Category Archives: Beery Thoughts

Random musings on my favorite topic…beer.

The Highs and Lows of Beer Travel: a Dispatch from the Road

Posted on by

Oh, what I put myself through in the name of beer.

Although I have made many covert allusions to it on Facebook and Twitter, I have not officially announced that I am working on a book for the University of Illinois Press. Tentatively titled A Beer Guide to the Upper Midwest, it will be a beer-travel guide to every brewery and brewpub in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa. Any brewery that has an actual facility that can be visited will be included. There will be little beer-historical tidbits for each state as well. I have this dream of the upper Midwest becoming the next beer Mecca like the Colorado Front Range. Hopefully this book will help to push that dream a bit closer to reality.

But before the book can be written, there is the research. There are 150+ breweries in the four states that I am covering, with new ones popping up all the time. Putting together a comprehensive list has been a challenge as no one really seems to have a handle on the current brewery proliferation. I have to spend a certain amount of time tracking down rumors of this or that small brewery that might be starting to make beer in such and such a town. Then there are those that seemingly spring out of nowhere. I already know that will have to include a disclaimer in the introduction stating that, while I did my best, I probably missed some.

The Big Gold Boat at Bent River Brewpub

Then there’s the travel. You don’t really realize how many 150 is until you try to visit them all. It means long days and weeks on the road racking up countless miles on the Big Gold Boat of a Chrysler that I drive. Brewery visits often start at 10:00 AM. Of course this also means that beer drinking starts that early. A four-brewery day is a long, beer-soaked haul in which, ten hours after beginning, I am struggling to fight my way through the last beers of the last brewpub’s 14-beer line-up. I just keep telling myself, “I will get through this. I will get through this.” It’s good to have a digital voice recorder. Note taking is by then pointless. Aside from the brown splotches of spilled beer that smear and obscure the ink, my already bad handwriting deteriorates to squiggly lines that more closely resemble a seismograph than language. One particularly long tasting session included the following, barely-legible words, “Personal note: at this point my palate is shot.”

10:00 AM Beers at Peace Tree Brewing

This kind of intense beer travel does have its benefits. For one thing, I believe it has greatly refined my palate. When you taste the many different beers of many different brewers in rapid-fire succession, the difference between well-made and so-so beer becomes starkly apparent; apparent in a way that actually took me by surprise. Beers that may have been fine had I just walked into a pub for a pint suddenly reveal all of their flaws. The great beers, the ones with beautifully balanced recipes and flawless process, sing all the more brightly. For the most part brewers in the region are making good beer. Some are making great beer. Some should maybe consider doing something else.

It’s a treat to sit down with brewers and talk about their beers. Their passion for the craft is contagious. I have gained interesting insights into beer, brewing, and the industry from these conversations. Many of them encourage a lively and honest back and forth about their creations that is certainly beneficial to me and I hope gives them some benefit at well.

It is interesting to learn about the range of brewery types out there. I have visited pico breweries that are making ten-gallon batches for a local market, and regional breweries working with fully-automated 120+ barrel brewhouses. In between there is every size, shape, and type of brewing operation imaginable, every one working with the same kind of passion and dedication to their product.

This year is going to be interesting. I can’t wait to see what unfolds.

Some Calm Reflection on Surly’s Big Brewery Announcement: Part 3

Posted on by

In the comment thread to yesterday’s post, Surly Brewer Todd Haug offered some clarification about Surly’s intentions saying, “We are asking to sell pints of our beer. No back door sales, no full liquor, no packaged beer sales.” This more specific explanation is extremely helpful. Specificity is important, especially when dealing with legislation where every word counts and what is not said is often as important as what is said. Earlier statements by Surly (here and here) that were picked-up and repeated by the media said, “We can’t be licensed as a brewpub because we brew too much beer so Minnesota law currently says we can’t sell beer in the new brewery.” These statements suggested, to me at least, a much bigger goal that would have necessitated either a redefinition of “brewpub” in the statutes or a significant expansion of what is allowable as a large brewery. Either way it would have been a tricky legislative debate.

The less ambitious aim means that the law could conceivably be changed with a simple, narrowly worded statement allowing breweries to sell their own draft beer for on-site consumption at a restaurant or beer garden attached to the place of manufacture; something akin to the subsection that now allows growler sales at small breweries, except that it provides for on-sale instead of off. It would not require a change to the existing brewpub license. Because it would not require a retail license, it gets around the statute forbidding manufacturers from having an ownership stake in any entity holding such a license. Depending on how it is worded, it could still be interpreted to allow limited on-sale by other breweries in tasting rooms. It’s still a tricky legislative debate, but perhaps not quite as tricky.

My thanks to Todd for the clarification.

The Opposition

Todd’s clarification is also helpful in examining the arguments against Surly’s plan.

The only organization that has thus far made public statements in opposition to the plan is the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA). The MLBA is a business association representing the retail tier of the three-tier system; bars, restaurants, and package stores. Their website states that since 1952 they’ve “been helping licensed beverage retailers in Minnesota with educational programs and government affairs services designed to promote and protect their business.” The organization offers retailers a range of services including discounted alcohol liability insurance, alcohol server training, business development counseling, as well as tracking, information, and lobbying on legislative issues.

The MLBA was quick to oppose Surly’s plan. In a statement made to Tom Scheck of MPR News the day after Surly’s announcement, organization representative Frank Ball said:

It’s pretty simple within the parameters of the three-tier structure we have in Minnesota. The manufactures make the product, the wholesalers distribute the product and we, the retailers, sell the product to the consumer. It’s even more simple if you say it the way my retailers say it: “you make it, we’ll sell it”…you make it ‘and’ sell it, we won’t buy from you”.

The reason for the three-tier structure was to keep the integrity of the distribution of a controlled, highly regulated, commodity. Alcohol — like prescription drugs or firearms — is no ordinary commodity. In fact, alcoholic beverages are the only commercial products specifically named in the United States Constitution. Because our society recognizes the importance of controlling alcohol use and access, alcohol has always been treated differently under the law than most other products.

The manufacturers (breweries, vineyards and distilleries) supply distributors. Under the laws which created the three-tier system, each level of the system is independent of the others, ensuring accountability to the public as well as the benefits of healthy competition. By preventing tied houses (i.e. Retailers that sell the products of only one supplier), the three-tier system limits the number of retail outlets and therefore promotes moderate consumption, hence our position with the Surly matter. We want the Surly product to sell in our stores, we don’t want the manufacturer of a great beer to sell to the public, we’ll do that enthusiastically as possible.

While it is true that the current law is rooted in the manufacturer/retailer separation mandated by the three-tier system, Ball’s opening argument amounts to “this is how it is.” In a more recent statement he reiterated that argument even more explicitly saying, “This is Minnesota. These are the rules.” Simply stating that something is one way or another doesn’t amount to a convincing argument for why it should remain that way. He claims no specific benefit from maintaining the status quo, nor does he cite any possible harm that would come from changing it. He also fails to account for exceptions to the system that already exist, such as the farm winery license that allows wineries to sell product at the manufacturing facility for on or off-sale, something that goes further than what Surly is proposing.

At the end of his opening statement Ball resorts to blackmail saying, “you make it ‘and’ sell it, we won’t buy from you.” This seems to me a difficult claim to substantiate. While I admit that my intelligence is hardly comprehensive, the retailers that I have heard from all support Surly’s plan and would happily continue to sell the brewery’s products. Aside from this, blackmail is never pretty. It’s thuggish. It is not an effective way to win friends and influence people.

He next makes a historical argument that alcohol has always been treated differently. There is some truth in this statement. Alcoholic beverages have been a tightly regulated commodity going all the way back to colonial times. However, they have not always been regulated in the same way. The three-tier system wasn’t put into place until 1933. Saying that regulation has always existed isn’t a sound argument for any particular form of regulation.

In the third paragraph he makes the statement that, “Under the laws which created the three-tier system, each level of the system is independent of the others, ensuring accountability to the public as well as the benefits of healthy competition.” While this may be true of the intention of the underlying laws, many would argue that the reality of their implementation does exactly the opposite (see Arguments against the three-tier system in yesterdays post). They contend that large breweries are able to game the system to their own anti-competitive advantage and that distributors have become the ultimate decision makers on what gets to market, giving them the ability to make or break a small producer.

