Mortars, Guns, Machettes….egh, the insurgents just find them all too boring of tools for killing invasive American Geologists.  Poison beer, now that’s fun!  That’s right, apparently the Wikileak documents purport that the ISI (Afghan spy agency) and insurgents actually intended on using the method with regularity.  Americans do love them some beer, after all.  And one American Geologists claims to have been a victim:

James Yeager, an American geologist who advised Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines, tells the Monitor he returned to his residence in Kabul to find it had been burgled. The intruder took money from a drawer and left behind a bottle of Corona beer.

The Corona bottle sat on his counter for the next two weeks Yeager says, because Corona is one of his least favorite beers. He finally opened it during a going away party as the other drinks began to run low.

“I pulled it out and when I popped it there was no fizz and the cap was loose,” says Yeager. “Because this one didn’t have fizz you wonder if it went rancid or not, and I just kind of sniffed it and I went ‘Oh, that doesn’t smell like beer.’ ”

Yeager, a geochemist familiar with acids, realized it smelled like sulfuric acid – otherwise known as battery acid. He called a friend over who had the same reaction to the smell. Yeager poured the “beer” into the toilet and it foamed and fizzed, leaving “no question” in his mind it was sulfuric acid.

Interestingly, the plan seems to have fouled up a bit at the beer choice.  Had it not been a disgusting Corona and perhaps a nice IPA, Yeager would have quaffed the beer without hesitating. Silly insurgents.  They didn’t even leave a lime?  Lucky for Yeager, his discriminating taste buds saved him from an esophagus full of Sulphuric Acid.

This puts a whole new spin on the term, “Alcohol Poisoning.”

In case anybody wonders, I will not be visiting Afghanistan any time soon.

Spread the Word:

Reading the article made my blood boil a bit.  Why?

I too, was set up by Christian County, MO police in a similar raid some years ago.  First allow me to tell  my story, and then set up the illogical nature of these raids.

I was working as bar tender at a Ruby Tuesday on a VERY busy night.  I had no time to converse with my customers and was slinging drinks at a furious pace.  This is great for the patrons…in a rush I tend to over-pour.  In walked a young, attractive girl who orders something retarded like a Midouri Sour.  She ordered the drink in a flirtatious manner.  Even though I’m busy, I say, “No problem…let me see your ID.” She rummages through her purse and then states, “I must have left it at home.” I reply, “Sorry, I cant serve you ten.” She says, “Pleaaaase!”  “Sorry, I can’t,” I reply.

After she leaves a dude with a mustache comes up to the bar and asks for my manager.  I run and grab my manager.  They talk in a corner, and then holler for me to come over.  The with the mustache explains that He was an undercover cop and had just set me up.  He said, “Congratulations, you passed the test.  Had you not, you’d be in cuffs right now.”

Even though I “Passed the test” I wasn’t happy.  Here I am a college student, father of two, slinging drinks to provide for my family, and this guy set me up with the intent that if I failed I go to jail?  What if I’d failed?  Even though I’m a law abiding citizen, it would be EASY to forget to ask for an ID form someone that looked of age when your getting slammed on a Saturday night.  The more I thought about it, the more I got wrong.  Here’s why.

The whole scenario of a “set up” seems to fit into the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque: Two Wrongs Make a Right.  The problem is that the law officials are CREATING a crime to be solved.  In my five years of bar-tending, that was the ONLY time that I ever had to decline a drink for lack of authentic age identification.  The problem did not exist until an underage girl (isn’t a crime on the behalf of the the underage purchaser as well?) was sent in by cop–whose job it is to stop crime–to create a crime in a place where there was no history of delinquency in the area of serving in minors, in order to hopefully arrest me, the innocent bartender.

Two wrongs make a right fallacy (or even the ends justify the means):  1) Serving an Alcohol to a minor is WRONG.  2) The crime DID NOT exist until created by the police.  They created evil to fill a non existent void.  WRONG  3) Intended result?  Get a POTENTIAL lawbreaker off the streets before he messes up for real.  Do the ends justify the means?  Do two wrongs make a right?  Regardless of whether the logic stands, the ethical nature of the sting is questionable.

Shoot, with that logic we should just exterminate our race since we as humans all have a potential for evil.

For the record, a few months after my incident, a bartender in training who was getting his rear handed to him on an extremely busy night served beer to a minor who was a part of a sting, even after we (I) passed the first test.  I personally knew the guy.  He was prude.  He just was so busy he lost his head and barely made eye contact with the pawn asking for the beer.  He got fired that night, went to jail ,had to pay lawyers and fines, and ended up having to drop out of college.

