I recently made a Kolsch with WLP029. I thought it was good. Entered it in competition it scored a 30 from 2 judges. They said it was slightly darker ( most likely because the Munich in the grain bill). What caught my attention was the mention of a diacetyle note. I fermented at 65F for a week. I really didn’t detect any diacetyle but if there were any how could I address this? Thank you.
Did you make a starter?
Fermented for only one week? How old was the beer when you entered it into the contest? If less than a month old, it just needed more time. 3-4 weeks is a more typical fermentation time for a Kolsch, and would reduce any off-flavors including diacetyl.
If the beer was much older than a month old, then… consider the very likely possibility that the judges imagined it. This happens a LOT. Just because somebody is recognized as a judge doesn’t necessarily mean they’re any good at it. And this is more the case now than it was say 10-15 years ago. A lot of bad judges out there.
Yes 1L starter
FWIW I’d never put Munich in a kolsch. $0.02 .
Indeed!
Most indeededly. That, and the reason I don’t do comps - Judges are full of sh!t. BJCP behind your name doesn’t mean you know beer.
I go with 90/5/5 - pils/Munich/wheat and never have “diacytal” issues. I asked about the stater thinking maybe there wasn’t a large enough pitch and they got pooped.
I agree with the above comment. Competitions are for ribbons and medals, not feedback. i don’t care for awards, so I don’t enter.
I enter once every couple years now just to monitor how dumb the judges have become.
Ha! Good to see someone is keeping tabs.
cannot agree with this more.
Never experienced that with 029. Try Giga021 sometime, my favorite for the style
I’ve used 029 many times and never had a problem with diacetyl. I’ve never heard of anyone having it in beers fermented with 029. I tend to agree that the judge is mistaken.
I agree, as I said earlier I didn’t detect any diacetyle. Heck I served it to several people and received no comments like that. The Munich was .5 lb and it only darkened it slightly.
I think diacetyl is a misunderstood boogeyman for many beer tasters, judges or not. I wonder if they keyed in on the beer tasting “different” due to the use of Munich in the grist…couldn’t identify what it was so it “had to be diacetyl.”
In my experience, there’s nothing iffy about diacetyl. Buttery, and slippery. And honestly, not always a bad thing, some beers benefit from it. (Samuel Smith’s Nut Brown Ale is a great example.)
I overheard a judge reading over a style he was judging and say “well, this should be interesting, I’ve never tried this kind of beer before”
That made me lose faith in most competitions.
LMAO
But a competent judge should be able to judge to the style without knowing it. The text should tell him or her what they are judging. Does this fit, yes or no.
I still enter comps on occasion, and I think the judging is just inherently uneven, unavoidably. Too many variables - varying experience level, palate fatigue, personal preference within a style, etc. But there are some great judges out there (several on this forum) and I usually get back scoresheets that are spot on with what I expected, good or bad. But you still get the scenario like where I recently medaled in a fairly big comp in Milwaukee for a Marzen, sent the beer to a different smaller comp and scored only 32 with comments like “slight diacetyl?” (yes, the question mark was there on the sheet)" and “needed more malt character”. There was zero diacetyl in the beer (neither of the much higher ranking judges in Milwaukee noted it, nor a judge friend of mine) and the beer was very malty, unanimously agreed upon except by this guy. Whatever, part of the game. Does get old, though.
very true, but I guess I would be much more comfortable and apt to take a judges evaluation of my beer more serious if he has actually tasted a good example of the style before.