He further states that the three-tier system “promotes moderate consumption.” There is little evidence to support this claim. During prohibition, the time of greatest regulation of alcohol in the nation’s history, alcohol use actually rose. The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy states on their website, “National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records. Consumption by women and children increased dramatically.”

The Proponents

I already discussed many of Surly’s arguments in favor of the brewery plan in part one. I won’t discuss them again here. However there is one argument being made by supporters that needs to be examined; the “they do it in other states” argument.

I can already hear my mother saying, “If they were jumping off cliffs in Colorado (or Oregon, Wisconsin, etc.) would you jump off a cliff?” The fact that something can be done elsewhere is not by itself a compelling argument that it should be done here. As stated in part two, every state has the ability under the federal law to regulate how the three-tier system is implemented. Some states have an even more restrictive approach than Minnesota, such as those in which the state monopolizes both the distribution and retail tiers. The case could just as easily be made that Minnesota should adopt one of these more restrictive models. If the “other state” argument is to be used, concrete reasons must be given, be they economic, cultural, or otherwise, as to why another model is better for Minnesota than the one we currently have.

Conclusion

I think that some people might have taken my last two posts to be an attack on Surly or the brewery proposal. I assure you that this is not the case. I called this “calm reflection” because that’s what is. It is my attempt to think through situation and make sense of it without the hype and hyperbole that was coming from all sides. Some of my conclusions have been challenged. Great! I love a good debate. I’m willing to listen and be convinced. Where I was convinced I have made the effort to correct previous statements.

In the end, I am fully behind Surly’s cause. I find the idea exciting. I applaud their success. I think the facility will be good for craft beer not just in the state, but in the whole upper-Midwest region. I wish them luck and will do what I can to support them.

In any event, it’s going to be an interesting fight. I look forward to watching it play out.

Read Part One
Read Part Two

Some Calm Reflection on Surly’s Big Brewery Announcement: Part 2

Posted on by

As has been reported, the only thing preventing Surly from moving ahead with their brewery plan are the Minnesota statutes regarding licensure for liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. The real significance of this story lies in the proposals to change those laws. Reading the articles and the attached comment threads reveals a good bit of misinformation and misunderstanding about what the laws actually say and where they originate, so let’s take a look at that.

The Three Tier System

What is it and why do we have it?

The laws in question stem from the state’s interpretation of the three-tier system of alcohol manufacture, distribution, and sale. The three-tier system is a set of federal statutes put in place after prohibition that are intended to separate the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages from those that sell them to consumers. The statutes basically require that manufacturers and importers sell to wholesalers, who in turn sell to retailers. The system was devised to correct coercive and anti-competitive practices that existed prior to prohibition.

In those days, breweries owned saloons, which of course sold only their products. They also entered into exclusivity agreements with saloon owners, often through coercion or bribery with loans and equipment, creating so-called “tied houses.” The brewery that held the most saloons could essentially prevent competing breweries from entering certain markets, creating an anti-competitive situation. Breweries also exerted a good deal of pressure on tied-house owners to increase sales, leading to public drunkenness and ultimately aiding the cause of the prohibitionists.

Arguments in favor of the three-tier system

Proponents of the system say that it simplifies revenue collection, provides retailers with easier access to a greater range of products, and creates a more level playing field for small brewers to enter markets.

Distributors maintain centralized warehouses through which product is moved. They are better able to track the comings and goings of those products for payment of taxes and can efficiently generate a paper-trail for reporting of those taxes. This centralization also means that retailers can go to a single location to access several breweries’ products rather than having to manage contacts and transactions with a multitude of different producers. It also saves brewers the difficult task of selling to many individual retailers.

Requiring manufacturers to go through distributors theoretically prevents larger breweries from flooding markets with underpriced goods or bribing/coercing retailer to carry only their products. Because wholesalers make money from many producers, they have an incentive to promote the large and the small brands, thus creating a level playing field.

