# Kit Beer Bos At The Nationals



## Stagger (21/11/06)

I had a beer with Dan last night, and we got to talking about our beers in the nationals. Dan to my surprise told me that his beer (RIS) that won BEER OF SHOW at the nationals was made from 3 kits, this was Dans last kit before he made the leap to all grain. I must admit I was a little taken back but now know that a good kit beer can easily perform better than a crafted all grain beer. 

I think this is a fantastic result for brewing, all the best Dan and the kit brewers out there.


Stagger


----------



## Bazza (21/11/06)

What's the recipe? Or is it a trade secret  ?

Until I get space/time for AG I must stick with kits, so any ideas on recipe improvements for kits wll be welcomed..


----------



## Stagger (21/11/06)

He told me it was 3 kits in 20L of water.


Stagger


----------



## bigfridge (21/11/06)

Stagger said:


> I had a beer with Dan last night, and we got to talking about our beers in the nationals. Dan to my surprise told me that his beer (RIS) that won BEER OF SHOW at the nationals was made from 3 kits, this was Dans last kit before he made the leap to all grain. I must admit I was a little taken back but now know that a good kit beer can easily perform better than a crafted all grain beer.
> 
> I think this is a fantastic result for brewing, all the best Dan and the kit brewers out there.
> 
> ...



While Kits can and do make excellent beer, I think in this case the BOS could have resulted from BBB (Big Beer Bias). The judges were obviously impressed with this excellent beer, but unless you re-taste all the winning beers in a seperate Best Of Show round it is difficult to say that it was the best beer.

The only thing that you can say is that the judges who tasted this beer awarded it the highest marks recorded in the comp. It may have been an extraordinarilly good beer, or equally you could say that they were just generous judges.

Without a seperate BOS round you really can't be sure.


----------



## warrenlw63 (21/11/06)

Having judged on numerous occasions I don't see this as an abnormal occurance whatsoever and is probably not paying enough homage to extract beers.

Higher gravity brews, particularly RIS and Barley wines don't really suffer one iota in extract form compared to to their AG contemporaries IMO.

Provided the kit/malt extract is fresh and well handled and most probably augmented with some small amounts of AG and spec. malts there's no reason why this is not a more regular occurance.  

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if there's not several AG brewers out there with limited mashtun capacity doing exactly this.

I wouldn't point any fingers at overly generous judges, this is just begruding the beer. Perhaps the brewer in question be he extract or all-grain just knows his/her/their onions.  

Warren -


----------



## Stagger (21/11/06)

Spot on!!

As i said i think it's great. :beerbang: 

Stagger


----------



## Beerpig (21/11/06)

Does this mean the AG brewers have to run around the room with their pants around their ankles?

Cheers


----------



## barls (21/11/06)

i think a few of them should after some of the comments. it just goes to show you can make good beer no matter which method you use


----------



## Stuster (21/11/06)

Beerpig said:


> Does this mean the AG brewers have to run around the room with their pants around their ankles?
> 
> Cheers



I fell a few times but I think I'll be alright.  

It doesn't really surprise me. As warren says, for stronger styles especially, kits/extract can make very good beer. Also true for darker beers. Judging the kit section at the Castle Hill show the dark lagers were noticeably more consistent than the lighter beers which tended to have lots of acetaldehyde. There was one light lager that was good though, and one really excellent dark ale. I think we'd all have taken another glass of that one. :chug:


----------



## MAH (21/11/06)

Stagger said:


> BEER OF SHOW at the nationals was made from 3 kits....... I must admit I was a little taken back but now know that a good kit beer can easily perform better than a crafted all grain beer.



Cool, a pointless AG vs Kit beer thread, we haven't had one of these for at least 6 months  (even if you didn't mean it to be this type of thread, it's how it will end).

Now to kick off the festive arguments I will respond to the following:


barls said:


> it just goes to show you can make good beer no matter which method you use



Bollocks! And stop being condescending to our second class brewing citizens. It just shows that a high alcohol, very dark beer that just happened to be made from 3 kits , was given the highest score. If it's true that there was no BoS round, then it's a hollow victory. Also as already has been pointed out, certain styles, read nothing subtle or delicate, can be made well with extract. However this is far from the universal of being able to make good beer from extracts. You can make a few good styles, maybe, but to generally be able to make good beer, fresh grain, fresh hops, good water, healthy yeast and sound sanitation is needed. Like anything you only get out what you put in and extract is over-processed boiled downed malt of unknown origin. Go ahead and whack it into your beer, but just don't offer me a glass.

Let the war of words begin h34r: .

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Borret (21/11/06)

:lol:

amen...


----------



## barls (21/11/06)

MAH said:


> Stagger said:
> 
> 
> > BEER OF SHOW at the nationals was made from 3 kits....... I must admit I was a little taken back but now know that a good kit beer can easily perform better than a crafted all grain beer.
> ...


id like to point out that im one of those so call second class citizens as you put it and i think the world would be quite boring if we all were sheep and did as one what we all get told we should be doing. we are all different and by that we have different tastes. i personally dont have any plans to go all grain anytime in the future and quite get sick of being told i should at least one a week on this forum hen i ask for help with a recipe


----------



## DJR (21/11/06)

Who cares, if you make good beer that's what matters.

Personally i get more consistent, better results with AG but whatever floats your boat and works.

BBB wasn't there in the case of BOS at the NSW champs - it was a 3% Berliner Weisse!


----------



## deebee (21/11/06)

Stagger said:


> I had a beer with Dan last night, and we got to talking about our beers in the nationals. Dan to my surprise told me that his beer (RIS) that won BEER OF SHOW at the nationals was made from 3 kits, this was Dans last kit before he made the leap to all grain. I must admit I was a little taken back but now know that a good kit beer can easily perform better than a crafted all grain beer.
> 
> I think this is a fantastic result for brewing, all the best Dan and the kit brewers out there.
> 
> ...




I haven't waded into an AG v kit debate for literally years, but I just woke up in the mood today, so Congratulations to Dan.

There are plenty of posts on this forum to attest that you can make good and even very good beers with extracts. And equal numbers of gainsayers and shitstirrers. But a warning to anyone who thinks a good kit beer can be made by following the "recipe" of someone else who once made a good one. It's all down to good brewing techniques: pay more attention to good fermentation, pitching rates and so on, leave it on the yeast cake for plenty of time, use fresh extract, supplement with some malt or specialty malts, careful use of finishing hops and don't try and make anything too subtle. In fact you could almost say a brewer who makes a good beer out of a kit may have demonstrated better brewing techniques in a few areas than the brewer who made a comparable beer with AG. In fact I just did say it.

And I agree with Stagger, a fantastic result for brewing.


----------



## Steve (21/11/06)

For f*&cks sake, Stagger was only congratulating a fellow brewer that managed to score BOS...end of story.


----------



## AUHEAMIC (21/11/06)

I wonder at what point do some brewers loose sight of the friendly home brewing community and become beer snobs.

It is not important how it is made. It is not important what it is made from or who made it. 

You enjoy making and enjoy drinking it. Its that simple.

Let's just say well done Dan and move on.


----------



## warrenlw63 (21/11/06)

Beerpig said:


> Does this mean the AG brewers have to run around the room with their pants around their ankles?
> 
> Cheers



:lol: :lol: Absolutely... All running around worrying their peckers don't conform to BJCP guidelines. 

Warren -


----------



## MAH (21/11/06)

Who hoo! First catch of the day.



barls said:


> i personally dont have any plans to go all grain anytime in the future and quite get sick of being told i should at least one a week on this forum



Don't worry Barls, I was also like you , a second class citizen who hated being told that AG was the pinnacle of brewing. I swore till I was blue in the face that I could make good beer from extract. In time I too came to understand that AG is the only true way. If you open your heart to the brew gods, they'll show the chosen path to AG heaven. Come on join us, you know you want to.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## warrenlw63 (21/11/06)

MAH said:


> Go ahead and whack it into your beer, but just don't offer me a glass.
> 
> Let the war of words begin h34r: .
> 
> ...



S'pose it would be akin to casting pearl before the swine.  

Warren -


----------



## PostModern (21/11/06)

barls said:


> id like to point out that im one of those so call second class citizens as you put it and i think the world would be quite boring if we all were sheep and did as one what we all get told we should be doing. we are all different and by that we have different tastes. i personally dont have any plans to go all grain anytime in the future and quite get sick of being told i should at least one a week on this forum hen i ask for help with a recipe



Hang on. Are you sugesting that grain brewers are sheep because they don't make their beer by emptying gloop from the kit maker's can??? Whoa, back up, turn around.


----------



## Bobby (21/11/06)

a kit v ag argument just isnt the same without drewcarey82....


----------



## Steve (21/11/06)

Bobby said:


> a kit v ag argument just isnt the same without drewcarey82....




:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bazza (21/11/06)

I'd bet my left nut on the fact that AG'ers can still produce a really shite tasting and looking beer, same as anyone else. 

So prior to anyone climbing on their soapbox to rant about the merits of AG brewing uber alles, remember that everyone is different and brews for different reasons. 

End the argument and move on to something interesting FFS!


----------



## hooky (21/11/06)

Hi!
I've been brewing at home all of three months, i absolutley love buying the extract kits, getting my sugars, malts, hops and small amounts of grain etc etc. Starting my yeasts, mixing the ingredients, getting the temps right and brewing my own beer. I'm a kit brewer and it's my most recent passion and i see myself doing it for years to come. The enjoyment i get out of drinking my own beer that i made myself is second to none and i like my beer better then drinking an average commercial beer from the bottle shops at highly inflated prices. If that makes me a "second class citizen" in the eyes of one forum member then so be it. But there is no need to take anything away from a blokes achievment just because it isn't your chosen field, MAH. 

Just remember, we all start out somewhere.


----------



## Stagger (21/11/06)

"For f*&cks sake, Stagger was only congratulating a fellow brewer that managed to score BOS...end of story."


Thanks Steve






Guys relax and have a home brew, brewing is fun but not when this happens. Only time arguments happen is when others read more into posts than they should.

I think it is fantastic that a kit won, I am an all grain brewer and will stay that way. This was meant to be a positive post, some of the comments are not.

AGAIN congratulation to you Dan


Stagger


----------



## PostModern (21/11/06)

Stagger said:


> AGAIN congratulation to you Dan



And congratulations to Coopers/Muntons/ESB/whoever made the kits.


----------



## shotduck (21/11/06)

hooky said:


> ... I'm a kit brewer...


Be careful there, hooky. To some of our deific beer-gods here you aren't a brewer, merely a "fermenter"  . Join us mangy, lowlife "fermenters" and be happy in the knowledge that we don't need to run around justifying our existence by loading crap on those not worthy. I brew AG... I also brew kits. I have made some great versions of beers (and some utter crap) utilising either method. I even assisted in the formulation of several brands of brew kit when I was still working in the industry (I have a test formula for a new kit brewing in the fridge as we speak). I have seen kit-based beers win out in competition over all-grain beer countless times - much to the chagrin of our beloved "superiors". You will always hear the acolades of a champion all-grain beer being spun but, perhaps not so surprisingly, they tend to hush up rather quickly when a kit-based beer takes out BOS. So my thanks to the original poster for being willing to stand tall and risk taking a mash-paddle to the head for daring to point this out to us.

Beers,
TSD

*EDIT:* Spelling


----------



## Lindsay Dive (21/11/06)

Steve said:


> For f*&cks sake, Stagger was only congratulating a fellow brewer that managed to score BOS...end of story.



Well said.

Lindsay.


----------



## barls (21/11/06)

PostModern said:


> Stagger said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN congratulation to you Dan
> ...


that would be the same as congratulating the company that malted the grain you use wouldnt it.
and as for my earlier post i was just pointing out that we are all different and just because we all get told this is the way you should do it, most would choose their own path.

it would be like me telling you to get rid of what every you drove and replacing it with one of the hybrid ones, no.
im proud to say that i am a brewer that can and always will follow my own style, and if that mean admitting im a k&k/ extract brewer so be it


----------



## PostModern (21/11/06)

Easy there, barls. I brew kits as well as AG, as well as extract and partials. Depends on how much time I have, what my stocks are like, etc... I don't doubt that you enjoy brewing.

