The craft beer industry: beer quality problems

I agree that taste and perceived quality is completely subjective. When I am talking about "bad" beer,

Jack, I agree that consumers are potentially mislead by that seal - it could certainly imply more than it actually means to the "casual" craft drinker. As has been noted, the people on Beer Advocate are not the "target".

In my business, the trade organizations do take a leadership role in terms of establishing good practices. There's several that my company belongs to and actively support. The trade organizations, in my opinion, should represent some sort of "authority" when it comes to establishing and maintaining principles. That doesn't give the trade groups any "clout" - in my business, the government does that. And you can see by doing a quick search for recent recall activity that the combination is still less than fully effective. I've been in the biz long enough to know that "things" happen, but I have also been to enough places to know that a company can give it all great lip service, have all the paperwork right, and still put out lousy (or even potentially harmful) products.

Education is obviously one key, but again how does it get enforced or become "mandatory"? I'm not sure if that is within the purvey of a trade organization. They can and should offer the resources. Could they make using some kind of marque contingent upon adhering to certain things? Maybe, but that would only be marginally more effective than letting any member use the upside down bottle. To some extent, it's "buy the sticker". There's "organic" stickers on products that might not meet the standards - this I can say with some confidence, but I can't give out details. It defeats the purpose of the entire program when that occurs and that is a regulated and enforceable program. I know the rules - we follow them - I have also seen any number of repeated (intentional?) violations, yet product proudly bears the organic label.

At the moment, the Brewer's Association doesn't even talk the talk, let alone walk the walk when it comes to this issue. Maybe they are starting to with recent additions to their repertoire. They have added resources and they are offering training for those who chose to partake. It's a start, and I think we agree that the question is how to give it "teeth".

I also agree about "bad beer" and 'quality" being ambiguous - one person's hopelessly flawed brew is someone else's nectar. If people want to drink what a brewery put's out and they think it's perfect, more power to 'em. We've beaten that topic up pretty well in several threads - breweries stay in business for reasons other than the "quality" of their beer. I will state my opinion that this is unfortunate for all and it is harmful to brewing in general. Could the Brewer's Association step in here? I don't know - are they supposed to go around and find breweries that are struggling and "help" them succeed? I don't think that is their role, either. They can provide the leadership and the opportunities, resources galore if they want. Otherwise, what's the purpose? There are a lot of parallels between running a brewery and running one of my operations. There's also some very curious points of divergence that make little sense to me.

I do know my colleague who formerly operated a farm brewery makes some decent pay consulting with breweries about sanitation and good processing techniques in general. He did it at "nano" scale, and he did not close his shop because he made lousy beer or had no control over his process/sanitation. So it can be done regardless of scale - I think part of it is knowing and believing you need to have good QC and employ good practices. I've had frustrating conversations with brewers at tastings as I am sure you have - some of them honestly think their beer is "supposed to taste that way" and won't even listen. Then again, who am I to criticize. I get it - that I am "just a consumer" to them and they don't know me from Adam, nor I them.. But guess what, I'm a consumer that's not gonna be drinking their beer because I'll spend my dollars elsewhere.

 

Thanks for the insider tip- snobbery begins with the brewer. Whats up next beer only good for a day?

 

Actually, I think we are kind of saying the same thing. I agree that quality is subjective. Quality control is not. There's a whole host of breweries that I won't buy from that other people love fanatically. I just chose not to drink those beers.

In general, though, when I say "bad" beer I mean beer with obvious brewing flaws or not even remotely resembling the style it claims to be, even though I am pretty liberal when it comes to style interpretation. That's very different than "I don't like it". I have not enjoyed the few beers I have tried from Wicked Weed - but they are not flawed beers or what I would consider a badly made beer - I just don't care for them. I don't like Bud, but there's nothing "wrong" with it or bad about it - I prefer the taste of Coors. That's not the same thing as "bad".

But again, who am I to say? I buy what I enjoy and drink what pleases me. If something I think of as "crappy" or "bad" is enjoyed by other people, that's fine.


