Norwich Amateur Brewers - Brew Like A Monk (14 October 2023)

[Agentgonzo]

Does anyone know if the pseudo thing would be allowed?

I can't see why it wouldn't. Surely they judge the beer on the taste rather than the recipe? If you don't tell them (too late) then how would they know?

 

[Agentgonzo]

Still would like to know though if that would be allowed to be classed as a Belgian beer, if you don't exclusively use Belgian yeast.

Technically it has to be brewed in Belgium to be a Belgian beer . IIRC Belgian yeast read British in origin anyway going back centuries (except wild spontaneous fermentation)

 

[Tess Tickle's Brewery]

The thing is, I feel like it's cheating if you don't state it.

The Lutra is very clean and that would deffo work, but David Heath uses Voss which as we all know has orange marmalade esters etc

I'm sure the judges would pick that up

 

[Stu's Brews]

I can't see why it wouldn't. Surely they judge the beer on the taste rather than the recipe? If you don't tell them (too late) then how would they know?

Was about to say much the same. The judge doesn't know the recipe. They just assess against how well it fits the specified style.

 

[MartinHaworth]

@Tess Tickle's Brewery a couple of years ago, a lad from (?beer boars I think? BOARS BOARS BOARS) won a gold with a New Zealand Pils. He was quite open that he had used Kveik.

It is indeed a taste vs style.

 

[YeastFace]

The thing is, I feel like it's cheating if you don't state it.

You don't need to give the recipe or vital stats.

There's a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that most of the award winning recipes either push them or are well outside of the BJCP guidelines.

If you think it tastes well and meets the guidelines regardless of the origin of the yeast, then please go ahead.

 

[Tess Tickle's Brewery]

@Tess Tickle's Brewery a couple of years ago, a lad from (?beer boars I think? BOARS BOARS BOARS) won a gold with a New Zealand Pils. He was quite open that he had used Kveik.

It is indeed a taste vs style.

Great, many thanks Martin.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Don't know..Its not particularly Belgian in yeast character. I have entered a XX bitter inspired beer in Belgian IPA before and was told it wasn't hoppy enough and not particularly Belgian..don't think XX is particularly Belgian in yeast character but definitely IPA in bitterness and hop character if you prefer the Non American hopped version.

People get stuck in tramlines thinking about Belgian beer, when "brewing like a monk" is more about a philosophy than specific ingredients, it's about using what is cheap and local without observing rules to fit a "style" in the way that US brewing does under the influence of its German founders, and which is epitomised by the concept of BJCP guidelines. So I am troubled by the whole concept of Brew Like a Monk within BJCP constraints, it's like van Gogh painting by numbers.

To take one example - everyone thinks they know what a Belgian yeast is like. But WLP515 Antwerp - allegedly from de Koninck - is a lager yeast, whereas WLP540 Abbey IV is a relative of Ringwood (which is compatible with what we know of Rochefort raiding the Palm yeastbank in the 1960s). But WLP037 Yorkshire Square is a saison yeast that is super-phenolic if it gets at all stressed.

So does that mean that De Koninck is a steam beer that is not a real Belgian beer? That Rochefort is not a real Belgian beer, whereas Yorkshire bitters should be considered Belgian?

Of course not, that 's a nonsense. But it does point to how people's ideas of Belgian beer are all wrong, when the real message is that unlike Germany and the US - There Are No Rules. So at the very least for the comp I'd suggest relaxing the BJCP parameters, half the actual Belgian beers would fail them.

And yeast character is not just about phenolics - the very high attenuation of XX (we know they use "Fermentis yeast", probably BE-256) is another kind of yeast character that is very much in the tradition of Burton pale ales, which needed to leave minimal residual sugar so that they didn't referment when exported to the tropics and cause "cask bombs". BE-256 is a close relative of WLP540 so it seems XX is using a British-derived yeast, 65 IBU of Brewer's Gold for bittering, stats are very similar to the traditional Burton numbers - it's an English IPA.

So my first effort at an abbey-style beer was very much in the tradition of using "local" ingredients - a mix of Otter and UK pale with a load of DRC and a bit of crystal and torrified wheat I had kicking around plus some caramelised cane sugar (the British tradition as opposed to Belgian beet candi), the classic British ABV of 7.4% to take it under the higher duty rate (and to be honest, I'm just not that interested in drinking 10+%). Partigyled, first go used EKG and Flyer but given the likelihood of getting more Flyer it's probably going to be Bramling Cross and Phoenix in future. Technically not Belgian at all, but arguably more in the "Brew Like a Monk" philosophy than agonising over the perfect grade of imported candi sugar.

A good blog that is very much in that vein, and gave some inspiration for that beer is Pursuit of Abbeyness - he seems to have stopped over lockdown, hope he's OK.

As far as supermarkets go - Tesco is getting into them, they've started having things like St Bernardus Abt (even if I prefer Rochefort 10) and have had Delirium for a while, Waitrose has always been quite good and Booth's has random ones like Rochefort 6.

 

[Stu's Brews]

To echo what @Northern_Brewer said, I'm currently doing Virtual Beer School with Natalya Watson and last week was Belgian styles. Nat said that in Belgium they don't really think about styles and instead brew essentially what makes sense to them based on what is available. It is those of us in places like the UK and US that try and box Belgian beers into particular style groups which isn't always appropriate.

 

[Nottsbeer]

@Northern_Brewer and @Stu's Brews - what you say is similar to info I came across a while back. Not long after getting back into brewing I had a bottle of Tynt Meadow...lovely drop! I searched online for info on what maybe in it and found an American site where someone had gone into a bit of history of this style of brewing (basically what you both say above), and his take on Tynt was mainly UK ingredients. I think he used Candi Syrup as well. My first brew included all UK ingredients (apart from the syrup) and it was a nice drink. I experimented on V2 and used an Abbey yeast, as well as changing a couple of other ingredients (added Special B for one of the malts). I'm thinking of going back to something like my first version using Nottingham for this comp. I'm looking for a substitute for the Candi syrup but I'm not sure yet of what. Sometimes I enjoy the planning more than the brewing

 

[Agentgonzo]

I'm looking for a substitute for the Candi syrup but I'm not sure yet of what.

If it's clear candi syrup, then just use table sugar. If it's dark, use brown sugar or caramelise your own table sugar. Or golden syrup

Peebee has a big long thread about candy sugar too that you could read through

 

[Nottsbeer]

If it's clear candi syrup, then just use table sugar. If it's dark, use brown sugar or caramelise your own table sugar. Or golden syrup

Peebee has a big long thread about candy sugar too that you could read through

It's dark syrup I used. I've read through bits of Peebee's thread, and have seen other threads on making caramelized syrup. I'll read through his thread again and see if he mentions Dark Treacle - I wonder what that would add to the brew.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It's dark syrup I used. I've read through bits of Peebee's thread, and have seen other threads on making caramelized syrup. I'll read through his thread again and see if he mentions Dark Treacle - I wonder what that would add to the brew.

Treacle can be good in small quantities, eg Fuller's use 2.3% in their imperial porter, but you want to be super-careful that you don't overdo it, it's a very dominating flavour.

Pursuit of Abbeyness talks quite a bit about some of his attempts to get the right sugars, and also some of the difficulties in talking about sugar with USians eg :

https://pursuitofabbeyness.com/2018/02/12/brew-day-pursuit-of-abbeyness-xii/https://pursuitofabbeyness.com/2019/02/26/on-clones-colour-and-cassonade/

 

[MartinHaworth]

@Northern_Brewer

Thanks for your input.

Good points all about styles and boxing things in. You are clearly streets ahead of me (in particular) in your knowledge of these beers and how they are made.

Yes, BJCP is at times a restrictive format - it offers 'style competitions' rather than purely 'beer competitions'. And it is not just Belgium that has some outstanding beers that are not easily categorised.

BJCP provides a simple 'football pitch' onto which we can play our game - it is particularly accessible to neophytes. And we all find it restrictive at times. I'm an amateur musician, and spent 20 years learning the rules - and so much of the greatest music breaks the rules.

I'm interested it your ideas - can you expand a bit more on your 'relaxing' suggestion + what that might mean in practice? Particularly at the 'table' stage. Thinking not just for this comp, but principles that we might port over into other years.

Regarding the name and the genesis of this comp - it's fairly straightforward, a bunch of brewers in Norwich who enjoy Belgian Beers, and wanted to learn more about them / brew more of them / and have fun by running a comp. As I said on the video, the name's catchy, and when I emailed Stan Hieronymus (who wrote the seminal text) he was only too happy for us to use the name + seemed a top bloike.

(photo attached of 3 Belgian beers I've just been given that couldn't be entered into the comp - the La Trappe Nillis I'm particularly looking forward to)

Cheers

Martin

 

[MartinHaworth]

<reading pursuit of abbeyness blog....>

 

[Agentgonzo]

I'm interested it your ideas - can you expand a bit more on your 'relaxing' suggestion + what that might mean in practice? Particularly at the 'table' stage. Thinking not just for this comp, but principles that we might port over into other years.

Not marking beers down for being "not to style". Judge and score the beers on their own merits, not what the BJCP think the beer should be.

 

[MartinHaworth]

Not marking beers down for being "not to style". Judge and score the beers on their own merits, not what the BJCP think the beer should be.

Sounds like you've had some unhelpful feedback in the past. Sorry to hear that.


Can I share a story.


Last year, a few Norwich boys thought we'd have a go at the LAB Open. I actually drove all the beers down to the brewery and dropped them off, so they'd arrive in tip top condition.

One of the lads was entering a Belgian Blond and a Stout - only thing was he got the labels on the wrong beer.

So the judges liked his beers, both of them, but had to comment that the roast dark beer didn't really cut it as a belgian blond, but it was a lovely beer and woudl have done well as a stout; and the lovely golden fruit and clove beer didn't really cut it as a stout. The feedback was postive, constructive and amused. It did feature the words 'not to style'.

You get the picture. Now, if my Belgian Blond entry had been beaten on that table by a stout (however good) I would have felt aggrieved. And if my stout had been beaten on that table by a belgian blond, similarly.

I guess this was in my mind when I asked @NorthernBrewer how a more relaxed approach might would at the table stage as many judges (with different palates and preferences) work to thin the field from hundreds down to tens.

Thanks

Martin

 

[Agentgonzo]

Sounds like you've had some unhelpful feedback in the past. Sorry to hear that.

I haven't actually. I haven't entered any "proper" competitions before (only the forum ones).

I guess my objection is that the BJCP guidelines are far too proscriptive and (from what I've seen 2nd hand) the marking can be equally as proscriptive.

Beer styles evolved as part of language. It makes sense to understand what a porter/IPA/mild/stout/lager is so that people can talk and convey information about the beer in a short amount of words. And it makes sense for the BJCP/other orgs to go "here is a lexicon of what these words mean". And to some people, pigeon-holing is helpful. But in a lot of cases (IMO), they have gone unnecessarily far in their endeavours and invented new categories and restrictions where none existed naturally. For example, I've never ever heard of a beer described or labelled as a "Belgian golden strong", nor one called that in a bar - and I lived in Belgium for quite a while and still visit a lot. IMO the BJCP are just too prescriptive, rather than descriptive in their categories and it overflows into the judging and sometimes scoresheets. Why  should a trippel be highly carbonated? If it makes the beer better, or is not very good with low carbonation then that makes sense. But marking a trippel down just because (hypothetically speaking here) just because the BJCP says all trippels should be highly carbonated is wrong. BJCP guidelines seem fairly different and far more prescriptive than "what I've learnt from talking to people in the pub over 20 years".

Anyway, rant over.

Back to the point in hand, and your example. It's completely understandable that to organise a competition you want to put alike beers together to be judged together as it just makes everything easier for you and fairer for entrants. Ideally in the scenario you describe above, someone would have seen/tasted the stout and gone "this is nothing like the other beers on this table" and walked over to the dark beers table and gone "can you include this one in your group as it's more like the ones you are already judging". I have no idea of how complicated these are to run, and that may not be practical on the day. But I'd be annoyed if I got a low scoresheets for the stout going "it's too dark and bitter for a Belgian golden ale, 16 points" if it was a delicious stout. I would completely understand "43 points, [decent feedback], but unfortunately you entered it into the yellow category and it's obviously black, so not fair on the other beers if you win, so have a notable mention instead". As with all things (beer styles included!) It's all shades of grey and you probably have to draw a line somewhere. It's just that IMO the BJCP draw the lines far too rigidly (proscriptive vs descriptive).

I guess what I'm trying to say is to be more lenient in where you draw those lines - especially for Belgian beers where styles aren't naturally very well defined very clearly.

Thanks for listening

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Martin - I agree with everything you say, and I'm well aware of the tedious need to accept practicalities when faced with hundreds of bottles and limited manpower, but it's just fun to niggle to see if there's ways to do things better.

You are clearly streets ahead of me (in particular) in your knowledge of these beers and how they are made.

I'm not sure about that, but I've drunk a bit and spent some time there.

Yes, BJCP is at times a restrictive format - it offers 'style competitions' rather than purely 'beer competitions'. And it is not just Belgium that has some outstanding beers that are not easily categorised.

Something like Sarah Hughes being a classic example - not well known enough in the US to get its own category made up for it (like Northern Brown was for Dog), but makes a nonsense of specifically USian ideas of what a mild is.

BJCP provides a simple 'football pitch' onto which we can play our game - it is particularly accessible to neophytes. And we all find it restrictive at times. I'm an amateur musician, and spent 20 years learning the rules - and so much of the greatest music breaks the rules.

Completely agree.

OTOH, Belgium is the jazz of the beer world....

I'm interested it your ideas - can you expand a bit more on your 'relaxing' suggestion + what that might mean in practice? Particularly at the 'table' stage. Thinking not just for this comp, but principles that we might port over into other years.

Obviously saying a 43-point stout entered in a golden category and winning is a recipe for chaos. OTOH, it feels like BJCP judging is often about seeing how far one can push the boundaries at the extremes to produce a beer that is "nice" (or at least pandering to judges preferences eg putting Citra in every damn beer), whereas wine judging seems to be more about capturing the Platonic ideal of a particular style, it homes in on the centrepoint rather than pushing the boundaries. And it may be no coincidence that wine judging is less formalised than BJCP and relies more on judges experience of what a style is - and given how a vintage may be different to what they tasted the previous year, they also take into account the midpoint of what's on the table in front of them - sometimes you have no choice, 40 years ago nobody knew what eg a New Zealand Sauvignon was "meant" to taste like, they just had to taste what was in front of them.

I don't know quite how you do it, but an emphasis on judging more "spirit" of a style, for "tripel-ness" or "dubbel-ness" may be a way to accommodate some of the "weirdos".

Something else I'm quite keen to promote as I think it is one of the answers to the question of "What next, now that we're getting a bit bored of NEIPAs?", is Anglicised versions of Belgian styles, which is already happening a bit with Abbeydale, Tynt Meadow etc. Broadly the same, but with all-UK ingredients - DRC instead of Special B, that kind of thing. Depends on the interest, you could either judge eg the Anglo-tripels as a subcategory of tripels proper, or as their own thing.

The tough one for that might seem to be yeast, but even there one has options, notably by rummaging around the Malt Miller's Brewlab slopes - Devon is banana-y, something like Scottish Borders (supposedly McEwan's, hence linked to Duvel) will give you some phenols, WLP037 will go super-clovey if it's at all unhappy (Wiper & True used it in a "Yorkshire Saison" a few years back).

Another option might be seeing if you can scavenge some bugs from Elgood's coolships which of course are the epitome of Anglo-Belgian. I know Wisbech is not super-close, but I see they have the Reindeer as a rather lonely outpost in Norwich so you might be able to organise for a brewer to do the weekly dray run and linger for a meet-the-brewer thing? I know their production yeast comes from Black Sheep, which originally came from Hardy & Hanson along with their squares - given the association of saison-type yeasts with squares I suspect their yeast may well be somewhat phenolic even without added bugs from the coolship? I know times are tough in brewing but you might even be able to wangle some sponsorship from them, even if it's just a slab or two of the coolship beer?

(photo attached of 3 Belgian beers I've just been given that couldn't be entered into the comp - the La Trappe Nillis I'm particularly looking forward to)

Heh, not seen that, looks interesting. I've not been to Belgium since before lockdown, about the only alcohol-free option back then was Jever Fun. If ever a product was misnamed....

 

[MartinHaworth]

Thank you @Northern_Brewer and @Agentgonzo
There is much sense here.
When Gordon Strong wrote the 2021 updates to the BJCP guidelines, he wrote a full and interesting intorduction, which I copy below. It addresses head on some of the points you have raised.

BJCP 2021 Introduction:

While we understand that our guidelines may have been misused in contexts beyond our original intent, we’ve also observed them being misused in competitions and for other BJCP purposes such as exam preparation and grading. Some people misinterpret the guidelines, and then often unknowingly instruct others in their misuse. Our hope is that the information in this section will help prevent many cases of misinterpretation and misuse in the future. If anyone encounters someone using the guidelines incorrectly, please refer them to this section.

The following maxims express our original intent, and are designed to limit misuse, not to prevent the guidelines from being adopted for new uses:

1. The BJCP Style Guidelines are guidelines not specifications. Take those words at face value, or their plain meaning. Guidelines are meant to describe general characteristics of the most common examples, and serve as an aid for judging; they are not meant to be rigorously-applied specifications that are used to punish slightly unusual examples. They are suggestions, not hard limits. Allow for some flexibility in judging so that well-crafted examples can be rewarded. The guidelines are written in detail to facilitate the process of the structured evaluation of beer as practiced in homebrewing competitions; don’t use each individual statement in style descriptions as a reason to disqualify a beer.

2. The Style Guidelines are written primarily for homebrew competitions. Individual style descriptions are written primarily to aid in judging.
We have, in some cases, sought to define clear lines between styles to create non-overlapping judging categories. We understand that some styles may overlap in the market, and some commercial examples may straddle boundaries. We have organized style categories for the purpose of organizing homebrew competitions, not for describing and communicating the styles of the world to a different audience.

3. We know many people use our guidelines. We understand that other organizations or groups are using our guidelines for purposes well beyond our original intent. To the extent that those groups find value in our work, we are happy to have our guidelines used. We freely allow our naming and numbering system to be used by others. However, don’t make rash assumptions about the nature of beer and beer styles based on applications of the guidelines beyond their original intent. We also know some craft brewers are using our guidelines to
rediscover historical styles, or to brew styles not native to their country – we are thrilled to be able to help advance craft beer in this way. Just remember that it’s not our original mission to do this; it’s just a happy side-effect.

4. Styles change over time. Beer styles change over the years, and some styles are open to interpretation and debate. Simply because a style name hasn’t changed over the years, doesn’t mean that the beers themselves haven’t also changed. Commercial brewers subject to government regulation and market forces definitely change their products over time. For example, because there is now a beer known as porter doesn’t mean that it has always been made that way throughout its history. Our beer styles are generally meant to describe modern beers currently available, unless otherwise specified (e.g., in the Historical Beer category).

5. Not every commercial beer fits our styles. Don’t assume that every beer fits neatly into one of our categories. Some breweries revel in creating examples that don’t match our (or anyone else’s) guidelines. Some create beer called by a style name that deliberately doesn’t match our guidelines. It’s perfectly fine for a commercial beer to not match one of our styles; we have not attempted to categorize every commercial beer – that is neither our intent nor our mission.

6. We have not defined every possible beer style. Of course we know of beer styles that aren’t defined in our guidelines. Perhaps they are obscure or unpopular, homebrewers aren’t making the styles, insufficient examples or research material exists to adequately define them to our standards, or they are from a part of the world we haven’t visited extensively. Maybe they are historical styles no longer made, or that we believe the styles are a passing fad. Regardless of our reasons, don’t believe that our guidelines represent the complete
categorization of every beer style ever made – they aren’t. They do, however, describe the beers most commonly made today by homebrewers and many craft breweries.

7. Commercial examples change over time. Just like beer styles change, individual examples change as well. A beer that was once a great example of a style might not always remain so. Sometimes the beer changes (with ownership change, perhaps) or sometimes the style trend changes but the beer doesn’t. For example, Anchor Liberty helped define the American IPA style when it was created, but it
seems much more like typical American Pale Ales today.

8. Ingredients change over time. Hops are a good example today; new varieties are coming to market with unique characteristics. Brewers looking for a vi BJCP Beer Style Guidelines – 2021 Edition differentiator may be rapidly adopting (and abandoning) ingredients. It is difficult to say that the profile of a beer style is fixed when its typical ingredients are changing constantly. Allow for these changes when judging beer. For example, not all American hops will be citrusy or piney. Don’t be rigid about judging based on what was commonly used at the time of this writing; understand what ingredients are typically used, and adapt judging to match the evolving character.

9. Most styles are fairly broad. Some believe that our styles inhibit brewer creativity by rigidly setting boundaries. That is not our intent – we think creativity drives innovation, and that interpretation by brewers should be allowed. However, not every innovation is a good idea, or results in a beer that is recognizable in the same grouping of others with the same name. Therefore, styles should be interpreted
as having some flexibility, but within reason.

10. The Style Guidelines are not the Ten Commandments. The words in this document are not due to divine inspiration – they were written by people making a good faith effort to describe beer as it is perceived. Don’t treat them as some kind of Holy Scripture. Don’t get so lost in parsing individual words that you lose sight of the overall intent. The most important part of any style is the overall balance and impression; that is, that the beer reminds you of the style, and is a nicely drinkable product. To get lost in the individual descriptions
loses the essence of the style. The mere fact that style descriptions can change from one edition of the guidelines to the next should be the clearest illustration that the words themselves are not sacred.

11. Our Guidelines are extensible. We understand that our guidelines will change in the future, and that there may be years between revision cycles. The BJCP’s primary mission is to conduct exams, and if the references changed constantly, it would make studying nearly impossible. So, we have adopted a compromise: we have Provisional Styles listed on our website that can be used in the same way as
styles in these guidelines. This allows us to add changes between editions. We also have a list of Style Entry Suggestions on our website to help understand where best to enter styles not defined in the guidelines or as a Provisional Style. These features, as well as the extensibility of some styles such as Specialty IPA and Historical Beer, allow brewer-defined styles to be used in competitions. Combined, these three features allow the guidelines to evolve between major updates.

12. We are not the beer police. We categorize and describe beer styles that we see exist, and that are used. In no way are we telling commercial brewers what they can brew, or saying that they are wrong if their products don’t fit our guidelines. We also do not create styles in the hopes that they will become popular. The state of the overall beer market in any given country is not our concern.

13. Different formats exist. Our guidelines appear in many third-party locations, on multiple mobile platforms, and are translated into other languages. Unfortunately, not all these versions contain the full text of our guidelines, or are completely accurate translations. Be careful when using a format supplied by someone other than the BJCP; when in doubt, always refer to the original source.