Category: BeerAdvocate Mag

The Myth of Handcrafting…

Posted on

When it comes to craft beer, perhaps no word is tossed around as casually and as often as ‘handcrafted.’ From the earliest days of better beer to the present, craft breweries big and small have loved to up the romance of their brands with allusions to the by hand nature of the brewing process. The reference conjures up images of a keen eyed, lone brewer stirring a heavy mash rake over a smoldering copper cauldron of boiling brew. At just the right moment, the master craftsman brewer carefully and delicately adds a pinch of hops. The brewer in these fairy tales is part artisan, part custodian who gently ushers his product through the brewing process.

The colorful fable lasts for many consumers until they take their first brewery tour. The lands of hop pixies and malt elves are quickly replaced with snaking hoses, puddles of water, gurgling buckets of foamy particulates, and the occasional stench of caustic in the air. The notion of handcrafting is also quickly challenged. While American brewers in the earliest days of the craft brewing renaissance may have fit the cheerful description above romantic, today the brewing process is more akin to an industrial factory or sometimes even a computer programming suite.

It’s time that brewers and consumers let go of their dated, fanciful notions of the brewing process. When applied to model ship building, pottery making, or log cabin construction, the phrase handcrafted seems apt. When referencing the modern production of beer, handcrafted seems an overly romanticized and even misleading descriptor, even when applied to America’s smaller breweries. In the classic European sense, a handcrafted brewery was one where every part of the brewing process was indeed managed by hand. Brewers lugged heavy, dusty bags of malted barley to their mash tuns and dumped them in, only to shovel out by hand the spent grain after a few hot hours stirring the mash. Without the benefits of fork lifts and other systems, brewers then filled and rolled wooden barrels, which they sometimes made themselves, around the brewery and to horse-drawn carts for delivery to local pubs.

Let’s keep one thing straight, those romantic good old days sucked for the brewer. Brewing under those conditions was backbreaking and dangerous work and it did few favors for the beer. As craft breweries grow from mini-micros to small regional players to large national operations, their systems should match their improved business practices. Automation is a friend to both consumers and brewers. While part of the romance may be lost when breweries transition to all stainless steel breweries run by computers, you can rest assured that stable temperature controls and accurate brewing and fermentation conditions will improve the quality of the pint in front of you. That a brewer lugging fifty pound bags of grain has been replaced by a computer nerd watching the sparge represented in animation on a glowing screen is a positive thing for everyone involved.

At its best, brewing is part art and part science. Where the calculus lies between the two is the true beauty of beer and it’s where the magic lies for consumers and brewers alike. But make no mistake; brewing is both science and industry. Without these two components, art simply cannot produce consistent, clean, and consumable pints.

And for those consumers who refuse to let go of the romanticized notions of handcrafted brewing, there will always be a seat at your local brewpub. And when you see your local brewer hauling heavy grain bags and toiling in tough, challenging conditions, feel free to offer a hand. Then you’ll know what handcrafted really feels like.

–Article appeared in Volume II, Issue VII of BeerAdvocate Magazine.

Be Social:

Why Midwestern Beer Rocks…

Posted on

When beer enthusiasts ponder great American craft breweries, their minds often wander to the coasts. West Coast brewers are deservedly renowned for their experimentation, especially in all areas hoppy. On the East Coast, craft brewers boast big reputations for their extreme acts and style defining efforts. But when it comes to dishing out respect, Midwestern breweries get very little for their impressive efforts.

I have a public confession to make. I think Midwestern breweries make the best beer available in the United States today. That’s a bold statement to be sure, but let’s take a closer look at this underappreciated beer region to test its accuracy. For starters, the Midwest has some of the strongest and longest operating craft breweries in the country. While names such as August Schells, Boulevard Brewing, Great Lakes, and Summit may not ring in the ears of ardent beer geeks, these breweries have provided strong leadership for the industry and solid, diverse beer lineups at reasonable prices. In stark contrast to their brewing compatriots on both coasts, these Midwestern breweries, and many others, appreciate the worldliness of beer. In contemplating their portfolios, these brewers recognize that the brewing playbook extends beyond the comfort zones of brewing and the hum-drum ubiquity of the big three: blonde, pale, and wheat ales. The lineup of top-notch lagers produced by Midwestern brewers, such as the Capital Brewery with its four seasonal doppelbocks, is unparalleled elsewhere in this country.

