Vaderdag '12 Lambic Tasting

In preparation for a homebrew club meeting (the first I’ve been to in a long time), I figured I would pull a sample from the Lambic that was brewed 8-9 months ago to see how it is progressing. In addition to filling a bottle to take with me to the meeting, I pulled my own tasting sample and took some notes.  I wanted to post the notes here to easily keep track of the beers progress and how the flavor develops.

Aroma: What first hit me was a distinct cidery note coupled with a bit of a fruit ester and a hint at acidity. The cidery note was very reminiscent of a naturally fermented cider I did back in 2010, which leads me to wonder if the bret is kicking off an aroma that I'm mentally linking to that cider (and hence the cider association).

Appearance: Sharply clear, almost as if it had been filtered. Medium copper-gold in color with some orange highlights in the depths of the glass. No head or carbonation.

Flavor: The aroma contradicts the flavor as there is an initial sweetness that quickly fades to mild acidity/sourness. The acidity yields to a fruit punch-like ester in the mid to late palate. The end has a hint of bitterness or astringency that finishes with slight acidity in the back of the mouth. I was hoping the beer would have attained a bit more sourness, but I’ll just have to give it more time.

Mouthfeel: Hard to judge as I'm used to evaluating beers with carbonation. Medium body with the slight acidity that impresses a smooth feel on the tounge.

Overall: It is still a little too early for the beer. The sourness is not there yet and the beer still has some residual sweetness that I'm hoping the microbes will continue to pull down. The cidery nose threw me for a loop, but as mentioned, this might be just a connection in my mind between a prior brett fermented cider.

Date of Sampling: February 27, 2013
Sample’s Gravity: 1.011

Slainte!

-JW


“Patience is power.”
-Fulton J. Sheen

RFP – Danish Dark Rye Beer Initial Tasting

I’ve never considered myself to be a very good "technical" beer judge. I can pick out flaws and what my taste buds “like” and “dislike”, but drilling the perception down into the building blocks of what makes a good beer versus a mediocre beer is a skill I have yet to refine. So when it comes time for me to critically evaluate a beer, I’m often inclined to use a “crowd-sourcing” approach and feed it to a lot of other beer aficionados.. This was never more true when it came time to evaluate my Dark Side of Denmark rye beer that was brewed for our Recipe Formulation Project (RFP).

While my beer was originally brewed back in February, it was not until almost two months later that I finally got the beer into a keg and ready for serving. Luckily, that was right around the time that Tom came up to Rhode Island for a visit, so I was not going to miss out on the opportunity.  Only the base beer was available at this time, so the initial tasting was limited just limited to that.

The RFP beer presented with a great ruby brown appearance with a spicy, malty nose to it. The flavor, however, was not enjoyable. While the beer starts off with a fresh pumpernickel sweetness to it, the favor drops off in the mid-palate leaving the beer somewhat lackluster or empty. As the beer finishes out, a spicy finish arised from the rye malt that lasts into the aftertaste which I found unpleasant. The pro's of the bee good appearance and initial flavor. The con's: weak in the middle and the residual spiciness at the end.

Flash forward another two months after the beer has been sitting cold in the keg with time to mature (i.e. I had forgotten about the beer and only recently realized that I need do the dosing). With some luck, a club meeting for my local homebrewing club (RIFT) was almost upon me and it would be another opportunity to collect some valuable feedback from several other experienced palates. For this tasting, I was finally able to get a cardamom extract (purchased from here) on hand. I prepared three beers to evaluate: the base beer, a medium dosed beer (6 drops in 12 oz), and a heavy dosed beer (12 drops in 12 oz). All the bottles were capped, kept cold, and toted off with me to the club meeting.

The base beer had improved considerably since the initial tasting with Tom. The residual spicy flavor that had turned me off had mellowed out considerably. Additionally, while the mid-palate flavor was still a little lacking, because the flavors had time to meld together, it was less noticeable as when the beer was still “green”.

The cardamom flavoring was very enlightening. The savory flavor of the cardamom meshed well with the beers flavors without clashing. It was the intensity of the dosing that got the most comments - the extract was certainly potent, which was apparent once the medium-dosed (i.e. 6 drops) beer was opened. While not overbearing, I was asked if I could edge the cardamom flavor back a bit in the medium-dosed beer. The balance was in need of some tweaking. The heavy dosed beer (i.e. 12 drops) was just that – heavy with cardamom. The strength of the extract made the beer more like a cardamom drink flavored with beer as opposed to the other way around. A few tasters enjoyed this (and later admitted that they were big fans of cardamom), but it was in the wrong direction of what a spiced beer should be in my opinion (i.e. a solid beer with a hint or tease of the spice). The experiment was a great learning experience.

At the end of the tasting flight, I tallied up the suggestions on how I might be able to modify the recipe to improve beer. Below are a few bullet points with the most relevant / useful suggestions that I may consider using when I plan the rebrew.

• The existing beer would do better with a dosing in the 3-5 drop range per 12 oz
• The base beer needed a bit more maltiness to hold up to the cardamom flavoring as well as to support the mid-palate.
• A boost in the gravity and the resulting alcohol presence may help balance the cardamom
• Tone down the rye flavor a bit in the base beer so it is not so strong.

I’ll plan on rebrewing this beer sometime in the future and report back on whether the changes improved or detracted from the beer concept.  Otherwise, I hope the readers find this project to be interesting and potentially educational.

Slainte!

-JW


“"I drink when I have occasion, and sometimes when I have no occasion"
-Miguel de Cervantes

Recipe Formulation Project - Reference Guide
Project Introduction, Ingredient Pool, and Kick Off
Tom's Recipe: Beer Concept Initial Recipe and Brewing Initial Tasting Revision and Rebrew Follow-up Tasting	Jeff's Recipe: Beer Concept Initial Recipe and Brewing Initial Tasting Revision and Rebrew Follow-up Tasting

Tasting the 2011 Sam Adams Longshot Winners

This past weekend when Tom and I were able to be in the same location (albeit for a sad occasion - a funeral), we were able to hit up a New Jersey bottle shop together and pick up some beers to try.  The six-pack that quickly leapt into our hands was the 2011 Sam Adam's Longshot Beers.  To be truthful, I don't remember hearing much fanfare about the Longshot Competition since they did the Category 23 competition in 2010.  So it was a sure surprise when we found these three beers in the cooler.

For those that are not familiar with the Longshot competition (see the official site here), it is a competition put on by Sam Adams as a way to get back to founder Jim Koch's homebrewing roots.  In the competition (which is free to enter - a rarity for most comps), the best two beers are chosen from all the entries to be brewed and nationally distributed by Boston Beer Co.  In parallel to this competition, Boston Beer Co. also runs an employee version of the comp, wherein the best employee-homebrewed beer is chosen for the third slot in the sixpack.

The 2011 winners were an interesting mix of style with two hefty beers (~9% ABV) and a more drinkable table beer (~5% ABV).  The selections included:

• "A Dark Night in Munich", Munich Dunkel by Corey Martin
• "Five Crown Imperial Stout", Russian Imperial Stout by Joe Formanek
• "Derf's Secret Alt", Imperial Altbier by employee Fred Hessler

While at the check out counter of the bottle shop, I would have bet that the dunkel was going to be my favorite of the three.  In many cases, the imperial beers are 'interesting', but not always drinkable.  However, after trying all of them (two of which I got to try with Tom), I have to say that Joe Formanek's Russian Imperial Stout was far and away the stand-out of the group.  It was awesome.  Big roast, vinous, dark fruit character, but balanced well enough that it was not sweet.  The alcohol, which was hardly noticeable, is tucked beautifully into the dark lusciousness of the beer.  Kudos to you Joe! I'd love to get my hands on that recipe.

If you've had the opportunity to try the 2012 Longshot beers, let us know what you thought of them and which was the favorite.

Slainte!

-JW


"The cheapest beer in the bar is called premium, don't ask me why."
-Jim Koch

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

Importance of Constructive Feedback

Constructive feedback from sensory analysis of beer is crucial to improving the quality of that beer.  While a brewer may improve their process, research improved brewing techniques, and fine-tune recipes, the only thing that matters in the end is the quality of the beer in the glass.  As such, effectively evaluating perceived flavors against expectations, such as beer style, is extremely important.

Sensory feedback of beer can come from several sources.  Large breweries use sensory panels to perform analysis of batches of beer against controls.  The sensory panels comprise of several individuals with refined palates, such as super-tasters, who compare a given batch of beer against a standard for that beer.  Feedback from these sensory panels are then used to help blend batches of beer prior to bottling, to achieve a constant flavor for the brand.  In a similar manner, smaller commercial breweries utilize the palates of their brewers and customers to provide feedback on their beers.  Brewers who have worked with a given recipe for a long time can taste both the raw ingredients and the finished beer to make adjustments to keep the beer in a flavor range.  While this method is not as impartial as the sensory panel approach, it can be effective and it does not have as high an overhead cost.

For homebrewers, the most common sensory analysis feedback comes from homebrewing competitions or from friends.  Homebrewing competitions provide the entrant with somewhat impartial feedback, in so far as the entries are anonymous and the judges compare entries of similar categories together.  Judges can also be ranked by the national Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP), though a competition's ability to attract ranked judges varies widely.  Friends can provide feedback on homebrewed beer, though in my experience, it usually results in comments like "it tastes good."

That simple phrase points out the importance of constructive sensory feedback.  As a brewer, I cannot improve on my craft with such a statement.  While I appreciate someone enjoying my labors, I prefer to hear more about what the taster did not like about the beer, or how it did not meet their expectations.  This lack of constructive criticism is not limited to a brewer's friends either.  I received the following written comment on the flavor evaluation of an oatmeal stout I recently submitted for competition:

"A wonderful balance of roast, coffee and some subtle chocolate-like flavors.  A great balanced finish.  No apparent fermentation flaws.  No  hops detected."

I received 10 out of 20 points on flavor for that beer.  I wish I had some constructive advice from the judge to both warrant the score and, more importantly, on how to improve my beer.

We can all strive to be better sensory analysts of beer flavor by thinking more about what we are tasting and then verbalizing both our perceptions and our constructive criticisms, in an appropriate environment.  The end result will lead to nothing but better beer for all.

Cheers,

TW