Aabc And Subordinate State Competition Rules

[Paul H]

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]

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]

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 ****.
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 **** this time mate.

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

 

[bonj]

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

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]

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]

Perhaps someone will give a **** this time mate.

You have to keep pushing the barrow, don't let the *******s 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Cheers

 

[the_new_darren]

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]

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 ****** 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]

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]

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

the_new_darren

 

[dr K]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

the_new_darren

 

[BOG]

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