Here is how the American Amber Ale I brewed in mid-January 2012 did at last year’s TRASH competition:

Position in flight: 1 of 10
Final score: 30.5
Place awarded: 3rd

Descriptors
Judge 1 (BJCP Recognized): none checked
Judge 2 (BJCP Apprentice): none checked

Aroma
Judge 1: Fresh citrus/pine hop aroma, subtle caramel notes in background. ‘A bit’ vegetal. No off-aromas. Clean 8/12
Judge 2: LIght hop smell, not to malty – clean crisp smells, dry hop smell. 7/12

Appearance
Judge 1: Copper – slight haze – creamy white head – med retention. 2/3
Judge 2: Color is good golden orange, clarity a little hazy, no real head retention, head color white, medium body. 2/3

Flavor
Judge 1: Pine / citrus / grapefruit hop flavor. Very subtle malt background / very slight caramel notes – a little less than expected. Just a bit on the bitter side of balance. 12/20
Judge 2: Malt present little sweet, hops flavor present a little on strong side, pretty citrusy flavor, balance more toward hops and not malt. 12/20

Mouthfeel
Judge 1: Med body, med carbonation, finishes clean & crisp. 4/5
Judge 2: Good mouthfeel, no real warmth little creaminess low carbonation, smooth, some bite. 3/5

Overall Impression
Judge 1: Very nice clean example, need to pump up the malt flavor a bit but very drinkable. 7/10
Judge 2: Pretty smooth, some bite present, overall good presentation, bring down hops, but very drinkable. 6/10

Final Score
Judge 1: 33/50
Judge 2: 28/50

Sylistic Accuracy
Judge 1: Classic Example [] [x] [] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [] [] [] [] [] Not to Style

Technical Merit
Judge 1: Flawless [] [x] [] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [] [] [] [] Significant Flaws

Intangibles
Judge 1: Wonderful [] [x] [] [] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [] [] [] [] [] Lifeless

Middle of the road results for a middle of the road beer. I’ve brewed this recipe a few times since and keep gettign a similar beer – balanced towards hops and too light on body & maltiness. I think it’s time for me to alter this recipe before I brew another amber ale.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Competition Results, Homebrew

In mid-Jauary 2012 I brewed a medium-gravity English Pale Ale. Initially it had loads of diacetyl. After krausening in the keg, that problem was cleared up and the beer was entered into TRASH XXII in mid-March. Here’s how it did.

Position in flight: 8 of 18
Final score: 33.5
Place awarded: 2nd

Descriptors
Judge 1 (Professional Brewer): none checked
Judge 2 (BJCP Recognized): oxidized

Aroma
Judge 1: Light hop aroma, slight malt aroma. 7/12
Judge 2: Very slight caramel malt aromas noticed first followed by a mild fruity ester profile. Almost no hop aroma. No diacetyl detected. 7/12

Appearance
Judge 1: Great color / great clarity / appropriate carb. 3/3
Judge 2: Deep toffee color, brilliant clarity, almost no carbonation. A slight beige partial ring lasts a bit. 2/3

Flavor
Judge 1: Nice flavor – fits style guidelines but could use a bit more malt flavor up front – finish is dry, crisp, light crisp caramel malt – nice 15/20
Judge 2: Low bitterness – a bit more might be more in line with the style. The hop flavor is floral and appropriate for style. A thin maltiness leaves a little balance to be desired. 12/20

Mouthfeel
Judge 1: Low carbonation, appropriate to style. Lacking caramel body, which doesn’t necessarily lose style points, but makes it kind of thin and light-bodied. 4/5
Judge 2: Light bodied brew with almost no carbonation. No alcohol warmth. Dryness from oxidation lingers. 3/5

Overall Impression
Judge 1: This is a really pretty beer that seems to taste better with each sip – clean flavor, but it’s lacking body. Maybe more hop bitterness would improve it, too. 7/10
Judge 2: Overall a very good brew. Could benefit from drinking fresher. Minor hop additions and a little more specialty malts would also improve the brew. 7/10

Final Score
Judge 1: 36/50
Judge 2: 31/50

Sylistic Accuracy
Judge 1: Classic Example [] [x] [] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [] [] [x] [] [] Not to Style

