The Third Annual Beehive Brew-off

We sent off some swag for the home brewers who entered in this years event. We're happy to announce the winners:

The Third Annual Beehive Brew-off has come and gone and this year saw a record number of entries. Nearly 500 entries were submitted covering just about every style under the sun.

Beehive Brew Off 2011 Results
August 20-21st 2011
Sponsored by The Beer Nut/ZZHops
482 Entries
==========================================================================
1 Light Lager (9 Entries)
Mike Johnson Standard American Lager 1B Standard American 1
Scott Hunt Mow my lawn bitch 1B Standard American 2
James Nicodemus Stella 1C Premium American 3
==========================================================================
2 Pilsner (15 Entries)
Scott Hunt Cup Czech Pils 2B Bohemian Pilsner 1
Vince Stuart G.P. Lite 2B Bohemian Pilsner 2
Marti Dana Pile Driver Pils 2B Bohemian Pilsner 3
==========================================================================
3 Euro Amber Lager (13 Entries)
Bryan Van Winkle Vee Dub Vienna 3A Vienna Lager 1
Travis Grimm Festbier 3B Oktoberfest 2
John Hansen Autumn Rush 3B Oktoberfest 3
==========================================================================
4 Dark Lager (12 Entries)
Tracy Johancsik Dawn's Dunkel 4B Munich Dunkel 1
John Hansen Celestial Swartzbier 4C Schwarzbier 2
Vince Stuart Wagner Wobble 4C Schwarzbier 3
==========================================================================
5 Bock (12 Entries)
Mike Mirabella The Crushinator 5C Doppelbock 1
Travis Grimm Detonator 5C Doppelbock 2
Scott Hunt Flocculator 5C Doppelbock 3
==========================================================================
6 A,B,C Light Hybrid (16 Entries)
Alex Lemieux and Tory Clayton K-Beer 6C Koelsch 1
Alex Lemieux and Tory Clayton Summer Blonde 6B Blond Ale 2
Andrew Swan Centennial Blonde 6B Blond Ale 3
==========================================================================
6D American Wheat/Rye (13 Entries)
Matt Lewis Rye Know Why 6D American Wheat or Rye Beer 1
Mike Mirabella The Why of Rye 6D American Wheat or Rye Beer 2
Tom Shivers American Wheat 6D American Wheat or Rye Beer 3
==========================================================================
7 Amber Hybrids (9 Entries)
John Knoop Munich Lager 7C Dusseldorf Altbier 1
Rob Phillips Steam Bound for CA 7B California Common Beer 2
Alan Burnham Session Common 7B California Common Beer 3
==========================================================================
8 English Pale Ales (14 Entries)
Scott Hunt Tigershark esb 8B Special/Best/Premium Bitter 1
Sean Meegan ESB Easy as 123 8C Extra Special/Strong Bitter (EPA) 2
Robert Glenn Wanker ESB 8C Extra Special/Strong Bitter (EPA) 3
==========================================================================
9 Scottish and Irish Ale (14 Entries)
Kyle Callister Dressing up Scottish Scottish 80/- 1
Matt Walker Biscuits For Smut Strong Scotch Ale 2
Michael Goode and Allison Truong Snowshoe Heavy AleStrong Scotch Ale 3
==========================================================================
10A American Pale (25 Entries)
Justin Kingsford JPA (Justin Pale Ale) 10A American Pale 1
Aaron Smith and Izaak WiermanWhipping Post Pale 10A American Pale 2
Eric Brauser Kickback APA 10A American Pale 3
==========================================================================
10B American Amber (16 Entries)
Trent Bangert Angus Ale 10B American Amber 1
Justin Kingsford Amber Ale 10B American Amber 2
Josh Van Jura Abolishian Amber 10B American Amber 3
==========================================================================
10C American Brown (6 Entries)
Paul Gailey Trip One 10C American Brown 1
Trent Bangert Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep 10C American Brown 2
Michael Brown YAJB 10C American Brown 3
==========================================================================
11 English Brown Ale (8 Entries)
Travis Grimm Mental Mild 11A Mild 1
Dallas Barlow Rated X 11A Mild 2
Doug Kirchner Celtic Mild 11A Mild 3
==========================================================================
12 Porter (23 Entries)
Mike Johnson Robust Porter 12B Robust Porter 1
Andrew Jensen Baltic Porter 12C Baltic Porter 2
Dave Watson Porter Starboard 12A Brown Porter 3
==========================================================================
13 Stout (19 Entries)
Steve Furse Strongman Stout 13C Oatmeal Stout 1
Weston Barkley Building Blocks 13A Dry Stout 2
Connor Papineau Aesthetics of hate 13E American Stout 3
==========================================================================