Arguments against the three-tier system

Critics argue that the three-tier system has simply shifted the corruption and coercion. They say that large manufacturers now incentivize distributors to drop competing brand, in essence creating tied-house relationships with wholesalers rather than retailers. Distributors then offer perks to retailers, such as installing draft lines at bars that agree to carry their products. Although such practices are for the most part illegal, critics say they are often overlooked. In this way, both small producers and small distributors can be denied access to markets. According to critics the same anti-competitive situation still exists that existed before prohibition.

The Laws in Minnesota

States interpret the statutes

While federal law mandates the manufacturer/ distributor/ retailer model, it gives the states a great deal of leeway in how to interpret and implement it. The model varies significantly in structure and strictness from state to state. In some cases, state government takes on the role of wholesaler and/or retailer, operating state liquor stores or buying from manufacturers and selling to retailers. Some states allow breweries to self-distribute product, some do not. Some allow manufacturers to participate in retail sales at the brewery, others prohibit this practice. I have read instances where state officials come to inspect a brewpub’s tax determination tanks, buy the beer in the tank from the brewery, and then immediately sell it back to them.

What does Minnesota law say?

Here’s where we get technical.

Minnesota statute allows four types of brewer’s licenses:

1.       Brewers who manufacture less than 2000 barrels in a year

2.       Brewers who manufacture between 2000 and 3500 barrels in a year

3.       Brewers who manufacture over 3500 barrels in a year

4.       Brewers who also hold one or more retail on-sale licenses and who manufacture fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off-sale in growlers as permitted in another section of the statute.

Brewers in the first and second category may not hold a retail “off-sale” license, but are permitted to sell beer from the brewery for off-premise consumption in 64-ounce growlers or 750 ml bottles. Brewers in the category three may not hold a retail license or sell beer for off-premise consumption from the brewery. None of these three license categories allow the sale of beer for on-premise consumption. In other words, breweries cannot sell beer directly to consumers in their tasting rooms, nor can they sell beer directly to consumers in an attached restaurant. No brewery in any of these three categories is allowed to have any ownership stake in any business holding a retail license. Brewers with these licenses are allowed to self-distribute their product if they obtain a separate wholesalers license and produce no more than 25,000 barrels of beer annually. Surly along with a number of the state’s other small breweries self-distribute their beer to retailers.

Category four is the so-called “brewpub” license. It allows a brewery to hold a retail license for on-premise consumption at a restaurant located in the place of manufacture. Brewpubs are allowed to sell growlers and 750 ml bottles for off-premise consumption, but are prohibited from distributing their product to the off-sale retail market. They can also sell their product at other separately-licensed locations for on-site consumption if those locations are owned by the same entity. For instance, Town Hall is able to sell its beer at the Town Hall Tap because both are owned by the same entity. Town Hall would not be allowed sell its beer across the street at Preston’s.

Confused yet?

So what does this all mean?

In order to move forward with the brewery project, Surly needs to change the law to allow breweries that manufacture over 3500 barrels annually to also hold a retail license for on-site consumption at a restaurant located in the place of manufacture. In other words, they need the rules that apply to brewpubs to also apply to large breweries. As I understand it, however, beyond raising the barrel limit for brewpubs, they would also need to change the brewpub license to allow for distribution into the retail market. Otherwise the change in classification would allow Surly to sell beer in their proposed restaurant, but would prohibit them from selling beer in stores. The change to the law requires more than has been suggested in the current discussion.

This change to the law has broader implications than just allowing Surly to build its brewery. If successful, the change would presumably allow brewpubs like Town Hall and Fitger’s to package and sell their beer in bars and liquor stores, something they have long wanted to do. It could also be interpreted to allow breweries to sell beer in their tasting rooms, essentially operating them as bars, as they do in Colorado.

A lot of competing interests have already begun building their cases both for and against the change. I’ll address that tomorrow.