Technical Merit
Judge 1: Flawless [] [x] [] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [] [x] [] [] Significant Flaws

Intangibles
Judge 1: Wonderful [] [] [] [x] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [] [] [] [x] [] Lifeless

While not an earth-shattering beer, I was happy that it scored in the 30′s after the krausening clean-up. Grabbing a silver medal in a flight of 18 beers was a nice bonus, too. Both judges dinged it for a thin body and low hop character. I have found that krausening a diacetyl bomb seems to do this – it thins/drys out the beer and scrubs off a lot of hop character. I have since krausened two more beers and had similar results. The side-effects of krausening are not ideal, but it’s a good tool to have on hand to make an undrinkable butter/butterscotch beer rather pleasant.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Competition Results, Homebrew

I brewed the “Nutcastle” recipe from Brewing Classic Styles in mid-January 2012. It was judged at TRASH XXII in mid-March. Here’s how it did:

Position in flight: 5 of 11
Final score: 30.5
Place awarded: none

Descriptors
Judge 1 (BJCP Certified): none checked
Judge 2 (BJCP Recognized): none checked

Aroma
Judge 1: Good initial malty sweetness slight diacetyl. One dimensional but clean. 9/12
Judge 2: Possible yet-undefined off aroma initially noticed. Not noticed as beer warms. Inatead bready malt sweetness, no hops noticed, nor fruitiness or diacetyl. 8/12

Appearance
Judge 1: Medium tan color. Ok initial head but died quickly. Slightly hazey. 1/3
Judge 2: Amber-copper hue with a bit of garnet, very slight head of mixed-size off-white bubbles and slight retention. 2/3

Flavor
Judge 1: Clean, slight malt flavor. Astringency is a flaw and sticks with you into the aftertaste which is also where the malt sweetness comes out. 11/20
Judge 2: Pleasant slight toffee sweetness which could benefit from more hops balance. Finish is sweet with sweet but brief aftertaste. Pleasant but little complexity. 12/20

Mouthfeel
Judge 1: Moderate weight, some astringency. The head is dead but carbonation is still present in the beer. 2/5
Judge 2: Light body, slight astringency, low carbonation. No warmth (and none needed). 3/5

Overall Impression
Judge 1: Good beer but with flaws. 6/10
Judge 2: This is a tasty beer. If possible could benefit with more extensive attenuation from a longer and/or slightly warmer fermentation. Possibly closer to a mild than a Northern English Brown Ale. 7/10

Final Score
Judge 1: 29/50
Judge 2: 32/50

Sylistic Accuracy
Judge 1: Classic Example [] [x] [] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [] [] [x] [] [] Not to Style

Technical Merit
Judge 1: Flawless [] [] [x] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [] [x] [] [] Significant Flaws

Intangibles
Judge 1: Wonderful [] [] [x] [] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [] [] [x] [] [] Lifeless

This beer scored right around where I expected it to. It was an OK attempt but wasn’t great. I like the comment about “closer to a mild.” I agree, but it would have been kind of bland even as a mild.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Competition Results, Homebrew

The Brown Porter I brewed in January 2012 that didn’t show as well as I expected it to at Keyston Hops’ War of the Worts competition in mid-Feruary 2012 also went before the judges at my club’s TRASH XXII competition in March. Here is how it fared:

Position in flight: 5 of 12
Final score: 40
Place awarded: none

Descriptors
Judge 1 (novice): none checked
Judge 2 (BJCP Certified): none checked

Aroma
Judge 1: nice hints of nuts & smoke 11/12
Judge 2: roast malt nose is nice, rich. Low fruit. Faint hop. 10/12

Appearance
Judge 1: Dark & coppery brown. Head disappeared quickly. 2/3
Judge 2: Dark copper color, clear. Lace head around glass. 2/3

Flavor
Judge 1: Nice roast & smokiness. Malt flavor also present. 17/20
Judge 2: Malt flavor has good roast without harshenss. Med hop bitterness – balance. No off flavors. Bitterness from roast is nice, too. 16/20