13F Russian Imperial Stouts (6 Entries)
Trent Bangert Court of Catherine Russian Imperial Stout 1
Ricky Hansing and Quinn Eskelsen Trojan Horse Russian Imperial Stout 2
Brad Williams Russian Imperial Stout Russian Imperial Stout 3
Jeremy Geiger Risky RIS Russian Imperial Stout 3
==========================================================================
14 India Pale Ale (29 Entries)
Lawrence Ostroski Rose Park IPA 14B American IPA 1
Scott Hunt IPA 74 14B American IPA 2
James Mancuso and Connor Forbes Drop it Like it is Hop American IPA 3
==========================================================================
14C Imperial IPA (9 Entries)
Chris Detrick Jack Morman Rye IPA 14C Imperial IPA 1
Travis Grimm Infirmary Double IPA 14C Imperial IPA 2
Phillip Davis Imperial IPA 14C Imperial IPA 3
==========================================================================
15 German Wheat and Rye (15 Entries)
Ed Scott Weizenbock 15C Weizenbock 1
Dallas Barlow Kick Ass Wedding Wheat 15A Weizen 2
Kyle Callister At Night Weizen 15B Dunkelweizen 3
==========================================================================
16A Witbier (7 Entries)
Don Gladfelter None 16A Witbier 1
Sarah Nelson Wit 16A Witbier 2
James Mancuso and Connor Forbes Garcon Blanc 16A Witbier 3
==========================================================================
16 C,D Saison & Biere de Garde (19 Entries)
Alex Lemieux and Tory Clayton Biere de Mars 16D Biere de Garde 1
Dallas Barlow In the Desert Dry Farmhouse Ale 16C Saison 2
Mark Eury C'est L'ete 16C Saison 3
==========================================================================
16 B,E Belgian Pale and Specialty (19 Entries)
Dallas Barlow She is a Bit of a Tart 16E Belgian Specialty 1
Daren Wightman Dack Framboise 16E Belgian Specialty 2
Mike Hahn Imperial Orval 16E Belgian Specialty 3
==========================================================================
17 Sour Beers (9 Entries)
Dallas Barlow Halten Sie Den Schuss 17A Berliner Weisse 1
Brent Winkler Flanders Red 17B Flanders Red 2
Chris Detrick Berliner Weiss 17A Berliner Weisse 3
==========================================================================
18 Belgian Strong (21 Entries)
Dallas Barlow Triple Poules Francais 18C Belgian Tripel 1
Connor Papineau St. Papineau's 18E Belgian Dark Strong Ale 2
Ben Knorr Dubbel Blizzard 18B Belgian Dubbel 3
==========================================================================
19 English & American Barleywine (13 Entries)
Mike Hahn English Barleywine 19B English Barleywine 1
Aaron Smith Beast of Burden 19C American Barleywine 2
Rob Kent Grizzly Adams 19B English Barleywine 3
==========================================================================
20 Fruit Beer (23 Entries)
Michael Anderson LiliKoi Ale 20A Fruit Beer 1
David Pang and Casey Jones Cherry Vanilla Lager 20A Fruit Beer 2
Cami Kent Veridian Cream 20A Fruit Beer 3
==========================================================================
21 Spice, Herb, Vegetable Beer (22 Entries)
Travis GrimmFire in the Hole Chipotle Pale Spice, Herb, Vegetable Beer 1
Trent BangertBANGERT'S BREAKFAST BEER Spice, Herb, Vegetable Beer 2
Casey Ruff Serrano Blonde Spice, Herb, Vegetable Beer 3
==================================================================================
22 Smoke Flavored and Wood Aged (10 Entries)
Mike Johnson Cigar-Cedar aged IPA 22C Wood-Aged Beer 1
Sarah Nelson Rauchweizen 22B Other Smoked Beer 2
Trent Bangert Oakdogg 22C Wood-Aged Beer 3
===========================================================================
23A Specialty Beer (33 Entries)
Dawn Gray Chocolate Starfish Porter 23A Specialty Beer 1
Rob Kent Old Crepuscular 23A Specialty Beer 2
Hans Groberg Big Brother 23A Specialty Beer 3
===========================================================================
24, 25, 26 Meads (16 Entries)
Dirk Howard Peach Mead 25C Other Fruit Melomel 1
Rob and Cami Kent Armfunkel 26B Braggot 2
Andrew Dalton Ginger Metheglin 26A Metheglin 3
============================================================================
27, 28 Ciders (7 Entries)
Tom Shivers Apple Ginger Cider 28D Other Spec. Cider/Perry 1
Travis Grimm Nice Try Cider 27A Common Cider 2
Steve Furse Five O Clock Cider 27A Common Cider 3
============================================================================
BEST OF SHOW
Ed Scott Wienbock 15C Weizenbock 1
Dallas Barlow Triple Poules Francais 18C Belgian Tripel 2
Dallas Barlow She is a Bit of a Tart 16E Belgian Specialty 3
=============================================================================

