Budweiser's use of rice
Ken Papai
"Rice provides Budweiser with its characteristic lightness, crispness and
refreshing taste. Many brewers throughout the ages have used only four
ingredients in brewing beer -- water, barley malt, hops and yeast. The
extra step of brewing Budweiser with rice is perhaps the most misunderstood
step in our exclusive process. It provides a balance necessary to
Budweiser's trademark "drinkability". It is an extra and more expensive
part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It requires additional
handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice used in Budweiser is grown
in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas and California. Rice
is a "grain adjunct" in beer, providing some of the starches necessary to
produce natural sugars which are converted into beer during fermentation.
(The primary source of starch in the brewing process is the barley malt.)
Some other brewers use commercially-produced starches in powdered or syrup
form."
FWIW I guess. Also, In an underhanded, or subtle way, they sort of say
that Bud's lager process is superior to the faster microbrewed ale process.
--
<*> Ken Papai, Marin County, California Habanero Hot Sauce connoisseur
<*> kpa...@rahul.net 5+++ "Guinness is good for you!"
<*> http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/
Joel_Plutchak
>From the Bud web site: http://budweiser.com/build.html
>
>ingredients in brewing beer -- water, barley malt, hops and yeast. The
>extra step of brewing Budweiser with rice is perhaps the most misunderstood
>part of the brewing process than using malt alone."
>FWIW I guess. Also, In an underhanded, or subtle way, they sort of say
>that Bud's lager process is superior to the faster microbrewed ale process.
It's also the first time I've ever heard it said that using rice is
actually more expensive than using malted barley. Is that a verifiable
fact? It certainly runs counter to both common sense and common belief.
--
Joel Plutchak (plut...@uiuc.edu), Research Programmer
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Stewart
>From the Bud web site: http://budweiser.com/build.html
> Budweiser's trademark "drinkability". It is an extra and more
> expensive part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It
> requires additional handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice
> used in Budweiser is grown in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
> Missouri, Arkansas and California.
They have a devious way with words. What they say is true but they
must more than make up for the extra processing costs with lower
ingredient costs. Wouldn't you love to read "AB goes to great effort
and expense to brew with cheaper ingredients"? Seems like a more
balanced summary to me.
--
Michael Stewart ste...@monk.csl.uiuc.edu
"Good people drink good beer." Hunter Thompson, the bottle for Road Dog Ale
Bryan J. Maloney
> From the Bud web site: http://budweiser.com/build.html
>
> "Rice provides Budweiser with its characteristic lightness, crispness and
> refreshing taste. Many brewers throughout the ages have used only four
> ingredients in brewing beer -- water, barley malt, hops and yeast. The
> extra step of brewing Budweiser with rice is perhaps the most misunderstood
> step in our exclusive process. It provides a balance necessary to
> Budweiser's trademark "drinkability". It is an extra and more expensive
> part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It requires additional
> handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice used in Budweiser is grown
> in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas and California. Rice
> is a "grain adjunct" in beer, providing some of the starches necessary to
> produce natural sugars which are converted into beer during fermentation.
> (The primary source of starch in the brewing process is the barley malt.)
> Some other brewers use commercially-produced starches in powdered or syrup
> form."
>
> FWIW I guess. Also, In an underhanded, or subtle way, they sort of say
> that Bud's lager process is superior to the faster microbrewed ale process.
This statement says NOTHING about lager vs. ale methods. An ale can use
rice adjunct just as easily as can a lager. Lagering is a cold storage
step that is used to clarify the brew. Microbreweries can lager just as
much as "Bud" does and still use no grains other than barley malt.
As for "drinkability"--yes, tasteless watery liquids can be slammed faster
than somethig with a little body and real flavor...
David Brockington
Well, lagering is a bit more involved than that. There is the whole
business of using an entirely different yeast strain and fermentation temp,
and the concomitant influences that both of those variables have on the final
product. Frankly, it is more capital-intensive to brew lager than to brew ale.
With lagers, your product (hence, cash-flow) is tied up in conditioning tanks
much longer. OTOH, Bud is lagered, what, five weeks, max? An honest lager
should hang out in the tank for at least eight weeks, and preferably ten.
Furthermore, with the whole economies of scale thing going for them, I don't
think it makes much of a difference. Nor does the extra 'rice cooking' vessel
that they must employ at each plant, for that matter.
--
David Brockington Seattle, USA
UW Political Science & dbr...@u.washington.edu
Free Lance Beer Critic: http://alpha.rollanet.org/taproom/DBindex.html
Richard Labutis
>From the Bud web site: http://budweiser.com/build.html
>
>"Rice provides Budweiser with its characteristic lightness, crispness and
>refreshing taste. Many brewers throughout the ages have used only four
>ingredients in brewing beer -- water, barley malt, hops and yeast. The
>extra step of brewing Budweiser with rice is perhaps the most misunderstood
>step in our exclusive process. It provides a balance necessary to
>Budweiser's trademark "drinkability". It is an extra and more expensive
>part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It requires additional
>handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice used in Budweiser is grown
>in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas and California. Rice
>is a "grain adjunct" in beer, providing some of the starches necessary to
>produce natural sugars which are converted into beer during fermentation.
>(The primary source of starch in the brewing process is the barley malt.)
>Some other brewers use commercially-produced starches in powdered or syrup
>form."
>
>FWIW I guess. Also, In an underhanded, or subtle way, they sort of say
>that Bud's lager process is superior to the faster microbrewed ale process.
Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer according to the
German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try to produce a
consistent brew.
Anybody in Budweiser listening??
.Rick
SeaRobin
wrote:
>
>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
>
>I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer according to the
>German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try to produce a
>consistent brew.
>
>Anybody in Budweiser listening??
>
>.Rick
>
Thank you for saying it before I could......If God had intended Rice
to be in Beer he would have put Germany in Asia.
Beer needs rice the way Ice Cream needs shoe polish.
Sea
Please cc. all public responses to "SeaR...@Wilmington.net"
Bryan J. Maloney
Labutis) wrote:
> I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer according to the
> German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try to produce a
> consistent brew.
What's so blinkin' sacred about the "German Purity Law"? It does not
guarantee a high-quality beer. I've a had a few that adhered to that law
and were pretty damned poor. Nor does not adhering to the law mean that
the beer is inferior. Guinness (tap) and Guinness Extra Stout (bottled)
in the USA both violate this law. Many excellent Belgian brews violate
this law. Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout violates this law, and it's an
excellent brew.
This "purity" law has nothing at all to do with purity. It was originally
enacted as a protectionist trade measure to keep foreign beers out of the
region and insure that local brewers had to purchase from the local
ruler's hops monopoly. I've heard of medieval "German Purity Laws" that
outlawed hops! (They were "German", if not across all "Germany"--which
didn't exist at the time, they concerned themselves with "purity" of beer,
they were laws.)
The Rhenheitsgebot is okay, but there is nothing at all sacred about it.
Robert J. Shea
Part of the reason was to keep people from using various herbs and
plants that would cause hallucinations, which is probably why we hear
of witches' brews, etc. The people who were given the monopoly control
of the herbs and beer production in their area of course would have
been against the introduction of hops. If you can read German, or can
wait until the English version of the text arrives, check out the
explanation at http://www.bier.de
RJShea
St.Louis
Jeff Frane
>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
Of course, the big brewers don't see this as a "drawback" at all; it's
exactly what they're trying to do, and rice (or corn) just makes it
easier to make very pale, very clear, very light-flavored beer. Over
the years since Prohibition, the breweries have convinced themselves
that increasing mediocrity is what the market is seeking -- and, of
course, they help *create* the market through advertising products
that fit that profile.
>I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer according to the
>German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try to produce a
>consistent brew.
>Anybody in Budweiser listening??
Given that Budweiser is the world's largest-selling beer, why would
they listen?
On the other hand, if the brewers at A-B applied themselves to
producing a *different* beer, perhaps an all-malt beer, definitely one
with a lot more hops, using their admittedly-high level of technology,
just think how good it could be. And, given the number of A-B
breweries around the country and around the globe, think how fresh it
would be as well.
--Jeff Frane
Name withheld by request
>> expensive part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It
>> requires additional handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice
>> used in Budweiser is grown in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
>> Missouri, Arkansas and California.
>
shit corporation.
Rice makes the beer more expensive? BULLSHIT!~
All beer drinkers should boycott Bud for lying to their customers.
Bonehead
"NO SHIT!" - From the Road Dog beer label, before they censored it
Dirk Manuel
wrote:
>ric...@ibm.net (Richard Labutis) wrote:
>
>>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
>
>Of course, the big brewers don't see this as a "drawback" at all; it's
>exactly what they're trying to do
Hmm, I disagree with this. This ISN'T exactly what they are trying to
do, it is just something that has happened because they skimped on the
ingredients. But to diguise this, they have turned around and said
"Hey, this is what we meant to do in the first place. This is what we
wanted, and it is what YOU wanted!" And most people are believing
it...
It's like Boddingtons in the UK. They brewed it with a thick, creamy
head, because that way you get less beer in your pint (remember it is
mainly served in bars). They then launched this huge, advertising
campaign, trying to convince us all that a thick, creamy head is
desirable, that this is how it is supposed to be. So everyone gets a
pint with a thick creamy head in the pubs, and thinks ("hey, this is
great! It's just like in the advertisements!", when they are actually
losing a couple of mouithfuls of their beer in head (in fact,
Whitbread, brewers of Boddingtons, issued guidelines to all their
staff, saying that pints of Boddingtons must be served with a 15mm
head. In a pint glass, this is over 10%).
Anyway, I digress. The point is that the big companies brew what they
want, and then try and convince us that this is what we want, and this
is how beer really should be. Don't believe them.
Thanks for listening...
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| BeerScene |
| http://www.demon.co.uk/beerscene/ |
| Editor: Dirk Manuel |
| e-mail: beer...@docs.demon.co.uk |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff Frane
>On Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:26:48 GMT, jfr...@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
>wrote:
>>>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>>>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>>>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
>>
>>Of course, the big brewers don't see this as a "drawback" at all; it's
>>exactly what they're trying to do
>Hmm, I disagree with this. This ISN'T exactly what they are trying to
>do, it is just something that has happened because they skimped on the
>ingredients. But to diguise this, they have turned around and said
>"Hey, this is what we meant to do in the first place. This is what we
>wanted, and it is what YOU wanted!" And most people are believing
>it...
Market research in the 1940s and 1950s attempted to crack open a new
beer drinking market in the U.S.: women. It was determined (whether
true or not) that more women could be induced to drink beer if the
flavor was less assertive, if it was paler, etc etc etc. It has also
been true *everywhere* that paler beers invariably took a huge market
share from darker beers (e.g., appearance of pale ale, pilsners, wheat
beers, etc.), and the theory has always been in the U.S. that the more
pale the better.