Read part one.
Read part three

Some Calm Reflection on Surly’s Big Brewery Announcement: Part One

Posted on by

On Monday night the Twittersphere lit up after Surly’s announcement of a planned 20-million dollar brewery. Tweets and re-tweets proliferated at a blistering pace, causing even my lowly @aperfectpint handle to “trend” locally. (Who’d of thought?) Anxious Surly fans hung on every message, waiting for additional details. The next day comment threads on internet news stories and Facebook posts called the announcement “the most exciting brewing news & brewery in Minnesota since the end of prohibition.” They declared that the new brewery was something that Surly “deserved” and decried groups that might oppose the project as bullies who are only “out to line their own pockets” (as if Surly isn’t looking to make money from this).  The comments suggest that to some Surly fans, the project has become like the second coming of Ninkasi. A few of Surly’s own pronouncements have made it sound like a magnanimous act of civic engagement; a boon to the community. To opponents of the plan, from the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association to the Minnesota Beer Wholesalers Association, it almost amounts to restriction of trade.

Let’s take a moment to cut through the hyperbole look at what’s really going on.

Surly’s Proposal

The Basic Plan

Surly wants to build a two-story, 60,000 sq ft facility. It would house a new brewery that would give them an annual brewing capacity of 100,000 barrels. The building would also house a 250-seat restaurant, a 30-foot bar, a roof-deck beer garden, and an “event center” for weddings, concerts, business conferences, and other types of events. The project is expected to cost $20 million.

Surly’s Claims About the Plan

Surly calls the new brewery a “destination brewery.” In an online article in Twin Cities Business Magazine, Surly Founder Omar Ansari says that the facility will be a “hub for beer tourism”, tapping into a growing phenomenon of beer drinkers planning travel around brewery visits. In the same article he claims it will be “’a complete beer experience’ and will become a part of the metro area’s ‘cultural fabric.’ ‘[The facility] would be another great amenity for the Twin Cities,’ much like other attractions such as the Mall of America and Target Field”.

The economic impact of the project, according to an announcement on the Surly Brewers Blog, includes the creation of 150 permanent jobs and 85 temporary construction jobs. Additional revenue would be generated by the operation of the event center. Although, in a Star Tribune piece Ansari admitted that those numbers may be “a bit pie-in-the-sky at the moment.”

My Take

There is no doubt that the project would have an economic impact for the state. Increased production means increased tax revenue from the brewery. A number of jobs will be created, including increased brewery staff, restaurant staff such as managers, kitchen workers, and front-of-house.  The event center may require event planners. And of course there will be construction jobs.

Beer tourism is definitely on the rise, and given Surly’s almost cult-like popularity there is no doubt that the new brewery will become a popular destination. However, the comparison to the Mall of America and Target field seems to me to be a grandiose stretch. It certainly won’t compare to those landmarks in terms of economic impact from tourism.

When you get right down to it, all Surly is really proposing is a great big brewery with a restaurant.

The real significance of Surly’s plan lies not with the thing itself, but with the implications of the proposed changes to the laws governing the three-tier system in Minnesota. More on that in tomorrow’s installment.

Read part two
Read part three

Winterfest 2011 Recap

Posted on by

Photo by Mark Roberts

The bagpipes blared at precisely 7:00 on Friday night, signaling the start of Winterfest 2011 at the Minnesota History Center. The doors opened and the crowd of 700 local beer fans, some of whom had been waiting in line for an hour or more, flooded into the hall. Because I was doing educational sessions at the event, I had arrived early to set up. I got to witness the opening rush from the inside for the first time.

I attend trade shows for the college campus-activities market. There is a novelty attraction in the college circuit called Wax Hands, which consists of students dipping their hands into vats of hot wax and ending up with brightly colored molds of the “hang-loose” sign, “peace” sign, or some other such sign. As soon as the doors of the exhibit hall open, students make a frenzied dash to be the first in line for Wax Hands. I happened to be standing at the Surly booth Friday night when the doors opened. Surly Brewing Company is the Wax Hands of the local beer world. It was fascinating to watch as the line went from nothing to a long snake down the hall in a matter of seconds.

