Australian Amateur Brewing Championship

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Best strong stout in qld :)

Better believe it :icon_cheers:
Seriously I reckon the recipe is a real 'find', a bit like cold fusion or viagra or whatever. I make this 9% version with LDME, dex and finishing hops a few times a year, if you want to PM me your PO I'll send you one next time I make it. I've posted a couple to 'toucan sceptics' and they have raved over it before falling into a coma. :ph34r: I truly believe that Coopers are extremely committed to their stout kit as a flagship and the kit is undoubtedly the best in the 'original' range. In the late 70s their stout Fresh wort kit was a flagship and when they went on to modern concentrated kits they have kept the quality up. What better than two of them in a brew :icon_drunk:
 
A previous Champion beer at the AABC, if not indeed the overall champion beeer was an extract RIS. If you look through your back issues of Beer and Brewer you will find the recipe.

K
 
I truly believe that Coopers are extremely committed to their stout kit as a flagship and the kit is undoubtedly the best in the 'original' range.

I think it's mainly because stouts are more forgiving than other styles for kit beers.
 
Sooner the eastern states stick it and make change the better. Thats my opinion and i`ll keep having one, same as why should the CUB employee be allowed to enter beers under the skirt of an amateur? Yep, heard all the arguments from the brewers without the tools.

Haysie,

I got a second place last year, that means even more to me knowing I beat guys who do it for a living.

cheers

Browndog
 
:icon_offtopic: One of my dogs is a shocker, she delights in cat crap, the older and naffer the better. Thankfully the cats usually crap where the dogs can't go... thank goodness for the anthelmintic they all get regularly.

Mmm, woof woof- cat crap! Woof woof- yum!! [slobber.. drool... c'mon dad, don't be such a spoil sport, toss it over here...]
:icon_vomit:

Edit: Getting off topic... sorry.

:huh: ...Dude?... wtf???

:blink:
 
My objection to CARPET BOMBERS is that they should be penalised for putting a SHOCKER into a comp.

For example, if i brew 2 beers a month for 12 months I can probably enter two beers in each and every class on offer.

Now, if i cant taste a good beer from my *******, chances are that a significant number (if I can add some malt to water boil with some hops and ferment as each and everyone of us can) will be in the range of acceptable. Chances are that some ot these beers will also be very good (especially if I had been doing this for years).

However, to raise the standard of beers entered in comps, aggregate scores given for ALL beers entered by "a brewer" in a competition surely more accurately assesses their ability to brew a good beer but also tell which one is a shocker (a beer that will kill the score for the next beer in a flight even if it is wonderful).

Why reward a brewer for entering bad beer? Surely the best brewer (at HB scale and Commercial) is one who can formulate and taste what is right and what is not?)

But, I guess it is just a crap shoot?

Still waiting on judges of classes by state. Did I miss that or is it just coincidence that the Canberra Brewers appeared to do exceptionally well?

cheers

Darren
 
My objection to CARPET BOMBERS is that they should be penalised for putting a SHOCKER into a comp.

For example, if i brew 2 beers a month for 12 months I can probably enter two beers in each and every class on offer.

Now, if i cant taste a good beer from my *******, chances are that a significant number (if I can add some malt to water boil with some hops and ferment as each and everyone of us can) will be in the range of acceptable. Chances are that some ot these beers will also be very good (especially if I had been doing this for years).

However, to raise the standard of beers entered in comps, aggregate scores given for ALL beers entered by "a brewer" in a competition surely more accurately assesses their ability to brew a good beer but also tell which one is a shocker (a beer that will kill the score for the next beer in a flight even if it is wonderful).

Why reward a brewer for entering bad beer? Surely the best brewer (at HB scale and Commercial) is one who can formulate and taste what is right and what is not?)

I don't disagree with a chunk of your sentiment Darren. Not even as a person who does enter a lot of beers, some good and some terrrible. If an averaging method were to penalize me for my bad beers... well that is at least partly offset by the fact that it would reward me for all my good beers, not just the ones who came 1st, second or third.

The flaw I see in your logic is illustrated in your example... Say I brew 25 beers this year. Most medium/good, say 5 dogs and say 5 absolute crackers.

Under the current system I enter 25 beers - place with the 5 really good ones and maybe win champion brewer. Even though on average... I am really only a medium/good brewer.

Under your proposed averaging system - if I were smart, I only enter the 5 really good beers, which place and maybe I win champion brewer. Even though on average... I am still only a medium good brewer.