I’m not saying that the Midwest lacks its share of beer geek friendly breweries, far from it. Some of the region’s leading breweries, including Bell’s Brewery and New Glarus Brewing, bring a reserved, steady hand to the idea of extreme beer. From Larry Bell’s anniversary batch series and his former ’10 Stouts of November’ campaign to Dan Carey’s classic fruit beers and his phenomenal ‘Unplugged Series,’ Midwestern brewers know that pushing the envelope means more than simply turning the hop and alcohol dials up to 11. If the edge is where you need to live, then you can always try Three Floyds, Surly Brewing, and Kuhnhenn Brewing to get your adventure fix.

When I think about beer in the Midwest, one state clearly comes to mind, and I don’t mean Wisconsin. While the Badger State boasts dozens of excellent craft breweries, Michigan is perhaps the region’s most impressive brewing state. While it has but one brewery (Bell’s) in the top 50 craft brewers by volume, Michigan is home to more than 70 breweries and brewpubs, just behind Wisconsin for sixth most in America. The litany of Michigan’s small, local breweries and pubs include Short’s Brewing, the Livery, Dark Horse, Founders, New Holland, and of course, Jolly Pumpkin. With perhaps less flash than their coastal counterparts, these breweries produce beers that are anything but reserved.

Midwestern breweries also appear to better appreciate the value of providing fresh beer close to home. While many fledgling craft breweries struggle to contain their wide-eyed expansion plans, many of the breweries mentioned here practice a very different distribution system. Beyond the small breweries, which service their local communities, even the big guys do things a bit different. The Summit Brewing Company of Saint Paul sells nearly 90-percent of its beer in its home state of Minnesota. Boulevard Brewing was modeled on the historic local brewery system and limits distribution of its 130,000 barrels to the Midwest. The best example of this careful growth method is New Glarus, which famously pulled out of all other markets, including Chicago, because it could not make enough beer for its home state of Wisconsin.

With all of the region’s successes and the outstanding and diverse beers available, I think it’s about time we give Midwestern brewers the praise due to them. They’ve got my vote for best in the industry.

–Article appeared in Volume II, Issue VI of BeerAdvocate Magazine.

Be Social:

Why Reporters and Journalists Should Not Participate In The Beer Journalism Awards…

Posted on

Entering its fifth year, the Beer Journalism Awards is a program sponsored by the Brewers Association trade group that seeks to recognize “outstanding media coverage that increases beer enthusiasts’ understanding of the diversity and flavor of American craft beer.â€? Originally started by Ray Daniels, the original Director of Craft Beer Marketing for the former Association of Brewers, the program has proven a popular conduit between the association, which represent small American craft brewers, and the writers who cover the trade. According to the Brewers Association, the program has grown in submissions by 156% (58 in 2006, 136 in 2007), with a greater number of entries expected in 2008. The program has also been newly renamed in honor of legendary beer writer Michael Jackson, who passed away in 2007. Past winners include Lisa Morrison, Stan Hieronymous, Julie Johnson Bradford, Fred Eckhardt and several others.

The 2008 awards is sponsored in part by the Boston Beer Company, the Brooklyn Brewery, and the Rogue Ales Brewery. The program highlights the work three journalists each year in the following three categories:

  • Consumer Print Media: For work appearing in general circulation consumer print publications such as daily newspapers, as well as consumer-oriented news, food, and lifestyle magazines. Any publication that is not routinely focused on beer qualifies for inclusion in this category.
  • Consumer Electronic Media: Eligible work includes coverage which runs on broadcast or cable television or broadcast radio as part of a program aimed at a general consumer audience. Content that appears on the Internet on a general interest consumer site in which the site name and the preponderance of content are not concerned with beer will be considered in this category.
  • Trade and Specialty Beer Media: This category includes work appearing in publications and on programs that routinely focus on beer in their editorial content. This would include newsprint “beeriodicals,â€? and magazines concerned primarily with beer or brewing as well as programs that routinely concern themselves primarily with beer. Internet sites where beer is the primary focus will be considered in this category. Internet radio programming dedicated to beer is also included in this category. Please note that these awards focus on beer appreciation, so content that is significantly concerned with “how toâ€? aspects of brewing beer as a hobby or profession will not be considered. Should a question arise regarding the proper classification of an entry according to these categories, the Brewers Association will be the sole and final arbiter.

Entries can be advanced by the journalist or by a member brewer with the permission of the journalist.