Photo by Mark Roberts

In fairness to Omar, Todd, and crew, Surly did have some interesting beers for sampling. Molé Smoke took their smoked Baltic porter south of the border with cinnamon, cocoa, and chili peppers. It had a slight tingling bite, but the chili heat wasn’t over the top. I wouldn’t have wanted a pint of it, but I enjoyed the sample. Pentagram, the single-barrel version of what will become Five, a multi-barrel, blended, sour beer brewed for their fifth anniversary, was very tasty and took the Great Snowshoe award as the crowd favorite.

But Surly’s weren’t the only intriguing beers on the floor. Looking at the program the day before the event made my taste buds tingle with barrel-aged Belgians, smoked beers, infused beers, fruited beers, and even some plain-old beers. There were three brand new breweries to check out. It was an awesome lineup as the members of the Minnesota Craft Brewers Guild brought their best to the fest. With so many beers on offer, I didn’t get to try everything I wanted to, but I did sample more than a few and found some standouts.

Photo by Mark Roberts

Superior from Fitger’s Brewhouse was perhaps my personal favorite. This was a strong version of a German Schwarzweizen or black wheat beer. At 9% ABV, it had a kick, but was still delightfully easy to drink. Chocolate flavors blended with doughy wheat malt and the unique banana and clove of the German wheat beer yeast. Brewmaster Dave Hoops first tasted the style on one of his annual trips to Germany and immediately wanted to make one. He said that this first attempt hadn’t quite hit the mark he was aiming for, but that he is continuing to dial-in the recipe. If this one missed the mark, I can’t wait to try it when he thinks he’s gotten it right. Fitger’s also got my vote for most attractive table display (see photo below).

Photo by Mark Roberts

Another standout for me was Port Odin from Town Hall, a traditional Baltic Porter that was aged for 18 months in French-oak, port-wine barrels. This one was rich and dark with deep roasted-malt flavors and hints of sourness beginning to peek around the edges. Complex and mysterious, Port Odin joined Surly’s Pentagram and Fitger’s Superior as my top three picks for the festival.

Other favorites for me included Dark Knight from Barley John’s, Flat Earth’s Winter Warlock, Fallen Angel Abbey Ale from Rock Bottom, and Vulcanus Rex cherrywood smoked scotch ale from Great Waters. I was very excited to see and sample beers from three new Minnesota breweries, Harriet Brewing, Big Wood Brewing, and Carmody Brewpub. Harriet’s Devine Oculust was very nice, as was the Scanlon IPA from Carmody. Unfortunately I didn’t get to Big Wood’s booth until the very end, when my palate and mind were both blown. The beers seemed tasty, but I’ll have to pay the guys a visit to make a more appropriate assessment.

Once again the festival was an intimate and well organized affair. Traffic flowed smoothly in the crowded halls of the History Center. The food was delicious and plentiful. The attendees seemed genuinely interested in sampling the beers and talking to the brewers. Cudos go out to Laura Mullen who put the festival together. Winterfest remains for me the best beer festival of the year.

Photo by Mark Roberts

Let’s Save Rock Bottom

Posted on by

The Rock Bottom brewpub chain has a big secret. It’s an open secret, but something that most people, even many beer nerds, don’t know. I myself was unaware of this secret until a ten-minute talking-down from the brewer at the Chicago location corrected my misconception of the chain.

The secret is this: There are no standardized brews at Rock Bottom.

That’s right; every beer at every store is an original creation of the head brewer at that store. While some beer names are used across the chain, the beers behind the names are unique. The food menu is standardized, but the beer menu is not. Brewers have essentially total control of the beers that they produce.

Over the 20 years that the chain has been in existence, this open policy toward brewers has resulted in 45 GABF gold medals and countless silver and bronze medals. Rock Bottom brewers are consistently among the medal-winners in the World Beer Cup and other prestigious brewing competitions. Many Rock Bottom brewers have gone on to open their own breweries or to work at other successful breweries. Surly brewmaster Todd Haug is one example. Anyone who has visited Rock Bottom with any frequency knows that this chain brewpub is different from the others.

This difference is in jeopardy. The recent merger between Rock Bottom and Gordon Biersch has been widely reported. Initially Frank Day, co-founder of Rock Bottom and board chairman of the newly formed company CraftWorks Restaurants and Breweries, stated that no re-branding would occur. “Each brand will stay separate and do its own thing…we’re not wanting to homogenize the restaurants.” The problem with this statement is that while it may rule out homogenization between the different concepts, it doesn’t preclude increased homogenization within each concept.

