"Does American craft brewing have a quality problem?"

It's all about this line-- this discussion doesn't go anywhere when we're talking about subjectivity. Whats important is that brewers equip themselves with the knowledge, tools, and practices to avoid issues like infection, inconsistent ferm. temp, yeast health, etc. that plague so many new breweries' beer. These are OBJECTIVE issues.

STORY:
The first brewery I worked for brewed on a tiny Sabco Brew Magic 1/2 bbl. system and constantly ran out of beer. A heating element had been caking caramelized wort onto a component that all the beer passed over when being transferred to the fermentor. When the brewers found the problem, we already had multiple batches of beer that had passed over this tube full of char-- about 2 weeks worth of batches. We could not afford to just dump this beer, decided the owner, so we sold a lot of it as "smoked beer." Some people even liked it, but honestly it was a charcoal-like flavor, not the woody smokiness that smoked malt gives smoked beers. It was quite nasty. We dumped a batch of saison and a belgian pale that were frankly undrinkable. Some of the batches had gotten minimal "char-effect," probably the earlier ones that had passed over the caked transfer tube before there was much buildup. And the owner decided to sell those batches without the "smoked" prefix in the title. We were taking some of our best recipes, and selling IPAs and blonde ales that had an awkward and gross charcoal bite in the finish. What a way to turn off customers, let alone those who would only taste the beer once, and leave with the impression that that is the way that beer tasted always. A prime example of a brewery not being willing to take a loss in the name of quality assurance and consistent product.

 

http://cicerone.org/ is what you're talking about. Besides that, the amount of quality beer literature for all levels of understanding is just awesome.

 

It seems reasonable to me that @drtth has a good cut at defining a bad brewery via: “breweries are making beer with off flavors”.

I suppose there could be some ambiguity or debate on what constitutes an off flavor. For example, I am generally of the opinion that a perceptible level of diacetyl (commonly described as being a butter or butterscotch type flavor) is an off flavor but Pilsner Urquell has a bit of diacetyl in it and I still enjoy that beer.

Some folks might think that a bad brewery is a brewery that makes what they consider to be substandard beer. Some BAs might think that a US craft brewery that makes a European style beer that does not ‘match’ how that beer is brewed in Europe is a bad brewery. For example, some folks only think that Belgian breweries make a proper Dubbel, Tripel, Golden Ale, etc. I have difficulty buying into this definition since it is very subjective in multiple ways:

· Each beer drinker thinks they have the authority to judge what constitutes a traditional beer

· If a US craft brewery takes any liberties with how they want to brew a traditional beer that constitutes “bad”.

· Etc.

If a brewery produces quality beer but due to poor management does not properly distribute, market, advertise, etc. their beer it certainly could be argued they are are a bad business and by extension a bad brewery?

I suppose there could be other definitions for a bad brewery?

Since there is no clear cut way to define a bad brewery I personally will fall back to a definition of the following: a bad brewery is a brewery that produces beer that beer consumers do not want to buy.

The above definition is by no means perfect but it is the best that I can come up with.

Cheers!

 

This just has to do with ingredients. The Mcdonalds burger is absolutely not the best in the world, but it's the most consistent. Same with BMC- They're brewing for profit, not quality. The quality suffers when you brew with shitty adjuncts, etc., but their consistency makes up for it, the product remains the same, and sells well. The American Adjunct Lager tells a huge part of the history of beer in America, and many Americans' palates revolved around the fact that "it's what everyone drinks." I put the scare quotes on the last part there, because, thank god, we see that changing as the craft sector grows each year. "Crafty" beers like Shock Top or Bud's Amber Lager prove to us that BMC sees this happening and is adapting its brands accordingly. They prove that the market's palates are developing and the standard for beer in America is changing.

 

This is not the only place this exact same thing has happened, and not necessarily on a SABCO but on slightly larger systems, with either exposed electric elements form the wort to caramelize on, or a direct fire heating element where the wort out piping runs through the firebox. I do not expect the places that have this problem to be among the survivors in this phase of the industry....

 

I think this is the main thing I have a problem with - it's an overgeneralization. Biochemistry doesn't change when you cross the Atlantic. I agree that many of the world's best abbey ales come from Belgium. I don't agree that none of them come from America, and while I have no first-hand experience, I have a hard time believing there are no breweries in Belgium that make a bad tripel.

I also have less respect for the rigidity of "style" than many others, which has a big impact on my views.

 

I, for one, do not think that a U.S. "craft" brewery that brews (and markets, and sells) European styles that do not match what they purport to is a bad brewery -- rather I think they have made a bad version of that style. For example, Sam Adams is a good brewery, but Escape Route Koelsch is a (very) bad representative of that style.

EDIT: Also, if you give Escape Route to someone used to drinking Koelsch brewed according to the Koelsch Konvention, they are likely not going to believe it is a Koelsch, nor may they be likely to buy anything else from that brewery because they might feel as if the brewery is simply trying to deceive them. On the other hand, if you give Escape Route to someone who has never had Koelsch brewed and served at the source and doesn't know any better, they may be likely to think it is not only a tasty beer, but a good "Koelsch." While the former may be true enough, the latter most certainly isn't.

 

While I'm not sure this specific issue happens all that much, I think a lot of people would be surprised how often errors are being sold as something else.
It isn't infected - it's "wild."
It isn't "buttery" it's English or Czech.
It isn't acetaldehyde, those are "fruity notes."
Onions, ditch weed, and cat pee? No, that's the direction all of the new great IPAs are going in!
Watery and gluten free tasting? Pft - that's our "session IPA."
No malt character? "Nah, We have a strong Belgian influence."

 

I have been brewing professionally for almost 5 years. Some on the East Coast, and some In California. The market will determine what beers are "good enough" why all the chat about it? It is no secret craft beer has been exploding. A lot of home brewers who think they can make the transition to the professional level are giving it a go. Some will survive, some will fail. I always try to focus on the positive of a product. However If I am drinking a beer with lacto/pedio/brett etc. when it is not supposed to have it in there, I chalk it up to the brewer's inexperience. There are some new breweries killing it too, just gotta give everyone a chance.

If you like a beer, try more of their offerings. If you do not like a beer, let them go.

 

Ive been stewing over this topic and was hesitant about posting. Im not trying to be cocky or come off as an ass but here are my thoughts.

Just within my general ~2.5 hour radius we had 9 new breweries pop up over the course of the past 2 years (that I can recall off the top of my head.) I just wrote them all down and gave it an honest thought about what I consider a quality conscious brewery verse those that are disillusioned and think they make a quality product.

Without name dropping, I have only 2 breweries listed as top quality and the other 7 as desperately needing basic improvement to seemingly all of their beers. Regardless of what my personal opinion is, the fact remains that these establishments continue to be operating and are profitable regardless of quality. (Heck, one other establishment has been making terribly flawed beers for 17 years and yet they continue to open up new location after new location.)

Despite how much you as an individual want to respect and appreciate a fine crafted brew or mock/drainpour/scoff at one with faults; there is seemingly an anxious hoard of people ready to drink regardless of whether or not buttcrack brewery chocolate cherry turd truffle marzipan porter is better or worse than Jimmy's dirty knee dungaree pilsner.

 

Is there a style to which more damage has been (I guess unintentionally) inflicted by craft brewers, than this one? I have drunk enough shitty beers called "Kolsch" or "Koelsch", usually super pale American blondes not done particularly well (even if they had been correctly labelled) that I rarely order one anymore.

 

Yes, or equally so: Saisons and belgian ales. I've had a lot of very poor examples of the styles. And thankfully, some very good ones.

 

I'm going to weigh in here a bit.

Here are some examples of what I am seeing: A brewery that hires a line cook to be their brewer because they don't want to pay a skilled brewers wage. A new brewery hires a "Brewmaster" with 2 homebrews under his belt and no relevant experience. Another brewery trying to make a beer by boiling and fermenting in the same vessel.

I'm not saying that a skilled, award winning homebrewer w/ no technical training can't be an awesome craft brewer. These folks make some of the best and most talented brewers we have in the business. But when I see ownership cut corners by hiring brewers who have no skills whatsoever, it really bothers me.

And yes, we do have some quality issues, every single brewery does. I will dump a beer that has technical flaws instead of releasing it. And I review every product complaint we receive to make sure that we have a system in place to prevent any quality situation from happening again. What matters is: can the brewers recognize and fix their quality issues? That's where some breweries aren't cutting it, or worse, are ignoring it.

I'm a big believer in technical training. We hire people who have gone to UC Davis, American Brewers Guild or Siebel on a regular basis, and we offer in-house brewing schools and an intense training program for everyone that brews here. I count on our entire brewing team to help recognize and correct potential quality or consistency issues.

When I am talking about quality, I am not talking about disliking a beer. No one makes a beer that suits everyone, so I easily accept the fact that there are beers we brew that are "Love or Hate" beers. And we've whiffed on a couple of formulations, but we have many more hits than misses, IMO. You can't be a succesful brewer in this current business without taking some risks. What I am talking about with regards to quality is an ability to brew sound, consistent beer on a regular basis.

Cheers, Mitch

 

true but you have a 50/50 chance of getting a passable saison or belgian pale, and (in my experience) a one in three shot at an actually quite nice one. I do not believe the "Kolsch ratio" comes close to that.

 

Kind of like this post I found today:
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/fbh/4422087853.html

For those that don't want to click the link, they are posting on CraigsList for a brewer.

 

I like your conclusion. Any establishment that can remain in business for 17 years (and continue to expand) must be doing something their customers like and are willing to repeat. Seems as simple as ABC to me.

 

Greatly appreciate you taking the time to make these remarks.

Would you also be able to elaborate a bit on why you think the problem of quality control among start ups is growing at a faster rate than would be expected through a simple increase in the numbers of breweries and amatuers entering the field to do or not do a good job?

Edit: In other words, to make up some numbers. If 10 years ago 5 of 10 start ups had quality control issues is there any reason to believe that in the last year or so its now grown to something like 7 of 10 start ups?

 

Me too. And to all the other brewers chiming in as well.

 

Great Divide, North Coast, Cigar City, Hoppin' Frog, Uinta, Bruery, Crooked Stave, Stone, Green Flash, Weyerbacher, Victory, Fat Heads, Rapp, Funky Buddha, 7venth Sun, Cycle/Peg's, Big Storm, Southern Tier, soon to be J Wakefield, Wynwood, Founders, yes even Goose Island...

What quality problem are we talking about exactly?

 

I think because, similar to the mid 1990's, there are people getting into this business for the wrong reasons. A new brewery with a passionate, skilled brewer has every chance of succeeding, and I love seeing this. But there are lot of people who either think it's "cool" or are in it because they think they can make a quick buck. Skilled brewers are getting harder to find, primarily because the growth of breweries is outpacing the growth of the brewing schools and Brewmaster availability. But again, finding a passionate, skilled homebrewer that can make the transition from the experimental freedom of homebrewing to the detail it takes to run a production brewery is hard, but defintely achievable.