady business in the United States.  This is because, by law, bourbon can only be made in new charred-oak barrels.  After the bourbon has been removed from the bottle, the barrel is usually sold to a barrel merchant, whose job is to arrange the sale of the used barrels and transport them to their new home.  Historically, these barrels were only used to age other types of spirits, such as Scotch, Irish whiskey, Canadian whiskey, tequila, and rum.  These beverages do not require the use of new oak barrels and their manufacturers could buy the used barrels for less and have a less aggressive oak character in the finished product.  In the last 10 years or so, the American craft brewing industry has become another purchasing stream in the bourbon barrel market.

Homebrewers are also interested in using bourbon barrels, but their size and cost are usually prohibitive and the homebrewer must settle with other oak products (cubes, chips, etc.) that have been soaked in bourbon before use.  New barrels are over 50 gallons in size and cost between $150 and $250 a barrel.  The same problems that face the individual homebrewer make bourbon barrels attractive projects for clubs.  The basic concept is that the homebrewing club can used its pooled resources to purchase a barrel and to find a place to store it.  The club can also assemble a number of brewers using the same recipe that can, collectively, fill the barrel.  In order to do this, the club must tackle, at least, the following issues:

• Assemble enough interest to support the project and its associated costs
• Collect the funds to purchase the barrel
• Make arrangements with a barrel wholesaler to have the barrel delivered
• Find a suitable location to store the barrel, as the barrel will not be easily movable once full
• Assemble a list of brewers who will collectively fill the barrel, which can present an additional problem of winnowing down the list of interested brewers if there are too many to accommodate
• Select a common recipe for the brewers to use and decide what, if any, variances are allowed in the recipe ingredients
• Organize a group brew day, if desired, and a group filling day
• Determine how long the beer will remain in the barrel and how to distribute it when the aging is done
• Start the brewing process again to refill the barrel when the first batch is removed

Our club has been planning a bourbon barrel purchase for over a year now and things are finally coming to fruition.  I plan on doing several future posts covering our plans and their implementation, including the group brew day and filling day.  Stay tuned.

Cheers,

TW

CAMRA Iron Brewer Competition

My local homebrewing club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale, decided to host a club-only Iron Brewer, based on club member experience with the real Iron Brewer competition and general interest in the idea.  We decided to adopt as many of the Iron Brewer rules as practical to make implementation of the contest easier.  The brewing timeline was extended slightly to fit with our meeting schedule.  The club reached out to Peter Kennedy, who runs Iron Brewer, to have him pick the three theme ingredients.  He selected:

• Chocolate Malt
• Palisade Hops
• Raw Blue Agave Nectar

In a similar manner to Round 6 of Iron Brewer, I was well-acquainted and comfortable with two of the theme ingredients, and completely unfamiliar with the other one.  The chocolate malt again guided me in the brown ale direction because to use it in any paler beer would not highlight the malt character enough to allow it to stand out.  But, I did not want to repeat another American brown ale, and the Palisade hops provide a fruity, but not aggressive citrus character, that does not match American styles on its own.  So, I thought I would go the Belgian Brown route, but not in the vein of an Oud Bruin.  I decided to use a standard brown ale recipe, but selected Abbey Ale yeast that I hoped would provide some complementary fruit character and some light phenolics to enhance the Palisade hops.  The agave nectar was an unknown factor and I decided to use it instead of simple sugar that is often found in Belgian beer recipes.

The beer is brewed and carbonated and the competition will occur at the CAMRA meeting next week.  I am happy with how the flavors have melded together, though they took a while.  Several flavors are in the background of the beer that I attribute to the agave syrup, which can be primarily described as melon with hints of citrus.  The Belgian yeast phenolics and fruitiness are also there, and in balance with the other flavors.  We will see how it does.  

Have any other clubs out there tried to do an internal Iron Brewer competition?  If so, leave us a comment with the details and how the event was received by your club.