Does it make sense to create a crime in order to solve it?

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Spread the Word:

I say all this not to lead into a political discussion, but a beer discussion.  Reading through my news feeder, a gripping headline caught my eye:  Beer Stimulus:  Can Hops and Barley Create Jobs? The use of the term Stimulus forced me into the guts of the article, as modern context led me to think the federal government was giving out future tax money to the beer industry.  Such isn’t the case, the term is being used improperly in regards to a tax break.

The benefit of tax breaks is that they DO encourage long lasting residual income for the populous and the taxman.  The problem with tax breaks, is that someone, somewhere, from some niche or industry or socio-economic strata writhes in anger at the unfairness.  Perhaps the canned widgets industry gets upset because they did not receive their tax break.

Well, we can forget about the canned widgets guy…let ME be the one to harp on the fairness issue.

As the referenced article the bill (HR 4278) is actually relief from the heavy handed excise tax.  As we should all know, an excise tax is a tax levied upon an industry in addition to standard taxes, typically in order to pay for a debt or service.  How is that fair?  Especially unsettling, is the fact that the excise tax on alcohol that ravages small breweries (Allagash Brewery claims to pay more than $150,000 per year in addition to FICA, Medicare, and all the other slew of taxes) was actually enacted to pay off debt incurred from the REVOLUTIONARY WAR.  Ummm…that war ended nearly 230 years ago.

Don’t you think the excise tax should have been lifted by now?  The truth is, once a tax is enacted, the beneficiaries will be hard pressed to pass up that cash, especially as more debt is incurred.  So in reality, should the bill pass, the playing field would be a bit more level between a brewery and any non-excise industry.  I say “a bit” because the excise tax would still be in place, just reduced.

But who might feel the twinges of jealousy at the fair luck of the craft brewers?

The macro brewers.  HR 4278 is designed to benefit breweries who produce less than 6 million barrels a year.  Sorry Bud.  Let’s face it, our nation is in debt over our heads.  Debt aside, our spending to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is currently at 41.5%, a dangerously high level.  In fact, the collapsed Greece’s spending to GDP is only a tad higher at 51.7%.  The recommended level is 25%.  Congress is worried.  They are willing to take a risk and see if making loosening up some of the financial shackles on small brewers will enable them to hire more workers, hopefully leading to growth and sustained future taxable income.

This is not what the MacroBrewers want.  They enjoy being emperors of the world.  Like any mad emperor, any threat, no matter how seemingly insignificant, must be stamped out.  From the ABC article:

The Beer Institute, a lobby group that represents the larger breweries like Anheuser-Busch Inbev, says it doesn’t support Neal and Brady’s proposed legislation, but that it welcomes some changes to the beer excise tax structure that will help reduce the tax burden on manufacturers.

“Congressman Neal’s bill is another indication that members of the U.S. House of Representatives support beer excise tax relief,” the Beer Institute says. “In 2008, members of the beer industry paid more than $41 billion in taxes at all levels of government and provided jobs to 1.9 million Americans. Congressman Neal’s bill will foster and promote growth for brewers who provide manufacturing jobs to hard working Americans.”

With the market share they are captive of, big breweries, like InBev, make more than enough money to cough up the excise tax and still stuff their pockets:  Not so for the craft brewer.  Obviously the craft brewer is a threat, as they are not backing the bill.

Well, I’m sorry you didn’t catch a break, big guys…it’s not a fair world our society gravitates towards a Robin Hood mentality.  Regardless, I am thrilled that some of the struggling brewers who sacrifice to put good beer in my cup may be given a chance to grow and leave a legacy, and as a guy who shoots to be in the industry soon, I know this will increase my odds of surviving.   I am calling my congressmen/women and encouraging them to allow our craft brewer friends to stop paying for our centuries old war with the British.

For more info, check out http://startingabrewery.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/federal-legislation-h-r-4278-you-can-help/

Spread the Word:

Beer tax:  Why nail Pabst and not ‘high falutin’ microbrews?

Are Washington’s Democratic state lawmakers microbrew drinking, Merlot swilling elitists?

At a news conference Tuesday Gov. Chris Gregoire was asked to comment on the relative fairness of taxing “macro brews” – your Pabst Blue Ribbons, Budweisers and Schmidts of the world – while exempting “microbrews” and wine. The former brews, it was suggested, are generally enjoyed by blue collar types. The latter are the tipples of choice of yuppie liberals.