Even breweries that didn't use cheap adjuncts tried hard to make a
pale, bright beer and the evident success of those who achieved it
(along with *lots* of advertising money, of course) convinced others
to follow the same path.
One of the reasons that American beers are so light, in flavor and
color, is that they insist on very precise, very pale kilning of the
malt. They are willing to pay a fair amount for this sort of control,
all of it geared to hold down the malt color and malt flavor.
--Jeff Frane
Jeff Frane
>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
Of course, the big brewers don't see this as a "drawback" at all; it's
David Brockington
>M>Ken Papai <kpa...@rahul.net> writes:
>>
>>>From the Bud web site: http://budweiser.com/build.html
>>
>>> Budweiser's trademark "drinkability". It is an extra and more
>>> expensive part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It
>>> requires additional handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice
>>> used in Budweiser is grown in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
>>> Missouri, Arkansas and California.
>>
>This is conclusive proof that Anheuser-Busch is a lying sack-of
>shit corporation.
>Rice makes the beer more expensive? BULLSHIT!~
Well, to their credit, rice is more expensive than the adjunct of
choice of their primary competiion, which is corn. (Before all the pedants
out there hysterically point out that the above cited post by Ken P doesn't
mention rive v corn, but rice v malt, ergo I am wrong, I am aware of that.)
David Brockington
>anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Name withheld by request) wrote:
[unfortunately, I deleted the only writing by somebody using their
actual _name_. I guess my response is directed at Mr. Anonymous and
Mr. Someone.]
>>This is conclusive proof that Anheuser-Busch is a lying sack-of
>>shit corporation.
>>Rice makes the beer more expensive? BULLSHIT!~
>>All beer drinkers should boycott Bud for lying to their customers.
>Already done.
Then what is AB doing with the 85 million barrels of beer that they
brew?
Jeff Frane
>The only reason Budweiser uses rice is as a cheap source of alcohol.
>There is NO other reason to use it in the brewing of beer!
IYHO, of course.
The reality is that using adjuncts like rice and corn make it easier
to brew very pale, very light flavored beer, and make it easier to
brew very clear beer. There are also specific flavor profiles that
are impossible to reach with all-malt beers -- not that A-B is brewing
a Trappist-style ale, of course, but it would be impossible to brew
such a beer without using some non-malt fraction in the grist or in
the kettle (or both).
--Jeff Frane
Fred Waltman
Michael Stewart <mast...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<quote of my post deleted>
>I would like to think that the long run is now and that people are
>giving up trendy light beer in favor of something more substantial.
>However, sometimes I'm afraid it is just a new sort of trendiness that
>will fade in a couple of years.
>
>Personally, I see beer as having been influenced by a very broad trend
>toward homogenization which has lowered our standards of quality in
>food and drink and replaced them with standards of uniformity and
>familiarity. Most people don't thrive on new experiences. The
>availability of Budweiser and McDonald's in any city is both
>convenient and comforting.
I agree. The trend was evident in not only beer, but things like bread,
coffee, etc. But consumer tastes and preferences are a major factor.
Nobody was forced to eat at McDonalds - they did so because filled a need
- tasty food, quickly prepared and service at a clean location.
I object to people who seem to have the opinion that everybody in the US,
in their heart of hearts is really a stout drinker and the only reason
they don't know it is because they have been brainwashed by the big bad
breweries.
I think our job, as beer connoisseurs, is to educate people. To help them
learn that there is more choice than Bud or MGD. And that doesn't mean
giving them a Celebration Ale or Grant's Imperial Stout and saying "Drink
this, you *should* like it."
I see great parallels between beer and TV: For a long time most people
had a limitted choice of similar, usually bland, products. This satisfied
them for a while, but new products found a niche and whetted peoples
appetite for a more varied fare. Many of them were just the same old
stuff, repackaged and jazzed up a little, but many new gems found a home
and thrived in the new era.
--
Fred Waltman
Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co.
wal...@netcom.com
http://www.homebrew.inter.net
"You can make better beer than you can buy."
Bryan J. Maloney
Waltman) wrote:
> I think you have cause and effect backwards. American mass produced beers
> are light in flavor and body because consumers wanted them that way and
> the breweries did what all businesses do -- filled a customers need. The
> development of the current style "American Lager" predates the
> consoldation of breweries in the 60's. Weren't there still about 400
But it does not pre-date Prohibition. We can blame a good deal of the
current drek to be found on the US "table beer" market upon that bit of
insanity.
HOWEVER, let us also remember that a good deal of traditional beer
marketing was in "ordinary" or "twopenny", which was a great deal weaker
than the good stuff.
So it is historically valid to sell cheap, weak, swill to the masses.
Furthermore, there is a place in the world for a good "lawnmower beer",
and I have incredible respect for the people who are able to reproduce
such things again and again. Consistency is very difficult in brewing,
and the lighter your product, the harder you have to work to get
consistency.
I respect the science and craftsmanship, even as I scoff at the product.
Bryan J. Maloney
(Someone) wrote:
> They don't give a shit. They already have the largest share of the
> American market. They have succesfully brainwashed the Americans into
> thinking that this is what "real" beer should taste like. The American
> taste in beer is slowly changing with the introduction of microbrews.
> I wonder if they are ready to keep up, or if they will suddenly
> realise that they are had?
They're figuring it out. The fact that it's the big brewers who are
having to close regional plants hasn't been lost on their boards.
Bryan J. Maloney
American Lager and the BudMilCoor giants.
Porter and the 19th century London giants.
Parallels...
Ted Goldblatt
Dirk Manuel <beer...@docs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>It's like Boddingtons in the UK. They brewed it with a thick, creamy
>head, because that way you get less beer in your pint (remember it is
>mainly served in bars).
I don't think I understand the rationale here. Certainly the
publicans would like this (getting the same amount of money for
providing less product), but what advantage is there to Whitbread
(other than at company owned pubs)? It would seem that this would
lead to them selling less kegs/casks (I'm not sure which Boddingtons
is), since the pubs can get the same number of servings from fewer
gallons of beer. Even if the consumers buy somewhat more servings, it
doesn't seem like it would even be a break-even for the brewer, let
alone a winner (of course, if this alone is a reason for the pubs to
carry (or push) a beer that they would otherwise not bother with, that
could be an explanation).
ted
--
Ted Goldblatt Ted.Go...@telematics.com (305) 351-4367
Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Michael Stewart
> Furthermore, there is a place in the world for a good "lawnmower beer",
> and I have incredible respect for the people who are able to reproduce
> such things again and again. Consistency is very difficult in brewing,
> and the lighter your product, the harder you have to work to get
> consistency.
I agree with you on the virtues of consistency. However, I have a
very simple problem with what most people think of as "lawnmower
beer": I don't find it very refreshing. It's typically gassy and, in
many cases, lightly sweet with a sometimes-cloying corn flavor. IMHO,
more hops to cut the sweetness and less carbonation would produce a
much more refreshing product---one which I might consider drinking
after strenuous activity. As things stand, I'd prefer a good bitter
pils or a lot of cold water and then a little barley wine after mowing
the lawn on a hot day.
> I respect the science and craftsmanship, even as I scoff at the product.
I'm not sure how far I would go in either direction. Industrial light
lagers are consistent, but they still sometimes display what can be
considered to be technical flaws in a product which, by consensus,
should be free of a very long list of possible flavors. The green
apple character of Bud springs to mind. On the other hand, I've tried
some really awful microbrews which might make me choose Bud as the
lesser of two evils.
Deb or Tom Bell
>>anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Name withheld by request) wrote:
>
>>>Rice makes the beer more expensive? BULLSHIT!~
>
>>>All beer drinkers should boycott Bud for lying to their customers.
>
>
>Then what is AB doing with the 85 million barrels of beer that they
>brew?
>
>
The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious: A-B is
selling it to idiots who are too stupid to know what
REAL beer is.
If American consumers weren't morons, A-B would be forced
by market demand to brew beers that have some taste to them.
But nobody every went broke overestimating the stupidity of
the average American consumer. Put urine in bottles and
advertise it on TV, and Americans will buy it.
Tom Bell
Fred Waltman
Michael Stewart <mast...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<deletia>
>
>> I respect the science and craftsmanship, even as I scoff at the product.
>
>I'm not sure how far I would go in either direction. Industrial light
>lagers are consistent, but they still sometimes display what can be
>considered to be technical flaws in a product which, by consensus,
>should be free of a very long list of possible flavors. The green
>apple character of Bud springs to mind.
To steal a line from someone else: Its not a bug, its a feature. AB
supposedly has selected the yeast over the years to produce a slightly
higher level of acetaldehyde (I'm sure that is spelled wrong) which gives
the green apple flavor.
Joel_Plutchak
>Furthermore, there is a place in the world for a good "lawnmower beer",
>and I have incredible respect for the people who are able to reproduce
>such things again and again.
Yes. And as summer approaches, this young man's thoughts turn to
good consistent lawnmower beers like Boon Geuze, Celis White, SNPA,
Anchor Liberty Ale, Guinness Stout, Chimay Cinq Cents, Bigfoot...
--
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer Dept. of Atmos. Sci. U of Illinois
"I never let anything as tenuous as moral standards get in the way of
drinking beer." - Jon Binkley in rec.food.drink.beer
Michael Stewart
> To steal a line from someone else: Its not a bug, its a feature. AB
> supposedly has selected the yeast over the years to produce a slightly
> higher level of acetaldehyde (I'm sure that is spelled wrong) which gives
> the green apple flavor.
Yeah. I'm not sure I would say "slightly", but maybe it's just that
the flavor is in such a lightly flavored beer that makes it stand
out. They definitely seem to like that flavor; it is clearly present
in the ludicrously named Michelob Amber Bock as well.
Recently at the Food Sciences department here at the University of
Illinois a brewer from AB came to talk. I missed it but, according to
a friend of mine, he clearly mentioned the presence of acetaldehyde as
a flaw in beer. When asked about its presence in Bud, he came up with
a quantitative threshold above which it is a flaw. The threshold was
conveniently somewhat above the level in Bud. I guess that is what
makes it a feature.
My dark little secret, which I probably shouldn't admit in this forum,
is that I kind of like the green apple flavor of Bud. Don't get me
wrong: without much in the area of malt and hops it doesn't taste like
beer to me. But I will drink it on occasion when there are no other
options.
Dirk Manuel
>In article <waltmanD...@netcom.com>, wal...@netcom.com (Fred
>Waltman) wrote:
>
>> I think you have cause and effect backwards. American mass produced beers
>> are light in flavor and body because consumers wanted them that way
In my opinion, this is rubbish (and I stress again that it is only my
opinion). American mass produced beers are light in flavour (i.e.
taste!) and body because the brewers found that it was easier and
cheaper to make beers this way (it started off with the Americans
copying lagers, and then looking for cheaper ways of brewing the
same).