Mouthfeel
Judge 1: Creamy very slight warmth. Carb. is a little low. 3/5
Judge 2: Body is a little on the light side. Carbo – medium. 3/5

Overall Impression
Judge 1: Could use a little more carbonation. Flavor is very balanced well between smoke nuts & roastiness. 8/10
Judge 2: Nice roasty porter character. Clean beer. 8/10

Final Score
Judge 1: 41/50
Judge 2: 49/50

Sylistic Accuracy
Judge 1: Classic Example [x] [] [] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [] [] [] [] [] Not to Style

Technical Merit
Judge 1: Flawless [] [x] [] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [] [] [] [] Significant Flaws

Intangibles
Judge 1: Wonderful [] [x] [] [] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [] [] [] [] [] Lifeless

I feel the BJCP judge’s notes from this competition fall in line with what I expected from this beer. It showed poorly at War of the Worts – enough so that I question if there was a bottle mix-up based on the comments that don’t match my or other brewer’s perception of the beer.

This beer went on to a mini Best of Show and didn’t place. Scoring a 40 and not placing sucks a bit, but it happens to everyone at some point.

Filed under:
Uncategorized

I brewed a Brown Porter in January 2012 and it was judged at Keyston Hops’ War of the Worts competition in mid-Feruary 2012. Here is how it showed:

Position in flight: no cover sheet
Final score: 33

Descriptors
Judge 1 (non-BJCP, professional brewer): astringent
Judge 2 (BJCP National): astringent, diacetyl, phenolic

Aroma
Judge 1: Slight nail polish, not too much malt 5/12
Judge 2: phenolic, smoky, not roasty/pleasant 5/12

Appearance
Judge 1: Little retention, nice clarity. 2/3
Judge 2: clear, deep orange/mahogany color, thin head. 1/3

Flavor
Judge 1: Chocolate up front, rosat up front & late in the finish, astringent in finish, sweet with drying finish 17/20
Judge 2: Sweet with a toasty malty finish, some alcohol warmth, slick, roasted malts are restrained. 14/20

Mouthfeel
Judge 1: Nice & light, not too carbonated, very easy. 5/5
Judge 2: Slick on the palate, medium to full body, alcohol, astringent. 2/5

Overall Impression
Judge 1: Nice overall. Biggest faults in the aroma. Astringency may be due to hop usage. Tastes a bit like a homebrew overall. 7/10
Judge 2: Big for the style, the finish is a bit oily and sweet, roasty flavors are there but flaws distract from the enjoyment. 7/10

Final Score
Judge 1: 36/50
Judge 2: 30/50

Sylistic Accuracy
Judge 1: Classic Example [] [] [x] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [] [] [] [x] [] Not to Style

Technical Merit
Judge 1: Flawless [] [] [x] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [] [] [x] [] Significant Flaws

Intangibles
Judge 1: Wonderful [] [] [] [x] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [] [] [x] [] [] Lifeless

“Tastes a bit like a homebrew overall,” said the pro-brewer. Nope, that doesn’t come across the least bit conceited.

These judges notes reeked of bottle mixup. My beer was not deep orange/mahogany; it was deep brown. It also had no astringency. No worries; I entered in another competition and got results more in line with what I expected.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Competition Results, Homebrew

I am way behind on posting competition results to this site. This is the first of a string of them to come over the near future. I brewed a Strong Scotch Ale in late November 2011. It won a gold medal at TRASH XXII in March 2012. Here’s how it did at the Butler Brewfest in November 2012:

Position in flight: not listed
Final score: 38
Place awarded: 3rd

Descriptors
Judge 1 (BJCP Certified): None checked
Judge 2 (BJCP Certified): None checked
Judge 3 (novice): None checked

Aroma
Judge 1: Strong caramel & butterscotch malt & dark fruit esters. Raisiny. Sweet & smooth alcohol. No diacetyl or DMS 10/12
Judge 2: Great kettle caramelization. Toffee and rich brown bread. Complex and earthy with some slight oxidized notes from age. Excellent! 11/12
Judge 3: Caramel with slight smokey undertone 9/12

