The Daily Pull had a great post about whether it is still “craft” it one brewer has someone else brew their beer. The post uses Goose Island from Chicago as a point of departure. Read that article first here. Here’s my response:

It’s a really good question. I’m not so quick to dismiss the craft aspect of it though. Let’s say I’m a homebrewer and a lot of people like my beer so I sell it illegally or give it away. One day someone else let me use their equipment and I made my beer on their equipment. People continue to be interested in it, so this person keeps letting me brew on their system. One day though, he/she says “you know, if you pay me I’ll just keep brewing this on my system…I’ve watched you enough and know enough about your process…and I know how you make it…just pay me and I’ll keep making it for you.” Has it lost the craft? I don’t think so.

Artists that show in contemporary museums and galleries do this all the time. It’s their ideas and concepts as it relates to the artwork and the history of the arts that is the most important part. They design the piece but send the design to a manufacturer to get it done. But I guess this is often considered conceptual art. I don’t know how I feel about conceptual beer.

The brewers in larger breweries have still practiced and work awfully hard to get a recipe correct. Now they are able to pass it along to Redhook…maybe they’re just freeing up some space so that they can concentrate on new things. It would be difficult in Chicago for Goose Island to open a whole new facility.

I like your point about this situation being an example that breweries are less interested in competition (at this point). But I am interested in the question of whether outgrowing your means and constant expansion is a sustainable business practice. At what point does a brewery say “enough.” That’s a different question I suppose.