The three winners of the competition, the closing date for which is July 31, are expected by the Brewers Association to attend the awards ceremony at the Great American Beer Festival held in Denver, Colorado, in October. The association pays the airfare from the recipient’s home state (up to $350), two nights in a hotel, Denver-area ground transportation (up to $50), $23 per day food per diem for each recipient, and an honorarium of $500. Winners of the Beer Journalism Awards are excluded from entering the category they won in for three years after winning.

I have entered the competition in the past, as well as a predecessor competition sponsored by the North American Guild of Beer Writers. In going over my work for the past year, I began to take a closer look at the somewhat vague and indefinite criteria listed in the Brewers Association’s guidelines. Over the past year, I have mainly written columns and news pieces for BeerAdvocate Magazine, columns and feature articles for Beverage Magazine, and a miscellaneous assortment of pieces for this website. And while I have generally been happy with the quality of this coverage, and it has attracted interest from both consumers and the trade, I initially wondered more about the criteria behind the judging of the Beer Journalism Awards. My interest was also piqued by the inclusion of a guideline, which I believe is new this year, that “only coverage/stories on ‘American’ craft beer will be accepted.� Considering the controversies raised over the Brewers Association’s definition of ‘craft brewer’ and its deliberate announcements that it was not trying to define ‘craft beer’, I started to think a bit more about the competition in general terms.

As readers of this website are aware, I’ve written a few times (a few too many some have said) over the past year about the ethics of beer writing and their importance in plying the journalism trade. After pondering the subject and doing some additional research, I went back and reconsidered my work over the past year. Avoiding too much self-reflection, suffice it to say that much of my work, especially in the Unfiltered column for BeerAdvocate and on my website, is contrarian in nature and hardly the kind of pro-industry prose that one would assume to fair well in a competition sponsored by a trade group. And in fact, I have written several articles about the Brewers Association itself or touching upon its policies and actions, some of which I agree with and others that I do not. And that is when I stopped to reconsider the Beer Journalism Awards and whether writers and journalists, on an ethical level, should be participating in them.

In trying to make up my mind, I decided to speak with Julia Herz, Director of Craft Beer Marketing for the Brewer Association and the person in charge of running the Beer Journalism Awards. Ms. Herz has done a very effective job of refocusing the association’s once scattered approach to marketing. From the outset, it is easy to understand why the association and its trade members would want to sponsor an awards program for journalists who cover their business efforts. In this respect, the awards, which “help our members acknowledge and recognize coverage of American craft beer,� serve as another marketing tool that helps court favor from the journalists. It encourages positive coverage of craft beer and brings journalists into the association’s fold. In short, it’s smart business for the association and its members to embrace those who cover their business interests.

While the Brewers Association and its staff would not likely deny this goal, they also speak about reaching out to writers who often toil in anonymity and rarely receive much compensation or attention for their efforts. “In our business, there is not a lot of time for brewers, who get a lot of love from the media, to say ‘thank you’ directly to the journalists,� said Julia Herz.

Ms. Herz was also able to answer some questions I had about how the judging process works. After the entries have been received, approximately 20 to 30 judges will receive copies a select number of entries for their review. The judge panel is comprised of Brewers Association staffers and member brewers who have not nominated any entrant. The top three or five entries are then provided to a new set of judges in a final round of judging.

The association provides an evaluation sheet that lists the judging categories and criteria, which include accuracy, quality of writing, and whether the entry overall “meets the objectives� set forth by the competition. According to Ms. Herz, these objectives include assessing whether the entry “increased consumer understanding of the diversity of American beer, whether it discussed the 1400 plus small breweries in America, whether it educated consumers about various beer styles produced in the U.S., and whether it discussed beer flavor characteristics or pairings with food.� In determining whether the entry focused on ‘American craft beer,’ the association does not define the term according to Ms. Herz. Instead, the Brewers Association allows judges interpret the guidelines in their own, personal ways. Accordingly, an article focusing on Blue Moon or Michelob Porter could be considered as coverage of American craft beer, depending upon the judge’s interpretation.

In discussing the possible ethical issues facing writers who are considering participation, Ms. Herz noted that “certain journalists cannot accept the awards due to the rules of their organization or publication.� She also noted that participating journalists can decline any part of the remuneration offered as part of the contest.

From my perspective, I see several potential ethical problems with participating in the Beer Journalism Awards. As many contest participants may be only occasional journalists, let’s start with the note that certain journalists are actually prohibited from participating in the awards. At the Kansas City Star, all editorial employees, full or part-time, freelance or contract, regardless of their position, title, beat or personal circumstance, are covered by the newspaper’s Code of Ethics. The Kansas City Star’s policy starts with this caution.

