From JudgeNet Wed Jul 1 21:35:55 1992 Subject: study guide contributors I am preparing the second edition of the BJCP exam study guide, and I would like to add a list of significant contributors. I didn't keep the messages with suggestions for the first edition. If you feel you deserve credit for a significant contribution, let me know. The persons I already plan on crediting are: Steve Stroud Russ Wigglesworth Mark Stevens I will be posting the second edition to this list soon. ===== Chuck Cox chuck at synchro.com In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 10 19:38:38 1992 Subject: BJCP study guide - 2nd edition Here is the Second Edition of the BJCP Study Guide. This is an official release, so please feel free to redistribute. If you cut off this header, the guide is formatted to printout nicely at 66 lines per page. --------------- CUT HERE -------------------------- CUT HERE ---------------- B E E R J U D G E C E R T I F I C A T I O N E X A M S T U D Y G U I D E #XXXX-- #/---` ###XXX// - ----##= - --- ##XX///-` ` -- --##- - -- ###XX//- = - #/ - - -- ###XX//- # #= = = || ###XX |##- / #X- ==|| ##XX /(((#- /(()))))))))))|/ ##X| | #-/ | | ||=====--) ##X| | #-/ | | ||------ -) #|| | #- | | || | | -|| | | | | || | | || | | | | || | | || | | | | || | | || | | | | || | | || | | | | || | | || | | | | || | | || | | | | || | | || | | | | ||_______/) || | | | | ||=====//) || | | | | || || | | | | || || | | | | || || | | | | || -| | | | | |/ ==== | | |==== =============== Second Edition: July 1992 First Edition: February 1992 Edited by Chuck Cox (chuck at synchro.com) In collaboration with JudgeNet Copyright (c) 1992 by Chuck Cox Permission is given for non-commercial distribution, provided this document is reproduced in full, including this copyright notice. - CONTENTS - INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 INGREDIENTS .................................... 2 Grains Hops Water Yeast & Bacteria Miscellaneous PROCEDURES & CHEMISTRY ......................... 5 Malting Mashing Brewing Fermentation & Conditioning Bottling / Kegging CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 7 Appearance Aroma & Flavor Drinkability & Overall Impression STYLES ......................................... 8 Ales Lagers Hybrids Miscellaneous BEER JUDGE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM .............. 11 Judge Ranks Experience Points Sanctioned Competitions BJCP EXAM ..................................... 12 BIBLIOGRAPHY & SUGGESTED READING .............. 13 JUDGENET ...................................... 14 - INTRODUCTION - This guide is intended to help identify the specific areas of knowledge that are needed to pass the BJCP 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 identify topics that deserve further study. The bibliography can help you locate sources for further information, however there is no substitute for experience. I would like to encourage you to travel to Europe. A few days of drinking the local beers in the local taverns and visiting the local breweries will give you invaluable insight. Numerous JudgeNet subscribers contributed to this study guide, however I would like to specifically acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals: Jim Homer (att!drutx!homer) Mark Stevens (stevens at stsci.edu) Steve Stroud (stroud%gaia at polaroid.com) Russ Wigglesworth (Rad_Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu) A note on spelling: There are no umlauts in the ASCII character set, they are simply dropped in this document. This is not an official document of, nor is it endorsed by, the BJCP, AHA or HWBTA. The editor is solely responsible for its content. 1 - 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. Grains Hordeum distichon - 2-row barley Hordeum vulgare - 6-row barley Triticum aestivum - wheat Anatomy - acrospire, embryo, endosperm, husk Carbohydrates - starches & sugars Tannins Proteins & Amino Acids Diastatic Power - strength of enzymes - degrees Lintner Color - degrees Lovibond ______________________________________________________________________ | degrees degrees | | type Lovibond Lintner appropriate styles | |_____________________________________________________________________| |Low Kilned Malts (approx 175 F) | | | | 6-row Lager 1-2 100-200 American lagers, pilsner | | 2-row Lager 1-2 63-70 lagers | | Pale Ale 2-3 36 ales | | Malted Wheat 3 49 wheat beers | |_____________________________________________________________________| |High Kilned Malts (approx 220 F) | | | | Mild Ale 3-5 33 mild, brown ale | | Vienna 4 30 dortmunder, helles bock, | | vienna | | Munich 6-20 30 munich | |_____________________________________________________________________| |Specialty Malts | | | | Carapils 1-7 0 light ales, light lagers | | Crystal/Caramel 10-120 0 ales, lagers | | Chocolate 300-450 0 dark lagers, dark ales | | Black (patent) 500-1100 0 dark lagers, dark ales | |_____________________________________________________________________| |Adjuncts | | | | Roasted Barley 500-1100 0 stout, dunkel | | Flaked Barley | | Wheat ales, lagers | | Corn light ales, light lagers | | Rice light lagers | | Oats stout | |_____________________________________________________________________| 2 - INGREDIENTS (continued) - Hops Humulus lupulus - cultivated hop Anatomy - strobile, strig, bracteole, seed, lupulin gland Alpha & Beta Acids Essential Oils Rhyzome - root cutting ____________________________________________________ | type alpha aroma | |___________________________________________________| |English - British ales | | | | Brewers Gold 5-9 poor | | Bullion 6-9 poor | | Fuggle 4-6 good | | Goldings 4-6 good | | Northern Brewer 6-10 fair | |___________________________________________________| |American - all styles | | | | Aquila 5-8 fair | | Banner 8-12 fair | | Cascade 4-7 good | | Chinook 11-14 fair | | Cluster 4-8 fair | | Eroica 10-14 fair | | Galena 12-15 poor | | Nugget 12-14 good | | Willamette 5-7 good | |___________________________________________________| |German / Czechoslovakian - continental lagers | | | | Hallertauer 3-6 good | | Hersbrucker 3-6 good | | Perle 6-11 good | | Saaz 3-6 good | | Tettnanger 3-6 good | |___________________________________________________| Water Gypsum - calcium sulphate - CaSO4 Table Salt - sodium chloride - NaCl Epsom Salt - MgSO4 Hardness - temporary & permanent pH Minerals Ions Calcium Magnesium Sodium Bicarbonate Sulfate Chloride 3 - INGREDIENTS (continued) - Yeast & Bacteria Saccharomyces cerevisiae - ale yeast - 50-75 F Saccharomyces uvarum - lager yeast - 32-55 F - formerly carlsbergensis Saccharomyces delbrueckii - weizen yeast Enterobacteriaceae - enteric bacteria - lambic Kloeckera apiculata - lambic yeast Brettanomyces bruxellensis & lambicus - lambic yeasts Pediococcus damnosus - lactic acid bacteria - lambic Lactobacillus delbrueckii - lactic acid bacteria - berliner weisse Isolating & Culturing Miscellaneous Fermentables Malt Extract Sugar - corn sugar, honey, molasses, brown sugar Fruit Clarifying Agents Gelatin Isinglass Irish Moss Polyclar Herbs & Spices & Flavorings Coriander Seed Orange Peel Ginger Cinnamon Licorice Spruce Chocolate Coffee Smoke Malto-Dextrine - adds body Caramel - adds color Vegetables 4 - PROCEDURES & CHEMISTRY - 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. _________________________________________________________________________ | step duration temp (F) comments | |________________________________________________________________________| |Malting | | | | Steeping 40 hours 60 40-45% moisture content | | Germination 5 days 60 modification | | break starches & proteins | | Stewing 45-60 min 210 crystal malt | | Kilning 30-35 hours 120-220 | | Roasting variable 390 dark malts | |________________________________________________________________________| |Mashing | | | | Milling | | Mash-in adjust pH 5.0-5.8 | | calcium sulphate - pH- | | calcium chloride - pH- | | calcium carbonate - pH+ | | Acid Rest 95 pale lager malts | | phytin => phytic acid | | Protein Rest 30-45 min 122-131 dark lager malts | | proteins => amino acids | | Saccharification 20-60 min 150-158 | | Gelatinization 149 minimum temperature | | Beta Amylase 150 slower - less body | | Alpha Amylase 158 faster - more body | | Dextrinase | | Beta Glucanase | | Mash-out 5 min 168 | | Sparging 170-180 | |________________________________________________________________________| 5 - PROCEDURES & CHEMISTRY (continued) - Brewing Protein Coagulation - hot break Isomerization - hop bitterness extraction Caramelization Hop Aromatics Cooling - cold break Degrees of Extract = wort gravity x gallons / pounds of grain Fermentation & Conditioning Pitching - 70-80F Respiration - lag phase - aerobic - absorb oxygen & reduce pH Fermentation - growth phase - anaerobic - increase population & alcohol Sedimentation - stationary phase - flocculation Ales - 55-65F Lagers - 45-55F Nutrients - oxygen, carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, vitamins Products - alcohol, water, CO2 Attenuation - reduction of gravity Autolysis Gravity & alcohol measurements Starches & dextrines Sugars - glucose, maltose, maltotriose, sucrose Unusual Systems - burton union, yorkshire stone square, lambic Bottling / Kegging Priming - corn sugar, malt extract Krausening Artificial Carbonation 6 - 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. Appearance Bottle - residue & sediment Head - texture & retention Color Clarity Alcohol Legs Brussels Lace Aroma & Flavor Light Struck - skunked Hoppiness - fruitiness & bitterness Maltiness Body Carbonation Alcohol Astringent Phenolic - medicinal, bandaid, bubble gum Chlorophenol - plastic Diacetyl - butter, butterscotch DMS - dimethyl sulfide - cooked corn Estery - fruity Grainy - husky Metallic Nutty Oxidized - stale, papery, cardboardy Solvent Sour - acidic Salty Sweet Sulphury - yeasty - burton ales Acetaldehyde - cidery Cooked Vegetable Grassy Moldy - earthy Drinkability and Overall Impression 7 - 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. Examples in parenthesis () are not generally available in the US. Ales - top fermenting German Malted Wheat Ales Weizen - Weissbier - South Germany - Paulaner, Hofbrauhaus Hefe-weizen - sediment - Spaten Franziskaner, Wurtzburger Dunkel-weizen - EKU Weizenbock - Schneider Aventinius Berliner Weisse - lactic fermentation - Kindl, (Schultheiss) Belgian Unmalted Wheat Ales Wit - Hoegaarden, Steendonk, Dentergems Lambic - spontaneous fermentation - Senne - (Cantillon), Belle-Vue Straight Fox - young Lambic Doux - sweetened Vieux Lambic - aged Blended - Lindemans, Morte Subite, Timmermans Faro - young - sweetened Gueuze - St Louis Fruit Kriek - cherries Framboise - raspberries Cassis - black currant Peche - peaches Vigeronne - muscat grapes Belgian Ales Pale - (De Konnick), Palm Saison - Wallonia - (Silly), (Dupont) Trappist - monastic - (Westvlerten), (Westmalle), Chimay House - single Dubbel - double Trippel - triple Abbey - commercial trappist-style - Corsendonk, Maredsous Red - sour - (Rodenbach) Flanders Brown Ale - Liefmans Goudenband Strong Golden Ales - Duvel, Brigand, (Lucifer) Strong Brown Ales - Gouden Carolus, Pauwel kwak 8 - STYLES (continued) - Ales (continued) Biere de Garde - Northern France - 3 Monts, St Leonard German Ales Alt - Dusseldorf - DAB Dark, Widmer, (Zum Uerige), (Zum Schlussel) Kolsch - Koln (Cologne) - Kuppers, (Fruh), (Sion) British / American Ales Pale Ales Bitter - Youngs, Fullers Ordinary - (Brakspear) Special Extra Special Scottish Ale - MacAndrews, McEwens/Younger, Belhaven Light Heavy Export Classic Pale Ale Burton Ale - (Marstons), Bass, (Worthington White Shield) American Pale Ale - Gearys, Sierra Nevada, Red Hook Stock Ale - Samuel Adams, New England India Pale Ale - Anchor Liberty Ale, Ballantine IPA Brown Ale Mild - Grants Celtic, (Brains), (Adnams) Pale Dark Northern Brown - Newcastle, Sam Smiths Nut Brown Southern Brown American Brown - Brooklyn Brown Porter Robust Porter - Sierra Nevada, Anchor Brown Porter - Yeungling, Molson Stout Sweet - lactose - Mackeson, Dragon Dry - Guinness, Murphys, Sierra Nevada Foreign - Guinness Foreign Extra Stout Imperial - Sam Smith, Grants, Conners, (Courage) Oatmeal - Sam Smith, Youngs Strong Ale English Old Ale - Theakstons Old Peculiar,(Marstons Owd Rodger) Strong Scotch Ale - Traquair House Ale Barleywine - Youngs Old Nick, Sierra Nevada Bigfoot 9 - STYLES (continued) - Lagers - bottom fermenting American Lager - Anheuser Busch, Miller, Coors Diet Light Standard Premium Dry Dark American Bock - Shiner, Lone Star, Augsburger Malt Liquor - Molson Brador Continental Lagers Light - Augustiner Pilsner German - Warsteiner, Becks Czechoslovakian / Bohemian / Classic - Urquell, Pavechivich Dortmunder / Export - DAB, Dortmunder Union, (Kronen) Strong - Carlsberg Elephant Vienna / oktoberfest / marzen Vienna - Dos Equis Marzen / oktoberfest - Spaten, Paulaner, Wurtzburger Munich / Bavarian - Spaten, Paulaner Helles Dunkel Schwarzbier - Kulmbacher Rauchbier - Kaiserdom Bock Helles - maibock - Wurtzburger, Ayinger, Capital Dunkel - Aass, Upper Canada Doppel - Ayinger Celebrator, Paulaner Salvator Eis - Kulmbacher Hybrids Cream Ale - Hudepohl Little King's, Genesee Steam - California common beer - Anchor, New England Miscellaneous American Wheat - Anchor Fruit Beers - Sam Adams Cranberry Spiced Beers - Anchor Our Special Ale Specialty Beers - Vermont Pub & Brewery Smoked Porter 10 - BEER JUDGE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM - You should know how the BJCP is organized and what the requirements are for the various ranks. American Homebrewers Association - AHA Home Wine and Beer Trade Association - HWBTA Beer Judge Certification Program - BJCP ___________________________________________________ |Judge Ranks | exam score experience points | |_________________|________________________________| | Recognized | 60 | 0 | | Certified | 70 | 5 | | National | 80 | 20 | | Master | 90 | 40 | | |_____________|__________________| | Honorary Master | temporary | |_________________|________________________________| _______________________________________________________________________ |Experience Points | small large national | |_____________________|________________________________________________| | Steward | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | | Judge | 0.5 | 1 | 2 - 3 | | Best of Show | 1 | 2 | 5 - 6 | | |_______________|______________|_________________| | Organizer | 2 - 10 (depending on number of entries) | | Asst Organizer | 0 - 5 | | Exam Administration | 0 - 2 | |_____________________|________________________________________________| Sanctioned Competitions Small Regional: <75 entries Large Regional: 75+ entries National: annual AHA & HWBTA competitions Judging Form & Scoring 11 - BJCP EXAM - Questions The written part of the exam is 10 questions worth 10 points each. This portion of the exam is worth 70% of your final score. You will have 3 hours to complete the exam. When you take the exam, be sure to take a couple of mechanical pencils with extra leads (or whatever you like to write with), a big eraser, and plenty of lined paper (I prefer graph paper). Here are some example questions: Discuss the causes of in beer. Describe, relate, and differentiate between . What characteristics does the brewmaster expect from , what are the sources of these characteristics and what are the principle means of extraction. Describe, relate, and differentiate between . Explain the benefits of . Name two beers, describe the style. Describe what happens during . What is beer? Describe the flavor and aroma of , explain its source and indicate a style of beer where it might be appropriate. Judging You will also be asked to judge four beers as a part of the exam. These beers will be presented during the time you are taking the written portion, spaced about 20 minutes apart. The styles will be identified for you by the examiner. Judge these beers as you would for a competition using the AHA score sheet. Be clear and consise in your comments. Identify any off aromas and flavors you perceive. Suggest possible causes for these problems. Legibility is also an important factor, if your comments cannot be read they won't convey your impressions to the brewer or the person grading the exam. 30% of your final score will be determined by this portion of the exam. 12 - BIBLIOGRAPHY & SUGGESTED READING - American Homebrewers Assoc. Beer and Brewing: conference transcripts. Boulder, CO: AHA, 1985-1991. American Homebrewers Assoc. National Competition Rules & Regulations Boulder, CO: AHA, 1992 American Homebrewers Assoc. Zymurgy, special issues. Boulder, CO: AHA, 1985-1991. Beer Judge Certification Program. BJCP By-Laws Boulder, CO: BJCP Eckhardt, Fred. The Essentials of Beer Style. Portland, OR: All Brewers Publication Service, 1989. Fix, George. Principles of Brewing Science. Boulder, CO: Brewers Publications, 1989. Forget, Carl, ed. Dictionary of Beer and Brewing. Boulder, CO: Brewers Publications, 1988. Foster, Terry. Pale Ale. Boulder, CO: Brewers Publications, 1990. Guinard, Jean-Xavier. Lambic. Boulder, CO: Brewers Publications, 1990. Jackson, Michael. The New World Guide to Beer. Philadelphia, PA: Running Press, 1988. Jackson, Michael. The Simon & Schuster Pocket Guide to Beer. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1991. Miller, Dave. The Complete Handbook of Homebrewing. Pownal, VT: Garden Way, 1988. Neve, R.A. Hops. London, UK: Chapman and Hall, 1991. Noonan, Gregory. Brewing Lager Beer. Boulder, CO: Brewers Publications, 1986. Papazian, Charlie. The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. New York, NY: Avon Books, 1991. 13 - JUDGENET - This study guide was proofed, critiqued, and improved by members of JudgeNet: the Beer Judge Mailing List. This is an Internet electronic mailing list dedicated to the discussion of issues of interest to beer judges and homebrew competition organizers. Beer judges with access to the Internet are encouraged to join the list. Send subscription requests, including your email address, name and judging rank, to judge-request at synchro.com. There are no questions about JudgeNet on the exam. 14 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 15 22:23:05 1992 Subject: bjcp exam questions July 15, 1992 Alberta Rager Steve Stroud All Master Judges judge net At the annual meeting of the BJCP Committee, June 11, 1992 there was a discussion concerning the questions that are asked on the BJCP exams. It was decided that a committee be formed chaired by myself and to include Steve Stroud and Alberta Rager, both assistant co-directors and graders in the BJCProgram. It was also requested by the committee that all Master Judges be contacted and invited to offer their input and suggestions. In addition I will be posting a message to the Judge Network and ask for any comments from them. The Exam Committee's intention is to digest and discuss amongst themselves all of the input it receives and subsequently offer its suggestions to the Co-directors of the BJCP and BJCC to act on as they see fit. I would like to offer the following as a few points of discussion. If there are any other concerns or points that any of you wish to offer with regard to the types of questions asked on the BJCP examinations please offer them. 1. What should be the goals of the examination? What are the priorities? List them in order. Or are some equal? 