Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:32:47 -0500
Message-Id: <199802181832.NAA07094 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1539
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest            Wednesday, 18 February 1998    Volume 01 : Number 1539

 ============================================================================
       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:

 Re: score sheets, why (judge-digest V1 #1538)
 Score Sheets
 Re: AHA sanctioning, flocculation
 flockola
 Re: Sanctioning/Registering

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

From: "Joel Plutchak" <joel at bolt.atmos.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:14:45 -0600
Subject: Re: score sheets, why (judge-digest V1 #1538)

On Feb 17,  1:53am, Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> wrote:

> Subject: Re: IM and yeast floc/score sheets, why/guidelines/AHA

> I am against allowing the judges to see the recipes for several reasons:
...
> 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?),
...
> 4. (MOST IMPORTANTLY) it would bias many judges against extract beers...
> many judges would score extract beers lower.

   We're having a little in-house competition in two weeks to determine
which club beer goes to the AHA Stout Bout Club-Only competition.  I'm
endeavoring to run it more or less like we run our open competition,
with a few exceptions.  In addition to providing a means for new or
aspiring judges and prospective competition staff to learn something,
I intend to have judges score the beers first, then drop their pencils
and look at the recipe sheets.  Scores and comments won't be changed,
but judges will be allowed to make additional comments based on their
initial analysis plus the recipe and procedures listed.
   I'm hoping this will have two advantages.  First, it'll let brewers
get better feedback on actual techniques and recipe used.  And second,
it'll help judges (at least I think it'll help *me*) better correlate
blind tasting impressions with recipe and procedures.
   I'm not suggesting this be done in larger open competitions, but
it may be an effective method to use in smaller, less formal settings.
   Any comments?
- --
Joel Plutchak
Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots
Champaign, Illinois

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

From: DENNIS WALTMAN <PDWALTMAN at sablaw.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:24:00 -0500
Subject: Score Sheets

While I have been on the receiving end of scoresheets more often than
writing them here are some of my observations.  When I've entered a
beer, and the judge writes down comments that reflect what the style
says the beer has, such as no hop aroma, and then downgrades the beer
for 2 points, I want to know why.

I've entered herb/spice and fruit beers where the no hop aroma comment
has been entered (not classic style) and been docked points with no
comment on the fruit or herb aroma, or any off aroma.

At competions I have recently been a judge at where the style
guidelines says the style is supposed to be thin.  One of the judges
wrote thin and docked it 2 points.  I asked why for body it was docked
2 points and he said it had a thin body.  The fact that the style
guidelines said it should be thin, didn't faze him.  I've seen the
same for beers that are supposed to lack a quality that the score
sheet gives points for, not get those points, even though the style
says they are not supposed to have it.  

I suppose this comes from the fact that many judges seem to decide a
point total that a beer should receive, and then goes through the
sheet finding places they can shave the points.   I try not to do
that, but I know I have had cases where my score was quite a bit
higher or lower than the other judge(s) and looked for places to
shave/add to make the gap more reasonable.  I'm just starting to
judge, so I sort of feel obligated to do so when my co-judge(s) have
more experience at it than I do [most of my judging experience seems
to be in Belgian Ales, and German Wheat beers; styles I like but don't
make much myself].

Though I will say that his forum has helped me a lot.  I has even got
me putting my email address on my scoresheets I write up.  Thank you
for all your assistance in this forum.

Dennis Waltman
Sutherland, Asbill, & Brennan, LLP

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

From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:00:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: AHA sanctioning, flocculation

Regarding AHA sanctioning, my experience is that they are very
supportive of homebrew competitions regardless of the
sanctioning.  I only went with the BJCP for the Spirit of
Belgium in 1995, but the AoB still made an unsolicited donation of
several books and other goodies.

Regarding flocculation, Al Korzonas wrote:

> cell walls of the various yeasts.  We all know it can't be
> electrostatic... all the yeast are of the same charge.  

Actually, I *don't* know that.  There are many types of bonding
is solids and liquids, and weak hydrogen or Van der Walls forces
might be enough to bind the cells together.  Just because the net 
charges may be the same does not mean that the charge is uniformly 
distributed over the cell walls.  Think of the bonding between like 
atoms to form oxygen or hydrogen molecules, or the solids formed
from noble gases like argon and krypton.

Scott

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

From: isenhour at uiuc.edu
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:39:27 -0600 (CST)
Subject: flockola

Al K. writes:

>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.

I was unaware of this.  Can you cite the pages so I can look at the info?

I was at the same lecture that Joe gave, and you might be right about the
coating causing an interference.  I am not sure if, on the yeast cell
surface, the nutrient intake structure and the flocculation structure are
similar enough for this in fact, to be the case.

to wit...

Yeast sugar transport is done by a carrier molecule on the membrane by
permease(s).  Classes of sugars are moved by specific permeases, with
glucose/fructose having one (the rate of intake is ~1 million times faster
than would occur by cross membrane diffusion), Maltose and mototriose have
specific inducable permeases, which are in parallel with induction of
Alpha-D-glucosidase so when the sugars enter the cell they are
metabolized.  Yeast of course need many other nutrients and I'm sure the
mechanisms are all not elucidated.

