Blended Beer. Cheating or not?

[weirdboy]

I don't know Bobby. You're going to one extreme. The other would be pouring a commercial beer into an unmarked bottle and sending it off to a competition. Heck, if you’re the guy who decided which one from your local beer mart was best, you deserve to win.

I think, inside, we all know what it takes to brew a good beer. And that doesn’t mean, “I F’ed it up, but if I blend it with this other stuff it might be OK.” If you F it up, you start over!

If that's the case, why isn't adding maltodextrine or lactose cheating? How about adding irish moss, gelatin or filtering? Those are all CHEATING by those standards.

 

[Trevor57]

There are a lot of posts about people "messing up" a beer and blending into another. What if it isn't a mistake? What if you brew 2 proper beers, and decide to blend them is that ok? At the end of the day this is a stupid argument, because it would be an unenforcable rule in competition. Also, the better brewer makes the better beer. Period.

 

[the_bird]

I think, inside, we all know what it takes to brew a good beer. And that doesn’t mean, “I F’ed it up, but if I blend it with this other stuff it might be OK.”

I'd like to believe that if the end result of blending is a beer that is just "OK," you aren't (or shouldn't be) winning the competition. If you are, there's a bigger issue at play.

I'd wager that the a good number of "bad beers" are caused by a flaw in the processs leading to an infection, or a something like bad/stale ingredients. Those kinds of flaws aren't going to be fixed with blending.

What might be fixed are beers where the core issue is recipe-based or maybe something like attenuation. Maybe you don't have enough finishing hops, in which case you need to brew a non-flawed beer that has just enough "extra' to make up the difference. A beer that's underattenuated, to fix that you've got to be able to brew a beer that'll match flavor-wise that dries out a lot more. Those kinds of adjustments show a helluva lot of skill.

In any case, being against "blending" because it's not listed as acceptable in the style guidelines is just... wrong. The guidelines themselves are designed to be pretty fluid, and aren't all that old; the very concept of style guidelines comes from Michael Jackson through Papa Charlie. Multiple times, you read Papazian tell you - these are not designed to be absolute. They're "guidelines," not "rules."

 

[hammacks]

If someone blended two beers together that produced a better beer than mine, he made a better beer.

 

[Bobby_M]

Right. Blending two beers that you made to accentuate some quality is just as much brewing as mixing extract and water. The post about lactose is spot on. You brew a milk stout and it ferments a little dryer than you were hoping for. Do you start over or try a little more lactose? Is that cheating? What about dry hopping to add more nose to an IPA? What about blending in a hop tea for more bitterness?

It just seems like some are putting more emphasis on coming up with a great beer via preplanned steps vs. potentially modifying the process along the way (which is where I put blending). Granted, it's a last ditch effort to get what you want, but it's an equally valid brewing technique.

You have to go pretty far to cheat in a comp like tearing the label for Sienna Nevada for instance.

 

[Bobby_M]

I don't know Bobby. You're going to one extreme. The other would be pouring a commercial beer into an unmarked bottle and sending it off to a competition. Heck, if you’re the guy who decided which one from your local beer mart was best, you deserve to win.

I think, inside, we all know what it takes to brew a good beer. And that doesn’t mean, “I F’ed it up, but if I blend it with this other stuff it might be OK.” If you F it up, you start over!

I agree that I went off the deep end for drama but the point is, if there is a scale that ranges from brewing hack cheater to ultimate bad brewing muthaFer, I highly doubt anyone would put beer blending to the far left. I think brewing two good AG beers made with home toasted grain and homegrown hops, and perhaps later blending them is far more noble and badass than mixing a can of coopers into some tap water in the fermenter even if that beer was intially "better" than one of the two blended beers.

 

[Edcculus]

I guess because I see the style guide as an historic, rigid guideline.

Then you need to learn more about the BJCP. The guidelines are constantly changing. They were just revised in 2008 (From the old 2004 version). Styles are a constantly evolving thing, especially as people start to brew them more, and brew more deviations of them. The lines can get pretty hazy too. Its pretty common to enter a IPA thats on the low end of the style into APA. That way it really stands out. You will find the line between Porter/robust porter isn't exactly a line in the sand either. Duvel, the classic Belgian Golden Strong probably wouldn't do good in a comp as a BGS. Why? Our vision, and commercial examples of the style have changed. Look at Oktoberfest. Most commercial examples are just big Helles beers.

 

[osagedr]

Blend away, as long as you are not adding a commercial who cares.

 

[Beezer94]

Like others have mentioned, only someone extremely lucky or talented could make a blend worthy of winning.

Extract brews place well in many competitions and technically they were mashed/sparged by someone other than the person entering the competition.

If you make a great beer, who cares how you did it. Just hopefully you know how so you can repeat it.

Everyone except the very first person to ever brew in all of history has 'deviated from the rules' and thankfully people continue to do so or we would not have all these wonderful styles!

 

[ChrisKennedy]

It isn't cheating because it isn't against the rules. In effect calling someone a cheater when they haven't broken the rules seems bad form.

 

[Bobby_M]

You're right, it's not against the rules. I think the discussion is more a question of whether or not it's quasi-unethical or underhanded. You know, gentleman's agreement type crap.

 

[weirdboy]

One hand of poker is anyone's game, 1000 hands of poker and the better player will almost without a doubt have the largest pile of chips in front of them.

1000 hands is not a long enough run.

 

[DRoyLenz]

As Bobby stated above, this isn't a question of BJCP Rules but more ethics, so let's step outside brewing and look at another type of competition, cooking comps.

Let's say I'm in a chili cook-off. I decide I'm going to make a turkey based chili, with two different style beans, and I want to make it really spicy. I brown my turkey, I add my vegetables/peppers, my tomatoes, a whole bunch of crap based on my "recipe". I add these things at the appropriate times as defined by my established "recipe." I'm tasting the chili throughout the process, and something isn't quite right, it's not bad, there's no problem, but it's not what I had envisioned.

AH HA!!! The problem is that the texture is too mushy, and that the spicy aftertaste dies too quickly. I decided to add a can of black beans in the last few minutes of the boil for texture, and a few Habanero peppers for spice. Now, it's EXACTLY what I envisioned. I enter it in to the comp, and get high marks across the board, I win the turkey chili category as well as best in show, over guys who followed their recipes to the letter.

Did I just perform an unethical act by entering a chili that didn't follow the generally accepted guidelines for how chili is made, and because I didn't stick to my recipe? No, of course not, I made a chili that the judges like better, period.

If in brewing, I try to brew up an APA, but it doesn't turn out hoppy enough for my taste, and maybe it's missing a little something extra. So I decide to dry hop it for a week or so, and also blend it with my IPA that I made with Orange Zest, because I want a bit of a citrus bite to it. Did I really do anything differently than as stated in my chili example?

 

[DrDirt]

No, but you either:
A. didn't know the components of your original recipe well enough to anticipate the outcome or you - B. didn't understand the process of cooking chili as well as you should have. In you example you added some extra ingredients to your recipe, which is different from cooking two different chili recipes and mixing them together.

 

[Bobby_M]

Ok, say you do blend two different batches of chili together and win. STFW? I haven't seen a single argument that is even close to explaining why blending is either against the rules or even slightly unethical. Is it even an issue? Has anyone reading this thread ever blended and submitted?

 

[DRoyLenz]

No, but you either:
A. didn't know the components of your original recipe well enough to anticipate the outcome or you - B. didn't understand the process of cooking chili as well as you should have. In you example you added some extra ingredients to your recipe, which is different from cooking two different chili recipes and mixing them together.

A) This isn't a competition of the competitors' knowledge of the "process of cooking chili" or knowledge of the components of the original recipes. It's a competition to see who can make the best tasting chili.

B) Valid point. So let's say I do just that. I make two chilis. One is a little more watery and spicy, the other more consistent and mild. After trial and error, or estimation, I decide a 4:1 blend of these two chilis makes the best pot. Did I cheat, or did I just do what I needed to do to make the best chili? The only difference between this and adding a few ingredients is that instead of adding a few raw ingredients, I added multiple ingredients to my chili, after I prepared them in a certain way.

 

[remilard]

Would any support the analogous argument that cooks should not taste food prior to serving it at a restaurant? Or at least not adjust, but no point in tasting it if you are not going to make any adjustments regardless.

Thats how they do it at the Olive Garden. Do you want to be like the Olive Garden or like The French Laundry?

You decide.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Probably already mentioned (because it is so obvious) but they are called Home Brew Competitions. Not Home Brewer Competitions. If you brewed it within the rules and entered it and it won, you had the best homebrew. It says very little about you as a brewer imo (other than the fact that you've made at least one great beer). Sometimes the guy who made an extract kit using whatever dry yeast was included wins (just look at some of the winning recipes for the AHA NHC). Sometimes brews we 'screwed up' end up being awesome. Doesn't make it any 'less' of a beer imo.

Also, no matter how skilled a brewer you are remember that even the best chef's in the world still burn toast every now and then.

 

[AnOldUR]

Did I just perform an unethical act by entering a chili that didn't follow the generally accepted guidelines for how chili is made, and because I didn't stick to my recipe? No, of course not, I made a chili that the judges like better, period.

Apples and oranges.

Cooking is an instant gratification thing compared to brewing. You have the option to make changes and additions on the fly according to tasting along the way. Those changes become part of the recipe. With most brewing you don’t get a good idea of what you’ve made for six weeks or more. It’s a little late to add another specialty grain to the mash. Unless blending your final product with another was part of your plan, your recipe is locked in.

