From JudgeNet Wed Nov 6 21:51:41 1991 Subject: Welcome ---------------- Welcome to the Beer Judge's Mailing List ---------------- You are subscribed to the Beer Judge's Mailing List. This is an Internet mailing list dedicated to the discussion of issues of interest to beer judges and homebrew competition organizers. Please send copies of any bounced messages or garbled headers to the administrative address. submissions: judge%synchro at uunet.uu.net administrative requests: judge-request%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Cox (world's fastest homebrewer) chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net Hopped/Up Racing Team uunet!synchro!chuck -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 11:27:00 1991 Subject: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice Our buddy Darryl sez: >But, from the point of view of the taster/judge, bottle color makes no >difference, since a clear bottle may contain perfectly fine beer, and the >darkest brown bottle may contain skunk juice. I take as my starting >point that commercial beer will be skunky if I don't know how it was >treated, and that homebrew will not (since there is a "real" person >behind it who would do their best not to hurt it). I also wanted to >make the point, since I've heard about judges who automatically assume that >beer in a green bottle is of lower quality than brown (and more than once), >that that is an outrageous and unwarranted assumption. This one reason why I am STRONGLY against beers being distributed in bottles to the tables at competitions, as opposed to having stewards serve them in pitchers. Since no scoring is done based on "bottle observation" (at least there is no place on the score sheets for it as far as points goes) I see no need to do this. Additionally I think that having one steward pour the beer clear into the pitcher allows all the judges at the table to get the same beer, rather than having various levels of clarity because a beer got poured from the bottle into several glasses and inevitably got some yeast sediment kicked back in (Maybe I'm just spastic but I have a tough time pouring a beer to several glasses without kicking some yeast into it). The only drawback to this is having stewards & pitchers. This hasn't been a problem either at NE Regionals, or the 1st round Nationals here in NE. Perhaps at small local competitions, and at the AHA finals, but you'd think at the AHA final they could come up with some stewards and a few pitchers... So I say just say NO to bottles when judging!! We actually leaned on our steward and brought our own pitchers to the table at last years AHA Finals, and this seemed to work pretty well.. - JaH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 13:42:59 1991 Subject: Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice Jay Hersh writes: > > This one reason why I am STRONGLY against beers being distributed in bottles > to the tables at competitions, as opposed to having stewards serve them in > pitchers. Since no scoring is done based on "bottle observation" (at least > there is no place on the score sheets for it as far as points goes) I see no > need to do this. I agree with this. For example when a bottle comes to the table and it has 3 inches of air space every judge istantly says 'I bet it will be oxidized' and are immediatly given a worse impression of the beer before the bottle is even open. > Additionally I think that having one steward pour the beer clear into the > pitcher allows all the judges at the table to get the same beer, Also the beer in the pitcher can be examined before it is poured. For example; the color of the beer, amount of head, its retension, lace and carbonation can be viewed in the pitcher and then all over again in the judges glass. This gives one the ability to examine the beers apperrance twice and thus a greater amount of information to make a judgment on. > The only drawback to this is having stewards & pitchers. One other drawback might be with inexperienced stewards. They need to pour all the beers in the same manner, like nice and easy down the side of the pitcher. And also avoid dumping sediment in. But these are pretty trivial tasks which anyone can handle. Another drawback might be if the beer has some sort of mold growing on the surface then this would be missed. However this is something that the steward would surely comment on and would most probably be evident in the quality of the beer. > Maybe I'm just spastic ... Maybe? ;-) -- Bob Gorman bob at rsi.com Watertown MA US -- -- Relational Semantics, Inc uunet!semantic!bob +1 617 926 0979 -- -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 14:12:46 1991 Subject: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice >This one reason why I am STRONGLY against beers being distributed in bottles to >the tables at competitions, as opposed to having stewards serve them in >pitchers. Since no scoring is done based on "bottle observation" (at least >there is no place on the score sheets for it as far as points goes) I see no >need to do this. Additionally I think that having one steward pour the beer >clear into the pitcher allows all the judges at the table to get the same beer, >rather than having various levels of clarity because a beer got poured from the >bottle into several glasses and inevitably got some yeast sediment kicked back >in (Maybe I'm just spastic but I have a tough time pouring a beer to several >glasses without kicking some yeast into it). Well, I have to disagree with this line of reasoning for a couple of reasons. First, while no points are based on bottle observation, one can sometimes gain valuable information from a bottle inspection. I now bring a small flashlight (as do most judges) to the session and can usually determine, to some degree, the clarity of the beer even before pouring. Second, beers that are infected with wild yeast or bacteria often have a ring just at the beer-gas interface and this is valuable information which is evidence in addition to off aromas and flavors associated with an infection and can be used as additional feedback to the brewer. Finally, I have seen some fill levels that were much too low and thus have a greater potential for oxidation than beers that are filled to the "correct" level. Again, we should inform the brewer. In general I believe that we should give the brewer (especially new brewers) all of the constructive feedback that we can and I feel that the bottle inspection information should be part of that feedback. With that said, I think that the pitcher idea is a very good one! So a compromise approach might be to first do the bottle inspection then pour the beer into a pitcher to minimize the amount of sediment disturbed and then proceed with the judging. Dave -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 14:36:53 1991 Subject: Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice Not sure. Charlie P., at the training seminar told us, as judges, to check out the bottles. As an apprentice, who do I believe? Oxidation can be set long before bottling, as we know, and some people might short bottles because they are shooting in CO2 anyhow and not using bottle conditioning. Just who is spastic? Sarah, WFFHB. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 15:06:49 1991 Subject: Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice JaH sez: > This one reason why I am STRONGLY against beers being distributed in bottles > to the tables at competitions, as opposed to having stewards serve them in > pitchers. Since no scoring is done based on "bottle observation" (at least > there is no place on the score sheets for it as far as points goes) I see no > need to do this. It's true that no points are given/taken away for "bottle observation" ... but I think it is useful in two ways. First, looking at the bottle means that some helpful hints can be given to the homebrewer who entered the beer. Is there too much or too little headspace? Was the bottle damaged in transit? Second, seeing the bottle does affect the scoring. The famous "ring around the collar" tell-tale for possible contamination is worth looking for. Seeing if there is a ton-o-junk at the bottom of the bottle versus a bottle that appears to be filled from kegged beer means that there might be a difference in clarity. In addition, the appropriate level of carbonation can best be judged when the pouring is done by a judge because the effort to get a good head depends on how fast a beer is poured and the technique used. Now, it may be argued that the above results in judging "bottles of beer" rather than judging "beer" by itself, but I don't see any problem with that. Bob Devine DEC Database Engibeering ;-) Colorado Springs, CO -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 20:01:32 1991 Subject: A Pitcher is Worth 1,000 Words Well, maybe if I try enough times, I'll get this sent to the right address. Sorry for the inconvenience. Our pal Jay sez: > Our buddy Darryl sez: > > > ... I also wanted to > >make the point, since I've heard about judges who automatically assume that > >beer in a green bottle is of lower quality than brown (and more than once), > >that that is an outrageous and unwarranted assumption. > > This one reason why I am STRONGLY against beers being distributed in bottles to > the tables at competitions, as opposed to having stewards serve them in > pitchers. Since no scoring is done based on "bottle observation" (at least > there is no place on the score sheets for it as far as points goes) I see no > need to do this. I agree, but with reservations. I'm a "minimum ullage" kinda guy, leaving usually 1/3" to 1/2" ullage in the bottle, and have been right roundly roasted on the forms by judges convinced that any bottle with less than 1.5" will be overcarbonated. I've taken to bottling a few with 1.25" ullage in ever batch, just in case I get the urge to enter a contest. My reservations come from experiences Jay and I have previously discussed elsewhere with *really* bad beer; sometimes the bottle will give you a little warning. If the bottle's really cruddy looking on the outside and there are things floating in the beer, I'd prefer to evaluate the bouquet thoroughly before placing glass to lip ... > Additionally I think that having one steward pour the beer > clear into the pitcher allows all the judges at the table to get the same beer, > rather than having various levels of clarity because a beer got poured from the > bottle into several glasses and inevitably got some yeast sediment kicked back > in (Maybe I'm just spastic but I have a tough time pouring a beer to several > glasses without kicking some yeast into it). It has occurred to me to wonder why this isn't more frequently done. > The only drawback to this is having stewards & pitchers. This hasn't been a > problem either at NE Regionals, or the 1st round Nationals here in NE. We didn't use pitchers in the Left Coast Nationals, though we had no shortage of stewards. "Hi, my name is Dusty, and I'll be your Steward today. Our specials include ...". > Perhaps at small local competitions, and at the AHA finals, but you'd think at > the AHA final they could come up with some stewards and a few pitchers... > > So I say just say NO to bottles when judging!! We actually leaned on our > steward and brought our own pitchers to the table at last years AHA Finals, and > this seemed to work pretty well.. We had an experience at the California State Fair this last year where we would have been MUCH better off with a pitcher. I opened the bottle, and uniformly poured the three samples, then set the bottle back upright on the table. We had all finished recording our aroma observations and were inspecting color, clarity, and conditioning, when it was pointed out to us that the bottle was fobbing all over the table! Had we poured to a pitcher, we might have had both a better opportunity to watch the fobbing develop, and to contain the mess. Glad to see this list appear, especially now that the s:n ratio on the alternatives has been so thoroughly schmiddled. = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 20:32:41 1991 Subject: Another "No Bottle" Musing I just now happened to recall a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a judge who told me that I should always be very careful to obliterate completely any trace of a label or other markings on the caps of bottles being sent away to competitions, because some judges had a pretty good idea what part of the country was getting what brand of surplus caps, and regional sentiments had been known to prevail over sensory evidence. I have no way to verify this, but if there's any truth to it, it could be another advantage to serving in pitchers ... = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 21:00:41 1991 Subject: Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice Dave says: >Well, I have to disagree with this line of reasoning for a couple of reasons. >First, while no points are based on bottle observation, one can sometimes gain >valuable information from a bottle inspection. I now bring a small >flashlight (as do most judges) to the session and can usually determine, to some >degree, the clarity of the beer even before pouring. Second, beers that are >infected with wild yeast or bacteria often have a ring just at the beer-gas >interface and this is valuable information which is evidence in addition to >off aromas and flavors associated with an infection and can be used as >additional feedback to the brewer. Finally, I have seen some fill levels that >were much too low and thus have a greater potential for oxidation than beers >that are filled to the "correct" level. Again, we should inform the brewer. I agree with this. Basically, a judge is supposed to judge, and anything that helps him judge should be allowed. Bottle inspection doesn't tell a good judge that a beer is skunky or infected, but that it *might* be. Also, one other thing that inspection helps with that I haven't seen mentioned is the prediction of gushers. At the AHA National 1st round in May, I noticed that a beer had an unusually heavy layer of yeast sediment in the bottom of the bottle, and sure enough, it turned out to be a gusher. Here is a list of things to look for during bottle inspection and the problems that may accompany them: 1. Bottle color - Lighter colored bottles have a greater tendency to be skunky. 2. Fill level - Large fill spaces have a greater tendency to be oxidized. 3. Floaters or a ring around the liquid-vapor interface - This means probable bacterial contamination. 4. Clarity - Cloudiness at the bottom can indicate recent improper handling, which is not the homebrewer's fault. 5. Sediment level - A large amount of sediment is often found with gushers. 6. Pouring style - The amount of teasing necessary to produce a good head is indicative of the conditioning level. But a good judge should use all of his senses. When I was first learning to judge, I was told that a wealth of information is to be had before the beer is even tasted (i.e. - you can tell a lot about how a beer will taste by its aroma). I would add to this that much can be learned about a beer even before the bottle is opened. If a beer is bacterially contaminated or skunky, the look of the bottle, the smell of the beer and the taste all combine to tell me so. I'm all for pitchers to pour the beer into, but not for stewards to do it for you. The stewards could be kept busy by bringing you clean, dry pitchers ;) +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael L. Hall There are times, sir, when men of good conscience | | hall at lanl.gov cannot blindly follow orders. - Jean-Luc Picard | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 21:45:50 1991 Subject: Just Pour It Please >I now bring a small flashlight (as do most judges) to the session >and can usually determine, to some degree, the clarity of the >beer even before pouring. Ouch. I'm sorry, but I find this a little too anal. What's the point of determining clarity in advance, if you're going to be pouring the beer anyway? Believe me, in the northwest, "most judges" don't bring flashlights. I agree that certain severe problems with bottling can be important clues for the brewer, but anything as dramatic as neck ring can be communicated by a reliable steward. Underfilling is only significant if the beer is, in fact, oxidized, and if this is the case the steward can be asked to check on fill level. As an organizer--as well as a judge--one of the problems I have with judges is a tendency to take FOREVER to judge a beer. It's bad enough that many judges write verrrrrry sllloooowwwwlllllyyy, but when they start shining flashlights and peering into bottles I draw the line! Bob Devine: "Seeing if there is a ton-o-junk at the bottom of the >bottle versus a bottle that appears to be filled from kegged beer >means that there might be a difference in clarity. If there is a difference in clarity, it should be apparent in the poured beer. Once again, I think there is an inherent denigration in several of these comments toward stewards. A good steward is an essential asset, and they should be trained in proper observation, record keeping and pouring. Once trained, though, their judgment should be relied on. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 7 23:21:49 1991 Subject: Pitcher use at competitions [skipping other well made points] I have to vote for inspecting the bottle, I judged barleywines in the 89 nationals, and one of them had mold floating around the top, which would have been missed if we didn't check pretty carefully. I don't know how it grew in something that strong! Some of the pale ales I have judged had off aromatics that blew away pretty quickly. If you are pouring only one bottle into a pitcher, wouldnt it loose some of the carbonation from the repouring into the glass? I admit I have never tried it this way, it would be interesting to try. I would like to be able to inspect the bottle even if a steward was to do the pouring. -- John, The Hop Devil renaissance scientist and AHA/HWBTA certified Beer Judge -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 08:21:43 1991 Subject: Reply to "Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice" (11/07/91 17:09:19) Bob Devine says: >looking at the bottle ... Is there too much or too little headspace? Yow! I somehow *like* the idea of telling someone they used too little headspace, on the judging form. Sort of like telling them the beer was too clear. If there are going to be *standard* guidelines: "beer touches cap--too little headspace. less than two inches of beer--too much headspace.", then one person (the steward, most likely) could check those off a standard form, and leave the tasting to the judges. The tasting is where the subjective portion needs to be. IMHO, there is no need to add additional subjective measures of headspace, etc. In other words, those types of comments are worthwhile (if we can agree on the "best" ways of doing things), but they shouldn't be subjective and needn't be done by more than one person, therefore. John "What do I know, I haven't judged yet" DeCarlo Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org) Fidonet: 1:109/131 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 09:06:50 1991 Subject: Re: Reply to "Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice" (11/07/91 17:09:19) I would guess that we could all agree that too much head space in a bottle of beer is detrimental to it's shelf life, and that that piece of information would be worth noting on a judging form. I thought we might take a poll of the judges on this forum as to what, in their honest opinion, constitutes too little head space in a bottle. Other than the beer actually touching the cap liner, which might cause rusting or plastic-like off-flavors, is there any good reason to leave a significant air space in a bottle? Why do commercial brewers leave as much as they do? Just wondering aloud, Steve Stroud -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 09:21:54 1991 Subject: Re: Reply to "Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice" I don't think anyone mentioned this yet. Counter-pressure filled beer doesn't require the same head space as a bottle-conditioned beer. Not only is the cask-condtioned beer already carbonated, it will only be in the bottle for about a week. I have received various bizarre comments from judges because my beers had little head space and no sediment. I am not a fan of bottle inspection beyond looking for obvious nastiness. ----- Chuck Cox hopped/up racing team chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 10:11:53 1991 Subject: A nasty rumor... Folks, [nasty rumor deleted -MLH] For what my $.02 is worth on the bottle issue: I wish I were a good enough judge such that I could arrive at the same conclusions about the beer with or without seeing the bottle, but it's simply not true. Therefore, my vote is to take the bottle (fill level, ring, mold, etc.) into account _somehow_ as another clue in evaluating the beer and for advice to the brewer. If the steward is capable of this, fine; if not, then the judges have to deal. The better judges I've seen in action don't inspect bottles (such as Master Judge Rich Gleeson of Philly). Yes, I do believe that people have a predisposition toward predisposition (huh??) and therefore judges are likely to "look for" oxidation upon seeing a large headspace, for example. It is our responsibility to fight this as we train ourselves and others to be judges. ---- Brews to ya, STEVE -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 10:37:01 1991 Subject: Re: Pitcher use at competitions Thanks to Michael Hall for a concise list of what to look for during bottle inspection. I was preparing a response to earlier comments, which unfortunately got blwon away last night by xmh crashing. This led me to sigh heavily, give up and turn on the TV. The gist of my lost message was that for those who strongly feel that the bottle inspection is important either of two alternatives are viable: A) Pour it into the pitcher at the table B) have the steward do the bottle inspection, make notes and present the notes to the judges. Some of Michael's guidelines are appropriate for case B, but I have some comments Michael: >Here is a list of things to look for during bottle inspection and the problems >that may accompany them: > > 1. Bottle color - Lighter colored bottles have a greater tendency to be skunky. > 2. Fill level - Large fill spaces have a greater tendency to be oxidized. > 3. Floaters or a ring around the liquid-vapor interface - This means probable > bacterial contamination. > 4. Clarity - Cloudiness at the bottom can indicate recent improper handling, > which is not the homebrewer's fault. > 5. Sediment level - A large amount of sediment is often found with gushers. > 6. Pouring style - The amount of teasing necessary to produce a good head is > indicative of the conditioning level. I would comment about number 6. Is this advocating that each judge pour their own beer?? Even at competitions whee the beers were served bottles to the table, I've only ever seen 1 judge pour for everyone. To think that each judge could pour their own beer from the same bottle without stirring up the sediment when passing the bottle around to do so is silly. Here in the Northeast (NE) I judge at least 3 regional competitions on a yearly basis, the Western NE Regional (Deerfield), The Southern NE Regional (Conn), and the Crosby & Baker Westport competition. All these competitions serve the beer pre-poured in pitchers to the table. There is really no problem with loss of carbonation in a beer properly decanted into the pitcher, so I think that issue is a red herring. As far as #1 & #2 is concerned that is exactly the kind of prejudice I was sighting as an argument against bottle inspection. While this information is helpful in diagnosing a problem I would advocate the steward recording it on paper for the judges to look at after the score is assigned, Then that information could be used in the general comments to diagnose a beer with off flavors, but would not prejudice the score. Unfortunately it is the nature of the current competition system to serve 2 masters. It exists to provide helpful diagnoses to brewers who have no access to such expertise (or simply choose to pay for it :-), as well as to score in competition those beers entered by brewers who really feel their beer is good and are most interested in competing (not to imply they're not interested in diagnoses or comments, but that they are likely entering beers free of glaring defects such as contamination that would cause gushing, etc..). While not mutually exclusive these can often be at odds. I don't think anyone who knows they have a contaminated beer enters for the sake of competing. I think that those who enter for the sake of competing are usually reasonably certain that there beers are free of dramatic defects, which is not to say that there may not be some off flavors present, just not the glaring ones such as contamination, oxidation or skunkiness, i.e. the few things bottle inspection would be additionally (and IMHO marginally) helpful in diagnosing. So I really don't think the inspection adds very much to judging, certainly nothing that can't be recovered in another manner, while it does mean bottles that either stand on the table waiting to be judged (thus causing them to be judged at different temps), or risk agitation and inconsistent pours. The benfit of serving via pitchers is that a central group of individuals can decant the beers to the pitchers and let another steward deliver the pitcher. In my experience this has led to beers being presented in a consistent manner at consistent temperatures. Next on Judgenet.... Judging forms, good or bad?? - JaH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 11:14:49 1991 Subject: Bottle Fill Level uunet!leia.polaroid.com!STROUD%GAIA writes: > I would guess that we could all agree that too much head space in a bottle of > beer is detrimental to it's shelf life, and that that piece of information > would be worth noting on a judging form. > > I thought we might take a poll of the judges on this forum as to what, > in their honest opinion, constitutes too little head space in a bottle. > > Other than the beer actually touching the cap liner, which might cause rusting > or plastic-like off-flavors, is there any good reason to leave a significant > air space in a bottle? Why do commercial brewers leave as much as they do? > > Just wondering aloud, I was wondering also... A few nights ago I bottled some tasty stout I had in a keg. When filling the bottles I accidentally filled some "too far up". Meaning this left about a 1/4 to 1/2 inches of head space after being capped and the foam had settled. I didn't want to reopen the bottles and pour out some beer so I left them as they where. Now, I'm planning on entering these into competitions. Since the beer is already carbonated there is no concern of "over-carbonation due to leaving too little head space". So I guess my question is why would there be a problem with such little head space in this instance? And what if anything should a judge say/do about it? {bob, looking for opinions} -- Bob Gorman bob at rsi.com uunet!semantic!bob -- -- Beer doesn't kill brain cells, as far as I can remeber ... -- -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 