If we expect readers to view us as credible, then Star editorial employees must aggressively seek and fully report the truth while remaining independent and free from any legitimate suggestion that their independence has been compromised.

After detailing a litany of possible situations and the prescribed ethical actions, The Star then covers ‘contests.’

CONTESTS

Staff members may not enter articles, photographs or graphics published in The Star in contests that are not sponsored by professional journalistic organizations. An exception would be a contest of journalistic excellence sponsored by a foundation, university or organization deemed by the managing editor or Editorial Page editor to be free of commercial, partisan or self-serving interests.

No awards of significant value may be accepted from any organizations other than those just described. In cases where a staff member’s work was submitted by some person or group outside The Star, the employee should check with a supervisor to make sure the award can be accepted.

No staffer may use The Star’s name to enter any contest without the approval of the managing editor or Editorial Page editor.

I believe The Star’s policy and guidelines describe a traditional approach to journalistic ethics. A quick review of the policies of news media outlets across the country confirm this general prohibition to be a standard in the industry.

The Orlando Sentinel’s Editorial Code of Conduct provides:

Contests and awards. Staffers should not enter contests sponsored by trade or advocacy groups – even if those contests are administered by a journalism organization or school – because they may exist primarily to promote those groups’ agendas. The Editorial Department maintains a list of approved national, regional and state contests whose central purpose is to recognize journalistic excellence. Staffers who want to enter contests not on the list must first obtain the permission of the Managing Editor or Editorial Page Editor. Staff members also should refrain from accepting unsolicited awards from trade or advocacy organizations.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram’s code of ethics counsels

CONTESTS:
Staff members should not enter contests without approval of managing editors or the editorial director. With approval, they may enter contests sponsored and judged by selected journalistic and professional organizations. Entry fees for a select number of contests will be provided by the Star-Telegram.

The Los Angeles Times requires:

Awards

Staff members should enter their work only in contests whose central purpose is to recognize journalistic excellence. The Times does not participate in contests that exist primarily to publicize or further the cause of an organization. Under no circumstances may staff members accept awards from groups they cover. A staff member who is offered an award should consult his or her supervisor before accepting it.

New Hampshire Public Radio informs its employees:

XII. Miscellaneous

1. We do not enter journalism contests or competitions when they are sponsored by groups that have an interest in influencing our coverage. All entries for contests or competitions must be approved by the Managing Editor or designee.

And finally, and more comprehensively, the New York Times provides:

Entering Competitions and Contests

45. Staff members may not enter local, national or international competitions sponsored by individuals or groups who have a direct interest in the tenor of our coverage. They may not act as judges for these competitions or accept their awards. Common examples are contests sponsored by commercial, political or professional associations to judge coverage of their own affairs. Senior newsroom managers may make exceptions for competitions underwritten by corporate sponsors if those are broad in scope and independently judged by journalists or disinterested public figures.

46. Staff members may compete in competitions sponsored by groups whose members are all journalists or whose members demonstrably have no direct interest in the tenor of coverage of the field being judged. Staff members may act as judges for such competitions and accept their awards. For example, a staff member may enter a university-sponsored competition for coverage of foreign affairs but not accept an advocacy group’s prize for environmental coverage.

47. Each newsroom’s management should maintain a current list of competitions it has approved. Staff members who would like to enter others should consult the responsible news executive. A critical factor in approving a competition, whatever the sponsorship, is a record of arm’s-length decisions, including a willingness to honor unfavorable reporting. Staff members who win unsought awards from groups that do not meet the criteria established here should decline, politely explaining our policy.

A problem that occurs within the beer writing and journalism community is that many reporters operate as freelancers for publications that do not clearly set forward their ethical requirements. Worse yet, as I have written before, many editors ingratiate themselves in to the beer industry they cover to an extent that their employees and contractors would not otherwise know any ethical issue was raised.

Even though the publications that I write for generally do not have written ethical code, I have decided not to participate in the Beer Journalism Awards for a number of reasons. First, as noted about, participation in a competitive event that allows a reporter’s work to judged by the subjects of the work is professionally inappropriate and has a chilling effect on the reporter’s objectivity and independence. It allows the association, with a vested interest in a particular type of positive coverage, to pick and choose the pieces they believe best fit their interests. The Beer Journalism Awards, however well-intended, is not a journalism contest but a competition to determine which journalists can best portray and market the Brewers Association and its brewer members. Second, it is clearly inappropriate for a reporter to accept financial remuneration from the subject of his or her work. I believe this to be a core and irrefutable ethical guideline for journalists and reporters. And finally, I’m troubled that a journalist or reporter can be nominated by a member brewer with the permission of the journalist, a recent addition of the contest that the Brewers Association has heavily promoted on its electronic listserv and to brewery members. This all-too-cozy partnership between the reporter and the subject, which occurred 40 times last year, threatens a journalist’s independence. I personally do not believe that reporters can ethically participate in the Beer Journalism Awards and would counsel fellow journalists to either decline to participate or to withdraw their already provided submissions.

