Craft Beer Industry Concerns - what is and isn't craft beer

[wide eyed and legless]

Went into First Choice yesterday and saw a 6-pack of craft beer was advertised at $28.

I understand with alcohol tax the higher the ABV the higher the tax, but this was only 4.5% ABV I believe.

The Craft label is bordering on ridiculous with these prices.

Just because something is expensive, doesn't mean its always better.

Read about a guy on an American site, loved the Brooklyn Blast IPA and was looking for a recipe cos he didn't want to pay $8.00 for a 6 pack of a 9% ABV beer

 

[Mardoo]

Brooklyn Blast is awesome!

 

[Vini2ton]

Do craft-brewers have share-holders?

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I believe most of Brooklyn Brewery's beers are Mardoo, still got to try and get over there.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Do craft-brewers have share-holders?

I think Stone and Wood do, and that's what will dictate the ingredients I would imagine, when you have to make a beer as cheaply as possible so you can give a return to the shareholders investment, I would like to know how much DME goes into the craft beers.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Do you really think DME is more cost effective than grain?

 

[panzerd18]

Do you really think DME is more cost effective than grain?

Dry or liquid malt extract is so expensive. More expensive than beer kits.

 

[Vini2ton]

Sugar syrup. I think the question is now who can pump out grog. Let's get dirty.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Do you really think DME is more cost effective than grain?

I think that would depend on the size of the brewery's mash tun, also how much does a brewery pay for DME, I read about 2 brewery's in the US and all they use is DME, what made me remember that was someone else had replied that the beers produced by those 2 brewery's were the worst in the state.
I have been to the Coldstream Brewery twice and if they are using all grain they are trying really hard to make one of the most unpalatable beers I have ever tasted.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

sounds like they're just a shit brewery.

There are places like this http://pickledpigbrewery.com.au/ who are essentially just one of those "Brew 4 U" places and use liquid extract. Nobody other than themselves consider them a craft brewery though.

Plenty of breweries have stakeholders, I don't really understand your comment relating to S&W, they're one of the more consistent and legit craft breweries in Aus.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

The reference to S&W was in reply to investors in the craft beer industry, I agree they are committed to what they stand for they are one of the few who don't outsource when demand is too high,and keep control of their product.
I did read recently (and I am sure it was an interview with Jamie Cook) about craft brewers needing to find more money in order to grow, what I am saying is when you have investors to look after what started as a moral obligation to brew a good beer through love for the craft COULD take a backseat.

 

[gap]

Why?
Surely the investors are concerned about making a profit.
Cheapen your product and have sales go through the floor does not seem a good way to make a profit.

 

[mwd]

O.T. 4 Hearts Brewing Company seems to be going great guns in Ipswitch with beer and food. Does not seem that long ago he was just a homebrewer with an idea. Good work.

http://www.4heartsbrewing.com/

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Why, same reason as SAB Miller, Lion Nathan, Kirrin, Woolworths, buy out companies like Blue Tongue, Malt Shovel, Little Creatures, Matilda Bay,Gage Roads to make money without any thought for the consumer. Get an investor with the same ideals as the brewer then it would work, another investor who purely sees the return on an investment would put the screws on the brewer.
How many beers are in the market and selling volumes which a lot on AHB wouldn't touch, there are plenty.

 

[Feldon]

The current confused use of the word ‘craft’ to describe beer from both small and large breweries began simply from our struggle with the English language to find a suitable descriptor for beers with certain perceived qualities.

This sort of struggle with our language to cope with change is not uncommon. Before the 1600s in England the honorific ‘esquire’ was used to describe men who were armigerous – they had a legal right to display a coat of arms as registered with the College of Heralds in London. Men of high status who were not armigerous were termed ‘Mr’. or ‘gentleman’ instead. But by the late 1600s economic progess had produced many new-moneyed men and the term esquire was widely used to denote their status regardless of their legal right to be called esquires. And the College of Heralds gave up policing the matter (although today it is still technically illegal be use a coat of arms without right). I imagine many an old knight tut-tutted about the new moneyed interloppers using the word esquire, just as we are indignant of mega-breweries cashing in on the name ‘craft’ beer.

In recent times we have seen the use of the words like ‘digital’ or simply ‘technology’ to descibe modern computer and communications devices. On closer parallel with the use of ‘craft’ has been the use of ‘organic’ to describe unadulterated or unsullied food.

Prior to its proloiferation in the shops the word ‘organic’was used exclusively to describe the carbon-based substances found or derived from living things (eg. sugars, proteins). Organic chemistry was and still is the study of these such carbon-based chemicals found in plants, animals etc. Up until the recent past, if someone told you to add organic matter to your garden beds you added manure, compost or other rotted down biological material rather than mineral fertilisers. Now, you go to Bunnings and find bags of compost labelled ‘organic’. Which implies those bags not so labelled are not organic?

I think we are at point with craft beer that the organic movement was in not so long ago. In the early days the big food companies moved in on the term ‘organic’ and used it to promote their own mega-brand food products. This was much to the outrage of small organic producers who responded by setting up accreditation organisations with compliance schemes. These organisations gave members a stamp or symbol to display on their products which indicated compliance with certain standards (eg, pesticide and weedicide free etc.). Many such organisations and schemes came into being, some supported by the food giants, and a minor war has raged between them for popular recognition.

One lesson to be learned is that if the genuine ‘craft’ beer producers want to protect their product, market share and customer loyalty then they need to get together and establish an accreditation scheme - something that enshrines processes and handling as well as ingredients. Then we the buying public will know, by the trade-marked symbol, that the beer abides by certain standards.

But what exactly should those standards criteria be? And will the so-called ‘craft’ breweries be willing to go along. Afrer all, breweries both large and small are primarily run to make money.

Would Little Creatures Pale Ale have been the cash bonanza it was for its original brewers if the mega-breweries which bought the brand were compelled to continue producing the beer the same way it was in the beginning? To change the recipe or processes to produce the watery version we know today (compared with the original) the mega-brewery would risk losing the craft accreditation symbol, and thus we would know its not the same beer before buying it.

No doubt the mega-breweries could respond by paying some well regarded food or beer guru to set up a rival accreditation scheme that could give the appearance of high standards while allowing junk beer to masquerade as craft beer. This is what happened with organic foods accreditation schemes. Confuse the market with multiple rival schemes and the big boys win.

 

[panzerd18]

Interesting and good post. Thanks for taking the time.

Another question I have is, what is the difference between premium beer and non-premium beer?

When I went into 1st Choice the other day, all the so called craft beer was under a shelf titled 'Premium Beer'.

I walked out with a 6-pack of White Rabbit beer. Now I find White Rabbit is owned by Lion Nathan who also owns Little Creatures.

Before long the multinationals, bankrolled with their $$$ will buy up all independents and will completely own the so called craft segment.

 

[Parks]

Premium beer is nothing more than a self assigned marketing status.

I personally go out of my way to try beers made by brewers I know and also small breweries because I know my purchase means more to them than buying a LCPA does to Little Creatures.

What I am trying to get at is I would like to know who makes the beer so I can choose where my money goes.

I certainly don't mind having good beer produced by the big guys as long as they aren't trying to fool me to think they are a little guy who is just trying to make a living.

 

[panzerd18]

Should the craft beer label then only go to the 'little guy who is just trying to make a living'?

 

[Parks]

I don't really know or care that it says craft per se, just that it's easily identifiable.

There is no right answer to this IMO - you have to cut the string at some length.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Would Little Creatures Pale Ale have been the cash bonanza it was for its original brewers if the mega-breweries which bought the brand were compelled to continue producing the beer the same way it was in the beginning? To change the recipe or processes to produce the watery version we know today (compared with the original) the mega-brewery would risk losing the craft accreditation symbol, and thus we would know its not the same beer before buying it.

I'm yet to have one of these watery LCPA that some people imagine.