Blended Beer. Cheating or not?

[ChrisKennedy]

That last post has to be one of the most pompous things I have ever read.

 

[DavidSteel]

That last post has to be one of the most pompous things I have ever read.

I don't post my opinions, as I don't feel I have researched enough on both sides of any argument to have a strong opinion. I only present counter-arguments to claims and debates. Consider it the Socratic method of leading people into a state of Aporia in a modern sense.

So you considering viewing art (amongst other things, namely beer) from an objective standpoint as pompous? I don't think you grasp either 1) what I am attempting to claim (in a brief summary). 2) what the word pompous means. or 3) both.

Now, instead of immediately criticizing statements based on a gut reaction due to socialization and habituation, instead, why don't you take this (the suggestion made of objective vs. subjective) in to consideration and think about it for a few brief moments. Your rationality will thank you.

If you can't grasp my personal philosophy, maybe this description of it will help you:
I like leading people into a state of Aporia. I believe that everyone should re-think statements they feel strongly about because they may not have formed their beliefs on the best foundation(s) or appropriate reasoning. I don't think it is ethical for people to have strong opinions on subjects they don't fully understand. I also don't think that people should narrow their ways of thinking based on belief systems that limit the expansion of human knowledge and understanding. It seems to me that these ways of thinking are often based on notions which imply that the idea of being wrong is a bad thing... and that is just not true.

Stop thinking of what is being stated as personal opinion, it is simply an additional argument to the concern of this thread. It is NOT my own and it held by many great thinkers. You seem to somehow hold that what I am presenting is a personal vendetta I have set for myself and want to share in influence with others. Just because a view puts one's own views in to question does NOT make it "pompous". Don't dismiss something just because you don't like it or it doesn't sound good to you.

 

[AnOldUR]

You are never a winner. The beer is. You're not entering homebrewer competitions. You're entering homebrew competitions.

The beer wins, not you. You get a pat on the back for putting the effort forth into making it, but you are not responsible for it in this case.

This cute play on words keeps being repeated, but it’s a ridiculous concept. The competitors beers are entered in a blind fashion so that the brewers abilities can be judged in a non-discriminatory fashion. The beer is a simple representation of its brewer’s skill and a BJCP competition is a way of comparing these skills in a fair way.

You are your beer!​

You may discover some performance enhancing substance that makes you a better athlete. It’s not banned by the sports community, so you are not cheating. But you’re not playing on a level field with the rest of your competitors. With some styles, blending is acceptable, but if you’re blending to build your IPA, you’re not playing the same game that I’m playing.

 

[AnOldUR]

Where will this method of creating beer to a style lead? I picture a guy with 20 kegs of SMaSH type homebrew in his basement. On their own, they are fairly simple, but each having a distinct characteristic. Rather than brewing to a style, he blends his way there. This would be a definite skill and pretty a cool thing to be able to do, but it’s not my idea of being a brewer. Guess I’m just showing my age and resistance to chance.

 

[weremichael]

...

You are your beer!​

....

But yeast made the beer.

 

[hal2814]

This cute play on words keeps being repeated, but it’s a ridiculous concept. The competitors beers are entered in a blind fashion so that the brewers abilities can be judged in a non-discriminatory fashion. The beer is a simple representation of its brewer’s skill and a BJCP competition is a way of comparing these skills in a fair way.

You are your beer!​

I think you've counter-argued yourself. If you're evaluating the brewer instead of the beer, then why the need for blind entries? If someone is a better brewer then shouldn't their name be on that brew so it helps the judges make a decision?

I've been rolling this over a lot in my head since yesterday afternoon and I found an scenario that interests me because it challenges my own stance. If you were a judge and you knew in advance which beers in a competition were blended and which were not, would you be biased towards the unblended? I had to think about that one. In the end, I decided I could be unbiased but that I had to stop and think at all tells me that in my mind I don't put blending on an equal footing with other brewing methods. I ran over a few other scenarios in my head and the only other one that gave me such pause was if I knew in advance which beers were extract versus all-grain. It would be hard to leave my biases at the door. And you can take that for what it's worth. It's just me being honest (and proof that I would probably make a poor judge).

 

[AnOldUR]

I think you've counter-argued yourself. If you're evaluating the brewer instead of the beer, then why the need for blind entries? If someone is a better brewer then shouldn't their name be on that brew so it helps the judges make a decision?

No. Why would you think that a judge should be prejudiced by knowing who the brewer was? His skill at brewing this one beer is being judged, not his overall skill as a brewer. This shouldn’t be influenced by past performance or anything else but the sample he put up to representing himself on that day.

 

[AnOldUR]

You are your beer!

But yeast made the beer.

So, that means I am my yeast?

I must be a Belgian Yeast. I hate being cold.

 

[slowbie]

But yeast made the beer.

+1 to this. All you and I can do is make sugar water that tastes pretty terrible.

I'm just going to attempt to one up everyone's purist views and ask how dare you take credit for the yeast's hard work?

An analogy: Did everyone talk about how Jerry Buss won the NBA finals this past year? No, they did not. Not at all. People talked about Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, Pau Gasol, etc. The way I see it, you are the Jerry Buss to your beer, and the yeast are Kobe Bryant. Jerry Buss provides those players with the incentive(money) and tools(workout facilities, coaching staff, arena, and schedule) to be great basketball players, ultimately bringing him money and pride.

You provide your yeast with incentive(tons of sugar water) and tools (temperature control, sanitation, etc.) to make a great beverage, ultimately bringing you beer and pride.

 

[rmolledo]

as long as you blend from another beer you brewed it seems fair becuase you still created it from scratch. If you blend with a commercial beer then thats cheating IMO

 

[remilard]

I am well aware of the style guides changing as recently as a few years ago. My point is that certain styles (I believe that Strong was talking about blending hoppy beers) are not blended (traditionally) and that nowhere in the style guide is blending mentioned for those beers.

Those that point out the argument that Macro and Micro Breweries blend IPAs APAs etc is true. Their reasoning is to sell their consumers a consistent product, not to win a homebrew competition. I am not saying that blending isn't as much of a craft as brewing. In the past when I was really into Daniel's Designing Great Beers and the history of certain styles of beer (around 2001 or so), I became obsessed with Old Ales and Stock Ales. I spent several years building up Old Ales and blending them with the younger beers. I learned a lot about the craft of blending and how it affected my brewing.

My point (and I appreciate and respect the civility of the counterpoints so far) is if one plays the game of style then they need to respect the history of the style and honor the style by brewing it to style. So if one enters a blended example of a style that is not traditionally blended into a competition, then they are a cheater. The word is pretty harsh. But I always inferred (possibly incorrectly) that there is a gentlemen's agreement that one brews to the historic examples given in the style guide. So if the beer is traditionally blended, blend away. If not, don't blend.

-Michael

Two points. The BJCP style guidelines are not meant to be exhaustive in any respect and certainly not with respect to the history of a style and techniques employed. Second, the BJCP style guidelines are EXPLICITLY not intended to direct the behavior of brewers. Their only purpose is to describe common beer styles and group them so that they may be judged effectively.

ETA: A third point which I am repeating, what categories are judged (whether or not they are BJCP categories) and what techniques are allowed at a particular competition is completely outside of the scope of the BJCP.

Whether or not blending is allowed is the decision of the competition organizer, and as far as I know none has ever forbidden it (but some people in this thread are candidates for being the first to do so).

 

[Edcculus]

David, I applaud you my friend. It must have taken you a hell of a long time to figure out how to work Nietzsche into a beer related thread.

 

[DavidSteel]

David, I applaud you my friend. It must have taken you a hell of a long time to figure out how to work Nietzsche into a beer related thread.

It passed the time

 

[AnOldUR]

. . . the BJCP style guidelines are EXPLICITLY not intended to direct the behavior of brewers. Their only purpose is to describe common beer styles and group them so that they may be judged effectively.

Interesting. Would you please provide a link to this "explicitly" that you speak of?

 

[olllllo]

If you throw random color on paper, is it art? No

Possibly, yes.

BTW: I'm not down with this accidental beer concept.

If you brewed a beer (using methods including possibly blending), EVALUATED IT TO A STYLE guideline and entered it, then there is no accident.

You can follow every recommendation under the sun to increase your chances of repeating a beer, but there is certainly no guarantee of it. Who is to say that your carefully brewed un-blended beer is not a one off? An accident.

 

[slowbie]

From BJCP FAQ section (here)

#
#
Styles are evil, according to a well-known brewer.

OK, that's not really a question, but a common comment that deserves to be addressed.

This type of comment often comes from people who misunderstand the purpose of our Style Guidelines. Our guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. That is, they describe similar beers as produced by world class brewers. Our guidelines are not meant to tell those brewers how to brew. As styles evolve, so do the guidelines (not vice versa). We cite commercial examples for our styles to help judges understand how they should taste.

A common argument is that styles inhibit the creativity of the brewer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the styles in the BJCP Style Guidelines are very wide open, and allow significant creativity on the part of the brewer. Look at the English Mild and Old Ale categories for examples. If a brewer wishes to create and enter a totally unique and creative entry, we have the Specialty Beer category for just that purpose. Knock yourself out; just tell us what you intended so we have some idea of how to evaluate your beer.

Without beer styles, competitions would be nearly impossible to conduct. Judging would simply become a hedonistic event, where judges would simply pick beers according to their preference. The outcome would be totally arbitrary and would depend on the background and preferences of those who judge their beers. This is not a desirable situation.

(emphasis mine)

I think that's explicit.

 

[the_bird]

This type of comment often comes from people who misunderstand the purpose of our Style Guidelines. Our guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. That is, they describe similar beers as produced by world class brewers. Our guidelines are not meant to tell those brewers how to brew. As styles evolve, so do the guidelines (not vice versa). We cite commercial examples for our styles to help judges understand how they should taste.

A common argument is that styles inhibit the creativity of the brewer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the styles in the BJCP Style Guidelines are very wide open, and allow significant creativity on the part of the brewer. Look at the English Mild and Old Ale categories for examples. If a brewer wishes to create and enter a totally unique and creative entry, we have the Specialty Beer category for just that purpose. Knock yourself out; just tell us what you intended so we have some idea of how to evaluate your beer.

Without beer styles, competitions would be nearly impossible to conduct. Judging would simply become a hedonistic event, where judges would simply pick beers according to their preference. The outcome would be totally arbitrary and would depend on the background and preferences of those who judge their beers. This is not a desirable situation.

http://www.bjcp.org/bjcpfaq.php#stylefaq

EDIT: Redundant post. **** it, I used bold face AND red font AND underlined. I'm sick of this argument.

 

[olllllo]

You want to know what else you can do that'll probably cause more lines to be drawn in the sand?

Brew a pilsner with an all wheat bill.

 

[slowbie]

EDIT: Redundant post. **** it, I used bold face AND red font AND underlined. I'm sick of this argument.

The underlining really does it for me, too. I should have thought of that

 

[Bobby_M]

Ollllo, it's interesting that this isn't the first heated topic where we've mind melded.

All of this random chance stuff is a little far fetched. You might brew, blend or barf out a gold winning beer one time out of a hundred batches even if you're a rank amateur.

The bottom line with this debate is that you'll never know if someone submits a blended beer. If they send in a mix of RIS and Munich Helles, and it tastes like a perfect Northern Brown, it will be judged that way. Just because they ask you to fill in your recipe doesn't mean you have to be honest about it. Let your own personal moral code drive your decisions within the boundaries of the rules of the comp.

If I were judging and later found that I scored a 3-beer blend higher than a one-shot brew, I'd say wow, good job.

 

[mpruett]

This is a truly retarded set of arguments.

As far as I can tell, intent doesn't matter. It would, if all else were equal, because then the intent would be the only difference. In the real world, however, everyone has their vision of what their beer ought to be, and the reality of what it turned out like, and there's always some gap between them.

There seems to be some opinion that blending somehow is unfair or diminishes the efforts of the other brewers somehow. This might be the case if someone were blending say... an IPA 50/50 with a commercial example, but if the person's blending homebrew, I fail to see where the harm is.

Let's say I was brewing a Dortmunder, and for some reason, my hop utilization was better than I expected and it was too hoppy. The beer's ok, but not really in style or what I like, so I add some combination of my own Helles and Pilsener to nudge the beer into the proper values for the style in terms of FG, taste and IBU.

If it falls within the published guidelines after blending, it is still a Dortmunder, is it not? What else would you use to determine whether it is or isn't that type of beer? And if it's that style of beer, why shouldn't it be judged against other examples of the style, regardless of whether or not it was originally brewed as that style? Or for that matter, since some styles occur along a sort of continuum (Helles - Dortmunder - Pilsner), why not enter a beer in the style that it most resembles, rather than the style that it was originally brewed to be? (i.e. enter a hoppy Helles as a Dortmunder, etc...)

I've been reading homebrew threads and literature a lot longer (18 years) than I've been seriously brewing (about 10), and I've never seen anything that even implied that the brewer's original intent was the important part.

 

[AnOldUR]

Our guidelines are not meant to tell those brewers how to brew.

I think that's explicit.

Sure is. Thanks.


This is also on the BJCP website:

Remember, the major goal of competitions
is to educate the entrants and
to help them improve their brewing.

So, the next time I enter an underhopped IPA in a competition I'll be expecting the comment,
"Blend a IIPA into this and you'll have a great beer."

 

[JayInJersey]

Just thought of this (and again i skipped some replies around page 16&17)

But the argument is that beer used as an ingredient is where the "cheating of blending" arrives...

Fair enough...

What if I was to add to my recipe x# of grain, xOZ hops, & another yeast...but the manner in which I add them would be to first combine them separately then introduce the rest of the ingredients to which they also have been combined. Is that blending?


There are many recipes in cooking (and yes I know cooking isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison..but bear with me here) that would say take some of this and combine in a saucepan fist before you introduce to the rest of the ingredients.

Instead of a suacepan...I'm using an MLT/BK/Fermentor first.

 

[steinsato]

Wineries mix wines, Distilleries mix barrels, why not brewers?

 

[weirdboy]

Just thought of this (and again i skipped some replies around page 16&17)

What if I was to add to my recipe x# of grain, xOZ hops, & another yeast...but the manner in which I add them would be to first combine them separately then introduce the rest of the ingredients to which they also have been combined. Is that blending?


There are many recipes in cooking (and yes I know cooking isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison..but bear with me here) that would say take some of this and combine in a saucepan fist before you introduce to the rest of the ingredients.

Instead of a suacepan...I'm using an MLT/BK/Fermentor first.

There are many recipes in cooking where it is absolutely necessary to cook ingredients separately before combining. e.g. a Boston Cream Pie cannot be made without cooking the pie and filling separately. I feel the same is true of beers; there are flavors that you can get from blending that simply cannot be achieved any other way.

 

[Willie3]

I think the argument now becomes ethical or not. Cheating (yes my own word) I think was a bit harsh. Today I have a better outlook on what I feel to be pretty balanced, thank you all for that!

Blending, for some, can be a great way to arrive at a beer that needs a little work to fit into a category. Blending two fermented brews can be considered by some as a process by which to correct niches directed from style guidelins.

Some also consider this as just that, a blend, and don't feel that it is part of the brewing process. The BJCP guidelines suggest that it is not their intent on telling brewers how to brew (brew being the key word, a process that does not include blending two fully attenuated and fermented beers).

Some can argue that blending is as important to brewing as it is to Vintners.

I think that if I entered a beer that was not blended and lost to a beer that was blended I would say like BobbyM says "good job". But....I have to admit I would be a little miffed and would mull over it for a long while (yes whine about it to whomever listens). To be clear, I never entered a contest as I feel I am not at that point in my brewing skills. Although I love my beer, I feel I need to learn more on brewing before I make that step.

For me to know that I can make a beer from scratch and bottle the end product without aid from blending to meet any style guideline, that is accomplishment right now, for me. I am not saying that blending isn't, the art is a science and can be greatly appreciated and in some categories is welcome. The end results can be phenominal for sure.

Also one other point if you will... If the beer is what is awarded, then why are brewers who brewed the beer who won always featured and written about in beer media?

 

[slowbie]

Remember, the major goal of competitions
is to educate the entrants and
to help them improve their brewing.

The one problem with this point that you keep bringing up is that this thread has shown that most experienced brewers consider blending to be a part of the brewing process.

You could argue, of course, that HBT is a minor representation of a much larger group of brewers, but I would say that the brewers here on HBT, and certainly many of those that consider blending part of the brewing process, are far and away more reputable sources than your average homebrewer (i.e. me).

Before I dive into this next part, I do admit that I have never entered a comp. so I do not have firsthand experience, but I have done a significant amount of lurking here and have read many comments that others have received on their entries.
To your example, they probably would not tell you to blend it with a IIPA, you're right on that count. However, most of the comments that I've seen don't give instructions on how to fix problems like that, but would say something like: "This beer lacks the necessary hop flavors and aroma that defines this style." They then leave it to you as a brewer to decide how to fix it. And yes, if they gave suggestions on how to fix it, they would probably suggest additions to your recipe rather than blending a beer, but which is easier: adding more hops the next time you brew, or brewing an beer specifically to complement what you already have? I don't think you can attribute that to whether blending is right or wrong.

P.S. I was just going to watch this thread and not comment at all, but I couldn't help myself. Sorry.

 

[AnOldUR]

The bottom line with this debate is . . . Let your own personal moral code drive your decisions within the boundaries of the rules of the comp.

This is exactly my opinion. I would not enter a blended beer into a catagory where it's not part of the historic process, but I don't expect that from someone else. And if they win, good for them.

Considering them a cheat is wrong. It's clearly not against any rules. If I enter a competition, it's to test my skill at brewing a single style of beer. For someone else the purpose may be to produce a winning beer. If we both get what we were after, no one loses.

 

[JayInJersey]

I keep seeing a lot of people use the phrase "historic"...but how much of what you do is actually akin to the "historic"?

I'm not sure an electric RIMs setup with a Recirculating ice bath would be "historic"
Or even spot on ferm temp control for that matter.


So if these advancements aren't considered "cheating" why would another...such as blending?

 

[AnOldUR]

. . . this thread has shown that most experienced brewers consider blending to be a part of the brewing process.

This is purely speculation on your part. All this thread proves is that the blenders on this forum feel the need to justify there practice more than the non-blenders.