TOPIC:

"TheBeerNut":9ysddh1p wrote:

"Tube":9ysddh1p wrote: Yes, barley is. Sodium ethyl hexanoate doesn't sound too traditional tho.[/quote:9ysddh1p]Ah, so it's traditional-[i:9ysddh1p]sounding[/i:9ysddh1p] ingredients that count.[/quote:9ysddh1p]
Absolutely. I'd stick by the rule of thumb that is sounds traditional, then it probably is.

"TheBeerNut":9ysddh1p wrote: If sodium ethyl hexanoate was known as "brewer's lye" in the old recipes, or indeed the new recipes, that's OK?[/quote:9ysddh1p]
If it's on old ones, and it's called "brewer's lye", then that kinda makes it traditional.

However a chemical which only has a chemical name, and does not appear under another more common name, on old or new brew sheets, is not traditional.

I think the point of using "traditional" is to leave it open enough for lay people to understand using ordinary common sense, without resorting to lists of ingredients.

I will lay my cards out on the table here. I have no particular interest in trying to define "craft" or to go down that road, because in my opinion it's not workable in the long term. A "Beoir approved"-ish accreditation system, as I have mooted before, is in my opinion the way to go.

"Tube":6urz2io8 wrote: However a chemical which only has a chemical name, and does not appear under another more common name, on old or new brew sheets, is not traditional.[/quote:6urz2io8]Non-isomerised hop extract = bad; Hop extract = good? There's a problem there when they mean the same thing though, isn't there?

"Tube":6urz2io8 wrote: I think the point of using "traditional" is to leave it open enough for lay people to understand using ordinary common sense, without resorting to lists of ingredients.[/quote:6urz2io8]I think it will inevitably come down to lists of ingredients if you insist on ingredients being a criterion for craft beer. I think criteria have to be hard in order to be meaningful. And that's before we even look at inspection regimes.

"Tube":6urz2io8 wrote: I have no particular interest in trying to define "craft" or to go down that road, because in my opinion it's not workable in the long term.[/quote:6urz2io8]I'm in the same boat there. I don't think it can be done, and I feel sorry for those in the UK who are thrashing around trying to make it work. I do think, however, that in Irish beer right now we have a clear dividing line between The Big Two and everyone else, and the breweries who aren't The Big Two deserve support from conscientious drinkers. At the moment we don't need a definition any more precise than capacity because that carries with it lots of other worthy things we like, Irish ownership not least among them. We may need to change these criteria at some point. I don't think we need to do it now and we're at the risk of building a straitjacket for ourselves if we do.

"Tube":tmioftyz wrote: I think CAMRA were right not to list them, so as people are free to use traditional ingredients that hadn't been used in beer before to create new beers.[/quote:tmioftyz]

And then they don't have to admit that sugar was traditional in British brewing after bashing it for a while...


Adam

So what if you use a traditional sounding ingredient and the relevant market mandatories stipulate that it must be listed by its chemical sounding name on the back-label, perhaps for those who may have alergies to easier identify what they are advised not to consume.

So you want to give it the quaint and traditional olde worlde name but you simply cannot.

Are you still a craft brewer?

"DEMPSEY":3au37dxy wrote:

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:3au37dxy wrote: "Fuck off."[/quote:3au37dxy] <!-- s:shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_eek.gif" alt=":shock:" title="Shocked" /><!-- s:shock: -->[/quote:3au37dxy]

Read it again. It was a fine use of such a colorful phrase.

The quotations indicate that this would be how the conversation between Beoir and a brewer would go and I know more than one brewer where that's pretty much word-for-word how it WOULD go.

Both sarcasm and cursing can sharpen a point so that it is super clear. A fine use of cursing, in my opinion and very valid.

I think most of us realize that we can't be the ingredient police running inspections on breweries; that's a bit of hyperbole. Just because we choose to define "craft" and that definition speaks to ingredients doesn't mean that we become the ingredient police and perform inspections.


For those who are of the opinion that a definition of the "craft" component shouldn't speak to ingredients, what do you propose a definition of "craft" SHOULD include? (Is "sugary stuff, part of which comes from malt at some stage, that is fermented any where in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland" REALLY the best we can do?)

-Pointing out problems without solutions is just complaining; constructive feedback involves providing alternative solutions.



Adam

&amp;quot;MichaelJohn&amp;quot;:1k3hytse wrote: So what if you use a traditional sounding ingredient and the relevant market mandatories stipulate that it must be listed by its chemical sounding name on the back-label, perhaps for those who may have alergies to easier identify what they are advised not to consume.

So you want to give it the quaint and traditional olde worlde name but you simply cannot.

Are you still a craft brewer?[/quote:1k3hytse]

Hyperbole.
No reasonable person would read these comments and conclude "they're saying that if you call an ingredient the wrong thing you're not a craft brewer" (which is what you are implying).

What you call it doesn't matter; what you put in there possibly should.


I'm also not talking about a definition of "Irish Craft [u:1k3hytse]BREWER[/u:1k3hytse]", I'm talking about a definition of "Irish Craft [u:1k3hytse]BEER[/u:1k3hytse]". -We've already defined the "Irish" and the "Beer" part already, it's just the "craft" part that remains undefined/underdefined.


Adam