This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If we assume everything you read is true, then maybe "it comes from Lost Abbey" means it is some combination that they use, not that they gave the yeast to WL. I don't know though.
The strain info in the blend is proprietary. I can say though, that is comes
from Lost Abbey Brewery.
Hey, this is EXACTLY what I want to do with my club for an event sometime soon. Is there the option to pay for a kit if we're not doing anything BJCP-related?
I'd say that training homebrew club members to recognize off-flavors is definitely BJCP-related.
Get a club member who's a member of the BJCP (i.e., has taken the exam) to ask the BJCP Continuing Education Director for a kit (details here: http://www.bjcp.org/cep/kits.php). Then, once you get it, have him bill your club for the cost.
If you want to get fancy, you could try to turn the tasting into a BREWS session. It's my experience, though, that 20 different off-flavors is just too much for one session. Break it down into 2-4 sessions over a couple of weeks or months.
Sadly we have no members who are in the BJCP. In fact I don't think there's anyone in this country who's a BJCP member. $180 for the kit is too much to be honest, I'm just going to follow the doctoring guidelines set out in the BJCP manual.
True, it will be very difficult to find a solution to please everyone. But you can't please the entrants at the expense of the judges. Doubling the entries for the second round would require either a LOT more judges or a second day of judging in the second round. That has additional costs and puts additional strain on the judges. There's 28 categories, 3 entries from each region, 10 regions . . . 840 entries. You want to double that for one day of judging? I don't see it happening. And the MCAB format has its own implementation problems.
I'm not saying that things are perfect as is, so it's great to see new ideas coming out. But the ideas have to fix more problems than they create for the competition as a whole. As the conference grows so will the judge pool, and I think it might be feasible to add a region. That can help.
But the competition keeps growing, creating larger challenges for the organizers. What really needs to happen is people need to step up and volunteer to help get things done. Every two additional judges is ~20 entries finished on a day of judging. This is a hobby, and we all contribute what we can, when we can. But you can't be sitting on your couch while the judging is going on down the street. If you enter competitions, you should be prepared to judge. If everyone who entered judged, we could finish all comps in one session.
This would also double the number of entries in the second round. That would cause real problems there.
A little late in the game for your study group, but the BJCP will provide a flavor evaluation kit to organized & registered study groups that are prepping for the exam. Sit down, and grab your beer....... these are FREE.
They are provided (in partnership with Siebel) through the BJCP CEP (continuing education program). This is an awesome resource and more study groups should take advantage of it. The kits contain enough of each chemical to provide 20 samples. http://www.bjcp.org/cep/kits.php
I got mine yesterday. So far it seems very zen-like, as if I need to feel for and be the beer, but I'm not too far into it yet.
If you entered in the NW (Seattle) then your score sheets went out this morning.
I can't take any credit for it at all, I didn't organize it or even get to judge. I'm just passing along the info. The organization and fast turn around credit goes to Tim Hayner and Peter Twigg, along with some others most likely.