"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" > wrote
in :

>> How 'bout this: I know personally someone in Ohio who
>> makes 'meads' from nothing but corn syrup from the local
>> grocery. Corn syrup, water, yeast, and NOTHING more. I
>> don't know how to make that more clearerer. He has a wall
>> full of blue ribbons and gold medals and score sheets that
>> say things like "fabulous honey character!"
>>
>> Now, I realize this is a (poor) reflection on mead judges,
>> but the point is: A fermented beverage can be made from
>> nothing other than what would normally be considered an
>> adjunct and be considered a good beverage. No tartness,
>> no unpalatableness.
>
> *IF this is indeed true,

It is.

> he's committing fraud (either by
> winning with a drink that isn't made according to style),
> or else he's the only one entering the particular
> competition.

I agree. The guidelines clearly say: "Honey's gotta be in
there."

> I know mead makers and "judges" that would
> probably spot that stuff a mile away.

Well, I'm a "judge" and I've got recipes in Bees Lees and
I've had it and I'm telling you it is a reasonable facsimile.
I promise you you would be surprised. Maybe not impressed,
but surprised.

There are so many problems with judging, it's difficult to
know where to start...But what often happens is someone who
has little to no experience with a certain style/category
finds themselves sitting at that table. Because of this, I
know homebrewers who don't make very good beer and who can't
enter enough contests. They also have walls full of blue
ribbons and feel this validates their brewing ability. I
feel it means they got lucky through repetition.

> I am in no way denying that corn a) can make a drinkable,
> even desirable fermented drink or b) can be added to beer.
> What I will stand behind is saying that a beer using any
> sizeable quantity of corn sugar or maize is not likely to
> win over any serious beer snobs, whether or not they know
> the corn is in there or not.

I think those two statements are somewhat at odds with each
other (yes, I see the "sizeable"). Adjuncts can make a good
beer; adjuncts cannot make a beer to impress the snobs among
us.

First of all, **** the beer snobs.

Second of all, it seems to me that you are focusing on Miller
and ignoring English Bitter and Tripel.

>>> And usually,
>>> it's the result of someone following exactly the
>>> directions on a can of malt extract, which say something
>>> on the order of "dissolve the contents of this can and
>>> four cups of corn sugar in hot water....."
>>
>> I realize you exaggerate for effect, but I've never seen
>> that recipe or anything like it, not even in an
>> abbey-style.
>>
> *Okay, granted, I'm not in the homebrew shop right now, but
> I do just happen to have three really old (and empty)
> malt-extract cans from England in my basement.
> Technically, the directions were on the little round
> instruction sheet they put in under the cap of the can that
> also held the yeast.
>
> Both the Arkells Strong Bitter and Kellar Premium Lager and
> the Edme Amber

I used Geordie's.

> instructions give two options: two cans for
> five gallons, or one can and a quantity of corn sugar. I
> have friends that made their first homebrews following the
> latter instructions; they were universally thin in body,
> somewhat acidic and wine/cider-like, maybe they could have
> been called "Belgian-style" if one stretched the
> imagination a bit. Whatever they were, they were nothing
> like a bitter, a lager, or a pale ale. One friend was
> sloppy in his sanitation, the other two meticulous. And
> every experienced brewer that tasted the stuff said the
> same thing: "You followed the corn sugar recipe, didn't
> you? Never do that again; go with the all-malt extract."

I've also had that beer. Hell, I've made that beer.

My (actually "our") crowning achievement was something we
ended up calling Romulan Ale. My brew partner and I started
to try to make a light ale (whatever that is) for St. Patty's
circa 1987 using two cans of light Geordie's. There were
three or four dumbasses in the other room going quickly
through two cases of Bud and a six of Guinness and a six of
Bass (as were we). They'd swoop in to the kitchen...we were
just as stupid/impaired as they were...At one point an entire
5lb bag of C&H got dumped into the kettle. At pitching, we
added an entire (1oz?) bottle of green food coloring (you
could taste it in the finished "product"). At the end of the
ferment, the whole mess was pale blue. Go figure. But hence
the name. The stuff was drinkable, but it was thin and
vinous and just nasty.

I do get your point. I do.

The thin-ness comes from the very low amount of
unfermentables contributed by the extract. While the OG may
be within the range of the target beer, the sugar will
ferment completely away and the FG will be nowhere close.
You would get a very similar beer were you to simply use the
one can of extract and leave the sugar out entirely. The
corn sugar in that recipe is meant to make it cheaper, not
equivalent to the two-can recipe. If the argument (not your
argument) is that 2lbs of sugar will yield the same or
similar results to a can of extract...think about it for a
sec. As far as vinous...I think that also comes from the
zero body (and therefore the over-assertion of the bittering
hops in the extract) and/or the crappy yeast that is often
used with these kits. Also, I don't believe there's a
sanitation problem here. These types of beers are almost
always made by rank novices (nothing wrong with that) and are
almost always fermented at a too-high temp. And over-hopped,
and gypsumed/salted ala Papapazian and...just generally
dicked around with.

You can't blame the corn sugar. You just can't. IMO.


Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA