Process vs Ingredients

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

catdaddy66

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
2,105
Location
Lugoff
American breweries were all cutting corners decades ago on ingredient quality in order to maximize profits. This ruined once proud companies like Schlitz and Strohs...

Fast forward to the 21st century and the microbrew boom. These companies obviously began because they wanted to make high quality products the opposite of Coors/Bud/Miller. They also are very knowledgable regarding their craft and process.

Why then is there such a disparity in quality and taste in these smaller brewers? I would think that most would be putting out better beers but sadly a lot are not. Just wondering...
 
It ultimately depends on the knowledge & skill of the brewer,compounded by what the public may think tastes good.
 
unionrdr said:
It ultimately depends on the knowledge & skill of the brewer,compounded by what the public may think tastes good.

Agreed that the public, by and large, have blander palates than homebrewers and will like many subpar products (is my beer snob showing?), but even then some of these beers are good for cooking only IMO!
 
I think the premise is false. First, schlitz and strohs never made good beer. It might have been slightly better tasting than bud, but that isn't saying much. After that, I don't think it is fair to say they "cut corners on ingredient quality". They were just emulating brands that were kicking their butts in terms of sales. Coors, Bud and Miller are brewed to exacting standards that are incredibly impressive from a brewing standpoint. I don't really care for the taste, but the standards it takes to brew a completely flawless beer identically over billions of cans is pretty amazing.

As for why are some micro-brews subpar...... that is just the way life goes. You may as well ask why every restaurant doesn't just make incredible burgers. I mean, they are all professionals right? The reality is that some will be great, some will be OK, and some will be piss poor. (Ironically, the piss poor ones seem to sell the best.)
 
I wonder what you mean by "better beers." That will largely depend on your personal taste.

I think that one of the big factors is that many of the new breweries are trying to stake out a niche position with "unique" beers. After the first wave of microbreweries opened, the newer entrants had to provide a reason other than using quality ingredients why investors should invest in them. Are you going to be able to compete with Guinness with a stout? Probably not because most bars will have 1 stout on tap and it is going to be Guinness. Same goes with Pale Ales. Investors would be justifiably leery if your business proposition was that you intended to compete with SN and the other established great pale ales head on; you would be lucky to get a spot on a rotating basis at most bars.

The result is that to get investors, new breweries have to find a hook. In bigger metro areas -- e.g., DC where I live -- some breweries are able to stake out a claim by being the "local" brewer who makes a great pale ale or stout. If brewers don't have that hook, they likely have to use the idea that they are going to offer a different kind of beer to the market. The result is lots and lots of beers that the vast majority of beer drinkers (even beer aficionados) will not enjoy.
 
billl said:
I think the premise is false. First, schlitz and strohs never made good beer. It might have been slightly better tasting than bud, but that isn't saying much. After that, I don't think it is fair to say they "cut corners on ingredient quality". They were just emulating brands that were kicking their butts in terms of sales. Coors, Bud and Miller are brewed to exacting standards that are incredibly impressive from a brewing standpoint. I don't really care for the taste, but the standards it takes to brew a completely flawless beer identically over billions of cans is pretty amazing.

As for why are some micro-brews subpar...... that is just the way life goes. You may as well ask why every restaurant doesn't just make incredible burgers. I mean, they are all professionals right? The reality is that some will be great, some will be OK, and some will be piss poor. (Ironically, the piss poor ones seem to sell the best.)

While I agree that they were never "good" beers, several million people liked them like tens of millions like Coors/Bud/Miller now. I am certainly not one that like them. But, those two breweries most certainly DID use cheaper grains and adjuncts, shortened fermentation and shipped greener beers. It is a big reason they are a speck in the market share compared to what they once were. There are many other reasons that happened but I digress...

Taste is a personal preference but quality is more standardized by variables other than (but including) taste. I just wonder why poorer quality microbrews exist as it seems oxymoronic to me.
 
While I agree that they were never "good" beers, several million people liked them like tens of millions like Coors/Bud/Miller now. I am certainly not one that like them. But, those two breweries most certainly DID use cheaper grains and adjuncts, shortened fermentation and shipped greener beers. It is a big reason they are a speck in the market share compared to what they once were. There are many other reasons that happened but I digress...

