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

[UKSkydiver]

Sometimes I enjoy the planning more than the brewing

Me too. Mrs UKS, less so.

 

[dave_77]

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.

I hadn't seen that when the new guidelines were released..good points made

 

[Agentgonzo]

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.

If they are aiming for guidelines and suggestions, then the wording they use in some places conveys that intent well by describing characteristics of the style:

Most traditional versions have at least 30 IBUs and are very dry.

However, in a lot of places I think they have shot themselves in the foot as the language they use leads the reader to believe they are hard limits and rules to be obeyed (trippel).

Should not be heavy.

Should not be sweet.

Spice additions are generally not traditional, and if used, should be a background character only

Should not seem like a blond Barleywine

Or even worse (American IPA)

Clear, but light haze allowable

 

[MartinHaworth]

@Agentgonzo dunno what to say to you really.


No, hang on. Got it.

Please can I invite you to come down to BLAM in October - I'll buy your beer and see that you have a bed with one of the organiser homes.

Meet the pro-brewers from Adnams and Ampersand who will be sharing the judging. See how seriously we all take it, see how we wrestle to give the best feedback to brewers. Everyone in the room will be a brewer, passionate about the hobby we share. Everyone in the room has brewed both triumphs and disasters - and we all know that we learn more when things go wrong!

You said upthread that you've never entered or been involved in a comp. Come and see.

If you are interested, please PM me and we will fix it up.

Best wishes

Martin

 

[Agentgonzo]

Martin,

That's a really kind offer - thank you! The likliehood is that won't be able to make it as it's a fair-old journey at a busy time of year, but I'll see what I can do. As for entering, I already did (this will be the first non-forum comp I've tried):

OK, I wasn't planning on entering, but having sat here playing zombie-killing games for the evening whilst drinking one of my Radieuse clones, and having had UKSkydiver remind me of it, and having had @Alastair70 gently nudge me, I've finally entered.

Now I just need to get around to actually brewing it.

I'm sure that you honestly do take everything really seriously and try to give the best feedback to entrants, and if I've implied this isn't the case I really apologise as that's not what I've been banging on about. I just have a bit of an issue with the way that the BJCP guidelines are written/published.

And many apologies for derailing your thread with a bit of a rant about the BJCP.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Yeah, I know that the BJCP have their caveats, but sometimes the real world isn't listening... I appreciate the nightmare logistics of these things, but in the example you give, it would be nice (ideally at the pouring stage, albeit stewards may feel nervous about it) if there's a golden beer in a dark category or vice versa someone might have the flexibility to think "hold on, something's wrong here" and maybe have a taste and move it to another table. You'll never get them all right, but you could reduce the blatant errors. But again the process (and the practicalities) don't really encourage that kind of flexibility and initiative.

I meant to mention a fun book that came out of the Verstrepen lab in Leuven a few years ago. They took as many Belgian beers as they could (plus eg some of the non-Belgian Trappists) and subjected them to various tests in their lab plus a tasting panel, then did some clever stats to map them relative to each other on a five-sector map of malt, yeast, hops, spices and "wild". Part of the saison, blond, "hoppy" and witbier areas overlap (in the region of La Chouffe, XX and Trappe/Bernardus witbiers) and their amber, stout, Christmas, strong categories overlap in the region of Westmalle Dubbel and Rochefort 10. Which just emphasises how complicated it can get - I don't think you'd see such overlap in other countries.

I can definitely recommend that book to anyone who really likes geeking over Belgian beer, it's a bit dry if you're not like that. But if anyone needs the IBU or EBC of just about any modern Belgian beer, give me a shout, this gives an idea of how it's laid out - interesting that they measure XX at 38 IBU which fits much better with my memory of it being rather Yorkshire Best-like rather than the 65 IBU I'd seen on t'internet.
(I know it's not a great scan, I was trying to avoid breaking the spine of a chunky book). If you look at the right-hand page, top-left is where it fits in the big-picture map, in the middle it zooms in to see the beers immediately around it, below that is a more detailed look at its flavour profile based on humans and lab data separately.

