# Aabc And Subordinate State Competition Rules



## bonj (19/9/11)

This thread was started to move discussion of amateur vs commercial definitions and whether kits, including fresh wort kits (FWKs)should be allowed in the AABC, and by association, the subordinate state competitions. The discussion was started in the QABC results thread.

I will start by quoting myself, and the relevant replies:


> moot as it may be, it is an interesting debate, and I wish to further it for my better understanding of your points.
> 
> Let's give a hypothetical:
> 
> ...



The only editing I have done, was to correct Ross' typo of his first word "Exactly", which contained a few extraneous letters.


Bonj said:


> moot as it may be, it is an interesting debate, and I wish to further it for my better understanding of your points.
> 
> Let's give a hypothetical:
> 
> ...


----------



## bconnery (19/9/11)

My post, edited to be more my specific opinion rather than a response to the QABC issue. 

It comes down to the amateur vs commercial debate. My opinion is that it doesn't matter what you do for a living, you should be allowed to enter. So just because someone is a commercial brewer he should be allowed to enter beers, but not beers made commercially. 

I believe that the first hypothetical above is essentially what a FWK kit is. 20L of wort taking directly from a commercial brewery.
Whether it is packaged for a while and purchased by someone or taken straight home in a cube is by the by to me.
As such I believe they should be excluded from the competition. That is my firm opinion.

As to the 2nd most brew on premise don't really have people taking an active involvement. Most people barely turn up except to bottle/keg and the work is done by the staff. I believe they should also be excluded.
But that's also a finished beer brewed on premise, as opposed to a FWK. 

I think any beer that is made using pre-hopped extract, be it FWK or kit, should be excluded from the competition, or at least the prizes.
Ditto where the beer itself is made on commercial premise.

Extract beers made using unhopped extract should be allowed.


----------



## Bribie G (19/9/11)

Brewing is a craft - I'm sure that a woodworking club for example would not allow Ikea furniture to be entered in a comp, even though it's assembled and maybe stained and polished by the woodwork member. On the other hand I'm sure they don't expect the woodworker to march out into the forest and hack down a tree then attend shop B to learn how to make a saw.

Similarly in home brew comps there should be a line not to be crossed, and IMHO this would be very simply an understanding that the beer should be produced from the basic ingredients of grains, _individual _extracts and _individual _flavourings where appropriate (malt, hop, isohop, hazelnut essence, chocolate, etc), other _individual _ fermentables (honey, maize, syrup, sugar) hops, yeasts ...... but no base ingredient such as a tin or FWK that in itself (edit: without further modification) could be fermented to produce beer.


----------



## yum beer (19/9/11)

no matter where you start there is a process and parameters that a home brewer must work within to produce quality beer....

they should be judged accordingly, kit vs kit, AG vs AG, FWK vs FWK....medals awarded accordingly.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

bconnery said:


> It comes down to the amateur vs commercial debate. My opinion is that it doesn't matter what you do for a living, you should be allowed to enter. So just because someone is a commercial brewer he should be allowed to enter beers, but not beers made commercially.


That is my belief too. However, I also believe there is an extra issue with this specific hypothetical case, which is that the brewer that entered the competition, made the initial wort in a commercial capacity. Had he used the same recipe, purely for his own consumption (ie in a non-commercial endeavour), and wished to enter that, then I don't see that as an issue. Perhaps such brewers shouldn't be concerning themselves with amateur competitions, but that is not at discussion here. I'd like to hear from those that oppose the apparent consensus here. 

I might see if I can add a poll, but I'd like to see opinions from a wider range of brewers. I would particularly like to see opinions of those that are for the inclusion of FWKs etc in competitions, along with their reasons for that opinion. Ross was outvoted 9 to 1 at the national level, so there must be proponents of allowing kits. 

I think we have well established the reasons for not allowing FWKs, but I would like to see why the proponents feel the way they do.

It is my opinion, that in a perfect world, we could allow kits into a separate not for points category, but concede that it would be impossible to police.


----------



## NickB (19/9/11)

In trying to eloquently make my point on the issue (and subsequently confusing myself!) I think I'd have to say I agree with Ben - all pre-hopped extract should not be allowed in our comps. I also agree with a limit on entries as carpet bombing really isn't fair on those who are only entering their beers they deem to be up to standard (not to say that some who enter a number of beers are of lesser quality).

Anyway...

Cheers


----------



## argon (19/9/11)

> D3. Amateur brews. The competition is restricted to amateur brews, that is to beers that have not been brewed on premises licensed as a commercial brewery. Beers produced from extract kits and wort kits and Brew-On-Premises beers are allowed as they not considered to be commercially brewed. Entries must be submitted under the brewer's name(s).



As much as i don't agree with FWKs and especially BOP beers being entered into competitions, i can understand the relevant authorities allowing Hopped Kits into comps in an attempt to encourage brewers of all levels to enter and receive feedback.

The conjecture must remain around what is considered as brewing. Is it the entire process? Does the brewing begin with the extraction of fermentables? Is it limited to pitching the yeast? Is it monitoring/conducting the fermentation? 

The above rule doesn't take a position to define what constitutes 'brewing' the end product and who undertakes the brewing. 

As pointed out previously, a BOP beer can easily be acquired without ever coming within site of any of the brewing process. Many BOPs are akin to a keg swap arrangement. If these beers are submitted, then under the rule who does one define as the brewer? Obviously the proprietor of the BOP. Which then self disqualifies, because in the same note excludes entries brewed on premises licensed as a commercial brewery. But then the note goes on to define BOP as not considered commercially brewed. Are not BOP businesses commercial breweries? FFS how about sticking with a singular position here!!

So where does the process start and who should be attributed with undertaking the process? Of course we could trace back through the origins of ingredient production. for example, down to the farmer who grows the barley, through the malting process and then onto the individual who then extracts the fermentable, etc etc. But there needs to be a line drawn at some point that defines where the process starts at a personal non-commercial level.

I'm not sure i have an answer to where the line is to be drawn. I do contend however, that there should be, at the very least, separate categories for differing methods of wort production, limited in principle to; 
1. Raw Material Production (All Grain in simpler terms and not so restrictive as Reinheitsgebot), and;
2. Extract based, Hopped Extract based,
with fresh wort kits and Brew on premises being excluded from amateur competitions
Perhaps even for the 2 categories to be combined for evaluation and the submission to be nominated upon entry (to be kept unknown by judges)

As below a simple removal of the phrase would suffice;



> D3. Amateur brews. The competition is restricted to amateur brews, that is to beers that have not been brewed on premises licensed as a commercial brewery. Beers produced from extract kits and wort kits and Brew-On-Premises beers are allowed as they not considered to be commercially brewed. Entries must be submitted under the brewer's name(s).



FWIW... i had a couple of FWK beers that technically could have been submitted, but i felt that it was not with the spirit of the competition to submit. I did very little to produce the beer and would not feel comfortable claiming and accolades that may or may not be forthcoming.

Anyway... i'm off to print out a digital copy of a novel by Ernest Hemingway i'm submitting in a writing competition.Even though the time and effort was put in by someone else in coming up with the story and realising the unfinished hardcpy, i published it at home... so rightly it's mine. I should nail it and pick myself up a trophy. h34r:


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

Hopefully, this will enable a poll.


----------



## winkle (19/9/11)

Bonj said:


> Hopefully, this will enable a poll.



Sorry Bonj, the poll doesn't quite fit my position on this which is:-

Kits in comps - yes, reluctantly, (maybe in a seperate section).
FWK - no
BOP - no
Commercial Brewers - yes, if brewed at home on a non-commercial rig.


----------



## Murcluf (19/9/11)

Just to a clarity to the arugment I've pulled and posted the explantion of the the D3 Amateur Brews rule from the Rules of the AABC

Explanatory/Background Notes Rules of the AABC
D3. Amateur Brews. The name of the competition is the Australian AMATEUR BREWING
Championship. This indicates the competition is for amateur brews and not for commercial
beers. For many years there was no rule on this issue. The competition name was commonly
interpreted to mean that it was restricted to amateur brewers (rather than amateur brews)
and not open to professional brewers. An issue arose occasionally when a homebrewer turned
professional. Depending on the state, they were sometimes told they could not enter,
sometimes they chose not to enter, and sometimes they were allowed to enter their
homebrewed beers. This rule seeks to clarify the issue by referring to the beer itself. It
recognises that when a professional brewer goes home from work and brews non-commercial
beer as an amateur, then the beers they produce should be considered to be amateur brews. A
commercial beer is defined as one on which full excise duty is payable. Note that the rule
specifically allows beers from Brew-On-Premises establishments, which pay a reduced rate of
excise. The formulation of this rule was highly contentious and only evolved out of dozens of
emails between AABA delegates. One position was simply to restrict entries to amateur
brewers because this is a simple rule to enforce it is generally public knowledge whether
someone is brewing professionally. But a significant number of delegates wanted a rule that
would encompass a slightly broader range of brewers. It is expected that most full-time
professional brewers would not have the time or interest in making or submitting amateur
brews.

Unfortunely you can never make everyone happy!


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

argon said:


> The conjecture must remain around what is considered as brewing. Is it the entire process? Does the brewing begin with the extraction of fermentables? Is it limited to pitching the yeast? Is it monitoring/conducting the fermentation?
> 
> The above rule doesn't take a position to define what constitutes 'brewing' the end product and who undertakes the brewing.


My personal definition is taken from tea... How does one brew a pot of tea? One takes the raw ingredients (tea leaves) and steeps them in hot water (sound like mashing to you?). I am willing to concede, that boiling extract and adding hops can also be considered brewing, so I believe they should be allowed, even if the brewer didn't mash the grains themselves. But pre-hopped extract, in any concentration, has bypasses all the "brewing" by my definition, and therefore shouldn't be allowed. 

It comes down to whether it is a *beer* competition, or a *brewing* competition. A brewing competition must define what is brewing, whereas a beer competition may only concern itself with the end product, regardless how it was produced.


----------



## DU99 (19/9/11)

*



Should kits (including fresh wort kits) be allowed in all state and national level brewing competitions?

Click to expand...

Fresh worts kit's shouldn't be allowed,as the there's no real work down by the person entering it..buts other types of kit's where some have modification such as stepping grains..should have there own section..My 2Cents*


----------



## Howlingdog (19/9/11)

1 for the banning of FWKs and tinned hopped wort.

A number of competitions at present have sponsored prizes of the winner brewing their winning entry at a brewery in a commercial quantity. Imagine fronting up with the recipe ;-

100 x 1.7 kg cans Home Brand lager
100 x 1 kg packet Home Brand white sugar
100 x 7gm packets of S-04
1 x tin opener
equals 2500 litres of winning home brew.!!

However, don't ban commercial brewers provided they brew on a small scale e.g. <100L system.


----------



## Batz (19/9/11)

winkle said:


> Sorry Bonj, the poll doesn't quite fit my position on this which is:-
> 
> Kits in comps - yes, reluctantly, (maybe in a seperate section).
> FWK - no
> ...




My feelings exactly, and your right kits should have their own section, I would imagine kit brewers would want this anyway.


----------



## schooey (19/9/11)

I think this whole Amateur vs. Commercial vs Pro Brewer debate has been stewing there on the back burner for a while. In reality, it's going to come down to semantics...

The way I see it, the focus is on brewing versus fermenting. If this is a going to be termed the Australian Amateur _Brewing_ Championships, the surely the beer must be _brewed_ by the entrant? If you buy a FWK and pitch a yeast in it, the I guess you need to enter the Australian Amateur Fermenting Championships... oh hang on :unsure:

Sure, you're thinking this is tongue in cheek and what about the people that buy a kit in a can and add some dex and steep some hops and ferment? Well this is where the black and white of semantics gets grey all of a sudden. A can is no more than a concentrated FWK, yeah? So, now we have all the _kit beer makers _separated from the amateur brewers? Uh oh, I hear the old 'AG elitist' argument approaching; How dare you call us kit beer makers and not brewers!

Like I said, it's semantics. If we want Australian Amateur Brewing Championships; ban all forms of kits and alienate half the beer making community, else call it the Australian Amateur Beer Making Championships and let everyone enter. Ahhh shit! We still haven't dealt with the Pro brewer have we? What if he makes his beer at home on equipment that you and I use? How will we ever know for sure anyway? If we're going to be paranoid, the only way is to exclude them. Or we run on trust and not get rid of the wealth of experience available and we just let them enter... It's a yes or no vote.