Hold on there Sir Stereotype.  If there is any factual reporting beyond this opening catastrophe, it will have been drowned out by the loudness of your bias.  Let me introduce myself,  a craft/microbrew drinker.  I work a dead end job that doesn’t pay well.  I drive a minivan. That minivan is packed with five kids.  I have an unused masters degree in theology.  I have a copy of Rothbard’s, “For A New Liberty” sitting next to my elbow as I type on my aged HP computer.

Hardly High Falutin.  The reality is, the vast majority of  micro brew drinkers is quite the opposite.  I have yet to meet one that fits the category.

The author of the article seems to be upset that his/her product of choice (apparently Pabst Blue Ribbon) is subject to a new tax.  I understand being upset.  But the author is not merely upset at the tax, but at the fairness of the tax.  As a result, instead of getting on the phone and petitioning a repeal, they are making an illogical ad hominem attack against the party that so unfairly escaped taxation, the micro beer drinker.

According to the author:

The governor said a general sales tax increase would’ve hurt economic recovery and been borne disproportionately by the poor. Instead, in dealing with a $2.8 billion deficit, lawmakers chose a targeted, $800 million package of eliminating exemptions and imposing tax hikes on beer, soda, candy and bottled water. The beer tax is 50-cents per gallon (28-cents per six pack) through June, 2013. Over the next two years it is expected to bring in $59 million.

But the first 60,000 barrels produced by small brewers is exempt (to qualify as a microbrewer in Washington state a business must make less than 60,000 barrels each year). That means the pale ale, hefeweizen, and amber drinkers of the state won’t be paying more. Gregoire said the fact that microbrews and wines were not included in the tax hikes isn’t elitism, it’s localism. Washington is home to hundreds of small breweries and wineries, which is why, Gregoire said, her husband Mike drinks microbrews and she drinks state wines. (emphasis THFB)

“I heard a little dis on my husband on the floor of the House,” Gregoire said. “Why does my husband drink microbrews?…Because it’s Washington state, Washington state jobs.” (emphasis THFB)

Well. 2.8 billion is a bit of a pickle…a pickle that isn’t going to just go away.

Let me introduce the conundrum that encapsulates the human condition:  We want stuff, and we do not want to pay for it.  Whether it be a community recreation center, newly paved highways, or health care, we want/need it, but it better come out of someone else’s pockets.  We all love communal perks, just not the bill.

The citizen is left with two choices:  Keep the stuff and the obligatory taxes, or cut the stuff and keep some change like Colorado Springs is doing.  I am not trying to show the superiority of one system over the other, I’m merely trying to show the reality of the scenario, and that being sour grapes over another’s fortune (or escaping of misfortune) does little to solve a problem within your system.

It is clear that the reasoning of the legislatures is as such.  Micro beer, not macro beer, is the life blood of Washington.  Economists have routinely pointed out that a larger corporation can more easily weather a small tax storm than a small business or a small business start up.  Washington cannot bear to see more jobs lost, and perhaps by saving the microbrewery from failure the microbrewery from failure, not only will jobs be saved, but the microbrewery will grow into a larger, more revenue and tax producing corporation.  At this point, perhaps the taxation can be eased on the macrobrewery.  All the while, the well being of the macro and micro drinker was in consideration.

As a future brewery partner/owner, I hope that at least some of the tax burden for the stuff I don’t use falls on those who do use it.  If it doesn’t, I hope I remember this article keep the big picture in mind, and refrain from insulting the one who escapes the burden.

Spread the Word:

Not much has changed in 2400 years since this ancient promoter of democracy penned those words.  I am bewildered every time I hear the complacent citizen state:  “I don’t care about politics.”  It is hard for me to grasp how someone can care so little about a system and the people within it that are passing laws that have such an intimate impact on their lives.

When it comes to the alcohol industry, the amalgam of both state and federal regulations form a dense jungle that not only make it difficult for brewers to to do business, but for consumers to purchase their product.  The majority of the time, alcohol legislation is very reactionary in nature and does little to no good in resolving the problem it is addressing.

Such is the case with the California proposal to ban caffeinated brew.  Legislatures, as they see it, who perceive themselves as appointed watchdogs for the citizens, feel that caffeinated brews are detrimental to the well being of the consumer.  The consumer may feel that the stimulant effect of caffeine are counter-effective the depressing effect of the alcohol, rendering them effective vehicular navigators despite intoxication.  I’m sure this happens.

I’ve been to clubs and seen slobbering drunk but hyperactive college students with Red Bull and Vodka or a Sparks energy beer in hand dancing further into the night than if they were drinking straight Vodka.  I’ve seen hop into their cars and hit the road, putting their lives and others at risk.  But I’ve also seen their friends drink Corona all night long and hit the road as well.  Sure.  They are breaking the law.