If blending it with another beer improves it you have the option to reformulate your recipe to try produce what you were looking for. Is it cheating to enter the blended beer? Technically no, but I think I would be cheating myself if I did that.

You have to ask yourself why you enter competitions. If your sole purpose is to win, than have at it. Do what ever it takes. When I enter one, I’m looking for an experienced opinion of how well I can brew to a style, so I won’t send in a blended beer unless that is part of the styles history.

On the other hand, if I’m looking for an opinion of if I can create a tasty beer, I’ll let friends, family and myself be the judge. If it takes blending to get that special flavor, I'll do it.

 

[DRoyLenz]

...or like The French Laundry?

Admittedly, I had to Google this to know what you were talking about, but I'm intrigued.

Let's look at another, perhaps extreme, example.

Say I brew an IPA that isn't quite what I had in mind. Say I would like it to be a bit maltier and a bit darker as well. So I purpose brew a brown ale that would A) allow me to blend with the original brew to get the characteristics I want, and B) stand on it's own as a quality brown ale.

After brewing, I find a 6:1 ratio of IPA to Brown gives me the malt character and the color I'm looking for. Is this cheating?

I would, personally, commend a brewer that did this. I think it would take immense skill to be able to troubleshoot a beer like this, and create a whole other brew in and of itself to make up for the inadequacies of the original brew. I would love to sit down with that brewer, if possible, and talk about how he came to those conclusions, maybe even tasting each individual beer as well as the blend.

This may be a bit outside the original intent of the OP, but I think the fundamentals of my argument show that there is no foul play going on when blending beers.

EDIT: Respond to another post

It’s a little late to add another specialty grain to the mash. Unless blending your final product with another was part of your plan, your recipe is locked in.

Why? What difference does time have in any of this, you're adjusting your original recipe to make the best final product, who cares if it's 1 hour later, 1 week later, 6 weeks later, or a year later. You are challenging yourself to make the best possible final product.

 

[Willie3]

With all intense and purposes, being the OP, I was dead set on the premise that entering a blended beer in a category that does not warrant blends to win competitions was wrong. After reading and seeing what you all had to say (of which I will continue to do), my view is changing somewhat. I understand the argument for those that blend beer to make it a better brew, and I agree with DRoyLenz that blending two different recipes can create something amazing. However, I feel that it becomes increasingly harder to duplicate the final product when having to blend two different brews for competitions. I think that it is difficult enough to produce a consistent brew without blending period. So to take it to a further step, how do the brewers who win these comps like a pro am, produce the winning beer for the mass production at a craft brewery if what they won with was a blended brew?

Here's a hypothetical: I made an APA and won a blue ribbon, however, I blended it with a touch of a commercial APA to allow more hop flavor to come through. The recipe calls for it, did I cheat?

 

[the_bird]

Why is the ability to replicate the winning beer precisely a concern? As someone noted, the competition is for the best beer, not the best brewer. Homebrew competitions aren't usually done in order to develop commercial recipes, anyway.

Even in something like the Longshot contest, I guar-an-tee you the final recipe Sam Adams uses differs from the recipes used in the homebrew version, simply because different processes and different equipment require that adjustments be made.

You're also looking at the "difficulty" through your own prism, where it seems you've never blended a beer yourself. If the "artform" of blending was not being lost, it might actually be easier to get a consistent end product - that's how all the major breweries, wineries, and distilleries make the same product, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

I'm coming to the conclusion that we ought to be ENCOURAGING brewers to blend, rather than forbidding it.

 

[Synovia]

I guess because I see the style guide as an historic, rigid guideline.

I don't see where the style guide says that beers in (any!) style can't be blended.

 

[babalu87]

I'll continue to try and brew really good beer as opposed to blending up great ones

 

[Synovia]

Do what ever it takes. When I enter one, I’m looking for an experienced opinion of how well I can brew to a style, so I won’t send in a blended beer unless that is part of the styles history.

If you miss an OG, or undershoot your mash efficiency, do you add any DME? Thats definitely not to style, and is much more of a hack than blending.

I'll continue to try and brew really good beer as opposed to blending up great ones

If you can't brew really good beer, theres no way you could create a great one by blending. Blending successfully is probably tougher than brewing successfully.

 

[DRoyLenz]

With all intense and purposes, being the OP, I was dead set on the premise that entering a blended beer in a category that does not warrant blends to win competitions was wrong. After reading and seeing what you all had to say (of which I will continue to do), my view is changing somewhat. I understand the argument for those that blend beer to make it a better brew, and I agree with DRoyLenz that blending two different recipes can create something amazing. However, I feel that it becomes increasingly harder to duplicate the final product when having to blend two different brews for competitions. I think that it is difficult enough to produce a consistent brew without blending period. So to take it to a further step, how do the brewers who win these comps like a pro am, produce the winning beer for the mass production at a craft brewery if what they won with was a blended brew?

Here's a hypothetical: I made an APA and won a blue ribbon, however, I blended it with a touch of a commercial APA to allow more hop flavor to come through. The recipe calls for it, did I cheat?

To your first point, I agree that it becomes more difficult, because you have to worry about the consistency of both of your brews, instead of just one. On the other hand though, it is the Law of Averages to a certain degree. The average beer will tend to be more consistent than it's constituent parts, which is probably why large breweries blend. Larger sample sizes will create an even more consistent final product.

To your hypothetical situation, you start to get in to an ethical gray area here IMHO, because you're using a commercial beer and taking the credit. I feel if you give due credit to the commercial brewer, you are saving yourself the ethical dilemma, but judges will likely frown on your beer a bit if they know it's not all yours. I just bottled a Bourbon Vanilla Imperial Porter this weekend. I didn't make the Bourbon that I put in there, but I do intend to give the due credit to Jim Beam when boasting about this beer (which I WILL do, because it turned out extraordinary).

 

[olllllo]

There seems to be a bias, especially among newer brewers that everything has to be done on the hot side to be considered brewing or some how it isn't brewing in some idealized pure form. Bull****.

To be a brewer is to work both the hot side and the cold side.

If you think changes to the cold side are off limits, then stop dryhopping. Do all of your hop additions on the hot side. Never brew a fruit beer. You can't barrel age anything in a barrel without adding more beer to the cold side, so go ahead and cross that off your list.

Maybe you shouldn't filter either, or add clarifiers, or perhaps lagering is off limits except for the Germans do it so it must be OK.

Coffee beer? Forget cold extraction. Can't be used.

Are you using brewing software? The outrage! Hand calculate please.

Don't use internet forums either. Use your own ideas. Quit cheating.

 

[remilard]

With all intense and purposes, being the OP, I was dead set on the premise that entering a blended beer in a category that does not warrant blends to win competitions was wrong.

Well one question is which categories warrant blending? Most if categories 1A-1C are produced by blending for consistency and a good number of them are produced by blending higher gravity beer with water. Which is perhaps superficially different than what we are talking about, but I don't think it really is. So those are good. Clearly gueze and fruit lambic are classically blended. Porters are historically blended but maybe not now. Flanders beers are classically blended. So those are the clear cut cases (that occur to me immediately) where blending is commonly or was commonly used in commercial production.

Now what about Northern English Brown. Blending is not typical but one example that everyone agrees is a classic example is blended. Does that category warrant blending? Only if you are cloning Newcastle?

If there can be one idiosyncratic blended NE Brown that we all agree is classic, why not idiosyncratic blended beer in other categories? It's not very black and white.

So to take it to a further step, how do the brewers who win these comps like a pro am, produce the winning beer for the mass production at a craft brewery if what they won with was a blended brew?

Mike McDole made what was, by all accounts, a spectacular beer by blending a pliny the elder clone with (I think) a Helles to make a pale ale. He create a recipe by, more or less, blending the two recipes in the same proportion and that is a very popular recipe on these internets.

Here's a hypothetical: I made an APA and won a blue ribbon, however, I blended it with a touch of a commercial APA to allow more hop flavor to come through. The recipe calls for it, did I cheat?

I think most reasonable people would read that as against the rules of most competitions that I have entered. Whether or not it is unethical (other than that violating rules would be unethical in and of itself) is perhaps a more confusing issue as nobody has a problem with commercial spirits being blended with beer in the wood aged category. Also we must note that universally approved pratices like adding the dregs of a Jolly Pumpkin beer to a home brewed funky beer technically involve blending small amounts of commercial beer with home brew (though that is not the intent, the home brewer would be happy with Jolly Pumpkin mailing them a culture grown on lab media).

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

No offense meant, but this sounds like a topic losers whine about.

If some guy screwed up two beers blended them together and made a better beer than yours, he deserves to win.

Is Rodenbach or any other number of world class brewers less skilled and their product less impressive because it is blended?

If you are mad about people blending and making better beers that yours (rhetorical yours), then blend your own if it is so easy. I think people often discount the difficulty and skill involved in a blended beer. Yes, some shmoe may get lucky just dumping two batches together. But normally, blending is a very detailed and subtle process that can lead to great results. I believe those results should be rewarded when they are the best.

 

[Edcculus]

I would probably draw the line at blending at any significant level with commercial beer. The spirits or dregs argument is a little over the top IMO. The point is, when someone blends it is USUALLY not to hide some flaw. I'll bet most people who blend brew two beers that are intended to be blended because they know they can either control flavors more precisely, or its the only way to get the flavors they want. Your average joe might blend a batch he messed up, and maybe get it right.