Taste is a personal preference but quality is more standardized by variables other than (but including) taste. I just wonder why poorer quality microbrews exist as it seems oxymoronic to me.

Might want to look into how and why the likes of BMC became the big name in brewing and the accepted standard in the US.

It mostly came abut during WWII when they tailored the beer to sell to housewives who were entering the workforce while most the men of drinking age were gone to war. When they returned the women who did the shopping stocked the house with the beer they liked and the men became accustomed to it.
 
Might want to look into how and why the likes of BMC became the big name in brewing and the accepted standard in the US.

It mostly came abut during WWII when they tailored the beer to sell to housewives who were entering the workforce while most the men of drinking age were gone to war. When they returned the women who did the shopping stocked the house with the beer they liked and the men became accustomed to it.

Actually it came earlier than that....

catdaddy66, sounds like you're another zealot/beersnob. Just because you don't like it, or think you have better tastes than the average beer drinker, BMC is exactly what people seem to want.

Or ELSE they wouldn't be doing it, would they?

America like most of the world had quite an extensive array of beers available prior to the German Invasion of brewer's which later introduced the light lager. They pretty much had the "brewing culture" of all the countries that people immigrated from...Most English beer styles..you know Porters, Stouts, Partigyles, stuff like that. As well as mostly heavy German Styles of beer. Not to mention people from Scotland, Ireland, Russia and other places where beer was drank.

Remember up until then, beer was food.

In fact thew whole history of the light lager is the American populace's (not the brewer's) desire to have a lighter beer to drink, which forced the German brewers to look at adding adjuncts like corn and rice...not as the popular homebrewer's myth has been to make money by peddling and "inferior commercial product" by adding adjuncts, but in order to come up with a style of beer that the American people wanted.

Maureen Ogle proved that in Ambitious Brew it actually made the cost of a bottle of Budweiser cost around 17.00/bottle in today's dollars. Gee I've paid 17 dollars for a bomber of beer before...not too much difference there, eh?

Ambitious brew is much more historically accurate than that silly beer wars beersnob propaganda. I encourage folks to read it and learn a little more about the truth.

When AH released Budweiser with it's corn and rice adjuncts in the 1860's it was the most expensive beer out there; a single bottle retailed for $1.00 (what would equal in today's Dollars for $17.00) this was quite difference when a schooner of beer usually cost a nickel.

This is the part that blows the "cost cutting" argument out of the water. In order to use those adjuncts you have to process them separately from the rest of the mash, and then add it to the mash. You either have to do a cereal mash to pr-gelatinize them or you have to roll them with heat to make them flaked...either way, besides the labor and energy involved to grow and harvest those plants, you expend labor and energy to make them usuable. You have to boil them in a cereal mash. That's another couple hours of labor and energy involved in the cost of the product. Same with making the HFCS ad rice syrup solids they use today....It still has to be processed before it makes it to the beer.

It wasn't done to save money, it was done because heavy beers (both english style Ales and the heavier Bavarian malty beers) were not being drunk by American consumers any more. Beer initally was seen around the world as food (some even called it liquid bread), but since America, even in the 1800's was a prosperous nation compared to the rest of the world, and americans ate meat with nearly every meal, heavy beers had fallen out of favor...


And American 6-row Barley just made for heavy, hazy beer.

The American populace ate it up!

The market WAS in a sense, craving light lagers...The German brewers didn't want to make the switch. They were perfectly happy with their bocks and all those other great heavy German Beers. But the rest of us weren't into it.

So, what, they were just supposed to claim superiority by sticking to those styles until they went out of business? It wasn't until after the second world war, when GI had returned from eating the foods of the world that "gourmet culture" as we know it began......There wasn't really a "craft anything" market yet.


Bush and other German Brewers started looking at other styles of Beers, and came upon Karl Balling and Anton Schwartz's work at the Prague Polytechnic Institute with the Brewers in Bohemia who when faced with a grain shortage started using adjuncts, which produced the pils which was light, sparkly and fruity tasting...just the thing for American tastebuds.

So the brewers brought Schwartz to America where he went to work for American Brewer Magazine writing articles and technical monographs, teaching American brewers how to use Rice and Corn...

