Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:53:42 -0500
Message-Id: <199802170653.BAA03999 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1538
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest             Tuesday, 17 February 1998     Volume 01 : Number 1538

 ============================================================================
       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          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 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:

 Sanctioning/Registering
 Re: IM and yeast floc/score sheets, why/guidelines/AHA
 score sheets

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: jac at iex.net (John A. Carlson, Jr.)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:17:55 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Sanctioning/Registering

Dion Hollenbeck responds:

>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????

I live in Boulder, CO.  Some say Boulder is a different planet but I still
think its on earth.

>What prizes did you get from the AHA?

- - One complete set of style books Vol. 1-10
- - Three One year AHA memberships

>What prizes are you talking about???

See above.

You should learn to ask questions.  Sometimes you get postivite answers.
Every year I sanction with the AHA and ask them for prizes.  Some years the
prizes are better than others, but the point is you have to ask to receive.
There is no written policy.  It is merely a sign of support from the AHA.
I think they give what they can when they are able to do so.

>We prefer to support the BJCP,

Why?  I am interested in statements like these.  They are political.  Isn't
your competition your main interest?

> but until we KNOW that we will get published in Zymurgy if we do not
>register with
>the AHA, we register with both.

Since the BJCP will not publish an AHA sanctioned competition on the BJCP
website, why would the AHA be willing to publish a BJCP recognized
competition in Zmurgy or on their website?  Remember, $20 of the $40 AHA
sanctioning fee goes to the BJCP.

So Dion, correct me if I am mistaken, your competition pays $80 in
sanctioning/registration fees?
Forty dollars to the AHA and forty dollars to the BJCP?  In return, you get
double paper work and two copies of the same judge list.  Sixty dollars of
that eighty goes directly to the BJCP.  As far as I can tell the only extra
benefit your competition may have received was a BJCP website listing.  As
Dennis Davidson points out, a BJCP website listing may not have any real
value in terms of extra entries.  I am not sure the additional expenditure
of $40 warrants the BJCP registration fee.  However, if you get a warm
fuzzy feeling from spending the money than there must be some value to you
(i.e. your preference of BJCP support).

In my case, I was concerned with keeping competition costs to a minimum.
Forty dollars to the AHA got me all the paperwork, a BJCP judge list, BJCP
point recordation, a Zymurgy and AHA website listing.   I received over
$200 in prizes by simply asking, YMMV.  BTW, we got a call from BT asking
if they could list our competition in the BT calendar.  BT knew about our
competition solely because of our Zymurgy lisiting.  One thing leads to
another I guess.

I "double sanctioned" for two years to get that "warm fuzzy political
feeling."  In my mind those days are over.  Now, for me, the health of my
club's competition and the hobby in general come first.  I really feel that
AHA sanctioning supports BOTH programs and one cause, better homebrewing
and better judging.

- --John Carlson
BJCP National
Boulder, CO


------------------------------

From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:11:27 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: IM and yeast floc/score sheets, why/guidelines/AHA

John writes:
>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. 

I don't contest that gelatin (or, even better, Isinglass) causes yeast
to settle faster than irish moss.  All I said was that irish moss does
indeed improve the flocculation rate of yeast and in my experiment, I
used no other finings.

>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. 

In DeClerck, it says that if you don't get the break to form, the
proteins can coat the yeast and interfere with nutrient absorption.
Furthermore, yeast flocculation is some kind of reaction between the
cell walls of the various yeasts.  We all know it can't be
electrostatic... all the yeast are of the same charge.  In a talk
by Joe Power (Siebel Institute) he said that sometimes a second
yeast is added to form a mixed-strain culture *strictly* for flocculation.
The old 3-strain Whitbread yeast's "third" strain was there for this
reason.  What I recall from Joe's talk (it was about 5 years ago) is
that something on the exterior of the yeast cells caused them to loosely
bond to form flocs.  If, protein from uncoagulated break can coat the
outsides of yeast enough to impair nutrient absorption, then why couldn't
it impair their ability to form these bonds that result in flocculation?

That's my *guess* as to why IM helps flocculation.

Comments?

***

Bill writes:
>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? 

If the only purpose of the competition was to pick the winner and if
you were *positive* that the first beer you judged and gave a 36 was
better than the last beer you judged and gave a 35 (I regularly go
over my notes to recall the beer and sometimes change the numbers after
a retasting of the beers), then numbers would be the only thin you need.

However, of the 200+ Porters entered in the AHA Nationals, 197+ will not
be winning any ribbons.  These entrants should get something for their
money, don't you think?  I don't know what percentage of entrants are
in it just for the ribbons, but I'll bet more than half are in it just
to get feedback.

>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 am against allowing the judges to see the recipes for several reasons:

1. with the current sheets, it would give away the anonymity of the brewer
and if we removed the name/address/city/club of the brewer, it would be
*even more* paperwork for organizers to keep all this stuff separate and
accurate,

2. it's difficult enough to judge a beer in 10 minutes without the recipe
being available (also, do you propose a copy for each judge or should
each judge wait for the recipe before they begin judging?),

3. many recipes are fiction... many entrants don't want to give away their
recipes (although I feel that even given a recipe, most brewers have enough
variation in technique and equipment that results in the beer coming out 
different), and

4. (MOST IMPORTANTLY) it would bias many judges against extract beers...
many judges would score extract beers lower.

As for what I suggest as improvements, they are all strictly to have the
beer conform more closely to the guidelines set forth for the style or
to fix technical errors that are unwelcome in the style (i.e. sanitation,
polyphenol extraction, oxidation, etc.).  These faults are not a matter
of taste.  As a matter of fact, despite the fact that many styles'
guidelines say "high hop aroma" when I know that some commercial examples
have no hop aroma, I'll temper my criticism and may not reduce the score
as much as I could, adding a comment such as "some hop aroma is required
by the guidelines, but, indeed, many commercial examples don't have any."

>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.

Here we are in agreement.  It is why I agonize over beers that are very
good and for which I can only give 16 points for flavour, but I am unable
to give feedback for why I didn't give them 19.  It's why I sometimes
have to apologise for not being able to give suggestions for improvement.

***

George writes:
     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?

We're way ahead of you... that's exactly what we in the Guidelines
Committee are doing.
     
***
Brian writes:

<everything deleted>

Frankly, just the fact that people at the AHA are reading the HBD and
JudgeNet implies to me that they are way ahead of the old gang.  That they
take the time to respond to people's comments proves they are.

I was just about to quit the AHA, but hung in there.  I don't think all
the problems are solved yet, but these new people are far more responsive
to suggestions and open to change than the previous group.

Keep up the good work.

Al.

------------------------------

From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:58:04
Subject: score sheets

Bill G writes:
>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?

Well, I would be fairly upset at receiving a low mark with no 
explanation.  Yes, you communicated part of your opinion, but I want
to know why you had that opinion.  If you gave me half marks
for aroma, tell me why.  Was it completely arbitrary?  Did you find
something wrong?  Did you not like the hops?  

I need to know why you gave me that score. I may not agree with
your assessment, but at least then I know what you were smelling
(or tasting) and can re-evaluate my beer.

...
>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. 

I think that is the point of this conversation.  Many judges out there,
for one reason or another, are not providing a good evaluation of the beer
for the brewer.  I think this problem is one thing the BJCP is trying
to tackle with the program.

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros
Oakland, CA

------------------------------

End of judge-digest V1 #1538
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.