Appearance
Judge 1: Dark amber. Slight haze. No head despite the splashing pour. 2/3
Judge 2: Slightly cloudy ruby brown. Very low head & carbonation could indicate age. 2/3
Judge 3: Color is correct but lacks head appropriate for the style. 2/3

Flavor
Judge 1: Smooth caramel malt flavor. Some toast & touch of roast. No hop flavor. Low bitterness in finish to balance. Semi-dry finish. Balance to malt. No solvent/hot alcohol. Hint of sherry. 17/20
Judge 2: Rich complex malt. Good kettle caramelization. Caramel, toffee, dark bread. Some notes of sherry indicate age. Very appropriate for style. Mellow, clean fermentation. 15/20
Judge 3: Sweet flavor, rich malty somewhat nutty. 15/20

Mouthfeel
Judge 1: Thick, rich body. Low carbonation. Smooth, warm alcohol. No astringency. A tad light on body. 3/5
Judge 2: medium/full body. Solid mouthfeel if not slightly thin for the style. Very low carbonation not a huge issue but could benefit from just a bit more. 3/5
Judge 3: Good warm finish, but lacks carbonation to bring out the appropriate finish. 3/5

Overall Impression
Judge 1: Really smooth & rich strong ale. Clean in fermentation w/no high alcohol. Wonderful. Carbonation is a bit low & would provide some brightness. Not cloying. Just a touch more body would put this over the top. Great job!! 8/10
Judge 2: An excellent, well-brewed version of the style. Flavor and aroma are spot-on. Mouthfeel is slightly lacking but not overtly so. Hit all of the defining characteristics of the style very well. 8/10
Judge 3: All aspects of the beer a good and appropriate other than the carbonation. 8/10

Final Score
Judge 1: 40/50
Judge 2: 39/50
Judge 3: 37/50

Sylistic Accuracy
Judge 1: Classic Example [] [x] [] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [x] [] [] [] [] Not to Style
Judge 2: Classic Example [] [] [x] [] [] Not to Style

Technical Merit
Judge 1: Flawless [x] [] [] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [x] [] [] [] Significant Flaws
Judge 2: Flawless [] [] [] [x] [] Significant Flaws

Intangibles
Judge 1: Wonderful [x] [] [] [] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [x] [] [] [] [] Lifeless
Judge 2: Wonderful [] [x] [] [] [] Lifeless

So there it is, a bronze medal for this beer at 1 year old. This beer isn’t done giving yet. Oh no. I’m entering the last two bottles of it in TRASH XXIII for shits ‘n giggles. It will be 18 months old at that time. I don’t typically like to enter beers in more than one competition (NHC notwithstanding). I’m just having fun with this one since I don’t really like drinking it – to sweet & malty for me.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Competition Results, Homebrew

A couple months ago I brewed a batch of Belgian Golden Strong Ale. It’s still early to be drinking a beer like this (it needs more age), but I need to get it bottled up for the upcoming competitions, so here are some tasting notes:

Vital Stats:
Target OG: 1.072 Actual OG: 1.074
Target FG: 1.002 Actual FG: 1.005
ABV: 9.1%
Color: 3.3 SRM (Calculated)
Bitterness: 30.5 IBU (Calculated)
Yeast: White Laps WLP570 Belgian Golden Ale
Fermentation Temperature:Pitched at 64°F, ramped up 1°F every 12 hours for five days to 74°F

Aroma
Bright lemon and white pepper over top of ripe pear and a touch of tangerine. Some banana. Pronounced floral hop aroma, which combined with the alcohol smells rose-like. Cracker-like malt becomes more prominent as it warms and the head falls. Very light solvent notes.

Appearance
Yellow and hazy with a big, somewhat rocky white head that lasts for five minutes before falling to a ring around the glass.

Flavor
Pear and spice with a lemon-peppery zing. Touch of banana. Finishes dry, crisp, and clean. Crackery pilsner malt lingers into the finish, as does substantial hop bitterness.

Mouthfeel
High carbonation. Medium-light body. Smooth; no astringency. Very warm, approaching hot. Slightly solventy. Alcohol lingers into the finish.

Overall Impression
Crisp, clean, dry, and very drinkable beer with assertive floral, spicy, and fruit character. A touch of solvent in the aroma and flavor detract slightly. Overall very good.