Be Social:

You Think You Know IPA?

Posted on

A few months back I wrote about a gang of revolutionary brewers who knowingly disregard style guidelines in favor of less restrictive pastures. These “free-form” radicals, as I called them, challenge tradition and history in order to expand the way people think about beer. As a lover and defender of brewing history, I somewhat disdainfully shook my head at the whole, disorganized practice.

Countless breweries around the world tout their allegiance to strict style guidelines and traditional ingredients as the basis for their claims of quality and character. In doing so, They vaguely point to hundreds of years of brewing heritage, often in particular styles, to justify their place in the international brewing pecking order.

But what if those beer styles that many others and I have so lovingly written about only exist in our modern imaginations? What if Michael Jackson, Fred Eckhardt, and the other present day keepers of the guidelines’ bible actually had it wrong about the styles we accept as gospel and without question?

Enter Ron Pattinson, a beer writer, historian, and bon vivant who writes a quirky and curiously titled blog called Shut Up About Barclay Perkins. While most beer lovers who give a moment’s thought to beer styles may know nothing of official style guidelines, Ron has developed a passion for debunking beer style myths. He scours old brewing textbooks in a range of languages to discover long hidden secrets about the world of beer. Reading his posts, which often include detailed accountings of brewing ingredients, grist ratios, gravities, and how they have ebbed and flowed over decades upon decades. For beer and history geeks, Ron’s historical research offers a rare glimpse opportunity to gain greater appreciation about the development of beer, recipes, breweries, and the changing palates of beer drinkers over the course of centuries of brewing.

This historical research, and other recent similar efforts, also offers students and guardians of beer styles a chance to rethink the work of those who set the definitions that we have come to know so well in the last thirty years. Think you know the story about India Pale Ales? Of course you do. It’s the one where British brewers sent highly hopped, high alcohol versions of their pale ales to the country’s outpost in India, right? While we can agree that the IPA style started in Britain, a batch of historic evidence suggests that the original versions sent to India were actually a form of beer concentrate, which local brewers then watered down. The old brewing and news texts do not make the well-worn story seem so sturdy. The actual numbers from several British breweries in the 1800 and 1900s suggests that IPA was a relatively weak beer when compared to pale ale.

When IPA traveled from Britain to the United States, Ballantine’s IPA, weighing in at 75 IBUs and 7.5-percent alcohol at its peak, became the standard bearer for America’s version of the style. From that point, the nature and definition of IPA changed and few hopheads have bothered to look back at history. As an example, the Beer Judge Certification Program, which certifies and ranks more than 2500 beer judges for local and national competitions, has developed its own very detailed style guidelines. In its definition of the IPA style, the BJCP instructs judges that “The term ‘IPA’ is loosely applied in commercial English beers today, and has been (incorrectly) used in beers below 4% ABV.” Incorrectly? While the IPA style is now less common in Britain than it is in the United States, does that make our modern take on the original the correct one? That seems a depressingly bold assertion of brewing hegemony by a country that can only boast the creation of a handful of beer styles older than a decade or two.

It is hard to say what should be made of style autocrats who demand rigid adherence to current, written descriptions. It is also sometimes difficult to see the relevance of modern style guidelines when old brewing texts tell us enticing tales of extinct German fruit ales, smoked Berliner ales, and about weiss beers that did not originally contain any wheat at all.
Despite our best marketing efforts and our convincing storytelling, our modern interpretations on the traditional styles cannot be said to be the definitive representation of the historic offering. And while I’m not convinced that free-form brewers decided to reject styles because of a few charts in a dusty, old Eighteenth Century German brewing manual, even the strongest proponents of style adherence have to acknowledge that sometimes its impossible to truly know living, breathing things.

–Article appeared in Volume II, Issue V of BeerAdvocate Magazine.

