Here’s to homebrewing
James Spencer is the brains behind Basic Brewing Radio. You can visit his site here. He dishes up a weekly podcast and a twice-monthly video cast, both of which focus primarily on homebrewing.
But today he interviewed me. Most people who talk to me about Ambitious Brew focus, no surprise, on the history of commercial brewing. But James, again no surprise, wanted to talk about homebrewing’s history. I’m glad he did, because it’s so easy to overlook the role of homebrewing in the creation of today’s craft brewing industry.
The first generation of microbrewers (in the late 1970s and early 1980s) came out of homebrewing. Not all of them succeeded, but they helped shape the microbrewing revolution. Indeed, I’m not sure if microbrewing would have happened had there not first been a homebrewing revolution of sorts in the 1960s and 1970s.
I discovered the significance of homebrewing when I researched the last two chapters of Ambitious Brew and interviewed people like Byron Burch, Charlie Papazian, and Michael Lewis — and of course microbrewers like Jack McAuliffe and Ken Grossman, both of whom came to commercial brewing via homebrew. Even today, homebrewers make up the heart of the enthusiastic audience for craft brewers. And craft brewers readily acknowledge the importance of homebrewing. Some of them sponsor homebrewing competitions. Others regularly meet with homebrewers to share their expertise and experience. They participate in judging homebrewing competitions. In short, homebrewing is a vital and historically significant component of American brewing history.
So here’s to you, homebrewers. Raise your carboys high!
6 Responses to “Here’s to homebrewing”
Maureen,I heard your interview on Basic Brewing Radio (the 1st half anyway).I have a question for you. I have not read your book yet, so I apologize if you have already addressed the issue there.You mentioned that the reason brewers used adjuncts (corn rice) was because the “native” 6 row barely had too much protein compared to the two row barely traditionally used in Europe.The Adjuncts actually raised the cost of the beer compared to using straight two row barely and no adjuncts.My question is, why didn’t the brewers just use 2 row barley? Obviously they were aware of it having brewed with it in Europe. Surely they could have contracted a farmer or two to grow the kind of barley they needed. It would have made better beer and have been cheaper.I don’t see the economic advantage of going with 6 row barley and adjuncts.Thank YouEd
I thought I’d answer Ed’s question on-site, because it’s a good one.The problem was two-fold. First, the brewers DID try to import two-row barley from Europe. I found evidence that around 1871, both Fred Pabst and Joseph Schlitz purchased trainloads of the grain in Italy and shipped it to Milwaukee.But steam shipping was still in its infancy and the trip took about a month or more (counting loading time, etc.)By the time the grain arrived at the railyard in Milwaukee, the brewers had lost at least a third of the crop, thanks to rats and water leakage on board the ship.So why not ask farmers to grow it? Because in the early 1870s, farmers could sell every single grain they produced. None of them wanted to stop and experiment with a new grain. It would have taken several years of experimentation, during which, of course, the farmer would have lost money on those acres.Moreover, farmers were already growing other strains of barley and plenty of rice and corn, so it made more financial sense for brewers to use what was readily available.Farmers eventually began growing other strains of barley, but only AFTER the brewing industry had expanded and there was enough demand, and after demand for *other* kinds of grains had fallen off.So yes, it might seem easy enough for brewers to buy the necessary barley strain, but in fact in the early 1870s, it simply wasn’t cost effective for them to do so.
Maureen,I just listened to your interview on Basic Brewing Radio. I really enjoyed the interview and I will be buying a copy of your book. In the course of the interview you stated that you believed that homemade alcohol for personal consumption was not illegal. I don’t believe this is the case. My reading of the Volstead act seems pretty clear on this fact. While there is a possession exemption for personal consumption I was not able to find an exemption for manufacture for personal consumption. Which fits in well with your example of buying cases and cases of alcohol before the act became effective.
Dan todd is right — I misspoke.And it sure wouldn’t be the first time during an interview.I know this will sound wierd, but even though I’ve written a book, I can’t remember all the details!I try to use a “cheat sheet,” as they’re called, during interviews so I WON’T make a dumbass mistake like this one.But, yes, you guessed it: I didn’t have it in front of me during the interview with James Spencer.But as long as we’re on the topic, I’ll just add that of all the topics the book covered, Prohibition turned out to be one of the most frustrating and confusing.Why? Because the legal details were so hard to make sense of. I mean, it’s not like Prohibition made a lot of sense anyway, but the legalities of it were mind-boggling.For example, I had to consult with a professor of law at a NY university in order to make *any* sense at all of the first important federal law (the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913).One thing I’ve definitely decided is that I have NO future in law! I ain’t never, ever gonna be a lawyer.But thanks again to the keen-eared Dan todd! MUCH appreciated.Maureen
Hi Maureen:I was excited to see your name listed on Basic Brewing Radio’s podcast list. I am approximately half way through your book and the podcast was a great “adjunct” to your book! I am ferverishly trying to finish the rest of the book before the second installment comes out. I have two quick questions for you, if you don’t mind indulging me. First, James Spencer talks about the “great American myth” that brewing companies (like Anheuser-Busch and Pabst) pushed smaller competitors out of the market, used cheaper additives in their beer like corn and rice, and helped facilitate the demise of more flavorful beers leading the U.S. into a dark age of bland beer from the middle of the 20th century until recently. I was one who generally believed that assumption to be true as well. Your book, however, disputes that myth and explains the history of American beer in a completely different way. My question then is why do you think this myth exists? How did it start? Were there marketing change during WWII causing the general public to believe that major breweries had changed their product in a detrimental way? What are your thoughts?My second question is simple. Personally, as someone who loves the historic significance of beer and enjoys the art of beer making, I could talk about beer for days. You, however, have stated that not only are you not a beer historian, you don’t even drink the stuff! Since starting your research up until now, have your become tired of talking about beer all the time?Thanks for letting me bend your ear.P.S. the book is a wonderful read. Thank you for your thorough research and insight.
Hi, Gabe:Believe me, you’re not bending my ear. Thank you for taking time to write. (And the pun about the book as “adjunct” cracked me up.)I’m going to respond to the last paragraph first. I DO drink beer now. When I started the book, I didn’t.But then I interviewed all those beer guys for the last two chapters and was fascinated by them. They’re very smart, talented people (Maytag, Koch, Grossman, etc.) And I wondered what it was about *beer* that attracted such talent.So I went and bought some beer — and discovered that beer is fabulous! Complex. Varied. So much variety — I think I could drink a different beer every day and not duplicate for at least a year.And no, I’m just a plain old historian — although now I guess I’m sort of a beer historian. I don’t get tired of talking about. Again, that’s because beer attracts such interesting people!As for your “big” question about the myth — I’m going to reply to that by posting a link to a piece I wrote for Powells.com.But I’m too much of a technoidiot to figure out how to make a live link this in comment, so I’ll post it as a separate blog piece.Thanks so much for taking time to comment, and for reading the book — and for your kind words.Look for a blog piece about “myth.”