That appears to be exactly what is happening at Rock Bottom. As first reported on Brewpublic.com, it seems that the new corporate management intends to limit the amount of control that Rock Bottom brewers have over their production. Sources inside the chain have leaked the information that a number of system-wide, standard beers will soon be required at each location. Because the chain has never done a particularly good job of marketing the fact that each store’s beers are unique, this isn’t technically a “re-branding.” It is, however, a bad idea on many levels.

Unlike the Hops, BJ’s, and Gordon Biersch chains that serve the same beers across the entire system, each Rock Bottom store has a different brewery setup. While every Gordon Biersch has a reverse osmosis system in place to standardize the brewing water, every Rock Bottom location uses different water. Consistency across batches is hard enough for a small brewery. Consistency across a number of small breweries with different systems and water is a near impossibility. If management’s intention is to give guests a consistent experience from store to store, they will most likely miss their mark.

And besides, who really wants another Hop’s, BJ’s, or Gordon Biersch? In a world overflowing with Benihoulafridaybee’s restaurant concepts do we really need another totally-interchangeable, cookie-cutter dining experience? Craft beer is the only segment of the beer industry currently seeing consistent growth. Part of that success is due to a growing desire in the public for all things local. People are beginning to seek out fine food and drink. Grocery stores are beefing up gourmet food sections. Restaurants and bars are offering more and more eclectic beer selections. The number of operating farmers markets saw 16% growth from 2009 to 2010. Why is CraftWorks looking to homogenization when uniqueness and higher quality are the trends of the future?

Rather than trying to limit brewer freedom at Rock Bottom, CraftWorks should be developing a coherent marketing strategy to sell it. They should be shouting from the hilltops that every visit to Rock Bottom is a unique experience. They should boldly declare that their brewers are among the nation’s best, and they should be trotting out their competition medals to prove it.

I am encouraging beer-lovers to send this message to CraftWorks management. Send an email to operations@rockbottom.com. Use the power of Facebook and Twitter to spread the word. Blog about it. Tell your friends.

Let’s save Rock Bottom.

The Year in Beer – Highs and Lows from 2010

Posted on by

My most memorable beer in 2010

In the first days of 2010, my favorite beer of 2009, Ommegang Rouge/Cuvee de Jacobins Rouge, was tenaciously holding on to its position; then came the release of Rodenbach Vintage 2007. Rodenbach Classic and Rodenbach Grand Cru are blended beers; a mixture of soured beer that has been aged in huge oak vats for up to two years and young beer that has never seen wood.  Vintage is unblended. It is the product of a single vat. And it is heaven. Smoother than Grand Cru, Vintage is an explosion of balsamic vinegar and fruit. Juicy flavors of cherries, currents, fresh plums, and grapes literally burst in your mouth. Tart acidity is balanced by just a bit of residual sweetness, and toasty malt. Oaky tannins provide some pucker. I recently read that Rodenbach has released Vintage 2008. I haven’t seen it in area stores. I’ll have to hunt some down.

The beer I wish I could forget from 2010

In researching my January Star Tribune column on smoked beers I had a bottle of Mantorville Stagecoach Smoked Porter. I really wanted to like it. It scores well on both Beer Advocate and Ratebeer. I try to be a supporter of Minnesota brewed beer, big and small. Unfortunately, this was a difficult beer to get through, a jumble of pieces that crash into one another and then fall in fragments on the floor. Acrid roast buries the smoke. An odd kind of café mocha sweetness fights against the other flavors. It’s unclear which side is winning the battle. The next day I tried one on tap, hoping that I had just had a bad bottle. Alas, it was the same beer.

Best Twin Cities Beer Festival of 2010

I have to say that I am a big fan of Winterfest. I like that it is an intimate festival, not a gigantic drunk-fest like some of them can be. I like that it features only Minnesota Beer. I like the setting at the Minnesota History Center. The 2010 event was laid out better than 2009. The hallways were much less crowded. The food in 2010 was good and lasted until the end of the event. The beer line-up – especially from Town Hall – was excellent. It was a great fest. You can read my re-cap here.