Be Social:

Craft Brewing Goes Global – Japan

Posted on

When American brewers sneezed, craft fever slowly spread around the globe. While influential brewers in Germany, Belgium, Britain, and the Czech Republic created the grand brewing traditions that underlie so much of modern brewing, these brewers have been slow to break outside of the safety of their traditions. A quarter of a century after a group of American pioneers chucked their careers for the love of beer, a new band of dedicated world brewers is beginning to deliver the craft bug to their local communities.

Boxed in by their own ideological restraints, foreign brewers have largely missed the excitement and experimental advancements of the craft beer movement. Despite this reluctance to change, hard-core beer enthusiasts have heard occasional whispers about small Italian sour ale brewers and tiny Danish experimenters, with little proof of their existence. Now, in the flash of a moment, it suddenly appears that 2008 will be the year of the world craft brewer.

While the rush of Swedish imperial stouts and Norwegian barleywines is a positive sign, the recent buzz over beer hoarding and off-the-chart reviews obscures the tales of dedicated souls who tirelessly fight against the mass-market pilsner pressures in their home markets. Their attempts to break free from traditions and create a new kind of beer culture have led to real successes in some unlikely corners of the globe. Of these, there is perhaps no more intriguing story than the development of craft beer in Japan, where more than 200 breweries produce ji-biru, the Japanese phrase for ‘local’ or ‘craft beer.’ It is here that two pioneering individuals of very different backgrounds are working to build a beer culture nearly from scratch.

Tucked away just atop the Izu Peninsula, a vacation destination known for its hot springs and clear views of graceful giant Mt. Fuji, the small coastal town of Numazu plays host to Japan’s most improbable beer story. Ohio-born Bryan Baird fell in love with Japan and its culture, brewing, and his wife Sayuri, after whom his saison is named. Moving to Japan after finishing his graduate studies, Baird landed at a time when the Japanese government was legalizing micro-brewing. Itching to leave his stuffy, corporate job, Baird headed back to the U.S., completed brewing school and an apprenticeship, and then returned to Japan to start his eponymously named brewery.

Baird Brewing Company and his adjacent Fishmarket Taproom serve a mind-boggling array of almost thirty different styles. His influences run the international gamut and include ales and lagers, barrel aged beers, strong beers, and meticulously groomed session ales made with unusual local ingredients, including the citrusy and spicy mikan. Opinionated and passionate, Baird loves the historic craftsman component of Japanese culture. In a land where industrial brewers dominate nearly 99-percent of the brewing market, it’s remarkable to see how welcome this gaijin and his peculiar beers have become in the local market and in Tokyo.

In the popular summer district of Karuizawa near Nagano, the YoHo Brewing Company is one of Japan’s largest craft breweries, producing nearly 13,000 barrels per year. While the sessionable Yona Yona Pale Ale (‘every night’ in Japanese) is excellent and widely available on cask in Tokyo, the real story here is the collegial and complicated brewmaster, Toshi Ishii. It’s the subtle things that let you know that Ishii-san is very different from your average Japanese. The earring is a start but the more obvious sign would be his Arrogant Bastard sweatshirt. Known as Toshi to his friends, the brewer was one of Stone Brewing Company’s first employees, where he learned the trade from 1997 until his return to Japan in 2001.

Reserved at first, Toshi loves talking about craft beer, especially the strongly hopped West Coast IPA’s he helped craft in San Diego. A Renaissance brewer, Toshi is also Japan’s biggest proponent of real ale, which he first sampled at a Pizza Port Real Ale Festival in 1998. Shocked by its “weird� flavors and aromas, Toshi would later introduce real ale to the Japanese market and help teach dozens of local brewers about cask-conditioned beers. He also helps run the popular Tokyo Real Ale Festival. An avid traveler, Toshi often visits breweries around the world to learn new things and sample different beer styles. His YoHo Brewing Company makes a solid line of ales, including his well-received and hoppy barleywine.

As his four daughters run around the Taproom, Baird and his good friend Toshi talk beer and the future of craft beer in Japan. Despite its tiny market share, Baird believes that Japan has the potential to become one of the world’s largest markets for craft beer. Having spent so long in the American market, Toshi and his wife clearly would love to bring a little bit of San Diego to Japan.

While Baird jokes that he is more Japanese than Toshi, who in turn laughs that he may be more American than Baird, it’s clear that craft beer crosses many boundaries in bringing people together. In breaking down barriers of culture and tradition, beer ambassadors around the world continue to undertake difficult work in the name of better ales and lagers.

–Article appeared in Volume II, Issue II of BeerAdvocate Magazine.

Be Social: