The new BJCP guidelines are out: https://www.bjcp.org/bjcp-style-guidelines/ It looks to me as though the discussion for practically every style has been revised. On top of that, there are new categories for catarina sour and New Zealand pilsner. My speculation in another thread that they might eliminate the oud bruin style proves to have been ill-founded. However, the following change was made to the description (old language in italics, new language in bold): The sourness should not grow to a notable strongly acetic, vinegary taste. Edited to add: The IPA category now includes brut IPA (ha!) and hazies
I took note from the cover page (bottom) with emphasis in bold by me): “2021 Contributions: Dennis Mitchell, John Haven, Dan Pixley, Thomaz Pupo, Ron Pattinson” Cheers to Ron (@patto1ro) for helping out the BJCP here!
I see they left Saisons f'd up. Still under Belgian Strong Ales, even though the standard is 3.5-6.5% ABV. Still disqualified by Brett even though every traditional example has Brett, including Dupont and Fantome, both referenced in the document as standards of the style.
There was a time when Ron wasn't so happy with the BJCP guidelines, as evidenced by the "BJCP wankers" tag on some of his old blog posts: https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/search/label/bjcp wankers But instead of just complaining Ron helped the BJCP do a better job: https://twitter.com/patto1ro/status/1464285776359866371 To me this says that Ron is the kind of guy who would rather light a candle than curse the darkness. (Actually, probably the most accurate way to put it is that he'd rather light a candle and curse the darkness.) (In fairness I think Ron's objection was always more to the misuse of the guidelines than to the guidelines themselves, although the guidelines did contain their fair share of errors and omissions.)
I'm wading through them as we speak. So far... I see that they kind of / sort of incorporated my comment from 6 years ago about the color ranges for various IPAs (especially Red and Brown) being... not accurate. And I'm pleased to see they replaced "Trappist" with either "Monastic" or "Belgian". BJCP has no business throwing around the term "Trappist" which is an appellation, like a certificate of authenticity and quality. Your homebrew might be high quality and use authentically Belgian ingredients, but, if you're not a monk living in Belgium, it's not a Trappist product. Ron's contribution within the last couple months appears to have been mostly an afterthought and of happenstance -- Gordon and Ron so happened to be in the same place at the same time, and Ron only spent an hour or two scribbling. https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2021/12/judging-begins.html https://hobbybrauer.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=452658#p450252
Ron and Gordon have gotten to know each other at HomebrewCons and other events. Ron was credited in the 2015 guidelines for some contributions.
I'm willing to bet he was given greater opportunity and time to contribute in 2014/2015 than now in 2021. Most of what I've seen now in 2021 anyway has been polishing but not much of real substance. Good to see though that Ron was given some time to catch any outliers, such that it's not just the world according to Gordon and Kristen alone as it might have been otherwise.
Below is a story from 2014 that I posted a few years ago: "At the 2014 National Homebrewers Conference I attended a presentation by Gordon Strong (President of the BJCP) where he provided a ‘preview’ of the update (2015) of the BJCP Style Guidelines. It was an interesting presentation in that there were hundreds of people in attendance and they were ‘enthusiastic’ in providing comments and suggestions. Gordon would listen to what the people had to say and would periodically ask a fellow BJCP person in the room to take down notes on some of the suggestions. Getting thousands upon thousands of folks to 100% agree to everything in an impossible task. As I left the room after the presentation I ran into Ron Pattinson. I quickly chatted with him and I provided a comment/opinion to him of “Ron, they could use your help.” The good news (as also confirmed by Jeff) is that Gordon and Ron are cooperating on BJCP style guideline updates. A good thing IMO. Cheers!
This is the first time I have read/heard about Brett being used in Saison Dupont. Do you have a source for this? According to Drew Beechum: “There is no Brett in Saison Dupont…” https://beerandbrewing.com/saison-a...d-yeast culture—more than one strain of yeast. Cheers! @DrewBeechum
https://endofsilencebrewing.blogspot.com/2014/12/tirade-2014-bjcp-saisons-wo-brett-utter.html That's my thoughts on it from back in 2014 when they first previewed the 2015. I still stand by. Dupont is a mixed culture of at least 4 strains, one is a highly attenuative wild yeast. Saisons (prior to the industrial age) were Farmhouse beers, fermented by ambient yeast, low abv, and bone dry. Do I believe a Saison without Brett is not a Saison - absolutely not. Nor do I believe that Saisons should have a funk level on par with aged Orval.
Thanks for that link. I have read previously that Saison Dupont is fermented with a mixed culture and I have read there were four different strains/types of yeast in the mix. Heretofore I have never seen it stated that specifically Brett is one of the four. And needless to say the linked blog is contradicted by the article that Drew Beechum wrote. Perhaps the only folks who know for sure are the people at Brasserie Dupont. Below is an interesting video about Brasserie Dupont and the production of Saison Dupont. At the 1:50 mark the yeast is discussed but no specific mention of the strain(s). Cheers! P.S. Another discussion about the Saison Dupont yeast(s): Below is how the yeast is detailed on Wikipedia (source: Phil Markowski): “The distinctive Dupont house yeast strain has been the subject of much speculation and discussion. The complexity of flavors it generates has caused some to suggest that in fact a combination of multiple strains are used, and its good performance at high temperatures and signature spiciness have led some to conjecture that it was originally a red wine strain that has been adapted to beer fermentation. While most ales are fermented at temperatures not exceeding 68-72 °F (20-22 °C), the tanks at Dupont have been observed to have reached the mid-90s (32 °C+).[2]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupont_Brewery Cheers!
@JackHorzempa I realize all that. My point is this, Phil & Yvan, both discuss that there is a wild strain in the blend that is highly attenuative. Is it named as Brett? No. It has not been identified and declared at this point. I wish someone would actually break down all the strains in a bottle of Dupont, and DNA sequence all of them, then release the info to the public. Until that happens, we don't know anything more than highly attenuative wild yeast... and as homebrewers, we only have access to Brettanomyces as a highly attenuative wild yeast option. Stating that a Saison cannot have Brett is an error. Saying it cannot have Brett betrays Fantome, and the myriad of American Farmhouse ales that made this style something that we love (and the blended culture of Dupont). Besides, the GABF style guidelines state: Low levels of Brettanomyces yeast-derived flavors that are slightly acidic, fruity, horsey, goaty and/or leather-like, may be present but are not required.
It's easy enough to culture the Dupont yeasts from a bottle, though I use the lower ABV Avril when it's available (and generally make a low ABV 'table' saison to grow more yeast for a stronger batch). Not at 95F though; I usually start fairly cool and top out at 77F. Ron's distaste for the guidelines has come up more than once. It's vital to remember that they are guidelines, not strict rules. It is perfectly OK to color outside the lines a little. For example, a pilsener that looks like a dunkel could theoretically score 49 points... But kudos to Ron for helping out! Does anyone else think the guidelines are getting too big and detailed? I'd have hated to have to study the current edition for the exam. Though it is open book now so maybe it's alright.
Yes. This has been referred to as ”bloat”, and people have been complaining about it for at least seven years. Including yours truly. Not that it has made any difference.
I'd already agreed to look over the new guidelines for Gordon. Both being in the same place was just the perfect opportunity to do so.
In defense of the BJCP, the Trappist designation doesn't really line up with a style right? The Belgian Trappists all brew similar beers (sometimes using the same yeasts and I think even the same breweries?) but that's not inherent to being Trappist and the guys in Massachusetts brew a different style (or so I've heard). So lumping the Belgians together but excluding other Trappists is probably intentional.
Trappist refers to the order of monks. It has absolutely nothing to do with the beer they brew. It is not a beer style, it does not describe the beer in any way. It describes the type of monks that brew the beer.
"Yep, an official Trappist American adjunct light beer is totally possible. Hopefully this will not happen." As regards a Light beer I am with you here but if some Trappist brewery wanted to brew a Classic American Pilsner I would be very happy to drink that beer! Cheers!
