A Brewers Only Dialogue

It's right around the corner. This biggest beer festival in the Western Hemisphere (I think): The Great American Beer Festival.  During the week of October 6-13 Denver, CO will be brimming with craft brewers from around the country, and beer enthusiasts from around the world.  Over 600 breweries bring multiple beers for three days, four sessions of beer sampling all in one place. Quite the experience, to say the least.  But that ain't it.  Denver has a fantastic craft beer scene, not to mention geographic scenery. There are many "smaller" events that take place during that week, most of these are special tappings or tasting parties. Falling Rock Tap House, Freshcraft and the Rackhouse usually have awesome events.

And while these events focus on enjoying great, sometimes rare, beer, this year there is another event that separates itself from the others.  The Great American Brewers Dialogue (GABD) will kick off its first installment on October 9th.  With so many craft breweries and their staff in town, it makes sense to try to gather them in one (or several) places to engage in group discussion about their industry. Rarely do brewers et al find free time to exchange ideas and talk about problems or obstacles they face. The GABD is a chance for them to air these out.

Since there are so many brewers in town, several locations will host these discussions simultaneously: Prost Brewing, Strange Brewing and Vine Street Pub are lined up now as hosts, with more to be added if the number of attendees pours in beyond venue capacity.

What makes this different than just a collection of brewers in one places is the addition of professional facilitators from OvalOptions for Conflict Management to help guide the groups through dialogue. These facilitators utilize methods to improve discussions, brainstorm, keep everyone engaged, and discover possible solutions to problems.  So now we have brewers gathered in one (or 3) place, where they can (re)connect with each other, focus on certain topics for discussion (each group decides their own topics), and professionals to help unpack and address concerns. Sounds like a good deal, even better since it is FREE!

It is only open to brewers and brewery staff to keep discussions open and confidential. Like everybody, brewers are reluctant to advertise problems they face. The GABD provides a safe space.  This should be fun and interesting!

The Dilemma (and test) of Aging Beer: A "Scientific" Approach

Last night, some fellow beer geeks and I gathered for a beer tasting. Tastings aren't really uncommon, but this one had two aspects that made it boarder line unique.  One was the return of a beer geek to beer geek-dom. See, he committed himself to family, house and job for several years. The last time I drank with him was at his new house, at the time with quite an unfinished basement and his beer collection/cellar was a pile of boxes. Fast forward to last night, and the basement served quite well, equipped with a small fridge, couch, tables....all the things needed for a beer tasting.

Which brings us to the other aspect: the verticals.  Initially, this tasting's aim was to try the same beers, aged for the same amount of time, but in different "formats".  For example, we not only had most of the Stone Vertical Epic brews, but we had two of each.  For each set, one had been aged in cold refrigerators and the other aged at cellar temperatures or wine fridges. The idea was to compare and contrast the affects of these different aging techniques. Each of us (there were 8) got two pours from each Vertical year--one pour from the refrigerator aged, and one from the cellar aged version.  Pure science, of course.

(The Stones)





And it went...interestingly.  Not many of us were fans of these beers, refrigerated or not.  Probably because few, or none, of them were meant to be aged at all. But, that wasn't a requirement for this experiment (yeah, like we thought this up way back in 2003).

Prior to tasting, we had a little bit of a debate as to which version (fridge or cellar) would be better, or at the least, would there be any difference.  There was some disagreement, and the results were conclusive.  Cellared beer aged more rapidly than fridge beer across the board.  Also across the board, the beers did not hold up to even fridge aging.   Most were oxygenated and faded. We concluded that aging beers is, for the most part, overrated.  Two years was the common maximum duration to age a beer (a beer that can be aged), with 5 years being the extreme.