But is banning the drink the right solution?  Will drunk driving stats really diminish with caffeinated alcohol off the market?  And, as a recent article points out, craft or artisanal beer is threatened in California.  As you are surely aware, coffee is often a key ingredient in many finely crafted craft brews.  Should such a law banning beers with alcohol pass, you can forget finding your favorite coffee stout on the shelves of you favorite bottle shop, a beer that I would guess hardly contributes to the problem.  Seriously, when is the last time you popped into your local techno club and saw a dude dancing with glow sticks in one hand and a bottle of Kentucky Breakfast Stout in the other.

Besides the fact that this is classic case of throwing the baby out with bathwater, should even a beer such as Sparks, marketed to reckless youth be banned?  I mean, there seems to be legislation in place already that is aimed at protecting the citizen:  Drunk driving laws and public intoxication laws come to mind.

The passing of such a law damages not only you, the conscientious consumer, but the brewer, who looses sales and has to add yet another legal mine to navigate past.

Now I hate to be pragmatic, as I would simply be flawed methodology of the lawmakers in this case.  Alcohol laws are slippery slopes into further legislation that restricts the purchase freedom of the consumer.  Just watch Beer Wars and attempt to grapple with the silly distribution laws that evolved from some piece of well intentioned legislation.

But we asked for this.  Yes, we Americans have continually been abdicating all normal responsibilities of adulthood–like responsible living, driving, and alcohol consumption–to higher authorities.  That’s no political statement, just an objective observation.  Perhaps we need to take a stand and tell our lawmakers that in this case, we can get buy without their watchful hand.  Sure we might need to take on some responsibility and take a little bit more time to teach our kids that Sparks is best enjoyed while the keys to the car out of reach (or in my case, teach them that Sparks is downright gross) and that alcohol while a great beverage, a treat, a blessing, and perhaps a livelihood, does have the potential to cause harm.

Last time I checked, we are still a representative democracy; that is, our lawmakers are hired by us to represent our opinions, not pass arbitrary legislation that they feel does our body good.  If such is the case, call your lawmaker at every level (city, state, federal) and voice your opinion.  If you cherish the freedom to walk down to the store and pick up a Lagunitas Cappuccino Stout, your senator will not know unless you tell him/her.  The passionate devotees to prohibition-esque causes are placing their phone calls, are you?

Sure politics may not be your thing.  You might hate talking about it, but politics is  talking about you, and your beer.  I’m not being cynical or a jerk.  I am sure that many behind this bill love their constituents and want them to feel safe when they navigate the road their taxes paid to pave…I just don’t think another restrictive purchasing law is the solution.

Update:

Scott from the BrewClub passed along this link for all those Californians who are interested in trying to keep their shelves stocked with their favorite coffee brews:

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/port-zipsearch.html

Spread the Word:

In their article, the Brewer’s Association states:

In 2009, craft brewers represented 4.3 percent of volume and 6.9 percent of retail dollars for the total U.S. beer category. With the total U.S. beer industry representing an estimated retail dollar value of $101 billion, the Brewers Association estimates the actual dollar sales figure from craft brewers in 2009 was $7 billion, up from $6.3 billion in 2008.

In the grand scheme of things, craft beer is still the needle in the haystack, but these figures have some profound implications.  First of all, Americans are drinking considerably less beer.  A nationwide drop of two percent is no small margin.  Second, some are clearly transmigrating to different suds.  And thirdly, and most importantly to me, there is room for considerable growth in the craft community, and people are ready for it.

The beauty of capitalism (sorry Michael Moore…I do know it has its flaws) is that it is very responsive to market conditions:  A struggling giant inadvertently opens the door for the little guy.  An investor who reads these figures will be less inclined than before to get in bed with a company like inBev and more interested in getting in on the ground level with a micro brewery start up…perhaps the start up that Mike and I dream of every night.

Case in point, us beer geeks aren’t the only ones to take notice of our small victory:

The 2009 growth and popularity of beer from small and independent breweries did not go unnoticed by industry observers. The National Restaurant Association Chef Survey (see results), for example, cited “locally-produced wine and beer” among its top five overall trends to watch for in 2010. In the alcohol and cocktails category, the organization ranked “locally-produced wine and beer” as its top trend, while “food-beer pairings” came in at number five on the list.

Little by little, people are tiring of conglomorate.    Herd mentality is waning.   The same capitalistic system that grew some of the beer giants to their inflated sizes is now the force that is humbling them. This gives me hope.

In my opinion, craft beer will never completely overtake big beer as long as American’s continue to bow before the one eyed monster in our living room that boasts of the macro brewers marketing budget.  Besides this, the magnanimous nature of the craft brewer has little to no room for contested market space, dollar motivated mergers/takeovers, and all around consumerism.

At this point, while I rejoice over craft beer’s growth and will continue to do so in subsequent years, I don’t mind that it is still a part of the minority/margin (and not just because my arrogance craves the esoteric).  Should the big boys completely fail and we were to wake up tomorrow with InBev, Molson-Coors, etc. a thing of the past, I would hope that marginal mom & pop diversified nature of craft beer continued on.

Here’s to all the micro and craft brewers out there eking out a living for our sake!  Cheers!

Spread the Word:

Extreme interventionism, while well intentioned doesn’t always work.  Does anyone remember the prohibition, Al Capone, and Bugs Moran?  The problem:  prevalent drunkenness.  The solution:  Industry interventionism (prohibition)  The result:  Drunkenness (still), organized crime, lost tax funding, and an increase in home brewing (hey, at least SOMETHING positive resulted!)

And here I must insert the obligatory disclaimer.  I am not advocating any political/partisan opinion (I try to remain aloof on this site) nor am I advocating anarchy and/or suggesting that all government programs are a blight on the map of human history.

I say all that to bring to light some recent faulty thinking in ye old land of Scotland.  A quite fantastic and respectable craft brewery, Brewdog, released a mammoth beer: Tokyo.  This beer, that I unfortunately have not sampled, boasts and ABV of 18.2%, and has drawn some unfortunate social reactionary criticism.  In fact, Scotland Parliament filed a motion condemning the brewery.  One politician, Robert Brown, said of the ABV: “reprehensible in a society where the medical evidence shows that, across all age groups and socio-economic categories, individuals are drinking too much alcohol.”  In isolation his statement may well be correct, but to imply a high quality and complex beer is intrinsically responsible for the statement is affirming the consequent and scapegoating, and is false.

Parliament, in their motion, blames Brewdog for not being an instrument of change in curbing nationwide alcoholism, and for instigating it.  Hold on here.  This is craft beer.  It’s expensive.  When is the last time you saw a drunk transient walking through your downtown holding a bottle of Grey Goose vodka?  Never, of course.  How about that binge drinking frat dude?  Is he toting a high end bottle of Brewdog’s Tokyo?  Or do you spy  a $3.00 forty ounce bottle of Miller High Life duct taped to each hand as he plays “Edward Forty Hands.”

My point is, if parliament–or any other governing body–wanted to discourage alcoholism by imposing legislation on brewers, they would file motions against brewers that put out horrific swill that even a hobo could afford.  They wouldn’t slap the wrists of a company making a beer that is geared toward and consumed by a beer enthusiast willing to forfeit more for better and spend more money for a higher quality beer, that in all reality will be share amongst friends.  This wouldn’t force the poor into not drinking alcohol at all, but it would make thrift necessary. Or they could impose tougher laws on drunk driving and obscene displays of drunkenness.  Or reaffirm a general sense of civil morality and self control…and so on and so on.

Brewdog knows this.  They understand the reactionary interventionist ill logic.  So what do they do?  They bite back and produce the extreme opposite of the 18.2% Tokyo; a 1.1% brew that is apparently hopped beyond belief (malt/hop ratio).  The producer of the UK’s “biggest beer” reacted by making the UK’s “littlest beer,” and they have affectionately named it Nanny State. The name doesn’t suggest the ABV to be a token of penance; rather, it seems to be a passive aggressive attack on the floundering reasoning of the critics…the Nanny-Statists.

It is brilliant, clever, humorous, and sad that a brewery that prides itself on quality should have to so defend itself.  I believe the effect of the controversy may have the opposite effect that Scotland’s Parliament intended as brew dog is rocketed up in recognition from the free publicity.

Thank Heaven for Beer tips its hat to you, Brewdog, and all the other responsibly minded brewers worldwide, who find themselves the scapegoat at the whimsy of legislatures.  A problem exists, yes, but interventionism has yet to prove itself a worthy method.

Spread the Word:

Does anyone remember this process?

While soda bottles, along with 8 tracks and jelly shoes, are but a memory, beer bottles are still thriving.  I would guess that 99.8% of the beer I purchase at the store utilizes the bottle to deliver the sweet malty goodness to my glass.  It sure would be nice to get a deposit back!  I would guess that most beer consumers don’t recycle their bottles (I do–mine are reused for to house home brewed beer).  With “going green” all the rage these days, it seems like every brewery is doing something for the environment.  While I see brewers utilizing solar power, wind power, and implementing water conservation methods, I never see any brewery tackling the bottle problem.  So I had to hand it to Boulevard Brewing Company when I discovered their latest venture, Ripple Glass.

Boulevard Brewing Company, realizing that their bottles (10 million per year!) were ending up in landfills, decided to create a company that would eliminate the waste.  Kansas City businesses use over 100 million pounds of recycled glass every year, but all that glass comes from outside the KC metro area.  Setting up recycling stations throughout the city, Ripple Glass now saves bottles from an eternity in local landfills and sells them to local fiberglass producers.

I applaud their efforts (and their beer)…I wouldn’t mind sampling and reviewing a few bottles of their new Smokestack Series, but unfortunately it doesn’t distribute to Northwest Ohio. (hint, hint).

But let me backtrack to earlier in this article.  Why not bring back the whole “deposit/refund” idea?  Granted, many grocery store beer consumers will be hard pressed to bring their bottles back to the store, but for those nerds who are in their local beer store two or three times a week, returning the bottles would be preferred, especially if a small refund were in order.

The bottle simply would been to be washed, label removed, and sanitized, and could then be reused by the brewery.  I am sure this could be done for less than the price of a new bottle?  This is what most home brewers, myself included do.  I have never bought a new empty bottles for my homebrew, and know of none who have.

Perhaps I am pragmatist who lacks the foresight to see the major hiccups in the system, but if it once worked for soda bottles, it at least seems plausible.  Regardless, a tip of the hat to you, Boulevard Brewing Company, for your green entrepreneurial mindset and moxy!

Spread the Word:

When I arrived, I spoke to Jonas, who deals with distribution and sales, petted the dog who hangs out in the office, and said hello to Tyler (in charge of Brewing Operations/Brew House).  I’d spoken to Tyler and Rachel (the latter is the wife of Patrick Rue, the CEO of the company) on a previous occasion, so I’d already been ingratiated to them through my dashing personality. Tyler told me that he was headed to pick up lunch for everybody.  Almost every aspect of The Bruery feels like the beholder is watching a family experience at work.  Since Tyler was leaving to get lunch and Patrick had run somewhere for a minute, I went a few doors down.  Where did I go?

Would you believe that The Bruery has a home brew shop set up just a couple doors down from their office and brewing operations?  The prices are very good and the selection is excellent.  I encourage you to check out the Bruery Provisions if you get a chance.  I was able to get ingredients for a brew that I planned on doing later in the week.  Kevin, who is in charge of the provisions side, is always helpful and is quick to help you get what you need.  At any rate, Tyler came through with the burritos that he was picking up, dropped off Kevin’s, and we meandered a few doors down to the office.  I wanted to give everyone time to eat, so I spoke to Jonas and asked him a few questions about what states The Bruery has reached and where it is heading. He sent me an e-mail with the following list:

Current: CA, OR, WA, AZ, NV, CO, MA, NJ, NY, PA, VA, MD, DC, WA
Planned in near future (some as soon as October): IN, OH, WI, NC, SC, IL, FL, KY

• Tradewinds Tripel
• Autumn Maple: a seasonal with a lot of yams, maple syrup, and spices; a very nice beer with restrained spices
• Mischef 2: Mischef 1 without being dry hopped and with a couple other changes
• White Oak: one of their beers mixed with wheat wine blend (aged in bourbon)–I loved this beer,
• Imperial Pale Lager: Which has more hops than Pliny dry-hopped twice.  Why an Imperial Pale Lager? Tyler said that they promised themselves not to ever make an IPA.  This is good since these are currently ubiquitous.
• Sour Rye: (Really nice sours)  This was a beautiful beer with plenty of sours, and it was simply terrific.
• Zin beer:  This was a Zinfandel blended beer.  Very nice.
• Hottenroth Beliner Weisse:  A nice, refreshing, and lactic beer.
• Black Tuesday:  This beer is the reason I brought Dark Lord.  We did a side-by-side tasting of the two.  By this time, Patrick had come in.  As you can see, we had a few beers to try (and they weren’t exactly sips). By the time that I got to Black Tuesday, my palate wasn’t at its cleanest.  Let me tell you this: it is an exceptional beer.  I really want to score a bottle of it when it comes out at the Bruery.  It will be difficult because a lot of it has already been reserved, and I don’t know whether or not I can get up there the day of the release to purchase a bottle.  I’d like to do a formal review but don’t know if and when I’ll taste it again. Fortunately, next year’s batch (one of them) is in the barrel already and may be even stronger than this years version.  Who knows.  There are no promises.

