Aabc And Subordinate State Competition Rules

[bonj]

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:

Mr Bob Bobson, is a commercial brewer at Bob Brewery. During a brewday, he collects 20L of wort from the kettle and takes it home to ferment. Is this a homebrewed or commercially brewed beer? It is my assertion that this is still a commercially brewed beer, not just because it was brewed for commercial purposes by the brewer himself, but also because it was not an amateur endeavour.

The rules state that brew on premises are allowed in the competition. Now, given that there are such establishments that allow one to formulate one's own recipe and take a heavy involvement in the actual brewing process, one might suggest that this rule is a fair one. However, if the proprietor of such an establishment enters beers made with kits produced for commercial distribution, I assert that that doesn't satisfy the amateur component of the competition, and as such shouldn't be allowed.

I am very interested to hear your thoughts on the hypothetical, whether that changes your view on Ross' QABC entries, and why or why not.

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

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:

Mr Bob Bobson, is a commercial brewer at Bob Brewery. During a brewday, he collects 20L of wort from the kettle and takes it home to ferment. Is this a homebrewed or commercially brewed beer? It is my assertion that this is still a commercially brewed beer, not just because it was brewed for commercial purposes by the brewer himself, but also because it was not an amateur endeavour.

Exactly the same argument I put to the AABC delegates & not one of them agreed with me! Under the AABC rules the head brewer at Feral may take home the gold medal winning Hophog wort, ferment it out & enter in the amateur comp. Whether you agree, like it or not, they are the current rules.

Anyway, please start a new thread if you wish to discuss the rules of the AABC, as it's no longer relevant to this thread & would be good to see it discused as a general debate.

Cheers Ross

P.S. congrats again to all the place getters, make sure you get all your qualifying entries into the nationals.

 

[bconnery]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hopefully, this will enable a poll.

 

[winkle]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[schooey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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