Women & Beer

Why Women Are a Critical Part of the Future of U.S. Craft Beer

By Ginger Johnson

Question: Who will help support the future of US craft beer?

A. With our population exploding, there should be plenty of up and coming market share

B. All the existing craft beer drinkers, silly

C. Women

Answer: C

It’s time for more women consumers to engage in American Craft Beer. Why? Well, if you’re a woman who likes beer, let me answer that with a few questions. Do you enjoy American craft brews? Do you know what "craft" means? If you do, how often do you partake? What brands do you support and why? Do you recruit other women to enjoy it too?

You may know that women influence 80 percent of purchases across all categories. What you may not know, is that only 25 – 29 percent of American women of legal age enjoy beer. That’s way too low to really call it the "All American Beverage," when clearly far less than half of the female population isn’t enjoying it. In order to support the health, existence, and growth of the more than 1,700 existing craft breweries and the 600+ breweries in planning, more women will need to engage.

How do you engage in craft beer? Do you buy it and share it? Do your friends get excited (or tired) of you offering new beer suggestions to try? Do you talk about beer with anyone who will listen, or is it a closeted kind of situation? Do you notice or seek out beer education opportunities to learn more about the incredible beverage in your glass?

Women are the future of craft beer in the US of A because they are the seriously under-tapped, misrepresented, and often overlooked market that can be developed to help sustain the entire craft beer community. If you’re a woman, you need to stand up and say, “Yes! I want to know more and drink more American craft beer.” Demand to be heard and respected as part of a viable market share, not some token or niche market. A 50.9% global population segment is hardly a niche.

If you’re a male consumer or professional, chances are you have an important female or three in your life. You too should work to make the demands and changes for equal gender beer involvement, as that would be a natural extension of your affection and respect for those women, yes?

Tell the women you meet in the industry to encourage beer businesses to create specific opportunities to engage women in craft beer. In our ongoing research for Women Enjoying Beer (WEB), we hear from women all across the country who say they enjoy learning with other women, in women-only settings. Lots of women want to learn about beer through totally unconventional ways (read: dashing stereotypes and myths). For example, WEB is planning a fly fishing and beer event.

AMEN!! More accurately, AWOMEN!! The success of craft beer and women has to include the story as well. The story of who, how, when, and all other beery info as it relates to craft breweries. Women love the story—give it to them.

Look at this picture. It’s a women’s beer event that can be held anywhere across the country and it tells the story clearly that women are and want to get into craft beer. Does this look good to you too? And, we haven’t even talked about how a mind blowing and enlightening beer and food pairing experience helps promote craft beer to women!

Women: ask for it by name—women’s craft beer events.
Craft beer community: offer events to women.

Tastings, pairings, tours, events, tappings—there are innumerable ways to ask for beer opportunities if you’re a consumer, and infinite ways to invite women if you’re in the business.

Why will the future of U.S. craft beer depend on women? Because like it or not, they are the market that influences spending, makes the most decisions about what’s on the table and in the fridge, and they are interested in knowing more about craft beer.

