From JudgeNet Wed Aug 11 05:48:35 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: LiBeer Digest Introducing LiBeer, the Libertarian Beer Digest. This is an Internet mailing list dedicated to the discussion of issues of interest to libertarian brewers and beer lovers. This digest was created to provide a forum for the discussion of libertarian tactics to prevent and circumvent the rising tide of neo-prohibitionism, especially as applied to the brewing and drinking of beer. It is also a social forum and a good place to post excellent jokes. The LiBeer Digest is sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery, located in The People's Republic of Cambridge, Massachusetts. submissions: libeer at synchro.com administrative requests: libeer-request at synchro.com Please send subscription and unsubscription requests to the administrative address. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Aug 11 05:48:35 1993 From: Bob Devine Subject: judge points based on size of competition Here's a simple question that may provoke a complicated discussion: Why are more experience points awarded for judging a larger competitions? Was there any historical reason? Perhaps one reason was to attract more judges to larger competitions if it offered more points. A simpler system would be to award points just on the number of flights judged. After all, why is there a difference between judging a flight of pale ales at a competition with 70 entries and one with 80? With of the current rules, a judge is given different experience points. If a competition has multiple sessions, each session judged would be counted (up to some event maximum). An argument could probably be made that certain events are more difficult and should reward the judges more. Second round or best-of-show qualify here. Any comments? (he asked foolishly... :-) Bob Devine -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Aug 12 04:52:33 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Points Bob Devine asks about the logic in awarding more judge points for larger comps. >A simpler system would be to award points just on the number of >flights judged. In fact that was the intention behind last year's modification of the system. I think it has always been assumed that bigger competitions require more judging sessions, hence the larger points award. Alas, the way we (the Malts in California) run our competitions the preliminary rounds are always in advance of the day of the final judging. Generally during several evenings in the weeks prior to the actual competition. Currently judges who participate in both sessions get points equal to judges who only participate in the final judging. Unfortunately the changes made to the point schedule for the National did not anticipate the schedule we followed this year and so the points for this year are less than last year. We discussed this at the BJCC meeting in Portland but did not resolve the issue. I am a sub-committee who's task it is to get a proposal to the committee by September. I am working with the site coordinators on this. There is also the issue of the prestige of a specific event. The Final AHA National Round awards 2 points for this reason as well as an incentive to get judges to travel to the event. In my mind, the whole points system is open to debate. However, since it is the current method of establishing a judges experience and participation we need to get it to be equitable. I welcome discussion and opinions on this issue. I can certainly use fodder for my investigations on behalf of the BJCC. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Aug 12 04:52:33 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BOS and Ninkasi Steve says: >Then there is the problem of a tie >for the award. We can't use BOS (or any subsequent run-off >judging) to break a tie unless there is a fourth bottle. There >would need to be some firm criteria for resolution. I think the award could be re-worked so that ties would be extermely rare. I have a format for the California Hombrewer of the Year which calculates the points awarded based on the number of total entries in the categories which the beers win in. If you add a factor which includes something like total number of entries for a brewer which make it into the final round as a tie breaker, I suspect there would not be a problem. I caution you though that there are some very passionate supporters of the BOS out there. We had a pretty spirited discussion on JudgeNet a while ago when I advocated the abolishing of BOS in general. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Aug 16 02:06:26 1993 From: glo at beta.lanl.gov (Gordon Olson) Subject: Should we expand the NHC mead categories? I have written to Karen Barela and James Spence and requested that the mead categories be expanded from two to three in the NHC. With specialized competitions like the Mazer Cup recognizing eight categories, I feel that it is time for the AHA to expand their definitions and encourage more mead entries to the AHA competition. Here is the new description that I am proposing: MEAD Meads are produced by the fermentation of honey, water, yeast, and optional ingredients such as fruit, malt, herbs, and/or spices. Their final gravity roughly determines whether they are: Dry: 0.995 to 1.009, Medium: 1.010 to 1.019, Sweet: 1.020 to 1.029, or Very Sweet: 1.030 and higher. The perceived sweetness will depend on ingredients. Wine, Champagne, sherry, mead, ale, or lager yeasts may be used. In all categories, the honey character is apparent in the aroma and flavor and there is an absence of harsh or stale character. 