This is a difficult beer to brew. The high percentage of sugar and high abv stress the yeast significantly. Assuring that fermentation doesn’t stick and keeping off-flavors away is tough with this one. While this example isn’t perfect, I’m very happy with how it turned out. If I brew it again I will use a better pilsner malt. The Northern Brewer-sourced “German Pilsner” malt I used here is brings too much cracker aroma and flavor. I’ll also add a bit of Carafoam in an attempt to add some head stability. I’m not sure what to do to eliminate the slight solvent character. I need to stress the yeast even less, but how? Maybe it will age out. After all, this batch is only two months old. When was the last time you had a two-month-old Duvel in the States?

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Homebrew, Tasting

I brewed a Czech Pilsner in early December. It is terrible, but I think it can be saved.

Vital Stats: Target OG: 1.055 Actual OG: 1.054 Target FG: 1.013 Actual FG: 1.012 ABV: 5.5% Color: 3.7 SRM (Calculated) Bitterness: 39.8 IBU (Calculated) Yeast: Wyeast 2001 Urquell Lager Fermentation Temperature:50°F until 75% attenuated, then 67°F for 3 days Aroma Butter. Not artificial buttered popcorn, but straight up real butter. Behind the butter is a nice crackery Pilsner malt profile and floral, spicy noble hop aroma. The buttery diacetyl dominates. Appearance Light straw color with a huge bright white fluffy head. Good retention. Slight haze. (The picture is from before the beer really cleared up.) Flavor Much like the aroma, there’s a decent pilsner hiding behind loads of butter. You can taste the malt & hops, but the diacetyl really gets in the way. Mouthfeel Medium-light body. Medium-high carbonation. No astringency. No slickness. Overall Impression A deluge of diacetyl turns what could be a good beer into an undrinkable one.

Taken 3 days after kegging. It is less hazy now.

I have brewed seven lagers so far and all except for this one have had a very clean fermentation profile with no diacetyl. I follow the same fermentation temperature schedule for all of them: pitch at 48°F, ferment at 50°F until about 75% finished, then raise the temp to 67°F to allow the yeast to clean up the diacetyl while it finishes up. I crash-cool three days after it reaches terminal gravity, hold it there for three days, then keg. I usually use WLP830 and this schedule works well with that yeast. I used Wyeast 2124 for the Rauchbier I brewed the same day as this BoPils, and it has no diacetyl. It looks like the Wyeast 2001 used for the BoPils is a diacetyl producing monster and requires more of a rest. I have read as much online since running into this problem. An experienced brewer friend also said he won’t use 2001 because it creates massively buttery beer.

In the end, though, I do think I can save this beer. I have warmed the keg to room temperature and I am going to krausen it with a smalle 1/2 liter starter of 1056 after I harvest it from the Irish Red Ale next week. I performed this same procedure on a butterscotch bomb English Pale Ale last spring and it cleaned the beer up beautifully. That beer went on to win a silver medal in the TRASH competition. I will post follow-up tasting notes after this beer has been krausened and settled out to see if it helped.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Homebrew, Tasting

I have plenty of stuff I need to get done around the house today, but what better way is there to procrastinate than by tasting homebrew and taking notes? The smoked lager I brewed in early December is maturing nicely. Here’s how it tastes after a month and a half.

Vital Stats:
Target OG: 1.054 Actual OG: 1.052
Target FG: 1.013 Actual FG: 1.012
ABV: 5.2%
Color: 17.2 SRM (Calculated)
Bitterness: 27.7 IBU (Calculated)
Yeast: Wyeast 2124 Bohemian Lager
Fermentation Temperature:50°F until 75% attenuated, then 67°F for 3 days

Aroma Balanced between sweet smoke and Munich-like malt character. Smoke quality is bacon-like. Malt is toasty with a very light caramel quality. No hop aroma. No diacetyl, DMS, sulfur, etc. Clean lager character. Appearance Medium amber color. Average sized, long lasting, cream colored head. Brillian clarity. Flavor Initial soft, toasty, Oktoberfest-like malt character yields immediately to pronounced campfire smokiness reminiscent of smoked ham. Attack is moderately sweet, but finishes pleasantly dry. Smoke flavor is of medium intensity. Low-moderate hop bitterness. Very low noble hop flavor. Clean lager character. No diacetyl, DMS, sulfur, esters, or phenols (aside from smoke). Mouthfeel Medium-full body. Medium carbonation. Very smooth. No astringency. Significant alcohol warmth on the finish. Smoke and moderate hop bitterness linger. Overall Impression A clean, slightly crisp, very malty Oktoberfest style beer with a pronounced smoke character in the aroma and flavor. I am very happy with this beer for how clean and balanced it is. It may be lacking some intangibles – which keeps it from being amazing – but it is a very good beer overall. Much better than my first attempt at the style, which itself was pretty decent.

It looks darker here than in real life.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Homebrew, Tasting

The other day I realized that I never reported on the results of my Spruce Tips experiment. About two an a half months ago I brewed two batches of identical red ale that differed only in the type of spruce tips used: one had 11 ounces of Norway Spruce tips, the other got 11 ounces of Blue Spruce tips. (Both were five gallon batches.) On to the tasting notes:

~~~Norway Spruce Ale~~~

Aroma
Soft maltiness – buiscuity with a pronounced caramel note, some raisin-like fruit character. Not much to remind you of spruce or pine, but there’s a pleasant hard-to-describe floral quality that must come from the spruce. No hop character. No diacetyl, et al.

Appearance
Medium amber with a large, fluffy, bone-colored head with infinite retention. Brilliant clarity.

Flavor
Medium-low bitterness. Malt-balanced, but not overly malty and not sweet. Malt profile similar to aroma followed by perfumey christmas-tree-like pine with lemony notes. The spruce character is pronounced in the aftertaste and makes a strong case for taking another sip.

Mouthfeel
Medium-light body with creamy carbonation. No astringency. Some very light alcohol warmth on the finish.

Overall
A pleasant beer well suited for December drinking. The spruce flavor is strong, but not overwhelming of off-putting. The base beer is kind of like a strong bitter with a bit more raisin flavor. I am pleased with how it came out.

~~~Blue Spruce Ale~~~

Aroma
Soft maltiness – buiscuity with a pronounced caramel note, some raisin-like fruit character. Dirty, earthy, musty.

Appearance
Medium amber with a large, fluffy, bone-colored head with infinite retention. Nearly clear. Slight hazy.

Flavor
Medium-low bitterness. Malt-balanced, but not overly malty and not sweet. Malt profile similar to aroma. There is a murky, unpleasant, earthy, dirty character from first taste well into the aftertaste. This flavor is piney, resinous, and sort of mushroom-like.

Mouthfeel
Medium-light body with creamy carbonation. No astringency. Some very light alcohol warmth on the finish.

Overall
The base beer is the same as the Norway Spruce version, but the spruce character in this one is disgusting. If I recieved a glass of this at a bar I might think the lines were dirty. This seems to be what blue spruce tips brought to the beer – the taste of dirty tap lines. I will be dumping the keg whereas the Norway one continues to impress me.

This experiment yielded interesting results. I expected the Norway spruce beer to come across as citrusey, piney, floral and it did. I expected the blue spruce beer to have a strong resinous pine-like flavor. Instead it just tasted dirty and rank. I will brew with spruce again, but only Norway spruce. Blue spruce does not make good beer. It’s Latin name, Picea Pungens, makes sense to me now.

Here is what I’ll change for this year’s spruce beer:

• Fresh tips. Last year I harvested the tips and froze them in a foodsaver bag to be brewed with later. This year I will pluck them from the trees while the beer is mashing.
• Lager. The tips are ready for picking in May, but who wants Christmas beer at the end of Spring? I will alter the base beer recipe a bit to make something like a Vienna Lager so the beer can benefit from cold aging until the holiday season.
• More spruce. The spruce character – especially the aroma – was a little low in this year’s beer. Because of that, and because the beer will be aging for half a year before being tapped, I will up the spruce from 11 ounces to a pound or more.

Filed under:
Beer Journal, Homebrew, Tasting