Category: Homebrewing (Page 1 of 4)

The Impacts Of Freezing, Heat and Light on Beer

In the following experiments, we subjected a light beer (Corona Extra) to a barrage of separate extreme tests to measure the individual impacts of freezing, heat and light exposure.

The Impacts Of Freezing, Heating and Exposing Light to Beer

TASTE TEST PROCESS

We conducted repeated taste tests to see if any noticeable change could be detected using a kind of blind sensory method called a “triangle test”.  For example, when testing the effects of a certain factor like “beer exposed to light”, three unmarked samples of beer were poured, one of which was a sample that had been exposed to light, and the other two were unadulterated samples.

The testers were then asked to identify the sample they believed was different, and then the same test was repeated between 4 and 6 times to reduce the possibility that the testers were simply guessing correctly.  The tasters were not told in what way any beer had been altered.  Tasters were instructed to consider and describe the aroma, flavor, and carbonation level of each sample.

All beer samples were measured at three ounces each and served into snifter glasses at 50°F (10°C) in order to enhance the tester’s ability to detect any differences.

CHOICE OF BEER

The beer used in all experiments was Corona Extra, which was chosen in part due to its world-wide distribution making it more accessible to anyone who wanted to repeat any of these experiments on their own.  The other reasons a light beer like Corona was selected was because it’s said that it is easier to detect flaws in such light beers, and being bottled in a clear bottle makes the beer more susceptible to the effects of light exposure.  All beers purchased came from the same closed box (protected from light exposure), and were purchased from and subsequently kept in cold storage.  None of the control beers were determined to have any off-flavors.

THE EXPERIMENTS OF ICE, FIRE AND LIGHT:

THE IMPACT OF FREEZING BEER

It’s said that freezing and thawing a beer will reduce the level of carbonation in beer generating a “flatter” tasting beer.  Curious to see if a tasting panel could repeatedly identify a beer that had been frozen and then thawed compared to an unadulterated beer from the same case, a beer was frozen for two hours, thawed, and served immediately to a tasting panel who were asked to repeatedly identify the beer that was different.

The panelists were not told that the beer was frozen, but only to identify the beer that was different and describe what was different about it.

OBSERVATIONS

The tasting panel was able to correctly identify the frozen and then thawed beer with an accuracy rate of 75%.  The frozen and then thawed beer was described as slightly less carbonated and slightly less aromatic, and having a subtly duller flavor.  One taster noted a more “watery” character in the aroma.

The frozen and then thawed beer was also slightly lighter and hazy than the unadulterated beer as can be seen below (frozen and thawed beer on left, unadulterated beer on right):

Change in the Color of a Frozen Beer

To account for the minor difference in color, tasters were blindfolded, but were nevertheless still able to correctly identify the frozen and then thawed beer 75% of the time based on the aroma, flavor and carbonation level.

REFLECTIONS

The results of this test seem to reflect the commonly held ideas about the effects of freezing beer.  Interestingly, some tasters were able to correctly differentiate the beers by scent alone, while others could only correctly tell the difference by the different level of carbonation.  We approximate that the level of carbonation in the frozen beer was reduced by about 20-25%, resulting in fewer aromatics being generated for the nose to detect, and though no difference in flavor was noticed, folks did notice a difference in carbonation level resulting in what some described as a slightly duller beer.

Overall, the impact of freezing beer in this case was subtle and at times difficult to detect.

THE IMPACT OF HEATING BEER

It’s said that when beer is exposed to heat, it can reduce the shelf life of the beer by accelerating chemical reactions including oxidation. (It should be noted that aging certain styles of beer can be desirable as with certain Belgian sour beers and beers with higher alcohol concentrations.)

Curious to see if any noticeable change could be detected in heated beer, we wrapped a bottle of Corona Extra in aluminum foil to protect against light exposure, submerged the bottle in warmed water at a temperature range of 90-139°F  (32.22-59.44°C) for 24 hours, chilled to 50°F (10°C) and served immediately.

Heating a Bottle of Beer in a Pot

The general idea with this experiment was to approximate the effect of beer left in a hot car.  Although temperatures in a hot car can reach upwards of 172 F (77.78°C), we capped the testing temperature at 139°F (59.44°C).