Flocculation is controled by genes expressed on the surface of the
membrane (FLO1, FLO5, FLO8 and tup1 are implicated)  FLO1 at least has
been transfected into a non-flocculent strain and it exhibited
increased flocculation, so they're probably on target.  As far as I know
there is not much known about the mechanism.

What is of interest to this discussion is the level of protein required to
interfere with nutrient absorbtion and/or flocculation.  It seems like it
must follow a 'dose response' curve and may be competitive binding.

In general, I believe that if you get good agitation (stirring or boiling
action) at a boiling/nearboil temp you will get adequate protein
coagulation. 

(from this point of view, I would argue that instead of saying (only) add
irish moss I would advise 

First and formost, a good rolling boil.
Addition of post kettle fining agents.
Irish Moss or similar coagulant.
Benign wild non flocculating yeast or house bug could also be a cause so
 we must also consider a mention of sanitation 

(I still think that differentiating yeast haze from colloidal or
 benign microbial is difficult in a typical judging scenario)

>From your argument above, it seems logical that poorly reproducing yeast
may tend to cause inadequate attenuation, as well as the possibility of
not flocking.  Inadequate attenuation was not mentioned in the scoresheet
to my recollection. 

I have seen no studies of the flocculation rates of protein
coated yeast, but this would be interesting to look for.  

With regard to Joe's lecture from Siebel (I was there also), I believe
that blending yeasts is a time honored tradition.  In the 'old days'
highly flocculant yeasts were not very good attenuators, but powdery ones
were, so blends were used (Yeast Fermentation and Pure Culture Systems,
Laufer and Schwarz, 1936). 

All this points out how much you have to think about when you judge a
beer, put Al and I at a table and we might just miss lunch! ;-)

Further technical discussion not related to judging should be moved to
ATIB forum?

- -john                                               isenhour at usa.net
Brewmaster-in-Stasis/Beer Judge          ASBC/IBS/AAAS/NYAS/AHA/BJCP
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in 
human history with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
                     Mitch Ratliffe, _Technology Review_ April, 1992


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

From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at vigra.com>
Date: 17 Feb 1998 12:24:08 -0800
Subject: Re: Sanctioning/Registering

>> John A Carlson, writes:

>> What prizes did you get from the AHA?

JAC> You should learn to ask questions.  Sometimes you get postivite
JAC> answers.  Every year I sanction with the AHA and ask them for
JAC> prizes.  Some years the prizes are better than others, but the
JAC> point is you have to ask to receive.

I am guilty as charged and our club will ask from now on.  Although,
personally, I do not think prizes are appropriate.  The purpose of
*our* competition IMHO is to give brewers good feedback and give
judges an excellent venue to get experience.  Yes, we do give out nice
medals for first, secon, and third and an engraved beer glass for BOS,
but I don't consider these to be prizes, rather recognition awards.

>> We prefer to support the BJCP,

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

Yes it is.  Maybe I should have stated that differently.  We prefer to
have a single organization that is in charge of judge sanctioning and
style guidelines; guidelines that are readily accessible to all
brewers.  The AHA has no judging program, and the BJCP does not
publish their style guidelines in a nationally distributed magazine
(yet - hint, hint) that is easily accessible to all brewers who would
enter our competition.  Also, using guidelines that we can refer a
brewer to, saves us postage from having to mail them out to everyone.

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

JAC> Since the BJCP will not publish an AHA sanctioned competition on
JAC> the BJCP website, why would the AHA be willing to publish a BJCP
JAC> recognized competition in Zmurgy or on their website? 

About a year ago one club got its comp removed from the Zymurgy
calendar because space ran out.  They had registered with BJCP, not
AHA.  In many Emails back and forth, the AHA promised that in future,
the calendar would contain ALL comps, regardless of whether they were
AHA registered or not.  I still don't trust that to happen.  If they
run out of room, do you think they will dump AHA sanctioned comps in
favor of BJCP only comps???  This is why we register with the AHA.

JAC> So Dion, correct me if I am mistaken, your competition pays $80
JAC> in sanctioning/registration fees?  Forty dollars to the AHA and
JAC> forty dollars to the BJCP?  In return, you get double paper work
JAC> and two copies of the same judge list.  Sixty dollars of that
JAC> eighty goes directly to the BJCP.  

Completely correct.

JAC> As far as I can tell the only extra benefit your competition may
JAC> have received was a BJCP website listing.  As Dennis Davidson
JAC> points out, a BJCP website listing may not have any real value in
JAC> terms of extra entries.  I am not sure the additional expenditure
JAC> of $40 warrants the BJCP registration fee.

The only benefit that we get is that by our support of the BJCP,
someday maybe there will only be one competition sanctioning
organization, and it will be the BJCP.  

JAC> I "double sanctioned" for two years to get that "warm fuzzy
JAC> political feeling."  In my mind those days are over.  Now, for
JAC> me, the health of my club's competition and the hobby in general
JAC> come first.

There is nothing unhealthy for our competition for us to support the
BJCP to the extent that we do.  We have low entry fees and lots of
entries, and generally make a small profit, so giving more support to
the BJCP than "necessary" helps to accomplish our goal of promoting
the BJCP.

You all can do what you want to do, we prefer to lobby with our
dollars to get a single organization in charge of judges and
competitions.  You may deem this political, I deem it practical as an
organizer to not have to deal with multiple organizations and style
guidelines.

dion

- -- 
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 #1539
****************************

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