A brewer makes wort. Kits are concentrated wort. If someone entered an St Peters Fresh Wort into a comp and won, would he be the champion brewer or would Matt Donelan?

Well done MAH, you caught me too


----------



## AUHEAMIC (21/11/06)

PostModern said:


> Well done MAH, you caught me too


Wait till the tide comes in


----------



## MAH (21/11/06)

I was going to post something along the lines "yeast makes beer, brewers make wort, kit users rehydrate the work of brewers and then think they are doing the work of yeast". But I better stop before the fishing inspector comes because I've already caught my bag limit for the day. I'm especially proud of the mighty PoMo I caught, I'm sure it doesn't happen often.






Cheers
MAH


----------



## PostModern (21/11/06)

MAH said:


> I'm especially proud of the mighty PoMo I caught, I'm sure it doesn't happen often.



PoMos are known to thrash around on the deck for a while, and sometimes slip back over the side.


----------



## PostModern (21/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> MAH said:
> 
> 
> > I'm especially proud of the mighty PoMo I caught, I'm sure it doesn't happen often.
> ...



I was just going to say that.


----------



## Weizguy (21/11/06)

DJR said:


> Who cares, if you make good beer that's what matters.
> 
> Personally i get more consistent, better results with AG but whatever floats your boat and works.
> 
> BBB wasn't there in the case of BOS at the NSW champs - it was a 3% Berliner Weisse!


Stretching the argument, one might say that the Nats was extract-biased. The Berlinisch weisse was not allowed to compete, but my Kit/adjunct "Old Ale" competed and scored a Third in the Strong Ales.

However, the sour beer beat the Old Ale in a head-to-head for BOS at the NSW comp (first and second, the way I heard the tale). Some beers are hard, or even impossible (watch my language, or someone will prove me wrong) to brew without going the all-grain.

Having said that (OK, written, actually), both are good beers in their own right and I have had extract beers do well at the State level and qualify for the NATs in the past.

What does it all mean? Who cares...? I'm just exercising my bragging rights, I think.  

Seth


----------



## Murray (21/11/06)

barls said:


> PostModern said:
> 
> 
> > Stagger said:
> ...



Not really, because the kit companies have to thank the maltsters as well


----------



## bigfridge (21/11/06)

Murray said:


> barls said:
> 
> 
> > PostModern said:
> ...



But here we hit a snag ......

Shouldn't we really be thanking those resposible for the grain - but is this the farmer or the plant breeder ?

Has this argument got silly enough yet ?


----------



## Murray (21/11/06)

Mash v Kit threads never get silly enough


----------



## PostModern (21/11/06)

bigfridge said:


> Murray said:
> 
> 
> > barls said:
> ...



Not nearly. There is a divergence here. The mash brewer (and the unhopped extract brewer, more or less) makes his own work from base materials. The kit brewer dilutes a concentrated wort made by someone else. Of course we all have outside inputs into the finished product, and ingredient selection is no doubt of importance... but why will no-one take on my earlier question? St Peters Brewery or the guy that added water and pitched yeast?


----------



## wee stu (21/11/06)

The Shot Duck said:


> To some of our deific beer-gods here you aren't a brewer, merely a "fermenter"



Just between you and me SD, the deific ones tend to worship yeast as *THE Fermenter*

To these narrow minded few, the correct term for someone who has mastered the art of opening a tin, boiling a kettle, ripping open a foil sachet and sprinkling its contents, is a _*fermentation assistant*_.

With such sheep like pedants around, is it any wonder the world of Australian home brewing is in such a shambolic state  

awrabest

stu


----------



## The King of Spain (21/11/06)

I did my first extract brew recently and it tasted great at bottling. Talking to Ross (from Craftbrewer) Im convinced that I can do an AG using the Brew In A Bag method for about the same hassle so thats where I am at. With my first attempt I think I will do two brews at once, an AG and a good kit (say Thomas Cooper + Malt Tin + good yeast). I will do both in the fridge with temp control. My gut instinct is that fresh ingredients will taste better but I would like to prove this for myself. Seems this stuff cant be discussed rationally, sort of religious thing?? Either way I will find out for myself and post the results.


----------



## Whistlingjack (21/11/06)

I have to say that I'm a yeast farmer.

The wort I supply for its nourishment comes from the educated process of malt selection and mashing technique.

The by-product is made more palatable by the addition of hops and specific fermentation procedure.

In the end, I have some yeast ready for the next brew, and some by-product to enjoy while I'm waiting.


----------



## Adamt (21/11/06)

I still think the whole kit vs. AG banter can be analogised in a very simple manner.

What makes a better soup, heated tinned soup, or soup with fresh ingredients and stock? Debatable.

Who is the better soup-maker, he/she who cracks a tin, or he/she who prepares fresh ingredients? The tinned soup-maker isnt actually making the soup, so they shouldn't qualify.

This whole debate is about an extract beer (tinned soup) being the best beer (soup). Possible? Of course, some beers can be made very successfully with extracts, just like many tinned/powdered soups taste fine. 

If an extract brewer was awarded best overall brewer (over all grain brewers), a debate of these proportions would be appropriate.

-Adam


----------



## organo (22/11/06)

Guys.. 

dispute what you like, but no AGer would bother spending the money or time to find out what 3 cans work well together... 

good luck to the guy who brewed a good one with 3 cans, ('cos it's a pretty unusual thing) but that's 30 bucks minimum, (and how many experiments along the way.. at 30 bucks a go !!) .. you are better off buying whatever you reckon is the real thing... the best ready made beers on earth can be had for not much more money, and a lot less effort.. 

one of the things that attracted me to homebrew is the economic factor.. and I choose to build that into the equation.. sure. it costs some money and time to AG.. but very rarely will an AGer spend 30 big ones on a brew... 

Cheers, Organo


----------



## Barry (22/11/06)

Whatever I said last time.


----------



## Trent (22/11/06)

Hate to enter the debate, but I rarely spend LESS than 30 bucks on a brew. Lets say a pale ale, 5.5kg maris otter at $3.20 a kg (by the bag), thats $17.50, half a kilo of crystal, thats another $2. Say 40g of northern brewer to bitter, theres $2.50, 30g cascade each at 20 mins and 10 mins, thats another $4, 30g dry hop, $2. So far thats $28. Then, factor in the gas, about $7, and a 3L starter all up for my yeast ($1/L out of DME) thats $3. All told, I spent the better part of $40 on a average gravity brew. An 1110 Russian Imperial Stout costs me closer to $90, 15kg grain, 250-300g hops, etc. Quite sure I could drop that cost down if I really wanted to, but I prefer to try and put in the best ingredients I can and I am quite happy spending $1.50-$3 on a longneck of beer. I do wonder, however if the guy that won DID experiment alot to see which 3 cans go together, or if he bought 3 cans of the same stout or something. Regardless, congrats on your acheivement Dan, you should be very proud of yourself. I do think that the nationals need a separate BOS round, and I also agree with some of the comments that they could have just been high score giving judges, but to get the highest scoring beer in the comp is no mean feat, and it must be a really good beer.
All the best


----------



## mongo (22/11/06)

I don't want to get involved other than to say that I have noticed that all-grain brewers tend to be more intelligent and good looking than kit brewers. It's only personal observation, and there are exceptions to the rule of course, so please don't take any of what I say personally.


----------



## Stuster (22/11/06)

organo said:


> dispute what you like, but no AGer would bother spending the money or time to find out what 3 cans work well together...



I think the winner was an AG brewer (and kit brewer obviously). :unsure: 

Trent, you need to get in some of these bulk buys. :super: And $7 on gas.  But I totally agree with you on putting in the best ingredients. Spending that much time on it, saving a few dollars on raw materials is not really worth it IMO.

Mongo, you are certainly right in my case.


----------



## mongo (22/11/06)

Dan is certainly more physically attractive (in a platonic sense, of course) since going to AG. Well done Dan! Oh, and well done on the BoS as well.


----------



## warrenlw63 (22/11/06)

PostModern said:


> Not nearly. There is a divergence here. The mash brewer (and the unhopped extract brewer, more or less) makes his own work from base materials. The kit brewer dilutes a concentrated wort made by someone else. Of course we all have outside inputs into the finished product, and ingredient selection is no doubt of importance... but why will no-one take on my earlier question? St Peters Brewery or the guy that added water and pitched yeast?



So Postmodern am I to take it in regards to your passion for this subject that you've never extract brewed? If so you never entered your beers in any comps when you did do extract?

Would you have gladly handed your trophy back should you have aquired best of show? :unsure: 

We all make beer. We just do it differently.  

Warren -


----------



## Guest Lurker (22/11/06)

Barry said:


> Whatever I said last time.



Teehee. Ditto.


----------



## DJR (22/11/06)

Trent said:


> Hate to enter the debate, but I rarely spend LESS than 30 bucks on a brew.



Trent, you really need to get in on some bulk deals or something, paying $13 for 100g of hops is insane! The last bulk buy we did, direct from the US cost us about 1/3 or 1/4 of that!


----------



## Wreck (22/11/06)

Adamt said:


> I still think the whole kit vs. AG banter can be analogised in a very simple manner.
> 
> What makes a better soup, heated tinned soup, or soup with fresh ingredients and stock? Debatable.
> 
> ...



I think Adam has summed it up pretty well. We've all had frozen meals from the supermarket, and we've all had home cooked meals. 

*For arguments sake, lets say they both taste exactly the same. Which one are you more satisfied with after cooking it? * 

I switched to AG for two reasons:

1) The variability and control that you get by creating your own wort that you cannot get with a kit.
2) I found _making_ K+K boring after a while.

Now, some of my AGs have been disasters (the only 2 beers I ever threw out were AGs), but I've always enjoyed the process of making my AG beers much more. 

Whether or not my beers are better or worse than an equivalent K+K doesn't matter. Similarly, I've never tried the fresh wort kits, but I bet they make a great beer. The process in making the beer makes the final product more enjoyable.

Wreck.


----------



## MAH (22/11/06)

Trent said:


> Regardless, congrats on your acheivement Dan, you should be very proud of yourself.



Why? Because he can use a can opener? Because he can add water to malt extract? Lets not beat around the bush, this sort of thing is not brewing and should not be considered for competition.

OK some people might enjoy making kit beers, and they might even consider it a hobby, but that is completely different to then considering for the purpose of a brewing competition that the person actually made the beer. Who cares if they were able to ferment it properly, this was a brewing competition, not a sanitation and temperature management competition. 

I'll give some slack to extract brewers who use a base malt extract and make *ALL* hop and specialty malt additions according to their recipe.

Brewing beer is a complete process and it's not a level playing field when you judge someone's complete efforts against someone else who has come in at the end and simply added water.

I don't care if you can make a better beer than my AG efforts by using a kit. If we're in competition to each other, then either we both use kits or we both AG. 



PostModern said:


> If someone entered an St Peters Fresh Wort into a comp and won, would he be the champion brewer or would Matt Donelan?



And to answer your reasonable question, Matt Donelan!.

For the record, this time I'm not trolling, kit brewers are the drug cheats of homebrew competitions. Give them their own section of a comp, but don't insult the efforts of real brewers by comparing the two, even if the kit tastes better.

Seriously
MAH


----------



## Stuster (22/11/06)

I'm glad you have decided to be open about your opinion today, MAH.

I guess you'd agree that mashing is just a continuation of the malting process. As you say, brewing is a complete process. Personally, I refuse to compete against those who don't malt their own. :lol:


----------



## johnno (22/11/06)

Reads like a lot of sour grapes going around in this thread.


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> So Postmodern am I to take it in regards to your passion for this subject that you've never extract brewed? If so you never entered your beers in any comps when you did do extract?
> 
> Would you have gladly handed your trophy back should you have aquired best of show? :unsure:
> 
> ...