As we sat and sipped our beers, it was time to start the formal interview (of course, it was anything but formal–I love the relaxed atmosphere of the beer world).  Patrick and Tyler were the participants in the interview.

The first question was admittedly one of ego-stroking. I had Patrick read an April article that Nate had written about the Bruery and asked, “What do you think of this?” He thank us for the kind words, and I asked him if he agreed with Nate’s assessment, which essentially claimed that the Bruery’s beers stood out for a unique and nice spin on traditional versions.  Patrick addressed the article by responding that the Bruery was explicitly trying to be different but at the same time approachable; unapproachability simply doesn’t get one’s beer out there.  The goal appears to be to push boundaries, but not too far.  Patrick and Tyler, it seemed to me, learned to strike a really nice balance between pragmatism and idealism.

Question 2:  How did you get started and how big was the Bruery originally?

Both Patrick and Tyler were home brewers starting out.  Patrick has brewed about 6 years total and Tyler for 7-8.  I followed up by asking them if they still home brewed.  Tyler said yes and that he had quite a few batches going right now. He is brewing 4 lambics, an organic barley wine, coffee choc imperial stout and a Flemish sour. Patrick said that his outlet for home brewing was sort of going to work.  As for the second part of the question, I got my answer from Patrick.  The Bruery started out on a 15 barrel system and expanded to their current volume in April, adding a new bottling line in June.  Not too shabby for being barely over a year old.

Question 3:   Why did you chose to focus on Belgian Styles specifically?

First, Patrick was careful to note that they did not want to be rigidly locked into Belgian beer, which is was part of the logic behind brewing Black Tuesday, their massive Imperial Stout.  However, he did concede that they had a lot of Belgian-styled beers for the simple reason that they are versatile beers that can really be played with quite a bit; the beers are inherently theme-oriented being since they are within the Belgian category.  Also, it is simply a matter of enjoyment.  They love Belgian beers.  (Me, too!)

Question 4:   I noticed you had no 6 packs of beer…why not?

Presentation was Patrick’s first response to the question.  His second was one of practical consideration. He was able to purchase a wine filler for $1,500 dollars, which was a steal, so things sort of panned out for single bottle sales.  His third statement was also of a practical nature.  Simply put, volume considerations played a role.  If there was quite a bit more volume, then six packs could then be considered.  The fourth statement he made was one that I expected all along; namely, consideration was being made for the beer connoisseur. The look of the bottle and what’s inside are more appealing to the discriminating beer drinker.

Question 5:  What advice do you have to aspiring brewers?

This question was driven by the fact that Nate and I want to open our own brewery, so I asked it because it was of special interest to me.  Patrick responded by telling me to save a lot of money, prepare to be poor, and also prepare to pursue your dreams.  Isn’t this a revealing statement?  I think I could support The Bruery simply on the basis of that.  It’s not about the money…it’s about the beer.  When you see these guys in your state, buy some of their beer and help them keep pursuing those dreams.  In  a world of bottom dollar blues, this is a most refreshing thought.

Question 6:  What is on the horizon for the Bruery?

The Bruery is in 13 states and should be in 22 by October/November, according to Patrick. He also added that they have several brewery-only releases that they keep planning to do.  The brewery-only releases are both practical and rewarding.  The reason they don’t release everything in stores is simply a matter of the associated financial constraints.  The rewarding side of the brewery only-releases is that they are a nod to those tried and true locals, both the people and market.  In addition, the brewery is able to make the money back by selling a limited amount at the location itself.  But the prospect of their expansion is still very exciting.

Question 7:  Where do you personally see thee craft brewing market heading?

I asked Patrick (as a sub question) if he thought there was an over-saturation in the market.  Tyler chimed in by saying that small breweries were finally back over the pre-prohibition levels.  Patrick’s outlook is that the market is not saturated (I’m not implying that Tyler believes it is), and there is a lot of room for movement.  In addition, he recognizes an ever expanding customer base as more and more people grow in appreciation for craft beer.  In sort, his outlook seems fairly optimistic.

Question 8:  What are your goals as a brewers? How big do you want to become?

Patrick and Tyler both hold to the same goal as brewers: unique beers and quality.  It’s that simple…quality is key.  This thought ties into the second part of the question.  How big do they want to get?  They want to get a big as they can without changing their brewing philosophy.  Does that sound easy?  Consider that they might make cheaper, less flavorful, and less unique beer in order to make a ton of money (this is certainly possible).  However, they have philosophical convictions as brewers that they refuse to compromise.  I personally admire that.  On a numbers level, Patrick indicated that 15,000 to 20,000 barrels a year would be a comfortable level for them, although not in their current location.  I bet we’ll see an expansion of this brewery within a couple years.  ***This is my prediction…nobody said this except me***

Question 9:  Many Americans hate going to work, how do you feel about the daily grind?

Tyler responded with no waffling or equivocation.  ”I love it.”  Patrick has the same attitude.  In fact, he looks forward to Mondays.  Who among us can say that?  He stated that he gets bored on the weekends and looks forward to coming in.  He further indicated that he is lucky that there haven’t been too many weekends he hasn’t been at work lately.  Is he insane to say that?  No!  He’s just insane about The Bruery.

Question 10:  What’s your favorite brew that you make? What other brewers do you like?

Tyler spoke on a personal home brew level when he said lambic is the favorite thing that he makes.  Both agreed that the newest and most exciting thing they are making is their favorite beer.  What they are doing now is their favorite.  This is also very cool.  I suppose this means that they are always looking to make something new and are genuinely excited about their products.  This attitude, I think, is more likely to keep producing new, good, and exciting beers.  Other breweries that Patrick likes include Russian River, Allagash, and Cigar City out of Tampa, FL.  Tyler enjoys Sierra Nevada (partly because he can find it so many places) and Lost Abbey.

Question 11:  Is their anything special, like a top secret brew that I can tell our readers about?

The answer that I got to this question was surprising.  Tyler and Patrick gave each other a knowing look and proceeded to “spill the beans” on a new brew.  They are planning to do collaboration brew with with Cigar City.  Nothing is definite right now, but they are leaning toward a big Flemish Brown.  We’ll keep you posted. There are some other interesting things on the horizon, but I’ve agreed that I will keep silent until the proper time, so I’ll have more to tell you later on…I hope a lot more.

Let me tell our readers that it was a real pleasure to visit The Bruery.  I will be frequenting this wonderful brewery.  I fully intend to keep going to their Provisions for my home brewing needs.  I will certainly make it a point to stop in, say hello, and try the new stuff that they will undoubtedly keep making.  If you come within a few hours of this craft brewer and don’t stop by it would be an absolute shame.  Look for them and look for me to be there, too.  Show your support by purchasing some beer, stopping by, or planning a trip and stopping by.  You won’t be disappointed.  Cheers!  Below are some other pics for your enjoyment.

Mike’s Review:

Overall Satisfaction with product line-up and brewery: ★★★★★ 

I only gave a 5 because that’s our highest rating.  6 out of 5 is more like it.  By the way, sorry I forgot to take a picture of Patrick for the article…I thought I had one.

Spread the Word:

While I think we as a culture may at times pride controversy over cataclysm, but at the same time, our virtuous history pokes through and we hope for unbridled reconciliation, and what better vehicle for healing, than a good brew.  After all, beer is America’s favorite beverage, played pivotal roles in the America’s formative history, and was brewed in at the hands of our first president.

The question now arises:  “What frothy varieties will serve as peace-pipe at the Obama residence?”  It is not only the craft beer community asking this question.  Across the blogosphere political pundits and curious citizens alike are prodding the oval office for clues, demonstrating that we the people are aware that a man’s beer of choice can reveal much about his character.

While unconfirmed, it appears that Crowley, Gates, and Obama have let on as to what they will be drinking.  The word on the street is (ABC news):

Obama:  Budweiser

Gates:  Red Stripe

Crowley:  Blue Moon

As these choices are yet unconfirmed, I do hope one of the three read this post before settling on these choices.  First of all, while beer is the perfect companion to camaraderie, I do wish that the three could all feast upon the same brew.  I think any lover of the malt will agree that sharing the same brew is bonding experience.  Second, each of the three suspect brews is foreign.  With an imploding economy, a falling dollar, and an unhealthy unemployment rate, I really am convinced that the president needs to throw his weight behind a more patriotic, American owned, choice.  The US craft beer industry is, after all, a thing to be beheld and supported, has achieved world class status in a relatively short time, and unlike other industries, held its head above water in tough times.

So, assuming the President, or Gates and Crowley were to read this article, I ask your opinion…what do you think should be served at Obama’s first presidential beer party?  Were the voice of this blog to reach the right ears, I know that the writers of this blog would volunteer some of their homebrew!

***photo credit

Spread the Word: