Judging has wrapped up for the first annual Alberta Beer Awards. Over two weekends some of Alberta’s most experienced judges and industry representatives judged over 300 Alberta craft beer from 57 breweries. I couldn’t participate every day due to life, but got a couple of days of judging in.
I have no idea who won yet – the awards will be announced at the ASBA annual convention on March 14. Only one person in the province knows the winners at the moment and I am pretty sure he is bribe-proof. So we will all have to wait.
So, for the moment, allow me to offer some observations on the experience and what we learned.
Before I offer my thoughts, keep in mind that this competition was the brainchild of myself and Owen Kirkaldy, one of Canada’s only Master-level BJCP judges. In a conversation at a different competition we decided the time was right. We wrote up a proposal and pitched it to the ASBA. Until the new year we both were very active in designing and organizing the event. I then bailed due to my new work situation but Owen soldiered on organizing some amazing rounds of judging.
We made a few decisions that those familiar with traditional BJCP competitions might find odd, but we had our reasons. First, we designed a different kind of judging process. Instead of offering scores to each beer and highest score wins (yes, I know in big categories it can be more complicated than that, but you get my point), we eschewed points entirely. Instead we adopted something similar to what happens in the wine world. A panel of three (or four) judges would sample 6 beer and forward up to three for the next round. In the first round detailed consensus feedback was recorded and provided to the entrants.
A different group of judges would lead the second round, and so on until only a handful were left. A mini-BOS would then take place to determine the winner. No scores, but good qualitative feedback and a process that forced the winning beers to satisfy multiple judging palates.
I don’t think that process is particularly controversial, but as a judge it was quite different for me. At first I reacted to the fact I couldn’t offer my own comments individually, but had to work them out with fellow panelists. I like offering my own thoughts. However, after the first few beer I came to trust the process would actually create better feedback overall as it weeded out contradictory or unclear commentary.
Also different (from homebrew competitions at least) was the mix of judges. It included some of the province’s most experienced BJCP judges, but also included staff from breweries and experienced people in the industry (hop and malt suppliers, restaurant representatives, etc.). We were careful to ensure every table had at least one BJCP judge and, of course, no brewery got to judge a category they entered.
I found the mix of judging perspectives fascinating. BJCP judges are trained to dissect a beer, carefully identifying everything they taste – including finding the good stuff and potential in a flawed or infected beer. Many of the industry people took a more global approach, creating overall impressions and making evaluations downward to other features. There was also a constructive tension between stylistic commentary and broader “drinkability”.
In all the quality of the judging was excellent. There wasn’t a person in the room who didn’t possess a strong palate and commitment to objective evaluation.
What was a bit controversial was our choice for categories. We custom-designed 22 categories. Owen and I worked them out, passed them by a panel of Alberta breweries and I wrote up the descriptions. The result were some traditional and highly recognized styles (e.g., stouts, Belgian ales, barrel-aged), some broad-based but recognizable categories (e.g., brown beer, light hoppy sessionable beer), some less recognizable but understandable labels (e.g., patio beer, other strong hoppy beer) and a couple tossed in for the mirth of it (trendy beer of the year, Canadian cereal beer).
This may have been the hardest part of the project.
Our goal was to create categories that balanced respect for the BJCP with a recognition that breweries don’t brew to style. They brew to sell beer. As it worked out each style was anchored by the respective cluster of BJCP styles, but laid out in a way that beer that didn’t fit the narrow definition of those definitions had an equal chance. Judges were counseled to consider style but balance it with an eye to drinkability and general appeal.
I think, overall, the categories worked (although there is room for improvement) and for the most part were well received. A minority of observers felt the categories lacked the necessary precision or stylistic-accuracy to have credibility. Those thoughts are fair but allow me to respond that I am one of western Canada’s biggest style curmudgeons and I strongly feel the categories were valid, credible and reflected the nature of beer being brewed in the province.
Finally, a word on the quality of the beer entered. I have two thoughts on this. First, I can say quite safely that there is a lot of really good beer being made in Alberta these days. For most categories the difference between a medal and just falling outside the medals were nuanced, sometimes nitpicky points. I remember a couple of times thinking just how many of the beer that were not advancing would have been perfectly enjoyable pints in a pub. Not winning a medal is not a statement that the beer isn’t excellent.
Second, I admit to being a bit surprised at the number of entries that had identifiable flaws and/or infections. I have long expected that in homebrew competitions – it comes with the turf – but expected fewer occurrences of obviously infected or flawed beer in a commercial competition. I recognize some of this could be due to competition-packaging (i.e., a keg-only brewery entering growlers that sit for a couple weeks), but, to be frank, it is clear that at least some breweries have not got a grip on their quality control.
I am not talking about subtle fermentation imperfections that only experienced samplers pick up (although there was that too), but at times in your face mistakes. As it was a completely blind process I do not know which breweries were the primary culprits. But I think it sends a message to everyone in the industry. Craft beer lives and dies on its reputation for quality. If a brewery puts out sub-par beer it affects all craft breweries in the province.
My intent is not to dump on anyone but instead to call for collective attention to be paid to quality control. If you are one of the breweries whose feedback indicates significant flaws, work harder to isolate the problem and fix it. Take the first annual Alberta Beer Awards as a teaching moment. You owe it to yourself and all the blood, sweat and tears you have put into your brewery. And you owe it to your fellow Alberta breweries.
I was very excited to see the Alberta Beer Awards get off the ground (thanks, Owen!) and am even more excited to learn of the winners. And then we can all do it again next year.
To the start of a new tradition!
March 5, 2018 at 9:28 AM
I definitely agree that doing a slight massage on the BJCP guidelines was the hardest part. Coordinating 40 volunteers and getting 1200 beers to the correct judges at the correct time, recording, collating and maintaining security on the results was trivial. 🙂
March 7, 2018 at 8:34 PM
That is all just in a day’s work!! Not pissing off 75 brewers is REALLY hard. 🙂
March 8, 2018 at 4:39 PM
Great article Jason, your closing comments regarding craft beer quality are critical to the success of our nascent Alberta industry.
As you appreciate, beer making is as much a science as an art. The inevitable “bad beer” batch should always be dumped … not put into the trade.
Lab equipment is essential to a Brewery’s long-term success and should be included in any new Brewery’s capital budget.
Good luck to all the entrants!
March 11, 2018 at 12:11 PM
Sadly, I’ve come across the quality issues, and it isn’t simply a “competition-packaging” issue, as it’s directly from the cans or bottles that these breweries choose to brew into. On a large scale, putting out a bad product is bad for the industry as a whole as there are many people that will paint every small brewery with the same brush based on one bad experience.
On a smaller scale, given the amount of competition in today’s market, they are really hurting themselves. Personally, I have always made a point of trying to taste as many different beers as possible, but today there are just so many new options popping up every week, it’s getting to the point where it’s impossible to keep up. I simply just can’t buy one of everything anymore. So naturally, if there are two new beers on the menu or the shelf, and I only have the time, money, or liver capacity to try one of them, I will choose the beer from the brewery that I trust, or even a brewery I’ve never heard of before, over a brewery that has packaged and allowed liquid band-aid to be sold.
March 11, 2018 at 1:09 PM
As for the judging, it sounds like this was set-up pretty well. As a national-level BJCP judge, I find that sometimes BJCP judges miss the forest for the trees in trying to nitpick details, from the categorization of beers to assigning a score to a beer as if it is some sort of science when there is really a huge subjective component. Some judges tend to state their opinion as if it’s a fact, and then multiple judges giving completely opposite feedback but then magically scoring within 5 points of each other, it can get a little silly and pretentious sometimes. Meanwhile, categorization is important to a certain extent; I want to know if the beer I’m ordering will be dark or hoppy or taste like a peanut butter sandwich, and so if I order an IPA, I don’t want a mainstream lager in my glass. But at the same time, the ultimate goal of drinking beer is for enjoyment, so really, the judging of the beer should come down to between the 6 beers in front of me, which one would I most like a couple pints more of rather than is the SRM a shade too light.