12:07:53 1991 Subject: using a pitcher vs volatility Some writers have said that beer should be poured into a pitcher to ensure that beer is consistent for all judges. How does this technique affect checking for the volatile gases? Since some things like sulfur smells can quickly dissipate, wouldn't the time lag of first pouring the beer into a pitcher and then pouring it into tasting glasses be too long? I don't have any info on what is the time needed to sniff such volatiles but my gut tells me that the sooner the better... Bob Devine -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 12:17:44 1991 Subject: Digestify, DMS Let this be the first (of many?) calls to digestify the beer judge mailing list. I can't put up with this many interruptions during my work day. Technical question: I recently took the BJCP exam, and one of the beers evaluated was a S. German Wheat, with a strong dose of DMS. How common is DMS in ales? I had supposed that it was more likely in lagers, due to the low fermentation temps (less likely to be "scrubbed" during fermentation). What is the "standard" advice on getting rid of DMS? I claimed that the brewer should consider higher fermentation temperatures, but I wonder if this is correct advice. I detected some DMS in one of my recent ales, fermented at about 60 degrees F, which is sort of cool for an ale. The taste was detected after about one week in the bottle, but seems to have gone away after two weeks. Does this make sense? Thanks for any advice, Ted Manahan tedm at hp-pcd.cv.hp.com 503/750-2856 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 13:31:52 1991 Subject: DMS Ted Manahan asks... >evaluated was a S. German Wheat, with a strong dose of DMS. How common is >DMS in ales? I had supposed that it was more likely in lagers, due to >the low fermentation temps (less likely to be "scrubbed" during >fermentation). My understand is that the most common cause for DMS is the malt itself, with lager malts having a greater amount of precursors (called DMSO and SMM I believe) to DMS in them than the more-modified ale malt. The amount of DMS in the beer varies greatly from malt to malt, from what I've seen. >What is the "standard" advice on getting rid of DMS? I claimed that the >brewer should consider higher fermentation temperatures, but I wonder if >this is correct advice. DMS is produced in hot wort but is only sufficiently volatilized and removed in a boiling wort. So quickly chilling the wort should help reduce the amount of DMS in the finished beer. Also, changing malt variety should help if you have to. Higher fermentation temperatures shouldn't have any effect. There are other sources of DMS, these being bacterial infections. Higher fermentation temperatures would hurt more than help at combatting this source of DMS. >I detected some DMS in one of my recent ales, fermented at about 60 >degrees F, which is sort of cool for an ale. The taste was detected >after about one week in the bottle, but seems to have gone away after >two weeks. Does this make sense? Mmmmm....to my thinking, 'no', it's not one of those yeast things that get metabolized by yeast later on in the fermentation cycle (like diacetyl). Are you sure it was DMS?? I get a 'green', vegetative taste in young beer which disappears with time. I've always attributed this to hop resins in suspension that settle out over time. DMS is more of a cooked vegetable ("creamed corn") than a fresh vege- table taste and I find that a small amount of it enhances the maltiness of some lagers. I taste it in Saranac, for example, at an OK level, but in Chicago's Legacy Lager it was overpowering. Any input from more knowledgeable sources than myself are appreciated. Cheers, STEVE BJCP-Recognized...and always learning -- =============================================================================== Stephen Russell Graduate Student, Department of Materials Science and Engineering Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Internet: srussell at snoopy.msc.cornell.edu work: 607-255-4648 Bitnet: srussell at crnlmsc3.bitnet home: 607-273-7306 =============================================================================== "The world is collapsing around our ears. I turned up the radio. I can't hear it." -- R.E.M. =============================================================================== -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 13:46:43 1991 Subject: Re: Bottle Color & Judge Prejudice Steve Stroud says: > I would guess that we could all agree that too much head space in a bottle of > beer is detrimental to it's shelf life, and that that piece of information > would be worth noting on a judging form. But, unless the filling is extremely low, this might have no effect at all on a beer that was counter-pressure filled. > Other than the beer actually touching the cap liner, which might cause rusting > or plastic-like off-flavors, is there any good reason to leave a significant > air space in a bottle? Why do commercial brewers leave as much as they do? I do note whether a bottle is overfilled, as you define, or extremely underfilled, and then I do my best to forget it and judge the beer. Commercial brewers generally use equipment that causes the beer to foam over the top to purge any air before capping, and the slight quantity of beer lost reduces the fill level a bit. Some bottles are marked for the correct fill level. For example, Anchor bottles have two flat round "windows" on the neck, and proper fill level is within the boundaries of these circles. --Darryl Richman -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 8 15:07:19 1991 Subject: Re: Digestify [comments about digestify deleted -MLH] -- Now some judge stuff as to not totally chew synchros bandwidth: So is it true that the AHA is considering creating another level of judge? Between Certified and National? This would certainly motivate certified judges a little more. It seems like it would take forever to become nationaly ranked. Does five years sound about right? Besides if the AHA put in another level then it would be another way to squeeze money out of people. (More pins and exams) Opinions? {bob} -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Nov 9 10:26:35 1991 Subject: bottle vs. pitcher [nonarchival comments deleted -MLH] Bottles Vs. Pitchers: How does one account for variances in 'stewards' ??? If a certain beer is somewhat cloudy, is it because the steward poured a little too long, or is it because the brewer has a religously deferrence to sparging? Or, how about "Well, your brew had such a good flavour, that I must assume that the steward poured your bottle from a height of ten feet..." While bottle variances would be minimized with the pitcher people, I have yet to encounter homebrew that actually had noticeable variances between bottles... but, then again, the only homebrew I've tasted is mine... (to those of which I've managed to garner sympathy, my address is 1585 ridge ave. #109, evanston, il 60201) Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that one of the main reason for having judges is to foster greater interest in our sport, and thus -everything- about an entry should be noted, and commented upon... a good response to a 2-inch headspace might be: "while no sensory signs of oxidation were apparent, you might suffer from this, unless you counter-pressure..." As to whether bottling information taints judging, I have bought all my caps locally, and have had "florida lager", "cotton club", as well as common national soda brands. Who can now tell that I live in Chicagoland? Isn't impartiality assumed in judges? And if we still have judges who immediately knock off points due to bottle color, I shall now isomerize my hops & bottle my brews in bottles that I have spray-painted flat black... -- Kurt Swanson, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Northwestern University. kswanson at nwu.edu -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Nov 9 11:42:42 1991 Subject: Who we are Well, our mailing list has grown considerably over the last couple of days. I thought you'd like to know who you're talking to. Here's the breakdown of the membership: 17 apprentice 5 recognized 5 certified 4 national 1 honorary 32 total Here's the subscription list: ## Beer Judge Mailing List uunet!baughmankr at conrad.appstate.edu Kinney Baughman - certified uunet!dub at cornella.cit.cornell.edu Dwight Beebe - recognized uunet!embreed at sfovmic1.vnet.ibm.com Emily Breed - apprentice chuck Chuck Cox - national uunet!bwc at icd.ab.com Barry Cunningham - apprentice uunet!jdecarlo at mitre.org John DeCarlo - apprentice uunet!devine at cookie.enet.dec.com Bob Devine - apprentice uunet!70670.2067 at compuserve.com Jeff Frane - certified uunet!76702.764 at compuserve.com Robin Garr - apprentice uunet!jason at gibson.sde.hp.com Jason Goldman - apprentice semantic!bob Bob Gorman - recognized uunet!hall at buffa.enet.dec.com Dan Hall - apprentice uunet!mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Michael L. Hall - certified uunet!Henchal at Detrick-emh1.army.mil Erik A. Henchal - apprentice uunet!hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu Jay Hersh - national uunet!att!drutx!homer Jim Homer - honorary uunet!jeorg at chs.com Jeorg Houck - apprentice uunet!hopduvel!brewmaster at linac.fnal.gov John L. Isenhour - certified uunet!malodah at pbmoss.pacbell.com Martin Lodahl - certified uunet!tedm at hp-pcd.cv.hp.com Ted Manahan - recognized uunet!mason at habs11.enet.dec.com Gary Mason - apprentice uunet!rcm at col.hp.com Rick Myers - apprentice uunet!resch at craycos.com Dave Resch - recognized uunet!darrylri at microsoft.com Darryl Richman - national uunet!srussell at snoopy.msc.cornell.edu Stephen Russell - recognized uunet!chris at asylum.gsfc.nasa.gov Chris Shenton - apprentice uunet!stroud%gaia at polaroid.com Steve Stroud - national uunet!gak at Corp.Sun.COM Richard Stueven - apprentice uunet!kswanson at nwu.edu Kurt Swanson - apprentice uunet!gdt at garlic.lcs.mit.edu Greg Troxel - apprentice uunet!swh at ll.mit.edu Sarah White - apprentice uunet!zulauf at orbit.colorado.edu Mike Zulauf - apprentice ## ----- Chuck Cox hopped/up racing team chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Nov 9 11:45:38 1991 Subject: AHA Best of Show As some of you may recall, I helped judge best of show at this year's AHA nationals. I have been composing a letter to Dave Welker suggesting some changes to the procedure. I thought I'd pass these ideas by the list for comment. Use an odd number of judges to avoid protracted discussions or deadlocks. You could easily get a fifth judge without distributing extra experience points, since there are judges who don't need or want any more points. This more experienced judge could also act as a moderator. Next, I think all judges should sample all the beers together. While there are several beers to judge, many are eliminated with one or two sips. This would help avoid a situation where a beer goes flat or gets warm before all the judges have tried it. Handing a single microphone back and forth is distracting to the judges and deprives the audience of at least half the conversations. I think that using clip-on mikes for every judge would leave the judges hands free and allow the audience to hear everything they say. I was disappointed when the other judges wanted to make their final decision off-mike. I feel that the brewers are entitled to hear all the judges comments, and the judges are obligated to educate (and perhaps entertain) the audience. ----- Chuck Cox hopped/up racing team chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Nov 9 11:45:42 1991 Subject: new rank I haven't heard anyone suggest a new rank between existing ranks, but I have heard rumors about creating a rank beyond master. ----- Chuck Cox hopped/up racing team chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Nov 9 12:05:10 1991 Subject: AHA Best of Show Judging I thought the Best of Show judging in Manchester was one of the highlights of the conference and enjoyed the judges' comments (yes, even yours, Chuck) immensely. Were the other judges as into making comments as you were, Chuck? It seemed to me that Maureen Nye might have been but that the others were perhaps less enthusiastic. Just my perception. Anyhow, I agree with Chuck's comments for the most part, especially about all judges having mikes and final decisions being open. As for a fifth judge, well, what about having *three* BOS judges? Solves both the points problem and the odd number problem. You lose something by increasing statistical 'scatter', but other rounds have only two judges. As you move to the highly- important BOS round, sure, the stakes go up but so does the experience of the judges. Therefore it seems to me that these effects offset and you don't really need that many more judges to be fair. I think five would be preferable to three, but if you don't have 'em.... Cheers, STEVE BJCP-Recognized 'IBU ERGO SUM' -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Nov 10 17:20:40 1991 Subject: Re: bottle vs. pitcher >How does one account for variances in 'stewards' ??? If a certain beer is somewhat cloudy, is it because the steward poured a little too long, or is it because the brewer has a religously deferrence to sparging? In what I will call the "Deerfield" system, only a few individuals do the actual pouring, with others doing the serving. I have been judging this competition for 4 or 5 years and this system works very well. >Isn't impartiality assumed in judges? People are people, it's easier IMHO to eliminate possible prejudices by modifying the system than to expect that every individual judge can steer clear of conscious/unconscoius bias... - JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 12 14:06:47 1991 Subject: BJCP levels of judges There has been no talk about adding a judge level between Certified and National The item mentioned in the Fall Zymurgy was creating some recognition for those with over 40 experience points. Pat Baker and I are to give a presentation at the Committee meeting next June. I favor some sort of research paper. All still under development. Jim Homer BJCP Co-Director att!drutx!homer -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 12 15:22:47 1991 Subject: Re: BJCP levels of judges Jim- Are you saying that the suggestion is that a level MAY be added above Master, whose requirements would approximately be: 90 + points on exam 40 + juging points (probably more) a research paper I think that makes sense. At higher levels, something besides just judging points and test scores needs to be factored in. A paper sounds like a good idea, especially if it could then be published for the benefit of the beer/homebrewing community. Steve Stroud -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 12 15:56:51 1991 Subject: bottles [nonarchival comments deleted -MLH] i, btw, prefer to see the bottle i'm going to drink and judge beer out of. while i realize that counter-pressure filled bottles from keg don't suffer from the underfilled problem of potential oxidation, i do think the person submitting a beer for a judges evaluation deserves all the advice and *constructive* critique they can get for their money (regardless of how subjective and opinionated the judge might be). therefore, to see the bottle and taste the beer helps provide a more complete understanding of the beer. i would like to broadcast that i am very interested in coming to all competitions and judging. i am located in centrally isolated new york, but have tastebuds, will travel. i plan on attending the philly contest and the deerfield extraveganza. anyone out there interested in another judge for their contests? of course, we (the ithaca brewers' union [hi, darryl!] will be pleased to have guest judges for our contests, particularly our first: the st. patrick's day porter and stout contest on the 14th of next march. i'm the competition director for that one, so please send me a note if'd like to come out and join the fun. thanks, chuck, for setting this up. i think its a great idea (particularly as a digest, hint, hint) and just in time. until the next time, shriners. dwight beebe mf/cbf for the ibu dub at cornella.cit.cornell.edu (the internet) dub at cornella (bitnet) snailmail: 29 belleview gardens cortland, ny 13045 607.753.6654 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Nov 13 12:07:35 1991 Subject: BJCP Suggestions Subject: BJCP Suggestions Time:8:14 AM Date:11/13/91 First, "Thanks" to Mr. Cox for starting this list up. It is an excellent vehicle to get some good discussion going specific to judging and competitions. Especially since the split of the AHA First Round, getting judging practices to be more uniform across the country will be a plus. Now some comments on the BJCP: One of the major shortfalls of the program, IMHO, is the lack of feedback to the participants. Exams should be returned with the comments and corrections of the scorers. This will allow the taker to understand better where more study is required. Exam judging sheets should also be returned with a critique attached to point out stregnths and weaknesses in the examinee's comments and treatment of the judged beers. Actual competition judging sheets should be reviewed periodically and comments returned to the judge. Many judges fall into bad habbits after the initial exam has been passed, short, vague comments dominating many sheets. The pracitce among my fellow Malts has been for the competition director to review sheets and cull out "weak" and/or "poor" judges by not inviting them back to future comps. While this will serve to improve the level of judging over the long term, it does not allow the judge to benifit from constructive criticism and clean up his/her act. Direct feedback to these judges would provide for that. For that matter it would also be nice to know that what one was doing was a decent job. I propose we develope a (or adopt the BJCP exam's) rating system for reviewing judging sheets. Certainly the magnitude of the task of critiquing a moderate size competition could be reduced by employing some formula which considered things like: clarity of thought, appropriateness of comments, ratio of negative comments to positive suggestions, general