2. The purposes of judging evaluating beers in homebrew competitions are: a) To choose a winner and b) to offer comments to brewers about how their beers may be improved, technically or to match a style. Are there others? 3. Carefully consider what you think each question on an exam should accomplish. What should the answers reflect of the examinees knowledge? 4. Not all judges are brewers. What are the ideal attributes of a good judge/evaluator of beer. 5. It has been the co-directors feeling that essay type responses to questions are the best means to measure judge knowledge and communication skills; both important facets of actual judging. 6. For discussion: Should the questions be less open ended. An open ended question: "Tell me everything you know about the Vienna style of beer." 7. For discussion: Should the questions be directed more towards certain types of information: eg., Discuss how water and mineral content influences each of the following styles of beer: Dry Stout, German Dunkel, Pale Ale, Pilsener, Scotch Ale. Another example: Discuss the various ways hops can be utilized in the making of beer in general and then discuss what types of hops and how they are employed in the brewing of the following styles: Belgian Lambic, Dry Stout, India Pale Ale, Bock Beer, Munich Helles. OR another example: Discuss the malt characteristics of the following beer styles: [list five or six]. These questions are a departure from questions such as "Describe the various characteristics of ...... beer styles" or "How are hops utilized in beer?" 8. Currently the examination is 10 questions. Should there be more questions that require more concise answers and thus shorter answers? 9. Should there be a format that each exam be required to have. Such as all exams should have questions that cover certain aspects of: Hops, Yeast and Fermentation, Beer Styles, BJCP knowledge, Malt and Adjuncts, Water, Equipment, Handling and storage. OR perhaps each exam should cover five out nine areas (fictitious example). 10. Should there be "problem questions." For example:What do you tell the brewer if: The beer appears cloudy and gushes. There is a phenolic aroma and a ring around the neck of the bottle. The beer is acidic and sour but bitterness and malt balance is appropriate. A beer is too heavy bodied for an American "lite" beer. A bock beer smells fruity and also like wet cardboard. 11. How should BJCProgram questions be presented/asked? To what extent? 12. Should all questions be related to the evaluation/judging process? Questions such as "Tell me all you know about how malt is made." is a question that draws on the knowledge of brewing but does not connect it with evaluation/judging. Rephrased the question might be more succint by asking, "Discuss the theories concerning how two-row malted barley and six-row malted barley can influence the flavor of beer. Give two beer styles where there would be advantages of using two-row and two styles using six-row. Briefly explain why." The Exam Committee would be grateful if you would offer your own thoughts on any or all of the above. Or more importantly, perhaps, discussion in areas not presented above. Please direct all responses by August 7, 1992 to Charlie Papazian, Association of Brewers, Box 1679, Boulder, CO 80306. Or electronic mail: Compuserve I.D. number 72210,2754. Thanks for your help, Charlie Papazian -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Jul 20 09:07:22 1992 Subject: judging and sense of smell As long as the judging network is examining the goals and methods of the certification process, here's a question for you. One of my brewing friends has no sense of smell. He does pretty good all-grain brews, knows something about brewing, and seems to have reasonably discriminating taste buds. The beers we think are bad he agrees are bad, and vice-versa. We've been discussing whether there's a place in the certification program for someone with no sense of smell. Certainly he'd miss a few points on the part of the certification exam that asks you to rate a mystery beer because he couldn't describe its aroma, but he could probably still technically pass the exam. Aroma matters less in some brews than others--maybe differently abled smellers :-) could be limited to judging only certain brews? or only to smaller competitions? so long as a competition has several judges in each category, the participants could still be getting a full response to all aspects of their beer and might still benefit from the judging sheets. Or are we of the opinion that non-smelling beer judges would be like blind movie critics--you can only go so far commenting on the sound track? -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Jul 20 15:23:51 1992 Subject: Re: judging and sense of smell I think in some ways, it's up to the judge in question. The few people I know (with one exception) who have real problems smelling are very open about their weakness as tasters. A lot of real experience and knowledge, of course, will go a long way toward obviating such an obvious handicap. The problem, though, is that your sniffer has a lot to do not just with aroma details but with how your mouth functions: a lot of "tasting" really involves the nose. The one exception I mentioned is a long-time professional brewer, who lost his power of smell a long time ago. When his beer went bad a number of years ago, bad enough that the pub I was working in refused to carry it, he was oblivious and it took a long time to get the beer cleaned up. (Of course, he's pigheaded, as well.) On the other other hand (Martin knows I need an octopus), I've worked with judges who had passed the examination and still couldn't taste or judge a beer if their lives depended on it. So, I'd tell the guy to go for it. --Jeff Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Jul 20 16:53:46 1992 Subject: Re: judging and sense of smell that is a very interesting situation. Actually since so much of taste in most folks depends on the ability to smell (typically the 2nd most acute sense in humans after sight) it is quite surprising your friend can taste well (likely as with blind folks his other related sense of taste has become more acute due to the lack of smell). Personally I don't know what the official call for this would be, but since only about 25% of the points on the judge test are for scoring with the forms (though I don't know how they would score him on that 25% if his aroma sections were consistenly blank) there is a reasonable chance your friend could do just fine on the test and enter the program. I would encourage your friend if he is inclined to spend the $$ to go ahead and take the test. If he is knowledgable about process and styles he is likely to pass despite his detriment. JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Jul 20 23:25:49 1992 Subject: Re: bjcp exam questions From: uunet!ihpubj.att.com!korz Charlie-- I'm glad that the JudgeNet can be of some practical assistance. Up till now, it has been mostly a debate forum. Chuck Cox has put together a sort of "study checklist" for BJCP exam-takers, with the feedback and comments from the JudgeNet, but up till now, it has been our only concrete product. This feedback on the exam that you are soliciting is a great opportunity for us judges to help improve the program. >1. What should be the goals of the examination? What are the priorities? >List them in order. Or are some equal? In my opinion: 1. *validate* judge knowledge 2. require judges to be well-read in the homebrewing field >2. The purposes of judging evaluating beers in homebrew competitions are: a) >To choose a winner and b) to offer comments to brewers about how their beers >may be improved, technically or to match a style. Are there others? Motivate brewers to be better. >3. Carefully consider what you think each question on an exam should >accomplish. What should the answers reflect of the examinees knowledge? 1. knowledge of styles (and how to achieve them -- e.g. how to add malt nose to a Bock that doesn't have one) 2. knowledge of problems (and how to solve them -- e.g. how to reduce DMS) >4. Not all judges are brewers. What are the ideal attributes of a good >judge/evaluator of beer. I've never brewed a Pilsener, but I know the characteristics of one and and I've read what techniques, malts, hops, water and yeast can achieve these characters. If I can identify a lack of Saaz nose in a Pilsener and can offer a suggestion to the brewer to add a 1/2 ounce of Saaz in the last 5 minutes of boil, then I feel I can be a good Pilsener style judge. I don't feel I have to have personally perfected a Pilsener recipe to judge Pilseners. This can be carried forth to all styles. I feel that identifying problems can be harder for a non-brewer, but not impossible. Dr. Beer sessions are great for this kind of knowledge. Actually, I read about Lactobacillus infections well before I smelled a really bad one in the 1st round judging this year. Right away, I knew what it was and it was reinforced by a fellow judge. I'll never forget that smell (and hope that I can get it in a lambic-style beer I'm brewing right now). >5. It has been the co-directors feeling that essay type responses to >questions are the best means to measure judge knowledge and communication >skills; both important facets of actual judging. Agreed. >6. For discussion: Should the questions be less open ended. An open ended >question: "Tell me everything you know about the Vienna style of beer." Some can be open-ended, but most should have distinct answers that could be answered consisely. My hand was sore for two days after I took the exam -- because of the large number of open-ended questions. >7. For discussion: Should the questions be directed more towards certain types >of information: eg., Discuss how water and mineral content influences each of >the following styles of beer: Dry Stout, German Dunkel, Pale Ale, Pilsener, >Scotch Ale. Another example: Discuss the various ways hops can be utilized in >the making of beer in general and then discuss what types of hops and how they >are employed in the brewing of the following styles: Belgian Lambic, Dry >Stout, India Pale Ale, Bock Beer, Munich Helles. OR another example: Discuss >the malt characteristics of the following beer styles: [list five or six]. > These questions are a departure from questions such as "Describe the various >characteristics of ...... beer styles" or "How are hops utilized in beer?" The exam should have questions from all these types of areas of information. A mixture of questions would best test the wide scope of knowledge that a judge needs. >8. Currently the examination is 10 questions. Should there be more questions >that require more concise answers and thus shorter answers? Yes, but leave in maybe two open-ended questions. However, the answer key to this type of question needs to be made up in advance, so that personal biases don't affect test scoring: e.g. the question of Infusion vs. Decoction. There should be, say, five points that *must* be covered in the answer and the score should be determined based upon how many of these were covered and then decreased if any falsehoods are written, like: "Infusion mashing requires a wooden spoon to be used -- stainless steel spoons will cause a green color in the beer." >9. Should there be a format that each exam be required to have. Such as all >exams should have questions that cover certain aspects of: Hops, Yeast and >Fermentation, Beer Styles, BJCP knowledge, Malt and Adjuncts, Water, Equipment, >Handling and storage. OR perhaps each exam should cover five out nine areas >(fictitious example). Why not test in all the areas? If there are 28 closed-ended questions and two open-ended ones, I think that all areas could be covered. Fill-in-the- blank is a reasonable way to test knowledge without essays: e.g. a list of hop varieties followed by blanks for 1) aroma/flavor/bittering and 2) beer styles in which commonly used. >10. Should there be "problem questions." For example:What do you tell the >brewer if: > >The beer appears cloudy and gushes. >There is a phenolic aroma and a ring around the neck of the bottle. >The beer is acidic and sour but bitterness and malt balance is appropriate. >A beer is too heavy bodied for