Runner up for Best Fest goes to Where the Wild Beers Are. Again, this is an intimate event. Great rare beers were poured. Much fun was had by all. Organizers Jeff Halverson and Tim Stendahl did a great job. Can’t wait for this year’s event.

Worst Twin Cities Beer Festival of 2010

Without a doubt the title goes to Firkin Fest at the Happy Gnome. Too many people. Too little space. Too few porta-poties. The beer ran out well before the scheduled end of the event. Horrible things were done to firkins of perfectly good beer. Read my full write-up here.

Stupidest Beer Quote of 2010

Overheard at Stub & Herbs.  “I need to slow down on these (Surly) Abrasives. I’ve had like seven of them already.” 9% ABV ≠ session beer.

Craziest Internet Comment Thread of 2010

Following an announcement by former Stub & Herbs bar manager Jon Landers that Stubs would be serving 100% local and regional beer, the internet lit up. Lengthy threads on both Beer Advocate and MNbeer got quite heated and verged on inappropriate. The great guys at Fulton Beer took quite a shellacking.

Growth for Minnesota Beer

Two new Minnesota Breweries came on line in 2010. The first was Leech Lake Brewing in Walker, MN. The tiny brewery in this Northern Minnesota lake town started brewing in mid August. Owners Greg and Gina Smith debuted their beers in the Twin Cities at the Autumn Brew Review. I look forward to getting up there for a visit this year.

Jason Sowards of Harriet Brewing sneaked in his inaugural brew just before Christmas. It was a long road to get there that included getting Minneapolis ordinances changed to allow production breweries to sell growlers within the city limits. I’ve tasted Jason’s beers and very much look forward to seeing them in bars soon.

My Personal Beer Highs of 2010

#1: Craft Brewers Conference in Chicago. The awards dinner was perhaps the biggest beer dinner ever staged. Several courses, each paired with beer, were prepared by Chef Sean Paxton for 2000 diners. My table drank a lot of Allagash Curieux, as we kept stealing bottles from empty table. At the pre-dinner reception, large troughs of ice were set on two very long tables. In them were all the entries in the World Beer Cup. While looking through the beers to decide what I wanted to try, someone next to me pulled out a bottle labeled “Alaskan Smoked Porter 1998.” “This should work.” she said. It did.

#2: Taking the Gold Medal for my Bohemian Pilsner at the National Homebrew Competition. And I wasn’t even at that dinner.

Overall 2010 was a good year for beer. Craft beer sales continued to rise at a fast pace. The number of small breweries around the country reached its highest number since prohibition. For me personally 2010 was a huge year. I hope for more of the same for the industry and myself in 2011.

Toasting the New Year with Beer

Posted on by

For those of us who prefer beer to wine (I like wine, don’t get me wrong) toasting the New Year can be a frustrating affair. Champagne, champagne, champagne. I’ve never been a huge fan. But there are several champagne beers out there to do the deed in style.

I have started blogging for the City Pages Hot Dish blog. My first post about these celebratory suds went up today. Check out Toast the New Year with beer by clicking here.

Making Sahti on Brewing TV

Posted on by

Boy, I have been posting a lot of videos lately.

My brewing friend Mark Roberts and I have been making repeated attempts to brew Sahti, a primitive, Finnish beer that is still brewed pretty much as it was 500 years ago. Traditional Sahti is unhopped, unboiled, uncarbonated, flavored with juniper twigs, and fermented with fresh baking yeast. Mark’s wife is a Finn and they lived in Finland for several years. On a recent trip he was able to smuggle back some authentic bottled versions for us to sample, giving us a benchmark to aim for. With this benchmark in mind we made our third attempt in October. We are coming closer, but still have not quite hit the mark. You can read about our first attempt here.

For the third attempt Chip Walton from Brewing TV came and shot our brewday. Here it is.

Brewing TV – Episode 24: Sahti Throwdown from Brewing TV on Vimeo.