 

[samale]

Yeah, I know that the BJCP have their caveats, but sometimes the real world isn't listening... I appreciate the nightmare logistics of these things, but in the example you give, it would be nice (ideally at the pouring stage, albeit stewards may feel nervous about it) if there's a golden beer in a dark category or vice versa someone might have the flexibility to think "hold on, something's wrong here" and maybe have a taste and move it to another table. You'll never get them all right, but you could reduce the blatant errors. But again the process (and the practicalities) don't really encourage that kind of flexibility and initiative.

I meant to mention a fun book that came out of the Verstrepen lab in Leuven a few years ago. They took as many Belgian beers as they could (plus eg some of the non-Belgian Trappists) and subjected them to various tests in their lab plus a tasting panel, then did some clever stats to map them relative to each other on a five-sector map of malt, yeast, hops, spices and "wild". Part of the saison, blond, "hoppy" and witbier areas overlap (in the region of La Chouffe, XX and Trappe/Bernardus witbiers) and their amber, stout, Christmas, strong categories overlap in the region of Westmalle Dubbel and Rochefort 10. Which just emphasises how complicated it can get - I don't think you'd see such overlap in other countries.

I can definitely recommend that book to anyone who really likes geeking over Belgian beer, it's a bit dry if you're not like that. But if anyone needs the IBU or EBC of just about any modern Belgian beer, give me a shout, this gives an idea of how it's laid out - interesting that they measure XX at 38 IBU which fits much better with my memory of it being rather Yorkshire Best-like rather than the 65 IBU I'd seen on t'internet.
(I know it's not a great scan, I was trying to avoid breaking the spine of a chunky book). If you look at the right-hand page, top-left is where it fits in the big-picture map, in the middle it zooms in to see the beers immediately around it, below that is a more detailed look at its flavour profile based on humans and lab data separately.
View attachment 83072

Have you a recipe for De Ranke XX bitter

 

[dave_77]

Yeah, I know that the BJCP have their caveats, but sometimes the real world isn't listening... I appreciate the nightmare logistics of these things, but in the example you give, it would be nice (ideally at the pouring stage, albeit stewards may feel nervous about it) if there's a golden beer in a dark category or vice versa someone might have the flexibility to think "hold on, something's wrong here" and maybe have a taste and move it to another table. You'll never get them all right, but you could reduce the blatant errors. But again the process (and the practicalities) don't really encourage that kind of flexibility and initiative.

I meant to mention a fun book that came out of the Verstrepen lab in Leuven a few years ago. They took as many Belgian beers as they could (plus eg some of the non-Belgian Trappists) and subjected them to various tests in their lab plus a tasting panel, then did some clever stats to map them relative to each other on a five-sector map of malt, yeast, hops, spices and "wild". Part of the saison, blond, "hoppy" and witbier areas overlap (in the region of La Chouffe, XX and Trappe/Bernardus witbiers) and their amber, stout, Christmas, strong categories overlap in the region of Westmalle Dubbel and Rochefort 10. Which just emphasises how complicated it can get - I don't think you'd see such overlap in other countries.

I can definitely recommend that book to anyone who really likes geeking over Belgian beer, it's a bit dry if you're not like that. But if anyone needs the IBU or EBC of just about any modern Belgian beer, give me a shout, this gives an idea of how it's laid out - interesting that they measure XX at 38 IBU which fits much better with my memory of it being rather Yorkshire Best-like rather than the 65 IBU I'd seen on t'internet.
(I know it's not a great scan, I was trying to avoid breaking the spine of a chunky book). If you look at the right-hand page, top-left is where it fits in the big-picture map, in the middle it zooms in to see the beers immediately around it, below that is a more detailed look at its flavour profile based on humans and lab data separately.
View attachment 83072

That's a book for the library

Opps ordered... hopefully will arrive while the Mrs is out tomorrow

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Have you a recipe for De Ranke XX bitter

No, but if you look at this interview it's pretty simple :
https://www.belgiansmaak.com/xx-bitter-brouwerij-de-ranke/
100% pilsner, bittered with Brewer's Gold, Mittelfruh in late, no dry hop. Implies around 10g/litre total hops, and the article suggests 65 IBU implying that number came from the head brewer, even if the Lueven lab only measured 38 EBU.

The internet generally seems to think that the "Fermentis yeast" they use is BE-256, but there was a few years between Rodenbach stopping external supply of yeast and BE-256 becoming available.

 

[dave_77]

Have you a recipe for De Ranke XX bitter

This was my attempt from last year, got MK2 planned in the summer
https://share.brewfather.app/QSietNzS5D0rx8

 

[Deadhead]

Finally settled on what I'm doing. Have ordered some ingredients today to get going. Exciting days!

 

[MartinHaworth]

Nice one! I'm doing a test brew of a Dubbel recipe on Saturday. Tonight's job is to sort out my water chemistry - gonna work it up from RO, as our water here in East Anglia is just too 'full'.

Norwich water:
Sodium 23.7
Potassium 3.4
Magnesium 3.9
Calcium 125
Chloride 55.1
Nitrate 27.5
Phosphate 5.9
Sulphate 27.4
Total alkalinity as CaCO3 218
pH 7.49
Residual Chlorine <0.01

Stan recommends: Ca=41, Mg=8, Na=16, Cl=60, SO4=26

 

[Agentgonzo]

Nice one! I'm doing a test brew of a Dubbel recipe on Saturday. Tonight's job is to sort out my water chemistry - gonna work it up from RO, as our water here in East Anglia is just too 'full'.

Norwich water:
Sodium 23.7
Potassium 3.4
Magnesium 3.9
Calcium 125
Chloride 55.1
Nitrate 27.5
Phosphate 5.9
Sulphate 27.4
Total alkalinity as CaCO3 218
pH 7.49
Residual Chlorine <0.01

Stan recommends: Ca=41, Mg=8, Na=16, Cl=60, SO4=26

Different breweries in Belgium have wildly different water profiles... there is a table somewhere in Stan's book.
Looks like you have a hard water like me ... fortunately darker beers can tolerate high alkalinity fairly well though.

You posted the water profile, but didn't fancy posting your recipe in case someone steals it for the comp?

 

[Agentgonzo]

I've got an pale ale in the fermerter, then want to get a weiss/wit done in time for Spring and get my stocks up. After that, I'll start looking to brew for this. Either a dark abbey ale, or a trippel - depending on which one comes out nicer

 

[Alastair70]

Nice one! I'm doing a test brew of a Dubbel recipe on Saturday. Tonight's job is to sort out my water chemistry - gonna work it up from RO, as our water here in East Anglia is just too 'full'.

Norwich water:
Sodium 23.7
Potassium 3.4
Magnesium 3.9
Calcium 125
Chloride 55.1
Nitrate 27.5
Phosphate 5.9
Sulphate 27.4
Total alkalinity as CaCO3 218
pH 7.49
Residual Chlorine <0.01

Stan recommends: Ca=41, Mg=8, Na=16, Cl=60, SO4=26

Thanks for that, I’m planning to do a Dubble too, you’ve just saved me some legwork

 

[Tess Tickle's Brewery]

I've got it down to three choices - I'll probably brew practise versions of all three

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Different breweries in Belgium have wildly different water profiles... there is a table somewhere in Stan's book.

...but a lot of them are pretty hard, as they're effectively on the same water as Kent or near enough. So Belgium is one country where water is less critical than some, and where the water of SE England is actually not a bad match.

 

[Agentgonzo]

where the water of SE England is actually not a bad match.

Here's hoping! I'm supplied by Bournemouth water.

 

[Agentgonzo]

...but a lot of them are pretty hard, as they're effectively on the same water as Kent or near enough. So Belgium is one country where water is less critical than some, and where the water of SE England is actually not a bad match.

... If it helps anyone

 

[Northern_Brewer]

... If it helps anyone

For comparison, Chiswick water is alkalinity (~bicarb) 212 ppm, Mg 4, Na 28, SO4 47, Cl 40 - so all round not far off, certainly in the Ardennes, even if Poperinge needs a bit more and the north needs a bit less.

Also useful to compare to a map - I was most familiar with the water around Poperinge (ie Westvleteren & Bernardus) which is the closest to England and the hardest, interesting how it's softer up in the north, I guess they're getting some surface water from the Rhine/Scheldt.