For reference, below is a chart estimating vehicle interior air temperature v. elapsed time:

Estimated Vehicle Interior Air Temperature v. Elapsed Time

OBSERVATIONS

Tasters were able to correctly identify the heated beer 90% of the time by scent alone, with some tasters accuracy rate at 100% over 6 repeated trials.  Tasters described the aroma of the cooked beer as somewhat sulfury with notes of hard boiled eggs, sulfury mud, raw grey clay, and cooked corn.  The heated beer was also described as having slightly lower carbonation, and was less crisp and less hoppy in both aroma and flavor as compared to the unadulterated beer.  No difference in color was noted, but less of an alcoholic kick was noted in the heated beer.

REFLECTIONS

The degree to which heat negatively affected specifically the aroma of the beer tested was striking.  Where one might have expected characteristics associated with oxidation in a heated beer such as cardboard, sherry, or apple juice, instead sulfur notes were detected.

However, the sulfury notes that were identified, especially in the aroma of the heated beer, might be explained by the fact that the hydrogen sulfide level in filtered beer consistently doubles after pasteurization, which illustrates that the level is not static, but is affected by various redox reactions that take place in the packaged beer.

We essentially pasteurized the beer multiple times when repeatedly reheating the beer to 122–140°F (50–60°C) over 24 hours, thereby increasing the potential level of hydrogen sulfide which has a low sensory threshold of only a few parts-per-billion.

THE IMPACT OF EXPOSING BEER TO LIGHT

When beer is exposed to UV light, particularly in the range of 350-500 nm, a reaction occurs in hops that can cause the beer to take on a “skunky” or “marijuana-like” character.  The particular offending chemical compound generated in this light-caused reaction is called 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol, or “3-MBT” for short, and can occur in under 10 seconds resulting in what is referred to as a “skunked” or “light-struck” beer.  A potent compound, humans are able to detect 3-MBT at a threshold of around 4 parts-per-trillion.

The color of glass beer is bottled in can affect this skunking reaction, with brown bottles offering better protection, green bottles far less, and clear bottles none.  This is why folks might notice this phenomenon more often with beers like Heineken and Beck’s that are bottled in green bottles, and beers like Corona packaged in clear bottles.  Many brewing companies well-aware of this phenomenon continue to package their beer in clear or green glass bottles mainly due to marketing and branding priorities.

Some brewing companies such as Miller Brewing  avoid the lightstruck problem in brands such as Miller High Life by using specially formulated hop extracts that do not react with UV light to create 3-MBT.

To test the impact of UV light on beer, clear bottles of Corona Extra were left in direct contact with sunlight for 10 hours at a temperature range of 60-69°F (15.56 -20.56°C), chilled to 50°F (10°C) and served immediately along with two unadulterated samples.  We figured even though it’s said that a beer can be skunked in as little as 10 seconds, just to be safe we might as well leave it exposed for 10 hours.

OBSERVATIONS

After repeating the same test four times to minimize any doubt of lucky guessing, panelists were able to correctly identify the beer that had been exposed to UV light each time with a 100% accuracy rate and by scent alone.  Although a strong skunk musk aroma was immediately noticeable upon opening the bottle, once the beer was served, bonus aromatics were noted including rotten vegetables (rotten squash), water from a backed-up kitchen sink, burnt rubber/plastic, and dirty waste water from a wet vac after cleaning a carpet.

REFLECTIONS

While certainly a skunk-like aroma was expected from exposing a light beer to UV light, the additional aromas of drain water, burnt rubber, and rotten vegetables were not.  That said, the chemical produced by beer exposed to UV light that causes the skunk-like aroma is called 3-MBT, a kind of mercaptan, which has also been described as burnt rubber.  However there are actually a variety of mercaptans that may be found in beer, such as methanethiol (methyl mercaptan) which has been described as “like drains or rotting garbage”, descriptors similar to aromas noted about this ultra lightstruck beer.

In short, it seems this unfortunate beer was first struck by light, and then by a garbage truck.

That said, the worst of the offending aromas seemed to become somewhat muted after leaving the opened lightstruck bottles of beer out indoors at room temperature for about 24 hours, suggesting that some of the mercaptans are volatile or perhaps intermediary byproducts in a longer chain of chemical reactions.

By the way, if you’re interested in a more formal scientific analysis of the effects of lightstruck beer over the course of several days, here’s a link to a 1965 Japanese paper called Studies of the Sunlight Flavor of Beer”.

Sunlight never tasted so gross.


Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for Beer Syndicate, Beer and Drinking Blogger, Certified Beer Judge, Award-Winning Homebrewer and Cider Maker, Beer Reviewer, American Homebrewers Association Member, Shameless Beer Promoter, and Beer Traveler.