As an aside, we had some discussion at the HUB meeting on Friday night about continuity from State level up to AABC. There was some discussion around how the AABC guidelines, whilst pretty good, left some gaps where compared to the BJCP (IIPA and American Wheat for instance). It would be great to see a forum involving AABC delegates and club representatives at state level to discuss the AABC style guidelines and their development, continuity of these through comp levels as well as streamlining an entry form that can be used from local level to state level right up to AABC level.


----------



## bconnery (19/9/11)

Bonj said:


> It comes down to whether it is a *beer* competition, or a *brewing* competition. A brewing competition must define what is brewing, whereas a beer competition may only concern itself with the end product, regardless how it was produced.



From the AABC post above
"This indicates the competition is for amateur brews and not for commercial beers."

So currently it is firmly down as a beer competition, regardless of how we might feel about it.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

Batz said:


> My feelings exactly, and your right kits should have their own section, I would imagine kit brewers would want this anyway.


Schooey posed this question rather eloquently above, but I will repose it again here:

For those that are in favour of kits, but not FWKs, what is your rationale here? Are not FWKs just less concentrated versions of the same product?


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

bconnery said:


> From the AABC post above
> "This indicates the competition is for amateur brews and not for commercial beers."
> 
> So currently it is firmly down as a beer competition, regardless of how we might feel about it.


Yet, to quote the AABC rules:


> The name of the competition is the Australian AMATEUR BREWING Championship.



It seems they don't know whether they're Arthur or Martha, or whether they're coming or going...






_edit: stupid typo_


----------



## Bribie G (19/9/11)

Certainly Id be more than pleased to see a separate category for kits, FWKs, kits n bits to encourage new brewers to get into the comps and give them feedback based on fermenting skills, technical merit, presentation etc. 
Once upon a time that's all that beer comps consisted of in Australia - usually at the local Ag show level - and it must have been instrumental in the early formation of the clubs and fellowship that has developed into the thriving community we see today. If not for those early clubs and comps we'd probably still be sitting in the garage by ourselves stirring up tins and Saunders Malt.


----------



## waggastew (19/9/11)

A comment re: pre-hopped kit beers:

As a K&B/Extract brewer I have gained an enormous amount of feedback by entering the NSWAHBC this year. None of my beers won any sections but I got lots of tips on how to improve my brewing. Several threads on AHB are filled with dicussions as to how its impossible to make decent beer with kits. Whether you agree with this or not the fact stands that if you brew a tin of Coopers Lager with BE2 at 24degC with the kit yeast you sure as hell ain't gonna take out the BOS prize. If a brewer takes the time and effort to tweak and cajole a kit into award winning territory (e.g. Dan Rayners RIS) then they deserve the credit. I really don't see how the AG'ers could be worried given the perceived limitations of kit beers.

Banning kits would only discourage many brewers from making the leap into comps and achieving the obvious goal of better beer. In my opinion this will only weaken home brewing in the long run.

Stew


----------



## Florian (19/9/11)

all slightly :icon_offtopic: 



NickB said:


> I also agree with a limit on entries as carpet bombing really isn't fair on those who are only entering their beers they deem to be up to standard (not to say that some who enter a number of beers are of lesser quality).



Having entered into QABC for the first time, and only started brewing about 18 month ago, I was aiming to get as much feedback as possible from experienced brewers/judges. Especially for beers I couldn't enter into the BABBs comp due to number restrictions and the fact that only two entries in the *entire* lager category are allowed. 

So I entered 13 beers, most of which I thought were of decent quality. Two of them I wasn't sure about, and the points I got for these beers confirm that there obviously was a reason for me not being sure. I have also a fair number of other beers lying around that I haven't entered, either because i knew what is wrong with them or I already got feedback in other comps (like my Fly PA, which i haven't entered). So out of these 13 entries I got 10 medals and a number of placings.

However, in my lack of knowledge of how the champion brewer gets established (I honestly never looked at how that worked, as it didn't really interest me), I got a bit 'scared' when i saw my high ranking on the champion brewer list. I had heard the term carpet bombing before and thought that I only got so high due to my large number of entries. 

However, once I looked into it, I discovered that it's purely the results from the best four beers from each brewer that count towards champion brewer. For that it doesn't matter if someone enters 4 or 22 beers. In this years comp, even three beers (with three first places achieved) would have been enough to take out champion brewer (with Ross' entries now withdraw).

For that reason i shall no longer feel guilty for entering 13 beers and also note that others that have entered even more beers are further down the list. 

What I am guilty of though is not being available to help out on the days. I agree with an earlier comment from Bribie, if everyone would enter that many beers, it would be hard to run the comp to a satisfying level. I will do my very best next year to cancel out these weekends well in advance to be able to help, unfortunately i wasn't able to do so this year. 

I don't mind if the number of entries would be limited in future comps, but for me it was a great opportunity to get feedback on beers that I couldn't hand in to other comps. Given the way the champion brewer is identified, I don't really think that it is unfair on other brewers to enter a larger number of beers, as everyone who enters at least three or four beers has the same chance to take out champion brewer.

Happy to hear other opinions on this though, in case I have missed something obvious.


EDIT: added stuff about beers not entered.


----------



## argon (19/9/11)

So what do we need to do to change this?... Ross has (obviously <_< ) taken the first step to bring about discussion and potential change by submitting the FWKs and stirring the shit.

How can we get the guidelines amended for next year to be more reflective of the attitude of the current brewing community? Bitching about it online is fun and all, but do we write to someone? Send death threats? or offer to give someone and object lesson? 

Would like to know what we can do, so next year it's in line with wider expectations.


----------



## Howlingdog (19/9/11)

Bonj said:


> Yet, to quote the AABC rules:
> 
> Yet, to quote the AABC rules:
> QUOTE
> The name of the competition is the Australian AMATEUR BREWING Championship.




You pay to enter - Amateur
They pay for you to enter - Professional


----------



## DU99 (19/9/11)

People have to remember you can buy unhopped malt extract.


----------



## daemon (19/9/11)

The poll doesn't quite match what I think, but to me I think kits / kits & bits / FWK / BOP beers should be submitted for feedback only. This is probably something that should be encouraged and possibly one or two trophies for "kit" beers. Most of us started out with kits and it'd be great to give some constructive feedback to those who are trying to better their brewing.

I'm split in regards to professional brewers entering amateur comps but I think the limited amount of people this would apply to probably means it wouldn't be fair to exclude them. As long as they brewed the beer at home using their own personal equipment then I think it would be fair for them to enter. I'm not sure why any professional craft brewer (not specifically aimed at Ross, I'm using the terms generically) would really want to enter amateur comps but can understand those working for large commercial companies and enjoy brewing would.


----------



## schooey (19/9/11)

DU99 said:


> People have to remember you can buy unhopped malt extract.



Of course you can... but it would be considered a_ base _ingredient. You would still need to combine it with other base ingredients and _brew_ a beer i.e. water, hops, specialty grains etc. If you use a FWK or a can, the majority of the base ingredients and the brewing has already been done for you in a commercial environment.

Like I said... semantics


----------



## Parks (19/9/11)

For me the issue with FWK is how close to the actual finished product they are.

If you are good enough to take a tin of Coopers Lager and win a prize you deserve it. I still do think there should be a different category for kits, but only so they have an even playing field with each other (although, does a kit with partial mash get to enter?)

For me, I'd allow everything except FWK, or allow FWK for judging only and not prizes.

I have to commend the character you showed Ross, some people would not have taken the blow up the same as you. It may have done what you wanted, and that's get enough discussion to change the rules.


----------



## 1975sandman (19/9/11)

What if they had 2 main categories at a show:

All grain
Premade malt, eg tin, FWK, etc

and they be judged in their own category, then the best from each category be put up against each other to be labelled BOS?

My thoughts only.....


----------



## petesbrew (19/9/11)

I guss can see the thoughts people have on an "unfair advantage" if a Commercial Brewer does an AG at home and enters it.

But are some people bitter that their AG has been beaten by a knk? So joe blow gets a farmland kit, raids the kitchen cupboard, brews it in a hot garage within spitting distance of the compost heap, and pulls a Bradbury, taking out the best specialty "chilli nutmeg draught". 
Congrats to him. There's nothing like bragging to your mates when your beer scores a place.

Pity discussions like this pop up - like an old wives club.
Inhouse or offshoot comps, best KnK, or AG, do whatever you like... keep the nationals open to all.


----------



## Batz (19/9/11)

Bonj said:


> For those that are in favour of kits, but not FWKs, what is your rationale here? Are not FWKs just less concentrated versions of the same product?



I can see your point here Bonj, and thinking about it I must agree with you. It's not as straight forward as it seems.




> I have to commend the character you showed Ross, some people would not have taken the blow up the same as you.



The choice would have been? Ross was only following the rules of which he knows much better than me but man that could have done some damage to his name, and possibly has in some circles?




A few years back these competitions were smaller and simpler. With the huge interest in home brewing of date I think the powers to be need to sit down and take a fresh look at the rule book.


----------



## Fatgodzilla (19/9/11)

My random thoughts.

I'm happy with the status quo as to police the comps would be too hard. What you want - stat decs with each entry to say I brewed this. ?

Ross will kill me for saying this, but not all FWK are good. Caveat emptor. I've had some good ones, I had some bad ones. You can bugger up a fresh wort kit by poor yeast management, lapse temperature control etc. Done it myself. I have made one (really, seriously) good FWK beer that I was happy to drink, but I wouldn't enter it into a competition cos I didn't brew it. Self regulation. Seems we hear that a fair bit in this (mainly) de-regulated market society of ours.

As for kits, if you can make a kit beer that tastes as good as a AG, good luck to you. You deserve to win a prize. has been done, but 100 to 1 shots occasionally win races. They'll occasionally (rarely) place in comps. If I could make a kit beer that tastes great, I'd do it all the time. Save buggering around with mashing, sparging etc.

Seperate classes for these beers? Okay at minor level, but at state then national levels, all in best in. The style guidelines are there, brew what you like to meet them and be judged.

Carpet bombers - love them. The more entries, the more entry fees, the better the prizes. People want to brew lots of good beer and enter shows, good luck to them. Let someone make ten kit beers and enter ten catagories. Chances are they'll finish at the bottom of each catagory but the prizes coffers are better for it. Come in spinner!

Professional brewers in amateur comps .. why the hell not. There are so many brews in the Australian craft market at the moment that would struggle to score 30 per judge in a decent comp. Besides, which professional brewers have time or desire to brew for the comps? Who are professionals - Ross with his wort kits should now be classified as a professional? Probably. 

Guys, I think too many people are getting hung up on this issue. Schooey's semantics quotes are right. Stop worrying too much about the issue. The best beers being made at the moment are by talented home brewers using standard AG methods. The results of all major beer comps since I've had an interest in this matter show this. Webber, Mitchell, Cranston, Asher .. a dozen more, all constantly take the major gongs and they are all amateur AG brewers. It'll be the same at the Nationals this year. A few new names will be added to the honour rolls.

Stop worrying, leave things as they are, have a home brew and see you in Adelaide for the Nationals.


----------



## Parks (19/9/11)

Batz said:


> The choice would have been? Ross was only following the rules of which he knows much better than me but man that could have done some damage to his name, and possibly has in some circles?



There was no other good choice, doesn't mean others wouldn't have got their back up. Either way, the politics are the only winner here :huh:


----------



## schooey (19/9/11)

A brief read here of the rules of the biggest beer competition in the world puts it quite briefly;



<SNIP>_( b ) Your homebrew cannot have been brewed on equipment used to brew beverages for any commercial purpose, whether for commercial research, production or any other purpose, including equipment at brew-on-premises establishments.

( c ) You must give the names of all brewers who helped in the brewing.

( d ) No employee of the Brewers Association may enter.

( e ) Judges may not judge a category they have entered, and stewards may not steward a category they have entered._ <SNIP>

Sure, there's still a grey area there around the FWK vs Can argument; You could argue that the FWK is essentially a beverage whereas a can needs a bit more work to make it a beverage, but there is no mention of Pro vs Amateur. It only revolves around the commercial equipment argument. I kind of like it.... although it does mean if I start my cunning plan of producing 750ml FWTKs (Fresh wort Tallie Kits... just add yeast and an Oztop and ferment in the bottle) from my Braumeister, I'll void my ability to enter any comps...