I've only started brewing AG this year. For the last 5 or so years I've been brewing partial mash beers with high gravity boils, my own recipes, malt extract in boil or the fermenter. I put on the odd kit brew to keep supply up. I have never entered any beer in any comp. I brew for myself and my friends' pleasure. I don't have a competitive bone in my body and get enough detailed feedback from other brewers I know to not particularly want brew judges' feedback.

If I had won best of show with one of my partial mash beers, I would have proudly kept it. If I had won with a kit, something must have gone drastically wrong because I would not have entered a kit into a competition.


----------



## warrenlw63 (22/11/06)

I reckon this thread will go around in circles. The original post being Stagger giving kudos to a fellow brewer getting a BOS at the nationals. Stagger was duly taken aback when the brewer in question claimed his winning entry was formulated from 3 stout kits. :blink: 

For the sake of everybody be they kit, extract, partial or AG brewers I think the brewer in question (Dan) would do very well to publish his recipe on this thread. Maybe then we can all get some sleep. :lol: 

Other than that I just get sick of the AG is better than kit, extract argument. I've been AG brewing for nearly 10 years now and still think my beers are variable (probably at their worst average). OTOH I've tasted plenty of kit, extract, partial beers that rival, if not plain romp on a poorly made AG beer. 

The part that I get "SICK" of hearing is the way AG brewing is made out to be esoteric rocket science and if you do it you must instantly be better than your extract or kit bretheren.

Probably said it at least 50 times before. A trained oyster with learning difficulties could make AG beer. Just depends on where you take it from there and how badly you want to improve it..  

Going back into my shell to guard my pearl. h34r: 

Warren -


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> Other than that I just get sick of the AG is better than kit, extract argument. I've been AG brewing for nearly 10 years now and still think my beers are variable (probably at their worst average). OTOH I've tasted plenty of kit, extract, partial beers that rival, if not plain romp on a poorly made AG beer.
> 
> The part that I get "SICK" of hearing is the way AG brewing is made out to be esoteric rocket science and if you do it you must instantly be better than your extract or kit bretheren.



Not at all. You have it wrong. The comps are about judging brewers' skills. AG brewers do not think they are better people than kit "brewers", nor even that they make better beer.

I'll make an analogy and compare it to athletics (sure, why not?). Stick with me here, I'm a frustrated novelist. 

The 100 metre sprint is an event whereby athletes (AG brewers) compete to see who can cover the distance (making beer) quickest by their own power (mashing, boiling, fermenting, brewing skills). Rollerskates (beer kits) are a means of using people's power (fermenting skills) to cover a given distance (make beer) more quickly. Why can't rollerskaters (kit brewers) enter the 100 metre sprint at the Olympic Games (National Home Brew Comp)? They're using their skill (with a can opener) to achieve the same goal (making beer) as their sprinting (mashing) bretheren, and some of it can do it quicker than "pure esoteric" sprinters. Why should they be excluded because their footwear (ingredients) is a little different? Put the skaters (kit brewers) on one track (category) and the sprinters (mashing brewers) on another.


----------



## warrenlw63 (22/11/06)

PostModern said:


> Not at all. You have it wrong. The comps are about judging brewers' skills.



Can't drink the brewers skills PoMo.  Judges are judges and they judged the beer they deemed to be the best and I think that people should just cop it sweet. It still puts them in a position where they should mark a beer down purely because it come from a can? I don't think so.

The whole system is flawed I don't disagree there. OTOH you can't discriminate purely on the basis of the beer's origin. Note: A beer entered from a fresh wort kit would be a totally differing thing altogether and pushes the boundaries of fairness in all reality.

Warren -


----------



## Steve (22/11/06)

i think this and other recent threads knocking comps, judges, how people brew is a very, very sad advert for people considering entering a competition.....


----------



## wee stu (22/11/06)

I'm not a real brewer either h34r: 

I don't have a march pump  

awrabest, 

stu the challenged


----------



## MAH (22/11/06)

What PoMo said. Is kit beer better than AG or vice versa is not the issue for me. For me the issue is whether or not it's fair to judge the two side by side. 



Stuster said:


> I guess you'd agree that mashing is just a continuation of the malting process. As you say, brewing is a complete process. Personally, I refuse to compete against those who don't malt their own. :lol:



If trying to discredit what I've said, then this is a crap argument, as it only reinforces my point. If you want to test an indivisuals malting and brewing skills, then certainly require entrants to do both. However if you just want to test brewing skills, then an entrant should be required to brew and not just rehydrate tinned gloop.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> Note: A beer entered from a fresh wort kit would be a totally differing thing altogether and pushes the boundaries of fairness in all reality.



Why so? Coopers kits are, essentially, just more concentrated versions of the same thing aren't they? Concentrated wort from a brewer's kettle? Sure, they're specced differently with regard to colour and IBUs because it is expected that they'll have more fermentables added, but essentially... 

Whatever, I don't enter the comps anyway, so my care factor is small, but it seems to be there is a fundamental difference between kits and brewed beer and judging them against each other is unfair, im(extremely)ho. I have nothing more to say on the matter.


----------



## warrenlw63 (22/11/06)

PostModern said:


> I don't enter the comps anyway, so my care factor is small,



So it was all for arguments sake? Bit like slagging a system of government and not voting.






Warren -


----------



## Stuster (22/11/06)

I was just trying to lighten the thread up a bit (god knows it needs it). Judging the kit section at a comp certainly reinforced for me that the brewer has an important role to play in producing a good beer. To quote you



> I have no doubt that beer made with fresh grain will taste better than beer made with mlat that has been dried or concentrated (all other things being equall).



If you believe yourself, then you are saying that the kit brewer is a better fermentation assistant than the AG brewer if they can produce a better beer. Are you saying that brewing is simply the mashing and boiling stage and that skill at the fermentation stage is irrelevant? :unsure: Perhaps we could have a wort tasting competition.  

I'm an AG brewer only now but started with kits. Are there any here who didn't? I found it enjoyable, and it got me hooked. Anyway, I think johnno is spot on. Let's talk about something constructive, please.


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> So it was all for arguments sake? Bit like slagging a system of government and not voting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps the system is part of the reason I choose not to participate? Perhaps I will enter once I nail a style in my lovely new full wort capable kettle? Who's to tell?


----------



## DJR (22/11/06)

Get a plan for a Bridge. Build. Go Over.


----------



## hooky (22/11/06)

or a pre-assembled bridge for us "second class citizens"


----------



## MAH (22/11/06)

OK inspired by PoMo's sporting analogy, I've come up with the answer using diving as the basis for judging. 

Each beer gets a raw score. It's judged purely on how it tastes. The score is then multiplied by a level of difficulty factor (LDF). Kit LDF = 1.00, Kits & Bits LDF = 1.1........AG LDF = 1.5. The system aknowledges the quality of the final product but also gives due credit for the amount of individual input making it more fair.

Problem solved!

Cheers
MAH


----------



## warrenlw63 (22/11/06)

Mmmmm... Forward, reverse pike beer. :lol: 

Warren -


----------



## DJR (22/11/06)

Why would that solve anything?

Judging is on the result, not the inputs. Who cares if somebody became a "fermentation assistant" and beat some AG beer. Good on em for having the balls to. So what if that makes them a "lesser brewer", it's just that they might be at a different stage of the brewing learning process.

Using your analogy, somebody who grew and malted their own grain, imported or cultured up some super-rare yeast, offered sacrifices to the brewing gods, individually cracked every grain by hand, home-grew the hops and got full HPLC assays done, fermented every step with 0.1C accuracy fermentation control, etc etc. should have a huge modifier added because of the difficulty?

Not likely. Knowing some individuals, they would enter a kit beer and put "AG" on the form to get the extra points, and everyone else would cry foul.

Maybe you should make wine, it's a good way to use up sour grapes.


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

DJR said:


> Get a plan for a Bridge. Build. Go Over.



This is part of the User Requirements phase. 



MAH said:


> OK inspired by PoMo's sporting analogy, I've come up with the answer using diving as the basis for judging.
> 
> Each beer gets a raw score. It's judged purely on how it tastes. The score is then multiplied by a level of difficulty factor (LDF). Kit LDF = 1.00, Kits & Bits LDF = 1.1........AG LDF = 1.5. The system aknowledges the quality of the final product but also gives due credit for the amount of individual input making it more fair.
> 
> ...



But who is going to define the level of difficulty for: unmalted adjuct conversion, culturing Brett. for lambic fermentation, manual or electric can opener, etc?


----------



## warrenlw63 (22/11/06)

PostModern said:


> But who is going to define the level of difficulty for: unmalted adjuct conversion, culturing Brett. for lambic fermentation, manual or electric can opener, etc?



:lol: Gawd help us if they ever decide to put a ringpull on a kit. That could well blow the countback on two kits that tie for 1st.  

Warren -


----------



## shotduck (22/11/06)

hooky said:


> or a pre-assembled bridge for us "second class citizens"





K&K Bridge Builder ? ?


----------



## MAH (22/11/06)

PostModern said:


> But who is going to define the level of difficulty for: unmalted adjuct conversion, culturing Brett. for lambic fermentation, manual or electric can opener, etc?



BJCP :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## shotduck (22/11/06)

MAH said:


> PostModern said:
> 
> 
> > But who is going to define the level of difficulty for: unmalted adjuct conversion, culturing Brett. for lambic fermentation, manual or electric can opener, etc?
> ...



Wow... once you open MAH's can, it just keeps on coming


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

I had a bit of a think over a hot bowl of Satay seafood noodle soup... 

How about there be two streams at a HB comp: 1. Mashing and 2. Kit. Have all the same categories etc in those two streams. Then at the end of the first round, a best of stream prize for each of the mashers and the kitters. Then the best of show is a head-to-head between the best kit and the masher. 

This would open up a the chance for the kit manufacturers to have their own prizes and points system over the year ala Forumula One. 

(In Murray Walker's voice) "In the Kit Constructors Championship, Coopers leads Black Rock by 15 points. The results of the Bathurst Show competition will be very interesting for Black Rock, given the shelfspace they have in Bathurst brew shops and I'm sure Muntons will be seeking to make up some valuable ground. In the Maltsters Competition, it's neck and neck between Joe White's and Barret Burston. Powel's leads in the independant stakes."

C'Mon, it'd be great for the punters.


----------



## /// (22/11/06)

A man much better than I once said;

" In every K+K brewer there is an AG Brewer just screaming to get out"

Listen to the voices, whether they are little or large in your head it does not matter... c'mon you all know what I am talking about... its true...

Scotty


----------



## Weizguy (22/11/06)

/// said:


> A man much better than I once said;
> 
> " In every K+K brewer there is an AG Brewer just screaming to get out"
> 
> ...


but, Scotty...my doctor said that I shouldn't listen to the voices.

There they go again..."acidify, acidify, acidify".

Now you've done it. I'll need to make a sour Summer ale again.

Grrrr.
Seth


----------



## Steve (22/11/06)

at the end of the day.....points is points.....Dan scored BOS.....I congratulate him as any home brewer would.

Cheers
Steve

POMO I loved your race commentary - very clever.


----------



## dr K (22/11/06)

Dan could not brew a beer to save himself and neither can his mate Stagger, sure they say they do well in comps, but how do you really know..and Weizguy..that Weizen of yours was just sour piss.
The only way to brew beer is not to brew it but to buy it...thats what pubs are for..go Tooheys New !

Just adding to generally crap tone of some of this thread.

Dan's beer had to qualify to get into the nationals by getting a 1 , 2 or 3 in ACT. He was up against some big competition in big beers and got through. I actually judged his beer in the ACT comp. 
I also judged in BOS at NSW and the Weizen was trully excellent as well.

Dans beer was the highest scoring beer on the day...I think that we should be congradulating him not having some sour hoary old argument about kits and AG.

