Filtered Beer V's Non Filtered In Comps

[Online Brewing Supplies]

I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
So the question , or really what I want is your point of view on this so we can put some suggestions forward for next years show. All in all the show had some very fine examples of beers from the home brewer section and really showed the quality of brewing happening out there.
GB

 

[bconnery]

Why differentiate?
Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant.
You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't.
If you go to the effort to achieve that, and do, then you get the points.

Was it a requirement that entries indicated that they were filtered?

 

[Asher]

I thought points were awarded for appearance. If it isn't to style then less points given.... Simple - be it cloudy or hazy (judge the difference?)
GB - A little more info on the judging process of this event compared to a BJCP one may clarify your query a bit.

Judges shouldn't make the assumption that a beer has been filtered because its clear , Maybe the brewer is just better at bottling an entry than the other. All still part of brewing in my mind.

My beers are clear and not filtered, just CP filled from a lagered keg. If their not clear it's haze and should hopefully be scored down accordingly.

Sounds to me that the problems may lie in the Stewarding/Storing/Pouring not the Scoring B)

Of course all the stuff in quotes only maks sense if entrants wern't asked if their beer was filtered... But they were
Still - need more info on the scoring/judging process here.

 

[Darren]

I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
So the question , or really what I want is your point of view on this so we can put some suggestions forward for next years show. All in all the show had some very fine examples of beers from the home brewer section and really showed the quality of brewing happening out there.
GB

How would you know that a cloudy beer is the result of poor filtering?

My experience says it does not matter. If the style should be "bright" (eg Pilsener) then slight cloudiness should be penalised. This is one reason that kit beers score well in competitions as they are almost always very clear. AG beers usually have slight/moderate haze.

cheers

Darren

 

[T.D.]

We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.

Or on the flipside, what about the brewers who have not filtered but have made crystal clear beer? Surely this is to be commended more than somebody who has just whacked the beer through a filter???

Its a good question you ask though. Very hard to monitor, and even if you could seperate the filtered and non-filtered beers, how do you know how many points to award/deduct from beers once you know whether they have been filtered or not.

In my opinion, it would be easier just to make a rule that all beers entered must not be filtered. This will provide a much more transparent (pardon the pun) process in awarding points for appearance and clarity. Furthermore, it will award those brewers who have produced a clear beer, without using filters. Just my view on the issue.

 

[BoilerBoy]

I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
So the question , or really what I want is your point of view on this so we can put some suggestions forward for next years show. All in all the show had some very fine examples of beers from the home brewer section and really showed the quality of brewing happening out there.
GB

Interesting, I just wrote in the new inventors thread that I have tried filtering into bottles and within the time frame it takes to carb up, beer absolutely glass clear going into the bottle becomes clouded with yeast and still seems to remain in suspension.
Its still probably clearer than the unfiltered beer, but once you have declared a beer filtered expectations are altered particularly for the purposes of judging, which as I have stated above would probably lend itself to some degree of disappointment.

Cheers,
BB

 

[glennheinzel]

Why differentiate?
Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant.
You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't.
If you go to the effort to achieve that, and do, then you get the points.

+1

I would think that a judge should be assessing the end product and not the process.

 

[Hutch]

In my opinion, it would be easier just to make a rule that all beers entered must not be filtered.

I don't think this is at all feasible - how would you police such a rule?
In my opinion, filtering is just another component of homebrewing these days, no more advanced than kegging, using polyclar, kettle finings, liquid yeasts, etc. etc.
I don't think there should be any reason for a beer to be judged on whether it has been filtered or not, just as it shouldn't be judged on any other advanced brewing practices employed by the brewer.

 

[Stuster]

+1

I would think that a judge should be assessing the end product and not the process.

+1.

I'm with Rukh and bconnery. Comps judge the beer.

 

[Online Brewing Supplies]

Why differentiate?
Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant.
You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't.
If you go to the effort to achieve that, and do, then you get the points.

Was it a requirement that entries indicated that they were filtered?

Yes it was required that you state filtered or not.
GB

 

[warrenlw63]

About time we got another thread that goes around in continual circles. <_<

In regards to the crux of your question GB I don't think there's a need to differentiate.
Can't see people embracing a check box on a competition for that says. Filtered or Non Filtered. Quite silly really.

I'll check up on this one in another 10 pages.

Warren -

 

[fraser_john]

I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
So the question , or really what I want is your point of view on this so we can put some suggestions forward for next years show. All in all the show had some very fine examples of beers from the home brewer section and really showed the quality of brewing happening out there.
GB

Kinda with Warrenlw63 on this one, bit of a circular thread! But it does make you wonder! For example, American Pale Ale on http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/American_Pale_Ale is described as, and I quote "Generally quite clear, although dry-hopped versions may be slightly hazy.", however, one of the prime examples, Sierra Nevada, is quite cloudy, a cloudiness that I do not think can be solely attributed to the dry hopping process.

I would actually think that trying to decide on how to interpret all the styles and every other little influence on the final beer is not something I would like to try and do!!!!!! Probably why I do not enter comps...... oh, that and I am too lazy to wash a bottle to fill from the keg with!

 

[hillbillybreweries]

in Vic Brew sanctioned comps we judge according to the style guidelines provided by them. They are pretty much based on the BJCP guides and the beer's clarity is judged according to them. The beer is served in Jugs and the clarity scored as it has come to the judging table. Bit confused as to why a brewer would be rewarded one way or the other for filtering or not filtering. Likewise we all choose whether to enter bottle conditioned for some styles or counter pressure filled. Sometimes either way works for and against us.

 

[reVoxAHB]

Kinda with Warrenlw63 on this one, bit of a circular thread! But it does make you wonder! For example, American Pale Ale on http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/American_Pale_Ale is described as, and I quote "Generally quite clear, although dry-hopped versions may be slightly hazy.", however, one of the prime examples, Sierra Nevada, is quite cloudy, a cloudiness that I do not think can be solely attributed to the dry hopping process.

Jeeze, that's funny. The last SNP I had (two weeks ago?) was very-bright... not the slightest bit cloudy. Damn thing had low-levels of DMS, too and at $7.00 a bottle (via recent G&G import), I was really not impressed.

faqs from Sierra Nevada state, "All our bottled beer is brewed, filtered, and packaged without the use of isinglass, bone char, or any other animal by-product."

note the use of the word, filtered

and they go on to state, "We dose back a small amount of fermentable sugar and yeast into the bottle. The fermentation creates the finished carbonation and flavors unique to our beer. As the beer is poured, the yeast will re-suspend and appearance is cloudy, or slightly particulate. The yeast will not adversely affect the flavor of the beer."



reVox

 

[warrenlw63]

bone char

Eeeeewwwwww!!!! WTF?

Edit: Just wiki'd charcoal. I'd assume they'd be talking water filtration there.

Warren -

 

[T.D.]

I'm sure I'll offend the filtering brigade out there but I really think that filtering is an artificial part of brewing. Its akin to blending 5 different beers and taking home 1st prize in a comp. Technically nothing wrong with it, but would you really feel like you'd produced the best beer? I mean, I could take a bottle each of kolsch and English Bitter, both as muddy as hell, filter them, carefully blend them, add some liquid cascade hops and enter it as the "perfect" APA. Would anybody here feel good about winning a gold medal with such a beer? How would you feel if you had produced a near perfect unfiltered APA brewed from scratch, only to be pipped at the post by a reverse-engineered beer that started off as a pretty poor effort? I wouldn't be too happy. To me this is not what home brewing is about.

 

[Stuster]

I mean, I could take a bottle each of kolsch and English Bitter, both as muddy as hell, filter them, carefully blend them, add some liquid cascade hops and enter it as the "perfect" APA.

Hooray. A new technique. :super:

The floating mash stuff sounded a bit suss but this must be great. Tell us more about how you do it.

 

[Online Brewing Supplies]

I thought points were awarded for appearance. If it isn't to style then less points given.... Simple - be it cloudy or hazy (judge the difference?)
GB - A little more info on the judging process of this event compared to a BJCP one may clarify your query a bit.



Of course all the stuff in quotes only maks sense if entrants wern't asked if their beer was filtered... But they were
Still - need more info on the scoring/judging process here.

I think the main relative section in judging here is the Color, Clarity and Head retention. There is 3 points to this section, points are deducted for faults in these areas.All beers were judged under BJCP guidelines. Most of the entries failed to nominate a BJCP guideline ! so this made judging even harder.We were left to make assumptions on exactly which style these beers were.Example: Given a broad entry stated as a Amber ale. So which style of Amber as was it ? Alt , American Etc. So to be fair we picked a style by consensus after tasting and judged to that.I think the Clarity issue needs to be defined before next year.If I filter and get haze in my entry I lose points yet if I send a bottle conditioned beer in I will not lose points as the beers were judged.
GB

 

[SJW]

+1.

I'm with Rukh and bconnery. Comps judge the beer.

+2

 

[T.D.]

Hooray. A new technique. :super:

The floating mash stuff sounded a bit suss but this must be great. Tell us more about how you do it.

:lol: a purely hypothetical scenario I must concede Stu!

But you know what I mean, it is technically possible. You can take two totally different beers and make them into a style that's nothing like either of them. So everything changes from being a brewing exercise to a blending/tweaking/polishing exercise.

I have no problem with filtering if a beer turns out excessively cloudy unexpectedly. But assuming that every beer will end up being filtered I think can lead to the rest of the brewing process taking a bit of a back seat. I've always maintained that if you brew a beer well at every point in the process there are usually very few clarity problems at the end.