Brewers Association Defines "Quality Beer"

Thanks Bill for the fast reply. And I agree with you, @hopfenunmaltz and others that there is a quality problem in the craft beer world. Hopefully this initiative from the BA will do something about it.

 

Wait ---- I thought that all fell under the heading of "Innovative"!

 

I hope Sierranevadabill is correct, but again, not sure why a "quality beer" definition is needed if the long-term intent is to just help brewers brew better beer. Based on many comments above, it just sounds as if some brewers need better quality control, which BTW IMHO does not necessarily equate to good tasting beer. Use of such terms as "shared responsibility" and "without compromising" in the mission statement just give me a bad feeling that this committee feels it should be able to pass judgment on the quality and even taste of a beer.

Unfortunately my long experience with trade associations makes me more paranoid and I share the concern with many others in this thread that this "quality beer" definition could be the first step in setting standards that will keep people out of the market, pick winners and losers, etc. I am all for quality, excellence in brewing, and just good tasting beer but I hesitate when that program begins to sound like it will keep someone out or push someone out of the market.

Do we need a "quality hamburger" or "quality soda" definition?

 

I think many of you are way off the mark with your fears/criticism/ridiculing. I see this definition as being for the brewers, not for the consumers. If the BA wants to start an initiative to help small brewers improve their quality, they first have to get on common ground as to what "quality" means. Then, they have to convince their members to take this seriously. Then they have to provide them with (or help guide them to) the tools and techniques to improve quality.

If there is a criticism of the BA for this effort, it probably is their decision to issue a press release without making their overall goals and intentions clear.

Of course this definition of quality as it pertains to the production of beer would also apply to Bud. The fact that some of you think this somehow renders the definition meaningless shows you really have no idea what the word "quality" means in production.

A Corolla does not have to become a Lexus to have high quality.

 

If a start up brewery wants to succeed, they need to plan to spend a few hundred bucks on a microscope, hemacytometer, and a pH meter at the very least least.

The problem is that there's a huge experience and knowledge deficit on the lab/quality side of things for most new brewers. The ASBC (American Society of Brewing Chemists) is arguably the best resource for quality assurance procedures in the brewing industry. They have an amazing guide called the "Methods of Analysis" that is the cheat sheet for every qualified lab operation that you should be conducting in a brewery. The MBAA (Master Brewers Association of the Americas) is also a great resource to tap for any brewing technical questions - The crappy thing is is that both organizations are not widely known outside of the industry.

Anything that the BA can do to provide affordable resources on quality assurance procedures to new and inexperienced brewers, the better off we all are as consumers. You just have to ignore the subjective nomenclature they use in the press release - otherwise I'm all about this initiative.

 

Being a member of the BA is something the brewery can elect to do or not do. I am not sure how any enforcement of standards could be done by the BA. It looks to be a guideline for QA/QC.

 

Exactly!

 

Appreciate the input. If I'm understanding correctly, this means that AB and MillerCoors wouldn't be excluded from this particular category* based on their status as "macro" brewers?

*I know it's not really a category so much as an identification of what is or isn't quality product.

The reason I ask is, individual opinions about the beer AB and MillerCoors make notwithstanding, it seems to be pretty universally agreed upon that they produce high quality beer with an strict adherence to the technical side of brewing--quality control and evaluation, etc.

 

I don't disagree- I was just giving them an out if they wanted one ; plus it does seem like some purposeful weasel words were used. As far as QC goes, though, you'd have to go a long way to top the BMCs.

 

Brewer 1: Ooops!
Brewer 2: No worries we'll call it an "experimental" beer!

Yes. I think this press release shows that people at the BA have a very hard time taking off their marketing/lobbying hats and speaking clearly about a more technical subject.

Yeah, and I think a move toward defining and supporting quality control would help keep many paying members who aren't allowed into the BA's "craft" brewer club happier (like A-B).

 

I'm gonna start brewing quality beer. Craft beer is so 2014.

 

yup I agree!

And please tell me cause I as a consumer can't judge for myself... save me the trouble

 

My palate will be the judge, thank you very much.

 

Simply call a meeting to define what the definition of is is. Nail that down and move on. Beer is serious business, but it surely isn't life or death. Exposing charlatans is always wise, sometimes even at the peril of becoming a bit officious in the process.

 

“I believe that this is in regards to Paul Gatza's statement about a quality problem in craft beer. The technical committee is working to design tools to help brewers improve overall beer quality.”

If this is coming out of the technical committee then why are they using marketing/BS verbiage? Simply make it a technical definition.

Spell out that quality beer is beer that is not industrial AAL beer and is free of technical flaws.

Specify that beer should have no perceptible off flavors and even specify the ppm values for aspects like:

· Acetaldehyde

· Diacetyl (perhaps on a per beer style basis)

· Acetone

· Chlorophenol

· DMS

· Higher Alcohols (Fusel Oils)

· Astringency

· Bacteria Count

· Whatever

I really don’t understand the obtuse approach to what is going on here.

Cheers!

 

Maybe they just wanted to make another definition that they could change whenever it doesn't suit their purposes?

 

Precisely.
And there's plenty of each coming from breweries big and small alike.

 

I swear, some of you people are so interested in your little "good guys" v. "bad guys" hobby horse you can't see past it.

This is not about making Brewer A's beer higher quality than Brewer B's beer. It is about making Brewer A's Hoppty Doodle Do IPA achieve what the brewer intended, and to maintain consistency from batch 1 through batch 100.

 

Spot-on assessment, brother. I also don't care for Budweiser, but if more so-called "craft brewers" took a few production quality and consistency notes from them, there would be far less crap beer being sent to market. For example: I've wanted to score a MBCP for some time now, but I've read several recent reviews of it and I don't like what I'm reading. Several reviewers stated something along the lines of, "When they get it right, it's amazing." When they get it right? WTF does that mean? So am I to believe it's OK to give Funky Buddha a free pass here? Where is the same outrage that would most certainly arise among the BA community if a Budweiser that was brewed in Portsmouth, NH didn't taste exactly like a Budweiser brewed in Jacksonville, FL?

I'll continue to sit in line for hours to score my beloved Heady, but even I'll admit that The Alchemist doesn't come close to producing a beer as consistent as Budweiser. With that said, I hope they and all the other "craft brewers" start aiming to achieve that reasonable goal. Doing so will only serve to strengthen the industry.

 

The reality is it's not just about "taking notes", all those extra 0s in Bud's bottom line don't just line executives' pockets; it also means buying power, and ridiculous resources devoted to QC that is just not possible at any but the very largest craft breweries (Boston, Stone, SN).