Minnesota Homebrew Con 2017

[burnsie8791]

Was my first year attending and all in all it was a fun event. One thing Im wondering is the quality of the sessions compared to years past. I think I attended 2-3 that I thought were ok to pretty good. Some were just down right bad and not geared towards homebrewers at all. Is this typical or did I pick the wrong sessions to attend?

 

[Braufessor]

Braufessor, I'm sad Bryan and I missed this message. We had a great time in Decorah, and plan to make a return trip in the future. Thank you for the invite.

Invite is always open if you are driving by.

 

[Braufessor]

Was my first year attending and all in all it was a fun event. One thing Im wondering is the quality of the sessions compared to years past. I think I attended 2-3 that I thought were ok to pretty good. Some were just down right bad and not geared towards homebrewers at all. Is this typical or did I pick the wrong sessions to attend?

I thought some of the sessions were pretty mediocre/disappointing as well. I thought all the presenters I went to did a good-great job of presenting. However, I thought the descriptions of the sessions were not very specific and a couple times I felt like I ended up in a session that wasn't what I thought it would be.

One example was the "Lager Yeast Selection" session. The presentation was fine. However, I was seriously disappointed to find out that the presenter worked for a Dry yeast company and only discussed which of THEIR 3 dry lager yeasts to use in different lagers. If I would have know the session was going to be a person working for a company talking about their 3 dry yeasts..... I never would have went to it. The title and description gave no indication that it was going to focus on that. I was really anticipating a more encompassing presentation on a wide range of yeasts.

Again - the presentation itself was not "bad" or anything..... Just kind of felt like I ended up in a bit of a sales pitch for something I have zero interest in using. Other sessions I anticipated a more thorough and in depth discussion and they ended up basically covering fairly basic topics. I thought all of the sessions could have benefitted from a more detailed description of what we would be listening too and perhaps the level of content. I think that would have been helpful in selecting the best sessions to attend.

I thought the session on oxidation of beer was really good. The dry hopping one was pretty interesting. There was another that focused on the range of microorganisms for fermenting beer - that was really entertaining and was a nice overview.....

I suppose it is like any other "clinic or convention" - always some things of value to pick up. Always some things that disappoint.

 

[Homercidal]

I feel the more you learn about homebrewing, the less interesting the sessions become. It's hard to get excited about something you know quite a bit about already.

That said, I do think there were a lot of sessions this year that did not get to what I would consider the core of the hobby. Lots of peripheral session topics.

I managed to attend 2 of them this year, the oxidation one, and one on improving your homebrew club. The one on improving your club was better toward the end, but the first half was these guys describing their own clubs. I would have preferred more discussion specifically on how ideas on how to improve my own. Ours is not a 200+ member club. More like way less than 20. Not a lot of the discussion was relevant IMO. I mean there was some good advice, but most things were not possible with such a small club or in such a low population area.

Completely missed the Denny Con "Watch Me Science" seminar. Somehow got sidetracked and just missed it. I blame the beer and vendors in the expo.

 

[Schemy]

I feel the more you learn about homebrewing, the less interesting the sessions become. It's hard to get excited about something you know quite a bit about already.

That said, I do think there were a lot of sessions this year that did not get to what I would consider the core of the hobby. Lots of peripheral session topics.

I managed to attend 2 of them this year, the oxidation one, and one on improving your homebrew club. The one on improving your club was better toward the end, but the first half was these guys describing their own clubs. I would have preferred more discussion specifically on how ideas on how to improve my own. Ours is not a 200+ member club. More like way less than 20. Not a lot of the discussion was relevant IMO. I mean there was some good advice, but most things were not possible with such a small club or in such a low population area.

Completely missed the Denny Con "Watch Me Science" seminar. Somehow got sidetracked and just missed it. I blame the beer and vendors in the expo.

I attended the Homebrew Club one as well, and thought it was just a Radegast brag session. While those clubs are doing great things, they are established and larger. It didn't do a lot for us at all. I was disappointed as we were really looking for ideas on how to improve our young club. A member that attended San Diego, said it sounded like exactly the same session he attended. Which was disappointing to hear.

 

[burnsie8791]

Thanks, I also went to the lager yeast session and had the exact same reaction. Same impression and same issues with the club chat. I have a smallish club as well and could not relate to the first world problems of those larger clubs. I did look into becoming a 501c7 so we could sell commercial beer at an event, as was suggested by the panel, but the amount of money we would generate would surpass dues by a large margin.

 

[Yooper]

Remember that the AHA Governing Committee would love to hear your feedback, and are very open to constructive criticism.

I hate to admit it, but I didn't even go to ONE session this year. Normally, I make it to one or two, but there were few that appealed to me from the description. I talked to a friend about the oxidation one, which did sound interesting, but as for the rest I was pretty "meh" about them.

I'll be visiting one of the GC members in two weeks (staying at her house), and I'll probably bring it up. They listen to the pitches for next year's topics, and choose the ones that are most interesting for the membership. Also, if there is something you'd like to have as a topic, they are welcoming of suggestions.

It's been a long time (years and years) since I"ve gone to one of the seminars and felt that I learned something, to be honest. NOT that I know it all- far from it. There was one a while back that really got into the "meat" of the debranching of amylopectins in the mash and I thought it was great. Otherwise, it's a best a review of what is common knowledge for the most part.

I'd hazard a guess that most of the attenders are beyond the beginner's stage and more into the intermediate/expert brewers level of experience and I'd expect the seminars to reflect that. I've been mostly disappointed.

 

[burnsie8791]

I did give the same feedback in the survey they sent out. Ive been brewing for about 5 years, I know most of the basics but still manage to be surprised by what I don't know or have not thought of before. The Schells berliner session was particularly bad. The presentation was fine and the beers were very good but the session focused on the history of Berliners and how they were soured in the past and how Schells does it not. Nothing was presented on how the homebrewer can use the techniques at home.

 

[Braufessor]

..... and how Schells does it not. Nothing was presented on how the homebrewer can use the techniques at home.

I did not attend that session - However, this is something that is a bit of a common theme in lots of clinics, across many spectrums. I coach cross country and track and have been to a couple dozen high school track coaching clinics over the years. I will never forget sitting in a session about coaching the long jump - l was hoping to learn more about coaching HS kids from someone who has been one of the most successful LJ coaches in US history. Basically, the coach talked for nearly the full hour on what he had done while coaching Carl Lewis ....... Great...... All I could do was sit there an think - what the hell good is any of that information? I will never coach someone with a fraction of that kind of ability.

 

[Braufessor]

Remember that the AHA Governing Committee would love to hear your feedback, and are very open to constructive criticism.

I hate to admit it, but I didn't even go to ONE session this year. Normally, I make it to one or two, but there were few that appealed to me from the description. I talked to a friend about the oxidation one, which did sound interesting, but as for the rest I was pretty "meh" about them.

I'll be visiting one of the GC members in two weeks (staying at her house), and I'll probably bring it up. They listen to the pitches for next year's topics, and choose the ones that are most interesting for the membership. Also, if there is something you'd like to have as a topic, they are welcoming of suggestions.

It's been a long time (years and years) since I"ve gone to one of the seminars and felt that I learned something, to be honest. NOT that I know it all- far from it. There was one a while back that really got into the "meat" of the debranching of amylopectins in the mash and I thought it was great. Otherwise, it's a best a review of what is common knowledge for the most part.

I'd hazard a guess that most of the attenders are beyond the beginner's stage and more into the intermediate/expert brewers level of experience and I'd expect the seminars to reflect that. I've been mostly disappointed.

I filled out my survey with pros and cons as well.

For me, it is not so much that the presentations were good or bad as much as it was hit and miss on whether they really covered what you expected, or if you could even figure out what the focus was going to be.

I thought the descriptions were weak, vague or misleading..... so, whether you got what you wanted or not out of a session was kind of a crap shoot.

I would like to see a bit more in regard to -
*Audience - who is this directed at? Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced?

*Focus - Historical/Informative? Anecdotal/Let me tell you about my/our story? Technical/Process? Applicable to your Homebrewing or more focused on industrial/business level practices? That kind of stuff.

*General (brief) outline of topics to be covered..... 5 main points of focus for instance.

 

[Mirilis]

at least you got to go

Hopefully next time they are close to the Midwest ill be allowed to go.

 

[TobyG]

Was my first year attending and all in all it was a fun event. One thing Im wondering is the quality of the sessions compared to years past. I think I attended 2-3 that I thought were ok to pretty good. Some were just down right bad and not geared towards homebrewers at all. Is this typical or did I pick the wrong sessions to attend?

Sessions were about on par with the previous NHCs I've attended, which is to say that there are typically mostly good/OK ones, with rare great ones, and a fair number of lame ones.

Honestly, I'm most likely to pick a session based on presenter than anything else.

 

[chrilr]

Yes, Annie Johnson is a good one

 

[TallDan]

Something I learned from tech conferences, and applied at homebrewcon: Look at the topic, and look at the presenter. I attended a few sessions presented by PhD's that were fantastic even though I only understood a fraction of the content.

Then there was "hold my beer and watch me science" which I can't say I learned a single thing from, but was entertaining because the presenters were interesting.

Big letdown for me was the recipe development session with the guys from Dangerous Man. They make great beer, but the session was basically worthless. I wish they would have found a better topic to present on.