Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Wisconsin Wants More Beer Taxes

By

Another state is looking to enhance their revenue by tapping brewers on the shoulder. According to a report in yesterday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “[t]wo Democratic legislators vowed Monday to try to tap the state’s beer drinkers by seeking approval of a fivefold increase in Wisconsin’s $2-a-barrel beer tax, which has not been raised in 38 years.” Berceau wants to raise the tax to $10 per barrel supposedly to fund programs to “fight drunken driving and treat alcohol addiction and mental illness.” As recent studies have indicated though, such raises rarely result in the goals intended. I’ll never understand why responsible drinkers and brewers who contribute positively to the economy are routinely targeted for this kind of punishment because of a few bad apples. We don’t tax sugar makers and soda companies to fund health centers to treat obesity. We don’t ask people who can enjoy one piece of chocolate cake to foot the bill for over-eaters and the health costs they add to society, nor should we. Berceau wants the tax on a six-pack to be 18 cents, up from its previous level of 3.6 cents, which would add as much as $48 million to the amount people would have to spend to buy the same amount of beer.

“Wisconsin’s beer tax hasn’t been raised since ‘man walked on the moon,’ said Berceau, whose efforts to raise the tax have failed in the past,” suggesting she’s been in bed with her sponsors for some time. Those sponsors, some of whom presumably have made campaign contributions, include “the Wisconsin Prevention Network; the American Society of Addiction Medicine; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; the Mental Health Association of Wisconsin; and the National Association for the Mentally Ill of Wisconsin.”

According to the national Beer Institute, Wisconsin ranked sixth in beer consumption in 2006, with an average of 38.2 gallons consumed for every person 21 and older. Wisconsin’s $2-a-barrel tax is third lowest in the nation, behind the 59-cent levy in Wyoming and the $1.86 tax in Missouri.

Buckeye Victory

By

Again, vacation put me behind the curve on this one. I learned two weeks ago that there was trouble brewing in Ohio when KevBrews e-mailed me and a BA staff member told me about it at CBC. Even then, it looked like the language that would have been so detrimental to brewpubs wasn’t going to make it through, but I tend to be cynical about these things so I continued to worry.

It turns out the BA‘s new grassroots organization, Support Your Local Brewery, had things well in hand. Here’s their story:

Victory in Ohio Thanks to Support Your Local Brewery Members!

On April 19, Support Your Local Brewery was alerted to a potentially devastating piece of legislation on the fast track in the Ohio House of Representatives. A bill dealing with issues relating to the direct shipment of wine was amended to include language that would have essentially stripped self distribution and direct to consumer sales by breweries and brewpubs.

With a floor vote scheduled in less than 24 hours, Ohio members of the Support Your Local Brewery network were alerted and generated dozens of grassroots contacts to legislators’ offices. By April 20th, the offending provision had been pulled from the bill. Your efforts, coupled with the outreach carried on by many Ohio small brewers, turned this threat back, one which would have almost certainly hamstrung many breweries and potentially closed many brewpubs.

Thanks to all those who answered the call, acted in the best traditions of Support Your Local Brewery Beer Activists and helped to ensure the continued success of the Buckeye State’s small brewing community. Cheers!

KevBrews also received an e-mail response from Jon A. Husted, the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, confirming that the anti-brewpub language had been removed from the budget bill. I’m certainly glad that so many people could be marshaled to the cause in such a timely manner, but the speed with which the entire episode arose left me feeling disconcerted about when this will happen again and whether we’ll be as successful or lucky. I’d like to be able to just say “relax, don’t worry, have a beer” but that little voice inside my head won’t let me, the bastard.

Sprecher Remakes Shakparo Gluten-Free

By

I’m still catching up from the last four days of my vacation, when I had very limited internet access (I could check my e-mails, that was all). I’m amazed how dependent on it I’ve become. I can do without a phone, television, radio and even a daily shower but I start twitching like a junkie at the prospect of even one day without access to the internet. I know it’s a little sad, but there it is. So it goes. Anyway, on to more important things.

Sprecher Brewing in Glendale, Wisconsin, announced they will be reformulating one of their limited release beers to be gluten-free, making them the latest established brewery to enter the fray.

Last year Sprecher first brewed Shakparo Ale, a beer made with sorghum, and most likely barley and/or wheat, as well. It was based on a west African recipe. Due to demand from customers suffering from Celiac disease (who cannot have several common grains in their diet, such as barley and wheat) Sprecher decided to begin making it with millet, in addition to the sorghum, so it would be wheat and barley-free.

Sprecher describes their original Shakparo Ale as follows:

Shakparo style beers originated West African and are brewed with sorghum. Our Shakparo is light and refreshing with hints of fruit and spice, and is presented unfiltered as is traditional with this style.

It also had an original gravity of 14P, was aged for 5 weeks, had only 9 IBUs and was 5.7% a.b.v.

OnMilwaukee‘s food writer Amy L. Carlson put it this way.

According to Anne Sprecher, Shakparo is “an unfiltered, light, crisp ale with a cider or fruit profile and a dry vinous aftertaste, it is best characterized as an easy-drinking or session beer perfect for summer gatherings. This beer pairs nicely with lighter fare such as sandwiches, salads, chicken, fish, and spicier foods.”

Sorghum is a traditional grain throughout parts of Africa, and even the Guinness brewed for the continent has sorghum in it. Shakparo is also apparently a time-honored type of local brew, though there is little documentation about it.

One of the few I’ve been able to find online, is the introduction to an article on how to homebrew Shakparo in the brewery.org library entitled “Shakparo: a Traditional West African Sorghum Beer.”

One example of the use of of traditional microbial biotechnology to produce ennobled foods is Shakparo beer, which have an immense social, economic, ritual, nutritional, sanitary role in the Idashaland, Dassa-Zoume, in the Savannah region of Republic of Benin, West Africa. It is brewed mainly from malted guinea corn (Sorghum vulgare, S. bicolor) is an example of the use. Sorghum, also called gros mil in French, seems to be the best cereal for shakparo brewing. Shakparo is a green beer, “wild” fermented,but not so “wild” as Russell and I concluded after private e-mail correspondence; shakparo yeast is somewhat cultured or maintained on an immobilized form on the fermenting vessels(clay pot or vegetable gurd). The beverage has a full body, long aftertaste, a fruity, pleasantly sour taste ( I’m as objective as I can),with a complex estery and organic acid flavor and yoghur and sorghum aroma. It is very thirst-quenching, and it is cloudy and yeasty, with a brownish pink color. The alcohol content ranges from 1 to 8% by volume. A fresh beer bubbles, contains 3 to 4 % alc. / vol and 6 % solids. The enjoyer burp and the typical aroma come back. The traditional form of the product has a short shelf life and must be consumed within a few days after ~ 24 h fermentation.

Shakparo is a traditional sorghum beer brewed by Idasha women, the “grand cru corse” version being consume mainly by man. Long before the rise of western feminism, women of the generally matrilinear beer drinker’s tribes used beer to ensure their power in the society. An Idasha myth reports that a grateful heroic ancestor build the first market for his mother to sell the fruit of her work, most notably her beer. Before “modernization” it was easy to find good shakparo in Dassa-Zoume and the region around region. Every “normal” home has it’s brewery (a part of the kitchen). Mothers teach brewing art and science to their girls before marriage. An Ifa verse which sets the temperance rule report that Beer and his brothers Palm Wine and Raphia Wine consulted the oracle. These beverages are highly esteemed by the thirsty gods of the Voodoo / Orisha based civilizations.

Shakparo can be considered to be in the same family as bantu beer (called kaffir beer before the south African revolution), pombe (East Africa) dolo (Burkina Faso, Mali), burukutu (Nigeria), pito (Ghana and Nigeria), bouza (Egypt, Ethiopia), merisa ( Soudan), hemeket or zythum or zythos, last word of the dictionary (Ancient Egypt), shukutu (Benin and Togo), Tchakpalo (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire), bil-bil (Cameroon). Tourists and culturally alienated Africans often look upon those products as primitive dirty and harmful stuffs and prefer to drink Becks, Heineken and Kronenbourg.

Despite the cultural importance of traditional sorghum beer, scientific investigations are few and often contradictory and there aren’t any geared towards shakparo specifically.

Still, an interesting development as this small niche continues to grow, especially after the recent introduction of Anheuser-Busch’s Redbridge Sorghum Beer.

Trouble Brewing in Ohio

By

There’s a new budget bill before the Ohio state legislature that was intended to allow self-distribution of wine to retailers along with mail order wine. That’s all well and good, but somebody snuck into the amendment a provision “barring brew pubs from selling takeout bottles and sealed jugs of beer.” The author of the budget amendment, House Finance Chairman Matt Dolan (Republican), claims to have no idea how or who put in the anti-brewpub language.

The Wholesale Beer & Wine Association is reluctantly supporting the measure (they’re opposed to the direct sale of wine), but only if the brewpub language is deleted.

It was first noticed and reported on April 20, and by the next day several trade groups were in talks with lawmakers. On Saturday, the Cleveland Plain Dealer was editorializing how bad it would be for the state’s small brewers and had elicited a promise from the bill’s sponsor, Matt Dolan, “keep the brew pub provision out of the bill.”

Curiously, some early reporting highlighted the benefit to the wine business while ignoring the potentially mortal blow being dealt to brewpubs and the beer community. Luckily, most are now reporting about the problems that will be created by the newly inserted language, such as an AP report entitled “Wine-sales amendment called flawed.” It appears likely now that the anti-beer language will be removed, but if you’re in Ohio, I’d recommend contacing your representative and urging him or her to make sure that it does get taken out. We can’t be too careful about these things. As this episode so aptly illustrates, neo-prohibitionists will stoop low to damage the beer industry if they think they can get away with it

When the dust settles on this, I’d really like to see them investigate who it was that was so hostile to beer and tried to effectively kill Ohio’s brewpub business. We should all know what or who we’re up against in the fight against neo-prohibitionists, but it’s even worse when they don’t show their face and work clandestinely under cover of darkness.

Beer Sampling Coming to Wisconsin

By

Surprisingly, in the great state of Wisconsin — okay, you caught me, I’m a Packers fan — retail stores can sample customers on wine, but not beer. But now Assembly Bill 122 is winding its way through the state legislature. So far it has “passed unanimously out of the Senate Affairs Committee and will be scheduled soon for a full floor vote.” If passed, beer retailers will be able to sample customers on two 3-oz. samples.

Retailers and small breweries will benefit most if the bill becomes law, because it will greatly increase opportunities for consumers to try new products, possibly for the first time. Regular Bulletin readers will not be shocked to learn that not everyone is so thrilled about the proposed law. To wit, from an article in the Green Bay Press Gazette.

But some in law enforcement and alcohol abuse prevention fear it’s bad public policy.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of binge drinkers in the country.

“There are a lot of places in our community for people to get a drink,” said Portage County District Attorney Tom Eagon. “People with alcohol issues can’t stop at one or two. One of the ways they deal with their problem is to avoid situations where they will be tempted. A grocery store should be a safe place.”

“A grocery store should be a safe place?!?” What the hell does that even mean? Safe for whom? People who can responsibly enjoy a 3-oz. sample of beer should be punished because others can’t? Does that make any sense? This is the mentality that passes for law enforcement? Let’s restrict all citizens because some people abuse themselves. What great policy thinking. It would appear Mr. Eagon has never been to a bar, because he suggests that having a sample is the same as any of the other “places in our community for people to get a drink.” I’m not entirely sure he understands what sampling is, but I’m certainly glad he’s not looking out for my best interests.