The sad moral of the story is....The big corporate brewers did not foist tasteless adjunct laced fizzy water on us, like the popular mythology all of us beersnobs like to take to bed with us to feel all warm and elitist....it was done because our American ancestors wanted it.

Blame your grandfather for having "lousy" taste in beer, NOT the brewers themselves. Like everything in business, they had to change or die.

Maureen Ogle's book Ambitious Brew is the best and most historically accurate of American Beer History books out there. I can't recommend it enough.

It a dose of reality. I used to believe the same stuff you all did until I read it. It's kinda humbling to realize we're NOT "the pawns of an evil corporate empire" after all.

ambitious-brew-the-story-of-american-beer-20802185.jpeg


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0151010129/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Her blog archive has a lot of material covering the imbev takeover or Anheiseur Bush as well as stuff that didin't make it into here original book, so I encourage you to dig through that as well.


http://maureenogle.com/blog/

It clears up a lot of stuff like this, and busts a ton of myths like this one.


Listen to this from Basic Brewing;

November 30, 2006 - Ambitious Brew Part One
We learn about the history of beer in the USA from Maureen Ogle, author of "Ambitious Brew - The Story of American Beer." Part one takes us from the Pilgrims to Prohibition.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr11-30-06.mp3

December 7, 2006 - Ambitious Brew Part Two
We continue our discussion about the history of beer in the USA with Maureen Ogle, author of "Ambitious Brew - The Story of American Beer." Part two takes us from Prohibition to the present day.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr12-07-06.mp3

That's why I find the arguments the "bud basher's" like to use so amusing...It's so historically inaccurate. It really is our ancestor's "fault" that BL is the most popular beer in the world.

Go ask your grampa why he didn't choose a nice Stout or an IPA. (But if stouts, or IPAs were the biggest sellers on the planet today, you bet your bippie that beersnobs would be railing against those beers instead. ;))

And they had choices back then as well. They didn't HAVE to drink that style, they chose too. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fascinating info Revvy and I am off to locate that book, the history of beer fascinates me a bit so this sounds like an excellent read.
 
Very informative post Revvy!

It is true that once the German lager took hold the big companies consolidated and started making their way to the lowest common denominator to increase profitability. You used to be able to buy store brand beers in the late 40's and 50's. Also continuous fermentation was developed where the brewery ran continuously like a conveyor belt system where fresh wort was continuously added in one end and fermented beer came out the other end. breweries that run all the time have the highest profit margins. However, the product was too buttery so it never caught on. Also miller tried to produce clear beer through carbon filtration and it failed too. (Mosher - Tasting Beers)

"Light" beer has a very long history. Though not exactly technically accurate small beers and light beer have common ancestry. Small beers were young, refreshing, and had just enough alcohol to keep for a few weeks but it wouldn't get you drunk too badly if you had a few. That is what light lager is all about, that is it's role, it is the penultimate small beer except it is consumed as a luxury instead of as Revvy stated, food.
 
Revvy, that was some great info and thanks for the post. A couple of points though...

You've paid $17/ bottle for a BEER before??! Wow. I can honestly say I've never paid more than $5 for an import at a decent restaurant. (Who's the snob now?) Beer, to me, was a blue collar beverage. Where wine prices were hundreds of dollars top to bottom, beer used to be no more than a buck or two between best and average. It was accessible to all but that was 2 decades or so back for the most part.

Also I never said that I hated BMC, just that they cheapened their product. I chugged truckloads of it as a younger, poorer guy. My tastes have grown as I have aged and I choose not to drink it now, kinda like a person chooses not to eat liver or spinach.

BMC made changes described above per market forces (profit, public desire, etc) and nothing else. Microbrews came from a desire from people that loved better beer than they were getting and would pay more for that quality. I am willing to pay more as well because I want a better beer. If that means I'm a snob, then oh well! So be it...

Cheers!

My whole point of the thread was not to bash but rather discuss the current market for what we all love. Beer. Period
 
You've paid $17/ bottle for a BEER before??! Wow. I can honestly say I've never paid more than $5 for an import at a decent restaurant. (Who's the snob now?) Beer, to me, was a blue collar beverage. Where wine prices were hundreds of dollars top to bottom, beer used to be no more than a buck or two between best and average. It was accessible to all but that was 2 decades or so back for the most part.

