Beer and statistics are a pairing that began in the early 1900s with Gossett and his work at Guinness brewery to develop the t-test. Fisher’s landmark book The Design of Experiments featured an innovative arrangement of beer-destined (presumably) barley in field trials at the Rothamsted station in 1927. George Box, who invented response surface methods in 1951, gained further fame by hosting Monday night beer sessions that inspired adoption of statistical methods by budding scientists. Therefore, beer is a suitable topic for a blog on statistics, particularly one that maintains a wry tone. That’s my position and I’m sticking to it.

Today Utah increased their allowance for alcohol content in beer, leaving my State of Minnesota as the last in the nation to limit grocery stores to 3.2 percent by weight (equivalent to 4% ABV—alcohol by volume—the standard measure reported by modern brewers). Minnesota did loosen up restrictions on microbreweries to allow food trucks. The State also eliminated the ban on selling liquor on Sunday. However, it’s annoying that beer (other than the 3.2 swill), wine or other alcoholic beverages cannot be bought when shopping for food.

It was a Minnesotan, Andrew Volstead, who authored the Act that enforced of the 18^th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the sale and drinking of alcohol. The Volstead Act passed on October 28, 1919 when the Senate overrided President Wilson’s veto. The Cullen-Harrison in 1933 led to the legalization of 3.2 beer on April 7th–now known as National Beer Day. Later that year the 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, but many States held on to 3.2 beer as a compromise for those like Volstead who remained committed to temperance.

I look forward to the day when Minnesota opens up the sale of “full point” beer and 3.2 becomes a relic of the last century. Nevertheless, it’s good to remain mindful of the effects of higher ABV beer on the brain, which I’m reminded of by this tableau of favorite coozie, can and bottle on my desk at home. (My granddaughter Laine taped up the warning sign.) Not finding Brain’s Bitter (Cardiff, Wales) or Skull Splitter (Orkney Islands) readily available, I am currently drinking Founder’s Mosaic Promise—a single-hop ale at 5.5% ABV brewed in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It’s tasty! Cheers for real beers!

Excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.  In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

– Cliff Clavin, Cheers

Yesterday marked the end of American prohibition of beer in 1933, albeit only up to 3.2% alcohol by weight. This date every year in the USA has become a day to endorse President Roosevelt’s observation at the time that “I think this would be a good time for a beer.”

It’s also a great time to pay homage to master brewer William S. Gossett of Guinness–the “student” of the Student’s T-Test, a method for extracting the essence of discovery from small samples of data, such as that he generated from his experiments on dry stout. For the whole story, see this wonderful writeup by Priceonomics on The Guinness Brewer Who Revolutionized Statistics.

“He possessed a wickedly fertile imagination and more energy and focus than a St. Bernard in a snowstorm. An obsessive observer, counter, cyclist, and cricket nut, the self-styled brewer had a sizzle for invention, experiment, and the great outdoors.”

– Stephen Ziliak

Glory to Gossett—a brilliant boffin of beer! Beyond recognizing him, here are other fun facts and figures that I gleaned from the International Business Times from their post yesterday on National Beer Day :

• If an empty beer glass makes you fearful, you suffer from Cenosillicaphobia. Say that after having a few.
• Women “brewsters” pioneered beer making 5,000 years ago. Let’s tip our caps to these wonderful ladies.
• Guinness estimated that at one time about 93,000 liters of beer was lost in the beards of Englishmen every year. Gross! Along those lines a brewmaster in Oregon developed a brew using yeast collected from his own beard. Yuk!
• In ancient Babylon if a person brewed a bad batch, he was drowned. Come on, lighten up!

Cheers for beers!

This is the view of the Charles Bridge in Prague from the usual vantage point of a fellow like me who likes his beer.  As reported here by Radio Prague, the Czech Republic leads the world by drinking 160 liters per person per year.  With half liter cans of Urquel going for less than 35 Crowns–only about $1.50 in US dollars, I can see why this alcoholic brew has achieved such popularity in this country.  Bottoms up!

A fine beer may be judged with only one sip, but it’s better to be thoroughly sure.
-Czech Proverb

Earlier this month I attended the 5th European Design-of-Experiment User Meeting in Cambridge, England, which, considering the topic being statistical design of experiments, turned out not to be as dull as one might think.  All the credit for the pizzazz goes to our colleagues across the Atlantic—PRISMTC; in particular Paul Nelson and Andrew Macpherson.  They conjured up an in-conference experiment that developed an optimal blend of three local beers (all made by Milton Brewery and sold in bulk by Polypins (36 pints) from £56, Firkins (2 polypins) from £84), a pale ale called Cyclops (30-80%), a bitter under the label Justinian (20-70%) and a dark mild named Medusa (0-50%).  Prior testing by these two boffins of stats and zymurgy (that is, the study of yeasty concoctions) led them to constrain the ranges of the three brews to the ranges shown in parentheses.

Paul and Andrew laid out a clever design that, via balanced incomplete blocking, restricted any one taster to only 4 blends, while testing enough combinations often enough to provide adequate power for discerning just the right formula.  The fun bit was them asking us conference-goers to provide the necessary data prior to an atmospheric dinner at Magdalene (for some reason pronounced in English as “maudlin”) College.

This limitation on beer was one departure from a similar mixture experiment on beers that I ran* with my two sons and son-in-law as the tasters (little chance them going along with such a sensible restriction).  The other wrinkle was them requiring all of us to taste a strip of paper that ferreted out about a third of the tasters being “super tasters”—those who immediately recoiled from the bitter taste (many thought it just tasted like paper).**

It turned out that the bitterest blend, in contrast to the mildest of the beer mixtures, was not greatly liked.  I think this must be an acquired taste!  You can see this on the triangular, 3D response surface graph of the predicted response—the lowest corner being the B:Bitter.  Surprisingly, mixing in some A:Ale makes a relatively tasty brew—these two beers synergize, that is, provide much better results than either one alone.  But the tastiest blend of all is the peak at the C:Mild corner, with 30% of Cyclops, 20% of Justinian and 50% of the Medusa, some blends on a ridge through the middle of the triangular mixture space look promising.

Three cheers for three beers and hats off to the brilliance of Paul and Andrew of PRISMTC for pulling off this fun, clever and informative taste test.  See their full, illustrative report here.

*See Mixture Design Brews Up New Beer Cocktail—Black & Blue Moon

**Check out this BBC report and short video on testing for super tasters

Awaiting a flight out of Japan’s Narita Airport, I came across this beer-pouring machine in the Delta lounge. See it in action here.  It turns out that there’s a science to pouring beer as I reported in this article explaining how UK Boffins Pull Off Brilliant DOE on Beer.  The only drawback of this machine is that it lacks conversational skills.  I found it a bit awkward sitting there with my perfectly poured beer and no one to talk to while enjoying it. 🙁