Get your female friends involved in beer by holding a beer potluck where everyone brings a six pack to share and taste. Hold a craft beer and food tasting party—they are huge fun and economical for all budgets. Learn how to host a tasting at home.

Insist that your local retailer hold a beer tasting, and be sure to show your support and encouragement for repeating the event by recruiting other women to join you. If you ask, you also have to show proactive support.

I once heard that a handwritten letter to a legislator outweighs a form letter 100 to 1. Be that one woman who speaks up, demands respect, and creates a better relationship with beer. The other 99 women will be glad for it, and in turn will help the future of the U.S. craft beer scene thrive.

Photos © istockphoto and Kate Parks

---

Ginger Johnson is a loud laugher and energetic beer enthusiast. You can hear her enjoying beer and she encourages you to join her. She started Women Enjoying Beer to educate and share the great experience of craft beer with women and men everywhere. She works with consumers directly to find out what women want from their beer and beer businesses to market craft beer to women. She believes in beer diplomacy, education, and in being a geek and not a snob. She can be reached at Ginger@WomenEnjoyingBeer.com, via Twitter @womenenjoybeer and on Facebook at Women Enjoying Beer.

Selling the Session from Draft Magazine

Selling the session

BREWER'S UNION LOCAL 180

There’s buzz about low-strength beer. But is there any money in it?

by Joe Stange

Commercial Suicide. That’s the name of the first beer that left Jester King Craft Brewery in Drip-ping Springs, Texas, last October. It’s a dark ale made from roasted malts and partially aged on oak before blending and packaging. Sounds like one any geek could love. So why such a damning moniker?

Maybe because it’s a mild of only 3.5% ABV—not a beer many American craft breweries would hang their hats on. What’s more, Jester King is among a scattered handful of independent brewers and pubs across the U.S. and Canada emphasizing lower-strength beers meant for drinking in quantity.

What are they thinking? Have we not been clear?

Through informal polls, beer-rating Web sites, year-end lists, and—most important—the dollars we spend, we have made our preferences known. We like strong beers. We drink them. We hoard them. We pay extra. Scan the draft list at your local taphouse, and more often than not you’ll find it top-heavy with higher alcohol beers and very little, if anything, below 5%.

So what on Earth would lead a few brewers and pubs to turn their backs on us and dedicate themselves to weak beer? Have we not proven that we can session anything?

“First off, I don’t buy that,” says Lew Bryson, a Philadelphia-based drinks writer who in 2009 launched a blog-based campaign called the Session Beer Project. Bryson said he’s often heard the argument that you can session any beer, as long as you drink slowly enough, and still walk home straight afterward.

Imperial stout, anyone?

“I’ve never been able to stretch out three of those over six hours,” he said. “I call bullshit on that. … People in craft beer joke that people who drink light beer really don’t like beer. But I like to drink beer. I don’t just like to sip beer. I like to drink beer.”

Bryson launched the project after a chat with Bill Covaleski of Victory Brewing, which had been offering a few lower-strength beers without much acclaim. When Bryson asked why those beers weren’t better known, the brewery’s founder said, “It’s your fault.”

Covaleski’s point: The media and geeks would rather talk about the latest double-hop-bombs or barrel-aged sour ales, while proper drinking beers fly under the radar. So Bryson launched his Session Beer Project to pay them more attention.

Which brings us to an interesting question: Is the name Commercial Suicide accurate?
“There are definitely those who don’t really get these beers,” said Ron Extract, co-owner of Jester King. “We’ve had some people tell us that the name ‘Commercial Suicide’ was apt, others who called it ‘watery’ or said it didn’t ‘pack enough punch,’ and even one customer who asked us if/when we might be making a full-strength version.

“At the same time, though, we’ve also got a few places that are pouring it consistently and going through it at a good clip,” he said. “All in all, this beer definitely has its audience.”

Are low-strength beers the next big thing? Maybe not. The Web site Ratebeer.com surely has the most complete database of available craft options over the past several years, and its numbers tell a boozy story. In 2000, the average alcohol by volume of new U.S. beers was about 5.7%. That number increased steadily over the past decade, reaching about 7.2% in 2009.

Meanwhile, the percentage of new U.S. beers stronger than 5.5% had risen to about 75%. That’s up from 45% a decade earlier.

Despite the trends—or perhaps as a reaction to them—“session beer” has become a regular part of insider chatter. It was apparently on the mind of Dogfish Head founder Sam Calagione during a recent interview with Atlantic Monthly. The magazine asked him, “What’s a beer trend that you wish would go away?” His two answers were “ice-cold beer” and the idea “that session beers and extreme beers cannot co-exist peacefully on the same shelf or within a brewer’s portfolio.” (Although it’s not clear who, if anyone, has ever advocated such an idea.)

It’s worth noting that low-strength beer is not exactly rare in North America. Three of the top U.S. sellers—Bud Light, Coors Light and Miller Lite—each contain 4.2% alcohol. Yet the craft movement began as a reaction to products like those, which might explain the reluctance of some brewers to stray below the 5% line.

Aside from light corporate lagers, is there any money in session beer?

“Yeah, of course,” said Steven Pauwels, brewmaster of Boulevard Brewing in Kansas City, Mo. “It’s volume and price. That’s how it works.” Basically, per-beer profits might be slimmer but you sell a lot more beer. “You get the same revenue you get with lower volume and higher margin,” Pauwels said.

Boulevard has gained national recognition for its Smokestack Series in 75cl bottles, but the Midwestern brewery remains the house that Unfiltered Wheat built. The Wheat—low on bitterness but big on bready, lemony flavor at 4.4% strength—accounts for more than 60 percent of Boulevard’s sales.

“We sell a lot of it, and that beer is paying the bills for us,” Pauwels said. So session beer is not necessarily Commercial Suicide after all. •

MORE: 10 session spots: Bars and breweries dedicated to low-ABV brews

Originally from: http://draftmag.com/features/selling-the-session/

Beer: You're in the Clear.

In the spirit of Saint Patrick’s Day, we are delighted to present you an infographic designed by Belancio about beer.

Moderate beer drinking can offer some health benefits. Beer contains folic acid, vitamins, iron and calcium and has the same health benefits already attributed to moderate wine drinking, researchers found. People who regularly drinkmoderate amounts of beer are less likely to suffer from diabetes and high blood pressure and have a lower body fat content. According to a research conducted by Barcelona University, those with a Mediterranean diet who drank up to a pint of beer a day “not only did not put on weight, but in some cases even lost weight.”

This is a look at the world’s most consumed alcoholic beverage, beer.

Geeking out on Beer - From Wired... The Science of the head on a beer.

Modeling the head of a beer

• By Rhett Allain
• January 25, 2009 |
• 9:23 am |
• Categories: Dot Physics, Physics, Video

When you pour a beer, there is this foamy top called the head. The size of the head decreases over time. What is this process dependent on? Clearly, little bubbles of beer are popping. Does each bubble have an equal probability of popping? Do only the bubbles on the top (or bottom) pop? I became aware of this idea from a colleague. Maybe he was going to do an analysis, but I haven’t seen it yet. If you do (Gerard), I am sorry for doing this before you. This may have been investigated before, but in the spirit of re-doing everything I have not searched for previous beer head studies.

Note: if you are a high schooler or a teetotaler, you could probably repeat this with Dr. Pepper or something. If you are underage, don’t drink beer – it’s disgusting. If you are over 21, beer is awesome.

So, here is the plan. See if I can model what the head size would do over time if the each bubble has an equal chance of popping. I will also model what would happen if just the top bubbles had and equal chance of popping.

Suppose the foam is made of bubbles and each bubble has the same chance of popping (and thus turning to pure beer). Maybe I should start with a diagram.

Here you can see the dimensions of the head, and thus get the volume. Also, I tried to represent an individual “beer bubble”. If the bubbles are of uniform size (probably not exactly true), then the volume of the head is proportional to the number of bubbles. Also, for this glass, the head is the shape of a cylinder. This is important because it will let me relate (easily) the change in volume with the change in height.

Ok, I think I am ready to begin. Let me determine a model for the height of the head as a function of time if each bubble has an equal chance of popping. This is very similar to radioactive decay (so I will use similar notation). Suppose the rate at which a bubble will pop is r. Also suppose that there are Nbubbles. Suppose I had no nose, then how could I smell a rose? (Dr. Suess) So, in a short time (?t) how many bubbles will pop? Well, the probability that one of the bubbles will pop will be:

The number of pops in that short time will be the probability of one popping times the number of bubbles.

The number of bubbles that pops reduce the number of bubbles. I can then write the change in the number of bubbles as:

Now, I can get all the “N” stuff on one side of the equation and all the “t” stuff on the other.

As the time interval gets really small, I can write this in differential form:

I really need to add some posts about derivatives and integrals, but I am going to proceed. If I integrate both sides, I can get an expression relating N and t.

Notice that I am trying to be a good integral-boy. I have my limits of integration variables different than the variables in the functions. That would just be awkward. (again, I will talk about integration in the future – if I forget, remind me) After integrating, I get:

Physicists always like to write the natural log (ln) of a quantity without units. It makes more sense that way. If I want N as a function of time, I can write the expression as:

This is the classic exponential decay equation. Note that r has units of 1/sec. This makes rt unitless – a good thing for exponentials. Ok – remember the goal, I want to get a function of the height in time. If each bubble has an equal chance of popping, I have the number of bubbles as a function of time. If all the bubbles are the same size, this would be proportional to the volume. First to get a relationship between the number of bubbles and the volume of the head. Each bubble has a volume:

Note: I have no idea what the dimensions of the bubble are. I have just called the diameter “a”. Now for the volume of the head.

If I assume that all of these bubbles fit perfectly in the volume of the head (clearly not true, but it doesn’t really matter – I can pretend like the space each bubble takes up is a cube of volume a³ – that would be a better idea). This means that in the head, there are:

I guess I don’t need the “bubbles” subscript on the N variable. I really want h as a function of time. Solving this for h gives:

Now I can plug in the time dependence of N.

However, I don’t really know N₀, but I do know the initial height. If I use the relationship for N that relates to volume:

Now, I can put this in for my expression and get h in terms of h₀ and t:

Now, this is something I can test. I don’t know the constant r, but that can be determined from the data (perhaps). Before I explore other models for bubble-popping, let me see if the data agrees with this model. Here is the video.

Beer head from Rhett Allain on Vimeo.

BUT WAIT! Don’t watch that video. It is long and boring. I only put it there so that you could use it to collect your own data if you so choose. Or, perhaps you like sitting around watching the grass grow. If that is the case, this should be awesome.

I used my favorite FREE video analysis tool – Tracker Video. I took the data from the analysis and plotted it with Logger Pro (it is not the best, but it is quick – and I really wanted to drink that beer) – also, it is not free. I plotted the y position of the top of the head, the y value of the bottom and the value of the height. If you DID accidentally watch that video, you would notice that the bottom of the head moves up as more of the bubbles are turned into beer.

In this graph, I fit two functions to the data (well, Logger Pro did). The first function is:

This function seems to fit the data ok, but it has the linear constant added on. In my derivation above, I did not have such a constant. Note that I left off the units so it would be quicker to write.

The other fit gives:

For this second fit, I told Logger Pro to keep the coefficient out front as 0.1 (because that was the height at t=0 seconds). I also told it to not use a linear constant added to the function. It doesn’t look like it fits as well. Here is one final fit. In this fit, I allowed Logger Pro to chose everything but I said “no linear constant”.

None of these fits seems just right. One way to compare the three fits is with the “root mean square error” (RMSE). Logger Pro reports this value with its fits. It is basically a measure of how far the data points are from the function that I am fitting. Lower values are better. Here are the three functions that I fit with their RMSE values.

The fit with the constant added on (B) has the lowest RMSE. Let me try refitting the data while not including the first few seconds of data. If you watched the video, things change fast during this time. Also, the head is somewhat difficult to measure.

I guess this isn’t too conclusive. It fits better (with RMSE = 0.0017), but a straight line fits ok to that data also.

What about the idea that only the bubbles on the top pop (or that these are much more likely to pop). The first problem is “how many bubles are on the surface?” This question depends on the bubble size. If each bubble takes up a cube of space of size a, then the number of bubbles on the top is:

Note that this number does not depend on the height, but it will effect the height (as bubbles pop, the height goes down). Suppose that each one of these (on the surface) had an equal chance of popping. I can’t really write an expression for the number of bubbles on the surface because if a bubble on the surface pops, another one takes its place. The number of bubbles on the surface is essentially a constant. But (in this case), the rate of change of ALL the bubbles would be the rate of change of the bubbles on the surface. If I go back to the expression I derive regarding the rate of change of the number of bubbles, I had this:

Before, N was a variable. But in this case, N is the number of bubbles on the surface and thus a constant. This means that the rate of change of the number of bubbles is a constant. This would make the volume change at a constant rate and therefore the height would change at a constant rate (since it is a cylinder). Does a straight line fit the data? It fits somewhat ok for the later times, but it clearly does not fit the early times. Of course, I said I had trouble measuring the head at the beginning anyway.

What other possible ways could the bubbles pop? Maybe the bubbles on the top and side only pop (or maybe the bottom also). I will leave this as an exercise for the readers. I think the problem is that I need more and better data. You know what that means.

Update:

Commenter Alex pointed out that this has been done before. He is correct. I found two older papers that look at the head of a beer.

• A Leike, “Demonstration of the exponential decay law using beer froth” European Journal of Physics. (2002) vol. 23. There is an online paper for this, but I had to look at it through my library. If you search for the title, you should be able to find something.
• J. Hackbarth “Multivariate Analyses of Beer Foam Stand” Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 2006.Here is a pdf version from scientificsocieties.org.

Anatomy of a Beer

• 4tweetsretweet

  All the different variables and procedures that go into crafting a beer make each one unique and special. Especially among craft beers, you would be hard pressed to find two beers whose construction came out to yield the exact same beer. Understanding a beer’s anatomy can help you better define its structure, and how its flavors will affect you.

  THE BODY

  The body of the beer is what we recognize as the alcoholic beverage we actually drink. It is the colored liquid that makes up the largest portion of a beer and contributes to the vast majority of its flavors and aromas. Its appearance can range greatly.

  THE HEAD

  The head of the beer is typically the smaller component and always rests on top of the beer. It is a foam ranging in colors, sizes and textures and does contribute to the beers overall aroma, and slightly to the beer’s flavor.

  THE AROMA

  The Aroma, also known as nose, or smell, is what you are able to sense by breathing in the flavors that are emanating off the beer. Depending on the glass the beer is served in, you should get your nose in as close to the head as possible. Take a deep breath in with your nose and mouth open, then several smaller ones. The intensity of aroma will vary greatly, and its ability to predict the flavor of the beer also ranges.

  THE COLOR

  The color, or look focuses on both the body of the beer and the head. What color is the body? It could be any range of colors and can be completely transparent to completely opaque – this too will give you a better understanding of how the final product will taste and feel in your mouth. The same goes with the head. Its color, density and ability to retain its structure will give you insight into the beer’s overall mouthfeel and texture.

  THE MOUTHFEEL

  The mouthfeel, or texture of the beer is a representation of how it actually feels in your mouth. Beers can range from crisp and snappy, to smooth and creamy. Consider the way the carbonation feels – is it aggressive or subdued? How easily does the beer flow over your palate? Does it have an oil like consistency, or is it closer to water? All of these will affect the way the flavor is transfered to your palate, and the overall mouthfeel will contribute to your rendering of its enjoyment.

  THE TASTE

  The taste or flavor of the beer is of course everyone’s most prominent focus. Don’t get lost by trying to absorb it all at once. Take a moment to discover how the taste has come together. All the individual sensory factors together can create a very simple, or complex flavor. It can be extremely rich and potent, or very light. Sometimes a beer will attack you with a certain obvious flavor, with subtle smaller ones hiding in the background. Flavor really is the most important sensory component of beer, and as such it should not be taken lightly. Take a moment to absorb the beer, really try to break down the flavors that are seductively, or aggressively hiding within it. It will prove to you that beer does not just taste like “beer”.

  THE FINISH

  The finish contributes to how satisfying, refreshing, or quenching the beer may or may not be. It is the feeling that is left in your mouth when you have swallowed that sip of beer. Was the flavor still in your mouth after? Maybe it was long and cloying, or short and crisp. How well does the flavor linger, or does it at all? Is it sweet or dry? Roasty or fruity? This will play directly off the flavor and mouthfeel of the beer and provide you with a final sensation that often has a great impact on how you enjoyed the overall experience.