Some folks are less than happy with the new campaign by the Brewers Association:
“The question we have for the Brewers Association is ‘why are we being punished for brewing with a locally grown ingredient, which started out of necessity, and has continued out of tradition?,’” asked Jace Marti, the Brewmaster at Schell Brewing, in a statement he released yesterday. “And why is it only bad to use adjuncts if you are brewing an American Lager, yet perfectly acceptable to use them in basically any Belgian style of beer, IPA’s or double IPA’s?”
There’s a video at that first link which reportedly has comments by New Belgium CEO Kim Jordan, Dale Katechis of Oskar Blues Brewery and Tony Magee of Lagunitas on the “faux craft” controversy but it won’t open and play on my computer.
[Update] Beer Pulse has the complete statement from Schell Brewing.
SHARE
I was able to watch it Jack. They offered different reasons for considering that big brewery involvement in craft beer (with the implication, as I read it, that source is not that important)is not a negative for craft brewing. The reasons were that those beers provide a “gateway” to true craft beer, or that the craft industry cannot currently supply all the demand for its products. While these views, coming from eminent craft brewery representatives, should be taken seriously, I still feel BA made a good point, which is that big companies should explain who is behind the products they make. Big brewers did not innovate with respect to flavorful, traditional-tasting beer: for decades after serious interest in real beer started they lagged behind, focusing on light beer, dry beer, ice beer, and everything but beer that tasted frankly of rich malt and hops, of its heritage. (I believe the reason for this is that the marketing side got too distanced from the brewing side, from what makes beer, beer, essentially).
Now they get it. Good. They are fully entitled to take advantage of market trends, but I don’t like it when the labels do not state who is behind the product. I for one, and I suspect many consumers, wouldn’t care anyway, but some care when the transparency is not there. I think BA’s heart is in the right place and I respect them for speaking out.
Gary
Thanks, Gary. Thoughtful and informative.
The problem with the BA’s statement is that it is based on arbitrary distinctions designed so that its members all fit the definition of a craft brewery. I suspect this is primarily for political (and secondarily for marketing) reasons.
I had felt uneasy about this definition, and then the Schell statement came along, a better example than I ever could have come up with to show its faults.
The Schell statement also made me aware that when the Brewers Assn of America and the Assn of Brewers merged several years ago to form the Brewers Assn, that some brewers formerly served by the BAA may have been left outside looking in at the BA.
Thanks, Jack, for your comments.
With respect to the Schell statement, I understand where it is coming from in that use of corn grits or similar adjunct has been practiced since the late 1800′s to reduce protein haze in beer caused by use of 6-row American barley strains.
However, a lot depends on how much adjunct you use. I can’t speak to the mainline August Schell products, which I haven’t tried in many years, but few old hands would disagree I think that most American lager by the late 1970′s had a characteristic “snap” from corn or other adjunct: you could taste it, and the craft beer movement, which is an important part of BA’s history, was a strong reaction to that. It was reaching back to an earlier time, pre-American even, when beer was all-malt, as it was (by law) in Britain before 1845, and in Bavaria under the Pure Beer Law excepting wheat beer.
Therefore, while unquestionably arbitrary cut-offs are made (as in anything really), for a trade association with strong roots in revivalist brewing to define adjunct brewing as the BA does is not unreasonable to me. It is I think a function of its history. Reasonable people can disagree about it, but I see where it is coming from on this.
It is true that some reputed Belgian beer uses adjunct; so did Heineken until about 20 years ago; so do many traditional ale brewers in England (or if not corn or wheat, then sugars of some kind), but none of these beers ever tasted to me like the typical U.S. lager beer of the mid-70′s. Some U.S. beer, too, was always all-malt: Michelob was from 1896 until about 1960. I think Andeker was too, and Augsburger, in the 70′s. I am talking about the 70′s because that is when the reaction to the prevalent style of U.S. beer set in in the form of a homebrewing movement and nascent craft beer industry.
Gary
I was insulted as soon as I saw our honestly “traditional” American regional breweries cast in the same light as the evasive bigs, and I remain so.
There was a time not too awfully long ago when the only alternatives to mainstream adjunct lagers were brews like Yuengling’s Lord Chesterfield ale, Stegmaier porter and Ballantine IPA. Where we might have gotten without their long-term persistence is questionable, and they came from breweries that are now “officially” on the outside looking in.
I love craft beer, but will henceforth turn my back on the Brewers Association, much as they have done to their eminently more traditional and much-longer established regional brethren, for whom I have immense respect.
This position is shameful.
I let Gary’s last comment bounce around my noggin for a bit, and decided: 1) while it may be reasonable to define a craft brewer based on adjunct use, it becomes quite easy to make arbitrary distinctions: how much beer can be made with how much adjunct? The public yawns; 2) August Schell was there decades ago producing interesting beers in the early days of craft brewing, for what it’s worth; 3) Schell does retain some high ground when it comes to tradition. Is it really appropriate for the new kids on the block to pass judgment on a brewery with a 150-year history?
I can’t see the BA ever coming up with an airtight definition of a craft brewer, yet they are condemned to keep on trying. It might not be a bad idea to erect a tent with slightly higher poles so that they can invite the handful of remaining old family breweries to their party.
To me there is a bright line between the old-line companies, big or small, and what came after ’76. Some of the regionals adapted in a way I find excellent, especially Matt’s Brewing which makes the excellent Saranac Brands and brewed up a storm for numerous contract brewers. There are some other examples I know.
But in terms of the old beers, what were the really good ones apart from Ballantine IPA and one or two of the porters? Horlacher expired in the 70′s, couldn’t hang on long enough to benefit from the brewing revival. (What I would give to try its Perfection Beer, aged 9 months apparently).
Prior Double Dark ditto, which lives on today though I understand in the form of Saranac’s Black Forest and is certainly good but not a worldbeater. Fred Koch made an excellent porter when owned by Vaux but it didn’t last long and finally Fred Koch was no more.
BA could be more inclusive, yes, but it is its choice to define how it views the history.
To conclude, you guys know the famous joke by Michael Jackson when Charlie Papazian proposed to him the idea of a national beer festival, he said, good idea, but what will we do for beer? An exaggeration, yes, but it spoke an essential truth IMO.
Gary
Can’t argue, at least not too much, with your take, Gary. I just feel that the lack of inclusion for the few remaining regional survivors ignores some of the last living (truly) small vestiges of what was once a thriving regional brewing scene in the U.S., which brings me to another gripe about the BA’s self-proclaimed parameters for what is and what isn’t.
Wasn’t the original definition of a “micro-brewery” just 15,000 barrels? Then they saw that cliff looming and raised it at some point to two million barrels. When Sam showed signs of breaching that mark, “small” suddenly became six million instead. The BA keeps arbitrarily expanding the membership rules of the club just enough to keep in the members they want, and keep out the ones they don’t. Straub, at 40,000 barrels (and 140 years old) defines small much better than Sam Adams.
Adjuncts of any kind in any quantity are fine for BA members, as long as you meet their rules, that again are carefully worded to selectively exclude those breweries who also produce significant quantities of non-adjunct beers.
The Brewers Association can absolutely do whatever they want, but don’t expect me to buy into the premise that six million barrels is “small,” that adjuncts are evil unless your members use them, and that “traditional” can be defined by an association whose oldest member is barely three decades old when I can drive to three breweries well over 100 years old in my own state who are no longer welcome by the arbitrary rules of these self-absorbed upstarts.
A slightly bigger tent would hurt no one’s pride and would include breweries who, in my opinion, deserve some sort of recognition, and it would be more appropriate coming from craft than corporate. Which it won’t, and that means that these brewers are now branded as outcasts from both sides of the industry, except that in the case of crafts (the “softer, gentler” side of the business), it’s entirely intentional and committed to an official document.
I personally would not feel comfortable joining a club in which deserving people are purposely and intentionally excluded for nothing more than the image of the club. Augusta National, anyone?
And I must give my own opinion of Koch’s Jubilee porter. Having cut my porter teeth in Pennsylvania, I always felt that Koch’s was much lighter in color and thinner in body than I was used to. Wouldn’t trade it for a Stegmaier porter on a bet…and I can still get that; all-malt, for $22 a case from a brewery that, in the eyes of the industry, might as well no longer exist.
Bullshit, I still say.
Sorry…should have said, “Adjuncts of any kind in any quantity are fine for BA members, as long as you meet their rules, that again are carefully worded to selectively exclude those breweries who also produce significant quantities of adjunct beers.”
As usual Sam K speaks the troof.
Regarding corn, I find the beer geeks treatment of corn hypocritical and laughable. If corn was not used as an “adjunct” prior to the micro brewery craze, micros would be brewing beers with different strains of corn, different colors of corn, different harvests of corn, etc etc. The webpages would be saying stuff like “our esteemed brewmaster has hand selected 5 unique strains of corn from different parts of the country and has applied each to our IPA so you can taste the difference and the impact that each individual corn strain has on the same beer. But they are only available for a limited time and are handcrafted in small batches, so run right out and get your bomber for only $29. Also we’ve included a very small amount of our IPA brewed with INDIAN CORN and aged in bourbon barrels available only at the brewery for $15 a glass.”
Well-done, Sam and gpk. I mean, Gary makes some good points, but I still find the BA’s position to be overly (and overtly) self-serving.
Maybe the comment of the year, gpk.
Agreed, Jack, “Comment of the Year” honors to gpk! His thoughts also highlight what many people do not realize: brewing with corn is not easy, and as Jace Marti pointed out in his press release, it’s now also more costly than barley malt.
And so it goes…
Happy holidays, everyone!
If there had never been corn adjunct, probably America’s beer scene would look like Germany’s, or like England’s was before the 70′s. I think brewers would have made more unfiltered beers, like you see from the new generation of German brewpubs. Or real ale would have come back big time. Anyway, the history is what it is and BA is a direct part of it. When the history is written, I think too it will be shown that all-malt beer, via people reading about the German Pure Beer Law, had a powerful influence, as did old British beer styles, which were all-malt by law before 1845.
Thanks for the chance to pitch in on these questions, Jack, much appreciated.
Gary
gpk, that corn comment was teh awesome.
Sam K and GPK are completely right on this one and I could not have said it better. Jace Marti is also completely right on, on calling out BA on their BS. Schell’s makes some tremendous beer and ale not the least of which is adjunct powered Grainbelt Premium and Nordeast which I would gladly take over dozens of blah blah blah over hyped over priced crafts that are complete failures when it comes to any kind of relative value proposition. Our regional brewery’s have survived some of the most intense global competition in the history of market capitalism from reppeal to the modern era and I for one would like to see them celebrated and supported rather than panned.