So the argument comes back to the beginning - how to define the "quality" problem when it is largely a matter of subjective taste and how do things get "better". Maybe the argument really is about old beer on store shelves.

 

Thank you for this post - sums things up nicely.

 

Personally, I'd guess that until there are objective standards for "quality" as there can be and often are standards for quality control, the argument will inevitably boil down to talking about old beer on shelves. Even there people can't/won't agree since both types of dating are flawed, but in different ways.

 

Here in the Hudson Valley of NYS it has been a steady, wonderful 7 year increase in beer quality that continues. Life for beer drinkers around here she is good.

 

It might be helpful in reducing the frequency if you could connect a few more dots and explain where the confusion lies in this example and how to sort it out.

 

I mean this earnestly and not rhetorically, but do casual consumers think that much about quality (in the way we are speaking about it) at all? Thinking of myself at the grocery store, I generally assume that anything that has made it onto the shelves at an established market has had to meet some basic measure of quality due to a variety of factors (regulations, liability, etc.). All of the various seals like "real" on dairy products or what have you don't even register with me, and to the extent I think about them at all I assume they are cynical and largely meaningless symbols.

Now, this isn't true for things like fresh produce (cantelope is impossible to predict regardless of brand/origin), and beer is arguably a lot more like produce than it is like milk or crackers, but does the casual customer think of it that way?

Further, the 'independent' seal seems to me more like the 'organic' seal in that it is a signifier of a particular viewpoint or belief that resonates with certain customers who have broad preferences in what kinds of things they like to purchase/support. A 'quality' seal along the lines of 'real cheese' seems, to me anyway, like something few would care much about.

 

I believe some of the problem is with the beer distributor itself. When any local liquor store gets a large shipment, the last thing these young guys do is check the date. They are simply overwhelmed and the distributor seems to take advantage of this

 

I literally laughed out loud at this one. The irony of being called a snob because of a comment about holding myself to a high quality standard in a thread ABOUT quality is pretty awesome. It's also perhaps one of the most short sighted comments I've seen on BA in a long time. Did it not occur to you that maybe someone that has been honing their craft for 10 years wouldn't have high standards? Or that someone that spends hours every week refining and training their palate would want to drink a beer that doesn't live up to its full potential when there are other beers around that do live up to their's? Not to mention, that was in reference to you saying that you want to buy the cheapest beer regardless of the fact that the brewers that brewed the beer, did the shelf life testing, and know every minute detail about what went into it have deemed the beer to be bad at that point. Maybe you're the type of guy that also doesn't mind freezer burned ice cream and would buy it at half price, but there are many of us that notice a distinct, unfavorable difference in stale products.

For the second part of your comment, I do believe there is a specific day that beer is at its best. For most of my beers, I consider that to normally be the day after cold crashing (around day 8). If I could give the experience of drinking a beer directly from the fermenter on day 8 of the process, I would love to do so and if that opportunity was available on a daily basis, that would likely be almost entirely what I would drink. That early in the process, the beer is still rapidly changing. On the 9th or 10th day, the beer has evolved to something distinctly different from what it was two days previously and is then mostly stable assuming you package without introducing oxygen. It remains stable for a period of 6-12 weeks for the majority of beers (though of course, styles like barleywines, and Imperial Stouts can be fine for significantly longer periods of time).

 

The thing is that "quality" depends on the customer. It's providing the product that the customer wants.

That means any given breweries quality criteria can change depending on what customers they are going for.

In some instances being free of brewing or fermentation flaws may be all that is needed for "quality".
In other cases adherence to the style guidelines can be considered the judgement of "quality".
In other cases "quality" is defined by "innovation".
There are other possible criteria like balance, or hop usage.

I'd think that an understanding in obvious brewing flaws would be desired to reduce them or if they are a desired component to the beer then maintained at the desired level.

That is education but is up to the breweries to put in the effort and desire to learn.

Something like ISO could even take some steps regarding a brewery following this aspect of quality. If part of the audit is too show that the brewery is analyzing what their customers want.

 

There are several organizations that have programs or offer seminars about quality beer besides the BA. ASBC, MBAA, state brewery guilds, and the Cicerone program (maintaining draft lines, clean glassware, etc). Colleges and universities are ramping up brewery programs to train brewers on how to make quality beer.

With all of the above, why are we having this discussion? It can be that 70% of the US breweries are less than 1000 barrels and don't have much in the way of lab equipment (ask to see the lab at your local start up, if you're lucky they will have a microscope). It could be that the brewers are trying to keep the doors open and sell beer that should be dumped. It could be that they don't know that they are making beer full of defects (poor/untrained palates, blind to certain flavors, and so on). It could be that they are selling all the crappy beer that they can make, so why change?

I will stop by saying that you can get some off beers in Germany.

 

Finding this just made it so much funnier too.

 

Laugh all you want Honkey but for every beer head on this forum the are 100+ average joe beer drinkers like me that will get by fine without your beer.

 

Exactly, and any brewery that monitors and does tracking on their sales and then produces more of what sells will be giving the customers what they want.

 

Exactly why the retailer that fails to check dates on delivery is also taking advantage, but in a different way.

 

I'll try, but the Firestone / Ford case is a difficult one to summarize, since the causes of the fatalities and injuries were multifaceted, including a tire design issue (size of belts, etc.), manufacturing issues at Firestone (inspection time, use of partially dried adhesive, and others), labor unrest, PSI recommendations by Ford lower than recommended by Firestone (supposedly to reduce ride harshness), an SUV design that was difficult to control in the event of tire failure at speed, etc., etc. As with many such major issues, it was the combination of these that resulted in the deaths. If one (any one) of these was the only problem, there would likely have been no deaths, recalls, or multi-billion $ losses.

What ISO 9001 does is ensure (as best as can be ensured via audit) that the manufacturer has a well documented and repeatable design process, a well documented and repeatable manufacturing process, a well documented and repeatable parts procurement process, etc. What this does is reduce (not eliminate) the occurance of design faults, manufacturing variability, and parts / material being used that is not to spec. It also provides a way for the manufacturer to identify and correct faults when they do occur, and know that the correction will "stick".

It is the difference between baking a cake using a recipe versus Grandma just doing what she thinks will taste good. In the former (using a recipe), if the cake is good, you, your spouse, your kid, your cousin, etc. can make one for every family occasion and it will likely taste the same (assuming the recipe is followed, the cook knows the basics of cooking, etc.) In your Grandma's case, it is unlikely anyone besides her could bake that same cake. In fact, it is unlikely she makes exactly the same cake every time, either.

Following a repeatable QC process is not at conflict with creativity. It does, however, require that the brewer does the paperwork.

Based solely on external observation, an (almost) local brewer, who is very well regarded, could serve as a case study on what happens when you have Grandma (so to speak) brewing your beer will little to no QC. Even with his big runner flagship brands, you never know exactly what you are going to get each time you pick up one of his beers. While his worst is probably better than many brewer's best, the variability indicates a lack of control.

 

I think this is the most powerful thing the BA could do. Pamphlets and programs just for brewers are not enough, because the brewers may choose not to put best quality practices in place when their consumers are unaware of quality issues. All markets are driven by consumers, so beer quality needs to be put in front of the consumer, and a certification seal is the best way to do that. A beer consumer probably will never know all the details that go into that obtaining the beer quality certification/seal, but they don't have to, as long as they understand it's better than no quality seal and should be a factor in their purchases. It's like having a LEED-certified building... very few people actually understand what goes into a LEED certification, but they do understand it's better than no certification and that impacts the market positively. When the beer consumers change their purchasing towards higher quality beer, the brewers will follow; the BA is perfectly poised to be the spark for that change.


EDIT:
This sort of reminds me of beer can/bottle dating... Many years ago, very few brewers bothered to date to their beer. It was too much effort and consumers didn't care/demand beer dates. Over the years some vocal and persistent consumers demanded dates on beer, refused to purchase undated, and beer the industry changed. Most beer I see on shelves today has at least a best by date. Consumers forced that change. They can do the same for beer quality, but they need something to rally behind and direct and their energy towards, like a certification/seal from a trusted source.