Cheers,

TW

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


Boosted Belgian Brown
Brewer: Tom Wallace

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Boil Size: 8.0 gal
O.G.: 1.051
F.G.: 1.013
SRM: 22
IBU: 26
ABV: 5.0%
Mash: 151 F for 60 Minutes
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amt                   Name      
7 lbs                 Pale Ale Malt 2-Row (Briess) (3.5 SRM)      
1 lbs 8.0 oz          Vienna Malt (Briess) (3.5 SRM)  
12.0 oz               Chocolate (Briess) (350.0 SRM)    
8.0 oz                Caramunich I (Weyermann) (51.0 SRM)        
8.0 oz                Victory Malt (biscuit) (Briess) (28.0 SRM)
1 lbs                 Raw Blue Agave Syrup      
28.00 g               Palisade [6.70 %] - Boil 60.0 min  
1.00 Items            Whirlfloc Tablet (Boil 15.0 mins)    
14.00 g               Palisade [6.70 %] - Boil 5.0 min    
1.0 pkg               Abbey Ale (White Labs #WLP530)          

Notes:
------
Brewed for CAMRA internal Iron Brewer competition

11/13/2011 - Dropped to lager temps.

11/14/2011 - Added 3 tsp gelatin in 1 cup 140 F water to help clarify.

11/16/2011 - Kegged.  SRM ~ 22.  Beer is very dark brown with no head.  Aroma is faintly yeasty, with some hints of black pepper.  Initial perception of flavor is watery, with mid-palate spice and fruit, followed by a dry finish.

12/04/2011 - Flavors have melded much better together.  Hints of Belgian phenolics and a strange citrus/melon character I attribute to the agave syrup.

Wild Wolf Brewing Company Tour

As reported in a previous post, my homebrewing club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale (CAMRA), organized a tour of a couple of local brewing companies.  The second stop on the tour was the Wild Wolf Brewing Company.  Lug Wrench interviewed Wild Wolf late last year, as part of our nanobrewery series.

Wild Wolf is currently brewing out of a store-front in Nellysford, VA.  They utilize a large customized homebrewing-scaled system, that features three stainless steel vessels (I believe they were 55-gallon vessels, but I could be wrong).  The vessels are located in a single tier, so they use impeller pumps to move brewing liquor and wort around.  Beer undergoes primary fermentation in food-grade plastic fermenters, which are stored in large chest freezers for temperature control.  After finishing primary fermentation, the beer is pumped into stainless bright tanks in a cold room for aging and conditioning.  Finished beer is available for tasting at the front of the building and is sold in growlers.  In addition to selling beer, Wild Wolf also operates a homebrewing supply business and has a large supply of items for sale in their store.

Wild Wolf is currently finalizing plans to open a commercial-scale brewery and restaurant in a location nearby.  They hope to have the new location open in the next year or two.

Thanks to Wild Wolf for the tour and tasting.  It was inspiring to see how innovative nanobreweries can be to get their operations up and running.  I wish them success in their future endeavours and look forward to hearing what is in store for them next.

Cheers,

TW

Pictures from the event are below.  I apologize for their quality, as I only had my cell phone on hand to take them.

 Wild Wolf taps and tasting area

Wild Wolf brew house, which utilizes large Blichmann stainless vessels

Wild Wolf fermenters that use chest freezers for temperature control

Cold room for bright tanks and conditioning, which is powered by an air conditioner 

Devils Backbone Brewing Company Tour

My homebrewing club, Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale (CAMRA), organized tours of two local brewing companies this past weekend.  The first stop was Devils Backbone Brewing Company (DBBC), which is located  at the foot of Wintergreen Mountain, near Nellysford, VA.  DBBC gained national recognition last year when they the 2010 World Beer Cup Champion Brewery and Brewmaster Small Brewpub award for wining the most medals in their size category at the World Beer Cup.  The brewery started making beer in 2008 and has done well enough for themselves that they are opening a bottling facility to take their beer to a larger market.

The brew pub building is has a very rustic style to it, one that fits well with its mountainous surroundings.  The main part of the pub has vaulted ceilings and walls that are adorned with various mounted animals, making the pub seem like a hunting lodge.  The wall behind the bar has glass windows that looks in on the brewhouse, which is of German design, but was manufactured in Japan (the instructions around the switch board are still in Japanese).  The DBBC brewmaster, Jason Oliver, gave us a tour, which was very informative.  After it was over, we all sat down to have a nice lunch on the DBBC deck, which overlooks the beautiful countryside.

Stay tuned for the second stop on the trip, Wild Wolf Brewing Company.

It was a great day,

Tom

Pictures from the event are below.  I apologize for their quality, as I only had my cell phone on hand to take them.

Mounted big horn sheep adorn the walls of the brew pub

The DBBC copper brew kettle

The DBBC brewhouse switch board, where the labels are written in Japanese

An tank holding aging beer on brettanomyces, with a picture of Bret from Flight of the Concords stuck on it

DBBC cold-conditioning room 

Lunch included a wonderful German bratwurst served on a spent-grain roll, German potato salad, pickle and a few pints of DBBC beer (Maibock and Reilly's Rye Ale)

National Homebrew Day and Big Brew

Each year, on the first Saturday in May, the American Homebrewers Association (AHA) organizes an event called National Homebrew Day.  The purpose of the event is to gather homebrewers together and celebrate our wonderful hobby.  What better way to celebrate than by brewing together.  Homebrewing clubs and stores are encouraged to host events and register them with the AHA.  As of the writing of this post, 290 sites participated in the 2011 event, brewing 674 batches or 5,347 gallons of beer, with an estimated 2,693 participants.  The AHA even hosts a video contest for the "Big Brew."

In the spirit of bringing people together, the AHA posts three different recipes for participants to brew.  While not expressly limiting brewers to these recipes, by electing to use them, homebrewers know they are sharing the experience directly with many of their fellows across the country.  The 2011 Big Brew recipes, which were selected for various reasons, included:

• East India Pale Ale - recipe from the 1800s, featured in an upcoming book from Brewers Publications
• Must Be The Season of the Wit - encourages the use of local ingredients and coincidentally marks the death of Pierre Celis, the famous brewer who revived the style
• Rocket Rod's Positively Porter - honors the passing of Rocket Rod Romanak, a prolific homebrewer from Hawaii, who attended over 25 AHA National Homebrewers Conferences in his lifetime

I was able to participate in Big Brew Day with several members of my local homebrewing club at a local homebrewing shop, The Fermentation Trap.  I elected to brew a variant of the wit recipe, calling my beer "See Ya Celis."  Without any local ingredients I could think to include at this time of year, I merged the recipe with elements of my favorite wit recipe from Brewing Classic Styles.  Highlights of the day included enjoying the company of friends, freshly grilled sausages, and a pick up Frisbee game.  What a great day!

I hope you had a chance to participate in National Homebrew Day and its Big Brew.  If not, I highly encourage you to do so next year.

Cheers,

TW

Club-Only Competition - The Results

Back in the beginning of March, Lug Wrench reported on a unique situation, one that would test the metal of the two Lug Wrench Brothers' brews.  Both Jeff and Tom were selected by their respective clubs (the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale and the Rhode Island Fermentation Technicians) to represent their clubs in the American Homebrewers Association (AHA) Club-Only Competition (CoC) for British pale ales - The Battle of the Bitters.  Jeff brewed an ordinary bitter, Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) Category 8a, while Tom brewed a special bitter, Category 8b.  Jeff and Tom sent samples into the competition and eagerly awaited feedback.

The results are in, and the bragging rights go to:  neither of us.

Amazingly, both of us scored almost exactly the same score - 33 points for Tom and 32.5 points for Jeff.  The score is really the icing on the cake of coincidence.  It is relatively rare to score almost exactly the same number of points for two beers (scores are out of 50 points).  Combine that with the fact we each, independently, decided to brew a beer for the CoC and then we were each selected to represent our clubs.  Now, to score the same number of points.  It is in a word . . . strange.

As for feedback, the score sheets were relatively detailed in both cases.  We have, in the past, complained about the lack of helpful feedback from homebrewing competition judges.  These score sheets were descriptive in what the judges observed and tasted in our beers and provided recommendations to improve the beer in the future.  Tom's sheets stated that the beer tasted more like an ordinary bitter because of its clean and smooth body and lack of hop edge.  Jeff's sheets recommended some more age to smooth out the hop character and to increase the yeast flavor contribution slightly.

Overall, it was a neat, if strange, experience to have our beers compete against each other.  If you have ever hesitated to enter a CoC or other homebrewing competition, give it a shot.  You never know what opportunities might present themselves.

Cheers,

TW

Broken Bottles and Shipping Beer

The first round of the National Homebrewing Competition (NHC) is currently open.  This year features a twist on previous competitions in that there are nine competition sites and each one is capped at 750 entries.  The twist is that a homebrewer can enter any competition site, so long as that site's cap has not yet been reached.  In previous years, the first round competition site was specified by a homebrewer's location, which led to some sites "selling out" while others still had room.  This change is a welcome one and it worked, as all nine sites completely filled up as of March 24th.

I elected to send my NHC entries to the competition site in Nashville, Tennessee, both because it is relatively close and because it is not one of the historically strong homebrewing competition areas (think Ohio area equals Gordon Strong and California equals Jamil Zainacheff, both big-time winnners).  I boxed up my entries, and those from one other member of the my homebrewing club (Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale - CAMRA), as I have many times in the past.  I shipped them off via UPS and delivery was assured in two days.  On the day of delivery, I was shocked to receive a "damaged package" report, which stated some of the package contents were broken, but some were salvagable and were delivered to the final destination.  I immediately sent an email to the competition organizer, who replied and stated he would not be able to find the package and get back to me until it was too late to send in replacement entries.  Thus, I packed up another set of entries and sent them off to ensure I had beer for the judges.

Shipping homebrew has long been a difficult process that has caused many homebrewers problems.  One of the members of my homebrew club, Jamey, has written an excellent post on how to help prevent bottle breakage in shipping beer (he has extensive experience in this area).  It is definately worth reading before sending any of your precious creations through the perils of the shipping process.

Good luck,

TW

Club-Only Competitions - A Unique Situation

 The American Homebrewers Association (AHA) organizes a series of competitions every year to promote inter-homebrewing club rivalry.  Each Club-Only Competition (COC) focuses on a specific beer or mead style and allows clubs to compete against each other.  Results from a year's COCs are one factor in determining the AHA Homebrew Club of the Year, an annual award given at the AHA National Homebrewers Conference.  The official COC schedule can be found here.

The basic rules of a COC are:

• Only AHA-registered clubs may participate.
• Each club may only submit one entry in the style specified in the COC.
• The club's entry must be received by the COC deadline.
• All COC entries are compared to the style guidelines and each other and medals are awarded based on overall merit.

If a club wants to participate in a COC, it organizes an internal event to select the single "best" homebrewed example of that style that its members can produce.  In my club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale (CAMRA), this process is organized through an annual calendar.  As the date for a specific COC approaches, the club leadership reminds members that they should consider brewing a batch of beer in the specified style and they organize a night for a tasting/evaluation.  Any member who wants to participate in the COC brings an entry on the tasting night and a panel of judges select the example that most matches the BJCP style guidelines.

The COC for February 2011 presented a unique opportunity for Jeff and I.  Our respective clubs (Jeff's club is the Rhode Island Fermentation Technicians - RIFT) the picked each of our beers to send on to the competition.  While Jeff and I have gone head-to-head in competitions before, this would be the first time we represented our homebrewing clubs against each other.  The "Battle of the Bitters" COC featured the English pale ale styles (BJCP Category 8), which represent a series of English session ales that were paler than other beers of their day (porter), and had a bracing bitterness.  Examples ranged from 3.2% ABV on the low end (standard/ordinary bitter) to 6.2% ABV on the high end (extra special/strong bitter).  Commercial examples that readers may have tried include: Fuller's Chiswick Bitter, Boddington's Pub Draught, Fuller's London Pride, Goose Island Honkers Ale, Fuller's ESB, Bass Ale, and Anderson Valley Boont ESB.

Jeff and I are eagerly awaiting feedback on our beer and to see who's club can claim Lug Wrench "bragging rights."  Stay tuned for the results.

Cheers,

TW

Belgo-American Brew - Belgian Stout

Belgo-American style beers have gained recent popularity in the craft beer segment here in America.  This subset of beer styles combine ingredients or processes of Belgium, usually related to yeast, with ingredients or beer styles usually associated with America.  The results of this marriage can be fantastic if the relative ingredients mesh well together to produce a complex and interesting beer.  They can also become muddled and confused, where the components fight for dominance on the drinker's palate.

With these thoughts in mind, several members of my homebrewing club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale (CAMRA), decided to play with Belgian stouts.  The idea was to gather for a group brew where a common volume of stout wort was divided amongst the participants.  They, in turn, would ferment the wort with a Belgian yeast strain of their choosing and finish it using techniques as they see fit.  These techniques could include dry hopping, aging with on oak chips or cubes, encouraging a secondary fermentation on fruit, souring using bacteria, etc.  The experiment would conclude with a presentation to CAMRA about the style and how each brewer interpreted it, along with a side-by-side tasting of the different beers.

Greg B. of CAMRA created the wort recipe that is found below.  Three of us gathered at my house on a cold (for Virginia) Saturday afternoon in January to brew the triple batch.  The brew session went well and we enjoyed each other's company, and beer, a great deal.  The resulting wort is now under the control of each brewer and a future post will highlight the results.

For further information, here are a few commercial examples of Belgo-American styles:

• Brouwerij Het Anker's Gouden Carolus Hopisinjoor - blend of Belgian Golden Strong and India Pale Ale (IPA).
• Brouwerij Van den Bossche's Buffalo Belgian Stout - blend of Belgian Dark Strong and stout.
• Flying Dog Brewery's Raging Bitch Belgian-Style IPA - imperial American IPA augmented with Belgian yeast strain.
• Allagash Brewing Company's Allagash Black - stout brewed with Belgian yeast strain and bottled with methode champenoise.

Cheers,

TW

-------

Stout de la Belgique
Style: 13-F Belgian Imperial Stout
Author: Greg B.


Recipe Specifics
-------------------
Batch Size (Gal): 6.0
Total Fermentables (Lbs): 19.5
OG: 1.078
FG: 1.018
SRM: 35
IBU: 50 (Rager)
ABV: 7.9%
Brewhouse Efficiency: 70%
Wort Boil Time: 90 Minutes

Grain/Extract/Sugar
---------------------
10.0 lbs Pilsner Malt
 5.0 lbs German Dark Munich
 1.0 lbs Barley Flaked
 1.0 lbs German CaraMunich III
 0.5 lbs Special B - Caramel malt
 0.5 lbs 2-Row Chocolate Malt
 0.5 lbs Pale Chocolate Malt
 0.5 lbs Roast Barley
 0.5 lbs German Carafa III

Hops
-----
1.0 oz Magnum Pellet Hops (14.5% AA) at 60 minutes

Extras
-------
1.0 Tab Whirlfloc at 15 minutes
1.0 tsp Chalk in mash
1.0 tsp Calcium Chloride in boil
32 drops of Foam Control in the boil

Yeast
-----
TBD by each brewer (I used a 2 L starter of WLP 530 - Abbey Ale

Mash Schedule
-------------
60 min at 150°F
Batch sparged to get 8 gallons in brew kettle

Tasting Beer Flaws with Doctored Beer

At my last homebrewing club meeting, one of our members prepared a doctored beer presentation.  The purpose of the presentation was to expose club members to the several common beer off-flavors.  The procedure used to present these beer flaws was to "doctor" an American light lager with food-safe ingredients that mimic the flavor of actual beer flaws.  Samples were then passed around and members were asked to describe what they smelled and tasted.  The resulting discussion was mediated and pushed towards what brewing processes could produce the off-flavor and how to correct any problems.

There are several commercial off-flavor kits on the market.  The one recommended by the Brewers Association is a kit called The Enthusiast, made by a company called FlavorActiV.  The kit contains eight different beer off-flavors and ingredients to provide tastings for a medium-sized club.  The Brewers Association offers the kit for sale for $150 for American Homebrewers Association (AHA) members and $200 for non-members.  The Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) also offers a discounted kit to its members for $50.