an American "lite" beer. >A bock beer smells fruity and also like wet cardboard. Great. Note my email to JudgeNet in May: From att!synchro.com!judge-request Tue May 12 13:08:20 EDT 1992 Subject: BJCP exam Status: R I would like to see questions like this added to the BJCP exam: - List three possible sources for sour flavors and how to avoid them. - Give two suggestions for increasing body. - Suggest two possible ways to increase head retention. - List four sources for hazy beer and how to avoid them. This type of knowledge is important for judges and it is not tested. Comments? Al. >11. How should BJCProgram questions be presented/asked? To what extent? Present a question on the exam and then leave room for an answer -- it was a bit of hassle to keep flipping back to the question page and there was no way of knowing how much answer was expected. >12. Should all questions be related to the evaluation/judging process? >Questions such as "Tell me all you know about how malt is made." is a question >that draws on the knowledge of brewing but does not connect it with >evaluation/judging. Rephrased the question might be more succint by asking, >"Discuss the theories concerning how two-row malted barley and six-row malted >barley can influence the flavor of beer. Give two beer styles where there >would be advantages of using two-row and two styles using six-row. Briefly >explain why." I agree that the rephrased way is better, however, this brings up another point. We all know there are debates raging even in well-respected literature -- some of which is listed in the BJCP Study Guide as recommended reading. These areas should be left out of the exam. For example, "what is Bitter?" -- compare the AHA description, Terry Foster's "Pale Ale" and Jackson's "Pocket Guide" and "World Guide." At judgings, I use the AHA description, but at club meetings, I talk about all the different views and don't particularly preach one -- becuase the jury still appears to be out. I feel that the 2-row vs. 6-row debate is in this category. Other: To me it is important to get my graded exam back. I would like to know where I goofed. I think it's reasonble to ask about the judge classes and what it takes to achieve them, but please don't ask how many points you get for organizing a competition that draws 142 beers. I've heard there is talk of adding another judge class above Master. I support this as long as it doesn't have the word Cosmic in the title ;^). Al. Al Korzonas Certified Judge Palos Hills, IL -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Jul 20 23:26:35 1992 Subject: Re: judging and sense of smell I have a sense of smell which "comes and goes". I suffer from periodic hay fever, and when I'm having it, I cannot smell. At all other times, my sense of smell is just fine. I do not believe I am alone in this; hay fever is moderately common. If I am suffering hay fever, and my sense of smell is temporarily disabled, I am unable to judge beer. Any slight amount of hop bitterness in the beer is amplified, and can fool me into rating such a beer as overhopped. I cannot tell much about malt character other than sweetness. These are just some of the problems I encountered on an occasion (actually, my first BJCP exam) when I had to judge beer in a place which was also inhabited by cats, to which I am allergic. As the session went on, and my feline allergies intensified and my nasal congestion became more and more complete, it became clear that I was unable to tell one beer from another except by color. Therefore, I simply will not judge beer if my allergies are imparing my sense of smell. Fortunately for me, these instances are relatively rare - the month of September, or anytime cats are around; some people suffer far worse allergies than I do. I share this experience with you to suggest that perhaps a beer judge who cannot smell SHOULD be relegated to the status of the blind movie critic; aroma is just too important in good beer. However, in the commonplace team-judging setup, where two or three judges arrive at a score for a beer based on discussion and consensus, perhaps it could be arranged for a smell-impaired judge to simply use the average of the other judges' scores in the aroma portion of the scoresheet. Such an arrangement could give a fair score to an entry in a competition, while still achieving the benefit of the smell-impaired judge's expertise in other areas such as flavor and knowledge of beer styles. Such an arrangement would, of course, need to be set up in advance with the other judges in the team. - Roger Deschner -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 22 18:32:43 1992 Subject: computer use in judging? I'm curious -- how are computers used in competitions? I half-remember that Russ Wigglesworth said that the San Francisco area competitions use PCs to track entrants and the AHA nationals certainly use a computer, but does the average regional competition use one? The reason I'm asking the JUDGE list is to encourage sharing of whatever software has been written to avoid "re-inventing the wheel" for programs that track entrants or anaylyze scores. Bob Devine -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jul 23 05:13:30 1992 Subject: RE: computer use in judging? The Maltose Falcons and the Brews Bros. both use computers to keep track of entries and their scores. The package the Falcons use is available for other clubs. Contact the newsletter editor Ward Pond at the address or phone number listed in the Falcons' newsletter (sorry, I haven't got a copy at work). --Darryl Richman -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jul 23 11:39:30 1992 Subject: Re: computer use in judging? Reply to: RE>computer use in judging? Here in San Francisco, we use a computer for all of our competitions. We use a Mac and just have a database in FileMaker Pro which we have tailored to serve our needs. The AHA also uses FileMaker for their comp. We don't put as much info into our local comp files as the AHA does since we are not interested in statistical stuff like the use of liquid vs dry yeast and plastic vs glass carboys. It certainly makes figuring the scoring much easier. I have lots of calculations written in so that we can verify the judges addition as we enter the scores. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jul 23 12:43:25 1992 Subject: Re: computer use in judging? A couple of years ago I wrote a very primitive program for scoring small beer competitions. You use your favorite editor to create an ASCII beer/judge scoring grid. You then feed this file to the program which displays/prints a totalled and sorted report. The Wort Processors used this program to score a few club tastings. If anyone has use for such a program, let me know, I'll send you a copy. It is written in very generic C, and has run under UNIX & DOS. It should work on any machine with a C compiler and a text editor. -- Chuck Cox chuck at synchro.com In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Jul 27 20:10:54 1992 Subject: Pale ALes (from Jim Fitz) Jim Fitzgerald (fitz at synchro.com) has been having problems with his mailer (synchro), and asked me to re-post this for him: > From fitz Sun Jul 26 21:34:21 1992 > To: judge > Subject: Pale Ales > Date: Sun Jul 26 21:34:21 1992 > > > Something we haven't really talked about in a while is how to handle the > large number of Pale Ales at every competition. This problem seems to get > worse every year. The current method of picking the highest scores from > multiple pannels of judges just doesn't work. > > Obviously each judge has their own method of assigning points, some high > some low. This becomes very unfair to the brewers and usually results in > the wrong beer being picked for the best PA. > > What if we break down the MAJOR category of Pale Ales into: Bitters, > English Pale Ales, American Pale Ales and IPAs (i.e. we don't judge > American pilsners along with continental lights...do we?) What if we > While still enforcing the rule of one beer entered per MAJOR category per > person. Thus the brewer must decide which of his/her PAs in the subcategory > is best to represent in the MAJOR category of Pale Ales. This would keep > the total number of Pale Ales entered the same but still break uo the > category. The winner of each subcategory of Pale Ales would go on to > best-of -show. > > Any thoughts...? > > El Fitzo.... > -- Mike Fertsch Internet: mikef at synchro.com Internet: mikef%hopfen at rsi.com Wortnet: mikef -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 28 11:07:27 1992 Subject: Cosmic Wazoo Al Korzonas sez... > I've heard there is talk of adding another judge class above Master. > I support this as long as it doesn't have the word Cosmic in the title ;^). There has been some speculation amongst senior judges on this topic. Here is what I have heard: This new rank might be called 'Cosmic Wazoo' or 'Grand (Non-Cosmic) Master' B-) It may involve submitting some kind of thesis-like paper or project, or some other contribution to the program. It may require a special exam, perhaps oral. I'm not sure if more experience points are being considered. Perhaps Stiv or Jim could fill us in with the latest news. warning: opinion ahead I think the BJCP has enough ranks. I'm not sure what will be gained by expanding the heirarchy. I must admit that I might persue such a rank if it were created, but I'd rather drink beer. -- Chuck Cox chuck at synchro.com In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 28 12:28:57 1992 Subject: Re: Pale ALes (from Jim Fitz) This sounds like a good idea, but make sure the sub-categories are well enough defined so that people know which to enter their beer in. Problem I can see is that a division of "IPA" and "Bitter" can probably come off smoothly, but a question of "Ord." "Spec." "ESB" could involve a greater degree of overlap in OG/FG and hopping and make assigning a category more involved. Just a thought. -Jeff. (yeah, as soon as there is a judging cert. test nearby I will become one, kinda sucks to be a poor college student in the middle of nowhere, State College PA) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 28 17:11:54 1992 Subject: Re: Cosmic Wazoo Reply to: RE>Cosmic Wazoo The idea of steps above that of Master in the BJCP is being considered in committee (Pat Baker & John Dale). Beyond that there is no information to report. I'm sure that the committee would be interested in comments on the concept, especially from current Master Judges. If you have such comments, feel free to send them to me and I'll forward them. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 28 17:52:54 1992 Subject: Re: bjcp exam questions Charlie Papazian sez... > I would like to offer the following as a few points of discussion. If there > are any other concerns or points that any of you wish to offer with regard to > the types of questions asked on the BJCP examinations please offer them. If the questions become too specific or concise, it may be necessary to create different questions for different judge ranks. > 1. What should be the goals of the examination? What are the priorities? > List them in order. Or are some equal? Of approximately equal priority: Determine the depth & breadth of the examinee's beer & brewing knowledge. Determine quality of palate. Determine written communications skills. > 3. Carefully consider what you think each question on an exam should > accomplish. What should the answers reflect of the examinees knowledge? Some questions should test the depth of their knowledge of certain subjects. While you can't test the depth of the the examinee's knowledge of every subject, you can take random samples. Other questions should be designed to test the breadth of their knowledge. To see if they understand the 'big picture'. > 4. Not all judges are brewers. What are the ideal attributes of a good > judge/evaluator of beer. The ideal judge should be very knowledgeable about the brewing process (procedures, ingredients, problems) and beer styles (descriptions, examples, experience, history) and should have good writing skills, and an excellent palate. It is very important for the judge to travel and appreciate different beer styles in their native habitat. > 6. For discussion: Should the questions be less open ended. An open ended > question: "Tell me everything you know about the Vienna style of beer." As long as the exam is intended for candidates for all possible ranks, it will have to be very open ended. Questions should be open enough that the grader will be able to realistically assign the full range of points for each question. For example, a True/False question would be useless, because the grader could only assign 0 or 10 points, and there would be no distinction between a Master-class answer and a Certified-class answer. > 7. For discussion: Should the questions be directed more towards certain types > of information: eg., Discuss how water and mineral content influences each of > the following styles of beer: Dry Stout, German Dunkel, Pale Ale, Pilsener, > Scotch Ale. Another example: Discuss the various ways hops can be utilized in > the making of beer in general and then discuss what types of hops and how they > are employed in the brewing of the following styles: Belgian Lambic, Dry > Stout, India Pale Ale, Bock Beer, Munich Helles. OR another example: Discuss > the malt characteristics of the following beer styles: [list five or six]. > These questions are a departure from questions such as "Describe the various > characteristics of ...... beer styles" or "How are hops utilized in beer?" There should be some questions like the above that test the depth of knowledge in some areas, but there should also be questions that test breadth. > 8. Currently the examination is 10 questions. Should there be more questions > that require more concise answers and thus shorter answers? Could be worth trying. But keep in mind the need to test all levels of judges with the same exam. There should be a reasonable range of possible answers. > 9. Should there be a format that each exam be required to have. Such as all > exams should have questions that cover certain aspects of: Hops, Yeast and > Fermentation, Beer Styles, BJCP knowledge, Malt and Adjuncts, Water, Equipment, > Handling and storage. OR perhaps each exam should cover five out nine areas > (fictitious example). If you do establish such guidlines, you should probably keep them fairly loose, the exam format will need to evolve to improve. > 10. Should there be "problem questions." For example:What do you tell the > brewer if: > The beer appears cloudy and gushes. > There is a phenolic aroma and a ring around the neck of the bottle. > The beer is acidic and sour but bitterness and malt balance is appropriate. > A beer is too heavy bodied for an American "lite" beer. > A bock beer smells fruity and also like wet cardboard. Why not. Perhaps you could ask them to fill out a complete scoring form for a fictitious problem beer. For example: You have a cloudy amber beer that gushes when opened. It has a malty aroma with some phenol. It has a very full body and an alcoholic aftertaste. Etc, etc, etc. Judge it as a Continental Light. > 11. How should BJCProgram questions be presented/asked? To what extent? One is OK, but try to avoid 'trivia' questions. After all, knowledge if the program is useful but not really that important. > 12. Should all questions be related to the evaluation/judging process? > Questions such as "Tell me all you know about how malt is made." is a question > that draws on the knowledge of brewing but does not connect it with > evaluation/judging. Rephrased the question might be more succint by asking, > "Discuss the theories concerning how two-row malted barley and six-row malted > barley can influence the flavor of beer. Give two beer styles where there > would be advantages of using two-row and two styles using six-row. Briefly > explain why." Either could be appropriate. The first is more of a 'breadth' question, the second is more 'depth' oriented. -- Chuck Cox chuck at synchro.com In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 29 00:16:28 1992 Subject: BJCP Grading Schedule? One aspect of the exams that I would like to see implemented is a loose time frame for getting scores back to took the exam. I am not completely sure about the intricacies involved, but as I understand it, the exams are graded by Pat, Jim or someone with equivalent experience. They are then sent off to be checked over by another qualified person, who then forwards them to the AHA where the scores are recorded and sent to the prospective judges. If 4 days are allowed for each of the travel or mail periods and 10 for each of the two gradings and the AHA paperwork, we get a total of 46 days as a reasonable estimate. With a few extra days for weekends and holidays, we can call this 8 weeks. Does this seem practical, or is there something I am missing? Scott -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 31 11:20:54 1992 Subject: Re: BJCP Grading Schedule (This is a rerun of a post I made some months ago on this subject.) Regarding some comments by Scott Bickham >I took the exam at Rochester 3 weeks ago where we were told >not to expect any results for at least 3 months! Twelve weeks is the maximum time to send results back. The grading of exams is done by three people. The delegate (Paul Dickey in the Rochester exam) will grade the exam and send it on to the Co-director who authorized the exam (Pat Baker). After Pat has finished he will send them on to a Associate director (Steve Stroud). Pat and Steve will then discuss the scores and come to agreed scores. The exams are then sent on to the administrator, who will notify the participants. The grading process is set up to maintain the consistency of grading. The delegated exam givers are allowed to grade the exams only for their own personal experience. The final grading is based on the grading done by the two directors. It is set up so that Pat or myself grade all the exams given. The second grading by the Associate director is to find any errors we might have made and balance out any bias we might inadvertently place in the grading. The process of having three graders and the administrators handle each exam gives us an interval for sending out results within twelve weeks. We plan two weeks for each grader and the administrator and one week for each mailing. This comes to eleven weeks and one more is added for slippage. Many exams are sent out in less than twelve weeks. Note that all graders are volunteers, and have to work their program work in with their other responsibilities. The twelve week interval is consistent with other certification programs. The Colorado state Professional Engineers Exam took 3 months to get results back. I spot checked several exams and found, for 4 exams the results were mailed out in 7, 7, 9 and 6 weeks. Jim Homer BJCP Co-director att!drutx!homer --------------------------------------