Kurtz
BJCP Certified


----------



## Trent (22/11/06)

Not adding to the argument, just to clarify as I may have stuffed up my maths somewhere (and couldnt be arsed wading back to find where it was and check!). My hops cost me either $6 or $8 per 100g. I could probably get em cheaper, but I am quite happy with my current system, saves me ending up with several hundred grams of the same hop. And I get 3 brews and a bbq from a $22 gas bottle!
All the best,
Trent


----------



## shotduck (22/11/06)

Trent said:


> And I get 3 brews and a bbq from a $22 gas bottle!


$22! ! ! Ye Gods, Swap&Go have a lot to answer for... I can get a 9kg cylinder filled for $9.50 down the road, and the only other thing it costs me is the five minutes it takes to fill.

Cheers,
TSD


----------



## Linz (22/11/06)

Dang TSD, I'm coming over to your place to fill my bottle....and I get about 5-6 brews with my 9kg bottle..


Have I missed the op to don the asbestos undies again?????


----------



## TasChris (22/11/06)

I enter this thread with some trepidation as what I have to say may get me kicked out of the Real Brewers Club.
I qualify for the Real Brewers Club on a couple of points, 
I brew only AG beer, 
I own a NASA burner, 
I use Promash, 
I have a SS false bottom, 
I chill 
Dont brew in a bag 
I don't use road side gravel as a filter for my mash tun and 
I have a refractometer. 

However I fall short in a few areas: 
I dont have a March pump
I dont have a hopback
I dont keg
I dont work in IT

Any who my confession is that today I feel that I should demote my self down to an Assistant Brewer as I stuffed up my 7th AG brew. Ended up with 30 litres at OG 1.046 instead of 26 litres of OG 1.061. However I am still keen to enter this beer as an IPA as it was meant to be in the next Beer Comp.

The next comp is in Risdon Penitentiary. None of the Judges are BJCP however one of them has GBH, B in and E and DUI.

Being an AG brewer I cant see myself being beaten however I have heard that Killer Dan McGrady has a wicked brew made from potato peelings, anti freeze and black shoe polish. 
Bet he wins as he has entered in the high gravity section. 
Don't reckon he is a proper brewer tho

Chris


----------



## Alien boy (22/11/06)

*CONGRATULATIONS DAN*

Oh sorry....did I go off Topic :blink: 

I'm surprised some of you fellas can see the monitor with your heads so far up your own ar$e.


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

Pardon my ignorance. Is Dan a member here? Is it Dan` the CO2 guy, dantheman with one post asking about brewing TED from a kit or does he go by another name?

Also, apologies for not congratulating the best in show winner, Dan. And his kit maker


----------



## dr K (22/11/06)

Dan is (suprise) a member of Canberra Brewers and a bouncer at a local pub as well as a Trivia nigorganiser.
As he spends so much time bashing peoples skulls together he has a passing interest in Phrenology.
He also takes trips (man) overseas on a regular basis to drink beer and deliver papers (for local newsagents).
He is not only a brilliant man but a damn fine brewer, he and I have the pleasure of working with each other on public mash demos and radio shows. I understand that his RIS was his last extract based beer before seeing the light.

K


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

dr K said:


> Dan is (suprise) a member of Canberra Brewers and a bouncer at a local pub as well as a Trivia nigorganiser.
> As he spends so much time bashing peoples skulls together he has a passing interest in Phrenology.
> He also takes trips (man) overseas on a regular basis to drink beer and deliver papers (for local newsagents).
> He is not only a brilliant man but a damn fine brewer, he and I have the pleasure of working with each other on public mash demos and radio shows. I understand that his RIS was his last extract based beer before seeing the light.
> ...



I just wonder if he's reading all these congratulations? We saw in the first post of the thread that he's listened to Scotty's little voices.


----------



## /// (22/11/06)

Can i continue with the silliness and make some reference to life being a parallel to Star Wars when we boil the K+K / AG arguement right down.

Darth Vader: "SCCHHKKKKDDDDD, LUKE, FEEEEEELLLLLL THE FORCE LUKE, IT IS YOUR DESTINY"

Luke Skywalker: "I will never give into the Dark Side Father. Do HB shop owners who sell grain and those hop things have big knockers like the checkout chick at Woolies are on saturday when i head down and get me kit and kilo ....."

Darth Vader: "SCCHHKKKKDDDDD, LUKE, FEEL THE WARM GRAINS, SMELL THE BOIL, FEEL THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE OF THE MASH LUKE, COME TO THE DARK SIDE LUKE .... COMMMMEEEE ... ITS EVERY KIT BREWERS DESTINY ..... FEEL THE FORCE .... SCCHHKKKKDDDDD ... THE FORCE ...."


----------



## PostModern (22/11/06)

/// said:


> Can i continue with the silliness and make some reference to life being a parallel to Star Wars when we boil the K+K / AG arguement right down.
> 
> Darth Vader: "SCCHHKKKKDDDDD, LUKE, FEEEEEELLLLLL THE FORCE LUKE, IT IS YOUR DESTINY"
> 
> ...




Straight to the Pool Room.

(Ooops, wrong forum).


----------



## Hargie (22/11/06)

Can i continue with the silliness and make some reference to life being a parallel to Star Wars when we boil the K+K / AG arguement right down.

Darth Vader: "SCCHHKKKKDDDDD, LUKE, FEEEEEELLLLLL THE FORCE LUKE, IT IS YOUR DESTINY"

Luke Skywalker: "I will never give into the Dark Side Father. Do HB shop owners who sell grain and those hop things have big knockers like the checkout chick at Woolies are on saturday when i head down and get me kit and kilo ....."

Darth Vader: "SCCHHKKKKDDDDD, LUKE, FEEL THE WARM GRAINS, SMELL THE BOIL, FEEL THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE OF THE MASH LUKE, COME TO THE DARK SIDE LUKE .... COMMMMEEEE ... ITS EVERY KIT BREWERS DESTINY ..... FEEL THE FORCE .... SCCHHKKKKDDDDD ... THE FORCE ...."
[/quote]



/// said:


> .....hhhhmmmmm......Kurtz...too much....hanging with....you have been,....yes.....???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Whistlingjack (22/11/06)

Well done Dan. You made some beer that other people liked.

I make beer for myself and to the style I like.

I hope you enjoyed your beer, because I love mine.


----------



## browndog (23/11/06)

I've read all the posts in this thread with much interest and first off I'll say I'm an ex-kit AG brewer. I am not a member of any club and have never entered a comp. I brew beer to drink. I can see both sides of the arguement here and I have to say that in my opinion the competitions are flawed. There should be seperate streams for K&K and AG. I have an analogy to add, how about a cake competition. Nana, has been making her fruitcake from scratch for the last 50yrs and enters it in her local fair while little jess up the road buys a betty crocker fruitcake mix from woolies, adds the egg and fruit and enters in the same comp. It doesn't happen because they don't allow it , have a look here at the rules of this comp. Link. Check out the rules at the bottom of the page. 
The end result is the same yes, but I believe the way you go about it is the deciding factor.

cheers

Browndog


----------



## bindi (23/11/06)

browndog I can't get the above link to work  .


----------



## Maxt (23/11/06)

Well done Dan. But as previously mentioned, what would Stagger knwo about brewing? :huh: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Stagger (23/11/06)

Hay Hargi no more hair jokes you cheeky bugger


----------



## Paleman (23/11/06)

mongo said:


> Dan is certainly more physically attractive (in a platonic sense, of course) since going to AG. Well done Dan! Oh, and well done on the BoS as well.



What about us Partial Mashers......are we sort of half handsome !!?  h34r:


----------



## PostModern (23/11/06)

Paleman said:


> mongo said:
> 
> 
> > Dan is certainly more physically attractive (in a platonic sense, of course) since going to AG. Well done Dan! Oh, and well done on the BoS as well.
> ...



Well, I've certainly enjoyed a little more attention from the ladies since I got a larger tun.


----------



## MAH (23/11/06)

Hypothetical questions

1) Imagine someone buys a fresh wort kit from Grumpys. They decide not to dilute it at all, which means it's 17 litres at 1.060 and 53 IBU, so just fits within the style guidelines for an APA. So they just sprinkle their little sachet of yeast on top of the wort, close the fermenter and wait 7 days. They then bottled the brew. After it had carbonated and conditioned, they decided to send it to a comp. Should they be allowed to enter? Have they actually home brewed the beer? Is it fair to let them into the competition?

2) Imagine I produce a wort for a friend. All they have to do is sprinkle the yeast on top, close the fermenter and wait 7 days. They bottle it and condition it, then send some to a competition. Should they be allowed to enter? Have they actually home brewed the beer? Is it fair to let them into the competition? Is there any difference between this and the guy who bought a fresh wort kit?

3) Somebody buys a 3kg kit. They open the can, pour the malt into a fermenter, dilute with water, sprinkle some yeast on top, wait 7 days etc. Should they be allowed to enter? Have they actually home brewed the beer? Is it fair to let them into the competition? Is there any difference between this and the guy who bought a fresh wort kit?

4) Sombody goes to a brew on premisses, sprinkles the yeast on top of the prepared wort, closes the fermenter, leaves, comes back 7 days later and bottles. Then sends some to a comp. Should they be allowed to enter? Have they actually home brewed the beer? Is it fair to let them into the competition? What is the difference between this and the other guys?

You can go on and on with examples such as these progressing including doing the same for extract and Ag brewing. The exercise is to get people to critically review what actually defines the process of home brewing and hence the legitimacy of entering a HB comp. For me all of the above examples are not home brewing. I also think that a 3 can screamer, which the BoS has been reported to be. Is not HBing.

Comps need to clarify this point, there needs to be a well defined minimum criteria, otherwise they are open to such criticism.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Steve (23/11/06)

mate you obviously have a problem with the way comps are run. Why dont you start your own thread and address your problems to the relevant people associated with organising comps. This thread was a congratulatory post from one home brewer to another. You purposely went fishing for bites by starting the kit vs ag argument.....get over it, build a bridge or start yourself a new thread.
Steve


----------



## warrenlw63 (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> Hypothetical questions
> 
> So they just sprinkle their little sachet of yeast on top of the wort
> All they have to do is sprinkle the yeast on top,
> ...



Real brewers hydrate or make starters.  

Warren -


----------



## PostModern (23/11/06)

Steve said:


> mate you obviously have a problem with the way comps are run. Why dont you start your own thread and address your problems to the relevant people associated with organising comps. This thread was a congratulatory post from one home brewer to another. You purposely went fishing for bites by starting the kit vs ag argument.....get over it, build a bridge or start yourself a new thread.
> Steve



Steve,

With all due respect, the title of the thread is "Kit Beer Bos At The Nationals". This is the topic. What was posted in the first post, was "Dan to my surprise told me that his beer (RIS) that won BEER OF SHOW at the nationals was made from 3 kits". The debate about kits entering comps is not a divergence from the topic or the content of the first post.

Yes, Dan made a show winning beer with kits. Well done to him, and well done to the kit makers. Backslapping has been done, kudos awarded, etc. Lets get on with the discussion of the topic: A kit beer won BoS.

Rob.


----------



## Stuster (23/11/06)

Can you offer a minimum criteria that could be used by competitions, MAH?


----------



## Steve (23/11/06)

no worries Pomo....will pull me ead in.


----------



## AUHEAMIC (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> Comps need to clarify this point, there needs to be a well defined minimum criteria, otherwise they are open to such criticism.
> 
> Cheers
> MAH


If your serious MAH I for one agree with you totally.

If not. Happy fishing


----------



## PostModern (23/11/06)

I agree. I don't think kit beers, or fresh worts made in professional breweries then fermented at home should be put up against home mashed, or even home boiled extract beers (should extract and "all grain" beers be in separate streams as well?). What percentage of sugar or extract should be allowed to be in the recipe of an "all grain" beer?

Excluding kit brewers from comps would not be good for the craft as kit brewers are the grass roots of what we do. Even Dan, BoS winner is hanging up his tin opener and going into mash beer making. This is why I think there should be two streams in the comps. We all "make beer" at home, but the methods and ingredients are so far apart, that we can't pretend to be doing the same thing.