But, homebrewers are nothing if not cost-minded and innovative.  Our club member did some research online and found some doctored beer recipes that use common homebrewer or low-cost ingredients (he said he did not spend more than $10).  Below are the off-flavors that we tasted:

Flavor	Taste/Aroma	Adulterant	Amount Added	How Created
Sour/Acidic	Lactic acid	Lactic acid	18 drops food grade 88% lactic acid in 24 oz of base beer	Created during or after fermentation by lactobacillus. In non-sour beers, likely a problem with sanitation.
Sour/Acidic	Acetic acid	White vinegar	13.5 tsp vinegar in 24 oz of base beer	Created during or after fermentation by acetobacter. In non-sour beers, likely a problem with sanitation.
Astringency	Dry like tea	Grape tannin	5 tsp of tannin solution (1/4 tsp grape tannin powder in 5 TBSP water) in 24 oz of base beer	Created by mash pH rising too high, which pulls tannins from the grain husks. This is usually due to over-sparging.
Phenolic	Bandaid plastic or medicinal flavors	Chloraseptic	Add drops of chloraseptic to 24 oz of base beer, until plastic smell is clearly present	Often created by high-chlorine content in brewing water or lack of rinsing of bleach, when used as a sanitizer. Can also be created by certain yeast strains at high fermentation temperatures.
Diacetyl	Buttery/butter scotch	Butter extract	18 to 20 drops of extract in 24 oz of base beer	Yeast byproduct during fermentation, the amount of which is determined by yeast strain. Can be a sign of incomplete or sluggish fermentation.
Estery	Fruity	Banana extract	24 drops of extract in 24 oz of base beer	Ester created by yeast during fermentation, the amount of which is determined by yeast strain.
Alcoholic	Hot alcohol, burning flavor	Cheap vodka	Add vodka to 24 oz of base beer until hot-alcohol is present	Fermenting higher-gravity worts at hotter temperatures can lead to hot alcohols.

Perception and comprehension of beer off-flavors is critical to being able to correct problems in the brewing process.  This is true both at the homebrewing scale and and the production brewery scale.  Conducting an off-flavor demonstration is a great way to help brewers develop a common "vocabulary" of flavor flaws and it can be a lot of fun.  I highly recommend the Lug Wrench readers give it a try.

Here are some additional beer off-flavor resources:

• BJCP Guidelines for Doctoring Beer
• Mesa Verde Mashers Doctored Beer Presentation
• BJCP Off-Flavor Flashcards
• Meilgaard Beer Flavor Wheel

Cheers,

TW

GABF Pro-Am Competition and "McSteamy"

The Great American Beer Festival (GABF), which is run annually by the Brewers Association (BA), has been doing a professional-amateur (Pro-Am) competition for four years now.  The concept is similar to pro-am competitions in golf in that they pair a professional and an amateur together to see what they can do.  Professional craft brewers can select an award-winning homebrew recipe and brew a scaled-up version of the beer at their brewery.  Highlights of the competition rules include:

• The brewery must enter at least one other beer at the GABF competition;
• The Pro-Am beer must be available for sale before the middle of August;
• The Pro-Am beer must be available for tasting on the floor of the GABF;
• The homebrew recipe must be an award-winning beer from a sanctioned Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) competition; and
• The brewery can only submit one entry into the Pro-Am competition.

The entries to the Pro-Am competition are judged using best-of-show rules.  This means that all of the entries are compared against each other, regardless of beer style, and the winners are selected from the entire flight of beers.  The three best entries are awarded gold, silver, and bronze medals.  The 2009 GABF Pro-Am competition had 72 entries in 39 different categories, coming from 21 different states.  This was an increase of about 25% over the previous year, indicating a growing interest in the competition.  A list of the 2009 winners can be found here.

The 2010 Pro-Am competition is of particular interest to me because I know one of the entrants.  One of the co-founders of my local club, CAMRA, Jamey Barlow, was selected by Starr Hill to supply their Pro-Am homebrew recipe.  They selected Jamey's recipe for a California common-style of beer.  Jamey shared some of his experience in brewing on the much larger commercial system at a recent CAMRA meeting, which included some practical considerations like hop substitutions (pearle versus northern brewer).  Best of all, Jamey's beer, named "McSteamy" both in reference to Anchor Brewing's trademark of "steam" beer and the Mark Sloan character in Grey's Anatomy, was available on tap at a local bar.  I was able to try a couple of pints and talk with Jamey and a Starr Hill brewer about the beer, which qualified as one of the coolest homebrewing events I have taken part in.