That's not judging my ability to brew a good beer and thus my suitability to be called a "champion brewer" - its only judging my ability to tell that I have brewed a good beer. Its just substituting my own ability to judge beer quality, for the ability of the judges to do the same. In the case of someone with the skills and palate to win under either scheme.. I suspect that the difference in the two would be quite minimal and thus the results would be pretty close to the same.

So while I see the merit in an averaging system from a perceived fairness point of view - I'm not convinced that it would have the results you are looking for.

I personally think I would prefer the current system because it doesn't force me to choose between wanting to win, and wanting to have all my beers independently evaluated. At the moment I am happy to enter the slightly left of center beer, with the unusual ingredient or technique... just to see what people think of it, even though I know its not a fantastic beer - and I'm also willing to enter the trainwreck beer that has me scratching my head... "what the hell is that damn flavour that's ruining my beer???" Under an averaging system, I could still do that - but if I did I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I ever wanted to have a hope of "Champion Brewer"

An averaging system would perhaps be more "fair" from a purely competitive point of view, but I think it would change the complexion of the comps, emphasizing win/lose/draw and de-emphasizing the other purpose of the comps, which is their value as learning tools for the brewers who enter.

I'd happily enter under either scheme and call it fair enough for me, the chances of me winning champion brewer either way are pretty bloody small.

TB
 
Still waiting on judges of classes by state. Did I miss that or is it just coincidence that the Canberra Brewers appeared to do exceptionally well?
I was pouring on the Saturday, and I'm fairly sure that at least half the judges came from interstate (based on the fact that I didn't recognise them).

To claim that the Canberra Brewers did well because we held the Nationals this year is a bit rich.

2008 - Held in Victoria. Victoria 1st, NSW and ACT tied for 2nd. Champion brewer from the ACT.
2007 - Held in NSW. Victoria 1st, NSW 2nd, ACT 3rd. Champion brewer and Beer of Show from the ACT.
2006 - Held in Victoria. ACT 1st, Victoria 2nd, SA 3rd. Champion brewer and Beer of Show from the ACT.

2005 and earlier, Best State wasn't declared, and I can't be arsed working out the points. However, for a region with less then 350,000 potential brewers, we seem to do alright wherever the comps are held. Makes the entrants from the ACTABC either exceptionally lucky, or good brewers.
 
I think FatzG has taken over drK's computer.


Nein .. all New South Welshmen talk of Qld in that way !



With so many different arguments here, a lot of people are ranting over trivial matters. So I'll throw mine in. I'm sick to death of this carpet bombing crap being spewed out. My opinion is that any brewer who can submit any number of beers over a wide range of styles into competitions and achieve good results should be proud because that testifies to their ability to brew.

I am amazed anyone has the time / desire / ability to brew as many beers as some make and that they can present as many beers as some do at state and national championships in a condition to be competitive. I can't (and don't want to anyway) and I'll guess 99% of brewers can't or don't want to either. However the fact that a couple of men are the regular contenders and holders of the "AABC Champion Brewer Award" does not make them the best brewers in Australia, merely the people who can put the most successful beers into a competition. The terms of the competions are there, they follow them, they win the prize offered them under competition rules. I'm pretty certain none of these men is that vain to think this success at AABC makes them "Australia's Best Home Brewer" - they are merely competing at a level they can achieve for the enjoyment they get from their hobby.

I'm happy to read arguments to change these rules because no rule or law will ever be amended, repealed or introduced unless people express their opinions. But I get upset that people come out with outlandish comments such as the "carpet bombing" which whether directly intended to or not, is an insult to these men. They put up and shut up. It's time a few people took their example - improve your brewing and put up, and shut up.
 
I was pouring on the Saturday, and I'm fairly sure that at least half the judges came from interstate (based on the fact that I didn't recognise them).

To claim that the Canberra Brewers did well because we held the Nationals this year is a bit rich.

2008 - Held in Victoria. Victoria 1st, NSW and ACT tied for 2nd. Champion brewer from the ACT.
2007 - Held in NSW. Victoria 1st, NSW 2nd, ACT 3rd. Champion brewer and Beer of Show from the ACT.
2006 - Held in Victoria. ACT 1st, Victoria 2nd, SA 3rd. Champion brewer and Beer of Show from the ACT.

2005 and earlier, Best State wasn't declared, and I can't be arsed working out the points. However, for a region with less then 350,000 potential brewers, we seem to do alright wherever the comps are held. Makes the entrants from the ACTABC either exceptionally lucky, or good brewers.

I think if you dug a bit deeper you would find that the AABC organised the WTC attack and the faked moon landing. It's all there people, when will you open your eyes?
:rolleyes:

I stand by my comments that if you are good enough to get many beers through to the Nats, then you are a class brewer. End of story. An interesting exercise would be to look at the carpet baggers beers at the state level, and see how many of their beers were dogs. I would imagine very very few. Why? Because they are class brewers (as evidenced by their 1st, 2nd or 3rd place results).
 
Are there any changes to the classes for 2010 just looked at the AABC site and its all relative to 2009. I thought that there was to be a couple of changes. If we are to brew to style guidelines best to state the guidelines early.

Cheers Brad
 
Are there any changes to the classes for 2010 just looked at the AABC site and its all relative to 2009. I thought that there was to be a couple of changes. If we are to brew to style guidelines best to state the guidelines early.

Cheers Brad


All the same except for one addition "Australian Bitter". If it's not already on the site it should be shortly.

Cheers Ross
 
All the same except for one addition "Australian Bitter". If it's not already on the site it should be shortly.

Cheers Ross

Mr_fourex.jpeg ????? :blink:

I'll be interested to see how Australian Bitter differs from an Aussie Pale. Are there any commercial examples? Apart from the SCB version?
 
View attachment 38206 ????? :blink:

I'll be interested to see how Australian Bitter differs from an Aussie Pale. Are there any commercial examples? Apart from the SCB version?
Bribie, your wish is my command. You will have to do the comparison, though:

6.5 Australian Pale Ale
Appearance: Best examples will display good clarity, gold to amber colour, with a persistent snow white head
supported by brisk carbonation from bottle conditioning.
Aroma: Fruity yeast-derived aromas most prominent, with light, sweet pale malt underneath. Hop aroma low to
none. No diacetyl.
Flavour: Medium to high fruitiness, often pear-like. Supported by light, bready pale malt flavour. Caramel malt
flavours out of style. Banana ester from high fermentation temperature may be noticed, but should not dominate. A
mild but distinctive peppery, herbaceous flavour from Pride of Ringwood hops is desirable. Medium to high
bitterness - may be higher in historical versions, but not crude or harsh. Long dry finish from extremely high
attenuation, with a balanced fruity aftertaste.
Body & Mouthfeel: Light to medium-light body - any impression of palate fullness from residual dextrins should
be penalized.
Clean, crisp mouthfeel may be enhanced by spritzy carbonation.
Overall Impression: A lively, fruity Pale Ale with surprising lightness of body, solid bitterness, and a refreshing
dry finish well suited to a hot climate. Can be thought of as a light Burton IPA without the dry-hopping. Relies
on yeast character to compensate for diminished late hop expression - bland examples lacking fruitiness should be
considered out of style.
Comments: Historical style defined by Coopers ales as the last surviving examples: Coopers ales, all heavily
sedimented and very fruity, are Australian classics Michael Jackson.
Note: Colonial brewers strived for pale beer clarity to match imports - entries will be poured quietly without
rousing sediment.
History: Basic version of Burton pale ale produced throughout the early colonies, as British settlers established the
first Australian breweries in the mid-19th century. Developed to compete with expensive Burton imports Bass,
Allsopp, Ind Coope IPA, using Burton yeast strains of the day, with domestic barley and hops and available native
water. Inferior colonial malt often led to inclusion of sugar. Bottled for local sale, not dry-hopped and aged for
export, Australian pale ales were prevalent by late century, with 350 breweries operating by 1890. Commonly
relabeled Sparkling Ale (UK term coined for present-use domestic pale ale). Superceded by Bitter Ale after
introduction of crystal malt during early 20th century. Ale brewing grew obsolete as industry consolidation spawned
a lager-based duopoly - by 1985 only family owned Coopers brewery remained independent. Established 1862 in
Adelaide SA, successive generations preserved Coopers flagship Sparkling Ale using traditional brewing methods,
including open fermentation and maturation in oak casks. Removal to modern plant in 2001 improved clarity while
maintaining original formulation: all-malt, Burton yeast, Australian hops, absent late hopping, bottle conditioning.
First released on draught 1985, naturally conditioned in keg. A lighter version, brewed periodically since 1880s,
was re-launched in 1989. Also worlds largest homebrew supplier, Coopers pioneered kit-beer products soon after
legalization in 1973.
Indgredients: Lightly kilned Australian 2-row pale malt, lager varieties typical. Judicious use of crystal malt for
colour adjustment. Small proportion of wheat may assist head retention. No adjuncts, cane sugar for priming only.
Australian hops, esp. Pride of Ringwood (absent late hopping). Highly attenuative Burton style yeast, eg. Coopers,
Worthingtons. Multiple strains common historically (none available commercially, must be cultured from bottle
sediment) Variable water profile - low carbonate, moderate sulphate preferred.
Vital Statistics:
OG FG IBU ABV
1.035-1.050 1.004-1.006 25-40 4.26%
Commercial Examples: Coopers Sparkling Ale (5.8% ABV),
Coopers Original Pale Ale (4.5% ABV)

8.1. Australian Bitter Ale
Appearance: Amber to pale copper; bright clarity; moderate white head supported by very high carbonation.
Aroma: Light fruity esters with a background caramel note. Hop aroma low to none. No diacetyl.
Flavour: Moderately fruity, with a light caramel malt flavour. A distinctive peppery, herbaceous note from Pride of
Ringwood hops should be noticed. Malty sweetness should be low, tipping the balance firmly towards bitterness,
without being aggressively bitter. Medium-dry finish, with a predominantly fruity/bitter aftertaste. Trace
fusels/phenols from high sucrose fermentation may contribute a tangy flavour note, often considered
characteristic of Australian style beer. If present this character should not be perceived as sharp or solventy.
Mouthfeel: Light to medium-light body, with a noticeable carbonation prickle, particularly when served chilled.
Overall Impression: A crisp, light flavoured, thirst-quenching Bitter, ideally suited to a hot climate. Traditionally
served well chilled and highly carbonated, accentuating the characteristic tangy hop bitterness.
History: Definitive Australian style, evolved directly from colonial era Pale Ale/Sparkling Ale as crystal malt was
introduced during early 20th century. Originated independently of English Bitter, and remained a bottled style
exclusively. Developed as a narrow style, typified by a handful of State-based brands, using a high proportion of
cane sugar, high-alpha domestic hops, and standard Australian ale yeast (originally isolated 1888 at Victoria
Brewery in Melbourne). Dominant bottled style by mid-century, with major brands exported. Converted to lager
yeast during late 20th century, as megabrewers standardized production with draught lagers. Modern Bitter remains
by far Australias biggest selling packaged beer style, and following draught release in 1992, market leader Victoria
Bitter now accounts for one quarter of total Australian beer sales.
Comments: Style refers to the traditional ale version of Australian Bitter, commonly labelled Bitter Ale prior to
lager conversion during late 20th century. Note: 2005 heritage release VB Original Ale is an all-malt English style
Bitter and should not be considered prototypical of the Australian style.
Ingredients: Australian 2-row lager malt. Restrained use of crystal malt for colour and flavour. Substantial
proportion of cane sugar, typically around 30%, for light body and signature fermentation profile. Pride of
Ringwood hops, bittering addition only. CUB ale yeast or similar. Attenuative English or American strains most
suitable. Note: Whitelabs WLP009 Australian Ale yeast (Coopers strain) is unsuitable. Variable water profile, soft
Pilsen type preferred.
Vital Statistics:
OG FG IBUs ABV
1038-1048 1005-1008 25-35 4.2-5.2%
Commercial Examples: The major Bitter Ale brand names have survived but the modern versions are all lagers
and the term Ale has been dropped from labelling (eg. Victoria Bitter, Melbourne Bitter, Castlemaine XXXX
Bitter, Tooheys Red Bitter, West End Bitter, Emu Bitter, Cascade Bitter, Boags Strongarm Bitter).
 
So rule D2 says that you are allowed to enter two beers into each category, but only one per style in the said category. My question is, how doe this apply to the american pale ale class as it is the only beer in the category.

cheers

Browndog
 
So rule D2 says that you are allowed to enter two beers into each category, but only one per style in the said category. My question is, how doe this apply to the american pale ale class as it is the only beer in the category.

cheers

Browndog

You are correct. And more to the point where has American Amber Ale gone?

These Mexicans have been giving the Tequila a bit too much of a bashing, methinks. And also to the point, as we are using the Nat guidelines for the State comp where indeed is the Amber for next fortnight ??????? :eek:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top