Craft beers that have spent a lot of time aging (barrel aged beers and sours) can quite easily sell in the $17 range. In that case you're paying for the resources the brewer had to devote to that beer, namely time and floor space for barrels devoted to long term aging. I wouldn't expect to pay that much for an IPA or a regular stout, but I have paid that for excellent sours and I would again.
 
Process vs. Ingredients

I thought this topic would be about something totally different when I clicked on it. As in, which is more important, that you perfect the process or you buy only the best ingredients? Or maybe that is what everyone is talking about and it went over my head. I just don't see how big breweries even fit into a conversation about process vs. ingredients. They are worried about profit margins and neither of the above. To them, it's whatever is cheaper, to homebrewers, it's whatever makes the best beer within your budget. For homebrewers, that can mean cutting back on quantity for quality. Some craft beers are better than others and the best are probably the ones who have perfected the process and use the best ingredients, not one verses the other. When the local breweries start deciding between the 2, based on cost, they are being just like the big guys and quality will suffer. Try a different beer, from a brewery who considers both important, not one verses the other.
 
ktblunden said:
Craft beers that have spent a lot of time aging (barrel aged beers and sours) can quite easily sell in the $17 range. In that case you're paying for the resources the brewer had to devote to that beer, namely time and floor space for barrels devoted to long term aging. I wouldn't expect to pay that much for an IPA or a regular stout, but I have paid that for excellent sours and I would again.

Again, not bashing the price. I understand all the time, effort, ingredients and shipping make that beer expensive. I have an upper limit in my beer budget and $17 is almost comical (IMO) to pay for any bottle of beer.

I'm sure it is an excellent beer and would love to try one some day but it will have to be a gift as I won't pay that much. Ever.
 
Again, not bashing the price. I understand all the time, effort, ingredients and shipping make that beer expensive. I have an upper limit in my beer budget and $17 is almost comical (IMO) to pay for any bottle of beer.

I'm sure it is an excellent beer and would love to try one some day but it will have to be a gift as I won't pay that much. Ever.

So your taste buds can't afford what they want. Yes, that is a dilemma. I just settle for what I can afford and make the best beer I can with what I have to work with. Always better than no beer.
 
BobbiLynn said:
I thought this topic would be about something totally different when I clicked on it. As in, which is more important, that you perfect the process or you buy only the best ingredients? Or maybe that is what everyone is talking about and it went over my head. I just don't see how big breweries even fit into a conversation about process vs. ingredients. They are worried about profit margins and neither of the above. To them, it's whatever is cheaper, to homebrewers, it's whatever makes the best beer within your budget. For homebrewers, that can mean cutting back on quantity for quality. Some craft beers are better than others and the best are probably the ones who have perfected the process and use the best ingredients, not one verses the other. When the local breweries start deciding between the 2, based on cost, they are being just like the big guys and quality will suffer. Try a different beer, from a brewery who considers both important, not one verses the other.

Thank you, Bobbilynn! You hit on the very things I was hoping to discuss. I honestly did not mean to rile up the HBT membership but I obviously touched an open nerve. For that I apologize.
 
If this topic was about process verses ingredients, I would answer this way:

Process should come first, don't buy a bunch of expensive ingredients when you don't have the process perfected yet. Once you have the process down, then start experimenting with better/more expensive ingredients. Try one change at a time, and if you and your friends don't notice a difference, keep using the cheaper ingredient. But, if you find something that really makes a huge difference, go for the upgrade if it's within your budget. And if you are selling your beer, just go for it, and raise prices only to match exact costs, because it won't be any more work and people will pay an extra dime for something better.
 
Lets frame the query another way...


In beer competitions, amateurs send in their beers to determine if they had success with their process and ingredients. The feedback they receive will clue them as to how to make it better the next time.

Commercial beers are made by professionals! Some are more experienced than others and some are more knowledgable, but in general they have a better grasp on process and ingredients to make a better beer that the public will buy.

I know the public critiques the product like a judge, but votes with their dollars. Some beers are good but don't catch on with the public, while others are just bad. These will not survive due to being poor, though I think if you're a halfway competent brewer it would be difficult to make bad beer. I am not talking differing tastes, only bad beer. Just wondering how pro's can make a substandard brew is all.