----------



## Weizguy (23/11/06)

Stuster said:


> Can you offer a minimum criteria that could be used by competitions, MAH?


...and can we make it enforcable?

Should we do a Lie Detector test with the entry form, and are they reliable, too? (I think not).

We may just have to be satisfied with the entrant's honesty as to their opinion as to whether they "made" their beer.

Much (really much) Kudos to Dan re the BoS (as I prob didn't say so b4) :beer: 

... and if it was an inferior beer, wouldn't it have been weeded out at State qualifying level?

Maybe we're all jealous that it wasn't us that entered that beer? N'est pas?
Coz if it was 3 kits, we all could have made it? ...or could we?

Guess what I'm making for the next State comp? :lol: 

Seth out


----------



## MAH (23/11/06)

Peels said:


> If your serious MAH I for one agree with you totally.
> 
> If not. Happy fishing



No longer fishing. The AG vs Kits was a piss-take on Stagger's original statement that he "was a little taken back but now know that a good kit beer can easily perform better than a crafted all grain beer". But the thread has legitimately evolved into a discussion on the merits of different approaches to brewing and which should be allowed to enter a HB competition. 



Stuster said:


> Can you offer a minimum criteria that could be used by competitions, MAH?



My own opinion is that writing an inclusive definition of what are acceptable methods of HBing for entering a comp is difficult, so it's better to start with an exclusionary definition of what is not acceptable, and hence anything else is acceptable. I'm happy to suggest some starting points and then for the discussion to build on the ideas.

To kick it off I would exclude any BoP beer, any beer that uses pre-hopped concentrate or freash wort kit. 

Input and discussion from others most welcome.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## PostModern (23/11/06)

Les the Weizguy said:


> ... and if it was an inferior beer, wouldn't it have been weeded out at State qualifying level?



I don't think that anyone is questioning if the beer was good enough to win, but none of the pro-kits-in-comp guys are saying that Fresh Worts can and should be encouraged to enter brewing comps.


----------



## bigfridge (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> Comps need to clarify this point, there needs to be a well defined minimum criteria, otherwise they are open to such criticism.
> 
> Cheers
> MAH



MAH,

I fully agree. This is why NSW and the AABA published the rule that anyone can enter provided they added the yeast - they have brewed (ie fermented) it.

It may not be ideal but there is no other real alternative as there is plenty of things that the brewer can do wrong in each of your examples plus you can't police it anyway.

David


----------



## MAH (23/11/06)

bigfridge said:


> I fully agree. This is why NSW and the AABA published the rule that anyone can enter provided they added the yeast - they have brewed (ie fermented) it.
> 
> It may not be ideal but there is no other real alternative as there is plenty of things that the brewer can do wrong in each of your examples plus you can't police it anyway.
> 
> David



Hi David

I understand that a lot of the reluctance is that it's impossible to police such a rule, however I still think there is a need for a criteria. It doesn't make sense to try and stop cheating by saying we can't stop you so you're free to enter.

Just my opinion, but I think the definition that they added the yeast is too open. This would allow a BoP beer being entered. For such a beer they don't even have to worry about sanitation or temp control as this is done by the staff at the BoP site. 

There has to be more to brewing than just adding yeast, or even sanitation and temp control. 

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Stuster (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> To kick it off I would exclude any BoP beer, any beer that uses pre-hopped concentrate or freash wort kit.



Damn. I've started using cheap lager kits from the supermarket to grow my starters. No more comps for me.


----------



## Gulpa (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> To kick it off I would exclude any BoP beer, any beer that uses pre-hopped concentrate or freash wort kit.



All you are doing is setting up comps to be elitist. Im sure most comp organisers dont want that, they want as many entries as possible.

I think it is wrong to start with a list of requirements. The competition has to define what it's purpose is and base any criteria on that. 

If you want a requirement, I think the obvious is "Did you create the recipe?", whether it is a kit or whatever. But then again, I dont see a problem with a comp that defines a recipe and everyone brews the same one. It just comes back to the comps purpose.

Cheers,
Andrew.


----------



## bigfridge (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> Just my opinion, but I think the definition that they added the yeast is too open. This would allow a BoP beer being entered. For such a beer they don't even have to worry about sanitation or temp control as this is done by the staff at the BoP site.



True, so very true.

But do you really think that a BOP recipe is going to take out many prizes ? In my experience they are all about convenience and quick turnaround, whereas prize winners are all about selection of methods and materials.

Dave


----------



## MAH (23/11/06)

Gulpa said:


> The competition has to define what it's purpose is and base any criteria on that............It just comes back to the comps purpose.



If the purpose is to judge the best home brewed, then it has to also define what IS a home brewed beer, hence the need for saying what is and what is not a home brewed beer.



Gulpa said:


> All you are doing is setting up comps to be elitist.



I'm sure some would see excluding kits etc as being elitist, but why would a serious comp go to the effort of clealry defining such things as styles, against which a home brewed beer is judged, but then have a loose open-ended definition of what a home brewed beer is?

The Mash Paddle is an extreme example of a comp that has tackled the problem of meaningfully defining what is an acceptable method of brewing. It gives a fairly level playing field, requiring all brewers to display a similar range of skills. Anyone who wins this comp can walk away with pride and the knowledge that their beer beat not only all other beers in the comp, but it was a reflection on their level and range of skills. 

Using a sporting analogy again, is it fair to allow one person to use an air pitsol to shoot at a target 10 metres away and then allow another to use a shotgun. You might be measuring the number of times each person hits a bulls-eye, but clearly the person with the shotgun isn't relying upon the same level of shooting skill as the air pistol shooter. 

Cheers
MAH


----------



## MAH (23/11/06)

bigfridge said:


> do you really think that a BOP recipe is going to take out many prizes ? In my experience they are all about convenience and quick turnaround, whereas prize winners are all about selection of methods and materials.



Hi David

A few days ago I could have asked "Do you really think that a 3 tin kit beer is going to win BoS at the Nationals?" 

Cheers
MAH


----------



## AUHEAMIC (23/11/06)

Its good to see this discussion getting back to original topic.

I have only been part of the brewing community for a little over a year but the way I understand it k&k beers generally dont have a hope in hell of winning brewing comps. I would also think this would put a lot of people making beer from kits off entering comps.

If there was a k&k class in a comp it might actually attract more grass roots beer makers.


----------



## roach (23/11/06)

just to add fuel to the fire. Could you get some wort from a local microbrewery and add your own yeast and enter a comp?


----------



## tangent (23/11/06)

Wow, you guys are pretty fiesty about competitions and positive affirmations.
You're all great! 
Does that feel better? 

I feel a bit out of place here, I'm just into homebrewing for drinking beer.
The fact that the all-grain ones taste better to me may just be personal taste, but I'm into pale beers.


----------



## PostModern (23/11/06)

roach said:


> just to add fuel to the fire. Could you get some wort from a local microbrewery and add your own yeast and enter a comp?



By the current standard, yes. Essentially, that's what "fresh wort" kits are.

So how does that differentiate between commercial and homebrewed beer? You pitched the yeast. 

Dave, by what you've said, you don't even have to have pitched the yeast ~at home~? How is a BoP beer a "homebrew"?


----------



## Weizguy (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> bigfridge said:
> 
> 
> > do you really think that a BOP recipe is going to take out many prizes ? In my experience they are all about convenience and quick turnaround, whereas prize winners are all about selection of methods and materials.
> ...


Is that not, then, an indication of brewing prowess?
...to be able to imagine that 3 tins, selection of an appropriate yeast (or even the included yeast), along with some sanitation, fermentation assistance and good bottling technique might make a satisfying beer, of an existing style (or at least later matched to a style within the style guidelines).
Is this not selection of methods and materials?

Anyway, who's to say that a Berliner-style weisse, had it been allowed to compete in the AABC, may not have knocked out the 3-tin wonder, and we would not have this thread, but another one about whether such an obscure style be allowed to compete against "real" beer styles?
That's academic now, isn't it? The AABC pre-emptively denied it's eligibility to ensure that the "weird beer" was not allowed to compete!  

Seth (with tongue semi in cheek) out


----------



## MAH (23/11/06)

Les the Weizguy said:


> MAH said:
> 
> 
> > bigfridge said:
> ...



Hi Seth

Personally I wouldn't say it is an indication of brewing prowess as I think brewing is more than sanitation, fermentation and packaging. All essential components, but not the essence of brewing.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## barls (23/11/06)

so by saying he did not mash its not brewing then.
what if he had a boil in there and the kits are just a base to which he modified, then its extract brewing


----------



## AUHEAMIC (23/11/06)

Could someone clarify if they are called Brewing competitions or Beer making competitions


----------



## bigfridge (23/11/06)

PostModern said:


> Dave, by what you've said, you don't even have to have pitched the yeast ~at home~? How is a BoP beer a "homebrew"?



It is probably more correct to call it an amateur brew (as in AABC). To be honest I don't think that the BOP's make up a significant part of competition entries. We all tend to brew for the satisfaction of brewing, BOPS cater to the convenience market.

But if you say that it must be fermented 'at home' - does this rule out brewing at a mates place ?


Dave


----------



## PostModern (23/11/06)

In "a home"?

EDIT: actually, I think MAH's idea here of exclusion being more useful than definition. You could stipulate that the beer must not be fermented at commercial beer making premises.


----------



## bigfridge (23/11/06)

PostModern said:


> In "a home"?



A "brewing home" - could be a new market for the Health Care industry


----------



## bconnery (23/11/06)

Without weighing into the rest of the debate I would say that brew on premises beers wouldn't have much chance of winning. This is based on my limited experience. The few friends that I've known who've done them have had beers made that, while tasty, were not very close to style. One mate chose an Irish red ale recipe and ended up with a beer of a colour more akin to a paler pale ale. It did have a lovely hop level though.

Perhaps their more popular recipes, which appear to be those of beers of the corona ilk might be closer to style, but hardly flavoursome enough I would think. 

As I said, based on limited experience...


----------



## Kai (23/11/06)

tangent said:


> I feel a bit out of place here, I'm just into homebrewing for drinking beer.




I'm in it for the drinking, but I enjoy throwing a beer or two at a competition too.


----------



## Hopsta (23/11/06)

Heres what i reckon we should do! And im pretty sure this is already how a lot of comps work.

Call it a "Homebrewing Competition" cause thats what it is, beer brewed at home!

- Have a catagory of the comp for AG brewed beer only.

- A catagory for extract and partial mashers.

- And another catagory for Can Kit and Fresh wort kits.

Brewers are an honest lot so people should enter into the correct catagory.

And BEST OF SHOW is exactly that, the best out of all three catagories, if its a kit beer who cares! He knows he didnt make it himself and so does everyone else! 

And if your worried about people lying and entering the wrong catorgory, get over it have a beer and move on.

I reckon thats all pretty simple. :beer:


----------



## Mr Bond (23/11/06)

Kai said:


> tangent said:
> 
> 
> > I feel a bit out of place here, I'm just into homebrewing for drinking beer.
> ...



Me too!
Comps are more for getting feedback from peers on how you are travelling.

I've had 1st,2nd and 3rd's over the years in SA comps and have brewed many beers in between.Some better and some crap ones as well that nobody but me has been exposed to.Getting a place or qualifying for nationals is personally gratifying ,but ultimately means nothing in the real world.We are home brewers with a passion for making beer who some times feel the need to get feed back from others in a comp based system.
Even if I brewed a beer that was number 1 state wise and nationaly I wouldn't let my ego make me think i was a master brewer or deserved any special attention.It s just beer for F#*ks sake.
If you think comps are flawed ,then don't enter em!
If you want to put your ego aside and have your beer blind tasted and commented upon by others then do it,regardless of your method.

dave ( the very average brewer)


----------



## therook (23/11/06)

Spot on Hopsta

If you have any concerns...simple dont enter...its your choice


----------



## Hargie (23/11/06)

Stagger said:


> Hay Hargi no more hair jokes you cheeky bugger




...Stagger....i mean no offence....i got the hair style....i just need the brewing talent....



....take this photo as evidence.....



....one National Champion.....one lucky beginner........and some jerk with too much hair.....



.... :lol: ....







.....P.S....well done to Dan...kickin' arse.....bring some to the December Meeting....


----------



## goatherder (23/11/06)

I'm in the camp which says kit and AG should compete directly against each other. 

If kit beers are knocking off AG beers in comps then it's simply a matter of the AG beers not being good enough to beat them. 

AG brewers have the power to tweak every single aspect of their brew. They can source the best gear and ingredients, have total control over every part of the wort creation then ferment the beer exactly as they want. There is no reason that an AG beer can't be better than a K&K beer. Except for the skill of the brewer.

Quite simply, if an AG brewer can't beat a K&K brewer then the AG brewer needs to get better at brewing if they want to win comps. 

This is a positive thing for both kit and AG brewing. As better kits come on to the market, the kit brewers get better beer and the AG brewers are forced to improve in order to compete with them at comps. Everyone wins in the long run as everyone gets better beer.

Finally, as a rebuttal to an earlier point, I reject the argument that kit brewing is not home brewing. I think this argument totally underestimates the importance that sanitation, healthy yeast and fermentation management plays in creating beer. A brewer who has a good grasp of these fundamentals will make good beer whether the wort comes from a can or a grain sack.


----------



## Gulf Brewery (23/11/06)

MAH said:


> Hypothetical questions
> 
> 1) Imagine someone buys a fresh wort kit from Grumpys.
> 
> ...




We could consult the BJCP guidelines, but you wouldn't be happy with that either  

Pedro (who is ducking for cover)


----------



## warrenlw63 (23/11/06)

Warren -


----------



## deebee (23/11/06)

Worth mentioning...

My kit beers got better as I developed better brewing practices. So it's more than just sprinkling yeast on top. Quite a few things to get right, really.

It actually is harder to make good beers with extracts. So a brewer who wins with a kit beer has done a mighty job.


----------



## pint of lager (23/11/06)

I agree with Barry.


----------



## Hillbilly (24/11/06)

MAH, just wondering if you would put so much effort in trying to upset people if had to do it in your OWN time. Beware big brother is watching you.
Man up or get a real job you wally!


----------



## Darren (24/11/06)

Dan,
Well done on the BOS. Was the beer really only 3 cans of gloop? No specialty malts? No extra hops? What yeast did you use? Was it kit supplied yeast of what?

cheers

Darren


----------



## tangent (24/11/06)

> Comps are more for getting feedback from peers on how you are travelling.


I still can't understand why you don't get a heap of brewers together and let them give you feedback. Why wait for a comp? It's the same people anyway.
Unless it's the bling and bragging rights and not just feedback. h34r:


----------



## MAH (24/11/06)

Hillbilly said:


> MAH, just wondering if you would put so much effort in trying to upset people if had to do it in your OWN time. Beware big brother is watching you.
> Man up or get a real job you wally!



Nice one Hill Billy, good to see your contribution to this discussion is just personal abuse. Not even sure what "Man up" means, but it sure makes you sound internet-tough. If you want to slag me off on a personal level, then I suggest you PM me and leave the open forum to beer related discussions.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## McBeer (24/11/06)

Hargie said:


> Stagger said:
> 
> 
> > Hay Hargi no more hair jokes you cheeky bugger
> ...




Hey, us top blokes with hair can take offence too............Certainly the guy in the middle doesn't look like he's packed as many scrums 
Plus, I think he looks like a bit of a leader B) ........and you need something to swirl around when you are posing for the slow motion photo's during the CB Xmas calender ,and I'm not talking about your naval


----------



## johnno (24/11/06)

tangent said:


> > Comps are more for getting feedback from peers on how you are travelling.
> 
> 
> I still can't understand why you don't get a heap of brewers together and let them give you feedback. Why wait for a comp? It's the same people anyway.
> Unless it's the bling and bragging rights and not just feedback. h34r:




Some people, like me for example have minimal or no contact with other brewers so that is the way of getting some feedback.

Oh, and Congratulations to Dan for the win.

cheers
johnno


----------



## Wreck (24/11/06)

goatherder said:


> As better kits come on to the market, the kit brewers get better beer...



Well there's a good argument. I'll just wait for Coopers to come out with a better product, not change my processes at all, but start winning comps!



> Finally, as a rebuttal to an earlier point, I reject the argument that kit brewing is not home brewing. I think this argument totally underestimates the importance that sanitation, healthy yeast and fermentation management plays in creating beer.



An AGer has to do all that plus create the wort. These are obviously different skills. That's not saying there isn't any skill in K+K, but it there is an additional skill required in creating the beer. 

Are we awarding the prize to the beer or the brewer? If I can place in a state comp, and qualify for Nationals in that section, but send in a different beer, then it's really the brewer being recognised. Dan's beer may well have been the best beer there, but the skills required to create the beer are _different_.

Different sections for AG and K+K!


----------



## Stuster (24/11/06)

tangent said:


> > Comps are more for getting feedback from peers on how you are travelling.
> 
> 
> I still can't understand why you don't get a heap of brewers together and let them give you feedback. Why wait for a comp? It's the same people anyway.
> Unless it's the bling and bragging rights and not just feedback. h34r:



I think the difficulty with getting feedback is shown by the thread we had a while ago about how to critique  a mate's beer. You want to be positive about the beer and not embarrass the brewer (or give them too much of a big head for that matter).

It's a great idea for a brewclub meeting. You could set it up as a blind tasting. But even then, the chances of us all sitting there quite as intensely as when judging seem remote. On the other hand, the benefit of this is that the brewer can say (perhaps afterwards) what they think might have caused the good/bad whatever in the beer and we can all learn more from that than is the case with a comp.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with bling and bragging rights, is there? :lol:


----------



## PostModern (24/11/06)

Hillbilly said:


> MAH, just wondering if you would put so much effort in trying to upset people if had to do it in your OWN time. Beware big brother is watching you.
> Man up or get a real job you wally!



Whoa there, Bill.

This thread is debating a valid topic. Personal attacks, wastes of space and snipes will be deleted from the thread and the posters warn level increased.

Can we not keep this discussion about the point under scrutiny here? I realise it is an area that always raises the adrenaline of some people, but is there any reason a civilised forum such as this can't discuss any topic without resorting to personal attacks and threats? It is an empassioned discussion, but let's keep it on topic, please.


----------



## tangent (24/11/06)

good points Johnno & Stuster :beer:


----------



## Lukes (24/11/06)

This thread is a great read on a dull Friday.
It has been a while since we have had such a heated topic.
I was starting to miss them.



MAH said:


> Hypothetical questions
> 
> 2) Imagine I produce a wort for a friend. All they have to do is sprinkle the yeast on top, close the fermenter and wait 7 days. They bottle it and condition it, then send some to a competition. Should they be allowed to enter? Have they actually home brewed the beer? Is it fair to let them into the competition? Is there any difference between this and the guy who bought a fresh wort kit?
> 
> ...



2a) What if the friend (assistant) cleans, sanitizes all the gear, helps sort the rec out on the computer, gets the malt and hops on the scales, operates the mill, checks ph and temps, at end removes the spent grain from the tun and stands around during mash and boil, drinking my previous batch, talking about brew porn :blink: .

Then he takes a cube kit home and sprinkles or stops at the LHBS and gets a fresh smak pack.

But I own the march pump :super: .

Can he win comps and keep the trophy or does he have to share it like a child in a custody battle?

- Luke

>> Congratulations to Dan on the win. <<


----------



## DanRayner (8/12/06)

Wow... Well, well, well.

First of all, thanks to Stagger and others like Stuster and Johnno for the congrats, I appreciate it. Congrats Stagger on Champion Brewer! And to the Canberra Brewers! 

I have just spent the better part of an hour reading these _*eleven*_ pages of posts and that is only cos I've been at the ACT beer meeting where someone told me of this thread. I've only read a few threads on the Aussie Homebrewer site in the past and although generally good natured they always seemed to have one or two posts that would sour things, not especially friendly, which is a shame cos there do seem to be many out there with supportive and constructive comments. I have just tonight joined this forum and if the petty nature of some of the posts in this thread are anything to go by this may be the last time I post.

The AABC are about amateur brewers; people who brew for a _*hobby*_. The way I see it the primary reasons for amateur brewing competitions are to encourage the appreciation of better beer, to give blind feedback to people on their entries, and to encourage people new to the hobby. What better way to encourage people out there to continue brewing and striving for better beer than to allow them to enter their beer into a amateur brewing competion? And if we are striving to make better beer what is wrong with judging beers on how they taste rather than how they were made? Did the winner of the bohemian pilsener (is there a category for this?) actually make their brew with several decoctions? Were the lambic entries made with truly spontaneous fermentation? I sincerely doubt it. The competition is not "about judging brewers' skills", if that were so, I would be pushing for the judges to taste the beer while watching a video of the brewer creating it and skimming over a detailed recipe submitted to be certain that the brewer didn't just throw all the ingredients together and fluke the result and that it was truely done with skill and talent. This is a _beer _ judging competition and not a brewer judging competition.

As for the comment that "this was a brewing competition, not a sanitation and temperature management competition." Well, I beg to differ, this year's CBoS is two and a half years old and I really wouldn't like to see what might happen if a kit, extract of AG beer was left to "mature" for this long without proper management...

Brewers have a great deal to do with the outcome of the quality of their beer regardless of type; I've tasted some great AGs and some undrinkable kit brews, just as I've tried some absolutely shocking AGs and similarly I've had the pleasure of drinking some very lovely beer made with kits.

My recent AG beers did quite well in the last two annual ACT comps qualifying them for the Nationals, but my k&K and extract brews did well in the previous annual ACT comp (as did one of them in this year's nationals). Did this all happen cos I was a "lucky", slap-happy K&K brewer who became a more "skilled" brewer when I switched over to AGs? No, it was because I undertook consistant method, thoughtful recipe design (at least I thought it was thoughtful, and doesn't that, by thinking about it, make it thoughtful?  ) and good sanitation/temperature management - or, if you didn't get my point, I was "brewing". Just as the competition rules state by sprinkling your yeast over wort you are brewing beer. It doesn't matter whether you bought dried yeast, re-propagated slurry from a beer that used liquid wyeast, or cultured up wild yeast from slants on well-prepared agar...

Should there be two categories? Maybe you're right, maybe there should be *three* streams of competiton? One for fledgling K&K beers, one for beers made by pedantic, self-important AG-brewers and one for those of us who don't give a flying f&%$ about who we are judged against. I maybe "hanging up my tin opener and going into mash beer making" (and "going into mash beer making" makes it sound like I just started - the RIS was my second last kit beer made a little over two years ago, I've made 43 all-grain beers since then) but I'm quite happy to have my beers judged in a mixed competition, I am in no way threatened by it like others here seem to be.

As for MAH's suggestion:



> OK inspired by PoMo's sporting analogy, I've come up with the answer using diving as the basis for judging.
> 
> Each beer gets a raw score. It's judged purely on how it tastes. The score is then multiplied by a level of difficulty factor (LDF). Kit LDF = 1.00, Kits & Bits LDF = 1.1........AG LDF = 1.5. The system aknowledges the quality of the final product but also gives due credit for the amount of individual input making it more fair.
> 
> ...



Well even if you *did  * factor in effort or difficulty I still reckon I might have had a shot at the CBoS with this recipe (yes that's right, this year's CBoS, free for all to see):







cheers and beers,

Dan Rayner

PS - And just to be clear, my brew buddy Alistair Hack was with me, 50% of the award should go to him, cheers Al! (does collusion with other brewers mean that this beer wasn't actually mine?!?)