What happened next, was that the brewers sold the idea of these light
beers to drinkers, and (because of the might of Amwerican
advertising), the drinkers bought it. Consumers fell for it hook,
line and sinker, and played right into the brewers hands. If someone
stands up and says "THIS is the real thing; it's DAMN GOOD and YOU
WANT IT!" often enough, most people will start believing it.
So we have the situation we have today; MOST drinkers do not truly
appreciate beer, or what beer is about. Their knowledge of beer
begins and ends with what they are told by the big brewers. this is
not THEIR fault (and I am not referring to all Americans here - and
most posters to r.f.d.b and a.b fall into the 'informed' category so
perhaps I am preaching to the converted). Their only crime is
ignorance, and in the face of the onslaught of the big brewer's
marketing power,this ignorance is to be expected.
All we (as 'people in the know') can do is to try to make these people
see what beer is really about, and to inform them of the 'real thing'.
Telling them they are stupid for drinking 'piss' is not the answer.
Anyway, I digress. The point is that American mass-produced beers are
the way they are because the brewers skimped on the ingredients. The
demand for these beers is there now, but only because the brewers
created this demand with their advertising. Think about it; which is
more likely, a drinker suddenly putting down his ale and saying "Jeez,
but I'd really like a new type of beer - one that is light on taste
and body - something unlike anything I have ever tasted before", or
the brewers saying "Hey, here is a new beer; this is what you should
be drinking! This is good!".
Thanks for listening...
Dirk
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk Manuel |
| e-mail: di...@docs.demon.co.uk vox: (00) 32.2.674.4247 |
| Web: http://www.demon.co.uk/beerscene/ fax: (00) 32.2.674.4140 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ken Papai
>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>>Furthermore, there is a place in the world for a good "lawnmower beer",
>>and I have incredible respect for the people who are able to reproduce
>>such things again and again.
> Yes. And as summer approaches, this young man's thoughts turn to
>good consistent lawnmower beers like Boon Geuze, Celis White, SNPA,
>Anchor Liberty Ale, Guinness Stout, Chimay Cinq Cents, Bigfoot...
If it comes down to drinking Bud after a hot hour cutting the grass
or after a run or long bike ride I opt for gatorade or ice water
rather than pissy, gassy apply Bud.
A cold Guinness may be best, or even a "girly" fruity ice cold wheat beer.
Cheers! (Guinness pub draught is probably and likely the best choice)
--
<*> Ken Papai, Marin County, California Habanero Hot Sauce connoisseur
<*> kpa...@rahul.net 5+++ "Guinness is good for you!"
<*> http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/
Jeff Frane
>If anybody thinks AB is truly concerned about losing a big slice of their
>market, a little look at the production/sales figures will cure that.
Any large firm is *perpetually* concerned about losing market share;
that's why they spend so much money on R&D and on advertising. Not
only do they spend a fortune on advertising year-round, but they have
been developing a complete line of microbrew imitations. Could be
they're only test-marketing them here in our area, but they are
clearly putting effort in to it. It's true that Budweiser is hugely
successful, but ten years ago the "common knowledge" was that the big
breweries would never be under any threat from microbreweries --
today, it's clear that they are taking a *significant* percentage. It
may still be in the single digits, but the beer market is so flat that
breweries are battling over those single digits, so the piece captured
by imports and microbreweries *is* relevant.
--Jeff Frane
Mike Uchima
|> [snip]
|> Presumably, at some point when large regional breweries were still
|> common, there was also a mystique associated with a beer which was
|> "good" enough to ship in from another part of the country.
|> [snip]
This theory is consistent with something else I heard a few months ago.
Apparently the term "premium beer" originally referred to the fact that
there was a tax (or "premium") charged on beer shipped across state
lines. So "premium beer" originally didn't mean "good beer" -- it meant
"beer brought in from out of state".
-- Mike Uchima
-- uch...@fncrd8.fnal.gov
rri...@ibm.net
>In article <waltmanD...@netcom.com>, wal...@netcom.com (Fred
>Waltman) wrote:
>
>> I think you have cause and effect backwards. American mass produced beers
>> the breweries did what all businesses do -- filled a customers need. The
>> development of the current style "American Lager" predates the
>> consoldation of breweries in the 60's. Weren't there still about 400
>
>
>But it does not pre-date Prohibition. We can blame a good deal of the
>current drek to be found on the US "table beer" market upon that bit of
>insanity.
As The Season has just started, what about the effect of baseball on beer
consumption? There are a lot of "lawnmower beers" consumed while
watching ball games, (professional and otherwise) and there always have
been. How many people get their first taste of beer by sipping out of
Daddy's cup (or can, or bottle) at the game? When they grow up and
start looking for their own beers, the light lagers, with their happy
associations, have a big psychological advantage that advertising
(especially during sports shows) only strengthens.
-- Eleanor Kennedy
KINGPIN
In article <4jfk24$g...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, Name withheld by request (anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu) writes:
>M>Ken Papai <kpa...@rahul.net> writes:
>>
>>>From the Bud web site: http://budweiser.com/build.html
>>
>>> Budweiser's trademark "drinkability". It is an extra and more
>>> expensive part of the brewing process than using malt alone. It
>>> requires additional handling, milling and brewhouse cooking. Rice
>>> used in Budweiser is grown in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
>>> Missouri, Arkansas and California.
>>
>shit corporation.
>
>
>All beer drinkers should boycott Bud for lying to their customers.
>
>
>"NO SHIT!" - From the Road Dog beer label, before they censored it
>
I agree they should not tell the beer drinkers abunch of
shit but, I still love the taste of that shit.
Drink beer with more beer- Kingpin>
Bryon Lape
>
>> If someone
>stands up and says "THIS is the real thing; it's DAMN GOOD and YOU
>WANT IT!" often enough, most people will start believing it.
>
I think you are correct here. This is proven by what happened in the
1992 elections here.
bryon
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form
of tyranny over the mind of Man. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1800
Bryon Lape
email: bl...@utk.edu WWW:http://aztec.lib.utk.edu/~bryon
David Brockington
>jo...@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Joel_Plutchak) writes:
>>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>>>Furthermore, there is a place in the world for a good "lawnmower beer",
>>>and I have incredible respect for the people who are able to reproduce
>>>such things again and again.
>> Yes. And as summer approaches, this young man's thoughts turn to
>>good consistent lawnmower beers like Boon Geuze, Celis White, SNPA,
>>Anchor Liberty Ale, Guinness Stout, Chimay Cinq Cents, Bigfoot...
>If it comes down to drinking Bud after a hot hour cutting the grass
>or after a run or long bike ride I opt for gatorade or ice water
>rather than pissy, gassy apply Bud.
While I'll admit to quaffing a Bud or two myself in the past six
months, I frankly do not understand the whole concept of "lawnmower beer".
If I have just worked out and feel dehydrated, the _last_ thing I want is
a beer, be it an AB product, Celis Wit, or Bigfoot. I want a lot of
gatorade. Once I am sufficiently rehydrated, then I'll consider having a
beer.
Michael Stewart
> Sorry about the politics, fellow beer-lovers, but couldn't let that pass!
> Back on topic, I sometimes wonder if Bud's use of rice contributes
> to its unique ability to induce almost instant headaches?
It isn't a phenomenon I've experienced---it generally takes very large
quantities of extremely nasty fermentation by-products to give me any
sort of headache. However, it is a common problem and most people
seem to attribute it to the acetaldehyde (the stuff which gives Bud
its green apple flavor). I'm not sure there is any solid evidence for
this theory, but it is very plausible: acetaldehyde is the only
candidate I can think of since it is the only ferementation by-product
which distinguishes Bud from other industrial lagers.
BPGriffin
>In article <8284589...@docs.demon.co.uk>, di...@docs.demon.co.uk
>says...
>>
>>> If someone
>>stands up and says "THIS is the real thing; it's DAMN GOOD and YOU
>>WANT IT!" often enough, most people will start believing it.
>>
> I think you are correct here. This is proven by what happened in
the
>1992 elections here.
Ah, you meant the _1980_ elections, didn't you?
Sorry about the politics, fellow beer-lovers, but couldn't let that pass!
Back on topic, I sometimes wonder if Bud's use of rice contributes
to its unique ability to induce almost instant headaches?
--
Brian Griffin bpgr...@aol.com
David Brockington
>Oh no, I just can't let this go by...
>>In article <waltmanD...@netcom.com>, wal...@netcom.com (Fred
>>Waltman) wrote:
>>
>>> I think you have cause and effect backwards. American mass produced beers
>>> are light in flavor and body because consumers wanted them that way
>In my opinion, this is rubbish (and I stress again that it is only my
>opinion). American mass produced beers are light in flavour (i.e.
>taste!) and body because the brewers found that it was easier and
>cheaper to make beers this way (it started off with the Americans
>copying lagers, and then looking for cheaper ways of brewing the
>same).
>What happened next, was that the brewers sold the idea of these light
>beers to drinkers, and (because of the might of Amwerican
>advertising), the drinkers bought it. Consumers fell for it hook,
>line and sinker, and played right into the brewers hands. If someone
>stands up and says "THIS is the real thing; it's DAMN GOOD and YOU
>WANT IT!" often enough, most people will start believing it.
In my opinion, this is a simplistic account of what happened. Seldom
in the social world are causal linkages so conveniently discreet.
What really happened was probably a causal net rather than a direct link;
some brewers decided to brew cheaper with adjuncts, while at roughly the
same time other brewers began experimenting with their product line because
they noticed that their lighter product was moving a hell of a lot faster
than their darker or heavier product. Furthermore, there is a longstanding
tradition of using adjuncts in most brewing regions. Part of the whole
adjunct phenomenon was also probably accidental. Imagine a brewing season
where malt was in short supply and hence more expensive than ususal, forcing
the brewers to use more adjunct, but surprised (perhaps pleasantly) that the
beer brewed with higher adjunct percentage sold more than the normal beer.
What happened was almost certainly a lot more complicated than
the model outlined above.
BPGriffin
>bpgr...@aol.com (BPGriffin) writes:
>> Back on topic, I sometimes wonder if Bud's use of rice contributes
>> to its unique ability to induce almost instant headaches?
>It isn't a phenomenon I've experienced---it generally takes very large
>quantities of extremely nasty fermentation by-products to give me any
>sort of headache. However, it is a common problem and most people
>seem to attribute it to the acetaldehyde (the stuff which gives Bud
>its green apple flavor). I'm not sure there is any solid evidence for
>this theory, but it is very plausible: acetaldehyde is the only
>candidate I can think of since it is the only ferementation by-product
>which distinguishes Bud from other industrial lagers.
On the few occasions in the last few years when I have
had a Bud - notably as a prank at a farewell party when I
was leaving the UK for the US after 7 years of assiduous
real-aleing- I have noticed a slight headache that I don't
associate with any other beer. Maybe it's psychosomatic, or
maybe it _is_ an unusual chemical, but I find it interesting
that others report the same experience.......
--
Brian Griffin bpgr...@aol.com
Alex Diestelkamp
>On 26 Mar 1996 17:09:19 GMT, ric...@ibm.net (Richard Labutis)
>wrote:
>>
>>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
>>
>>I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer according to the
>>German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try to produce a
>>consistent brew.
>>
>>Anybody in Budweiser listening??
>>
>>.Rick
>>
>Thank you for saying it before I could......If God had intended Rice
>to be in Beer he would have put Germany in Asia.
>Beer needs rice the way Ice Cream needs shoe polish.
>Sea
>Please cc. all public responses to "SeaR...@Wilmington.net"
The Deutche Reinheitsgebot is the best thing that ever happened to
beer. Has anyone out there ever had BBK of ParhBrau out of
Kaiserslautern and Pirmasens in the Pfalz.. Hands down the best beer
I've ever had.
Tony the Pig
wrote:
>In article <4jf3mb$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>Jeff Frane <jfr...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>ric...@ibm.net (Richard Labutis) wrote:
>>
>>>Adjuncts in beer are typically used to cut down the cost of brewing, it is more
>>>expensive to use 100% malt, so budwieser uses the rice with malts. The drawback
>>>to using rice is that the beer becomes lighter in body and taste.
>>
>>Of course, the big brewers don't see this as a "drawback" at all; it's
>>exactly what they're trying to do, and rice (or corn) just makes it
>>easier to make very pale, very clear, very light-flavored beer. Over
>>the years since Prohibition, the breweries have convinced themselves
>>that increasing mediocrity is what the market is seeking -- and, of
>>course, they help *create* the market through advertising products
>>that fit that profile.
>
>I think you have cause and effect backwards. American mass produced beers
>are light in flavor and body because consumers wanted them that way and
>the breweries did what all businesses do -- filled a customers need. The
>development of the current style "American Lager" predates the
>consoldation of breweries in the 60's. Weren't there still about 400
>breweries in the US after WWII? I find it hard to beleive that they all
>got together in a great conspiracy to force bland beer on us all.
>
>I don't think that advertising is as powerful as people make it out to
>be. While it the short term, it may make us by something we don't like in
>order to be "trendy", I don't think that would work in the long run.
>
>--
>Fred Waltman
>Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co.
>wal...@netcom.com
>http://www.homebrew.inter.net
>"You can make better beer than you can buy."
I'm going to have to agree with this. It was stated that Bud is the
largest selling beer in the world. Apparently they know their
business, and know what the masses want, because there are plenty of
other beers out there to choose from. No one tells me what I like or
what to buy. I assume that everyone here is of the same mind
concerning this. The absurdity of believing that advertising tells me
what I'm to do is bullshit. At a local British style pub here in
California, the number one seller among all patrons is Bass, however,
the number one seller among the British patrons is--guess what?--Bud.
Why? Price! These guys are gathering to socialize over a beer, and
face it, after the first couple, flavor sort of falls by the wayside.
Also, on adjuncts, rice is only one of many, as you know, I'm sure. I
hear people yelling about the fucking German Purity Law--guess what?
Germany lost the war fifty years ago! I guess all the oatmeal stouts,
spiced ales, and fruit beers, especially the Belgians, would be
considered useless to all these people. There's a world of beers out
there guys, and being hung up on one type is as lame as only drinking
Budweiser. Try 'em all, drink what you like, but please, don't
proclaim so-and-so doesn't know what they are doing, so-and-so doesn't
follow the GPL, so-and-so uses rice (there are plenty of lousy beers
that don't use rice...), because it just doesn't matter.
Tony the Pig
Maloney) wrote:
>In article <4j98bv$16...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, lab...@ibm.net (Richard
>Labutis) wrote:
>
>
>> I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer according to the
>> German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try to produce a
>> consistent brew.
>
>
>What's so blinkin' sacred about the "German Purity Law"? It does not
>guarantee a high-quality beer. I've a had a few that adhered to that law
>and were pretty damned poor. Nor does not adhering to the law mean that
>the beer is inferior. Guinness (tap) and Guinness Extra Stout (bottled)
>in the USA both violate this law. Many excellent Belgian brews violate
>this law. Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout violates this law, and it's an
>excellent brew.
>
>This "purity" law has nothing at all to do with purity. It was originally
>enacted as a protectionist trade measure to keep foreign beers out of the
>region and insure that local brewers had to purchase from the local
>ruler's hops monopoly. I've heard of medieval "German Purity Laws" that
>outlawed hops! (They were "German", if not across all "Germany"--which
>didn't exist at the time, they concerned themselves with "purity" of beer,
>they were laws.)
>
>The Rhenheitsgebot is okay, but there is nothing at all sacred about it.
I can't quite understand why the original poster here "wishes" Bud
would make their beer according to the GPL. It would probably still be
shit....why not just go out and buy a beer that suits your taste to
begin with?
David Brockington
>SeaR...@Wilmington.net (SeaRobin) wrote:
[deletia]
>>Thank you for saying it before I could......If God had intended Rice
>>to be in Beer he would have put Germany in Asia.
>>Beer needs rice the way Ice Cream needs shoe polish.
>>Sea
>The Deutche Reinheitsgebot is the best thing that ever happened to
>beer. Has anyone out there ever had BBK of ParhBrau out of
>Kaiserslautern and Pirmasens in the Pfalz.. Hands down the best beer
>I've ever had.
The best thing to ever happen to beer? Nope. Sorry. Try again.
It is the best thing to ever happen to German styles of beer; no one in their
right mind would attempt to replicate a Dunkels or a Helles or a Dortmunder
or a Bock without following the purity law. However, applying the purity
law to other styles is ludicrous. Lambic, for example, would not be
able to be brewed. Rodenbach Grand Cru, an excellent beer, uses 20% corn
in the grist. Dump that beer as well.
The purity law is great, so long as its application is to appropriate
styles.
Robert J. Shea
Again, one of the reason for the Rheinheitsgebot was to protect against
the use of herbs (Kraeuter) that could prove poisionous or even
hallucinogenic.
RjShea
Uli Baecker
have to be an expert to find out that it takes far less Budweiser (US) or
equivalent to get you a good headache than ANY German beer will invoke.
Which doesn't mean there's other stuff that tastes better than some of the
not-so-famous German brews. But since I hate headaches, I sometimes just have
to drink water.
Uli
Ken E. Norian
I agree with you Tony, but getting many folks in this newsgroup to agree
with you will be tough. There is a bias toward "pure" and "high
quality" beers. If one enjoys any mass produced beers from time to
time, they are second class citizens.
I've tried the logic that I can enjoy fancy steaks and still dig a Big
Mac once in a while - but that doesn't seem to hold for expensive beers
and, say Bud.
It was stated that Bud is the
> largest selling beer in the world. Apparently they know their
> business, and know what the masses want, because there are plenty of
> other beers out there to choose from. No one tells me what I like or
> what to buy. I assume that everyone here is of the same mind
> concerning this. The absurdity of believing that advertising tells me
> what I'm to do is bullshit. At a local British style pub here in
> California, the number one seller among all patrons is Bass, however,
> the number one seller among the British patrons is--guess what?--Bud.
> Why? Price! These guys are gathering to socialize over a beer, and
> face it, after the first couple, flavor sort of falls by the wayside.
> Also, on adjuncts, rice is only one of many, as you know, I'm sure. I
> hear people yelling about the fucking German Purity Law--guess what?
> Germany lost the war fifty years ago! I guess all the oatmeal stouts,
> spiced ales, and fruit beers, especially the Belgians, would be
> considered useless to all these people. There's a world of beers out
> there guys, and being hung up on one type is as lame as only drinking
> Budweiser. Try 'em all, drink what you like, but please, don't
> proclaim so-and-so doesn't know what they are doing, so-and-so doesn't
> follow the GPL, so-and-so uses rice (there are plenty of lousy beers
> that don't use rice...), because it just doesn't matter.
--
----------==========::::::::::+::::::::::==========---------
keno...@LI.net Ken E. Norian Long Island, NY USA
http://www.li.net/~kenorian/kenshome.html
----------==========::::::::::+::::::::::==========---------
woodman
> But since I hate headaches, I sometimes just have
>to drink water.
>Uli
WATER!!??
Please use extreme caution when drinking water.
I've heard that it can cause many major health problems.
Fred Waltman
In article <8286850...@docs.demon.co.uk>,
Dirk Manuel <di...@docs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<deletia>
>Dave,
>
>Of course, you're right; things WERE more complicated than that. But
>the point is still valid. Budweiser uses rice because it is cheaper;
>if the demand for 'light' beer is there, then it is because they
>created this demand to suit their own needs. It may have happened
>slowly, or with more stealth, but it still happened; The bottom line
>is that bud use rice because it suits THEM, not the drinker.
>
<SOAPBOX ON>
I hate to keep this thread going, but a strongly disagree. Why is it so
hard for some people to admit that other people drink Bud (or Miller or
Coors or Labatts or Molson or whatever) because they *like* it.
A little economics here: If the 100+ million people who drink North
American Industrial beer really, in their heart of hearts, wanted to
drink a Robust Porter, don't you think that one of the large regional
breweries (many of whom are barely staying open) would start producing
such a beer and clean up. In fact, the opposite happened: Miller (I know
there were others before them) started producing an even Lighter
(Liter? :) ) beer and *they* cleaned up -- at least until the other
breweries got their light beers going.
I can hear the response now -- the evil Advertising forces people to
drink beer they do not like. Funny, the big three automobile makers told
people during the 70's that they really wanted big, clunky, gas guzzling
cars and what did people do? They went out and bought the small, well
built, fuel efficient cars that they wanted and GM, Ford and Chrysler
lost a bundle (and they almost lost their companies). Advertising can get
people to switch brands (but they will go back if they don't like the new
one) or get people to try a product they have never tried (but they will
not continue with the product if they don't like it). But get them to use
a product they dislike for over 50 years? I don't think so.
The only other explaination left (if you assume that people don't really
like the beer they are drinking) is that there is a cartel that is
secretly controlling all of the breweries and forcing them to make beer
that consumers don't like. A great big conspiracy to deprive the public
from drinking the beer they want. That is right up there with the UN
taking over the country, the Turner Diaries and the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion.
As for the cost argument. I will stipulate that a pound of barley malt
costs more than a pound of corn or rice (though, a year or so ago I know
of a microbrewery that was buying malt in 10K lb lots for .20/lb or so --
A-B was buying about 1,000,000 lbs a WEEK from the same malting facility
for one brewery. I imagine their costs were substantially less.) However,
the costs of raw materials are a very small percentage of the price you
pay for a beer in the store or at a bar. If there was this great pent up
demand for all malt beers that some think there is, they would justify
the penny or more so per can/bottle using all malt would add to the price.
And even if rice costs less than malt, using rice or corn in a beer can
make the process more expensive. A cereal mash (which is required for
corn and rice) is much more complicated and requires more time and
equipment to do than the simple step mash or infusion that would be done
without the adjuncts.
Just face it, some people (many people) like the taste of Bud, so the
brewery brews a beer that will sell, so they stay in business. If you
don't like Bud, no big deal: DON'T DRINK IT.
<SOAPBOX OFF>
Stephen M. Dunn
$But nobody every went broke overestimating the stupidity of
$the average American consumer. Put urine in bottles and
$advertise it on TV, and Americans will buy it.
Do keep in mind that this is not solely an American phenomenon.
There are plenty of other countries, including many where the locals
brew excellent beers, where Bud is one of the top-selling brands.
--
ste...@bokonon.ussinc.com ...!{xrtll,gts.org}!bokonon!stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Dunn, CNE, ACE, Sr. Systems Analyst, United System Solutions Inc.
104 Carnforth Road, Toronto, ON, Canada M4A 2K7 (416) 750-7946 x251
Ken Papai
>>consumption? There are a lot of "lawnmower beers" consumed while
>>watching ball games, (professional and otherwise) and there always have
>>been. How many people get their first taste of beer by sipping out of
>>Daddy's cup (or can, or bottle) at the game? When they grow up and
>>start looking for their own beers, the light lagers, with their happy
>> -- Eleanor Kennedy
>Interesting point. Didn't the SF Giants serve Anchor at Candlestick Park,
>or is that bad information? I know Fritz Maytag, on nice days, would take
>the workers out to a home game. Anyway, p'raps it would help to get
>Anchor, and some others, into the parks in this fashion.
>--Doug Hitzig, KD4WTS, sunny Cocoa Beach, Florida O-
Candlestick Park has a couple areas where you can buy a large assortment
of real beer. Lots of micros to choose from, nearly all are west coast
micros. They're definitely more than Bud or Drewery's to choose from
while you watch baseball.
It would be very interesting to hear what's going on in other parts of
N. America -- its baseball stadiums, especially the newer ones like
Camden Yards and the Ballpark at Arlington to see if any of these
places have any taste. Maybe there's some cool minor league teams
with ballparks with outstanding selections. (if they just have Sam Adams
don't bother)
--
Ken Papai, Marin County, California Habanero Hot Sauce connoisseur
kpa...@rahul.net 5+++ Support your LOCAL microbrewer
http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/ North Calif. Pubrank "FAQ" keeper
Tom Donaghue
article on just this subject about a year ago. Although I
no longer have the issue, I believe Toronto's Sky Dome
was cited as having the largest selection with Camden Yards
not far behind.
Unfortunately, to get good beer at my beloved Fenway Park (paahhk)
one must exit the hallowed field of dreams and walk across the
street to Boston Beer Works brewpub. I believe Fenway only serves
Sam Adams in the luxury boxes... certainly not in my
favorite spot--the bleachers behind the Sox bullpen.
Tom Donaghue
Dan Brown
>
>I hate to keep this thread going, but a strongly disagree. Why is it so
>hard for some people to admit that other people drink Bud (or Miller or
>Coors or Labatts or Molson or whatever) because they *like* it.
But that doesn't mean we can't attempt to encourage them to like other
things, now does it?
>A little economics here: If the 100+ million people who drink North
>American Industrial beer really, in their heart of hearts, wanted to
>drink a Robust Porter, don't you think that one of the large regional
>breweries (many of whom are barely staying open) would start producing
>such a beer and clean up.
Take a look at what the big brewers are doing...
- Plank Road brewing
- Red Dog
- Coor's new labels and 'I want a beer' ad campaign
- Miller Reserve Stout
- Buying into Celis and Red Hook
etc etc.
They're actually paying attention to the market. The _KNOW_ that the
craft brewers are taking their business and so they're fighting back.
>built, fuel efficient cars that they wanted and GM, Ford and Chrysler
>lost a bundle (and they almost lost their companies). Advertising can get
>people to switch brands (but they will go back if they don't like the new
>one) or get people to try a product they have never tried (but they will
>not continue with the product if they don't like it). But get them to use
>a product they dislike for over 50 years? I don't think so.
Until recently, how many people had ever known that other beers existed?
The only beer commercials and advertizing I knew growing up were the megas.
How was I to know (other than being lucky enough to have wise parents ;-)
that any other sort of beer existed? Had my father not taken me aside and
instilled a good dose of beer-snobery in me, I probably would have liked
one of the megas, if for no other reason than I'd probably have never
known anything else existed.
>The only other explaination left (if you assume that people don't really
>like the beer they are drinking) is that there is a cartel that is
>secretly controlling all of the breweries and forcing them to make beer
>that consumers don't like.
People like what they know. They know what they've been exposed to. If
they never get knowlege of and get exposed to anything else due to the
sheer domination of marketing forces by some big corporations, how can
you expect them to like anything else?
Conspiracy? No. Probably not. Business, yes. Entrenched business thats
marketing a product I consider substandard (though carefully manufactured
to meticulous standards) Emphatic YES!
>As for the cost argument. I will stipulate that a pound of barley malt
>costs more than a pound of corn or rice (though, a year or so ago I know
>of a microbrewery that was buying malt in 10K lb lots for .20/lb or so --
>A-B was buying about 1,000,000 lbs a WEEK from the same malting facility
>for one brewery. I imagine their costs were substantially less.) However,
>the costs of raw materials are a very small percentage of the price you
>pay for a beer in the store or at a bar. If there was this great pent up
>demand for all malt beers that some think there is, they would justify
>the penny or more so per can/bottle using all malt would add to the price.
Look at this from the other direction... why pray-tell, other than
slightly higher alcohol production and lighter colors, do the big brewers
use corn, rice, and other fillers instead of Barley? They may only be
shaving a penny off the cost of each beer, but, with the ammounts of beer
they produce, that adds up to LOTS of money. So, yes, even if they save
a very little ammount on each bottle, and even if the majority of the
cost of a beer is the marketing and taxes, hell yes they're using corn
and rice to shave the cost of their product and to raise their profit
margin.
Being a fan of Belgian beers, I'm hardly one to knock using adjuncts.
But, I'd still rather see a brewer do so in limited quantities as taste
modifiers, rather than a basis for the whole.
>And even if rice costs less than malt, using rice or corn in a beer can
>make the process more expensive. A cereal mash (which is required for
>corn and rice) is much more complicated and requires more time and
>equipment to do than the simple step mash or infusion that would be done
>without the adjuncts.
Which is of course the reason the bigger brewers use the varieties of malts
which have higher enzyme levels. They put new meaning to brewing science.
Its not an art for them. The stuff they make is engineered and
manufactured. I don't have to like that.
>Just face it, some people (many people) like the taste of Bud, so the
>brewery brews a beer that will sell, so they stay in business. If you
>don't like Bud, no big deal: DON'T DRINK IT.
I haven't for a long time, and don't plan on starting again soon. That,
however, doesn't mean that I can't try every means at my disposal to work
to convince people that they should expand their horizons and dare to try
some of the more interesting beers in the world. Some how I don't feel
guilty about the occasional smear campain or exagerated truth WRT the
practices of the megas. They certainly aren't above slandering micros, and
have a MUCH bigger advertizing budget than I do.
Later.
Dan
--
Dan Brown | System admin for the Electronic Frontier Foundation | br...@eff.org
+1 415 436 9EFF Voice || +1 415 436 9993 Fax || +1 415 605 1481 Pager
(Please leave area code _and_ phone number if you page me!)
Alan Marshall
> >>As The Season has just started, what about the effect of baseball on beer
> >>consumption? There are a lot of "lawnmower beers" consumed while
> >>watching ball games, (professional and otherwise) and there always have
> >>been. How many people get their first taste of beer by sipping out of
> >>Daddy's cup (or can, or bottle) at the game? When they grow up and
> >>start looking for their own beers, the light lagers, with their happy
> >>associations, have a big psychological advantage ...
> >> -- Eleanor Kennedy
>
> >Interesting point. Didn't the SF Giants serve Anchor at Candlestick Park,
> >or is that bad information? I know Fritz Maytag, on nice days, would take
> >the workers out to a home game. Anyway, p'raps it would help to get
> >Anchor, and some others, into the parks in this fashion.
> >--Doug Hitzig, KD4WTS, sunny Cocoa Beach, Florida O-
>
> Candlestick Park has a couple areas where you can buy a large assortment
> of real beer. Lots of micros to choose from, nearly all are west coast
> micros. They're definitely more than Bud or Drewery's to choose from
> while you watch baseball.
>
> It would be very interesting to hear what's going on in other parts of
> N. America -- its baseball stadiums, especially the newer ones like
> Camden Yards and the Ballpark at Arlington to see if any of these
> places have any taste. Maybe there's some cool minor league teams
> with ballparks with outstanding selections. (if they just have Sam Adams
> don't bother)
Well the Blue Jays are owned by Labatt. 'Nuff Said?
Actually, it is illegal not to offer a choice, so they are a few
Molson concessions. Last Yeat Labatt started offering some of their
imports as well. I'm think about taking in opening day tomorrow
(first time in Toronto Blue Jay history it isn't a sellout!) and maybe
I'll be able to update this.
Alan
-- Alan Marshall "It's a lot of work to get up in front of
AK20...@SOL.YORKU.CA a class and make it look like you know
York University everything there is to know about something
Toronto, Canada you know nothing about." Prof. Anonymous
(c) A. Marshall, All copyrights are retained by the author
Adrtan T RAy
: Actually, it is illegal not to offer a choice, so they are a few
: Molson concessions. Last Yeat Labatt started offering some of their
: imports as well. I'm think about taking in opening day tomorrow
: (first time in Toronto Blue Jay history it isn't a sellout!) and maybe
: I'll be able to update this.
: Alan
Good point Alan, but what you forgot to mention is the cool $5 they
charge for a beer at the SkyDome. Not to mention the elevated prices for
non-Labatt products. The very fact that they want me to pay 5$ for
pisswater is enough to turn me off baseball altogether. No wonder the
Jay's game wasn't a sellout.
--
---------------- "The time is gone, the song is over, -----------------
Adrian Ray
University of Guelph
email: ar...@ouguelph.ca
---------- thought I'd something more to say" -Pink Floyd -------------
llo...@gnn.com
I have yet to take a drinker of Bud (or any other of the mass
produced "beers" that have to be iced so cold as to numb the taste
buds into shock, so that the real taste of the product doesn't come
through), and introduce him or her to a decent crafted beer without
them preferring the real beer. The fact that they may continue to
drink Bud or whatever may be a matter of economics to them, but
when they visit me, I no longer have to keep something I don't care
for in the house.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for some of these beers...a
hot afternoon, after cutting the grass, when iced cold refreshment
is needed, I usually reach back to my college days and drink a
blast from the past. Sometimes Rolling Rock, sometimes Coors,
Occasionally even a National Bo'....but never Bud.
llo...@gnn.com
Coors as a test market for products for its Blue Moon label. They
serve some very good beers. Also in the club level you can get a
little more selection.
Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia has 2 microbrew stands behind the
200 level which are always packed. They are set up nicely with
large screen TVs so you don't miss the game while waiting in line.
They have a selection of about 50 or 60 beers including some
unusual ones as well as some popular microbrews. Price is not bad
either...usually around $5 for a bottle...not bad for good beer in
the ballpark. Besides you need to drink while watching the
Phillies.
Alan Marshall
As mentioned in another post, Labatt owns the 'Jays, so there beers
dominate the scene. By law, there has to be choice, so there are a
few Molson's concessions. I've taken in a couple of ballgames with
rfdb'ers visiting Toronto and none of us bothered with the beer, the
selection was so poor.
Numerically, I suspect you can find about 12 beers, but the selection
is likely Blue, Blue Light, Ice, Bud, Canadian, Golden, Moretti, some
Mexican swill.... Not a decent beer in the lot.
In my previous post on this thread, I mentioned Labatt introduced
Imported Beers. I was a little wrong. I now recall that the
"International Beers" included the brewed-under-licence beers plus a
couple of beers they do import. They included Carlsberg, Guinness
Extra Stout (both b-u-l) and Moretti, something Mexican, and maybe one
of those British ales like Boddingtons that they import.
Cheers!
Alan Marshall
> : Well the Blue Jays are owned by Labatt. 'Nuff Said?
>
> : Actually, it is illegal not to offer a choice, so they are a few
> : Molson concessions. Last Yeat Labatt started offering some of their
> : imports as well. I'm think about taking in opening day tomorrow
> : (first time in Toronto Blue Jay history it isn't a sellout!) and maybe
> : I'll be able to update this.
>
> : Alan
>
> Good point Alan, but what you forgot to mention is the cool $5 they
> charge for a beer at the SkyDome. Not to mention the elevated prices for
> non-Labatt products. The very fact that they want me to pay 5$ for
> pisswater is enough to turn me off baseball altogether. No wonder the
> Jay's game wasn't a sellout.
At the risk of getting off-topic, one of the local papers ran an
article comparing the cost of a taking in a game at various parks in
MLB. Toronto was among the cheapest.
I won't buy the Labatt or Molson equine urine either. I stick with
softdrinks and enjoy the game.
Robert J. Shea
<dona...@maine.maine.edu> writes:
>
>Actually, "All About Beer" magazine ran a fairly comprehensive
>article on just this subject about a year ago. Although I
>no longer have the issue, I believe Toronto's Sky Dome
>was cited as having the largest selection with Camden Yards
>not far behind.
>
Unless things have changed in the past few years, you can only buy two
12 oz. cups at a time for an outrageous $4.50 (1992) price. I'm sure
it's more nowadays - they've probably added another tax. I guess that's
another reason why the crowds are so mellow in TO - nobody's drinking
like they do here in St. Louis, even though the beer's no good here.
RJShea
ni...@ix.netcom.com
Bryan J. Maloney
> I can hear the response now -- the evil Advertising forces people to
> drink beer they do not like. Funny, the big three automobile makers told
Actually, this is not exactly the truth, but propaganda and ignorance are
effective. I've run into no less than seven people in the last two months
who swore up and down that they hated "dark beer" with an utter passion,
and that the only things ever worth touching were BudMilCo's piss-water.
Then I introduced them to Saranac's Chocolate, Sam Smith's varied and many
stouts, Thomas Hardy's, etc. They were utterly astounded. They actually
liked these beers. It seems they'd tried some kind of "bock" or "Mickey
Dark" gadzillion years ago and decided that the big breweries' attempts
were all there was to the market. There comes a point when your size of
market share can determine your size of market share more strongly than
the quality of your product.
Richard Labutis
>(Richard
>>>Labutis) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I wish Budweiser made beer without any rice and brew a beer
>according to the
>>>> German purity law!! No cheating and no chemical additives to try
>to produce a
>>>> consistent brew.
>>>
>>>
>>>What's so blinkin' sacred about the "German Purity Law"? It does not
>>>guarantee a high-quality beer. I've a had a few that adhered to that
>law
>>>and were pretty damned poor. Nor does not adhering to the law mean
>that
>>>the beer is inferior. Guinness (tap) and Guinness Extra Stout
>(bottled)
The only reason I mentioned the German Purity law, it that it defines a standard
on how beer should be brewed. Bud is is a lager and in my opionion, a good lager
does not use rice or chemicals to alter the taste of the beer or correct deficiencies
in the beer(eg. clarifiers,etc...) in Germany use of chemicals in beers is forbidden. It
would be nice if Bud brewed their beer at its full flavor without the rice
weakening the beer.
Or they can start a new brew that taste better than regular Bud. This would be
a better idea, it would preserve the light flavor for the people that want it and
the new brew for the people that want a fuller flavor.
Jim_...@transarc.com
with the largest selection is behind home plate, and serves Dock
Street, Stoudt's Fest, Penn Dark, and several other good beers.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Tom Bux
Stoudts, its a Micro Brew in Adamstown PA. IT is made according to
that strict German Purity law. And its damned good!
Bob McCreight
>>article on just this subject about a year ago. Although I
>>no longer have the issue, I believe Toronto's Sky Dome
>>was cited as having the largest selection with Camden Yards
>>not far behind.
>>
aint no silver bullet crap in there! During games there are also other
quality beers available. It's a great place.
The SF Giants also had a Blues & Brews event one weekend last year
where you went to the park early and sampled different micros in a big
tent with jazz bands pounding in your ears. It was great!
Fred Waltman
>In an earlier posting wal...@netcom.com (Fred Waltman) writes:
>>
>>I hate to keep this thread going, but a strongly disagree. Why is it so
>>hard for some people to admit that other people drink Bud (or Miller or
>>Coors or Labatts or Molson or whatever) because they *like* it.
>
>But that doesn't mean we can't attempt to encourage them to like other
>things, now does it?
I have no problem with trying to educate people to appreciate a wider
range of beer styles -- I do it all the time. My objection is to the tone
that some here take -- that they are somehow morally superior to people
who happen to like beers like Bud. I also object to the other crowd who
claim that people who like Bud don't exist -- they just drink it because
some evil advertiser has washed their brain.
>
>>A little economics here: If the 100+ million people who drink North
>>American Industrial beer really, in their heart of hearts, wanted to
>>drink a Robust Porter, don't you think that one of the large regional
>>breweries (many of whom are barely staying open) would start producing
>>such a beer and clean up.
>
>Take a look at what the big brewers are doing...
>
>- Plank Road brewing
>- Red Dog
>- Coor's new labels and 'I want a beer' ad campaign
>- Miller Reserve Stout
>- Buying into Celis and Red Hook
>
>etc etc.
>
>They're actually paying attention to the market. The _KNOW_ that the
>craft brewers are taking their business and so they're fighting back.
I think this can be argued both ways: I have no doubt that beer tastes
are changing with many people. The points listed above show that large
breweries are responding to people's changing tastes. If breweries
respond to peoples tastes, why could they not have earlier responding to
a desire for light bodied, very pale lagers by using more adjuncts.
As for taking away business -- remember that the "craft brewing" segment
of the market is still smaller than the "Dry beer" market. Part of what
you are seeing is a scramble for market share in a mature industry. Next
time you're in the supermarket check out the laundry detergent isle.
There usually is a whole isle, with dozens of brands. If you read the
side of the box, you'll see that a sizable chunk are made by Protor and
Gamble, with the bulk of the balance made by a couple of other companies
(UniLever, Colgate). A new brand comes out -- if it steals some sales
away from the competition it stays around. Otherwise, it disappears. Much
the same is happening with beer. "Craft brewed" beers are trendy with
certain market segments and large breweries want to get a piece of that
action.
I have heard people say things like: "I like Plank Road beers -- finally
they came out with a microbrew that I can drink."
>>built, fuel efficient cars that they wanted and GM, Ford and Chrysler
>>lost a bundle (and they almost lost their companies). Advertising can get
>>people to switch brands (but they will go back if they don't like the new
>>one) or get people to try a product they have never tried (but they will
>>not continue with the product if they don't like it). But get them to use
>>a product they dislike for over 50 years? I don't think so.
>
>Until recently, how many people had ever known that other beers existed?
>The only beer commercials and advertizing I knew growing up were the megas.
>How was I to know (other than being lucky enough to have wise parents ;-)
>that any other sort of beer existed? Had my father not taken me aside and
>instilled a good dose of beer-snobery in me, I probably would have liked
>one of the megas, if for no other reason than I'd probably have never
>known anything else existed.
What about people who have tried craft beers but still prefer the megas?
>People like what they know. They know what they've been exposed to. If
>they never get knowlege of and get exposed to anything else due to the
>sheer domination of marketing forces by some big corporations, how can
>you expect them to like anything else?
And we know better what they "should" like? I am always nervous when
people tell me what I "should" do for my own good.
>
>Conspiracy? No. Probably not. Business, yes. Entrenched business thats
>marketing a product I consider substandard (though carefully manufactured
>to meticulous standards) Emphatic YES!
>
It is substandard because you do not like it?
>>As for the cost argument. I will stipulate that a pound of barley malt
>>costs more than a pound of corn or rice (though, a year or so ago I know
>>of a microbrewery that was buying malt in 10K lb lots for .20/lb or so --
>>A-B was buying about 1,000,000 lbs a WEEK from the same malting facility
>>for one brewery. I imagine their costs were substantially less.) However,
>>the costs of raw materials are a very small percentage of the price you
>>pay for a beer in the store or at a bar. If there was this great pent up
>>demand for all malt beers that some think there is, they would justify
>>the penny or more so per can/bottle using all malt would add to the price.
>
>Look at this from the other direction... why pray-tell, other than
>slightly higher alcohol production and lighter colors, do the big brewers
>use corn, rice, and other fillers instead of Barley?
Because consumers liked then end result, that is why.
They may only be
>shaving a penny off the cost of each beer, but, with the ammounts of beer
>they produce, that adds up to LOTS of money. So, yes, even if they save
>a very little ammount on each bottle, and even if the majority of the
>cost of a beer is the marketing and taxes, hell yes they're using corn
>and rice to shave the cost of their product and to raise their profit
>margin.
>
>Being a fan of Belgian beers, I'm hardly one to knock using adjuncts.
>But, I'd still rather see a brewer do so in limited quantities as taste
>modifiers, rather than a basis for the whole.
I brewed a beer yesterday that contained 50% unmalted grains. By your
logic it is a substandard beer, because I used a cheap ingredient. I must
of only done so far cost reasons, I could not have done it because I
liked the way the adjunct changed the flavor. It was wit beer.
>
>>And even if rice costs less than malt, using rice or corn in a beer can
>>make the process more expensive. A cereal mash (which is required for
>>corn and rice) is much more complicated and requires more time and
>>equipment to do than the simple step mash or infusion that would be done
>>without the adjuncts.
>
>Which is of course the reason the bigger brewers use the varieties of malts
>which have higher enzyme levels. They put new meaning to brewing science.
>Its not an art for them. The stuff they make is engineered and
>manufactured. I don't have to like that.
I'm not asking that you like it. I think that you should drink the beer
that you like. I think that EVERYBODY should drink the beer they like,
even if somebody else does not like it.
And North American breweries have *historically* used 6-row barley
strains. The use of adjuncts is an *effect* of 6-row malt, not the *cause*.
Danny Marquardt
sight. Though I'll bet a dollar you'll find a Saki place when Nomo is
pitching.
The best I've seen was at a minor league park near riverside that sold just
microbrewed beer. It was for the San Bernadino Spirit's. I believe that the
riverside beer won a few medals in the beer fest the past two years.
I know this a different note but games at the L.A. sports arena(Clippers)
sell good beer cheap ($4). The team blows though. The Lakers rip off people
so I just bring in a flask.
Danny Marquardt
Fred Waltman
>I love yuengling. Thats pretty good. IF you want REALLY good beer, try
>Stoudts, its a Micro Brew in Adamstown PA. IT is made according to
>that strict German Purity law. And its damned good!
Some of their beers, maybe, but I would guess not all. I remember their
Stout as having a nice roasty dry finish -- if they used roasted barley,
it is not made according to the Purity Law.
BTW, a sign at how well regarded they are by the brewing industry, I wore
my Stoudts sweater at the GABF a couple years ago and got treated like
royalty by many brewers in the booths -- they thought I worked for Stoudts!
Bob Dinan
>
>It would be very interesting to hear what's going on in other parts of
>N. America -- its baseball stadiums, especially the newer ones like
>Camden Yards and the Ballpark at Arlington to see if any of these
>places have any taste. Maybe there's some cool minor league teams
>with ballparks with outstanding selections. (if they just have Sam Adams
>don't bother)
>Ken Papai, Marin County, California Habanero Hot Sauce connoisseur
>kpa...@rahul.net 5+++ Support your LOCAL microbrewer
>http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/ North Calif. Pubrank "FAQ" keeper
Here in Burlington Vermont we have the Vermont Expos. Last year I believe you
could get Magic Hat, Catamount and then some swill. Both Magic Hat and
Catamount are local by the way. The prices aren't much higher either.
ob
---
Custer wore arrow shirts.
Kirk E Nelson
: It would be very interesting to hear what's going on in other parts of
: N. America -- its baseball stadiums, especially the newer ones like
: Camden Yards and the Ballpark at Arlington to see if any of these
: places have any taste. Maybe there's some cool minor league teams
: with ballparks with outstanding selections. (if they just have Sam Adams
: don't bother)
Apparently they serve a special beer from Crooked River Brewing at
Jacobs Field in Cleveland. The beer is called "Ballpark Ale" or
something like that. I was at a game last year, though, and couldn't
find the stuff for the life of me. Off topic, but did anyone else
hear that the Indians are going to move back to the old stadium next
year because of ticket demand? This must have been an April Fools
joke!?
The new minor league stadium in town here (Lansing, MI) at first glance
only appear to sell swill, but I haven't researched too closely yet.
I was at the opener, and with temperatures below freezing, I just didn't
think a cold beer would hit the spot!
Kirk Nelson
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Nelson Email: nel...@egr.msu.edu
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Phone: (517)353-9953
Michigan State University or (517)353-7200
Tom Servo
Kingdome offers access to some of the mainstream, but decent, local
brews such as Red Hook, Full Sail, and Pyramid. But you gotta know
which stands to go to, or be lucky enough that the walkaround guys
pass by your section! The regular stands seem to have Miller(bleah) or
Henry's Special Export (almost bleah, but not quite)
Mark Stevens
: It would be very interesting to hear what's going on in other parts of
: N. America -- its baseball stadiums, especially the newer ones like
: Camden Yards and the Ballpark at Arlington to see if any of these
: places have any taste. Maybe there's some cool minor league teams
: with ballparks with outstanding selections. (if they just have Sam Adams
: don't bother)
The guy who runs the good beer concession at Camden Yards has a web page
up in which he has links to stand locations and lists of beers on tap at
each stand:
http://www.mdmicrobrews.com
Unfortunately (IMHO) his stands are the mobile type---none of the
big built-in stands have good beer---you sort of need to know where
to go to find a decent brew.
On the minor league side of things around here, we're in a bit better
shape. We've got 4 minor league parks in Maryland: Bowie Baysox,
Frederick Keys, Hagerstown Suns, and Salisbury Shorebirds. Bowie
has two stands (both real live built-in) that have microbrews.
Frederick has two stands with microbrews, one at each end of the
concourse. Hagerstown is a Toronto Blue Jays club and they serve
Labatts---no microbrews. Haven't ventured out to Salisbury yet,
but it's an Orioles affiliate and I'll wager money that they have
at least Wild Goose on tap. Also, the Frederick Keys have a couple
of beer tasting dinners scheduled before certain games. Don't recall
the dates off hand, but one pairs up courses with various Sam Adams
beers, and the other features Blue Ridge beers.
Cheers!
---Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ste...@charm.net Mark Stevens, Baltimore Maryland
Brewery info server for homebrewers: <URL:http://alpha.rollanet.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryon Lape
>
>
>Take a look at what the big brewers are doing...
Ok, lets...
>- Plank Road brewing
Fake micro, really just Miller crap.
>- Red Dog
Again a Mega in disguise (Miller again?)
>- Coor's new labels and 'I want a beer' ad campaign
Yellow Rocky Mountain Water in a new bottle is still just that.
>- Miller Reserve Stout
and Amber Ale.
Three cheers. Best mega-brewed beer I've ever had. Just wish the
bottles were not screw top so I could re-use them for my homebrew.
>- Buying into Celis and Red Hook
We do not get either yet, but Red Hook is coming. I cannot wait to
try their Double Stout. And this 'buying into' is mainly for distribution.
>etc etc.
Renaming old beers, doing stuff like "double hopped" and "ice
brewed", both of which are just marketing.
>They're actually paying attention to the market. The _KNOW_ that the
>craft brewers are taking their business and so they're fighting back.
If they KNOW it, they're not doing a good job of 'fighting'.
bryon
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it worse to post text to a binary group or post a binary in 300 parts to
a text group?
Bryon Lape
email: bl...@utk.edu WWW:http://aztec.lib.utk.edu/~bryon
Bryon Lape
came prohibition and that knocked some out. Then came WW II and rationing,
that knocked more. During prohibition and WW II, corn and rice were used for
various reasons. Over time what was left was weak, bitter, watery beer.
Now, people 'except' beer to be that way. Why Budweiser won out is just luck
and history. Look at Microsoft. Why did DOS win? Ok, it was better than
CP/M and IBM needed an OS. There was PC-DOS and MS-DOS at one time. Anyone
remember DR. DOS? Now we have WIndows. Similar story here.....
APAR...@maine.maine.edu
d by the Florida Marlins). They serve Geary's pale ale, a quality micro produc
t brewed right around the corner. I cant remember the price, but it wasn't che
ap.
Aaron
Dan Brown
>In article <4kccj5$7...@eff.org>, br...@eff.org says...
>>
>>
>
>
>>- Plank Road brewing
>
> Fake micro, really just Miller crap.
I didn't know this. Wow. ;-)
>>- Red Dog
>
> Again a Mega in disguise (Miller again?)
Really? Gee.
>>- Coor's new labels and 'I want a beer' ad campaign
>
> Yellow Rocky Mountain Water in a new bottle is still just that.
Yep. Same with the latest from Miller which reportedly uses the "Heart
of the Hop."
At least they're pandering to more educated beer drinkers rather than just
playing the tiresome sex and good times ads. The more educated people are
about the beer they drink, the better beers we'll all be getting, in my
opinion. If classic economics holds true, supply will meet demand. Learn
what better beer is and be able to demand better beer.
>>- Miller Reserve Stout
> and Amber Ale.
>
> Three cheers. Best mega-brewed beer I've ever had. Just wish the
>bottles were not screw top so I could re-use them for my homebrew.
It really isn't nearly as disgusting as most. It could still use improvement,
but is a step in the right direction.
>>- Buying into Celis and Red Hook
>
> We do not get either yet, but Red Hook is coming. I cannot wait to
>try their Double Stout. And this 'buying into' is mainly for distribution.
Yes, it helps with distribution, which is good for us, but, it is always
going to be about economics... the big guys want a peice of the pie, or
want to protect the peices they already have. So, they may not have
controlling interests now (ya right... control distribution and you
have a brewery by its balls...) but they could in the future.
>>etc etc.
>
> Renaming old beers, doing stuff like "double hopped" and "ice
>brewed", both of which are just marketing.
Yep. It uses up available shelf space and pushes other brews out.
>>They're actually paying attention to the market. The _KNOW_ that the
>>craft brewers are taking their business and so they're fighting back.
>
> If they KNOW it, they're not doing a good job of 'fighting'.
They're 'fighting' by diversifiying their product lines and buying into
the success of the smaller guys. They want to maintain control. Lets not
let them. :-)
MK Linge
>: {snips}
>: .... Maybe there's some cool minor league teams
>: don't bother)
When my husband and daughter and I went on a minor-league tear last summer,
we we thrilled (well, the baby didn't much care) to find that lots of the
parks were making a real point of featuring local brewers' stuff -- usually
more than one variety, to boot, and sold from the main concessions, not
just some out-of-the-way specialty stand. Anyway, these were especially
memorable:
Winston-Salem (NC) Warthogs and Red Oak
New Haven (CT) Ravens and Elm City
Carolina Mudcats and the Weeping Radish (I think)
Frederick (MD) Keys and Blue Ridge
All of it fresh and fabulous.
Having just paid $5 for a New Amsterdam at Shea Stadium on opening day
(sold from a "Beers Of The World" stand that mostly stocked Coors Extra
Gold -- go figure), and Coors Field's brewpub notwithstanding, I think the
minor-league teams beat the majors hands down as far as beer is concerned.
Mary Kay
(a fan of beer, baseball, babies, and books, not always in that order)
Jeff Frane
> Basically it is like this. At one time there were many brewers, then
>came prohibition and that knocked some out. Then came WW II and rationing,
>that knocked more. During prohibition and WW II, corn and rice were used for
>various reasons. Over time what was left was weak, bitter, watery beer.
>Now, people 'except' beer to be that way. Why Budweiser won out is just luck
>and history. Look at Microsoft. Why did DOS win? Ok, it was better than
>CP/M and IBM needed an OS. There was PC-DOS and MS-DOS at one time. Anyone
>remember DR. DOS? Now we have WIndows. Similar story here.....
Except that corn has been a standard ingredient in US beers from well
before WWII, well before Prohibition, for that matter.
I'm interested to hear a theory that rationing had an effect on
American breweries--first I'd heard that, and it doesn't fit with
anything else I've read.
It's true that Prohibition closed a lot of breweries, but those that
survived weren't knocked out by WWII, but by the expansion of some
breweries into regional and then national markets (lots of advertising
dollars!). As the breweries expanded, they bought out local breweries
and either closed them down, eliminated their local brands, moved the
production to other cities, or changed the local beer to something
unrecognizable (and identical to their product being brewed
elsewhere).
Budweiser didn't win by "luck", A-B won because they had the strategy,
the resources, and face it, they had a beer that people apparently
like to drink.
All those millions of people out there drinking Bud aren't just
drinking it because they don't know any better -- they're drinking it
because they choose to. They like it. I know it seems unreasonable,
but it's true.
--Jeff Frane
MK
(BPGriffin) wrote:
> From: bl...@utk.edu (Bryon Lape):
>
> >In article <8284589...@docs.demon.co.uk>, di...@docs.demon.co.uk
> >says...
> >>
> >>> If someone
> >>stands up and says "THIS is the real thing; it's DAMN GOOD and YOU
> >>WANT IT!" often enough, most people will start believing it.
> >>
>
> > I think you are correct here. This is proven by what happened in
> the
> >1992 elections here.
>
> Ah, you meant the _1980_ elections, didn't you?
>
> Sorry about the politics, fellow beer-lovers, but couldn't let that pass!
>
> Back on topic, I sometimes wonder if Bud's use of rice contributes
> to its unique ability to induce almost instant headaches?
>
>
this phenomenon known as "the big lie" occurs in every election year.
physicists, geologists, and astronomers are unable to explain this freak
of nature.
on to beer...
rice may not cause headaches. i've heard alot about B vitamins being
important in avoiding nasty side effects(especially headaches) from mass
consumption and unpasturized beer has yeast that has b vitamins.
pastuerization, in addition to killing yeast cells, degrade some b
vitamins. this may be the reason why bud hurts your head.
micron
Lewis Bryson
SNIP
>
>I'm interested to hear a theory that rationing had an effect on
>American breweries--first I'd heard that, and it doesn't fit with
>anything else I've read.
Wasn't rationing per se. It was a matter of agricultural resources being
used for war-essential crops. Unless you were a brewer with a gov't
contract for brewing beer for the armed forces, it was DAMNED hard to get
hops. Only the biggest brewers got the gov't contracts, because the
contracts were really big. F.X. Matt told me stories of going out with
his father on Sundays during the war, pleading with farmers to grow hops
on the edges of their fields.
I'd actually like to know just what you HAVE read on brewing in this era:
Information on the brewing industry between Repeal and 1980 is damn
scarce, and I would love to get some sources of information.
>It's true that Prohibition closed a lot of breweries, but those that
>survived weren't knocked out by WWII, but by the expansion of some
>breweries into regional and then national markets (lots of advertising
>dollars!). As the breweries expanded, they bought out local breweries
>and either closed them down, eliminated their local brands, moved the
>production to other cities, or changed the local beer to something
>unrecognizable (and identical to their product being brewed
>elsewhere).
Those that survived Prohibition were not the only ones that opened in the
30's. Plenty of quick-buck artists opened breweries. Those which were
adequately capitalized and had a decent beer survived. Those which were
not, did not. Same thing has been happening in the microbrew phenomenon.
>Budweiser didn't win by "luck", A-B won because they had the strategy,
>the resources, and face it, they had a beer that people apparently
>like to drink.
Aboslutely correct. Luck was not a large factor.
>All those millions of people out there drinking Bud aren't just
>drinking it because they don't know any better -- they're drinking it
>because they choose to. They like it. I know it seems unreasonable,
>but it's true.
I would disagree that all the people drinking Bud aren't just drinking it
because they don't know any better. Too many of the micro-lovers I know
started out as Bud/Miller/Coors drinkers. Then they tried real beer, and
dripped Bud like a bad habit (wonderfully apt phrase). I won't start up
the "Do they really like it, or have they been brainwashed by advertising?
" argument again.
Lew Bryson
SMS...@prodigy.com
"Do the best thing you can for your beer -- drink it."
Alan Brown
: It would be very interesting to hear what's going on in other parts of
: N. America -- its baseball stadiums, especially the newer ones like
: Camden Yards and the Ballpark at Arlington to see if any of these
: with ballparks with outstanding selections. (if they just have Sam Adams
: don't bother)
If you visit the SkyDome to watch the Toronto Blue Jays, do NOT drink the
beer. Since the team is owned by Labbatt's, naturally the only beer (using
the term very loosely) on tap is Labbatt's Blue Light. It is a scurrilous
rumour that this already tasteless "beer" has been watered down even
further to prevent fans from running amok in the stands. To make matters
even worse, beer is not sold in the stands--one must trek to a beer
stand and miss three innings waiting in line. Save yourself the trip,
stay home and watch the game on tv. The stadium seats are too
uncomfortable anyways.
Alan Brown
ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
--
Ken E. Norian
> Budweiser didn't win by "luck", A-B won because they had the strategy,
> the resources, and face it, they had a beer that people apparently
> like to drink.
>
> All those millions of people out there drinking Bud aren't just
> drinking it because they don't know any better -- they're drinking it
> because they choose to. They like it. I know it seems unreasonable,
> but it's true.
A fact that afficionados of rich tasting beers struggle to appreciate.
Yes, Bud et.al. don't have any where near the taste of other brews.
But, neither does frozen yogurt have the taste or richness of, say Hagen
Daz ice cream. Each, however, has people who will only enjoy one or the
other - and some people who like both.
--
----------==========::::::::::+::::::::::==========---------
keno...@LI.net Ken E. Norian Long Island, NY USA
http://www.li.net/~kenorian/kenshome.html
----------==========::::::::::+::::::::::==========---------
J. Edward Lewis
>In <4kb7hf$5...@samba.rahul.net> Ken writes:
>> >>As The Season has just started, what about the effect of baseball on beer
>> >>consumption? There are a lot of "lawnmower beers" consumed while
>> >>watching ball games, (professional and otherwise) and there always have
>> >>been. How many people get their first taste of beer by sipping out of
>> >>Daddy's cup (or can, or bottle) at the game? When they grow up and
>> >>start looking for their own beers, the light lagers, with their happy
>> >>associations, have a big psychological advantage ...
>> >>
Last night I went to a Reds game and was surprised to find that along
with the expected Budweiser, Coors, and Miller beers which have always
been available the consessioners were also selling Rolling Rock. While
it's not my favorite I'll take it before Bud.
I noticed people carrying in clear plastic cups which appeared to
contain a darker beer that they had purchased from a bar on premises,
but since I was there to watch a game I only bought the R.R. that was
brought right down my row.
Jason
P.S. Reds lost to the Astros in the 10th.:(
Joel_Plutchak
>Jeff Frane wrote:
>> Budweiser didn't win by "luck", A-B won because they had the strategy,
>> the resources, and face it, they had a beer that people apparently
>> like to drink.
>>
>> All those millions of people out there drinking Bud aren't just
>> drinking it because they don't know any better -- they're drinking it
>> because they choose to. They like it. I know it seems unreasonable,
>> but it's true.
>
>A fact that afficionados of rich tasting beers struggle to appreciate.
>Yes, Bud et.al. don't have any where near the taste of other brews.
>But, neither does frozen yogurt have the taste or richness of, say Hagen
>Daz ice cream. Each, however, has people who will only enjoy one or the
>other - and some people who like both.
So what you're saying is that frozen yogurt is not ice cream and
Budweiser is not beer? ;-)
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Alan Marshall
As I already posted, there are Molson concessions (required by law)
and Labatt-affiliated imports and b-u-l's. While I don't drink the
beer at the games, I could have sworn I saw vendors selling beer in
the stands.
Alan
-- Alan Marshall "It's a lot of work to get up in front of
AK20...@SOL.YORKU.CA a class and make it look like you know
York University everything there is to know about something
Toronto, Canada you know nothing about." Prof. Anonymous
(c) A. Marshall, All copyrights are retained by the author
Kevman
call it "3Com") having some good micros on hand. In specific, I know
that there are a couple of Gordon Bierch's offerings. Oakland has
some as well (Sierra Nevada, Pete's, etc).
--Kev
Kirk E Nelson
: Last night I went to a Reds game and was surprised to find that along
: with the expected Budweiser, Coors, and Miller beers which have always
: been available the consessioners were also selling Rolling Rock. While
: it's not my favorite I'll take it before Bud.
: I noticed people carrying in clear plastic cups which appeared to
: contain a darker beer that they had purchased from a bar on premises,
: but since I was there to watch a game I only bought the R.R. that was
: brought right down my row.
: Jason
Hudepohl products are also readily available. The most interesting thing
about beer at Riverfront is the concessioners actually lug around two
cases of bottles! If you want a beer they open a bottle and pour it into
a glass. At least they did about two years ago, the last time I caught
a game there.
How's that for an aerobic workout!
Alan Brown
: >
: > If you visit the SkyDome to watch the Toronto Blue Jays, do NOT drink the
: > the term very loosely) on tap is Labbatt's Blue Light. It is a scurrilous
: > rumour that this already tasteless "beer" has been watered down even
: > further to prevent fans from running amok in the stands. To make matters
: > even worse, beer is not sold in the stands--one must trek to a beer
: > stand and miss three innings waiting in line. Save yourself the trip,
: > stay home and watch the game on tv. The stadium seats are too
: > uncomfortable anyways.
: As I already posted, there are Molson concessions (required by law)
: and Labatt-affiliated imports and b-u-l's. While I don't drink the
: beer at the games, I could have sworn I saw vendors selling beer in
: the stands.
Unless ballpark policy has changed since last year (I haven't been to a
ball game this year yet), beer is not sold in the stands, only at
concessions. Limit is two cups per person. This is the "concession"
(sorry) that was made to Ontario's Methodist sensibilities when Toronto
became the last major league ballpark to allow beer sales. Although
other mainstream products are available (i.e. Molson), concessions
selling them are few and far between; unless
you want to spend several innings hunting for a concession stand selling
them, your only real choice is Labbatt's Blue Light.
Alan
ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
--
Bryon Lape
says...
> So what you're saying is that frozen yogurt is not ice cream and
>Budweiser is not beer? ;-)
Correct of both accounts. I prefer good ice cream and good beer.
Leave the rest to the 'calorie counters'.
bryon
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM translation of ad: We put in daytime driving lights because we need a
gimmick to get sell cars since we cannot build better ones.
Mordred200
<APAR...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>Up here in Maine there is a minor league team called The Portland Sea
>Dogs(owned by the Florida Marlins). They serve Geary's pale ale, a
quality micro
>product brewed right around the corner. I cant remember the price, but
it wasn't
>cheap.
Near me is Space Coast Stadium, spring home of the Marlins and regular
season home to the Brevard County Manatees. They sell the usual swill
plus a few imports, nothing special. I envy you for the Geary's--wish
their owners would pay attention!
--Doug Hitzig, KD4WTS, sunny Cocoa Beach, Fla. O-
--Doug Hitzig, KD4WTS, sunny Cocoa Beach, Florida O-