So, please wish Starr Hill and Jamey good luck as they enter the GABF Pro-Am competition later this month.

Cheers,

TW

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

The Green Dragon Project – A Splendid Homebrewer Collaboration

My hat is off to the Oregon Brew Crew (OBC), a forward-thinking homebrew club up in Portland, OR. The OBC, in association with the Green Dragon Bistro & Brewpub, collaborated and created the Green Dragon Project, which allows the brewpub and the club to brew beer together. If you’re a member of a homebrew club, take notes and ask yourself 'what's to stop my club from doing something similar?'.

The Green Dragon Project is a joint venture in operation since 2009 between a brewpub (Green Dragon Bistro) and a homebrew club (OBC), where members of the homebrew club get a chance to brew “personal recipes for public consumption”. Using the brewpub’s 1 barrel system, the club chooses, sources, and brews their own unique beers that are sold commercially on tap at the Green Dragon. The goal of the project is further improve the relationship between commercial craft brewers, their customers, and the homebrewing community.

The story of the first collaborative Green Dragon Project beer can be found here.

A committee from the homebrew club (aptly named the Green Dragon Project Committee) is tasked with organizing OBC's participation and brewing at the Bistro two or three times a month.  What restrictions or limitations the Bistro places on the OBC is unclear, but the beer obviously must be commercially viable. There are likely practical considerations (such as fermenter space, available grain and hop contracts, etc.) that must be considered. Working within these boundaries must provide the OBC homebrewers with a unique perspective on what decisions face commercial brewers at small scales. Regardless, the committee is responsible for selecting who amongst the club’s membership gets to brew and with what recipe, as well as procuring the required ingredients.

I have not been able to find out any information about the financial arrangement of the collaboration (who’s pays for ingredients, how revenue from the Project’s beers are divided up, etc.), but it is clear to me that this collaboration truly represents how homebrewers and professional brewers can interact and be successful at it.  It makes sense creatively, as the Bistro gaining access to a wealth of recipe concepts from OBC.  As for OBC, what homebrewer wouldn't want to see the beer they designed flowing out taps at a commercial establishment.  If OBC can make it happen, what’s to stop other homebrew clubs from doing the same in their own communities?

Of particular note, the Green Dragon Project made the local Oregon news recently when Rogue Ales donated $5,000 to OBC in recognition for growing the Green Dragon’s 1 bbl brewery into Oregon’s 94th largest brewery. Kudos to both OBC and Rogue.

Slainte!

-JW

“People who don’t drink are afraid of revealing themselves”

-Humphrey Bogart

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

Brew-In-A-Bag Brewing: Something Worth Trying

Why is it that there never seems to be enough time in a given day/week to get done what we really want to accomplish. The overburdened days have an effect on all aspects of life, including our hobby of home brewing. Whether its family obligations, work-related commitments, or name one of the thousands of conflicts that elbow their way onto our schedules, it’s generally the ‘fun’ stuff that gets axed first.

Specific to homebrewing, to minimize the required time footprint for brewing a batch, many folks here in the US are starting to adopt a brewing technique from the Australian homebrewers: the Brew-In-A-Bag (BIAB) technique. Not only is it a shorter brew day, but the equipment costs and clean up time are considerably less than traditional all-grain set-ups. So in addition to the time savings, BIAB also makes for an attractive gateway for extract brewers to brew all-grain brews.

Disclaimer: its by no means the intention of this post to be a definitive guide for BIAB. There is a growing collection of more qualified sources out there that describe the step-by-step best practices and methodology (see below for a few such references). This rambling is merely a suggestion to nudge the concept into the reader’s mind – to encourage homebrewers to give it a try as an alterative method.

In a nutshell, BIAB uses a brew kettle as a mash tun, a hot liquor tank, and a kettle all in one. The milled grain is contained within a very large mesh bag steeped within the water-filled kettle in order to accomplish the mash. Think of it as when using steeping grains as part of an extract brew – except with BIAB, there is no malt extract, as all fermentables are derived from the ~10 lbs of steeping grains. Combine this with appropriate temperature control of the water to accomplish the right mashing/saccharification.