Maybe I should have changed the title to this thread...
 
Thank you, Bobbilynn! You hit on the very things I was hoping to discuss. I honestly did not mean to rile up the HBT membership but I obviously touched an open nerve. For that I apologize.

Big breweries make most of us homebrewers a little angry. Especially those of us who really try to make quality product. We stay riled up around here, talking about beer excites us especially when we have an opinion on a subject. No worries. And no need to apologize.
 
Commercial beers are made by professionals!

Alright, this is where you are ruffling feathers. Most of us think craft breweries, especially the very successful ones, are the true professionals/masters of beer making.
 
Blame your grandfather for having "lousy" taste in beer, NOT the brewers themselves.

Yea my grandpa definitely did not like my Porter, too much for him. He's more a Pabst or Old Milwaukee guy (that's my story and I'm stickin to it:D)

On that "lite-er" note, could you imagine an episode of "Mad Men" where everyone is getting bombed at the office drinking a heavy stout? (Although Christina Hendricks would be, incredibly, more hot in that situation--where she is drinking my beer....sorry daydreaming:cross:)
 
American breweries were all cutting corners decades ago on ingredient quality in order to maximize profits. This ruined once proud companies like Schlitz and Strohs...

Fast forward to the 21st century and the microbrew boom. These companies obviously began because they wanted to make high quality products the opposite of Coors/Bud/Miller. They also are very knowledgable regarding their craft and process.

Why then is there such a disparity in quality and taste in these smaller brewers? I would think that most would be putting out better beers but sadly a lot are not. Just wondering...

BMC are high quality beers. Especially for the style they represent. Try making one once. It's not easy. Homebrewers label these beers because they perceive themselves to create tastier beers mostly in other styles. Try mass producing a light lager at a reasonable cost. Not an easy task. These companies have developed their own strains of barley etc... to accomplish this task. Tons of science, many brewing advances thanks to BMC.

BMC companies may not have business practices that everyone agrees with, but they do know how to brew beer. I enjoy a Miller or Bud lite every now and then, just as I enjoy a Guiness or a Guiness/Stella black and tan every now and then.

Why is there a disparity in small brewers? Everyone who's started brewing thinks they can brew beer. They believe they have the knowledge. Pride gets in the way. The truth is small breweries often don't have the resources to maintain the quality control standards necessary to produce consistent product. How many small breweries have bio-chemists working for them? How many small breweries have quality control standards? How many small breweries have process improvement? My guess is that not many small breweries have these luxuries, if they screw up a batch, oh well, can't dump it, ship it or mix it. Why was the batch screwed up? No time to investigate have to keep brewing, time is money.... Homebrewing does not equal commercial scale brewing. Even a brewers degree is suspect, though it may add a shred of credibility.
 
Alright, this is where you are ruffling feathers. Most of us think craft breweries, especially the very successful ones, are the true professionals/masters of beer making.

Are craft beers that are sold commercially not commercial beers?? I thought craft beers were made to A) turn a profit, first and foremost. That is the very definition of "professional". Amateurs do it for the love of it and some make that leap into the profession of craft brewing. Masters denotes no connotation to pro/not pro, only craftsmen that are at the pinnacle of their skill.
 
I do not feel that the big boys are using substandard ingredients. Living next to a InBev Malt plant has truly opened my eyes to what the farmers around here have to go through to sell or produce a grain good enough for InBev.

Are the tides turning and are the big boys going to try and catch a larger market share by producing a different style of beer. Well yes I believe so but I also believe that at least for the time being the majority of people will stick with what they know and enjoy.

I enjoy a good craft beer. Does not mean I enjoy all craft beers and have had some I could not finish. That does not make them bad just not what I would drink. I still love Bush lite beer as well. That does not make them a good beer just one I enjoy.

Beer I think is a learned taste. Remember your first beer and how rotten it tasted yet it is the nectar from the gods now. I think that for what ever reason for the overwhelming population the preferred nectar of the gods comes in a can marked BMC.

Dang now I am thinking about a nice beer and am going to go and pour a nice Moose Drool clone I make. That is right I have cloned a commercial beer because it is GOOD and I wish I could replicate the taste with the same accuracy that they do
 

Latest posts

Back
Top