25. Traditional Mead Nothing added other than water treatments and acidification. Color depends on honey type. Low to medium fruity acidity. a) Sparkling - Effervescent. Light to medium body. Dry, medium, or sweet (designate on entry form). b) Still - Not effervescent. Light to full body. Dry, medium, sweet, or very sweet (designate on entry form). 26. Melomel, Cyser, Pyment, Braggot Melomel: fruit, Cyser: apple juice, Pyment: grapes, Braggot: malt (less than 50%). Made with any fruit or malt. Flavors should be expressed in aroma and flavor. Color should represent ingredients. a) Sparkling - Effervescent. Light to medium body. Dry, medium, or sweet (designate on entry form). b) Still - Not effervescent. Light to full body. Dry, medium, sweet, or very sweet (designate on entry form). 27. Metheglin, Hippocras Metheglin: herbs, spices, Hippocras: spices, grapes (spiced pyment). Made with any herbs or spices. Flavors should be expressed in aroma and flavor. Color should represent ingredients. a) Sparkling - Effervescent. Light to medium body. Dry, medium, or sweet (designate on entry form). b) Still - Not effervescent. Light to full body. Dry, medium, sweet, or very sweet (designate on entry form). The biggest change that I am suggesting is to split off the spiced meads into their own category. I have also added Braggot and Hippocras, not big categories, but they shouldn't be ignored. Give me your comments on this proposal. If you agree with my suggestions, call or write Karen and/or James. They won't make any changes unless people agitate for change. Gordon Olson, glo at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Aug 17 03:42:11 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: The Mead Question With regards to Gordon Olson's suggestion to expand the meads in the AHA NHC I would like to counter with the suggestion that the Meads, Ciders and Sake be split off from the NHC. This has come up several times in the past 2 years at both NHC meetings and BJCP meetings. The Meads had 155 entries this year, Cider had 41, and Sake 9 (or was it 6?). The numbers indicate that there is enough interest in at least Cider and Mead to keep them around, however I don't think they belong in the beer competition. I think they could be supported by their own competition. As far as the BJCP issue is concerned, the question has always been how do we support these categories since we do not test potential judges on anything but beers derived from barley or wheat? Thus far judges have been awarded standard experience points when judging these categories. I have no problem with the points, the judges do the same work as the beer judges, but I question the validity of including the judges without some sort of specialized verification that they are competent on the categories. I certainly don't consider myself qualified to judge these beverages. And they do deserve special attention as far as their judging goes. I'd like to see the BJCP begin to evaluate all judges in specific categories and mead/cider/sake sounds like a good first step (not necessarily as a group) or test case. Perhaps a supplimental examination could be given, or a certification seminar organized after attending which judges would be given a certificate recognizing them in a special category. Certain acknowledged experts in each of these areas could be prevailed upon to develop standards by which examinees could be evaluated. As a member of both committees with jurisdiction over these questions, I am certainly willing to champion them if there is sufficient support from the populace. So, how's that for stirring things up? RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Aug 17 03:42:11 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Category Discussion list A list has been made for the Category subcommittee of the National Homebrew Competition Committee to discuss suggestions and comments on categories. The list is considered open so that general comments and feedback can be solicited. Participation in this list does not however mean that you are a subcommittee member. In fact the NHCC itself is only an advisory committee and whatever changes or recommendations it has forwarded it to it as a result of this discussion are all still subject to discussion by the NHCC itself and final approval by the AHA. Please send requests to participate in this discussion to nhcc-cat-request at x.org Please only request if you have serious constructive comments and discussion to make regarding the AHA category descriptions. This list will be closely monitored and absolutely no bad behavior (flaming or other non-reasonable discourse) is acceptable. This is not a digested list and all submissions are echoed immediately please try to keep this in mind when posting to it (ie only echo necessary parts of discussion not entire messages, etc...). While I wish to foster useful discussion I really can't handle large volumes of subscribe/unsubscribe requests, so please don't just sign up casually. If you are truly interested in helping to amend category descriptions your input is really welcome but if you're just looking for more mail to read while goofing off at work please don't sign up. Thanks, Jay Hersh Rogue Mailing list moderator.... :-) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon Aug 23 04:55:52 1993 From: glo at beta.lanl.gov (Gordon Olson) Subject: Meads in the NHC In msg#621, Russ Wigglesworth writes: >I would like to counter with the suggestion that the Meads, Ciders and Sake be >split off from the NHC. This has come up several times in the past 2 years at >both NHC meetings and BJCP meetings. >The Meads had 155 entries this year, Cider had 41, and Sake 9 (or was it 6?). >The numbers indicate that there is enough interest in at least Cider and Mead >to keep them around, however I don't think they belong in the beer competition. >I think they could be supported by their own competition. I strongly disagree with the above suggestion. Meads have been associated with the AHA and NHC right from the beginning. Unless you are more specific with what you mean by "their own competition," I think the NHC should be left as it is, including meads, ciders, and sake. In the early days of the AHA, there was discussion about what to do with meads. At that time no wine makers organization was interested in adopting mead makers, so the AHA adopted them. In my experience, a large fraction of beer homebrewers occasionally make a mead or cider for variety, just to do something different than straight beer. When it comes time for competitions, why should the brewer be required to send beers to one competition and meads to a different one? Russ also writes: > ... but I question the >validity of including the judges without some sort of specialized verification >that they are competent on the categories. I certainly don't consider myself >qualified to judge these beverages. And they do deserve special attention as >far as their judging goes. >I'd like to see the BJCP begin to evaluate all judges in specific categories >and mead/cider/sake sounds like a good first step (not necessarily as a group) >or test case. Perhaps a supplemental examination could be given, or a >certification seminar organized after attending which judges would be given a >certificate recognizing them in a special category. Certain acknowledged >experts in each of these areas could be prevailed upon to develop standards by >which examinees could be evaluated. Russ, if you don't feel competent to judge light lagers, dry stouts, meads, or whatever category, please don't sign up to judge it. In my experience, brewers are very conscientious and only judge categories they are knowledgeable about. Usually this means someone tastes meads at club meetings and probably has brewed at least one or two meads before they consider judging meads. Then when they do judge, there is one or two experience people on the panel from whom they can learn. I don't think the current system is broken. Supplemental exams and certifications are a logistical nightmare. Administering such a system could push BJCP costs up dramatically, for little benefit, in my opinion. I think we should emphasize the personal integrity of each judge and encourage them to consider carefully which categories they sign up to judge. I am strongly against layers of rules and regulations in any field. In beer making and beer judging, which are hobbies for most of us, I am even more strongly against over regulation. I would rather have an occasional error made than have an oppressive bureaucracy. As you can guess, your message did get me stirred up. I hope that I have made my position clear. Gordon L. Olson, glo at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Aug 24 04:18:12 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: More stirring Mr. Olson says: >Meads have been associated with the AHA >and NHC right from the beginning. I am not suggesting ousting meads from the AHA. I am suggesting that they are different and popular enough to support their own competition and that ciders are closer in style to meads than they are to beer. Nor do I advocate creating more rules and regulations. Offering training on specific styles can only enhance the skills of judges. Keeping track of such information is no more a headache than maintaining the list of the judges in the first place. Since the database already exists all I am talking about is increasing the amount of data which it contains. The benefit to organizers to have such information on hand would certainly justify collecting it. It would be no more work than keeping the points up to date (which, IMHO, is almost without value). Not being "certified" in a style would not preclude one from judging that style, however having such a certification could go a long way to getting placed on panels one desires at the larger competitions. And, the organizers would be reasonably confident that there were "competent" judges sitting on such panels. As far as splitting out the meads from the NHC is concerned, we are practically there now. There is an independent BOS for the meads now. I'm just suggesting we take the final step and give the mead-makers their own competition. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Aug 24 04:18:12 1993 From: Martin A. Lodahl Subject: Class Qualifications In JudgeNet Digest #622, Gordon Olson reacted strongly to Russ Wigglesworth's proposal for category-specific judge evaluations: > Russ, if you don't feel competent to judge light lagers, dry stouts, > meads, or whatever category, please don't sign up to judge it. In my > experience, brewers are very conscientious and only judge categories > they are knowledgeable about ... [ ... ] > .... I don't think the current system is broken. I disagree. I believe that Russ has identified a serious hole in the system, and I'm not altogether sure how it should be addressed, I don't believe it should be ignored. True, there are many judges who know their strengths and weaknesses, and if judging a class they don't know well, will defer to the judgement of those on the panel they know to have a better background in the style, but there are some who can't be counted on for any level of self-regulation. Among the judge pool I work with fairly regularly there are a couple that are always a challenge, as they can only be seated with judges who are both strong in the class and assertive as well. One is rated National. Remember, rankings are gained by showing up and meeting _minimal_ standards, and are not as predictive as any of us would like of the actual value of the judge. A more perverse variation that I've seen from time to time is the "national syndrome", where the judge is so impressed by their ranking that they're unable to consider that some judge with lesser ranking might actually have a better background and more experience in the style they happen to be judging. We have some of those pests, too. To make myself perfectly clear: As the present rankings are primarily based upon attendance records, I don't believe them to be accurately predictive of a judge's overall capabilities, and especially not of their suitability to judge any specific class. > Supplemental exams and certifications are a logistical nightmare. Administering > such a system could push BJCP costs up dramatically, for little benefit, in my > opinion. I think we should emphasize the personal integrity of each judge > and encourage them to consider carefully which categories they sign up to > judge. A fine, idealistic view. If we could count on judges perceiving their weaknesses and acting appropriately, I'd agree with you. But enough don't (and won't) to create a real problem for contest organizers who care about the quality of the judging in their contest. > I am strongly against layers of rules and regulations in any field. In beer > making and beer judging, which are hobbies for most of us, I am even more > strongly against over regulation. I would rather have an occasional error > made than have an oppressive bureaucracy. I don't believe an "oppressive bureaucracy" has been proposed. I work in one, and know what they look like. And the "occasional error" is unavoidable, but I would like to see us eliminate the errors that don't have to be there. I became a judge after a beer of mine was judged by a complete fool; to me it is completely unacceptable for a contestant to receive the sort of scoresheet I received, years ago. In my own judging, I believe I can take a pretty good shot at the Belgian styles and California Commons, am right in there pitching on porters, stouts, Bocks and browns, but would certainly defer to the opinions of specialists on pale ales, and would only judge some styles (like Munich Helles, for example) if I could do some advance preparation. I think the ranking I hold is moderately predictive of my abilities in my so-so styles, but not in the ballpark on my high and low ends. = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at 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 Wed Aug 25 06:10:04 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Judge competence Regarding Gordon Olson's conversation with Martin and Russ. I can provide you a perfect example of a judge in our New England region who has slandered my beers with no knowledge of the style. The beer in question was my Bavarian Dark. A Munich Dunkel which won 1st place in the AHA National competition this past year. The exact same batch of beer was judged a few weeks prior by a given judge in our region who scored it very low. Said judge had previously scored the exact same recipe from a different batch in another competition a few months earlier. He also scored that beer low. As a fairly experienced judge I (and other experienced judges I know) can vouch for the consistency between batches of the flavor of this beer. Said judge has never been to Europe, nor is he by his own admission familiar with Bavarian Dark beers, of which there are really few good examples here in the US, and particularly none of the "Munich Dunkel" class that I know of. Still despite his admitted lack of knowledge this judge has requested to judge this style at at least 2 events. This sorry tale is an example of how some judges either don't know or won't recognize their limitations. Certainly everyone can't afford to travel to Europe, but some styles are more widely available than others. I for one have limited experience with Alt beers. I've never asked to judge them for that reason. So I do favor some form of per style competence rating. How this would be administered I have no idea. Perhaps this is overkill and the complaint system I've seen discussed (ie whereby someone can lodge a complaint against said bozo judges and numerous verifiable complaints would have some repercussion. I'm weak on specifics of this and maybe Russ knows more) is sufficient to keep folks honest. Still it is obvious there are a handful of problem judges, which is not unthinkable in a system that has grown as large as the BJCP. Therefore it is not unrealistic that some mechanism for after the fact quality assurance (ie for those already in the program) might be worth having. JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Aug 25 06:10:04 1993 From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Qualified Judges Just a very loud HUZZAH! to Martin Lodahl's description of the problem: judges who think they know a lot, but simply don't. I am strongly in favor of offering enhanced certifications in specific beerstyles, with very specific requirements about what makes an individual judge a Bock Expert (TM) (hmm, maybe Bock Specialist; I like the abbreviation). Huzzah. But now what? - --Jeff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Aug 26 09:10:39 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Style-based certification The problem is evident -- I too, have been a victim of it: a National (!) judge wrote that my Trappist Dubbel did not have the required lactic sourness (!!!). Hey, this is more than just not having experience with the style, it is simply not knowing the description of the style. I feel that at a minimum, judges should be tested on knowledge of the basic