 

Selecting Apple Juice for Making Hard Cider: Lead, Mercury and Arsenic, Oh My!

When making hard cider at home, the general rule is the better quality of ingredients used, the better the potential results.  It’s true that some really fantastic cider can be made with fresh-pressed apple juice from the nearest apple farm, but if that isn’t the most convenient option, fantastic hard cider can also be made using store-bought juice. (By the way, if you want more ideas on how to make really great hard cider at home, feel free to check out the tutorial called “How to Make Great Hard Cider”.)

In the past, I had used Trader Joe’s brand Honey Crisp Apple Cider and Unfiltered Apple Juice as the base apple juice in making hard cider at home, never really considering the safety of the juice I was buying.

Trader Joe's Apple Juice

Then I came across an article from Consumer Reports released in January 2019 discussing its testing of several different brands of apple juice for heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and inorganic arsenic.

The results of the report showed several apple juice brands were identified as having potentially harmful levels of at least one of those heavy metals including Trader Joe’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice, which contained an average of 15.4 ppb of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, making it above the FDA’s 10 ppb proposed limit and well above Consumer Reports’ recommended cutoff of 3 ppb.  At 15.4 ppb, Consumer Reports advised of potential risk to adults and children if consuming as little as 4 ounces of the juice per day.  [Trader Joe’s Organic Apple Juice presented a potential risk to children if consuming 8 ounces or more per day.]

Although I hadn’t been using those specific brands of apple juice from Trader Joe’s, I decided to go with one of the twelve brands that Consumer Reports listed as “better alternatives”.

These twelve “better alternative” apple juices were:

1. 365 Everyday Value (Whole Foods) Organic Apple Juice, 100% Juice
2. Apple & Eve 100% Juice, Apple Juice
3. Big Win (Rite Aid) 100% Juice, Apple Juice
4. Clover Valley (Dollar General) 100% Apple Juice
5. Gerber Apple 100% Juice
6. Market Pantry (Target) 100% Juice, Apple
7. Mott’s 100% Juice, Apple Original
8. Mott’s for Tots Apple
9. Nature’s Own 100% Apple Juice
10. Old Orchard 100% Juice, Apple
11. Simply Balanced (Target) Organic Apple Juice, 100% Juice
12. Tree Top 100% Apple Juice

Not interested in personally buying all twelve of those recommended brands for taste-testing purposes, I turned to the internet for help.

According to an apple juice taste-off conducted by The Mercury News of Silicon Valley, Whole Food’s 365 Everyday Value Organic Apple Juice was given the highest rating of the apple juices they sampled along with this description: “The crisp, sweet flavor of just-picked apples and balance of acid to sugar makes this a stellar choice.”

365 Everyday Value (Whole Foods) Organic Apple Juice, 100% Juice

At about $9.49 per gallon, the juice wasn’t the cheapest, but it tasted great, it was recommended as a safer option by Consumer Reports, and is sold in a one gallon glass jug which can be used as a fermentation vessel, saving about $6-$7 if I had to buy one from a homebrew shop.  Done deal.

The only drawback to this juice was that it was unfiltered (i.e. cloudy), which means we’d need to take an extra step if we want to clarify it, but that’s easily done with 1/2 – 1 tsp of pectic enzyme per gallon of cider.

Regardless if you choose 365 Everyday Value Organic Apple Juice from Whole Food’s or some other brand from wherever, it may be worthwhile to review the list of tested apple juice brands from Consumer Reports to make a better informed purchasing decision.

On a side note, Consumer Reports did contact Trader Joe’s about its test results, and according to Consumer Reports, a spokesperson from Trader Joe’s said “We will investigate your findings, as [we are] always ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the safety and quality of our products.”

Curious to see if Trader Joe’s investigated the Consumer Reports findings and what results they found, I emailed Trader Joe’s and received the following response: “All apple juice will have trace levels of arsenic as arsenic is a naturally occurring substance in soil.  Arsenic levels in apple and other fruit juices are tested and monitored. Trader Joe’s juice arsenic levels all test well below the maximum allowance set forth by the FDA. We are fully aware of the recent reports regarding apple and apple juice blend beverages.

Our products are also required to be tested and meet all U.S. government standards, as well as our very strict quality, safety and ethical standards. Please know that if we had any reason for concern, we would not continue to supply that product and/or use that supplier. Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our customers and crew, and the quality of our products.”

From what I read on the FDA’s website, the maximum allowance of inorganic arsenic set by the FDA is 10 ppb.  Consumer Reports found an average of 15.4 ppb of inorganic arsenic in TJ’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice.  Therefore I was a little perplexed at the response that “Trader Joe’s juice arsenic levels all test well below the maximum allowance set forth by the FDA.”  Maybe Trader Joe’s was talking about the juices that they tested themselves?  I’m not sure.

Meanwhile, perhaps it was a happy accident that I came across that Consumer Reports article because it led me to try out the 365 Everyday Value brand apple juice, and I’m glad I did because it resulted in a damn fine cider.  Now I’m anxious to see if the judges will also agree in the next competition I enter.


Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for BeerSyndicate.com, Beer and Drinking Writer, Award-Winning Brewer and Cider Maker, BJCP Beer Judge, Beer Reviewer, American Homebrewers Association Member, Shameless Beer Promoter, and Beer Traveler.

Yeast Nutrient: A Cautionary Tale for Beer, Cider, Mead and Wine Makers

Yeast nutrient can be helpful in ensuring a healthy fermentation in beer, cider, wine and mead making, but it can also present a risk if not used appropriately.  More on that in a moment, but first a little foreshadowing.

The first three lessons typically drilled into the heads of the beer, cider, mead and wine makers are: sanitation, sanitation, and sanitation. The importance of sanitation for those of the craft has been public knowledge at least since the second half of the 19th century when French scientist Louis Pasteur was called on by his government to assist the ailing wine industry (and later brewers) to determine what was spoiling their wine and how to prevent it.

Louis Pasteur’s Études sur le vin (Wine Studies) 1866

Among other things, solid cleaning and sanitation practices were recommended as a means of deterring unwanted microorganisms from contaminating and spoiling the libation-maker’s beverages.

Today, brewers and others have an effective array of food-grade sanitizers and cleansers at our disposal along with laboratory-produced pure yeast cultures to aid us in our efforts to produce a precise and consistent product.

But somehow even with all of these technological breakthroughs at our fingertips, libation-makers still make costly and stupid sanitation mistakes that end up ruining their products.

Take me, for example.

Despite a vast assortment of pure yeast cultures available in the market today, sometimes brewers such as myself look to capture a very specific yeast character that can only be obtained by culturing yeast from a bottle of a particular commercial beer.  (Perhaps the best beer I’ve ever made was created doing just this.)

For the brewer, this is one of those times that surgeon-like sanitary skills must be employed over several days to ensure no unwanted microorganism infects what we hope will be a pure culture of the yeast we’re after.

It is standard practice in these cases that granulated yeast nutrient is used to increase our chances of growing the very small amount of hopefully viable yeast found resting at the bottom of a bottle of commercial beer.

If the brewer’s efforts pay off, the desired yeast will slowly grow to the amount needed to ferment a batch of wort.  I had success culturing yeast in this way in the past, but not so much recently to the point that I had to dump the attempted yeast cultures and go with store-bought yeast.

It was evident that my recent yeast culturing efforts had failed because even without a microscope, I could smell and taste that the cultured yeast samples exhibited a peachy but otherwise unpleasant slightly sulfur-y character; certainly not the profile typical of the yeast I was after.

But that wouldn’t be the last time I encountered that peachy sulfur-like presence.

About a year later, I sourced some top notch apple juice for making hard cider.  As many cider makers know, apple juice doesn’t contain all of the nutrients typically found in brewer’s wort, and this can lead to a sluggish fermentation among other problems.  For this reason, yeast nutrient is typically added to the must, which of course I recently did.

And there is was again.  That unwanted peachy, slightly sulfur-y aroma emanating from my fermenting cider.

And then it struck me.  The yeast nutrient.

You see, unlike laboratory-grade hermetically sealed brewer’s yeast, yeast nutrient, isn’t necessarily sanitary, especially if purchased from a homebrew shop.  This is because homebrew shops will often order a larger quantity of a certain product, such as yeast nutrient, and then repackage those smaller quantities into smaller containers.  It’s during the repackaging phase that other unwanted microorganisms can get mixed in, which was the case for me.

Whatever the source, my yeast nutrient came loaded with some microorganisms clinging to the very nutrient that would help them grow and infect my yeast starters and spoil my expensive cider.  And this was even after the yeast nutrient was held in a freezer for years.

But you have to admit, what a lavish banquet those microorganisms in the yeast nutrient feasted on after being awakened from their icy slumber!  Fit for a king, I tell you!  Sadly though for those other microbes still lying in wait on the yeast nutrient in the freezer, they are in for a bit more of a warmer welcome when they awaken.  Boiling warm.

I suppose one might say the lesson to be learned here is to always boil yeast nutrient prior to use, as is sometimes (not always) printed on the packaging of yeast nutrient containers.  And certainly this is not a bad idea.  (If it’s not already on the packaging, it doesn’t hurt to write it on yourself.)

But there might be an even bigger lesson to be learned from my oversights.

For example, even though sanitation is one of the lessons beer, cider, mead and wine makers learn early on in our study of fermentation, it doesn’t mean that it should be taken for granted.  In other words, we can’t assume that just because the importance of sanitation was preached to us in the Kindergarten of our ferment-ucation, this must mean that somehow we then and forevermore mastered it in every aspect with no need to look back.

And this idea extends to other areas of brewing and beyond where we should be humble enough to acknowledge that even with X amount of years of experience, we might still make mistakes.  We might still not know everything.  As much as our trusted processes have led us to success in the past, we should never be too proud, trusting or dogmatic to question or improve them.

And though the technology we employ today aids us in preventing such infections (or whatever else), it doesn’t make the process foolproof.  I don’t mean to suggest that technology makes us necessarily lazy, but technology can make us overconfident.  Perhaps over-trusting, leading to a techno-blind spot, as it were.

In other words, even though we may have learned our ABCs in Kindergarten, it doesn’t mean we haven’t been repeatedly misspelling a few words along the way.  A few misspelled words that even spellcheck didn’t catch.


Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for BeerSyndicate.com, Beer and Drinking Writer, Award-Winning Brewer, BJCP Beer Judge, Beer Reviewer, American Homebrewers Association Member, Shameless Beer Promoter, and Beer Traveler.

Brewing with Old Yeast vs. New Yeast – Pt. 1

Yeast can be the most influential ingredient in beer, and many brewers often take special care to provide ideal conditions for their yeast in order to attempt to produce excellent beer and avoid certain yeast-derived off-flavors. Likewise, brewers often concern themselves with pitching yeast prior to its “best before” date and also trying to ensure an appropriate yeast cell count for a given batch of wort.

Curious as to how yeast beyond its “best before” date would perform, a 10 gallon batch of wort was brewed and split into two 5 gallon vessels, one batch was inoculated with one vial of yeast pitched prior to its “best before” date, and the other batch was pitched with the same variety of yeast that had exceeded its “best before” date by approximately 5 ½ years.

Old Yeast vs New Yeast.

The particular yeast tested in this experiment was White Labs Belgian Style Ale Yeast Blend WLP 575, one vial with a “best before” date of Sep. 10th, 2012, and the other vial with a “best before” date of Feb. 10th, 2018. Both vials of yeast had been stored at approximately 37 °F (2.78 °C).

[Note: The manufacturing date of White Labs yeast is said to be four months prior to the “best before” date listed on the packaging.]

Essentially, two things are being tested here:

1. Can enough (or any) viable (live) yeast cells survive after being in a vial for nearly six years in order to ferment wort?
2. Assuming wort can be fermented with six-year-old yeast, will pitching the reduced amount of viable yeast affect the final character of the beer enough to be identified in a taste test when compared to a similar beer made with newer yeast and thus a higher pitching rate?

Experiment Considerations

Being that Belgian yeast is being tested, it seemed only fitting that a Belgian style wort should be brewed. But what kind of Belgian wort would be best so as to minimize stress on the yeast and provide the best possible chance of growth, especially considering that the almost six-year-old vial of yeast might not have much if any viable yeast?

After careful scientifical consideration, it was concluded that a Belgian Dark Strong ale recipe with a starting gravity of 1.116 would be a good testing ground for old yeast, because as Euclid’s 6th Postulate clearly states: “Go Big or Go Home.”  Also, esters and other compounds which develop during the yeast’s growth phase may be more noticeable and therefore easier to detect in a beer of higher gravity that’s been fermented with under pitched Belgian yeast.

Of course there are some more serious dangers of under pitching yeast including the potential for other microorganisms to infect the beer, and the possibility of a stuck fermentation with the resulting under-attenuated beer.

Not to be deterred, the next order of business was to determine what the potential viability of the yeast was based on its age, and also what an appropriate cell count estimate might be for a wort with a starting gravity of 1.116.

Fortunately, online calculators have been designed for just this purpose.

One such program is the Yeast Pitch Rate and Starter Calculator from the website www.brewersfriend.com where the tagline is “brewing with total confidence.” After entering the details of the age of the yeast and the starting gravity of the wort, the viability of the yeast in the vial was estimated to be at approximately 0%. In other words, the calculator reassuringly estimated that 0% of the yeast would be alive. Based on this figure, the program further suggested that the pitch rate of the old yeast would be just a tad bit short… by about 644 billion cells… which is to say we are under the recommended pitch rate by 100%.

For good measure, the viability and suggested pitch rate for the new yeast was also calculated, and the program indicated that the viability of the yeast was about 17%, and thus the recommended pitch rate of the new yeast would be a little short as well, but only by 627 billion cells.

Viability of Old Yeast vs. New Yeast

Brewer's Friend: Brewing with Total Confidence

Armed with this information, the requisite “total confidence” was obtained in order to move forward with the experiment.

Process

In order to keep variables as consistent as possible, no yeast starters were made for either the old or new yeast.

One 10 gallon batch of beer was brewed, chilled to 64 °F (17.78 °C), split into two vessels with one vessel receiving the new yeast, and the other vessel the old yeast, the vessels were shaken vigorously for one minute to oxygenate, and finally placed into a temperature controlled refrigerator set to 68 °F (20 °C) on January 29th, at 2:00 AM.

Predictions

1. The old yeast might make beer. Or it might not.
2. The under pitched new yeast will probably make beer, but maybe it won’t.

Observations

1. Turns out that both predictions from above were correct!
2. The beer with one vial of new yeast began to form a krausen approximately 72 hours after inoculation.
3. The beer with one vial of 6 year-old-yeast began to form a krausen approximately 78 hours after inoculation.
4. Both the beer with the old yeast and new yeast exhibited vigorous fermentation and a similar-looking krausen, however the beer with the old yeast was more vigorous, pushing krausen through the airlock.
5. On day 8, airlock bubbling slowed dramatically, and by day 9, it had stopped. By day 10, the krausens of both beers had still not fallen.
6. A sniff check on day 9 revealed that the aroma of the beer with the new yeast was more fruity and complex, whereas the beer with the old yeast exhibited more of a generic overstated yeast character, and not as much of the complex fruity character typical of some strains of Belgian yeast.
7. A sniff check on day 10 revealed that the aroma of the beer with the new yeast maintained its same fruity complexity, but the beer with the old yeast had toned down some of its predominant generic yeast character, and begun to develop a more complex and better integrated yeast-to-beer balance.

Further Predictions

1. The beer with one vial of new yeast will attenuate to within 5 gravity points of the beer with the old yeast, give or take 20 gravity points.
2. The two beers will be repeatedly distinguishable based on a triangle taste test performed by 10 supertasters (significance will be reached with a p-value of <0.05). However, a subsequent and more advanced trapezoid test will reveal that statistical significance was not reached by a population size of 20 non-supertasters.


Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for Beer Syndicate, Beer and Drinking Blogger, Beer Judge, Gold Medal-Winning Homebrewer, Beer Reviewer, American Homebrewers Association Member, Shameless Beer Promoter, and Beer Traveler.

BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test

Welcome to the BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test presented to you by the good fellas at BeerSyndicate.com.

The BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test is designed to better prepare you for the online BJCP Entrance Exam and to provide practical training using the Beer Style Compare-O-Matic, which is simply the most effective free resource for the actual exam.

Compare-O-Matic Screen Shot

Both the difficulty of the questions and time limit on this practice test are very similar to the actual online BJCP Entrance Exam.  However, the focus of this practice test is strictly related to knowledge of the 2015 BJCP Beer Style Guidelines, an area that makes up approximately 50-60% (or more) of the actual Entrance Exam.

Just like on the actual online BJCP Entrance Exam, the questions on this practice test are either true-false, multiple-choice, or multiple-choice/multiple-answer.

If you have not done so already, please review the How to Pass the Online BJCP Entrance Exam Tutorial to familiarize yourself with what you need to know to be successful on the exam over all.

Good luck.

BJCP Entrance Exam Mock Practice Test


Like this post?  Well, thanks- we appreciate you!  

Tweet-worthy?  That would be kind of you:

Want to read more beer inspired thoughts?  Come back any time, friend us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter:

Or feel free to drop me a line at: dan@beersyndicate.com

Hi, I’m Dan: Beer Editor for BeerSyndicate.com, Beer and Drinking Writer, Gold Medal-Winning Homebrewer, Beer Reviewer, AHA Member, Beer Judge, Beer Traveler, and Shameless Beer Promoter with a background in Philosophy and Business.

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén