siebel tastepanel

7/27/2019 Siebel Tastepanel

1/25

www.probrewer.com www.siebelinstitute.com

Taste Panel Pitfalls

By J. J. OLSHAUSEN

J. J. Ol sh au sen is Di re ctor of Tech ni ca l Se rv ice,

I. E. Si eb el So ns ' Co mp an y, In c. , Chic ag o. Th is

pa pe r wa s presented in greater detai l at the Joint

Convention o f Districts Venezuela and Caribbean,

held in Caracas in February, 1969. The paper was

also presented at a meeting of District Western

Canada, held in Banff, Alberta, in July, 1969.

In cl ud ed he re is on ly Pa rt I of this paper whi ch was

presented in two parts . Part II gave il lust rations and

specif ic examples from actual tas te-panel work.

Details of thi s par t of the work may be obtained by

writing to the author.


2/25

A great deal has been studied, written, and published

about taste-testing, and a tremendous amount of suc

cessful effort is continually put forth in the system

atization of odor and flavor evaluations for all types of

food products, as a matter of quality control and as

checks on flavor uniformity and improvement, for the

ultimate benefit of the consumer.

For malt beverages such as beer, many types of tests

are in use : tests for difference, tests for similarity, two-glass tests, three-glass or triangular tests, preference

tests, etc. Statistical significance ratings worked out in

the well-known Bengtsson tables (published in E.B.C.

"Analytica") and expressed by 1, 2, or 3 stars, are an

additional refinement where taste comparisons are in

volved.

The present paper will not deal with any of these

various approaches, but will rather attempt to present

certain aspects and their pitfalls. Smelling and tasting

have become a science, but a science dealing with human

physiology, and humans do not have built-in spectro

photometers or other measuring devices.

Plainly self-evident as this is, there are occasions

when there is merit and purpose in bringing into focus

facts which are so obvious that ordinarily it would seem

pointless to dwell on them. Such are the facts that the

main pillar of our brewing industry and the intrinsic

source of success of the individual brewery, in the final

analysis are not governed by such factors as the ana

lytical compositions of your beer or the source, type,

and price of your brewing materials, nor indeed by any

units or components that are measurable and express-

able in figures in the laboratory, but exclusively by the

utterly subjective, imaginational, easily influenceable,

often mood-oriented, and sometimes plain fickle reac

tions of several million thirsty mouths whose owners

pay good money to gain a sustained flavor sensation

which can never he expressed in chromatographic or

other figures.

This we all know. And because of this obvious truth,

members of the technical personnel in a brewery gener

ally form taste panels whose job it is to keep an eye

on flavor quality, or more succinctly, that kind of beer

flavor which is desired because it sells best. Right here,

the qualifying words, "sells," in relation to quality, involves a typical pitfall I may discuss first.

Variability of Organoleptic Acceptance

Patterns

A taste panel can judge the acceptability of a beer

purely on the basis of the traditional concepts of purity,

pleasurable flavor balance, and absence of defects ; or

the panel can judge beer mainly in adaptation to the

preference pattern of its consumer territory regardless

of flavor traits which, although perfectly clean and

normal as such, are not desired in a different territory,

or even regardless of some chronic defect it may have,

so long as it sells. Let me give you a typical example

i nvolving a defect. In the state or province of XYZ,

a regional brewery produces a beer which has a slight

musty cellar taste (Hausgeschmack), perhaps coupled

with diacetyl in some brews or bottlings. This fault,

which is subject to criticism by any discriminating

taster, has been in existence for a long time, perhaps

20. or 30 years, and has become a characteristic so deeply

ingrained in the consumer's association with this beer

that he is not only not conscious of it but simply does

not recognize the defect for what it is, since he is used

to it. It has almost become something of a trademark

for that particular beer. Why, if the brewery were in

a position to make a technically clean, flawless product

out of this beer overnight, it is entirely conceivable that

a certain percentage of its regular clientele, instead of

expressing enthusiasm, will shift its loyalty to another

brand because their favorite local brand has "changed."

To my recollection, there actually have been experiencesof this nature.

This immediately raises the question : What shall

this brewery do ? Continue brewing musty beer or

strive for technical improvement ? What should a re

sponsible taste panel recommend ? Endorse the musty

beer as acceptable or express justifiable criticism em

phatic enough to give the brewer sleepless nights

It is my considered opinion, in this situation, that a

taste panel by all means has the duty to express its

misgivings, but at the same time to cooperate (diplo

matically!) with the technical heads of the brewery infinding ways and means to get rid of the abnormality,

because any chronic defect, after all, can become inten

fied as time goes on and can lead to the day where re

gardless of local consumers' "loyalty," the beer is

recognized as unappetizing, and economic disaster re

sults. We also have had experiences of just this kind.

A comparable situation, in a way more problematical

than the case of quality defects, involves the evaluation

of normal flavors in beers originating from different

geographical areas, which in their own territory are the

only accepted ones, but very easily can strike an unaccustomed taste panel as anywhere from "unusual"

or peculiar to outright objectionable, since under the

commonly followed "blindfold" testing conditions, the

panelist subconsciously will think he is tasting a beer of

his own accustomed surroundings with which something

went wrong. For example, taste impressions which we

i n the United States would classify as "malty," spicy-

burnt, or syrupy-often associated with oxidation in

American beers-in reality may indicate nothing of the

sort, but are an intentional and normal characteristic


3/25

in a different part of the world. Even a highly experi

enced taste panel will hardly be able, under the custom

ary"b lind fol d" cond iti ons ,to set for th area lly fai ran d

unbiased judgment on beer samples originating from

such widely varying regions as, say, Philadelphia,

Seattle, Holland, Venezuela, Bolivia, or South Aus

tralia. A perfectly normal and fresh Australian beer,

which typically possesses a heavy-flavored, bitter-sweet,

almost sucrose-like, as well as very hoppy and spicy

character, will confound the senses of a taste panel in

Milwaukee or Chicago if not geared to its peculiarities.

Yet this is precisely what a consulting laboratory often

is confronted with. For this reason it is good practice

to announce to the panel beforehand that a certain glass

poured for testing and identified by its number in a

sequence contains a foreign beer, perhaps even giving

its geographic origin, or indeed for that matter, an ale

as opposed to a lager beer. Continued experience with

foreign beers can "precondition" a taste panel into

"anticipating" a certain flavor impression which, if an

alerting announcement is not made, may well invite un

fair and unrealistic responses.

This brings us to a fundamental consideration. What

is the purpose of a taste panel and to what extent can

it be looked upon as a panel of experts? The answer

to this question depends on whether the panel functions

i n a brewery and is composed of brewery employees,

or consists of an independent group of persons as in a

consulting laboratory like ours. Either of these groups

has an advantage over the other, and at the same time

is at a certain disadvantage.

Brewery Panels vs. Consulting Panels

A taste panel in a brewery has the advantage of

knowing its own brand so well that any sudden devia

tion from the usual, desired flavor in one brew or tank

can be recognized with relative ease and probably can

be straightened out if need be. There is the added ad-

vantage that the usual taste panel work operating with

glasses having been poured with traditionally limited

quantities, can be supplemented with larger-scale tests.

Any panel member in the brewery generally can take

several bottles home to see how much he may really en-

joy the contents and how they agree with him. He, like

any regular consumer, thus judges by drinking, not

by sipping, which actually is a pretty important aspect

of taste-testing, often overlooked. Furthermore, a

brewery panel is in a position to have daily taste con-

tact with competitive brands and, so, has a valuable

opportunity to gauge and adjust its own brand in taste

quality, following market and popularity trends.

On the other hand, this very closeness to one's own

brand has the disadvantage of risking a certain dulling,

or even loss, of keenest taste perceptions, potentially

resulting over a period of time in immunity toward

gradual, subtle changes in beer character that are not

desirable and may eventually be reflected in a change

of consumer acceptance in your territory.

An outside panel like ours again has the advantage

of wide experience in judging all kinds of brands of

beer and ale. Since an outside panel has no restrictively

close association with any one brand (and its com

petitors), taste evaluations are generally free of in-

voluntary bias or locally induced loss of taste acuityoccasioned by the constant "closeness" referred toearlier. This circumstance builds up and enhances

reputation and trust while at the same time imposing

on the panel a tremendous responsibility, especially if

the panel's verdict is meant to guide the brewer.

The disadvantage to which an outside taste panel is

subjected relates to various factors. As pointed outbefore, an outsider cannot always gauge territorial

preferences but is principally guided by his own de

tached impressions. This can cause a problem. If I

happen to thoroughly dislike a type of beer merely

because it registers with my palate as thin, bland, dry,

and almost tasteless, but represents a big selling product

among a growing and highly appreciative portion of the

consuming public (I might think in this instance of ex

tremes such as currently popular diet beers or similar

products). I would not be justified in expressing my

sweeping rejection to the brewmaster who listens to

my "expert" judgment, but I must ask myself, "How

should the beer he judged from the standpoint of that

particular consumer for whom this brand was formu

lated and brewed ?"

Then there is the disadvantage that the outside taste

panel usually performs its taste test with relatively

li mited quantities of beer, without recourse to expand

ing the evaluation by taking some bottles home. Even

if sufficient sample material is available, such leisurely

expansion of the test is impractical (with rare excep

tions where specifically requested), simply for lack of

time and because of the volume of beer that would have

to be consumed-not to mention the fact that a good

taster is not necessarily an eager beer drinker in thiscontext.

Flavor Changes and Container Variations

The overwhelming bulk of all taste panel work is

mechanically conducted in the traditional way, namely,

a certain number of beer samples whose identities are

not disclosed to the panel prior to the test, are poured

i nto glasses by a nonparticipating person and presented

to the panel for evaluation and/or comparison, which

usually is executed in some written form. Pitfalls in

this most common of all tasting procedures are so nu

merous I could not cover their multitude in many hours

of talking. Here, I should make it plain that the great


4/25

variety of purely procedural factors such as color and

type of glass, testing temperature, time of day, and en

vironmental conditions, which vary somewhat from

panel to panel, are not intended to he a subject within

the framework of this paper. What I want to bring outis the physical, attitude-conscious, and psychological

reaction of the taster in this traditional taste test as it

is performed the world over by both brewery taste

panels and outside panels of consultants ; also, how itcan differ from reactions toward the same brands of

beer under more informal conditions of leisurely consumption.

Here is an example : In our regular taste panel

which might consist of nine persons on a given day. a

clear majority of 7 to 2 find a beer sample to have a

distinctly yeasty, sulfury, and sharp odor and a similarly

objectionable taste. Thereafter, in the desire to estab

lish whether this impression is reproducible, an informal

double-check is made. Several freshly poured glasses

of the same beer are each presented some hours later

(at a desirable hour and not immediately after lunchor a coffee break) to the same persons who participated

previously. These are not informed of the beer's identity. They are requested to pass judgment. In this

second test, none of the objections raised in the first

taste are repeated. The beer is given a perfectly clean

bill of health.

This kind of experience, which occurs every once in

a while, may, of course, reflect a frailty of the human

palate. But it may also suggest the interesting possi

bility that one bottle content can differ from the other,

even though both came from the same filler and the

same bottling run.

In view of its annoying implications, we would like

to dwell for a few minutes on this problem of variationsfrom bottle to bottle. Of course, to speculate on bottle

variations every time a panel member contradicts him-

self can be made into a pretty excuse for human short-

comings. If the panelist reacts favorably to a beer today

and unfavorably to the same beer from a different bottle

tomorrow, he might claim "variations among bottles"

in order to hide his own inadequacy. So let us dismiss

this "easy way out." Also, let us dismiss the obvious

speculation on the possibility of varying air contents in

the headspace-unless, of course, there are indicationsto this effect on the basis of actual tests. However, our

experience has been-in my opinion, beyond the shadow

of a doubt-that there are more variations among

bottles than may commonly he believed. Strictly speak

i ng, a bottle variation can be proven only if within one

taste-panel session, glasses poured from different bot

tles of the same brand, tank, and filling date are ex-

changed by those participants whose appraisals differ

radically. In our taste panel, we generally have two

groups of participants, one group lined up on the east

side and the other on the west side of the room. As

suming the standard 12 ounce (approx. 360 cc.) con

tainer size, the east group receives the contents of one

bottle, and the west that of another bottle. If eastsiders

and westsiders express significantly different opinions

on their return forms, glasses between east and west

can profitably be exchanged, the situation discussed,

and a verbal agreement reached to the effect that differ

ences do exist and are so obvious that they cannot hedenied.

Not only that, but on some occasions when glasses

are exchanged, a difference in color has been observed

(if opaque glasses are used, the respective contents then

can simply he poured into clear glassees for color com

parison). Just what causes the color variation is beside

the point in this context. What matters is that it fur

nishes the ultimate proof of undeniable bottle-to-bottle

variation. In our taste panel, we experience this about

once or twice every year.

Although the immediate exchange of glasses is the

only true proof, there are other situations which can he

taken as almost as good a proof for such differences.

This occurs, not infrequently, when a beer sample ship

ment is to be retasted after several weeks or months

of shelf storage for the purpose of evaluating its "flavor

stability."

As a typical example taken from our long-standing

practice, a beer sample tasted at the time of receipt is

judged in the most favorable terms and, by our special

numerical scoring system, receives a high rating. After

30 days of shelf storage, the same beer is rated poorly,

having developed a dull, bready, or "burnt" oxidation

taste. Its flavor stability obviously appears to be very

mediocre. After another 30 days of shelf storage, the

very same is found to be perfectly normal and fresh,

almost as good as it was two months ago, this time

again inviting a high rating.

This reversal evidently does not make sense because

beers, although they sometimes become mellower and

smoother as the days pass, usually do not get "better,"

certainly not fresher after several months, once they are

oxidized. There was no change in the composition of

the taste panel, and the opinion each time was almost

unanimous.

Now, one or two persons can be wrong or have an

off day, but it is difficult to assume that an entire panel

of perhaps ten experienced tasters can all be so wrong

at the same time, such as indicated at the 30-day in

terval in the above example. In this case, there is good

substance in speculating that certain bottles withstood

flavor deterioration better than others, perhaps due to

the preservation of some intramolecular bonds necessary

to perpetuate the quality of subtle flavor substances in

the beer. Although there is no "proof" of bottle varia-


5/25

tions as in the exchange of glasses, one will readily

agree that everything points to such a contingency.

Significance of Individual Acuities

In the example just given, it was mentioned that

there was no change in the composition of the taste

panel. This reference opens up some noteworthy vistas

i nvolving pitfalls of a special kind. We can talk only

of our own panel, but inasmuch as we are there to servethe brewing industry, that is you, we know you will be

able to appreciate the following. (Besides, you may well

have had the same experience.)

judges of beer flavor can be good or poor, reliable

or unreliable. There probably is no such thing as uni

versal excellence embodied in any single taster. The

best training of any taster can only go so far in sharpen

ing his or her acuity, just as the best training of an

athlete will not make him perform beyond his natural

resources and limitations. However, there are tasters

who are positively uncanny in repeated blindfold recog

nition of certain flavors, though they may be absolutely

incapable of distinguishing other types of flavors. We

are able to give you some striking examples.

For instance, one problem besetting breweries in

certain areas and at certain times is the development of

an irregularity known as a phenolic flavor which is very

disagreeable. Sources of this defect can be water pollu

tion by industrial wastes, certain bacterial developments

on activated carbon filter beds, and others of problem

atical origin. Not all persons are able to recognize the

defect in the taste, and we know of pretty strong, argu

mentative disagreements between different taste panels

regarding the presence or absence of a phenolic taste in

a given beer. In our group we have a limited number

of panel members who invariably recognize phenolic

flavors, with excellent reproducibility in repeated "blind-

fold" tests, whereas other participants might refer

vaguely to an "odd" or foreign character of no partic

ular magnitude, and others again are absolutely immune

-so immune that they are apt to express the most

favorable comments on the beer in question. You can

i magine what it can mean if our best phenolic taste

specialists are absent for some reason-traveling or ill

-and are replaced by tasters whose specific acuity lies

in other directions. It actually suggests that certain

tasters in certain circumstances are indispensable. Thisremarkable faculty, or superiority if you will, of some

individuals over others in certain areas of flavor per

ception, obliges us, in a wider sense, to appreciate the

need for adopting the following general guideline in

taste panel work : In coordinating the individual opin

ions expressed in a taste panel for a given beer, the final

arbiter who eventually is to characterize the beer iii

terms that are supposed to mirror a realistic cross-sec

tion of the panel as a whole, should be well acquainted

with each individual taste panel member, his forte and

his shortcomings, his susceptibilities and idiosyncrasies.

The taste impressions of one individual whose acuity

i n one certain area is acknowledged sometimes can

weigh more than the reactions of any number of his

fellow panelists.

Conflict of Responses

Here we would like to describe one of the most diffi

cult situations with which a taste panel can be con-fronted. With respect to abnormal or off tastes and

odors, there is hardly anything so baffling and exasper

ating as diacetyl. Speaking only of tasters who are

susceptible to this irregularity, we have seen again and

again that a diacetyl character can disappear with un

believable rapidity. Shortly after pouring the glasses,

one sample among several may impart the strong, un

mistakable odor and flavor of diacetyl. It is conscien

tiously recorded by the panelist. But after a while, per-

haps only five minutes later and still before the termi

nation of the taste-panel session, the same beer is

retasted out of curiosity, as an extra check, and is foundto be completely free of the defect. If this experience

were the rule, one could "live with it." One could

always explain that diacetyl is a labile compound apt

to dissipate soon and disintegrate into tasteless com

ponents within minutes. But the fact is that the experi

ence is not the rule. In other instances, diacetyl remains

for any length of time.

According to current knowledge, the phenomenon

can be explained by the potential existence of a pre-

cursor produced during fermentation and presumed to

be alpha-aceto lactic acid, possibly also 2, 3-butane-dial

and its immediate oxidation product, acetoin. The combined effect of heat, as in pasteurization, and whatever

oxygen is present, transform the precursor into diacetyl.

If sufficient precursor is available, the contact with oxy

gen when pouring the beer, or upon stirring air into

the glass when rotating it, can produce such quantities

of diacetyl that it is observed organoleptically for a short

time. Then it tends to be expelled and disappears from

the beer with the release of CO2 gas, if the precursor

is used up by now. If sufficient precursor is still avail-

able, a constant level of diacetyl will continue to make

itself felt in odor and taste and will not disappear in a

few minutes at all. This is an exasperating and dis

concerting aspect in taste-panel work, because the mostinterested party, the practical brewer, is apt to be thor

oughly confused when he gets a report from the tastepanel which is so conflicting that it reminds of a magi

cian's catch phrase, "Now you see it, now you don't."

Almost equally disconcerting is a situation where a

beer sample possesses a peculiarity which is voted both

good and bad. Generally, this relates more to odor than

taste. One or more members of the taste panel may be

in agreement that a particular odor has an abnormal,


6/25

perhaps medicinal or otherwise objectionable character,

which logically downgrades their opinion. In the same

panel, equally qualified tasters make it a point to empha

size impressions of a fine, fresh hop aroma. Quite ob

viously, both parties experience one and the same sen

sation, whatever it is, and find it sufficiently prominent

to record it; they only differ in their opinion as to

whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. There is no ques

tion but that such a beer sample does have some distinctive property, possibly a mixture of aroma-produc

i ng components, but a property which causes entirely

opposite reactions in different individuals. And it seems

noteworthy that in cases of this kind, the pleasant one

of the two opposite sensations happens most frequently

to be hoppiness. Quoting typical comments from actual

taste panel work, here are a few interesting juxta

positions

To formulate a correct and fair appraisal in the face

of such "expert" contradictions is plainly a hit-or-miss

proposition, and next to impossible. [t is like being at

an unmarked road fork where you don't know which

fork to take.

Involuntary Proclivities

Finally, let me describe a situation which probably

is not unfamiliar to you. Supposing you are presented

with four or five samples of beer whose identities arenot disclosed but which are known to he of different

origin. They are properly poured into glasses at the

proper temperature, at your customery hour of the

day.

The first sample leaves a strong, lingering bitternessin your mouth, sufficient for you to object. You prob

ably record this impression in whatever written form

your panel uses. The second sample also leaves a linger

i ng bitterness, again sufficiently strong for you to take

issue with it. You begin to assume that these two

samples are perhaps related somehow, maybe a "pair,"

or simply that you experienced a "carry-over" from thefirst to the second beer. Then you start tasting the third

sample. This sample tastes equally bitter and you beginto wonder, because in the past you rarely found all this

bitterness in your daily panel work. When the fourth

sample hits your palate in just about the same way, and

perhaps even the fifth, you will be bewildered.

When the identities of the beers and the recordings of

your fellow tasters are disclosed, you are surprised to

find, not only that your colleagues detected no particular

bitterness, but that the samples were the same ones you

tasted yesterday when you did not find anything re

motely resembling this bitter character.

The experience just described can also relate to other

basic palate impressions, like sweetness or astringency.

There are days when "everything tastes bitter" or

sweet, etc. It is almost futile to speculate on the causes

for these strange variations which probably many of you

have experienced. Of course, we all know that there aredisabling conditions that may cause us to have mislead

ing and wrong impressions such as perhaps a cold or

some other physical indisposition numbing the taste

buds and the olfactory powers. Barring such obvious

conditions as these, we may perhaps look for psycho-

logical or emotional factors we are not really conscious

of but which at times seem to influence our physiological

reactions and apparently can affect nose and mouth.

If we have had a pleasant experience, the day is

bright and emotionally sunny, our mood is friendly and

we are given to tolerance. We tend to minimize nega

tive impacts and feel generous and will be inclined toexpress praise rather than criticism. If we are worried

or irritated and have had a bad experience, the day is

emotionally gloomy, our mood is apt to swing to the

negative side and we are prone to withhold praise and

express criticism. In our taste panel there is an occa

sional little joke that when a participant rates all beer

samples highly he is in a "good mood" and vice versa.

Speaking specifically of bitterness and sweetness, it is

not at all ludicrous to submit that a certain combination

of emotional factors will cause all taste perceptions to be

bitter or less agreeable, whereas a different set of emo

tional factors might accentuate sweetness and more

agreeable sensations on the tongue and palate. This cer

tainly does not allow for the more or less amusing gen

eralization that on bad days everything tastes bitter and

disagreeable and on good days everything tastes sweet

and good. On the contrary, when we are in the hap

piest of moods, we just as well are able to detect and

even magnify the most objectionable flavor character

istics, whereas on the gloomiest of mornings, we carry

the torch for all the beers it is our duty to judge. But it

does mean that our physiological reactions are not im

mune to the subtle influence of hidden emotional pat-

terns within ourselves from one day to another which

very likely create some particular chemical arrangementin our physiological, and specifically, organoleptic re

sponses.


7/25

PART II

FIGURES 1 to 6, relating to PART II,

are located at the end of the text

In relation to the subject matter treated in PART I, and as a good

means of demonstrating certain human responses in graphical form, the follow-

ing pages describe our own standard taste panel record method, and its utiliza-

tion.

Each panel member receives a blank record form as illustrated in FIGURE I. **

This form provides for the evaluation of up to 7 beer samples at a time, indicated

by the vertical columns, numbered from 1 to 7.

A descriptive terminology of taste impressions appears in the left vertical

column. Opposite of each term is a space for each beer sample, arranged horizon-

tally, to be filled in by the taster. These spaces contain four dots each and, in

addition, in each of the four upper spaces a circle appears among the dots. In

using this form the taster marks a cross through one of the dots or circles in the

space chosen, to express his opinion, for example as shown in FIGURE 2.

These markings are made by the panelist in accordance with the intensity

or quality of the taste perception.

The taster is under obligation to mark the first four horizontal spaces for

** This is the latest, improved record form. A similar, older record blank aswell as a detailed and descriptive explanation of the entire procedure in-

cluding the preparation of the "Taste Pattern Chart", which in the present

paper is duplicated in condensed form, was published as a separate paper

in the BREWERS DIGEST, June 1961, and in SIEBEL CONTRIBUTIONS # 39,

July 1961 by J. J. Olshausen.


8/25

every sample, as shown in FIGURE 2, whereas the marking of all other taste

categories is optional. The reason for this requirement is that the first four

indicated properties (degrees of freshness, body fullness, flavor fullness, and

smoothness, or their opposites), which are of general or more or less "basic"

nature, are usually applicable to every beer.

In the first four horizontal spaces just referred to, the position occupied

by the circle is to indicate an "average" condition. A mark to the left of the

circle indicates the corresponding taste impression shown in the direction of

the arrow pointing left, and a mark to the right indicates the opposite taste im

pression in the direction of the arrow pointing right. (For "Stale" vs. "Fresh",

there is no average in the usual sense since a beer cannot be fresher than fresh,

or unoxidized. Hence, by common logic, the circle should really be at the ex

treme right. The reason there is still a dot to the right of the "average" circle

is to provide for "overly fresh", "green" or possibly worty tastes).

Below these four general characterizations, and following a space for odor

perception, the taste report form shows detailed and specific flavor categories,

phrased and grouped in a certain logical order. Roughly, the upper portion of

the listing comprises more or less normal taste perceptions, whereas the lower

portion shows taste abnormalities. Marking of any of these specific items is

optional.

The intensity of each taste perception is indicated by marking one of the

four dots in that category. The first dot to the left indicates a faint or fleeting

impression, the second dot a slight but well noticeable perception, the third


9/25

dot a moderately strong impression, and the fourth dot a very strong impression.

Random examples are shown in FIGURE 2.

In the example, the panelist marked Beer #1 as normally fresh, on the

flavorful side, smoother than average and having a rather intense hop character

(third dot) of nice quality. A hoppy odor and a moderate afterbitter also are re-

corded. In Beer #2 a slight but not particularly offensive mustiness is marked.

Beer #4, in the opinion of this panelist, is badly oxidized (top line, dot far-

thest to the left) and imparts a very strong diacetyl flavor. Beer #5 is slightly

yeasty, and "green" or overly fresh (top line, fifth dot).

At the bottom of each vertical column the respective beers are rated accord-

ing to a numerical scoring system illustrated in FIGURE 3, which will be self-

explanatory.

In FIGURE 2, Beer #1 is rated highly (+3). Beer # 2 is not the best, but

acceptable and rated conservatively (+1). Beer #3, being slightly oxidized and

"bready" as well as slightly harsh, is accorded a neutral mark (0). Beer #4

received the lowest possible mark of -4, and Beer #5 is rated almost as good as

Beer #1 (+ 2 1/2).

The findings of the individual panel members are then transferred into a

single graph-like form, on a special chart. The procedure must be followed with

precision, and with a little practice becomes an easy routine, quite rapidly

executed. This "Taste Pattern Chart", shown in FIGURE 4, has four vertical

columns, each for a different beer. After being filled in, as illustrated in

FIGURE 5, each column shows with perfect accuracy the reactions of all


10/25

participating panel members for the beer it represents, permitting to behold its

evaluation by the entire taste panel at one glance.

The taste categories appearing at left are a duplicate of those on the in

dividual taste report forms described before. The top row of the chart consists

of small squares, numbered from 1 to 10. These squares represent up to 10 panel

members. Each panel member is assigned a permanent personal symbol, perhaps

a cross, a triangle, a circle, and the like. In the small blank squares, just be-

low the numbered squares, the corresponding personal symbols are inserted in

whatever order the individual taste forms are perused. If inserted in color, per-

haps red, the symbols stand out advantageously. The total number of participants

(which of course can simply be counted) is conveniently indicated by the figure

"10" or "8" etc. to the right of the squares.

This done, the obligatory markings by each taster for the first four "basic"

taste categories are indicated by inserting the "position" number of the dot he

marked for each. If he marked the first dot it is indicated by the numeral 1, the

second dot by the numeral 2, and so on, up to 5. For convenience and better

clarity, circle markings ("average" conditions) are not considered and the squares

left blank. Accordingly, in the category "STALE, OXID. **FRESH" the numeral 4

will never be inserted, since the circle occupies the fourth position. In the other

three "basic" categories, the numeral 3 will not be inserted since the circle here

occupies the third position.

The large square areas to the right of each of these horizontal compilations

serve to insert the arithmetical sum for each horizontal line, the sum being based
http://etc.to/http://etc.to/


11/25

In our own practice, there is one exception to the rule of representing

all cross markings by symbols on the Pattern Chart. For "HOP INTENSITY",

markings of the second dot are not symbolized but ignored. Since every beer

contains "hops", only markings for low (first dot) or strong (third and fourth dot)

intensities are shown. A blank in this category simply indicates, by implication,

an average hop intensity.

At the bottom of the Pattern Chart the individual numerical ratings are in-

serted in their proper sequence, added up and divided by the number of partici-

pants so as to arrive at the average, or "Collective Panel Rating" for any given

beer. Example: for Beer A in FIGURE 5 the individual ratings add up to +16 1/2;

16 1/2 divided by 10 (ten panelists) is +1. 7 (second decimals omitted, rounded

off) which is the Collective Panel Rating, or C. P. R. for short, for Beer A. The

small figures at the bottom, such as 9/1/0 for Beer A signify that 9 tasters gave

the beer a plus score, 1 taster a "0". and no taster a, minus score. The same

procedure applies to all other beer samples.

With this in mind, a brief interpretation of the four beers shown on the

Pattern Chart in FIGURE 5 would be as follows.

Generally, a conspicuous "bunching" of symbols is significant.


12/25

on a simple "plus-minus" scale where the circle position counts as 0 (zero).

In relation to zero, each dot to the left of the circle has its corresponding

"minus" value, and each dot to the right of the circle its corresponding "plus"

value. For example, in the "BLAND HFLAVORFUL" category for Beer A shown

in FIGURE 5, four tasters each marked the first dot to the right of the circle

(4 times +1 = +4) and one taster used the first dot to the left of the circle (-1),

making an average of +3. Accordingly, the beer was rated above average in

flavor fullness by the panel as a whole.

For any of the other flavor categories, below the top four and below the

space for "ODOR", wherever marked by a panelist, this panelist's personal

symbol is inserted in the corresponding horizontal line of the Pattern Chart in

such a manner that at the same time it also indicates the intensity (dot position)

of his flavor marking. For example, if a panelist's symbol is a "v", and he

marked on.his taste report form


13/25

coupled with properties registering very differently with different individuals.

Generally, such an outcome calls for retasting the beer.

In loose reference to the comments on Beer B in the foregoing example,

the individual whose taste impressions were singled out as significant has a

counterpart which I should not fail to mention in this context. It refers to the

reticent or "timid" or stereotype panelist. This taster is extremely conservative

in his markings. It is his nature to hold back, he is very reluctant to place em-

phasis on a taste sensation, and more often than not leaves a space unmarked

or blank even though he certainly does receive some degree of flavor impact.

His taste return frequently is a void. This individual, let us say, in one instance,

applies to a, taste category which he normally does not mark at all, a low intensity

mark. For any of the other panelists who are routinely more liberal in their ex-

pressions, a marking of this kind would be virtually meaningless. In his case,

however, it assumes significance in view of his customarily reticent attitude.

In the over-all evaluation of the beer in question, his voice should count, if not

decisively, so certainly as weighty support for the impressions of the other panel

members for this particular taste category, even if theirs have not been emphatic.

Take the example shown in FIGURE 6.

Three beers, X, Y, and Z, are judged by "Henry Jones" and "Robert Smith"

in one and the same panel session. FIGURE 6 illustrates two individual taste re-

cord forms, one for Jones and one for Smith (in juxtaposition, separated by the

black center line, for convenient comparison on a single page).


14/25

BEER A

A highly acceptable product. Only tasters # 2 and # 4 (symbols

siebel tastepanel

Documents