characteristics of ALL the styles. I'm not saying that we should be tested on the IBU or OG range for each style, but perhaps judges should know that Wit beers, for example, generally contain corriander and curacao orange and are very gently hopped. If nothing else, this will keep the people who don't want to bother to learn the basic descriptions out of the National rankings, cause they just won't score above 80 on the exam. Competition organizers often are forced to put judges in categories in which the judges are weak. Each competition does not have 100 Master judges show up none of which have entered any beers in the competition. So until the numbers of judges out there quadruple, there will always be shortages in one category or another. On the other hand, by that time, the number of entries will have quadrupled also... I, personally, would like for there to be style-based certification, but how do we test for something like this? Does being certified in Belgian beers require proof of travel in Belgium? Airline boarding passes? Or maybe it requires a setting like the sake judgings in Japan -- where judges are rated by how many commercial styles they correctly identify? Sheesh, could you imagine the cost of such a test? Taking a single category test would require a dozen beers in a particular style -- a costly proposition and to borrow from Jay's post, where are you going to find 12 or even 6 different Muenchener Dunkels in the US? I think that written examinations may be our only feasable method of certification, no? Comments? On another tack, what about feedback from wronged brewers on bad judges to the BCJP administration? Perhaps if there was a formal complaint procedure, perhaps we could drum out the bad judges. Perhaps judges who write: "this smells like S**T" or "this tastes like P**S" or judges who think that Pilsners must have a roasted barley nose should have points deducted after multiple infractions. Perhaps the fear of losing points or even losing judging status would get the sloppy or misinformed judges to fly straight or get booted out of the program. I try to be as fair to every beer as I can and I expect the same from the judges who judge my beers. I know my limitations and I have admitted them on judging sheets when an unavoidable situation has put me in the position of having to judge a style with which I was not familiar-enough. I feel being a BJCP judge is an honor that is earned and I would rather have a judge be dismissed from the program than to continually dishonor the BJCP! Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Aug 27 10:24:16 1993 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: the pour On a score sheet from the NHC, judge A says "maybe a little more body, try more munich malt next time". judge B says "chewy, maybe a little less munich malt next time". The beer in question was quite heavy, with a big yeast cake on the bottom. It had been in cold storage for months. There was definitely a difference between the beer at the top of the bottle and the beer at the bottom. How much care goes on at the average competition to insure consistency between each judge's glass? i.e. pour a little in judge A's glass, a little in B's, a little in C's, repeat... bb -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Aug 27 10:24:16 1993 From: pmiller at mmm.com (Philip . Miller) Subject: Apple juice aroma Greetings, I sampled a beer once with a very distinct apple juice aroma and flavor. (The aroma was quite powerful. One sniff and *KABLOOEY*: Apples -- no question about it.) I know that too much sugar will supposedly produce a cidery flavor and I know that high fermentation temps (or yeast strain) can produce fruity esters, but how would you account for both flavor and aroma (besides the obvious)? The beer was entered as a pale ale, FWIW. Thanks, Phil -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Aug 27 10:24:16 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BJCP Feedback Al brought up the issue of problems being reported back to the BJCP administrator. At the BJCC meeting in Portland we discussed the issue on two levels. First the entrant who has a complaint: There has always been a proceedure whereby an entrant who isn't satisfied with a judge's comments (in terms of appropriateness) could send a written complaint to the BJCP Administrator. The letters would be reviewed and kept on file. If multiple complaints arose on a particular judge the Co-directors of the BJCP would be asked to investigate. Apparently very few complaints have ever been submitted in this way. To remind entrants of this procedure, the BJCC has asked the sanctioning organizations (AHA & HWBTA) to include a notice on the bottom of their scoresheets which outlines it. The second part of this problem was not previously covered by a procedure. That is, how does one judge complain about the behavior of another judge? Frequently judges are much more aware of another's attitudinal problems. They are certainly in the best position to evaluate behavior. Previously the only person to complain to was the event organizer on hand. This was fine on the local level but did nothing as far as the BJCP was concerned. Judges will now be encouraged to communicate such complaints, in writing, to the BJCP Administrator who will pass the them along to the Co-directors for review. One of my chief complaints about the BJCP is the lack of feedback to judges once the exam has been passed. There is no review of score sheets or abilities unless an additional exam is taken. I think there ought to be some sort of continuing review in order to insure that judges are providing the feedback expected to the brewers as well as pick out the odd problem judge. Either that or make the exam so definitive that it need only be passed once to insure a judge's competency. It may NOT be possible to certify judges in ALL styles by individual testing. In categories where the commercial examples are few or non-existent, we may have to rely on those brewer/judges who have demonstrated proficiency in the style by either brewing or research. In which case visiting the areas where the beers are available might be a criteria. However, this should only apply to the more obscure styles. In general, correctly identifying examples of a style in a tasting session as well as pointing out what characteristics are appropriate and which are not would work. This will require a panel of "experts" pre-review the flight in question and determine which beers "fit" the profile of the style. The examinee would then have to correctly identify some percentage of the flight correctly. Examples of near misses ought to be included in the exam flight too and they will need to be identified as such. I never said this would be cheap OR easy. Still, that's no reason to write off the goal. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Aug 28 05:41:30 1993 From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Apples > From: pmiller at mmm.com (Philip . Miller) > Subject: Apple juice aroma > > I sampled a beer once with a very distinct apple juice aroma and flavor. > (The aroma was quite powerful. One sniff and *KABLOOEY*: Apples -- no > question about it.) > > I know that too much sugar will supposedly produce a cidery flavor and > I know that high fermentation temps (or yeast strain) can produce fruity > esters, but how would you account for both flavor and aroma (besides the > obvious)? > > The beer was entered as a pale ale, FWIW. > A number of years ago, we served Hale's Pale Ale at the Horse Brass Pub - -- a cask-conditioned version. It had an amazing aroma and flavor of fresh apples (sometimes a little pear or peach), and it was clearly a result of the yeast strain. It was also wonderful, and according to at least one Brit expatriate who would drink nothing else, entirely appropriate. I mean, they call it "fruity" for a reason. - --Jeff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Aug 28 05:41:30 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Apples in your beer To Phil, a compound called ethyl acetate is if I recall correctly often associated with a green apple aroma in beer. It is typically a fermentation byproduct from poor yeast or improper fermentation conditions (one of which might be too high a ferment temp). I think another green apple cause is acetaldehyde. I'm sure the other wise folks here will correct me if my top of the head recollections are wrong. I have to reboot the memory store after a recent concussion so I hope I've gotten that right. Try a look at George Fix's Principles of Brewing Science (is that the correct title??) or the Zymurgy Troubleshooters special info. Those are the primary sources of my knowledge/speculation on these. Hope that helps. JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Aug 28 05:41:30 1993 From: "Beer Digest Mailbox" Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #625 (Aug 26, 1993) Al writes about a problem with an unqualified Trappist judge: > The problem is evident -- I too, have been a victim of it: a National (!) > judge wrote that my Trappist Dubbel did not have the required lactic > sourness (!!!). Hey, this is more than just not having experience with > the style, it is simply not knowing the description of the style. > > I feel that at a minimum, judges should be tested on knowledge of the basic > characteristics of ALL the styles. It's quite unfortunate that this beer was not given proper consideration because of a judge's misinformation. The judge certainly should be informed that (s)he needs to learn more about this particular style. Before we all jump on judges who miss the mark on certian styles, we probably should look at the logistics of running a competition. Many judges feel confident in certain styles and feel less confident in others. I, for one, would prefer not to judge Kolsch or Alt beers. I simply have not had enough of these beers to tell brewers what is good and bad about them. In competitons, I ask not to judge these styles. In setting up judging panels, organizers often try to pair up 'experienced' judges with 'less experienced' tasters. The first-pass paring might miss certain judge's preferences. After all judges are assigned, the judge might ask to be moved out of a panel in which (s)he feels less than confident. In large competitions, moving judges can cause enough of a 'ripple effect' that the judge is stuck on a panel. The result - judges evaluate beers that they are not fully qualified to judge. Assigning judges has enough variables and permutations that it is nearly impossible to match everyone's preferences. Maybe someone should write a scheduling package to assign judges? -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Aug 31 02:48:49 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Re: Apple aroma Phil writes: >I sampled a beer once with a very distinct apple juice aroma and flavor. It could be acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is in the normal path for the formation of ethanol, but as with all other things, some yeasts produce more than others. An excessive amount can be found in very young beers since healty yeast eventually transform it into ethanol. Sniff some Budweiser -- they filter their product well before the yeast has a chance to process all the acetaldehyde and thus quite a bit spills over into the final product. Al. --------------------------------------