...But that wasn't all.  The unique aspect of this tasting was the other vertical tasting:
The Dark Lord (2005-2013)

That's a lot of strong beer right there, folks.  But, for science, we endured. And this vertical pretty much convinced us that aging is not all that great for many beers, eve the Lord.  While 2005 had a nice roasty characteristic, it was more of a result from oxygenation than the beer itself.  The 2006, 2007 and 2008 were not very good, while 2011 was agreed on to be the best of the bunch.  Most Dark Lords were aged at cellar temps as they were gathered from various sources.
A shorter vertical was the night cap:  Bourbon County Brand Stout (2007-2008)

So with the verticals and science concluded we had more beers to drink:
Midnight Sun's Monk's Mistress (oak aged)
Beatification batch 008
Supplication batch 002
Thomas Hardy's Ale 1993
Sophie Paradisi
Backcountry SaiZin
The Bruery Cuir
Cantillon Cuvée Des Champions
....and several homebrews

Quite the night!

A new Toad on the block

Last night we hit the newest Golden, CO brewery: Mountain Toad Brewing.  It's a cozy little spot with an open patio along the side. Still working out the kinks, like with the PoS system, but the beers on tap (there were only 3) were solid. No defects detected, which isn't the usual for new breweries.  Good location.

Why I Love Beer

People who do not really know me think I drink a lot.  Just because I have reviewed over 1,600 beers online doesn't mean I drank them in 4 days. No. I take my time drinking a beer.  It's rare that I have more than 2 beers a night, and most nights I don't have any.  Of course, this was not always the case. 

While I didn't touch any alcohol until I was 21 years old, when I did start to drink it was mostly beer (Bud) with some shots mixed in. Still, I never drank alone. It was a social thing back then, and remains (mostly) so today, albeit with a little more style than yesteryear. I love the differences in making beer, the variety of ingredients and variations of combining them, and the spectrum of flavors; from super sour to malty sweet.

When I was younger, Cheers was my favorite TV show--still is. The closeness and camaraderie in that studio bar really hit home with me. Combine that with my history degree that highlighted the role of pubs and taverns through the Colonial days, and I started to see beer (and pubs) as an important social cog in the wheel of civilization.

Living in Denver facilitates this interest: The metro area has a ton of breweries, tap rooms, and beer bars, not to mention many beer geeks.  It's no wonder that places such as Denver Beer Co., Hogshead, Dry Dock, Prost and Strange Brewing Co are packed with patrons every night.  Consider that these places are not the only on-premise beer joints.  Denver is also home to several very large liquor stores that carry hundreds of beers.  If beer were the only factor, then people would be drinking it at home and not packing  the beer halls.  No, there is something more than just drinking beer.

People go to these beer venues to try new and good beer. And to mingle with their fellow citizens, meet new friends, tell and hear great stories, and have fun. This is one reason why I love beer.  It truly is a social lubricant. It helps people unwind, not from the alcohol, but from the joy of drinking good suds (the Colorado scenery doesn't hurt either).

More people should take advantage of what beer halls have to offer. The Pub Dialogues is an effort to do just this: Gather people to share beer and ideas about social, political and community issues. Colonists did it years ago, and look what came out of that.

What's More Important: Definitions or Beer?

What is a gypsy brewer?  How do they differ from regular brewers? Should they be held with the same regard as regular brewers?  These questions have come up, either directly or indirectly, in a recent blog from a brewer in Massachusetts. A gypsy brewer (or contract brewer) is one who uses other breweries' equipment to brew his/her beer.  Mikkeller is probably the most commonly known one, but there are many others. So why are they getting some heat?

The gist is that gypsy brewers are not real brewers since they do not brew the beer themselves and/or are not present when their beer is brewed. They do not own brick and mortar localities and rely on the talents of others for brewing their recipes. Financially, they have not invested or risked as much as those regular brewers, which makes them seem as just trying to get a piece of the pie with less effort.

These are opinions, based on facts.  It is a fact that gypsy brewers use equipment that is not theirs (or the bank's). It is true that sometimes they are not present when their beer is brewed. The opinions rise from there. 

But what is also true is the common claim, by brewers, that beer isn't beer until the yeast has done it's job: brewers make wort, yeast makes beer.  So, who are the real brewers?  Ok, so this is nitpicking a bit.  Yet, I think it's important to acknowledge the whole process before rendering opinions of absolute labeling.

Of course, we could look at new technologies and ask ourselves who the brewers really are. Push button computer software can follow the progress of the brewing cycle and make minute changes when need to follow a recipe. Some software can even be overseen and controlled off premise: that is, by the brewer from his/her couch at home. In this case, is the brewer still a brewer?

My answer is, who cares?  What's the deal with the focus on definitions of such trivial scale? Sure, I can understand the difference between sweating all brewing and picking up wort. I'm not saying brewing and gypsy brewing are the same. My question is why should it matter? Maybe giving credit where credit is due is the underlying issue.  If so, then perhaps labels on the bottles/cans can provide satisfaction.  I'm sure they are options to consider.

The bottom line for me is that if you admonish some beers for being "contracted", then you are missing some great beer.  AND doing disservice to those who actually did sweat all day making the wort. It's still great beer, those who worked on it got paid, and the yeast finished it off.

Craft and Crafty Beer

The Brewers Association recently announced that the time has come to draw a line between authentic craft beer and crafty beer. The BA wants clarity as to what companies produce which beers.  In other words, the BA doesn't want large breweries to claim to be producing craft beer when, according to BA definition of craft, they are not.

Ostensibly, the crux behind this debate is the definitions of craft and large breweries.  Is this simply a case of small companies trying to make a name for themselves? Or is it a case of large companies trying to dominate smaller ones?

The scale of production of a brewery is the central figure used to define “craft[1]” and “macro[2]”, but it’s not the only one.  A craft brewery cannot produce X amount of beer and still be considered "craft". But how does production affect the "craft" side of beer? That's a tough question for BA to address.  So, ownership is another factor, and its salience towards defining “craft” has increased in recent years for several reasons, mentioned below.

For the most part, craft and macro were separate and didn’t directly compete.  Anheuser-Busch's foes were Miller and Coors; Dogfish Head's (DE) foes were…well, that’s hard to say since their share of the beer market was less than 1% and localized.

But times have changed. Craft beer has exploded over the last 10 years, even during the Great Recession, while macro beer has expanded over the globe, into China and India. Today the number of small breweries in the U.S. has eclipsed 2,000 while the number of macros has decreased (due to consolidation) to a handful.  In that time Miller and Coors merged, Anheuser-Busch was bought by InBev and Boston Beer Company’s (Sam Adams) success has persuaded the BA to re-define “craft”.  The latter's growth has pushed the "craft" definition to new limits, literally.

While the big breweries were merging they were also keeping an eye on the small guys.  The latter’s success did not proceed unnoticed. The small breweries’ market share in the beer industry has surpassed 6%, while overall beer sales have decreased: Craft is going up, macro is going down. To assuage this, macros have taken to two tactics: compete with craft, or buy them (or both).

Buying is financially easy, but personally difficult. The beloved Chicago-based Goose Island brewery was bought by AB-InBev and ended that competition, and was greeted with intense beer-geek backlash.  And this highlights a dilemma: is Goose Island still “craft” even though it’s owned by AB-InBev?  And why would that matter? We’ll get back to that.

The other option, directly compete, is tricky, because in order to do so the macro company must admit there is a difference in terms between craft and macro, thus accepting the “craft” definition, and thereby admitting that there's a difference in product.  MillerCoors is attempting to compete directly by establishing smaller brew houses with their own brands and labels, like Blue Moon, Tenth and Blake, AC Golden. But why do they need to do this? Why not just produce the Blue Moon recipe under Coors labeling?  And here we are back to the question posited above: Why does labeling, and therefore ownership, matter?

First, we must establish that it does matter. The actions of BA and the macros establish that it does. And here we (finally) get to the core issues: product and livelihood. 

Product: The difference between the craft breweries' products and the macro breweries' products are vastly different. Craft breweries produce varieties of beer, while the macros produce, mostly, one. While craft brewers detest the product from macros, they do marvel at the consistency macros display on such large scale productions. In short, craft beers are more diverse, while more susceptible to production mistakes, while macros are consistent yet uniform. And this are the stigmas each carry.

Livelihood: The conflict attaches to the product, or perhaps more directly the stigmas.  Many craft beer geeks (their numbers are growing) don't see macro beer as "real beer", but as mass produced flavored water. They are defiant toward the macros and do not want any of their money going to these businesses. Macros know this, so they turn to tactics mentioned above.  If they succeed then the craft breweries will have direct competition with large breweries that they never really had before. And this threatens their passion and livelihood.

The key point here is that the BA and craft brewers do not wish to eliminate the competition. They are not calling for macros to cease production of certain beers. What they are calling for is the claiming of such beers by their owners. Those craft beer geeks want to support the small breweries, but are being deceived by small brewing operations owned (and operated) by the macros. And that is what the BA is trying to confront: displayed ownership of product. Why hide it? Be proud of your product is the BA mindset. Perhaps this sheds light on a larger difference in the modus operandi of marco and craft: To make money or make beer?

Further reading:

http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/media/press-releases/show?title=craft-vs-crafty-a-statement-from-the-brewers-association

John Cochran of Terrapin Beer Company highlighting the complexity of brewing, beer and business.

http://business.time.com/2012/12/27/trouble-brewing-the-craft-beer-vs-crafty-beer-cat-fight/#ixzz2K3fu06H9

---

[1] The term "craft" replaced the common term "micro" as the popularity of small breweries increased, and so too did their production, thus ushering in a need to change the definition

[2] Characterized as "American Adjunct Lagers" and commonly referred to as "BMC" (Bud/Miller/Coors)

Support local, or support best?

In a recent issue of BeerAdvocate the magazine a reader (and fellow BeerAdvocate member) clarified his position on the 'support local' idea.  In his feedback column (which is a limited space to write one's position) he stated that there one should support whichever brewery produces the best beers. In other words, don't support local brewers just because they are local; crap beer is crap beer, no matter who makes it.  I can understand this viewpoint, and agree with it...to a point.

On a level playing field his point is valid. Just because one brewer is local doesn't mean he/she deserves our money, time and effort. Yet, this is the real world. The playing field is not level.  Big, chain breweries can afford the nuances that smaller, local guys cannot provide. When is comes to beer, maybe this is quality control, or sufficient production, or it could be that they cannot afford the extra electricity is takes to operate ceiling fans. Whatever the discrepancy may be, it is important to note that the local businesses of brewing cannot compete with the chain juggernauts head to head, and especially right of the starting line.

A local brewer needs to tweak recipes, brewing times, batch sizes, minimize expenditures (overhead stuff like AC), and still, perhaps, work another job.  Basically, they need time to fine tune his/her product. To do this, they sell their initial product to consumers, who in turn like it, love it, or hate it. Sometimes this version of the product isn't up to snuff, and the tweaking begins. They cannot take as much negative publicity as the big chains, and need more patience from consumers.  Sure, Flingers (see: Office Space) can provide quick service, comfortable AC, satellite television, and ice cold beer; that's expected from them.  But they have the capital to provide those.  Locals do not: They must start off slow and build up.  They need support.

But why should we support their business growth?  What's in it for us?  Several things:

• After fine tuning their product, local brewers can provide awesome beer that is unique to them
• Money spent on their beer, at their business, is kept local (for the most part. Credit/debit card acceptance costs a LOT of money to run and maintain, and that money goes elsewhere)
• A local business values its customers more, and more personal attachments build
• Customers can experience the growth themselves. They can witness how the beer changes from recipe to recipe, and be a part of the evolution of a particular brewery: the life of a beer

So, sure, I understand that if a brewery continues to make bad beer, or just beer that you don't like, to avoid them (or not support them).  But keep in mind that brewing beer takes time, patience, tweaking, and money. 

Cheers!