Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by homebrewdad
Posted 34 days ago.
Posted 34 days ago.
I like the new guidelines overall. There are a few nits I would pick with it, Like "no brett in saison" that's not accurate. Farmhouse Ales says even Dupont probably has brett in it.
And no sourness in Kentucky Common. That may have been the brewers intention, but it's clear from the literature of the time that drinkers tasted the beer as sour.
But otherwise, I like the way they were able to add specialties to a lot of the styles to unclog 23A.
Posted 34 days ago.
Posted 34 days ago.
Posted 34 days ago.
Soured kentucky common (real kentucky common) can just go into 28B, with kentucky common as the base style.
Posted 34 days ago.
Just a question.. Is the recipe database going to updated to the 2015 guidelines? and when? it looks like the categories follow the 2008 guidelines
Posted 34 days ago.
That's a great question. I suppose that yes, we'll need to update to the new guidelines. But when?
Posted 34 days ago.
Posted 34 days ago.
I'm claiming nothing, as I know I'm ignorant about the style.
Posted 34 days ago.
They did research it well, but they basically just ignored the evidence that it was sour in practice.
Sour mash in whiskey terms doesn't even mean the same thing as it does when we think about it. In whiskey terms all it means is that they inoculate the current mash with some of the previous mash. So, yes anyone claiming this was a common practice amongst Kentucky common brewers doesn't know what they are talking about.
All the evidence they found indicated that the brewers of the time were doing what they could to keep it from souring and they weren't intentionally pitching any bugs to make it sour. However, there are a few primary sources that indicate drinkers, bartenders, whatever, describing the flavor as sour. Not all of the primary source descriptions indicate sourness, but there are certainly enough to merit it's validity as one interpretation of the style, especially because it is indicated in those primary sources that at least some drinkers preferred the sourness.
It's just a sticking point with me that they ignored primary source material about the drinker's experience and preference because the brewers primary source material indicated differently.
Posted 34 days ago.
It doesn't bother me that they disregarded the drinker's experience, especially when it is based on poor cellarage, and contrary to the brewing specs and (I am sure) the brewer's recommended and desired practice for how their beer would be served.
After all, even when it comes to historical styles, BJCP competitions are brewing competitions and not cicarone/cellarage/draft quality/serving competitions.
A corollary is Dark Mild. As much as I love the style, I believe it probably should have been relegated to historical styles as much as Southern English Brown, with Kristen England, Ron Pattinson, and CAMRA's efforts saving it. I guess it is brewed a little more in modern times than Southern English Brown.
Anyway. it is well-known that sometime before the "fall" of mild as the premier draught (starting in 1950s), pub owners instituted the practice of adding the ullage (cask dregs) and slops from all beers back into fresh casks of mild. In fact, this disgusting fact, along with the association of mild with lower-class working stiffs, is what led to it being overtaken by "international lager". Further to this point, besides first-hand accounts of this practice, there is the fact that bars actually had built-in systems to catch the slops and funnel them to a holding tank, from whence they would be filtered and pumped back into mild casks.
Obviously, this led to mild having a not so mild character, and it could have some oxidized notes.
So should the BJCP re-write the guidelines for 13A (2015) to allow for some oxidation, blending, and other unclean characteristics in mild? I think not.
Posted 34 days ago.