[unclebrazzie]

2lbs in a 2.5 gallon batch for 11% of grains. That's over 18 lbs of grain for a 2.5 gallon batch with those numbers. Is something off or is that just a MASSIVE brew? Just wanting to better understand the amount we're really talking about.

Parti-gyle/batch-sparged project. Yes, about 18lbs total grains, but the first runnings of 2.5 gal @ 1.090 were followed by a further 5 gal of second runnings @ 1.040. More info on the ratios and estimations here.

Brew what you want. I don't have to drink it.

Hey, thats sounds like the new RDWHAHB

BWYWIDHTDI is born

[toby]

Brew what you want. as long as I don't have to drink it.

FYP.  Don't use peated malt if you're entering it into a comp (unless you're entering it as a smoked beer).  It's out of style for Scot ales, and I might have to drink it. 

[klickitat jim]

Brew what you want. as long as I don't have to drink it.

FYP.  Don't use peated malt if you're entering it into a comp (unless you're entering it as a smoked beer).  It's out of style for Scot ales, and I might have to drink it. 

True, but be prepared to get an occasional "lacking peat/earth/smoke" comment.

[eding1nr]

I first had a peat smoked beer with Stone's Chipotle Smoked porter where it was fairly subtle, then in a "peat smoked rye" at Bell's taproom that was not so subtle.  I liked both which inspired my current brew where I added 12 oz. peated malt (malt was over a year old so maybe a little mellowed?) to a 10gal batch of English IPA.  The interesting thing I've found is that the smoke flavor is really in the first sip, after that is almost seemed to give more of a brett/wild flavor that I wasn't expecting.  When I sampled it again the next day I still couldn't taste as much smoke flavor as that first sip and had to ask some friends if it still tasted smokey which it definitely did to them.

[majorvices]

I first had a peat smoked beer with Stone's Chipotle Smoked porter where it was fairly subtle, then in a "peat smoked rye" at Bell's taproom that was not so subtle.  I liked both which inspired my current brew where I added 12 oz. peated malt (malt was over a year old so maybe a little mellowed?) to a 10gal batch of English IPA.  The interesting thing I've found is that the smoke flavor is really in the first sip, after that is almost seemed to give more of a brett/wild flavor that I wasn't expecting.  When I sampled it again the next day I still couldn't taste as much smoke flavor as that first sip and had to ask some friends if it still tasted smokey which it definitely did to them.

Yeah, I imagine you couldn't taste much smokiness after sucking on a tailpipe of  a72 Pontiac LeMans either.

[toby]

True, but be prepared to get an occasional "lacking peat/earth/smoke" comment.

One of the few things I see on a scoresheet that actually anger me.  Ron Pattinson even went off on it during one of his seminars last year at NHC.

[hopfenundmalz]

True, but be prepared to get an occasional "lacking peat/earth/smoke" comment.

One of the few things I see on a scoresheet that actually anger me.  Ron Pattinson even went off on it during one of his seminars last year at NHC.

At the BJCP reception, we also learned that Kentucky Common Beer did not use a sour mash. Now I am of the mind that any talk of Brewers in an area doing what the distillers do is a myth.

[toby]

At the BJCP reception, we also learned that Kentucky Common Beer did not use a sour mash.

There was even a significant amount of debate on the BJCP forums on the style guidelines for it.

[dmtaylor]

At the BJCP reception, we also learned that Kentucky Common Beer did not use a sour mash.

There was even a significant amount of debate on the BJCP forums on the style guidelines for it.

It wasn't really debate.  None of the new guideline threads really involved much debate.  They were all like, "This is what the Masters have determined, this is the way it's going to be, you don't like it then that's just too bad."

My opinion of the BJCP is reduced by a few notches.  I still think BJCP is useful to a point.  But I could do without the one-party politics and the one-upmanship by some of the highest ranking members.   

[klickitat jim]

At the BJCP reception, we also learned that Kentucky Common Beer did not use a sour mash.

There was even a significant amount of debate on the BJCP forums on the style guidelines for it.

It wasn't really debate.  None of the new guideline threads really involved much debate.  They were all like, "This is what the Masters have determined, this is the way it's going to be, you don't like it then that's just too bad."

My opinion of the BJCP is reduced by a few notches.  I still think BJCP is useful to a point.  But I could do without the one-party politics and the one-upmanship by some of the highest ranking members.   

I think its an awesome organization if you keep in mind that it is not the ruling force for all things beer. Ive been enjoying beer for over 40 years and didnt know the BJCP existed until about 3 years ago. Probably about 99% of beer lovers have never heard of it.

The way i see it, the guidelines are great for homebrew competitions. They become less meaningful the farther away they get from a homebrew competition. Im proud to be a BJCP judge, and judging is a hoot. But I can also just enjoy a beer as is without always defaulting to how it fits a guideline. And I'm perfectly fine with it not being a total democracy.

Dave, rather than a lower view of the BJCP, maybe its just a more appropriate realistic view?

[dkfick]

I love strongly peated whisky, but it is a much more enjoyable flavor after distillation than it is in any beer... I cannot and will not use it in beer.

[HoosierBrew]

I love strongly peated whisky, but it is a much more enjoyable flavor after distillation than it is in any beer... I cannot and will not use it in beer.

Yep, I feel exactly the same. The flavor just doesn't work in beer (for me).

[hopfenundmalz]

At the BJCP reception, we also learned that Kentucky Common Beer did not use a sour mash.

There was even a significant amount of debate on the BJCP forums on the style guidelines for it.

Maybe I should sign up for the BJCP forums. The information presented from primary sources, i.e. The Louisville brewery logs said the mash was straightforward with no souring step. It would have been fun to follow.

[unclebrazzie]

Meanwhile, Brewferm's aswered my  inquiry and now claims the lightly peated malt to be at 5.3 ppm instead of the 15-25 which was mentioned in the technical specs (which have now been taken offline it seems).

 

What I get from all the above is

• peat is probably not a historic factor in beer
• most people don't like any peat at all in their beer
• those who do, most prescribe cautious use
• which doesn't precent loonies --such as myself-- from going full whack with the stuff
• competations tend to not award prizes to peaty beers

[klickitat jim]

Ive heard that there has been a love of the scottish in france and belgium post WW2.  I have a theory that the peat smoke thing started in Scotch beers brewed in norther france and belgium post WW2. So peat smoked malt might in fact have a traditional home in Flemish Scottish beers. The same way that avacado is a traditional ingredient in Californian Japanese sushi