The first attempt at a lager did not go as planned. We were making a Czech-style pilsner for the national Pilsner Urquell homebrew challenge. We withdrew.
I specifically remember the yeast vial saying that one was enough. It didn't mention a starter either. These are huge rookie mistakes. After a few weeks of agitating the fermenter, we decided to up the temperature a few degrees instead of re-pitching the yeast. This was a huge mistake. Increasing the temperature causes the yeast to release all sorts of fun off-flavors. The biggest being diacetyl acid, which smells like butter. Gross.
So we bottled it and hoped for the best, but we got the worst. I tried to convince Dan to pour the whole thing out. Dan always wants to think the best about our products and insisted that we try it out. Dan was ready to pour it all out after two sips.
Not only was the final product entirely too dark for a pilsner, it had a terrible aftertaste. Oh yeah, and I stuck my entire arm in the fermentation vessel. Nothing went right with this beer. It's our first disaster in brewing; much worse than the hefeweisen that didn't carbonate properly. Butter beer = bad. Really bad. Now if we could only brew a salty beer, Casey would LOVE it.
We tried brewing another pilsner about three weeks ago. We used a starter this time around, but apparently didn't pitch enough yeast again. I re-pitched a week ago and should be done fermenting in the next couple of days. I'm still hopeful!
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Real Feedback
We received the results for the BURP.org competition that took place last weekend and, frankly, I wasn't surprised by the results. The basic outcome was that Honey Brains is a "very good" beer - almost "excellent". Weisenheimer just wasn't ready yet (we knew this but figured it was worth the $5 entry on the off chance it aged well in the meantime).
Very Good means: Beers in this style may have a minor flaw (technical or stylistic), or may be lacking in balance or complexity.
The fact that the three of us can make a beer that's considered Very Good (near excellent, actually) after a few months makes me quite happy. Here are some of the professional notes for Honey Brains. Black is the first judge, red is the second judge.
Aroma: Subdued malt - touch of chocolate, maybe some toast, but not as strong as it should be. No hop aroma - could use more. Clean - no phenols, diacetyl, etc. Not as much malt sweetness with alcohol notes.
Appearance: Deep amber, clear, good head - off white/tan holds well. Amber, good head and head retention.
Flavor: Complete malt, touch of hop flavor, but dry in finish - more than should be. Phenol/tannin astringent just a bit. Could use more sweetness, but outside of that - good job. Clean. Some malty flavors, pleasant. Missing the intense, complex multilayered malt flavors. Flavors do blend well. Smooth finish which is not overly sweet.
Mouthfeel: Med. body, med. carbonation - good. Astringency is there, and dry for style. Medium - some warming.
Overall: Astringent but mainly just attenuated finish is dry for style - and a higher mash temp would help - a lot. Rest is good. Not a big, malty barleywine but very drinkable. Everything fits well.
Very Good means: Beers in this style may have a minor flaw (technical or stylistic), or may be lacking in balance or complexity.
The fact that the three of us can make a beer that's considered Very Good (near excellent, actually) after a few months makes me quite happy. Here are some of the professional notes for Honey Brains. Black is the first judge, red is the second judge.
Aroma: Subdued malt - touch of chocolate, maybe some toast, but not as strong as it should be. No hop aroma - could use more. Clean - no phenols, diacetyl, etc. Not as much malt sweetness with alcohol notes.
Appearance: Deep amber, clear, good head - off white/tan holds well. Amber, good head and head retention.
Flavor: Complete malt, touch of hop flavor, but dry in finish - more than should be. Phenol/tannin astringent just a bit. Could use more sweetness, but outside of that - good job. Clean. Some malty flavors, pleasant. Missing the intense, complex multilayered malt flavors. Flavors do blend well. Smooth finish which is not overly sweet.
Mouthfeel: Med. body, med. carbonation - good. Astringency is there, and dry for style. Medium - some warming.
Overall: Astringent but mainly just attenuated finish is dry for style - and a higher mash temp would help - a lot. Rest is good. Not a big, malty barleywine but very drinkable. Everything fits well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)