Then, of course, there’s the inevitable “it’s for the kids” gambit.

Some argue, however, that having beer available at the grocery store sends the wrong message to kids shopping with their parents.

“The environment we create for our young people is critical to their long-term health,” said Lauri Rockman, the coordinator of Portage County’s Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention. “We need positive adult modeling. Making alcohol part of a trip to the grocery store is just another way to make it so pervasive and casual in our culture.”

Yes, by all means we wouldn’t want our kids seeing “positive adult modeling” that involves alcohol. She’s fallen into her own neo-prohibitionist trap that sees all behavior involving alcohol as inherently negative. It’s impossible for her to recognize that an experience with alcohol could be positive. But it’s just as reasonable to argue that Wisconsin may have the highest “rate of binge drinkers” (though I can’t imagine how you could accurately measure such a claim) precisely because kids never see adults engaged in responsible, moderate drinking.

And the most egregious part of these nay-sayer’s arguments is that they all fail to account for the fact that in Wisconsin it’s already legal to sample wine and yet none of these predicted problems have come to pass. Groceries are already not safe from wine and kids already see wine pervasively and casually as part of a trip to the grocery store. Has the sky fallen as a result? Let’s take a look outside the window. Nope, it’s still there.

What this does illustrate quite starkly, however, is the very different perceptions people hold about wine vs. beer. Wine, on average, has almost three times the percentage of alcohol as beer, yet there are no (or at least) less perceived societal problems associated with it. Beer, on the other hand, is continually demonized as the root of all evil. The way to change that perception should be simple, and allowing sampling should be a good step toward such change. But that also assumes that beer is not under constant attack which, with so many neo-prohibitionists at work today, it so often seems to be.

Whenever there’s a potentially positive story about alcohol, such as this one, it is undermined. Allowing sampling increases awareness, education and possibly the availability of non-binge beers (because no one’s going to be sampling Corona). That would increase the market share of craft beer and better imports, beers which generally speaking are less prone to quaffing at huge frat parties. This in turn, could lead to more responsible drinking and a lowering of Wisconsin’s binge-drinking statistical infamy. So that should make this a story to be celebrated, shouldn’t it? Yet of the article’s 472-word count, 281 of them — or just under 60% — are given over to people and groups voicing objections instead of examining the positive aspects. I’m sure the newspaper is just trying to be fair and balanced in their reporting. But if that’s true, why doesn’t every negative beer article give the other side of that story? Because there are plenty of responsible, upstanding citizen beer drinkers. We just never hear about them.

More Children and Beer

By

This month on the website “On Milwaukee” it’s Bar Month and this editorial today caught my attention because of all the recent talk regarding children and beer. The piece is by staff writer Molly Snyder Edler and is entitled “Motherfest: Kids and beer bottles.” The whole article is interesting, but I love the conclusion:

The children of vegetarians own Burger Kings, Waldorf school graduates wind up working in the media, and kids who sip their parents’ beer could become contemporary prohibitionists. As parents, all we can do is trust our gut, hope the wheel turns in our favor and remind ourselves that, in the end, it’s our job to keep therapists in business.

Edler’s whole take is refreshing in its honest and fresh approach to what is more often than not an off-limits topic. It should be something that is discussed and debated, but neo-prohibitionist proselytizing and power have made it largely a one-sided affair making people with opposite (and I believe more rational and reasonable) opinions increasingly reluctant to stand up to the growing neo-prohibitionist agenda. Unfortunately, that’s always been a recipe for disaster when good people remain quiet while a vocal minority won’t shut up about their cause, however misguided or unpopular.

Editorial Nonsense from San Antonio

By

My friend and colleague Lisa Morrison sent me a link this morning to an editorial from San Antonio, Texas (on MySanAntonio.com, a partnership between the newspaper San Antonio Express-News and the television station KENS 5) that had gotten her worked up before her morning coffee. But after taking a look at it myself, I understand her frustration. It’s enough to turn your hair red. The editorial is so ridiculous the author didn’t even sign their name to it, presumably they’re too embarrassed to forever link themselves to such blather. The entire argument, if you can even call it that, can be summed up neatly by the title, “TV + beer = round bodies.”

It’s mercifully short, at least, so go ahead a take a look for yourself. The entirety of their support for the argument that drinking beer and watching too much TV is responsible for the country’s obesity problem stems from three data points from an abstract released by the U.S. Census Bureau last week by way of a Reuters article. The first is that “two-thirds of Americans are overweight, including one-third of whom are obese.” Next is that “Americans will spend an average of nearly 4 1/2 hours daily in front of the television” (although the editorial says 10 hours, including “reading books and surfing the Internet” but leaves out the other Census data about listening to the radio, “listening to recorded music,” along with “reading newspapers, playing video games and reading other media.”). Lastly, we drink a half gallon of beer each week on average — I know I’m doing my part. So the editorial takes those pieces of Census data and believes they have the proof that “[b]eer and television lead to big bellies.” And not only does this constitute proof in the mind of the article’s anonymous author, but they also believe that their reasoning is “common sense.”

Here’s some more brilliant analysis:

The bureau does not interpret the data; it merely presents it, but it does not take a social scientist to see that there may be a connection between obesity and beer drinking and television viewing.

If people spent less time watching television and drinking beer, we might see a more encouraging figure when the bureau does its next abstract — a decrease in the amount of overweight Americans.

What the author fails to mention is the figures cited by Reuters come from a “1,300-page book of tables and statistics” that includes 1,376 separate tables of data. To cherry pick three of them and claim to prove a correlation between them is ludicrous.

Other data includes “Per capita consumption of corn sweeteners, including high-fructose syrup, totaled 78.1 pounds in the United States in 2004, up from 35.3 pounds in 1980 but on a downward trend from 81.8 pounds consumed in 2000.” But I’m sure all that sugar had nothing to do with obesity trends. It has to be the beer. That’s just common sense, right?

As Lisa put it:

I cannot believe this editorial actually targets beer consumption (and nothing else except watching TV) for the increased weight of Americans. Like eating too much food or drinking sugary sodas or even sipping too much of the Blessed Red Wine (caps intended) wouldn’t contribute to the creeping numbers on the scale …

There are obviously so many factors that lead to obesity that to simplify it as being caused by beer and television is more than a bit insulting. Not only do many other drinks — both alcoholic and non-alcoholic — also pack on the pounds but snack foods and other empty-calorie eats do at least as much to increase weight gain for sedentary people.

I can’t help but wonder who wrote the editorial and what their real motives or agenda were? Do I smell neo-prohibitionists trying to connect dots that aren’t there? Or merely some misguided journalist with a deadline and not much time to think about what he or she is writing?

A New Gluten-Free: There’s Vikings in Them Thar Dark Hills

By

There’s new gluten-free brewery coming. This one is Dark Hills Brewery and is viking themed. It’s located in northest Arkansas near Fayettville. Owners Constance Rieper-Estes and Leigh Nogy (who’s also the brewmaster) plan to have the production facility up and running by fall of 2007. They will be producing five different beers all using just rice and corn as the grain substitutes.

Ohio Bar Declared “Most Arrogant”

By

Out of 46 bars nationwide that signed up for a promotion sponsored by Stone Brewing, Boston’s Bistro and Pub in Dayton, Ohio was declared “The Most Arrogant Bar in America” and will hold the title for one full year. In order to win, they had to sell more of Stone Brewing’s Arrogant Bastard beer than any of the other participants. They took all of the other beers they normally carried off of their taps, and sold over eighteen half-kegs or approximately 2,634 pints to win the prize.


 

UPDATE: Kevin from KevBrews also has a nice update on this story.