Everyone else has a blog ...

This blog is unlikely to represent the views of any organisation I may belong to.

Dec 24 2005 - Australian Beer Guidelines.

Well as most people kicking around on Australian beer forums know, over the course of 2005, a number of folk from Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide took part in the BJCP study process and exam. I myself took part in this and thoroughly enjoyed the learning (might not be so thrilled to see my exam results though $:\$ ). Even if I don't make the cut on the exam, I did learn a lot (for example I produced BeerColour as a result of the whole process).

One result of this is a renewed look at the differences between the BCJP and Australian style guidelines. Now these guidelines have many similarities as you would expect, it is beer after all, but also some differences.

There is a single issue that, until it is resolved, will prevent the BCJP guidelines being embraced in Australian brewing comps, and that is the case of the missing Aussie styles. I am going to pick just one, "Sparkling Ale" (I hope to research this and another couple of uniquely Australian styles in AussieStyles). The various official amateur brewing bodies need to work with the BJCP to see how (or indeed whether) this issue can be resolved.

There are of course other objections:

There are some loonies who simply slag off at anything American (I have been abused by people like this after suggesting they perhaps take a look at the guidelines) without engaging in any rational discussion. They kind of expect the BJCP version of and English IPA to be 200 IBU with so much dry hopping (and cascade) you need a spoon to drink it.
"We don't want our guidelines too technical." said a committee member of a state brewing organisation to me recently, referring to the practice of actually specifying OG and FG parameters right there in the BCJP guidelines, how preposterous!. To be fair, he is the kind of intuitive brewer who takes a pinch of this and a dollop of that, I'm not even sure he owns a hydrometer (just joking Mike). Me being the engineering type, I like to have the numbers there, as well as the description.
There is some disparity in the way the sub styles are divvied up. If you look at, for example, the descriptions of stouts in the two sets of guidelines, they are just different. I am going from memory here.

Of course, systematically embracing the BCJP guidelines is one thing, jumping on a bandwagon is quite another. One particular state organisation decided (unilaterally as far as I can tell) to adopt the BCJP guidelines leading up to the 2005 Nationals. Now brewing organisations are free to choose whichever guidelines they see fit, however the national comp is run under the Aussie guidelines at this point in time and I believe it did create some conflict in where some of that state's winning entries ended up (or not) in the nationals.

I have no idea what discussions are occurring via official channels between BJCP and Australian Brewers. For all I know it is on the NAFTA agenda. The various amateur brewing bodies in Australia don't seem to say much in public forums, so unless you sit on a committee somewhere, you're not likely to hear about it. There is definitely a need for some transparency here.

So to get to my point, what is the process for considering new styles for the BJCP style guidelines? After all, Pride of Ringwood might not be your actual noble hop, but if there was a hall of fame for high alpha hops it would be one of the original inductees.

At least if no one else has asked the question, I have.

pass me another Coopers clone ...

paul sorenson