PPS - apologies to those that think this is a cranky email, I'm just tired and my beer buzz is wearing off

"I'd like to thank Coopers', BYOH, and Cascade for the kits, Brewiser for some of the brew sugar, Farmland for the honey, Thomas Fawcett and Sons and Weyermann for the malt, the manufacturers of hops and yeast for their stirling efforts, Colin from BYOAH in Canberra for cracking the malt for me (as he did the malt craking, this award really should go to him!!) ummm... ActewAGL for supplying the electricity and the much needed, soft, Canberra water - I'm glad I chose Canberra water, thanks to Swap'n'Go for the Gas, this is really their beer, .... .... Kelvinator, oh crikey, I almost forgot Kelvinator, wow! where would I have been without my refidgeration and temperature control... wow! gosh, I'm getting all teary...."


----------



## goatherder (8/12/06)

Well said Dan. Welcome to AHB and contrats on your win.


----------



## Weizguy (8/12/06)

After seeing the recipe, does anyone still feel incllined to call this a kit beer?

Beuller? anyone?
Not me. Kit-based, if anything, or kit-inspired.

Sorry that you (felt that U) had to justify the win, Dan.

Seth out


----------



## AUHEAMIC (8/12/06)

I hope this is not your last post on this forum Dan as it is experienced brewers such as your self that makes this site what it is (a great resource and breeding ground for novice brewers).

Congratulations on the win.


----------



## bconnery (8/12/06)

At my homebrew clubs recent Xmas get together I was talking to one of the guys who stewarded the annual club comp about the whole kit, partial etc thing. 

Our club comp had a number of classes won with kit-based beers. 

Before hand one of the judges (and yes I do believe they were BJCP certified, or at least one the way, or had experience anyway...) claimed that he could always pick an extract or kit based beer over an AG one. 

Afterwards he was asked if this was the case how come a number won classes?

Well, he said, I guess I just didn't pick those ones... 


What does this tell us, who really knows. Except perhaps that good beer is good beer.

For what it is also worth the overall best in comp was an AG...

Which was then produced commercially, and the resounding opinion was that the commercially produced version lacked some of the complexity and depth of the homebrewed version, which is perhaps a whole other topic in itself...

I would also add my congratulations to Dan and hope that ANY homebrewer would find this forum an invaluable resource as I have and will continue to do so, regardless of chosen method or level of brewing.


----------



## Maxt (8/12/06)

I'm glad I pointed this thread out to you last night Dan, but I am truly amazed that you can be so lucid after such a long brew club meeting!

:chug: :beer:


----------



## Steve (8/12/06)

onya dan :beer:


----------



## Boots (8/12/06)

sorry to weigh in so late ... and i hope i'm not just regurgitating something already said ..

Congrats on the win Dan - hopefully you don't take the bickering as attacks at you - it's one of the ongoing "debates" around here. To be honest, it *should* be harder for a beer such as yours to win best of show - all the AG arguments say that anyway. Lets face it, if an AG didn't win it, all us all grainers should be patting you on the back and then working out why we're not making accurate stylistic representations - with all that extra control we have over the process ....

I reckon the categories should be split, but only so that the "To get feedback on my beer" goal of most brewers can be better dealt with.

Having had the vast experience of judging 1 flight in one comp (well ... it was a big flight ok) it's too hard to confidently provide any kind of feedback when you know nothing of the process involved in making (notice i didn't say brewing  ) the beer.

If the beer is too dry for style, do we say "next time, try raising the mash temp" or do we say "Next time try adding some maltodextrin or steep some crystal malt" . If the beer is infected do we say "take care to crush your grain in an area away from you brewing area" or do we say "Clean the outside of the can, and take care with anything that comes in contact with the wort".
I know of at least one case where an all grain beer was given advice aimed at a K&K beer -- totally defeating the point of entering the comp.

By splitting the categories better feedback will be possible. I'd actually go as far as saying that some indication of ingredients and process would be required if competitions are ever going to provide satisfactory feedback.

Cheers


----------



## Steve Lacey (8/12/06)

Wow, the 23rd and 24th of November were busy old days huh! The 23rd was a national holiday in Japan and I was off running a marathon and missed the further development of this thread.

Glad to see this conversation taking place; sorry that some people see it as being about knocking kit beers or kit brewing or competitions per se. I don't think it is. I don't think anybody thinks Dan did not produce a great beer. Nor that kit brewing is any less valid a way of turning out beer to drink in your own home. Nor that kit brewing should not be something subject to competitions. The conversation is about whether we need to revise some fundamental aspects about the we way structure competitions to reflect the way the hobby has changed.

Central to this is the question: just what exactly are you judging in a competition? Is it the beer as an end to itself, and the method is immaterial, or are we judging the beer as a representation of the brewer's skill and technique? If it is the latter, which I think clearly most people take it to be, then you need to be judging like with like. You need a common base, within some guiding parameters (some of the examples regarding malting and yeast ranching etc have just been red herrings). The problem with home brewing is that there are several quite different paths by which you arrive at the same end point.

Keep in mind that competitions currently judge beer produced by widely varying approaches side by side because once upon a time brewing by kits was about the only way that people made beer at home. But over the years that has gradually changed ot the point where many, if not the majority, of beers in comps are full-grain beers. Maybe it is time for some hard decisions to be made for competition structures to finally change to reflect that. I would also point out that this issue has been around for years now. But the break has never come because comps need sponsorship, and until recently, without kit industry sponsorship there was no comp. Hardly an environment in which you could seriously question the status quo to address this fundamental question.

Personally I think it is a no brainer. It is just a question of biting the bullet and implementing it. The only real decision to be made is whether you have separate comps or just separate divisions within comps. I won't be holding my breath waiting for any of this to happen on a wide scale though.


----------



## pint of lager (8/12/06)

Congratulations Dan.

You obviously put alot of effort into your brews and justly deserve your high award.

Everyone should remember when entering competitions, there is only one brewer in the world with the unique combination of skill level, equipment and ingredients. You can only really compete against yourself. 

Brew the best beer you can with your particular skill level and ingredients.


----------



## Kai (8/12/06)

Steve Lacey said:


> Central to this is the question: just what exactly are you judging in a competition? Is it the beer as an end to itself, and the method is immaterial, or are we judging the beer as a representation of the brewer's skill and technique?



I'm glad you posted this, Steve, as it saved me a lot of rambling to come to a specific point. Judging in competitions, as far as I think they are about and as far as I think they should be about, is about judging the beer to a style guideline.

How it was brewed is immaterial. Even if someone has bought a wort kit they have still managed the fermentation themselves, packaged it and carbonated it to the appropriate level and stored it for the right amount of time. That's a still a lot of work to get everything right.

If we differentiate based on extract / partial / all-grain due to the difficulty involved, then shouldn't we also give credence to those people who alter their water profiles, step or decoct when considered apt, malt their own grain, etc, etc? After all, they have taken the more complicated route. Rather than drawing this arbitrary line in the sand, judging each entry purely on its sensory merits seems both the simplest and the most sensible route. After all, a good beer is a good beer.

Oh yes, and most importantly congratulations to Dan on a brew well done. It is just as easy to stuff up a kit as it is an all-grain beer.


----------



## sah (8/12/06)

This is an excellent thread. I've managed to read half of it so far. I think it'll be particularly useful for kit and extract brewers who are considering going all grain.

I reallly like MAH's strong opinions although I don't agree.

Making top notch beer is not easy. Whether kit, extract, partial or AG there are a lot of common variables to get right. Sanitation, yeast, temperature, non-oxidisation, carbonation, etc.

When you take more control say with all grain brewing there are more variables that you can get wrong. When you buy a good kit you can expect a good brewer has done a lot of experimenting and testing.

I've made some cracking all grain beers. I'm not sure though that I've made a an AG APA that has been as good as my extract brews yet. It's a little hard to tell though because I haven't tested side by side. I think the reason for this is because its a style I'm very familiar with and I've felt it is something I can experiment with. When you experiment, often the results aren't what you expect. I think one of the biggest advantages of all grain brewing is the variety and uniqueness of beer that you can brew.

When it comes to judging I think all methods should be judged side by side. However, the entries should identify the method and ingredients for feedback purposes and for sharing with other entrants. Competitions should be as much about judging the best brews as they should be about providing feedback. I'm not sure how to control for bias between methods with the judges. Perhaps they do their discussion and point scoring before learning the method, then they write their feedback?

Scott


----------



## Steve Lacey (11/12/06)

Kai said:


> I'm glad you posted this, Steve, as it saved me a lot of rambling to come to a specific point. Judging in competitions, as far as I think they are about and as far as I think they should be about, is about judging the beer to a style guideline.



Yep, I definitely think this question of what is actually being judged is what has to be discussed/debated to make progress on this. I agree that the judging process is undertaken by judging the beer that is presented to the judge according to 1) How well it fits a specified style, plus 2) its overall impression and drinkability. But it is still not the beers that are competing, it is the creators of the beer.



> How it was brewed is immaterial. Even if someone has bought a wort kit they have still managed the fermentation themselves, packaged it and carbonated it to the appropriate level and stored it for the right amount of time. That's a still a lot of work to get everything right.



Yes, true, but what they are getting right is the fermentation and packaging process. Is it appropriate to to judge that set of skills alone alongside someone who has undertaken mashing, lautering, and boiling in addition to fermenting and packaging?

I'm sure we can all agree that you can't just buy a beer from the bottle shop and enter it. We would also probably mostly agree that it is wrong to enter a beer under the name of any person other than that of the person who brewed it. So surely we can agree that we are indeed judging the beer only as a reflection of the brewer's skills. So then what we have to agree on is: what defines a _reasonable common set of skills _that are up for judging?

The segregation argument is that if you take mashing, lautering, and boiling out of the process, it differs sufficiently to make it an "unfair" (or rather, invalid) comparison. If you have a model ship building contest, would we agree that the models built from scratch should compete against those built from commercial kits with assembly instructions? In a furniture making contest, is it valid to put up your Ikea chest of drawers against one built from scratch with dovetail joints etc? I think these are valid analogies.

Kai also said:


> shouldn't we also give credence to those people who alter their water profiles, step or decoct when considered apt, malt their own grain, etc, etc? After all, they have taken the more complicated route.



Kai, sorry I think these are spurious arguments. What I would stress is that you need to define a common set of skills or common base process. Any variations or additions that the brewer makes are a reflection of greater or lesser skills within that base definition. 

For simplicity for the moment, let's say that we have an all-grain competition stream and a kit-based competition stream. Within the all-grain competition stream you would be neither required nor prevented from using decoctions or altering your brewing water or malting your own grain. If a brewer makes better beer by using these processes, than that would be a fair reflection of a more skillful brewer (or maltster/brewer) within the general parameters that you are competing on the basis of brewing an all-grain beer. Likewise, a kit-based stream would have at its core a requirement for something along the lines of: "a beer based on a commercially available can or cans of hopped extract." This leaves it open for the kit brewer to adopt different types of brewing sugar, specialty grains, or finishing hops. It would arguably even be valid to go a step further and define a minimum proportion of the fermentables that should come from hopped extract, e.g. around 50% or 60%.

I repeat, this is not about holding all-grain beer or brewing to be intrinsically of greater value or "better". It is just about making sure competition occurs on a relatively common base. The Mash Paddle takes that concept to the logical extreme, but I am talking about something more pragmatic for adoption on a broad scale. I haven't got a clear answer for how you handle unhopped extract beers, or quite where mini-mashes fit in, but I can see possibilities and am sure that could be worked out in the detail.

Finally, I really can't see an argument for including unmodified fresh wort packs or house-recipe BOP-produced beer as something for inclusion in competitions. To what extent do these reflect the brewer's skill? If the fresh wort kits are modified with hops or specialty malt additions, then make a competion for beer produced from fresh wort packs.

Steve


----------



## MHB (11/12/06)

So the question becomes - 

Would an AG beer have a different set of stylistic descriptors or be judged to the same standard?

If the former we have to start from scratch and create them.
If the latter there is no point in separating the beers.

AG brewers keep talking about the Kit Tang, if it exists, arent kit based brewers already at a handicap?
AG brewers have total control of what ends up in the finished beer, shouldn't that be an advantage rather than a disadvantage to a competent brewer.

I think it is going to be impossible to start putting the wall back up, judges are only judging what is in front of them, to expect a judge to start taking things like the reported ingredients into account is a mine field nobody wants to play in.

We are finally reaching the stage where we have a pool of trained judges giving consistent scores and valuable feedback to the brewer, count your blessings, this is the best it has ever been, and it is getting better.

I recon if you arent winning comps and you want to - brew better beer.

A cynical outside observer might get the impression that some AG brewers' think they can't compete with kit brewers and want to take there bat and ball home with them. The same applies to BOP and Wort-Packs, if they have a huge advantage and can turn out the best beer, why are we here?

MHB


----------



## sah (11/12/06)

Steve, I interpret your argument to be similar to judging an all grain brew versus a kit or wort pack to an original essay versus one that has been plagiarised.

MHB's argument is, what does it matter? The best beer or essay should win.

And I agree. Although there should be credit where credit is due. If a winning beer is made from a kit or wort pack, the entrant should acknowledge its creator.

Now to extend the argument a little and at the risk of becoming ridiculous. Let's say I got permission from a professional brewer, big or small, to enter one of their award winning beers in a local competition. I acknowledge that this is what I've done and walk away with the prize money. Is that fair?

Theoretically we could find that a wort pack consistently finishes at the top of home brew competitions. This isn't all that much different to my contrived example about entering a commercial beer.

Food for thought.

regards
Scott


----------



## MAH (12/12/06)

If it's the beer being judged then why do we award the prize to the brewer? 

Because the brewer is being judged, the beer is the means of assessment and the style guidelines are the standard of assessment.

We already have an implicit definition of brewing for the purpose of competitions and that is the individual adds the yeast. Personally I think this a woefully inadequate definition.

I don't see why so much time and energy is spent on the procedures and policies for competitions such as detailed style guidelines, beer judge courses, etc, but we pay less than lip service to the definition of the very thing we claim to be judging. What's the point of having sophisticated mechanisms for judging something we can't properly define?

Cheers
MAH


----------



## shotduck (12/12/06)

DanRayner said:


> The way I see it the primary reasons for amateur brewing competitions are to encourage the appreciation of better beer, to give blind feedback to people on their entries, and to encourage people new to the hobby.


And here I was thinking the reason was to stroke the ego's of a person who wants the world to know he is just as good as any professional brewer out there - better dammit! I've spent thousands of dollars on a fully automated, heat-exchanged, BMP operated, pump-driven, shiny penis extension, and eleven hours decocting this wonderful, perfect example of a brew as set out by style-guidelines... and there's no way in *hell*, I am letting someone who spent $100 on a coopers starter kit take the prize that is rightfully mine, just because his beer tastes better! :lol: :lol: :lol: 



Steve Lacey said:


> What I would stress is that you need to define a common set of skills or common base process.


As far as I can tell, the "common base process" has been defined as "Sprinkling the yeast into the wort". What you want then, is a more _complicated_ common base process.



MAH said:


> If it's the beer being judged then why do we award the prize to the brewer?


Because beer does not have a mantle piece on which to hang the shiny new trophy?

*EDIT:* Spelling etc...


----------



## Stuster (12/12/06)

The Shot Duck said:


> MAH said:
> 
> 
> > If it's the beer being judged then why do we award the prize to the brewer?
> ...



:lol: 

I say give it to the yeasties, the real brewers. :super: Of course, they'd have to split the prize a billion ways. :unsure:


----------



## shotduck (12/12/06)

Stuster said:


> Because beer does not have a mantle piece on which to hang their shiny new trophy?
> 
> 
> :lol:
> ...



And if the prize is a vial of White Labs??? But then, there would be laws against that sort of thing


----------



## Steve Lacey (12/12/06)

> As far as I can tell, the "common base process" has been defined as "Sprinkling the yeast into the wort". What you want then, is a more complicated common base process.


Yes, exactly. The current definition is inadequate. In fact, as David said, they adopted that definition for the NSW comp because, generally speaking, _there was no definition._ So if there was no definition across the various comps, they obviously would not have felt comfortable coming up with something rather detailed and complicated as it would have stood out like the proverbials against the absence of definitions elsewhere.

But that is exactly what should be done. Define what is eligible for entry into comps. And make it something much more than just sprinkling yeast.

This is a case of the Emperor having no clothes. We have just gone along for years assuming that all beer made in the home is home brew and is created equal. But it is not. There has always been a clear difference between the all-grain and kit-based brewing processes, but it has taken the appearance of fresh wort kits to really highlight this in the context of brewing skill competitions. It forces us to confront the question about when is brewing brewing...presently there is nothing to stop a person pitching some liquid yeast in a fresh wort kit, fermenting it, bottling it, and entering it into a comp. So what would the final score of that beer actually mean? To what extent does it reflect that the brewer has the knowledge and skills required to brew a beer to be a good representation of the style?

This is the question that you have to grapple with: what does that number on the bottom of the score sheet actually mean?

Steve


----------



## Weizguy (12/12/06)

Stuster said:


> Because beer does not have a mantle piece on which to hang their shiny new trophy?
> :lol:
> 
> I say give it to the yeasties, the real brewers. :super: Of course, they'd have to split the prize a billion ways. :unsure:


The yeast could share the prize if the prize was a kit or a Fresh Wort pack.


----------



## apd (12/12/06)

No grappling needed. The number means, "This beer has this rating."

Like others have said, if it tastes good, who cares? And more to the point, even if we wanted to have different streams (kit/ag/fresh wort - 'fresh' - there's another thread altogether) *how can the standards be enforced?*

Other than 'kit twang', which isn't a very scientific measure, there's no test that can determine the process by which a beer was made, so why bother?


----------



## shotduck (12/12/06)

Steve Lacey said:


> This is the question that you have to grapple with: what does that number on the bottom of the score sheet actually mean?



To me, it has always meant that the *beer* is a good representation of the style. I guess when it comes to people getting feedback from something they have created as part of their hobby, they want _personal_ recognition - particularly those who work harder to achieve the same result. In this case I think perhaps it may be time to split the competitions (split the hairs?) into home *beer* competitions, and home *brewing* competitions, with the former concentrating only on the final product, and the latter on both the product, and the journey... Not something I would have liked to see myself, but it may be the only way to satisfy the argument.


----------



## AndrewQLD (12/12/06)

The Shot Duck said:


> To me, it has always meant that the *beer* is a good representation of the style. I guess when it comes to people getting feedback from something they have created as part of their hobby, they want _personal_ recognition - particularly those who work harder to achieve the same result. In this case I think perhaps it may be time to split the competitions (split the hairs?) into home *beer* competitions, and home *brewing* competitions, with the former concentrating only on the final product, and the latter on both the product, and the journey... Not something I would have liked to see myself, but it may be the only way to satisfy the argument.



Good points
When you enter a beer in a competition you brew the beer to a particular catagory and style, when the beer is judged it is awarded points based on how close it is to the catagory and Style it was entered into.
I really don't see it makes any difference how the beer was made, if it is not in style it shouldn't win.

How many commercial brewers out there pretend to emmulate a specific style and fall woefully short. Would they win if the beer was not to style? No they wouldn't.

If a brewer can take a can of coopers and turn it into a great Bohemien Pilsner and be judged true to style, then he is a better brewer than me and deserves to win. Because I have never brewed a standard K&K that tasted like a great Bo Pils, they needed tweaking, more hops, more malt, boil for an hour liquid yeast ect. So they have brewed a great beer and deserve the credit.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## PostModern (13/12/06)

AndrewQLD said:


> If a brewer can take a can of coopers and turn it into a great Bohemien Pilsner and be judged true to style, then he is a better brewer than me and deserves to win. Because I have never brewed a standard K&K that tasted like a great Bo Pils, they needed tweaking, more hops, more malt, boil for an hour liquid yeast ect. So they have brewed a great beer and deserve the credit.



I have tasted a great Bo Pils made from a wort kit. The only difference between that and a can of concentrate is the degree of dilution.


----------



## DanRayner (13/12/06)

Steve Lacey said:


> Yes, exactly. The current definition is inadequate. In fact, as David said, they adopted that definition for the NSW comp because, generally speaking, _there was no definition._ So if there was no definition across the various comps, they obviously would not have felt comfortable coming up with something rather detailed and complicated as it would have stood out like the proverbials against the absence of definitions elsewhere.
> 
> But that is exactly what should be done. Define what is eligible for entry into comps. And make it something much more than just sprinkling yeast.
> 
> ...



This thread has become far more objective and very interesting  After reading some of these later posts I find myself somewhat conflicted and see how difficult it might become in drawing a line in the sand if we segregate entries. How does one define an all-grain beer? I know that Belgian beers often have candy sugar added to them which would no longer make them "all-grain", and if one is allowed to add candy sugar then surely it might be OK to add a tin of coopers' to an otherwise all-mashed-all-grain to up the OG? Or does it then become a mini-mash?

But I do come back to my first belief that it matters little to the judges how a beer is made:



AndrewQLD said:


> When you enter a beer in a competition you brew the beer to a particular catagory and style, when the beer is judged it is awarded points based on how close it is to the catagory and Style it was entered into.
> I really don't see it makes any difference how the beer was made, if it is not in style it shouldn't win.



Yes, this is about judging beer and how well a beer tastes and fits to a specific style. 



Steve Lacey said:


> Yes, true, but what they are getting right is the fermentation and packaging process. Is it appropriate to to judge that set of skills alone alongside someone who has undertaken mashing, lautering, and boiling in addition to fermenting and packaging?
> 
> I'm sure we can all agree that you can't just buy a beer from the bottle shop and enter it. We would also probably mostly agree that it is wrong to enter a beer under the name of any person other than that of the person who brewed it. So surely we can agree that we are indeed judging the beer only as a reflection of the brewer's skills. So then what we have to agree on is: what defines a _reasonable common set of skills _that are up for judging?
> 
> ...



I agree - there really should be a way that differing brewers' efforts should be recognised and maybe a level playing field is important - but I'm not altogether sure it should be by complete segregation and different competitions - to my mind, judging them side by side without the judges knowing whether an entry if K&K or AG, is a fantastic way of seeing how the different methods are progressing in the community. 



MHB said:


> I think it is going to be impossible to start putting the wall back up, judges are only judging what is in front of them, to expect a judge to start taking things like the reported ingredients into account is a mine field nobody wants to play in.
> 
> We are finally reaching the stage where we have a pool of trained judges giving consistent scores and valuable feedback to the brewer, count your blessings, this is the best it has ever been, and it is getting better.



Maybe there should be one competition and entries should only be split into K&K/Mini-mash/AG once side-by-side blind-judging and scoring has been completed - as MHB says judges should only be asked to judge how the beer tastes and suits the style it is entered into. Then it would be quite clear how all-grain entries are doing against the K&K. In the same competition, in the same judging round it would be very interesting to see how (for example) the 1st place All-Grain Bo Pils (with a score of 121 or something) compares to the 1st place K&K Bo Pils (scoring 119 or whatever). 

Also, judges' feedback is, at least in the ACT, usually restricted to identifying the attributes and chemicals that create different aromas, flavours, mouthfeels (ie: "dominated by diacetyl - not appropriate for a pilsener") and not usually to identify problems in recipe like "add more dark malt extract" or "use less melanoiden malt" - it is up to the brewer to find out how his/her recipe/technique can be modified to fix faults and comments are not specific to K&K/AG methods. So the poster of previous comments on this thread about how inappropriate it was to receive suggestions on ways to improve his all-grain beer by adding more LME shouldn't have been given this sort of feedback at all - it was, in my opinion, poor judging and not the fault of allowing K&K entries to be judged at the same time as AG beers.

it seems a very complicated issue but I do think that AG/K&K/Mini-Mash/Extract beers should be judged side by side - it seems to me to be a far more effective and objective way of judging beers - how they are then awarded prizes, well I'm not so sure on that...

cheers,

Dan

EDIT - spelling and grammer


----------