use of numeric range (are severe comments reflected by low scores and vise versa), etc. Keep in mind this isn't a review of the judge's ability to judge, only to communicate. The question comes now as to who would do this review and when. Well that's why I put this out for discussion. Perhaps the BJCP could create regional review committees to tackle the job. Copies (so the originals could go on to the entrant without delay) of competiton sheets could be forwarded to the committee and reviewed, then returned to the competiton director and/or the judges. I'm sure there are many senarios which will work. Let's talk about it. Finally, how many folks know anything about the British beer judge certification? My understanding of it (from Eric Clarke, a brit National Judge) is this: there is only one level, National. After passing a written exam and then an oral exam the examinee judges 2 flights of 10 beers each in 20 minutes each. These beers have been previously judged by a panel of 4 certified judges. The top 4 beers in each flight must match the panel's rating (not in order, nor in actual score, just 4 for 4). After all this, you are a National Judge. After 10+ years of this program, there are only some 40 certified judges in the system. Sounds like it might be a way to determine the top level of the BJCP, yes? Looking forward to your comments. Russ Wigglesworth CI$: 72300,61 |~~| UCSF Medical Center Internet: Rad Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu |HB|\ Dept. of Radiology, Rm. C-324 Voice: 415-476-3668 / 474-8126 (H) |__|/ San Francisco, CA 94143-0628 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Nov 13 21:00:52 1991 Subject: RadEquipment Ideas I think Russ Wigglesworth's comments on improvements in the BJCP are excellent. Having been a examinee, a proctor, and an organizer, I find his comments particularly useful. I'd only offer a few additions. As an examinee: Having missed the opportunity to move to a higher rating by one point, I would dearly have loved the opportunity to debate my grade. As a proctor: It was part of my responsibility to grade the written exams and then pass them on to the BJCP. No comments were given ME about my grading (I'm not even sure I received specific scores without nudging), and no explanation of why the ranking I gave the exams was overturned. (One very well-known person took the exam from me and did less well than an unknown individual; when the scores came back the well-known person had scored considerably higher.) As an organizer: I would be very glad to review the exams (and, as Russ points out, the scoring sheets) of judges in my region. After several years of judging next to, and supervising a number of judges it's obvious that scoring well on an examination is no guarantee of quality. I make it a point to spot-check the judges' comments before the sheets are mailed out (this is the Oregon State Fair--about 150 entrants last year). I'm particularly interested not only in a judge's ability to communicate, but the ability to do so *politely* and constructively. Knowing judges' strengths and weaknesses also helps me to put panels together in advance. (I have sent out forms to judges asking for their preferences and their strong points in beerstyles. I've also received comments back on those forms like: "Just don't put me next to ...") As an organizer, I am NOT interested in developing detailed analyses of the judges' comment forms. I don't have the time or inclination. I have had to caution individual judges about what I consider problem areas; this is something I try to do discretely and politely. Unfortunately, I don't have so many to draw on that I can drop them completely; fortunately, no offenses have been so egregious that I'd really need to. I just stick the known dipshits on panels with really good judges, hoping something will rub off and knowing that at least their worst excesses will be canceled out. The British beer judge program that Russ outlined sounds pretty scary. It's easier than that to get a Master's degree! On another note entirely: Why does anyone in this program want to "get ahead"--advance in "rank"? Does anyone want it badly enough to re-take the exam (and pay more money)? Does anyone here really believe that the BJCP exam is the measure of the judge? I happen to believe that the program is useful, and a valuable method of providing judges with appropriate skills but it's also obvious that it's possible to score well on the exam and still be a jerk. If I plunk down the $xxx and re-take the exam and manage to boost my previous score by a single point, does this mean that I am a better judge, or that I've just gotten a clearer idea of what the BJCP proctors want to hear? In other words, why in god's name would anyone feel the need to be higher than a MASTER JUDGE! dum da dum dum Sheesh. Reminds me of a Korean martial arts demonstration (kook sul won) I saw once, with a host of masters from the old country. Each had to be given an ever more-exalted title than the previous one (and even flashier costume) when it was clear that all of them were pretty damn amazing from a mortal's perspective and that shades of difference among them was really irrelevant. The part that appeals to me about the British judge program is that you're a judge. Period. And the people that work with you know whether you're a good judge or a jerk. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 14 08:36:41 1991 Subject: exam study guide Well, I have to take the exam again and get over 90 this time. In order to organize my thoughts, I was thinking of writing up a study guide in outline form. Since I have given the exam a couple of times, I have a pretty good idea of what kinds of questions to expect and what kind of answer is required. My question is: has anybody already done anything like this? If you have something you're willing to share, please send me a copy. I will post my outline to the list when it's completed. ----- Chuck Cox hopped/up racing team chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 19 19:16:39 1991 Subject: Glass & Cardboard Subject: Glass & Cardboard Time:8:42 AM Date:11/19/91 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 13:07 PDT The following were originally posted to the HBD. The discussion may get more response here, so I am re-posting. RW... ************** From: Bob Jones Subject: Cardboard Nose Thought I'd pass on a recent experience with cardboard nose beers. I helped judge last week at the Calif. All State Homebrew Competition. This comp. is always well run and great fun. Lots of brew discussions, food, music and of course BEER. Great job again this year! The San Andreas Malts won the coveted homebrew club of the year award this year. They deserve it. When I got there I noticed they were using glasses for the judging samples instead of plastic cups. I was relieved to see Steve Norris busy rinsing that cardboard smell out of the glasses with a hot water rinse. Since Steve doesn't enter competitions anymore, they make him do the dishes. Anyway the first few beers we judged had a distinct cardboard (sometimes almond like) nose. I knew it couldn't be the glasses I saw them being rinsed and they smelled clean prior to pouring. I ran into this same thing at the Calif. State Fair comp. 2 years ago. If you're sensitive to this smell, its like judging next to someone who is smoking. I got a plastic cup and we poured the next beer into a rinsed glass and the plastic cup, and the smell was only in the "rinsed" glass. I don't understand what is going on here but it ain't good for beer competitions. I stayed with the plastic cup for the rest of the judging, rinsing after each beer. Maybe the smells get released when the beer hits the glass due to the alcohol or pH or something. I think all competitions should switch to clear plastic cups to prevent this problem. What the hell they're cheap. Bob Jones ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 09:51:52 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Plastic Cups Bob Jones mentioned his experience vis-a-vis glass vs. plastic. What kind of plastic was used Bob?? I have found in putting together competitions that there are 2 kinds. The hard plastic glasses are fairly odor free, where softer plastic often have odors. If you used the soft plastic glasses, the odors from these could have masked any odors you were detecting when using glass. Glass is usually odor neutral. If you picked up odors when using the glass glasses, my guess is those odors were there, and not an artifact. Was any kind of detergent used on the glass?? My experience judging has led me to always prefer glass to plastic. I would say that if you noticed the odor in the glass, but not the plastic, that it was actually there. It would not be unthinkable that all the beers you were sampling had a common defect. Did you continue to try additional samples glass vs plastic, to see if the aromas persisted?? I would hesitate to advocate using plastic glasses over glass based on a sample size of one. As I said my experience is that while some plastics are odor free, many are not. Glass almost always is though, and I have found myself in competitions with beer after beer (though not every single beer) in a category exhibiting off aromas or flavors. I have found oxidation to be a fairly common one, so perhaps by switching to plastic you simply masked out a component of off aroma that you had previosuly never detected. In your previous judging experience did you use plastic or glass?? - JaH **************** Since I am one of the organizers of the event (California State Comp) which Bob Jones refers to in his observations of detecting almond/cardboard in glass but not in plastic (HBD #762), perhaps I can answer some of Jay Hersh's questions of HBD #763. The glasses were washed with generic (cheap) automatic dishwashing detergent, after their previous use and then rinsed with hot water just prior to their use in the competition mentioned. The problem here is that the glasses are stored in their original cardboard boxes. The cardboard does seem to remain with the glasses, even after the rinse. Alternate storage containers have been considered in the past however nothing has been adopted which is both economical and superior to the cardboard. We have some 40 dozen of these glasses which we use for 2 major competitions and for several minor club competitons during the year. That translates to 14 boxes of 3 dozen glasses each. The general consensus among the Malts is that we'd like to continue to use the glasses since we share Jay's belief that it is generally a better medium for judging beers. We also want to address the lingering cardboard problem. Many of you are involved with large competitions, how do you store your glassware? We have considered purchasing a mobile dishwasher to take to the various locations at which we hold the major competitions, but this isn't practical. Obviously we need to replace the storage containers or the glassware. Now, this is not to say that the all the aromas which Bob noticed were the fault of the glasses. In fact we had very few such comments this year. We have made a better effort to wipe out the cardboard since we are more aware of it. Perhaps Jay is correct that the fault was really there and that the plastic was masking real problems. The plastic glasses, if they were from the bar we had set up for the day, were the hard, wide mouth, 7 ounce(?), type. But, it is possible that the glassware was at fault, and to eliminate that chance I'd like to correct the storage problem. What are your suggestions? Hmmm, I think I'll bundle these three messages and post them to the new Judges' list. RW... Russ Wigglesworth CI$: 72300,61 |~~| UCSF Medical Center Internet: Rad Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu |HB|\ Dept. of Radiology, Rm. C-324 Voice: 415-476-3668 / 474-8126 (H) |__|/ San Francisco, CA 94143-0628 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Nov 20 08:51:55 1991 Subject: cardboard in glasses In our competitions we have also experienced the cardboard aroma etc. from glasses stored in cardboard containers. The past several years we have washed the glasses immediately prior to the competition(the day before judging) using a dishwasher with no soap. This seems to remove the aroma and taste and it has been my experience that we can then store the glasses back in the cardboard box for at least a day before we have to worry about the cardboard taste-aroma again. Loren Carter Chemistry Department Boise State University Boise, Idaho -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Nov 20 18:12:49 1991 Subject: Cardboard & Judging Bob, >Another problem is >the transport of the glasses from the back room to the judges. They are >very often carried in a six pack carrier with the entry. The glasses are >sometimes placed upside down in the carrier, where they can pick up this >cardboard nose. Sounds like another good argument in favor of using pitchers (one of my favorite judge related crusades :-)... Competitions I have worked the beers were served at pitchers, and the glasses collected and rinsed separately. Once they were removed from the boxes and cleaned the never touched cardboard during the judging. Sounds like some procedural changes there might help a lot. Also we often just rinse our own from water in pitchers right at the table, saves the stewards some work. >So the environment looses out on this one. Umm, I'll fight you on this one. At least you can use HDPE 1 or 2 glasses and collect them and give them over to recylcing... Russ sez: >The glasses were washed with generic (cheap) automatic dishwashing detergent, >after their previous use and then rinsed with hot water just prior to their use >in the competition mentioned. AAAck. I never use soap on my beer glasses. I use B-brite. There are other cleaning agents that many/most bars use. Soap is much more difficult to rinse clean without leaving a film. The cleaners bars use (sorry don't know any brand names) are chosen because they do rinse clean. B-Brite also does, which is why I use it on my glassware. Perhaps this is a little anal, but I have found soap doesn't rinse nearly as well. I'd suggest changing your cleaning agent. Soap also may not clean away the cardboard aroma. - JaH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 21 09:52:53 1991 Subject: Reply to "Cardboard & Judging" (11/20/91 20:09:10) >>glasses were washed with generic (cheap) automatic dishwashing detergent >AAAck. I never use soap on my beer glasses. Yow! This is one of my hot buttons. Note that Russ said he used detergent, not soap. There is a big difference, Jay. Soap leaves a film, detergent does not. That's why you should use detergent to clean anything which may touch beer, and never use soap for such things. Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org) Fidonet: 1:109/131 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Nov 21 11:44:21 1991 Subject: Washing Beer Glasses Subject: Washing Beer Glasses Time:8:27 AM Date:11/21/91 From JayH: >Russ sez: >>The glasses were washed with generic (cheap) automatic >>dishwashing detergent, after their previous use and then >>rinsed with hot water just prior to their use in the >>competition mentioned. >AAAck. I never use soap on my beer glasses. I use B-brite. There are other >cleaning agents that many/most bars use. Soap is much more difficult to >rinse clean without leaving a film. The cleaners bars use (sorry don't know >any brand names) are chosen because they do rinse clean. B-Brite also does, >which is why I use it on my glassware. I believe Miller (CHoHB) discusses the difference between hand dishwashing detergent and automatic detergent. The hand stuff is certainly a no-no (Tom Ayres taught me this many years ago while I was washing up one night at his place). The automatic stuff acts more like B-Brite in that it uses oxygen or some such to do its cleaning and often has some chlorine in it to assist. As long as you don't use ones like Cascade which have some additive which coats the glass to prevent spotting the glassware should rinse out clean. I have never experienced the head loss associated with hand detergents when using the automatic stuff. A double rinse doesn't hurt either. As far as the cardboard is concerned, I am still researching alternate containers (the boxes I have now are so old that they aren't much good anyway). So far all suggestions have been for commercial dishwashing racks which won't really work as they are open to the air. Plastic boxes seem to offer the best future, but I'm concerned about trading one smell for another. RW... Russ Wigglesworth CI$: 72300,61 |~~| UCSF Medical Center Internet: Rad Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu |HB|\ Dept. of Radiology, Rm. C-324 Voice: 415-476-3668 / 474-8126 (H) |__|/ San Francisco, CA 94143-0628 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Nov 22 09:36:36 1991 Subject: RE: Glass & Cardboard The Falcon's Mayfaire contest was plagued with an off odor in glasses that we could not trace down. They were washed before using, but some of them--not all--came up with a strong vanilla odor. We had to send several sets back for additional washing. Then, at the LA County Fair competition, our glasses came up with the cardboard aroma, after being freshly washed. This is not as trivial to get rid of as other posters have made out. We use a bar washing detergent and rinse thoroughly. The second time through the cardboard was gone. Be careful out there, and check your glasses before you put the beer into them! --Darryl Richman -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Nov 24 01:10:41 1991 Subject: study guide outline Beer Judge Exam Study Guide Outline This is the first general outline of my study guide. It should give you an idea of the overall organization of the guide. It is my intention to go into more detail with the outline, then write a short description of each item. I welcome all comments and input. I hope to make this at least a partly collaborative work of this mailing list. The guide is intended to describe the specific areas of knowledge that are required to pass the exam. It is not intended to teach you what you need to know to pass the exam, but rather to help you organize your