If you've had a particularly good commercial beer and you want to tell the world about it, please post your review here. You can also use this forum to warn us of beers to avoid.
I have all the files, as I subscribe via iTunes....
Ali
BJCP National Judge
BJCP Assistant Regional Director (North-East/Europe)
American Homebrewers' Association International Subcommittee
Organizer, National Homebrew Competition
CBA UK Competition and Training Coordinator
John Keeling confirms there are low levels of Diacetyl present from their yeast.
Y'see, diacetyl isn't allways a fault, it's a flavour compund that's present in beers, sometimes by design. Condemning all beers for a little diacetyl is wrong.
RogerP wrote:diacetyl isn't allways a fault, it's a flavour compund that's present in beers, sometimes by design. Condemning all beers for a little diacetyl is wrong.
Not in my opinion mate. I think it shows very poor brewing practice and does not give British beer a good name. I reckon we'll see an increasing trend away from acceptance of diacetyl, and doubt very much whether any buttery beers are winning any prizes anywhere at present.
RogerP wrote:John Keeling confirms there are low levels of Diacetyl present from their yeast.
This doesn't tell the whole story either. Of course it's there from the yeast in the first place, but it's the brewer's decision when to pasteurise and bottle...
RogerP wrote:diacetyl isn't allways a fault, it's a flavour compund that's present in beers, sometimes by design. Condemning all beers for a little diacetyl is wrong.
Not in my opinion mate. I think it shows very poor brewing practice and does not give British beer a good name. I reckon we'll see an increasing trend away from acceptance of diacetyl, and doubt very much whether any buttery beers are winning any prizes anywhere at present.
And to think that just a few weeks ago, someone gave me a lecture on how americanized I was and that diacetyl turns in British beer and I should just accept it ;)
I really don't like diacetyl, but I can live with low levels. It happens, but it doesn't mean it's pleasant. As to whether pasteurizing to bottle is the brewer's choice, that may or may not be the case. I suspect that the decisions at some breweries are not always those of the brewer....
Ali
BJCP National Judge
BJCP Assistant Regional Director (North-East/Europe)
American Homebrewers' Association International Subcommittee
Organizer, National Homebrew Competition
CBA UK Competition and Training Coordinator
Mark, clean beer is boring. I suggest you drink pilsner or triple carbon filtered spirits. beer may not be for you if you can't accept a bit of 'character'.
RogerP wrote:Mark, clean beer is boring. I suggest you drink pilsner or triple carbon filtered spirits. beer may not be for you if you can't accept a bit of 'character'.
Mark Grundy: brewing bland beers since April 2011...
I have followed this thread with interest. I have to say I am kind of coming to the conclusion that all beers will have faults depending on who is drinking them.
Mark, you do seem to be in the "any detectable amount of Diacetyl = FAIL" camp, I feel that it's a normally occuring flavour compound in some English (and other) beers and that it's not neccesarily a fault. I wouldn't mark a beer down as rubbish if it showed some diacetly character.
Fair enough if you detest it's flavour, that's cool, simply avoid it like I do with the majority of l*gers and wheat beers. You may, however have trouble finding a beer that's acceptable to your palate.
There seems to be hints that John Keeling's thoughts on Diacetyl are flawed, who's going to tell him?