A friend and club member of my local homebrew club (RIFT) has been delving into BIAB over the past 6 months, whereby now, he is preaching the BIAB gospel and looking for converts. Jeff H. (yes, another Jeff – there is a lot of name duplicity in our club) happily agreed when I recruited him to photo-document a BIAB brew sessions and write up his notes on the process. Presented below is the photo record of Jeff H.’s recent BIAB brew day when brewing his Amarillo Pale Ale.

Heating Strike Water. This was a 5.25 gallon batch with 11.25 lbs of grain. Accounting for grain absorption and boil off required 7.75 gal of water. This resulted in a liquor/grist ratio of ~ 2.75. Note the colander in the bottom, which is to keep the bag off the bottom of the kettle in case heat is needed during the mash.

Once the strike water is at the appropriate tempruature (157.7° F), the mesh bag is laid in the kettle in preparation for the milled grains being added.

The 11.25 lbs of milled grains are added to the strike water and stirred into a thin mash, resulting in the mash temperature of 152° F.

Insulation is optional. In this case, some old towels are wrapped around the kettle as a means to maintain the target mash temperature.

Eventually, the mash temperature dropped enough that the insulation was removed, heat was added by the burner, and the mash was stirred to bring the temperature back up.

At the end of the saccharification rest, a mash out is performed.

After the mash out, the mesh bag with the grains are slowly pulled out of the kettle. This strains the grain from the wort and takes the place of lautering. For a 5 gallon batch, the pulley system is convenient, but unnecessary – the bag can be pulled out by hand and held to drain.

After the mesh bag has been removed, the wort is boiled and hopped as normal. In this case, a hop sack is being used to minimize the hop matter in the wort.

The wort is chilled and transferred to a fermenter as normal, leaving behind the hot and cold break – just as would be done in a traditional all-grain brew.

And that’s about it for the process – it’s simple and quick (about 4 hours start to finish). Everything is accomplished in the one vessel, making clean up simpler and faster.

As mentioned above, there are much more in depth guides and how-to’s on there on the web. If reading through this has given you even a shred of curiosity, take a moment and check out one or two of the following BIAB resources:

• Homebrew Talk’s Brew-In-A-Bag Wiki
• AussieHomeBrewer.com’s Guide to All-Grain Brewing in a Bag
• Basic Brewing’s Jan. 16th Video – Organic Corn Pilsner via BIAB
• The Brewing Network’s Forum – How to go from Extract to All Grain for < $10.00

Lastly, if you are interested, below is the All-Grain recipe for Jeff H.’s Amarillo Pale Ale being brewed in the above photos.

Amarillo Pale Ale, APA

Recipe Specifics
----------------
Batch Size (Gal): 5.25
Total Grain (Lbs): 11.25
OG: 1.056
FG: 1.016
SRM: 7.2
IBU: 35
ABV: 5.2%
Brewhouse Efficiency: 72 %
Wort Boil Time: 90 Minutes

Grain/Extract/Sugar
---------------------
9.75 lbs. Pale Malt (2 Row) US
0.6 lbs. Munich Malt
0.45 lbs. Crystal 15L
0.45 lbs. Crystal 45L

Hops
-----
1.00 oz Amarillo Pellets (8.0% AA) at 60 minutes
0.50 oz Amarillo Pellets (8.0% AA) at 15 minutes
0.50 oz Amarillo Pellets (8.0% AA) at 1 minute
1.00 oz Amarillo Pellets (8.0% AA) as a Dry Hop (for 5 days)

Extras
-------
1.0 Tab Whirlfloc at 15 Min

Yeast
-----
1x 11.5 g package – Safale US-05, Dry Yeast

Mash Schedule
-------------
60 min at 152°F


After digesting all the material above, please leave us a comment on your thoughts about BIAB – have you ever given it a try? How was the resulting beer?
 
And last, but not least, a big thank you to Jeff H. for taking the time to photo-document his process and for sharing his notes on the process.
 
Slainte!
 
-JW
 
 
“We brewers don’t make beer, we just get all the ingredients together and the beer makes itself.”
-Fritz Maytag

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.