thoughts and perhaps identify areas that deserve further study. The guide is based on the three exams I have personally seen, and information provided by others who have taken or administered it. I will not list actual questions from any exam. I) Ingredients You are expected to understand the purpose and effect of the common beer ingredients. You should know which ingredients are appropriate for the various beer styles. You should be familiar with geographic variations in ingredients. A) malt B) hops C) water D) yeast E) adjuncts II) Procedures You should be able to describe each procedure, explain its purpose, and describe how it works. You should be able to discuss how a procedure is varied for different beer styles. A) malting B) mashing C) brewing D) fermenting E) conditioning F) bottling/kegging III) Characteristics You should be able to discuss the various characteristics of beer. You should be able to describe what causes each characteristic, and how to control it with variations in ingredients or procedures. A) appearance B) aroma C) flavor IV) Styles You should be familiar with the overall relationship of the various beer styles. You should be able to describe the ingredients, procedures and characteristics of each style. You should be able to give commercial examples of each style. A) ales B) lagers C) misc V) BJCP You should know how the BJCP is organized and what the requirements are for the various ranks. A) ranks VI) Miscellany There is usually a question or two that test your general beer knowledge. Arguably, these verge on being 'trivia' questions. I can't give you any useful hints without printing an actual question. VII) Bibliography The Essentials of Beer Style - Eckhardt The World Guide to Beer - Jackson The Simon & Schuster Pocket Guide to Beer - Jackson The Complete Handbook of Homebrewing - Miller Brewing Lager Beer - Noonan The Complete Joy of Homebrewing - Papazian The Goon Show Scripts (just kidding) ----- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck%synchro at uunet.uu.net -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Nov 25 15:26:46 1991 Subject: What category should Dark American Wheat Beers be entered in? I got the latest beer styles category definitions from the AHA at the Taste of the Great Lakes conference in Frakenmuth, MI just over a week ago. While I was there I also won a couple of cans of Premier Light malt extract, which set me to thinking. A few weeks ago I got some cans of Ireks Wheat Extract (in the 6.6 lb cans) and I thought it would be perfect to brew up 2 five gallon batches each based on 1 can of the Premier and 1/2 can of the Ireks. I actually am not wildly enthusiatic about the sour / clove / phenolic taste of German wheat beers, so I was planning on using the Wyeast American Ale yeast to make a cleaner, simpler tasting American wheat beer style. But I don't want to do 2 batches of the same beer (boring), so I thought I would do one light (3.3# Premier light hopped, 3.3# Ireks wheat extract, 0.5# 10 deg. L crystal malt, a little flavoring and aroma hops) and one dark (same as the light + 0.25# 60 deg. L crystal + 0.25# 120 deg. L crystal + 0.25# black patent malt). The question is if I enter the National Homebrew Contest, what category should the dark be entered in? There is an American Wheat subcategory in the American Pilsner category - but it says the style is light to amber in color. The Dark American category does not seem to include Wheat beers. The German Wheat Beer categories include a Dunkel Weizen, but the yeast (and hence the flavor profile) would not be according to style in that category. What's left? Should be entered in the Specialty Beer category to compete against the Goat Scrotum and Cock Ales? Inebriated minds want to know these things? Anybody out there have an opinion? | Barry Cunningham bwc at icd.ab.com | | Allen-Bradley Company, Inc. or ICCGCC::CUNNINGHAMB | | 747 Alpha Drive or BWCUNNIN at MRGSD at REMNET | | Highland Hts., OH 44143 phone: (216) 646-5241 FAX: (216) 646-4484 | -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Nov 25 17:21:21 1991 Subject: Category of Dark American Wheat Beers Response to Barry Cunningham: You would probably have the best score in a Dunkel Weizen category. Or you could always enter the beer in both the Dunkel Weizen and the American Wheat categories and see which one did best. However, one thing that ought to be mentioned is that one of the good things about brewing your own beer is that you don't have to follow the guidelines of the categories; you can brew whatever your taste buds tell you to brew. There is a lot of leeway to enter strange brews in the herb/fruit/specialty categories, but that still doesn't cover everything one might want to brew, as you have discovered. Maybe the best solution is to change the question: if you don't want to brew a category-specific beer, then why do you need to have it judged to see how well it fits into a certain category? My advice: brew it and enjoy it. Enter it if you want to, and disregard the judges comments which have to do with not being exactly right for a particular category. Michael L. Hall hall at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 26 09:42:45 1991 Subject: Re: study guide outline Chuck Cox writes: > Beer Judge Exam Study Guide Outline > Here are some suggestions as how to expand upon the outline. > I) Ingredients > > A) malt Maybe break this up into the major catagories of malts; 2-row, 6-row pale, amber, dark carmal, dextrin ... > B) hops Low alpha, High alpha Nobel varieties, New wave varieties Pellets, Whole, Extracts? > C) water Basic minerals & ions > D) yeast Ale Lager Others > E) adjuncts Grain adjuncts Barley Wheat Oats Corn Non-Grain adjuncts Corn sugar Cane sugars Honey Others > III) Characteristics > > A) appearance Color, clarity, head > B) aroma Basic profiles > C) flavor Basic profiles > V) BJCP What the purpose of the BJCP program is. > VII) Bibliography Zymurgy: Trouble shooting, All Grain, Yeast, Hops special issues. The AHA BJCP guide. Hope this helps. -- Bob Gorman bob at rsi.com Watertown MA US -- -- Relational Semantics, Inc uunet!semantic!bob +1 617 926 0979 -- -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 26 15:26:28 1991 Subject: Re: Category of Dark American Wheat Beers Response to Barry Cunningham: Unfortunately, not every beer that homebrewers make fall into a category in the AHA Nationals. Some beers just plain defy description, others happen to be in categories that the AHA doesn't happen to recognize (for example, a Biere de Garde would have had no category at last year's Nationals). If you were to enter an American Dark Wheat Beer in the Dunkel Weizen CAtegory, I don't think that you would fare very well. The guidelines in that category call for a Dunkel weizen in the Bavarian tradition, and your beer would probably fall well outside what the judges would be looking for. In truth, by brewing an American Dark Wheat you are in a sense making up a new style (I don't think that I've ever seen one. Has anyone else?). Nothing wrong with that, but it does make entering competitions rather hard. If you really want to enter it, your best bet is to brew it, then step back and try to decide where it might belong. Put out of your mind how you brewed it and what went into the beer. Pretend that someone gave you the beer blind and asked you what kind of style beer it is. Would it fit somewhere? Could it be a brown ale or a bock or a continental dark or whatever? YOU have to decide where it fits, if it fits at all. If it doesn't, don't worry about entering it, just enjoy it! Many winning brews were made with one style in mind, but upon tasting, the brewer put them in some other category (continental darks that became bocks, vienna style lagers that got entered as steam beers, etc.). It happens all the time. Good luck, and let us know how it turns out. Steve Stroud -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Nov 26 19:21:24 1991 Subject: Dark Wheat...Kinda Steve Stroud asks if anyone has seen an American Dark Wheat Beer. It didn't get terribly wide distribution, but several years ago, the Hart Brewing Company (Pyramid Ale) brewed a dark version of their Wheaten Ale. I remember because they were offering homebrewers some of their roasted wheat malt--probably after they realized the idea had bombed. As I recall the malt was about the color of chocolate malt. I also believe I've heard that Seattle's Liberty Malt carries five wheat malts, including several that are roasted. Could be wrong. Sorry. Probably irrelevant. But. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Nov 27 10:09:42 1991 Subject: Re: Dark Wheat...Kinda Jeff Frane sez: >several years ago, the Hart Brewing Company >(Pyramid Ale) brewed a dark version of their Wheaten Ale You just jarred my memory. The former Hibernia Brewing Co. out of Wisconsin brewed a very nice Dunkel Weizen (their name) six or seven years ago. It was a dark wheat in the American sense, not the Bavarian one. So there are at least two examples. Maybe we should petition the AHA to add the category to the Nationals? Steve Stroud --------------------------------------