Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA08698 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05241 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root at localhost) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with X.500 id KAA03278; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com (uu6.psi.com [38.145.155.3]) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with SMTP id KAA03269; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA10362 for spencer at umich.edu; Sat, 14 Feb 98 10:54:57 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28567 for judge-digest-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:30:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:30:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199802141530.KAA28567 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1537 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Saturday, 14 February 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1537 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: irish moss and yeast floc AHA vs BJCP, Scoresheets, Competition Mission Statements Score sheets, why Scoresheets/ BJCP Guidelines / Sanctioning and advertising Re: Competitions, Why? Fw: AHA sanctioned, BJCP website & competition registration/sanctioning Re: BJCP website ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: isenhour at uiuc.edu Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:42:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: irish moss and yeast floc Al writes: > Jeff Frane was the first that I know of to suggest Irish Moss did aid > in yeast flocculation. He posted on this in HBD a few years ago. I > had never noticed it either, but in an experiment I did about two years > ago, I found that in 1-liter test batches that I made with varying > amounts of IM, a rate equivalent to 1/8 gram per liter for an all-grain > beer resulted in faster flocculation of yeast than either no IM 1/4 gram > per liter and 1/2 gram per liter. In other words, more and none was > worse than 1/8 gram per liter. Note... this was with refined flakes, > not powdered... the rate may be different with powdered IM. I did experiments with seaweed flakes (Crosby and Baker) - all hydrated, some hydrated and put in a blender, and with Siebel's powdered blend, in various permutations with and without polyclar, bentonite and 230 bloom pork gelatin. These were 217 gallon batches and all were temperature controlled and time monitored, with daily records of progress. These were done over the course of about 6 or 9 months. I did not have access to any device that measured clarity, so these were subjective measurements, but there were many people involved. The general consensus was that, given my specific equipment, that the seaweed flakes and Siebel mix (the kettle blend, I've forgotten the name as they sent me some free samples) affected the yeast settling rate the least, various (post kettle) finings had the most effect on yeast floculation. The gelatin finings won out, just FYI. I did keep using the irish moss as it reduced haze formation perceptably. As I understand it, the active parts of carrageenan finings are made up of three fractions of repeating galactose units with glycosidic linkages (I'll call the fractions 1 2 and 3 because we're restricted to ascii). Chondrus Crispus is commonly called Irish Moss and is mostly 1 and 3 fractions with a bit of 2 (2-7% by weight). By itself, fraction 1 is, I think the best at forming trub in kettle conditions. It compacts moderatly well, but does not bind tightly. Fraction 2 forms a loose knit mass Fraction 3 stays soluable, and there are some indications that if there is too much of it, it interferes with fraction 1. If you increase the amount of fraction 2 it increases the cohesiveness of the gel formation formed by 1, above. I suspect the Siebel mix takes into account the above and is a balanced mixture, whereas the seaweed mix you get cheap but you takes your chances (in its natural state, some of the sulfated residues can put kinks in the chains and effect the gelation process, something like 1 kink in 200 residues can have a negative effect). When I buy 10 LB buckets of it it sure SMELLs like seaweed! Now carageenans and yeast are both negatively charged, so I am somewhat at a loss to understand the nature of how carageenan might affect yeast flocculation. Judge wize: if you have a hazy beer, is it a colloidal haze (chill or otherwize) or a yeast haze? Given the equipment available at most judgings I would be hard pressed to determine, unless there were physical factors you could use in your detective work (shook up bottle etc). I'm not talking about chunks/floaters, but haze. Beer is visually clear at <10k cells/ml (if I remember correctly). I will check the literature, but I have seen no solid info on kettle finings affecting yeast floc, only protein floc. My actual request was to adopt "flocculation" when refering to yeast and "coagulation" we mean protein/trub - just to avoid confusion when providing feedback to brewers, although technically I think proteins floc. cheers, john isenhour brewmaster at gaia.lis.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Steve Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:48:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: AHA vs BJCP, Scoresheets, Competition Mission Statements I've been reading this forum for about a year now, and want to congratulate all of those who have been posting of late on a variety of issues. After a lull the past few months, several topics have stimulated some great discussion that can only help our efforts as brewers, judges, and competition participants. I know from my perspective, the recent discussions have given members of our club in Nashville some food for thought about what we can do as competition organizers to improve on our 2 year efforts of running a good competition. And, as recent new members of the BJCP and relatively new members of the judging corps, we are all looking forward to upcoming competitions in our Southeast region to work on our judging skills. As with all discusions like the ones that have been going on here, there are some who present very radical views, and others who are more moderate about change. I think we can all find some benefit from all of the info that has been shared here...what matters is that we continue to try to improve on our own skills as brewers and judges of brewers and avoid the pitfalls of thinking that once we pass an exam, our work is done! Here are some positive things that I plan to work on in the future, both as a judge and as a club president and comp organizer: 1) set an example at all competitions as a judge who fills out score sheets fully, completely, and give the brewer as much info as possible. If that means spending less time talking and more time writing, so be it. I'll try to do my socializing afterwards while drinking some session beers at the bar. 2) bring some of my own address labels to put on each score sheet to give the brewer an opportunity to either thank me or chastise me personally, if they so choose 3) As an organizer, try to solicit support from both the BJCP and AHA. I hate to hear about family squables, and can only see growth in the overall awareness about both craft and homebrewing if we work both ways with both of these organizations. Cutting out one or the other can only slow us all down. I'm glad to hear of situations when both the BJCP and AHA have managed to do something together, whether it be score sheet development, guidelines, or competition registering/sanctioning. As organizers, let's all do the best we can to encourage this level of cooperation and coordination from those at the top of each. 4) REGISTER EARLY! Pick a date, pay your fee to one or the other or both (if you have a big budget) and send lots of e-mails and snail mail to both to get on their calendars. We missed the publication deadline in Zymurgy last year because of our own casualness about the event, and doubt that it made much difference in the total number of entries, but you never know unless you get on these calendars. 5) Include a competition mission statement as part of all comp. packets and info on websites and forums. Spend some time as a club or group asking yourselves "Why are we having this competition?" Is it to make money for the club? Is it to give homebrewers good feedback on their beers? Is it another excuse to drink lots of homebrewed beer? Whatever the reason, figure it out and let people know what the reasons are so they can decide for themselves if they should be a part of your competition! Well, I've probably wasted enough bandwidth for one posting...probably for more than one posting! Let's keep the discussion going, and thanks again to those who run this whole thing, as well as those who respond on a regular basis. I look forward to reading and occasionally posting. Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville TN P.s. Our 1998 competition will be Oct. 17. Get it on your calendars! ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:28:27 -0500 Subject: Score sheets, why Top of the morning to yea all, What is the purpose of a score sheet? The score sheet provides the means of communicating our opinion of an entry to the brewer. Must we wax elegant and poetic as Al K and Scott seem to indicate or can we communicate well enough with just a number? How many of you will be terribly upset if I judge your beer and give the beer a 6 for appearance and not one word of explanation? What if I give your beer a 50, fat chance, with not a word on the score sheet and you win the best of show, how upset are you going to be? With just the numbers provided don't you think that I communicated my opinion of your beer? Al K indicates that he wants to help a brewer improve the beer. Yet Al was opposed to providing the judges with the recipe so the judges would have enough information to give a better-informed opinion of the beer and better aid the brewer in improving this beer. Besides some brewers really like their beer and wouldn't change it for the world so Al's advice for improvement is not only unwanted but insulting as well, in some cases. I have read a lot of score sheets, both for beers that I have entered and score sheet of the judges who judged the competitions I ran. The feedback on the score sheets of the beers I entered where for the most part not descriptive of the beer or indicated that the judge did not have an adequate knowledge of the style. When I first started entering competitions I would go over the score sheet while drinking a bottle of the same beer. From the score sheet many times it was impossible to match the beer to the sheet. Frequently I wondered if the beers had been mixed up, particularly when a beer that had been filtered and all of the bottles had poured bright and the judges stated that the beer was very hazy. You know when a judge is either a liar or lacking in knowledge when in an area such as appearance the judge states the beer is just perfect exactly what the style guidelines call for and give that area a 5 of 6. How many of you have gotten a score sheet back with the comment "Body to style" or "Body right on" and have the score be 4 of 5? What did the judge communicate with these comments if the score didn't match the comment? It is not how much you write on a score sheet that is important. What is important is that you provide the brewer with as accurate an assessment of his entry as you possible can. Filling up all the lines isn't an indication of a good score sheet if the brewer is left wondering if this is the beer entered, or it isn't clear why points were taken off. Again I call for standards of judging to be developed, more meaningful exams, and evaluation of judges before they may be advanced in rank. Gee that isn't much is it! Bill ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:55:25 -0800 Subject: Scoresheets/ BJCP Guidelines / Sanctioning and advertising Hi all, I just figured that I would throw my .02 into the ring. There has been much talk about the quality of scoresheets. Some have implied that there isn't enough time in a competition setting to fill out sheets as complete and good as Scott's example. Hog wash, I say! I have evaluated 28 beers in a day, and been able to take the time to fill out sheets that I think were helpful to the entrant. "How can you do that?" you might ask. If a beer is really bad, which is not uncommon, I won't spend 15 minutes trying to dissect every little flaw out of it. I'll focus on the 2 or 3 that are most prominent and tell the brewer how to correct them (to the best of my knowledge). In this way, the brewer can knock out the biggest flaws, and in so doing will probably eliminate most of the rest of them. Those boxes on the left side of the sheet can be a real time saver in cases like this; the fixes are already written. Just write your *detailed perceptions* and check the appropriate box. If the brewer is really lucky, another judge on my panel will perceive some things that I did not, and talk about them. In the end, the entrant should end up with a well-rounded picture of the beer, and it was all done in 8-10 minutes. Of course, after 28 beers there are many other problems that you'll have, like not being able to detect anything, but that's another issue. Nothing peeves me more than receiving scoresheets that look like they weren't even used. This past year's AHA NHC Wheat beer scoresheets were great examples of what NOT to do! In as few words as possible, describe a Bavarian Weizen, give it a 38 with no explanation about what is wrong, and send it on its way. Boy, that's useful! Of course, only 1 of the 3 judges was even in the BJCP, so who can I complain to? That, too, is another issue... --------------------------------- The 1997 BJCP guidelines were used at the recent Best of Brooklyn Competition. As Judge Coordinator, I was asked questions by several of the judges who were confused by the guidelines. I have to admit, I couldn't help them much in some cases. Of note was the fruit/herb/spice beer category. There is no place for inclusion of a "classic style," which makes it tougher for judges to evaluate the brew. Another problem is that the style descriptions lack parallelism and completeness. I propose that each style statement be written in the following format: aroma, appearance, flavor, body. Sound familiar? This would ensure the completeness of description for each style in the guidelines. The descriptions could still be written in paragraph form, but they must hit the above points, in that order. ------------------------------- On contest sanctioning and advertising: The recent Best of Brooklyn comp was sanctioned only by the BJCP. The reason was simple: we could not see any value in spending money to sanction with both the AHA and the BJCP. We missed all the magazine advertising deadlines, so that wasn't an issue for us. We just wanted to ensure that judges would be notified about the contest and would receive credit for their work. With no magazine ads we pulled in 261 entries, making it the biggest homebrew contest ever in NY City. We had internet ads, but I think the largest sources of entries were word of mouth and direct mailings to judges. It helps that members of our club have been driving all over the northeast to help out at other contests. People tend to reciprocate the favor. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: "Brian Rezac" Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:36:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Competitions, Why? Bill Giffin wrote: > Why do we have homebrew competitions? I have read the rules for a lot of > competitions and nowhere do I find the purpose for the competition. Is a > competition to provide feedback to the brewer so that his brewing will be > improved? Is the competition to rank the beers so some brewer can win > the most wonderful prizes and ribbons? > > The AHA National Homebrew Competition doesn't explain why there > competition is being held. I guess they expect we will all know that it > there make the AHA money and provide more ridiculous recipes to print in > Zymurgy. Bill, The American Homebrewers Association's Mission Statement is: To promote awareness and appreciation of the quality and variety of beer through education, research and the collection and dissemination of information; to serve as a forum for the technological and cross-cultural aspects of the art of brewing; and to encourage responsible use of beer as an alcohol-containing beverage. Our Mission Statement is the "Why" to everything that we do, including the AHA National Homebrew Competition (NHC). It is printed in every issue of Zymurgy as well as some brochures, letters and other printed material. Many clubs that organize homebrew competitions have bylaws stating a similar purpose to their existence. True, many don't list their purpose on the instructions and rules to their competitions, but they do have them. As far as the AHA organizing the NHC to make money, the fact is, we don't make money on the NHC. We don't even make money on the National Homebrewers Conference (HBC). In the past, the AHA has been slammed for being a business. If we ran the AHA like a "for-profit" business, we would have dropped the NHC and the HBC a long time ago to improve our bottom line. The truth is that the AHA is a non-profit business. And the NHC and HBC are actually good examples of how this type of business operates: We take proceeds from profitable programs and reinvest them in other programs that support our mission. You also say that the purpose of the NHC is to "provide more ridiculous recipes to print in Zymurgy." Further along in the same posting, you argue "wouldn't it be helpful for the judge to have the recipe?" Bill, you need to make up you mind. Are the recipes "ridiculous" or are they of use to judges? Your argument to have the recipes available to judges would hold a lot more weight if you didn't previously refer to these same recipes as "ridiculous". > Perhaps competitions should be only to rank the beers to win. I don't > think that you are assured of getting good feedback from a homebrew > competition. Taking a beer to a homebrew club meeting and have some of > themore experienced brewers evaluate you beer and give suggestions to > improve the beer is a far better method of improving your brewing skills then > sending that same beer off to a competition. I, too, am a big supporter of homebrew clubs. Almost every day, I tell brewers that if they want to get some good feedback to improve their brewing, they should join a club. And, true, no one is assured of getting good feedback from homebrew competitions. However, BJCP judges are the best at giving quality feedback to homebrewers. And I have yet to meet a BJCP judge who is not interested in improving or honing his or her beer evaluation skills to sincerely give even better feedback. ALL of the competitions that are sanctioned by the AHA are provided a list of judges from the BJCP. And we will continue to do so. Let me also say that I am amazed at how much many of you slam each other. I don't want this to sound like a "Can't we all just get along" posting, but come on. You need to remember that the BJCP is an integral part of the homebrewing community. This pot-shot-taking infighting is counter-productive and greatly affects us all. > Top of the morning to yea all, And the rest of the day to yourself. - - Brian Brian Rezac Administrator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) Boulder, CO 80302 brian at aob.org U.S.A. http://beertown.org ------------------------------ From: "Brian Rezac" Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:06:20 -0700 Subject: Fw: AHA sanctioned, BJCP website & competition registration/sanctioning Bill Giffin wrote: > Why bother with the AHA at all when it comes to sanctioning? Many of you > seem to forget that the AHA dumped the BJCP with plans to start their own > program. Bill, you seem to forget that comment was make in 1995 and by people who are no longer at the AHA. The current AHA staff has stated many times that we will not (and should not) have a separate beer judge program. > If no one sanctions with the AHA what will happen? I don't think > that anyone will care. Will the AHA publish the competitions in Zymurgy > if no one uses them to sanction, I think so. They have to have something to > publish. > > I honestly believe that the AHA should be required to use the BJCP to > recognize the AHA Nationals. If they don't then no points should be > given for judging the AHA National. As it stands now the AHA National is > sanctiond by itself. Sort of the fox watching the hen house. Time for a > change! If the BJCP isn't used, no judge lists, and no points awarded. I have heard the same phrase, "fox watching the hen house", used to describe the BJCP having their own sanctioned competition program. Bill, you make the same mistake that you accuse the AHA of doing; you try to set up the BJCP to be the end-all, do-all. The best situation is to have both organizations involved. That way, each organization is kept "in-check" by the other. The AHA always uses the BJCP for the Nationals. We always look to the BJCP for judging expertise. > Top of the morning to yea all, And the rest of the day to yourself, Bill. - - Brian Rezac - ---------------------------------------- John A. Carlson, Jr. wrote: > The "us and them" issue is hurting the hobby. Hear, hear! - ------------------------------ John Isenhour wrote: > Our competition registered/sanctioned with both the AHA and the BJCP last > year. At the time I thought it was politically correct (and you'll NEVER > see me say that again:) John, I wish we could get rid of the politics. The current system of having competition organizers pay twice is a disservice to the competitions, organizers and entrants. > > I was never on the AHA bashing bandwagon because of the split, I think it > was an absolutely positive thing for the BJCP > (the restructuring has allowed the BJCP to grow, and it was time > for a revolt to allow advancement). I agree. It is a good thing to have two separate organizations. Check & balance. > Are we all playing nice now and not in "I wont enter a X registered comp" > mode anymore? I hope so! - - Brian Brian Rezac Administrator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) Boulder, CO 80302 brian at aob.org U.S.A. http://beertown.org ------------------------------ From: Dion Hollenbeck Date: 13 Feb 1998 12:48:34 -0800 Subject: Re: BJCP website >> John A Carlson, writes: JAC> Dennis responds to my comments: >> Yes, it may be a little nit picky, to say you need to spend the >> extra bucks through the BJCP to get it up on our Web Page, but the >> question is, who do you want to support? JAC> I want to support my club's competition. The AHA provided me JAC> more support (prizes) than the BJCP could. The competition JAC> received real value for the $20 it gave to the AHA for JAC> sanctioning. The $20 the club gave to the BJCP resulted in a JAC> judge list printed on adhesive labels , a organizer report, and JAC> return envelope. Huh!!! Are we on different planets???? What prizes did you get from the AHA? The money our club spends with the AHA gets us a set of sticky labels for AHA clubs, a booklet on how to run a competition (which is not very useful if you have done it for 5 years already), the forms masters (which we now make our own anyway), and the set of judge labels from the BJCP. What prizes are you talking about??? And before this starts any sort of flame war, we also register and pay our money to the BJCP. We prefer to support the BJCP, but until we KNOW that we will get published in Zymurgy if we do not register with the AHA, we register with both. dion Judge Coordinator 1998 America's Finest City Homebrew Competition Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor http://www.softbrew.com/afchbc - --- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1537 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.