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

schooey said:


> A brief read here of the rules of the biggest beer competition in the world puts it quite briefly;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like that definition. If fits well with my view of the whole commercial vs amateur thing. One could argue that FWKs and kits have been brewed on commercial equipment and are therefore ineligible for entry. But like all rules and laws, it is open to interpretation.... that's why we need courts and lawyers...


----------



## raven19 (19/9/11)

Fatgodzilla said:


> ...have a home brew and see you in Adelaide for the Nationals.



I'll drink to that! Looking forward to it. :icon_cheers:


----------



## manticle (19/9/11)

For me, a simple way to look at it would be access.

Brewers of any level have access to u-brew it, tinned kits, fresh wort kits etc but not all have access to commercial brewing equipment.


----------



## Josh (19/9/11)

If I fermented a FWK or hopped extract I doubt I would enter it in a comp. I just don't think I would have done enough of the "brewing".

BOP is another issue and I think it _could_ fit into homebrew comps. Consider the kits you can buy from More Beer! for instance. I can get online and buy a Malty Brown Ale from them, have the extract, hops and yeast delivered to my door and brew a full boil extract beer. I may know nothing about those ingredients, but I am following the instructions on the information sheet, adding hops to a full boil at the specified times, chilling down and fermenting. This is essentially what BOP does, is it not?

---

If I won lotto tomorrow and bought a turnkey craft brewery operation. Would that make me a better brewer than any of the aforementioned medal winners? No. 

So if I continued to plug away on weekends in my garage, with my BIAB/no-chill set up, I would still want to enter those beers in the NSW AABC.

Working for a brewery shouldn't have any bearing on whether you brewed your homebrew in an amateur setting.


----------



## winkle (19/9/11)

Josh said:


> If I fermented a FWK or hopped extract I doubt I would enter it in a comp. I just don't think I would have done enough of the "brewing".
> 
> BOP is another issue and I think it _could_ fit into homebrew comps. Consider the kits you can buy from More Beer! for instance. I can get online and buy a Malty Brown Ale from them, have the extract, hops and yeast delivered to my door and brew a full boil extract beer. I may know nothing about those ingredients, but I am following the instructions on the information sheet, adding hops to a full boil at the specified times, chilling down and fermenting. *This is essentially what BOP does, is it not?*
> 
> ...



Depends on the BOP, you really only have to be there to pitch the yeast is my understanding of the legal requirement.

Edit: PS. Stillscottish got a gold brewing on dodgy equipment older than me, just goes to show.


----------



## jayse (19/9/11)

I disagree with those that mention kits should be entered seperately kit vs kit, ag vs ag etc, you do not judge beers against each other you judge them against guidelines and either way they will score the same. Some people seem a bit precious not wanting any kit brewer to beable to take home a prize, why? there is no reason why you should even know how it was made.

I don't care how the beer was made and have no need to know how it was made, you judge how it looks, smells and tastes.

Did any fwks actually take out top prizes? eitherway I see no reason to try and have them banned, it is still an amatuer beer.

Maybe bop beers should not be allowed because you are essentially paying for beer not wort, there is exice paid and you walk out of a comercial brewery with ready to drink beer, its not like they are great beers and no real advantage as such anyway but you still brought beer not something you take home and turn into beer. Even if you did help make it you are still buying beer.

I don't see anything that needs changing other then maybe bop.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

jayse said:


> I disagree with those that mention kits should be entered seperately kit vs kit, ag vs ag etc, you do not judge beers against each other you judge them against guidelines and either way they will score the same. Some people seem a bit precious not wanting any kit brewer to beable to take home a prize, why? there is no reason why you should even know how it was made.


There is a reason. It is a brewing competition. Brewing requires a level of skill and ability in order to brew correct to style guidelines. Using a kit, be it in a tin, or a fresh wort is bypassing that brewing skill. If it is a brewing competition, then you should have to actually brew it in order to enter. Kits and FWKs are cheating by skipping half of the process.


----------



## argon (19/9/11)

I look at it this way... is something, apart from yeast, required to be added to make your ingredients into beer.

Does it require additional ingredients in order to make it into beer;
- grain - yes - water, hops
- extract - yes - water, hops
- hopped extract - yes, water
- BOP - no, because you can just rock up to the facility and purchase it
- FWK - no, because you can just tip it into a fermentor with some yeast and get beer. That's not brewing, that's fermenting. Even if you can top it up to correct gravity, all FWKs i've seen are 15L or 20L or so. The 15L ones say to add water, but they can make beer without any top up of water.

Obviously there becomes a threshold between hopped extract and FWK. That threshold for me is, as above, when another ingredient is required to turn it into beer.

Commercial vs Amateur
Regardless of vocation of the brewer, inline with the above, is the beer made using commercial facilities;
- yes, then cannot be submitted for amateur competition. EG My recipe, i do all the work and ferment at home, but i made the wort at the XXXX factory... then no.
- no, may be submitted

Therefore if i'm the headbrewer at XXXX and i want to submit a Aussie Lager, based on the recipe i use at the factory, but i use equipment other than the commercial brewery, then i'm fine to do that.


----------



## Batz (19/9/11)

Bonj said:


> There is a reason. It is a brewing competition. Brewing requires a level of skill and ability in order to brew correct to style guidelines. Using a kit, be it in a tin, or a fresh wort is bypassing that brewing skill. If it is a brewing competition, then you should have to actually brew it in order to enter. Kits and FWKs are cheating by skipping half of the process.




That's it in a nut shell, tipping a tin of goo into a fermenter and adding water is not brewing.
I can here the rumblings :unsure: "What if K&K brewers add fresh hops, add a mini mash? temperature control and use liquid yeasts? Because those brewers will become A.G. brewers in no time, believe me.

Fresh Wort Kits, forget it, just proves you can shop.


----------



## spaced (19/9/11)

I just want to say, if you enter a comp, you do it by choice. And it's your choice whether or not you agree with the rules set out.

If the rules were to be changed I would say.

Kit and Kilo - Yes. If they're as shit as beerfingers says they are, it shouldn't be an issue.

Fresh Wort Kit - No. These are _usually _all grain and are done on large equipment (will cover that below).

All grain yourself - Yes, of course.

Full extract - Yes

Commercial brewers on their home equipment - Yes. Just because you brew beer all day, doesn't mean you should be stopped from enjoying doing it at home.

Commercial brewers on their work equipment - No.

There are two main reasons to enter a comp. One, to Win, everyone has a chance and although all brewers have different budgets for equipment, I think the playing field needs to be as fair as possible. Two, to get good feedback on their beer. I think all homebrewers have the right to get good feedback.

The cap on equipment size of say 100L or so seems pretty fair, once you go past this you're really heading into professional territory.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

spaced said:


> I just want to say, if you enter a comp, you do it by choice. And it's your choice whether or not you agree with the rules set out.


It's easy to say that, but if rules and laws were so straight forward and not open for interpretation, then we wouldn't need courts and lawyers to interpret and clarify those rules/laws.

The kit issue is clear. They are currently allowed, but there is a push to disallow them. What is a much more grey area is the definition of commercial. Are you proposing no-one enter the comps at all, because the rule is ambiguous? It is only by challenging those ambiguities that we can clarify what the rules actually are.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (19/9/11)

So given the below, Jamil, John Palmer, Gordon Strong - those guys cant enter anymore because their homebreweries brewed beverages that contributed to the commercial purpose of them writing and selling books about homebrewing.

Whereas FWKs would be absolutely fine, as long as they were made on equipment that was never used to produce finished beer for commercial sale. So for instance, a HB shop or some other enterprise builds a small brewhouse and brews FWK - but isn't licenced to sell beer, so that equipment never produces a "beverage", only an ingredient - thier FWK would be kosher, but one made at an actual brewery would be against the rules. Some FWKs would be fine, but others wouldn't... Can you say complicated?

I'm happy to put my beers up against anyone who has fermented their beer at home, its so much easier to make bad beer in the fermenter than it is to make bad beer in your mash tun - and the reverse is true too - its pretty easy to just get lucky and have your half arsed, dont really know what you're doing mashing system pop out a couple of really good brews by accident and win an award. But if your fermentation regime is dodgey its pretty unlikely that you'll ever be brewing any beers that rate a mention at comps. Possible but its going to be rare.

Beers produced and fermented on premise at a BOP... I dont think so. Someone else made the beer not you. But if you fermented the beer at home, then I'm happy to have my beers up against yours and shake your hand if you happen to win.

The pro/amatuer thing I wont comment on because I plainly have a position motivated by self interest.



schooey said:


> A brief read here of the rules of the biggest beer competition in the world puts it quite briefly;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pimpsqueak (19/9/11)

I'm pretty curious how any of these changes would be policed? If you ditch FWK and Kits'n'bits, surely you have to bring into play a method by which these rules can be policed?
Good luck with that... it almost makes it more work than it's worth (and it certainly seems like a lot of work to run a comp at the moment).

My 2c.


----------



## argon (19/9/11)

Thirsty Boy said:


> snip... its pretty easy to just get lucky and have your half arsed, dont really know what you're doing mashing system pop out a couple of really good brews by accident and win an award. ...snip...



damnit! you've got my number


----------



## jayse (19/9/11)

Another side issue with banning kits is I gather most states would loose valuable sponsership money, Coopers would no longer be interested and they are one of our main sponsers along with other brewshops whos main products are kits, at the state level Coopers also insist we award a trophy for the best kit beer of show.
We would also loose all the entry fees from the kit brewers entering this would possibly mean doubling the entry fees to cover costs.

Most people will say quite rightly that money should not dictate how we run the competitions but its another factor.
I can't see kits being banned ever anyway and don't think they should be.

If anyone does strongly feel this should happen or anything should change should join their state commitee and do all they can to make it happen, maybe oneday fwk may be banned if enough people agree but banning kits or even have them in a seperate section will most likely never happen.

There is no advantage in using kits and at the end of the day pre made extract is a valid ingredient in beer.

Home made beer is home made beer and i don't think they should be judged seperately based on how they were made, i do understand and respect those that feel differently.


----------



## petesbrew (19/9/11)

spaced said:


> I just want to say, if you enter a comp, you do it by choice. And it's your choice whether or not you agree with the rules set out.
> 
> If the rules were to be changed I would say.
> 
> ...



Tasted some pretty crap,bland and infected commercial beers from small breweries. If they entered their beer straight from the bottling line, under their own brewery name, it'd be interesting to see how they score against Average Joe - just a thought.


----------



## Stagwa (19/9/11)

So I decide to go to the local amateur athletic carnival and enter the 100m sprint (not likelybut draws a good parallel) and I come to the start line there is Usain Bolt. So I go to the organiser to complain and get told "it's ok as he's not there in a profession capacity, he did all the training for this event at home in his own time without his trainers and will only be using standard amateur equipment ofa t-shirt and running shorts like the rest of us instead of his professional lycra shorts and singlet". So now I feel so much better that this is indeed a true amateur competition!


How ridiculous, have an amateur competition and allow professionals
to enter and then try to justify it by saying things like: it's ok if he uses
his own equipment at home etc. is just crap. The pro has brewed more in a year
than I would in the rest of my life time, has had some mentoring and study etc.
brews all day every day and should be capable of brewing a better beer than me
on my home equipment due to all the experience they have. 

 

If they want toenter a competition why not go to The Australian International Beer Awards orchange the Australian Amateur Brewing Championship to Australian BrewingChampionship.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

Thirsty Boy said:


> So given the below, Jamil, John Palmer, Gordon Strong - those guys cant enter anymore because their homebreweries brewed beverages that contributed to the commercial purpose of them writing and selling books about homebrewing.


That is a prime example of why an accepted interpretation needs to be determined and recorded. Without that, one is free to make all sorts of absurd interpretations of the rules as they are written. It is a common feature of legislation these days to provide examples to clarify the current interpretation of a law. Check out the Queensland Criminal Code for plenty of such examples.

To me, it seems like a bit of a stretch to classify Thirsty Boy's above examples as equipment used for commercial purposes, but how could we know for sure unless it is clarified. A clarification might say something to the effect that the commercial use must be beverage commerce, ie related to the direct selling of beverages, research of recipes prior to commercially retailing said beverages. Alternatively, it might clarify that producing a beverage for any reason related to any commerce might be ineligible. 

Without an accepted and published interpretation, no-one can know for sure.


----------



## sama (19/9/11)

I have no animosity to kit brews at all,and if kits can produce better beer then so be it.my opinion is ag brews should be judged in there own class wether there worse beer or not, taking grain and turning it into beer is an art form in its own,a labour of love,that should not be lost amongst other methods of beer production.one day kit brews may become consistently superior or on par with ag brews,winning all,then will ag brewing disappear as a homebrew process? Id hate to see the art lost.just my opinion.love to all that brew,theres a place for all forms in a comp i say.


----------



## MHB (19/9/11)

Im going to argue strongly for Inclusiveness.
Brewers at any level should be encouraged to enter competitions if for no other reason than to get good unbiased feedback on their beer. With improving judge training this is now a resource available to all brewers to help us brew better beer.
We read on AHB every day how much better AG is than kit or extract brewing, if this is the case what is there to be afraid of. All Grain brewers should be able to match or better anyone, these days we have access to the worlds finest Malt Hops and Yeast, water chemistry and temperature control are a piece of cake. If kit/extract brewers are beating AG brewers then its up to us to raise our standards.
By extension the same argument can be applied to FWK and BOP beers, they are a business, a business has to make money so there are going to be real constraints on what can be made and sold commercially.
If any commercial operator is so dedicated to good beer that they are offering class winning FWK - either; buy them, they deserve every accolade and all the income that flows their way; - or learn to brew better.

I can understand people getting wound up about what they see as unfair competition. Should commercial brewers enter Home Brew Competitions personally I dont care, I dont brew for judges or for trophies I brew for me and for the love of the craft. If my beer was being judged alongside a commercial example I just hope mine stands up well.
Even tho three local pro brewers I know have home systems and should be welcome to my mind, they dont enter, thats their choice and I respect their decision. Mind you, you should hear some of what gets said by pro brewers about the competitions they enter, some of the comments would make paint blister.

Lastly I think exclusions arent going to work; there are too many shades of grey. If I add some extract to an AG is it an AG beer; or use some ISO hop to tweak the bitterness or a dash of cascade oil...
I think we should concentrate on brewing beer we want to drink, use competitions to get feedback and judge every beer on its merits on the day.
Brew for the love of brewing, there is no way to enforce honest (or even honourable) behaviour.
MHB


----------



## winkle (19/9/11)

jayse said:


> Another side issue with banning kits is I gather most states would loose valuable sponsership money, Coopers would no longer be interested and they are one of our main sponsers along with other brewshops whos main products are kits, at the state level Coopers also insist we award a trophy for the best kit beer of show.
> We would also loose all the entry fees from the kit brewers entering this would possibly mean doubling the entry fees to cover costs.
> 
> Most people will say quite rightly that money should not dictate how we run the competitions but its another factor.
> ...



I think that most brewers would want to include kits in competition, after all it is where most of us started, feedback is invaluable and if kits win a few then good luck. FWKs are where it all starts to fall apart, since really good FWKs can win competitions (as seen on the weekend) with limited effort/input from the 'brewer' and could cause many to ask 'why bother entering' since it isn't a level playing field. 
I'd be happy to compete against, say, TB on home rigs anyday (even if he'd kick my arse) :icon_cheers: .


----------



## drsmurto (19/9/11)

Anyone who spends all day every day brewing beer and gets paid to do so should not be allowed to enter an 'amateur' competition. It's not a level playing field if professionals, regardless of where they brew their beer (home or work) are allowed to play with the amateurs.

Think about how much better you would be as a brewer if work didn't get in the way. :icon_cheers: 

That's just my opinion of the comps (and the rules with loopholes large enough to drive trucks through) not of the brewer in question.


----------



## Keith the Beer Guy (19/9/11)

Bonj said:


> There is a reason. It is a brewing competition. Brewing requires a level of skill and ability in order to brew correct to style guidelines. Using a kit, be it in a tin, or a fresh wort is bypassing that brewing skill. If it is a brewing competition, then you should have to actually brew it in order to enter. Kits and FWKs are cheating by skipping half of the process.



Bonj, I think these are just lines in the sand. 

Why should all-grain brewers be allowed to use malt they have purchased rather than malted themselves; perhaps they should have grown their own barley and harvested it themselves. The yeast likewise shouldn't come from a packet - where's the challenge there? People should source their own strain and culture it for use.

I think we choose the final product to be the point that matters. The beer. Anything else is just an arbitary choice: starting with kits is convenient for some - starting with malted barley suits others.

And I would mention that there are a lot of comments where people are dismissive of fermentation by and of itself. For my money it's the yeast and making life easy for the yeast that is the most important aspect of the art of brewing. 

fwiw Keith


----------



## Batz (19/9/11)

What a fantastic thread hey? No one spitting fire or crawing up anothers behind.

Very nice to have such a open fourm, thanks for all the posts :icon_chickcheers: ,bad luck some off the old time 'invisible brewers' don't have an input. (soft cocks)

I'm sure this will make a difference to brewing competitions in the future.


----------



## warra48 (19/9/11)

A free for all sounds good enough for me. Let's put our beers up against all comers. If we come out on top, well, so much the better.

I think it will be impossible to police what is or isn't "homebrewed" according to some definition or other. You would rely on the honesty of the brewer. At then end of the day, where is the satisfaction of winning or doing well in a competition where youknow within yourself you've cheated the rules?


----------



## AndrewQLD (19/9/11)

Batz said:


> What a fantastic thread hey? No one spitting fire or crawing up anothers behind.
> 
> Very nice to have such a open fourm, thanks for all the posts :icon_chickcheers: ,bad luck some off the old time 'invisible brewers' don't have an input. (soft cocks)
> 
> I'm sure this will make a difference to brewing competitions in the future.



Batz some of the old time "invisible brewers" don't have a lot to say because this has all been said before, I know I had plenty to say a couple of years ago as did a few others with no result and at that time no one really gave a shit. 
This topic in one form or another is brought up every year and not just with the QABC but others around the country as well, I just think it's a very ambiguous rule and it would be very hard to draft a rule that was as iron clad as it would need to be, and even harder to enforce.

Andrew


----------



## felten (19/9/11)

I have no problems competing against kit brewers, extract brewers, FWK brewers or commercial brewers. May the best beer win.

This argument is moot anyway, it's impossible to police.


----------



## Paul H (19/9/11)

The way I see it I think the issues are being over complicated . 

There are only two issues I see:

1. Should a professional brewer be able to enter an amateur competition, I way I see it the two terms are mutually exclusive so no. It's not the Aust Amateur Brewing *Equipment* Championship

2. The competition is decided by evaluating the skill of the brewer to brew beer, not their ability to add water & ferment (although the yeast might disagree about who's doing the work).

In respect to being all inclusive let's get real. The concept of a championship is to determine the best in a given area of endeavour, no one really expects a barge arse to win a 100m running race, so under what circumstances would someone justify a "fermenter" winning a brewing competition when they did nothing to contribute to the wort & or hopping schedule. In respect to feedback from the judges if you didn't contribute to the wort or the hopping any feedback you receive will be limited in it's application anyway.

Flame on

Paul


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (19/9/11)

FWK - no way. BOP - no way.

Tinned goo kit (s/a Coopers, Morgans, Home Brand) - Yes (and I voted "No" for kits FWIW).

The reasons?

Tinned good with 1kg of dextrose and packet yeast will always taste like rubbish and never win a comp.

But a K&K brewer who chooses the yeast, hops, possibly mini-mashes or steeps grains and maybe adds adjuncts has clearly had a strong hand in the creative process of his beer, has chosen his ingredients (I'm thinking yeast in particular) based on research and understanding of what turns wort into beer and isn't just adding water and the packet yeast.

He'd also be likely to understand the effects of temperature control, sanitisation and a number of other "non-ingredient" factors that make up a good brew.

He starts behind the 8 ball, because prehopped extract is not as fresh as grain mashed, boiled and turned into beer. However, it does take less time to produce (as a rule). This is a self-handicap that keeps quality beer at the top.

If the k&k brewer's done that much work, he should be able to enter it against AG brew and have it honestly assessed. If the judges say "it's a bit cidery" or picks up the faults we commonly associate with kit beer, then it's been done as a blind test, and he's got honest feedback, rather than the anti-extract prejudice that many kit brewers think AG brewers show. You may then have the same brewer turn up a year later having taken his research further and switched to AG.

As a result of this - my position is that there should not be a separate entry for Prehopped extract tin beers. If you rate your beer, then you should be tough enough to have it rated against others, regardless of method used.

I agree with the sentiments that this is a healthy respectful debate. Something that often gets neglected, especially when K&K vs AG starts getting a roll on - all sorts of accusations and misrepresentations occur.

Goomba


----------



## Batz (19/9/11)

AndrewQLD said:


> Batz some of the old time "invisible brewers" don't have a lot to say because this has all been said before, I know I had plenty to say a couple of years ago as did a few others with no result and at that time no one really gave a shit.
> This topic in one form or another is brought up every year and not just with the QABC but others around the country as well, I just think it's a very ambiguous rule and it would be very hard to draft a rule that was as iron clad as it would need to be, and even harder to enforce.
> 
> Andrew




Perhaps someone will give a shit this time mate.

You have to keep pushing the barrow, don't let the bastards get you down. Sit on your hands and you have only yourself to blame.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

Keith the Beer Guy said:


> Bonj, I think these are just lines in the sand.
> 
> Why should all-grain brewers be allowed to use malt they have purchased rather than malted themselves; perhaps they should have grown their own barley and harvested it themselves. The yeast likewise shouldn't come from a packet - where's the challenge there? People should source their own strain and culture it for use.
> 
> ...


I disagree, Keith. It is a *brewing* competition. Not a beer competition. Not a farming/malting/yeast culturing competition. One does not need to do anything but brew, to be called a brewer. It isn't an arbitrary choice, it is a specific choice to facilitate a competition where *amateur brewers* can showcase their specific skills in *brewing*, and to compete against each other. I think the line has already been drawn when they named the competition.


----------



## dicko (19/9/11)

Most of the critical points have been already covered in this topic (and the other one) and there appears to be divided thought for some points over others so,
then who makes the decision? who gets to vote?.

Ross has said that he didn't agree with the rules and I guess from what I have read today that he has set out to prove the anomalies.

Who were the people that decided in favor of the current rules and do these people have a comment?
Maybe they have provided there view in previous posts - I don't really know.

Will it change or will we all at least get the opportunity to officially vote? 

So many questions!!

IMHO Ross should keep his awards for this comp, he played by the rules and won so that should be it.

Regarding the current standing my opinion is kits and bits and extract beers are fine. 
FWK's are not, BOP's are not, Micro brewed beers are not, and even soaking the label off commercial bottles and fitting a plain crown seal should be banned.  
AG and part mashes are all good.
I am reserving my decision on pro brewers being allowed in the comp but if asked I am tending toward "no" to this as well particularly after Smurto's comments above which I feel pretty much sums it up.

Soft cock over and out! :icon_cheers:


----------



## AndrewQLD (19/9/11)

Batz said:


> Perhaps someone will give a shit this time mate.
> 
> You have to keep pushing the barrow, don't let the bastards get you down. Sit on your hands and you have only yourself to blame.



I sincerely hope your right mate, but this will go nowhere unless the Victorian, ACT and NSW commitees get behind it as well as they seem to hold most control and tend to over rule the other relevant delegates.

Edit: Dicko, this should answer your third paragraph, you old soft cock


----------



## manticle (19/9/11)

> Who were the people that decided in favor of the current rules and do these people have a comment?




I got sent a link to this document yesterday in response to a query about style categories and why North German alt is in the amber and dark lager category but Dusseldorf alt is considered a bitter ale.

http://www.aabc.org.au/docs/AABC_AimsRules...eb_20090319.pdf

People involved are listed, with email addresses attached (it's a public document from the aabc website so no harm posting the link).


----------



## schooey (19/9/11)

I reckon some great points have come out of this thread. As stated by many, the main issue seem to be;

What should the Australian Amateur Brewing Championship encompass?

As stated before, the key points all come down to semantics, and by that I mean the definition of the two key words 'Brewing' and 'Amateur'

So let us start on 'Brewing'

The issues here revolve around peoples definition of the term. At the moment, the main entries in our state comps and thence into AABC take the following form;

Kit & Kilo
Kits & Bits
FWK
Partial Mash
All Grain

From this thread, it seems that people have different acceptance points on which of these terms actually fall under the term 'Brewing'. In an effort for clarity the term 'Commercial Equipment' has been thrown in. I think this has only served to muddy the waters further, For every form of kit (K&K, K&B & FWK) has been sold to the end beer maker and thence has been produced on 'commercial equipment'. 

So which processes are 'Brewing' and which aren't? 

I guess that question only needs to be answered if we* care... If we don't care, we move on with the status quo

If we do care then we exclude the first three processes...

As many others have said, and me too, if you exclude all those people, there goes a good whack of entries, a great amount of invaluable feedback for new brewers and would more and likely only serve to discourage many from the reason why the majority of us started, why most of us are all here; the want for better beer and a better beer culture in this country. As other have also said, how the hell do you police it? Sure we'd hope that everyone was honest enough to do the right thing, but I'd say the only people it will exclude in the end will be the brewers of the FWKs. Me, personallly, I don't think this is a good move in the greater scheme of things.

Then you get on to the second word 'Amateur'

I'm sure when this was put into the name, there was a great divide between what we now term professional brewers and what we term a genuine amateur home brewer. Craft Breweries were probably only in their early infancy if that. The knowledge level of the average home brewer population didn't extend to the depth it now does and the availability of the range of ingredients we all have in this country certainly didn't exist. As bAtz mentioned earlier, when this rule book was built, things were a lot different. You had good old schooner malt and everything you made tasted like a CPA. Forget fresh yeast. Blah blah blah... Now our brew clubs run classes in BJCP, we have SAB Miller off flavour training seminars, we slant yeasts and share. Some homebrewers have a virtual lab in their garage complete with Autoclave, sterile cabinets, stir plates and centrifuges. It's a quantum leap...

Again it comes down to do we care? If no.. you know..

If yes, it still comes down to how do you police it? How do we know they didn't take it from the bright tank at work or brewed it on their home system? How do we even know where someone works? Or what they do there? If I'm honest with myself at the moment, I don't know of too many Pro Brewers that enter comps. I think they exclude themselves (Or their employers do it for them) to avoid just this thing...I'd like to think that most of the ones that I have met would be honest enough to only enter something they did at home themselves anyway. They're in the industry for the same reason you and I are into craft beer at the end of the day anyway. I'm pretty sure they'd rather put their focus on taking a gold medal from one of their own industry competitions anyway; they sure as hell stand to gain more than winning a glass mug at the NSWABC... 

In saying that though, I guess the example that triggered this whole thread is a little unique. We all know it's a commercial brewery. We all know that the beer was produced on commercial brewing equipment by the commercial brewer (Whether that be Ross or his Head Brewer - One and the same I guess). Whether Ross fermented it and bottled it himself hasn't been made clear, but again, do we need to split hairs that fine? I can understand the complaint and I'm sure if Chuck Hahn knocked out a batch of RIS at the Malt Shovel and entered it into the NSWABC there would have been a fair old stink..

The term lines in the sand was mentioned...so where does it get drawn? Does it need to be drawn? If the 'we' think a change needs to be made, they need to unite and take it to their state AABC delegates and follow it through their channels. Otherwise the 'we' argument is just moaning and piss and wind...

I'll jump off the fence from my earliuer posts and get the splinters from my arse... I think by playing semantics around those two words, and excluding so many people, we only serve to hinder the progress of Craft Beer in this country. But no, I don't agree with a commercial brewing company effectively entering a competition which from my understanding is what has happened here. Happy to be corrected... 

* By 'we' I mean the general consensus of opinion of peopl that are willing to follow it through, not just piss and moan and sit back and watch.


----------



## the_new_darren (19/9/11)

Hey,

If Ross won some prizes with his kits, then good on him and i can't see any reason why he should not receive the trophies.

This year they are good, maybe next year they wont be good?

Same goes with BOP beer!!

Anyone who enters a HB comp with a "kit" knowing full well that the "craft" used to make that beer was not of their own doing can only revel in the spoils of a trophy for so long before they come to the understanding that "they" did not make the beer. This understanding can only result in "perhaps I can do it myself" and hence, a greater appreciation of the HB process.

I have not read the whole "Ross story" but I say to the Qlder's (presumably) who feel disenfranchised by his State success, lift your games. Next year you might "pip him at the post" and you will then gain his respect.

cheers

the_new_darren


----------



## NickB (19/9/11)

No offence Darren, but I seriously suggest you go back and read the thread from the beginning.

Cheers


----------



## the_new_darren (19/9/11)

No offence taken Nick and I am not sure whether Ros won several trophies? (not in this thread)

Is the topic hypothetically....that if Dr. Cooper laid down a couple of HB entries using his cans and won the comp, is that fair?

If so, then given that several (hundreds actually) of other HB'ers all over Australia could have used these exact same "cans" but did not produce the same quality brew.

Brew knowledge? Luck? Superior product? Position in flight?

Now if Dr. Cooper was to put three of his beers in each class, then one could argue that it would not be ethical.

cheers

Darren


----------



## goatherder (19/9/11)

For what it's worth, my opinion is very simple:

Best beer on the day wins. Don't care how it's made or who made it.

There seems to be an assumption that commercial brewers have an advantage over amateurs. I say that if an amateur can't brew a better beer than a pro, then the amateur needs to make better beer. The amateur isn't constrained by cost of production and what sells well in shitty inner city bars and other such nonsense. 

Degree of difficulty (which is what's being implied by separating AG from FWK from kits etc) is complete bollocks. As a comp judge, I don't care if you hand hammered your mash vessel out of copper sheets and used it to turbid mash your 9 year old gooseberry lambic. The best beer wins, that's all there is to it.

As a line in the sand, I'm very comfortable with the "ferment away from commercial premises" clause as it is. It lets the beer do the talking without taking the whole scene down the special olympics route.


----------



## Cocko (19/9/11)

I, myself, brew beer.

Then ferment it, sure fermenting is part of the process to complete it to be beer but to _me_ 'brewing' is the cooking process utmost and foremost.

The old adage, kit 'brewing' is like buying Pre made pasta sauce... AG, or/and in a way 'Full' extract, brewing is creating and flavouring the sauce from scratch...

So another vote for 'brewing' comps to be for beer created by the brewer, not just fermented or 'Dolmio Sauce but I added more mushroom and chilli' beers.

If you can enter kits or FWK [UNLESS YOU COOKED IT - Thats CUBING] - do it against the other pre made sauces - own category.

My opinion on topic, I'm entitled.

BUT - lets be clear, I am by no means discrediting that 'Kit' beers can be very good beers, not at all, all I am only saying, in my eyes, _brewing_ is the entire from scratch process and not just a jar and pasta.

Carry on.


Edit: Is Ross not just 'cubing'? - Whatever....


----------



## the_new_darren (19/9/11)

As I mentioned before, HB comps are about ethics (not necessarily rules or laws)

the_new_darren


----------



## dr K (19/9/11)

First I have FFWD through most of this possibly because I have heard it all before. 
Anyway its blowing a gale here and just stepped outside to piss, experience has taught me to keep my back to the wind.
Malcolm Fraser (he famous for truncating a Shavian) also noted that there is only one poll that counts.
The Nationals are a competition where entries are from the top three beers in each category from each "state".
Each "state" has 2 representatives on the AABC.
It is these representatives who by consensus make and change the rules based, I would hope, on the consensus of their "state", I write with some authority as I have done my time on the AABC.
When I first got involved in this the "states" were pretty much ACT, NSW, SA and Vic, in fact the first Tasmanian entries wee judged in Canberra and the following year the first QLD entries,were also judged in Canberra, a mistake but that's another story !
There are a lot more "states" and lot more participation these days, all positive and all adding to the growth of the "craft".
answer, piss off the straw poll, turn hollow vessels to at least half full, get involved with your club, get your club involved with your "state" and make a real difference.
Easy really

K


----------



## dicko (19/9/11)

AndrewQLD said:


> I sincerely hope your right mate, but this will go nowhere unless the Victorian, ACT and NSW commitees get behind it as well as they seem to hold most control and tend to over rule the other relevant delegates.
> 
> Edit: Dicko, this should answer your third paragraph, you old soft cock



Sounds like you know me only too well Andrew :lol: but I will leave that go for now.

It appears by Ross's post in the other topic he was out voted re allowing (or not allowing) kits into the comp and I think we all reserve our right to a democratic vote.

I can see why most, including the majority of the committee may not agree with him however I feel that the issues raised here (and in the other thread) go a lot further than the inclusion of kits. (and I think that maybe this is what Ross was trying to get across)
I can see that this needs some serious talking through on behalf of the relevant committee reps, and some new guidelines be implemented, if it is deemed by that committee to be necessary.
We all would agree that the organisation of this national comp and the state comps are excellent and I hope that these problems can be sorted in a civilized manner so as not to upset future progress in amateur brewing competitions.

BUT,

until the rules are changed then all who entered should be prepared to abide by those rules.

Cheers


----------



## Goofinder (19/9/11)

I reckon professional brewers should be excluded (and I would expect that most, if not all, would not even consider entering an amateur brewing competition on principle). 

FWKs/BOPs/whatever, let them in, but have a spot on the entry form that identifies the method that produced the beer (like is done in SABSOSA to identify kit beers for the best kit beer trophy). Mainly so that if FWKs keep taking out all the awards I know that I should just buy them instead! :beerbang:

Probably the easiest way to achieve this is to just ban Ross*, nothing else will be enforceable anyway. h34r: 

* No, I am not serious.


----------



## bonj (19/9/11)

the_new_darren said:


> As I mentioned before, HB comps are about ethics (not necessarily rules or laws)
> 
> the_new_darren


But the rules and laws are there to enforce those ethics on those who lack any. There will always be one with no ethics that will seek to use the lack ofrules for their own unethical gain.


----------



## the_new_darren (19/9/11)

Bonj, I agree. However, those with low ethical morals suffer eventually.

the_new_darren


----------



## BOG (19/9/11)

I wouldn't generally post to a heated debate like this but......

I feel once the beer is in the bottle it should be judged to style as per any of our competition rules - winner is the winner.

However,

I'd like to see a code placed against any entry that states where the wort was derived be it AG, KIT, FWK, Partial etc.
That way I could search the results to see who won the AG section or the Kit section etc. 

I'd actually like to know what are the best FWK's and applaud the commercial brewer (and maybe buy some).
I don't think it would happen but what if a kit came along to beat AG. Maybe we would all buy the kit.

Also, 

I have no problem with Professional brewers entering, the definition of professional being the same as for Golf, if you earn any money from the activity, in any way, you are deemed to be a professional.

But again a code for an Amateur vs Professional on the entry form.

For a professional brewer they could not enter Mass Production beer (VB or LCPA), only a craft beer (what is that definition?) or a non mass production sample beer.

We now have all brewers competing on the same ground in the correct style. The winner is the winner.

So why do I like this? 

Because I think I can make an ESB to rival some of the bigger craft beer professionals and I'd like to see my name *one day* in the placings ahead of them.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see a K&K beer beat a Craft beer curently on the shelf at Dan Murphys !! It could happen based on some of the stuff on offer. Or one of Ross's excellent FWK's beat a brand name mass market beer! Now that would shake up the place.

Lastely there are the prizes,

As you have the code to identify the origin of the wort etc you can rank the winners (after getting judged all together) and award the best Amateur AG brewer, Best Kit Brewer, Best FWK - Supplier, etc

Imagine beating a professional brewer in open competition with something you made in the back yard. Now that's something to brag about !!

Why are we scared to be judged in open competition? I suspect many of the champion brewers across the state comps would be able to compete on equal ground with professionals.

The question is , would a professional be confident enough to enter, as an adverse result could spell the death of their career.






BOG


----------



## the_new_darren (19/9/11)

Another factor that could possibly be coming into play here, and I think it was touched on by DrK is the "house mouth phenomenon".

My experience is that if a group of guys (sometimes judges) get together socially and share beers, certain qualities/defects from each brewer can become quite evident and a "preferred flavour" can become dominant.

It would therefore reasonable to expect then that if that same group of brewers just happen to be judging, then they would (not intentionally) automatically drift toward the "preferred flavour" as a better beer.

I hope Ross has the courage (and endorsement of others from his state) to enter his winning FWK beers into the nationals (No I wont be judging or attending) for further assessment.

cheers

the_new_darren


----------



## Fourstar (19/9/11)

See link below for stats, this is where i stand.

http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...st&p=817713




Fourstar said:


> Ok im just putting this out there for people to view at their own leisure.
> 
> Some things i have noticed from the stats:
> 
> ...


----------



## the_new_darren (19/9/11)

Is that 3x 1st, 1x 2nd and 3x third?


----------



## Fourstar (19/9/11)

the_new_darren said:


> Is that 3x 1st, 1x 2nd and 3x third?




correct, points are inverse to the place.


----------



## Zizzle (20/9/11)

For all those advocating professional brewers or any beer be allowed in - there are other competitions for that - we are talking about an *amateur brewing* competition.

You know, for folks who want their beers to be compared to the beers of their amateur peers. People who have similar resources, and not years of professional training / brewing time / expensive equipment and exclusive access to certain ingredients.

Sure some may want to go head-to-head with the commercial guys - do it - just don't corrupt an amateur competition.

As far as those who point out that it is impossible to police - that will always be the case. You always have to rely on the honesty of the participants. If someone is going to cheat by using a FWK against the rules, then why not cheat and pour a commercial beer into a bottle and submit that? You may counter with the fact that not all commercial beers would win, but some would. Some even define the style. 


And now for a joke:

For all those kit brewers looking to get feedback via the state comps, let me save you the time/effort/money.

"Some twang in beer. Move to AG to make better beer".  :lol:


----------



## jbirbeck (20/9/11)

Fourstar said:


> See link below for stats, this is where i stand.
> 
> http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...st&p=817713



Everyone has bad scores. could be a bad bottle, could be an infection not identified by the brewer. I see Ross had his fair share, and a few beers that just weren't quite right. I had seven placings too...had a lot of other entries that had bottling issues (typically the comp bottle <_< ) and some beers that were just beaten by others that were better. As a judge I can say for sure recipes and 'brewing' isn't the problem most of the time. fermentation is. 

Free for all I say. Enter you kits, if you can ferment better than I can then fantastic, I'll get you to show me some things. If you go to the local micro and get them to do up some wort for you to take home and stick in your fermenter...good luck to you. My experience is you'll stuff something up in the fermentation process or the bottling and I'll win anyway  

Professional brewers? Come on down...

:drinks:


----------



## spaced (20/9/11)

petesbrew said:


> Tasted some pretty crap,bland and infected commercial beers from small breweries. If they entered their beer straight from the bottling line, under their own brewery name, it'd be interesting to see how they score against Average Joe - just a thought.




Well at the mini-comp for Stouts they slipped in a commercial Stout from Sydney, it rated the worst over all.


----------



## Fourstar (20/9/11)

Zizzle said:


> You know, for folks who want their beers to be compared to the beers of their amateur peers. People who have similar resources, and not years of professional training / brewing time / expensive equipment and exclusive access to certain ingredients.




Does Ross have professional training and exclusive access? I'd be hard pressed to know what he actually doesnt stock besides brewbrite! :icon_cheers:


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (20/9/11)

I believe that brewing is another word for mashing. If competitions are about judging finished product then admitting to how you made it shouldn't be too big an issue. I don't see any issue with judging like against like though, if that is the rule of the competition.

I once bought a FWK and dry-hopped it. Kits 'n' bits?

I do the occasional brewing demo at G&G. It is clearly a (dis-?) service to the homebrewing community, but also (primarily?) a marketing exercise. John gives me some shop credit as a gratuity. Apart from a small amount of bank interest, it is my only personal income. Does that make me a professional brewer? Does it mean the brews I make at the demo days are ineligible for entry into amateur comps? I use my own equipment to make that beer, so does that mean any beers I make at home on that equipment are also ineligible?


----------



## Kodos (20/9/11)

I've only just had a quick read over this thread, so I'm still yet to entirely settle on an opinion.

However, my gut feeling at this point is to keep everything open.

Frankly I think as homebrewers there is no reason we shouldn't be able to brew beer as well as anyone, anywhere, with anything.

I'm not aiming to brew the best stout/ipa/lager/whatever for someone with limited gear etc. I'm aiming to brew the best stout/ipa/lager/whatever. period.

I'm pretty sure if you look at the gear used by the previous national champions, it's pretty simple, and they don't want to change it even if they do have access to all the bling out there.

I don't care if my beer is judged alongside sierra nevada, or coopers, or little creatures etc, if it doesn't stand up, I need to work on it more.

We should hold up the Nationals (and the state comps as qualifiers for the nationals) as the pinnacle of brewing in Australia, and the awards shouldn't be restricted to particular methods.

If you can brew a better beer with FWK, then so be it. If you can brew a better beer with a kit and kilo, all power to you. If you can't beat a FWK or an extract beer, as they say in the classics "join em". That is, of course, if you are just brewing to win competitions.

Every system All-grain (and the myriad ways you go about it) extract, FWH or kit, has its limitations, and it's up to the brewer to identify those limitations and account for them.

For my $0.02 brewing is as much about the evaluating the finished product and modifying either recipe or process to improve it. If you're relying on FWK, then you're limited in you ability to make any changes.

That's my thoughts at the moment anyway. I'll follow discussions with interest (and encourage similar with my state reps!).


----------



## Barley Belly (20/9/11)

It's black and white.

When you choose to do a hobby or sport or occupation commercially and or professionally you are no longer an amateur.

It's an amateur competition.

End of story.


----------



## schooey (20/9/11)

Looks black and red to me...

and next time I want to make something to read like gospel, I must remember that big-ass font trick...


----------



## Fourstar (20/9/11)

keifer33 said:


> It's black and white.
> When you choose to do a hobby or sport or occupation commercially and or professionally you are no longer an amateur.
> It's an amateur competition.
> End of story.




Here is another spin on it. 

"Judy" owns a cake decorating and bread making store. She sells flour kits and sour dough starters SHE cultured and cake decorating kits with pre-made icing decorations/cake toppers she made by hand.

As she owns a store that sells the above:

Should Judy be allowed to enter an amateur artisan bread making competition?
Should be she allowed to enter an amateur cake decorating competition?

Judy is a hobbyist who owns a store that sells product for people to consume, some of which she makes herself. because she makes some of her product by hand, although with no formal qualifications, does that immediately put her into the same category as Adriano Zumbo or the blokes at your local artisan bakery?

I'd hope not.


----------



## Budron (20/9/11)

A professional is someone who gets paid for what they do.

If what they do is make cakes or brew beer or whatever, they are no longer an amateur.

If there are amateur competitions, I guess they are only meant for amateurs.

You can't have you cake and eat it too.


----------



## bconnery (20/9/11)

Barley Belly said:


> It's black and white.
> 
> When you choose to do a hobby or sport or occupation commercially and or professionally you are no longer an amateur.
> 
> ...


I suggest you read the rules.
It's there in black and white (and no red at all)

D3. Amateur Brews. The name of the competition is the Australian AMATEUR BREWING
Championship. This indicates the competition is for amateur *brews *and not for commercial
beers. For many years there was no rule on this issue. The competition name was commonly
interpreted to mean that it was restricted to amateur brewers (rather than amateur brews)
and not open to professional brewers. An issue arose occasionally when a homebrewer turned
professional. Depending on the state, they were sometimes told they could not enter,
sometimes they chose not to enter, and sometimes they were allowed to enter their
homebrewed beers. This rule seeks to clarify the issue by referring to the beer itself. It
recognises that when a professional brewer goes home from work and brews non-commercial
beer as an amateur, then the beers they produce should be considered to be amateur brews."

So, unless the rule changes, you are wrong. Black and white.


----------



## manticle (20/9/11)

Budron said:


> You can't have you cake and eat it too.




What's the point of cake if you can't eat it?


----------



## Budron (20/9/11)

Usain Bolt running in the special Olympics with no shoes on is still Usain Bolt.


----------



## Barley Belly (20/9/11)

Touche'

I wonder though, did the said professional brewer go home from work and brew non-commercial beer as an amateur or was any part of the brewing process conducted on his professional work premises?



bconnery said:


> professional brewer goes home from work and brews non-commercial
> beer as an amateur, then the beers they produce should be considered to be amateur brews."


----------



## Budron (20/9/11)

Are we saying the quality of the brew is more a reflection on the gear used, rather than the brewer?


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (20/9/11)

Fourstar said:


> <snip> does that immediately put her into the same category as Adriano Zumbo or the blokes at your local artisan bakery?
> 
> I'd hope not.



Nope - she has hair, Adriano Zumbo doesn't. She's not on telly, Adriano Zumbo is (and of course, you can believe everything on telly!).



Goomba

PS. Following this debate enthusiastically. The way I'm seeing it, "who is an amateur brewer" is the fundamental issue at hand. Therefore who should be allowed to enter, based on that premise. 

Though I probably agree with the sentiment that amateurs should be up against commercials for the best beer (especially in the sense of demonstrating that homebrew does not equal trough water bootleg nasties), that's not the premise, therefore the idea shouldn't be entertained, unless we are willing to say AABC can throw the rule book out on Amateur and let's open up the comp. Therefore the "Ross" issue that originally precipitated this debate would cease to be an issue and we re-establish the comp as an open brewing comp for aussie craft brewing.


----------



## loikar (20/9/11)

Wow....

just.... Wow....

Who would have thought that 4 ingredients and temperature control could be so full on!
I mean, I get the whole hobby and competition thing, but really?, isn't it supposed to be a fun thing?
It's only beer after all....it's not like someone just threw up on your daughter because she's ugly.... it's just beer...


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (20/9/11)

BeerFingers said:


> It's only beer after all....it's not like someone just threw up on your daughter because she's ugly.... it's just beer...



But they did... and they said it was my fault because of all my beer they drank.


----------



## Silo Ted (20/9/11)

Why was a new thread even necesarry at 1.51pm is beyond me, when this pretty much reflects the same elements of another thread. Waste of ******* time. 


It's pretty ******* simple really. 

*
This is the State Amateur Brewing Competition. Are you: 

A: An Amateur Brewer
B: A Professional Brewer*

Clearly there's only one type of brewer that can eneter. Who gives a **** if they brew on their own gear, you cant just stop being a commercial brewer all of a sudden because you want to pry a few prizes from the hands of an AMATEUR entering an AMATEUR competition. It's disguisting that these people even entered in the first place, regardless of the official rules. Show some goddamn ethics in the overall spirit of the hobby.


----------



## MHB (20/9/11)

Have been thinking about a way to define what is eligible for armature competition and what isnt, how about: 
Beer on which no excise is charged.
That rules out anything made on a commercial system including I believe BOP where a concessional rate of excise is levied, wort from a commercial brewery and most of the other issues raised are covered by this definition.
It leaves in Kits, Extract, FWK and naturally enough All Grain.
MHB


----------



## argon (21/9/11)

MHB said:


> Have been thinking about a way to define what is eligible for armature competition and what isnt, how about:
> Beer on which no excise is charged.
> That rules out anything made on a commercial system including I believe BOP where a concessional rate of excise is levied, wort from a commercial brewery and most of the other issues raised are covered by this definition.
> It leaves in Kits, Extract, FWK and naturally enough All Grain.
> MHB



I reckon this definition is almost there... with perhaps the FWK, which is (hot side) produced on a commercial system, however does not attract an excise.

I maintain that if something (excluding yeast) is required to turn the ingredients into beer then that is elligible for an Amateur competition eg Hopped kit requires water, FWK does not require anything, with emphasis on require.

And anyone can enter it, don't care what you do for a living.


----------



## Paul H (21/9/11)

Budron said:


> Usain Bolt running in the special Olympics with no shoes on is still Usain Bolt.



But what if he has no legs??

:icon_cheers: 

Paul


----------



## Paul H (21/9/11)

manticle said:


> What's the point of cake if you can't eat it?



What about on your birthday????

:icon_cheers: 

Paul


----------



## Snow (21/9/11)

AndrewQLD said:


> Batz some of the old time "invisible brewers" don't have a lot to say because this has all been said before, I know I had plenty to say a couple of years ago as did a few others with no result and at that time no one really gave a shit.
> This topic in one form or another is brought up every year and not just with the QABC but others around the country as well, I just think it's a very ambiguous rule and it would be very hard to draft a rule that was as iron clad as it would need to be, and even harder to enforce.
> 
> Andrew


Ditto. I am reading this whole thread, but me putting in 2c won't achieve anything.

- Snow


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

Snow said:


> Ditto. I am reading this whole thread, but me putting in 2c won't achieve anything.
> 
> - Snow


Even if you don't want to post your opinion in the thread, at least vote in the poll so we get a somewhat accurate view.


----------



## WarmBeer (21/9/11)

Bonj said:


> Even if you don't want to post your opinion in the thread, at least vote in the poll so we get a somewhat accurate view.


The poll doesn't provide enough options to accurately represent the view of the community.

In my own instance, I believe that FWK's should not be eligible, but can'o'goop hopped extract should.

I don't have that option, so rather than misrepresenting my opinion, I chose not to vote.


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

WarmBeer said:


> The poll doesn't provide enough options to accurately represent the view of the community.
> 
> In my own instance, I believe that FWK's should not be eligible, but can'o'goop hopped extract should.
> 
> I don't have that option, so rather than misrepresenting my opinion, I chose not to vote.


Yes, unfortunately, the polls only allow 3 questions. Had I worded it differently and provided multiple choice answers, we might have been able to cater for more options, but I can't change it now... and that's why I want those that can't vote for any reason, to express their views in the thread, so they can at least be acknowledged, if not enumerated.


----------



## argon (21/9/11)

Bonj said:


> Yes, unfortunately, the polls only allow 3 questions. Had I worded it differently and provided multiple choice answers, we might have been able to cater for more options, but I can't change it now... and that's why I want those that can't vote for any reason, to express their views in the thread, so they can at least be acknowledged, if not enumerated.


I agree with what WarmBeer has said i.e. no to FWKs and yes to kits... therefore i voted no, because of the wording of the question. No reason why no-one cannot vote.


----------



## Ross (21/9/11)

argon said:


> I reckon this definition is almost there... with perhaps the FWK, which is (hot side) produced on a commercial system, however does not attract an excise.
> 
> I maintain that if something (excluding yeast) is required to turn the ingredients into beer then that is elligible for an Amateur competition eg Hopped kit requires water, FWK does not require anything, with emphasis on require.
> 
> And anyone can enter it, don't care what you do for a living.




CraftBrewer FWK's are the only ones on the market that I'm aware of that you don't need to add water. So you just want to ban ours & no-one elses  

My personal opinion is that any beer that contains prehopped extract should be excluded, this encompasses all kits, but as it's never likely to happen, the only other option really is to allow them all.

Cheers Ross


----------



## petesbrew (21/9/11)

Budron said:


> Usain Bolt running in the special Olympics with no shoes on is still Usain Bolt.


That's just quitters talk.
There's always a chance he might tread on a bindi.


----------



## Millet Man (21/9/11)

BOP no - you didn't brew or ferment it

FWK no - you didn't brew it, you probably can't stuff it up if you're a reasonable fermentation controller and it's a good chance to hit a style without tweaking

Kits yes - you didn't brew it but you need to add some skill and ingredients other than water and yeast to make it hit a recognised style

Extract and All Grain definitely yes

Beer/wort must be made at home

Amatuer and professional brewers both welcome

The main problem is that someone lacking in ethics could enter a BOP or FWK beer and you would never know.

Cheers, Andrew.


----------



## argon (21/9/11)

Ross said:


> CraftBrewer FWK's are the only ones on the market that I'm aware of that you don't need to add water. So you just want to ban ours & no-one elses
> 
> My personal opinion is that any beer that contains prehopped extract should be excluded, this encompasses all kits, but as it's never likely to happen, the only other option really is to allow them all.
> 
> Cheers Ross




No... emphasis on required... as an example the St peter's FWKs don't require  extra water, they only recommend extra water. The OG is within range to make beer. You can simply add yeast and get beer. 

Wheras with an unhopped extract kit you are required to add water for it to be suitable for fermentation.

Know what i'm getting at?


----------



## schooey (21/9/11)

Millet Man said:


> BOP no - you didn't brew or ferment it
> 
> FWK no - you didn't brew it, you probably can't stuff it up if you're a reasonable fermentation controller and it's a good chance to hit a style without tweaking
> 
> ...



I vote this. Just bullet point that sucker and add it to the rules...


----------



## argon (21/9/11)

schooey said:


> I vote this. Just bullet point that sucker and add it to the rules...



+1


----------



## Parks (21/9/11)

argon said:


> +1



This is exactly where I stand too.


----------



## bradsbrew (21/9/11)

Parks said:


> This is exactly where I stand too.



+1 for me on that too. Has anyone mentioned that brew comps are a lottery? That normally comes up each year as well.

And the only thing I can add to this thread is that its

You can't keep your cake and eat it too.................makes more sense eh.

Cheers Brad


----------



## Ross (21/9/11)

Millet Man said:


> BOP no - you didn't brew or ferment it
> 
> FWK no - you didn't brew it, you probably can't stuff it up if you're a reasonable fermentation controller and it's a good chance to hit a style without tweaking
> 
> ...




Sorry, can't agree with that, there are many excellent kits on the market that only require water to hit a recognised style. If you want to include kits, it needs to be all.

cheers Ross


----------



## bradsbrew (21/9/11)

Ross said:


> Sorry, can't agree with that, there are many excellent kits on the market that only require water to hit a recognised style. If you want to include kits, it needs to be all.
> 
> cheers Ross



Ross, when you say kits, are you referring to cans?

Cheers


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

Ross said:


> Sorry, can't agree with that, there are many excellent kits on the market that only require water to hit a recognised style. If you want to include kits, it needs to be all.
> 
> cheers Ross


I agree with you there, Ross.

I think if it's a brewing competition, you need to have brewed it to compete. 
If you brewed it on equipment used to produce anything for sale, it is commercial and should not be allowed.
BOP shouldn't be allowed - My wife shouldn't be able to win a brewing competition by merely pitching yeast.
There is no skill in adding water and/or yeast and fermenting in a temperature controlled fridge.
If you didn't mash or boil it, you shouldn't be allowed to enter it.

The American NHC rules suggest that even low volume commercially owned pilot breweries (which seem to typically be around the 50L batch size mark) aren't allowed in their competition, even if the brew produced on them is only ever used for researching recipes for potential brewing on larger systems. 

I don't care if it is impossible to police, that shouldn't be a consideration. The consideration should be if we don't want it allowed, then we make a rule to forbid it. If someone breaks the rule, they are committing fraud. Yes, some unscrupulous individuals will still break the rules, but if it is not expressly forbidden, then it is allowed.


----------



## jyo (21/9/11)

Bonj said:


> If you didn't mash or boil it, you shouldn't be allowed to enter it.



This is also my view. 
I wouldn't like to tell people I was awarded a medal for a cracking APA etc that was brewed by someone else.


----------



## Paul H (21/9/11)

I believe that all illegal kit entries that arrive by boat should be processed judged off shore. <_< 

:icon_cheers: 

Paul


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

Paul H said:


> I believe that all illegal kit entries that arrive by boat should be processed judged off shore. <_<
> 
> :icon_cheers:
> 
> Paul


I think making jokes at the expense of displaced and desperate people to be in poor taste.


----------



## drsmurto (21/9/11)

Bonj said:


> I agree with you there, Ross.
> 
> I think if it's a brewing competition, you need to have brewed it to compete.
> If you brewed it on equipment used to produce anything for sale, it is commercial and should not be allowed.
> ...



I don't agree with this.

I think there is more skill on the cold side of brewing than there is mashing/steeping/mixing can of good with hot water.

Yeast health, temperature control and the right temperature range for the yeast and beer style, pitching rates, racking, clarifying, conditioning/lagering, priming rates, bottle conditioning and sanitation all play much bigger roles in producing a clean, fault free beer.

Mixing crushed grain and water and then rinsing requires no skill at all and anybody can boil a liquid. Look at the $30 stovetop thread. h34r:


----------



## Ross (21/9/11)

bradsbrew said:


> Ross, when you say kits, are you referring to cans?
> 
> Cheers



Primarilly yes - there are many 3kg cans for example from muntons & woodfordes that make excellent in style beers.
There are also plenty of worts at different levels of concentrations that still need water, so I can't honestly see how you can differentiate. 
You can take my fresh worts & add your own malt & hops to change them. Allowing concentrate kits & not allowing ones that don't need diluting is just daft.


Cheers ross


----------



## bradsbrew (21/9/11)

DrSmurto said:


> I don't agree with this.
> 
> I think there is more skill on the cold side of brewing than there is mashing/steeping/mixing can of good with hot water.
> 
> ...



Bonj to add to this. The Sunshine Coast brewery cube fermenting challenge that BABBS hosted proved that techniques and fermenting can give an extreme difference in finished brews from the same batch.

Please note that I am against any FWK being used in a comp ( and really why bother enter something that you havnt made). But you cant say it doesnt take skill to ferment a cube.

Cheers


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

DrSmurto said:


> Mixing crushed grain and water and then rinsing requires no skill at all and anybody can boil a liquid. Look at the $30 stovetop thread. h34r:


I disagree here, I'm afraid.

Yes, you can go willy-nilly and still produce beer, but to do so and produce a to-style finished product, is a little more involved.

Mash temperatures and steps to yield wort with the correct in range level of residual and fermentable sugars, water chemistry, hop schedules, amounts, times.... There is plenty of skill involved in the hot side, and as you point out, also in the cold side, so it still comes down to needing the full process. Using a kit in any form is skipping part of that process and in my opinion, is cheating.


----------



## bradsbrew (21/9/11)

Ross said:


> Primarilly yes - there are many 3kg cans for example from muntons & woodfordes that make excellent in style beers.
> There are also plenty of worts at different levels of concentrations that still need water, so I can't honestly see how you can differentiate.
> You can take my fresh worts & add your own malt & hops to change them. Allowing concentrate kits & not allowing ones that don't need diluting is just daft.
> 
> ...



Fair enough good points.

Cheers


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

bradsbrew said:


> Bonj to add to this. The Sunshine Coast brewery cube fermenting challenge that BABBS hosted proved that techniques and fermenting can give an extreme difference in finished brews from the same batch.
> 
> Please note that I am against any FWK being used in a comp ( and really why bother enter something that you havnt made). But you cant say it doesnt take skill to ferment a cube.
> 
> Cheers


Yes. If you read my reply, you will see that I have conceded that point, but it doesn't really affect my argument to disallow kits.


----------



## Malted (21/9/11)

I do not see the difference between FWK and cans of goop. Goop is just dehydrated FWK, is it not? It is kind of like comparing liquid malt to dry malt powder - same thing, different water content.
Ban one, ban both or allow one, allow both.


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (21/9/11)

Malted said:


> I do not see the difference between FWK and cans of goop. Goop is just dehydrated FWK, is it not? It is kind of like comparing liquid malt to dry malt powder - same thing, different water content.
> Ban one, ban both or allow one, allow both.



Maybe it's the "fresh" bit of FWK? I don't think dehydrated wort is the same.

Kind of like the difference between making a meal with dehydrated veges as opposed to fresh veges.

Unless the F in FWK is false advertising. 

Goomba


----------



## bigfridge (21/9/11)

MHB said:


> Have been thinking about a way to define what is eligible for armature competition and what isnt, how about:
> Beer on which no excise is charged.
> That rules out anything made on a commercial system including I believe BOP where a concessional rate of excise is levied, wort from a commercial brewery and most of the other issues raised are covered by this definition.
> It leaves in Kits, Extract, FWK and naturally enough All Grain.
> MHB



Good to see such an active discussion - where were all you guys when the rule was developed a few years ago ? 

Firstly, I need to declare my position as I was the NSW deleate when rule "D3. Amateur Brews" was formulated. It came about because a NSW professional brewer was denied entry into the Nationals due the the unspoken definition of amateur. I provoked the discussion by seeking to define what a 'Professional Brewer' was.

- If I own a brewing company am I considered to be 'in the trade' ?
- What if I own shares in Fosters ?
- What if I drive a fork lift at XXXX and get to chat to the brewers over lunch ?
- What if I dig out the mashtun at Murray's ?
- What if I am a retired footballer that sells Tooheys beer to pubs ?
- What if I am Chuck Hann ?

These are all different aspects of being a 'professional' in the brewing industry. At the time I was branded a troublemaker and responsible for all evils including global warming !!!!! The level of personal abuse that I received from the 'AABA Mafia' was both astounding and shocking.

But one good thing about being an old bastard was that you both don't care about critisism and that you don't hear it (or can't read it without your glasses).

I was responsible for the developing the current wording of parragraph "D3. Amateur Brews:, but as I had pointed out during the ensuing discussions I disagreed with the way that it was finally worded (ie I didn't thgink that it went far enough in clarifying the situation). So, I voted against it, resigned from the AABA committee and promptly took my bat and ball (or tasting glass and BJCP style guidelines) and started my own competition held in association with the Bitter & Twisted competition.

This comp allows entries from 'all brewers whatsoever, without restriction' and only requires that the beer 'be not fermented on licensed premises and must be entered under the name of the brewer(s). This includes 'all beers not made as a commercial beer regardless of where the wort was made ie at home, in a brewshop, at BOP or obtained from a commercial brewery as a Beer Kit or Wort Pack'. Obviously this works on trust and depends on the ethics of the individuals concerned.

So this would allow Chuck Hann to take some wort home and as ong as he fermented, bottled and conditioned it at home and entered it under his own name - then it will be allowed in our NSW comps. But as this sort of 'dangerous behaviour' is frowned upon by the Amature establishment our Mr Hann is not able to enter his own beer into a state or national comp. This is why we sponsor all winners to enter the Nationals in the USA ie our 'best' takes on the best in the USA.

Now I can hear all the gasps of horror as I type this, so please let me inject some reality into the discussion. I have not entered the Nationals since 2000 and probably 2006 was the last time I entered the state comp. Despite brewing for around 30 years (at home) and commercially for a few years (developing and making 'award winning' fresh wort packs) I no longer consider myself an amateur (despite not earning a living from brewing). Brewing more than ten thousand litres of wort packs on commercial equipment, attending Siebel tast training sessions, owning a brewing libray worth about $2,000 and tasting thousands of beers in the USA I prefer to be involved in comps as an organiser and not participant. I also simply don't have time to enter comps.

I know many professional brewers (however that is defined) that are in the same boat and no longer enter comps (een though they would be entitled to do so under the AABA rules). Time is the biggest factor, but there is also the fact that if they are busy brewing great beers during the day they don't feel the need to brew at home or enter comps.

Furthermore, any 'run of the mill' commercial beers usually score poorly against well made amature beers. We always include a commercial calibration beer at the start of each judging session and mainstream beers are lucky to score 30/50. True craft beers from Potters, Murray's or Littles are standouts scoring 40-42. 

We all know that mainstream beer are made for the massess who don't really like the flavour of beer, and I have seen many who 'brew for their living' struggle with infections, poor fermentation performance or inadequate recipe development. So amateur brewers have nothing to fear. Most of you will beat the pro's or at the very least learn something from them.

So, as has been expressed many times in this and the other threads - if you don't like the current AABC rules, discuss this with your state AABA delagates. If you still don't get the answer you want, either start or join another organisation that can support your view.

There is still plenty of scope for evolution in our competition scene.

Dave


----------



## Millet Man (21/9/11)

Ross said:


> Sorry, can't agree with that, there are many excellent kits on the market that only require water to hit a recognised style. If you want to include kits, it needs to be all.
> 
> cheers Ross


I see your point Ross but there are always compromises to be made and it would be counter productive to ban can kits and alienate 50% (or whatever the split is) of homebrewers from competitions IMHO.

The world ain't perfect and never will be.

Cheers, Andrew.


----------



## bradsbrew (21/9/11)

Millet Man said:


> I see your point Ross but there are always compromises to be made and it would be counter productive to ban can kits and alienate 50% (or whatever the split is) of homebrewers from competitions IMHO.
> 
> The world ain't perfect and never will be.
> 
> Cheers, Andrew.



It would be interesting to see how many kit brewers enter comps to win or to get feedback. Has a kit beer ever won at National or state? How many kit beers get entered? How do you you include kit beers in the comp?

Have a separate style for kits that puts all the kits against each other regardless of style, then the winning brew goes into the BOS line up?
or 
Allow them in for feedback only?
or 
Have a totally separate national competition for kit brewers that could be organised by kit brewers and retailers that focus on kit brewing?

Gets a bit messy........

Cheers


----------



## Batz (21/9/11)

Malted said:


> I do not see the difference between FWK and cans of goop. Goop is just dehydrated FWK, is it not? It is kind of like comparing liquid malt to dry malt powder - same thing, different water content.
> Ban one, ban both or allow one, allow both.




I'm with ya Malted !

There's an opening for a HBS to host a goop and FWK competition here, Ross?
Just keep it separate from AG


----------



## yardy (21/9/11)

bradsbrew said:


> *Have a separate style for kits that puts all the kits against each other regardless of style, then the winning brew goes into the BOS line up?*



good idea, surely there's been comps that have done this or something similar, the feedback idea could work as well.

cheers


----------



## The Scientist (21/9/11)

I take my involvement in the judging process as seriously as I do my brewing.

My passion for judging is due to my desire to fully understand the many beer styles and secondly to assist fellow brewers to improve the beers they produce.

I understand that most if not all home brewers start their journey into this hobby with kit brewing, either with cans or FWKs. Its these new brewers who need the most assistance from the brewing community to develop their brewing / fermenting techniques and thus brew better beer. I see amateur comps as the perfect platform to provide feedback to all brewers who enter their beer for critique against the BJCP.

I would hate to see kits removed from any comp but do see the justification to have them in either a separate category or included for feedback only. As has been said before these are brewing comps and I consider kits to be solely a fermentation procedure. 

To take kits out of these comps all together or to leave them in under the current rules does very little to encourage brewers to advance their skills and motivate them to proceed to the next step of becoming a 'brewer' rather than purely a 'fermenter'.

As for the amateur V's Pro debate, I would like to see the comps remain open to all but tighten the rules to only allow home brewed beer and not BOP. If you are looking for feedback for your commercial beer then there are plenty of beer industry comps which amateurs aren't entitled to enter. What you brew at home for your own enjoyment and for the sake of fair competition should be welcomed in amateur comps. 

We are all very passionate about brewing and at the end of the day I want to see our hobby prosper and a good gauge for this is the quantity and quality of entries in our comps, in both the BABB Comp and QABC this year I was very impressed with the level of competition. I strive to see our comps fair for all and people being rewarded for their efforts in which they spend making this hobby great.

Cheers,

TS


----------



## bonj (21/9/11)

The Scientist said:


> I take my involvement in the judging process as seriously as I do my brewing.
> 
> My passion for judging is due to my desire to fully understand the many beer styles and secondly to assist fellow brewers to improve the beers they produce.
> 
> ...


Very well said, mate. I agree with that completely. As I said in one of my initial posts above, including kits for feedback only is a viable solution. Not only does it encourage progression and better technique through feedback, but it would also encourage the progression to the full process if the competition side of things is the aim. I mean, let's face it... with the ghetto systems and single vessel systems and options available to us these days, there's really no reason anyone wanting to actually develop their brewing skills should hesitate.

I don't think I've weighed in on the amateur vs commercial debate when it comes to fully home brewed entries, and for what it's worth, I don't think professional brewers should be excluded from entering just because of their professional status. There are plenty of home brewers that have made the jump, but still love to make beer at home, and I don't think we should discourage that. After all, they may brew on commercial systems every day, but every system is different and just because they can make an AIBA award winning beer at work, doesn't mean they could do the same at home. A thorough understanding of the process and science still won't give you a thorough understanding of your individual system...


----------



## dr K (21/9/11)

> So, as has been expressed many times in this and the other threads - if you don't like the current AABC rules, discuss this with your state AABA delagates. If you still don't get the answer you want, either start or join another organisation that can support your view.
> 
> There is still plenty of scope for evolution in our competition scene.
> 
> Dave



A point that seems to have been either forgotten or brushed aside is that The Nationals are a Second Tier Competition
You simply cannot be in the Nationals if your beer has not pre-qualified through the States.
The Nationals are held once a year, the States have all year to run preliminary comps (ACT has at least three each year).
If the judges at State Level Comp are up to scratch then only the best State beers will get through to the Nationals.
...What is this sudden "if its not all grain its not beer" rubbish, I suggest a beat up.
....Why ban kits, because they "don't make good beer" or because they make better beer , if they make better beer then why so much encouragement from "brewers" to move away from kits to make better beer and why so many converts to all grain, no brainer really.
...If kits do not (and it seems to be consensus) make better beer then they will be culled at the State level comp.
...Banning kits from entry into comps means that start off brewers get no feedback.
...Qld seemed keen via the AABA to ban kits, well they could have banned kits from their own comp, thus increasing the quality of their beer and possibly giving them a better chance overall to win the Nats.(?)

As I noted earlier, keep your back to wind.

K


----------



## stl (21/9/11)

Bonj said:


> As I said in one of my initial posts above, including kits for feedback only is a viable solution.



I'm sure this has been said before but does it have to be "feedback only"? A couple of prizes (e.g. "best kit stout", or one for each category, along with a "champion kit beer") would surely help to encourage the kit brewers to enter and get valuable feedback. (Maybe the prize can be a BIAB bag? )

This still needs a clear definition of "kit beer." I'm in favour of the one "using any pre-hopped extract" or similar.


----------



## crozdog (21/9/11)

1st up - I must admit to only reading the 1st & last pages of this thread - so if I missed something Oh well.

IMHO as a judge I'm comparing the beer presented to me against a set of guidelines. I have no idea about who or how it was made. The appraisal is purely that beer against the style. Paraphrasing The Scientist I attempt to provide constructive criticism & provide feedback to allow the brewer to improve.

In relation to "professionals", Working in a commercial operation is very different to what is done on a home / amateur scale. I don't believe that being commercial necessarily makes the brewer any better - many are simply process workers h34r: . I know of guys who happen to work in breweries but who make their own beers at home and who do enter those beers in comps - cause they are looking for feedback on THEIR beers - not those they make at work. Should they be banned for that? I think not, but would object strongly if they pulled a couple of bottles off the line & entered them as their own. 

as far as FWK's go, again I have no issue as the production of the wort is only a small part of the finished product - checkout this image for a reasonable breakdown





For a long long time I've believed that the focus on recipe formulation is wrong. Sure it's a start but not everything. many people seem to forget that!

Plus as Ross says the brewer can add more malt / hops etc to change the base wort. Yeast choice, Pitching rate, yeast health, ferment temp, ferment length, priming rate, dry hopping etc etc radically impact the finished beer. 

I've witnessed this many times where I've hosted a big brew day - 10 people have taken cubes of wort home & fermented (sometimes with the same yeast). At a later time we've got together & tasted the results - radically different beers from the same base!!! Have also seen this in a comp where 1 brewer lagered in bulk & the other lagered in the bottle - difference was 2nd in category to 5th! These 2 brewers were both present on the particular brew day, worked on the recipe as well as the mash, boil etc. Whose beer was it? The Hosts? Whoever owned the mash tun or the kettle? Dunno.

Restricting comps to say only AG beer is not going to help improve the quality of home brewed beers or their brewers. Rather it will introduce / enforce a level of snobbery that isn't needed. Having an open attitude, educating brewers & judges (of all levels) as well as forging links with the micro brewery community all help - after all we're all passionate about beer & brewing. :icon_chickcheers: 

Any way that's my $0.02


----------



## Silo Ted (21/9/11)

From now on Im only entering case-swap beers with my name on the entry form.


----------



## Stuster (21/9/11)

I totally agree with you, Croz, and those who've said things along the same lines. Fermentation is definitely important and hard to get exactly right (and I say that as the one who fermented the losing beer that Croz is talking about!)

I guess it depends on our priorities. In my opinion, beer competitions are there for the feedback, with the prizes as secondary. In that case, all can enter as all will benefit.


----------

