Why do big breweries mainly create lagers?

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.
They create them for the masses. American light lager is what people drink. BMC is what beer is to the majority of Americans. I'm not knocking it. I love an ice cold fizzy yellow beer almost as much as I love a craft brew or my own home brew. The big breweries cut costs by brewing with rice and a scant amount of hops. I'll bet the turnover time for a batch of Bud is one week from grain to bottle. I doubt time is a concern to the big breweries.
 
Many of the big breweries started in the north so maybe the cooler temps were a natural way of forcing lagers to begin with. Also, you work with the yeast you have, again maybe naturally more lager yeast originally available.

And most of the big breweries were started by Germans who were traditionally inclined to brew lagers anyway.

In other words, lots of underlying factors led to big lager brewing early on.
 
my 2c/theory: Lagers have (usually) lighter, less noticeable flavor. Easier to market to a mass audience.
 
The German aspect is most likely the original reason. And now after so many years of light lagers, our taste buds have become accustomed to those flavors. There were only a handful of breweries that made it through prohibition. Our big 3 being the majority. Since they pretty much dominated the beer market, their styles prevailed and have now created the mass taste.

If people are under the assumption they brew these beers because its simple for them, that's untrue. In fact the lighter the beer the easier it is to taste off flavors. I will agree the use of rice and other ingredients for cost reduction isn't the best of ideas. But even if you dont agree with the taste, you must have respect for a brewery who is able to push that quantity out every day with the consistency and quality that they do, it's a phenomenal feat.
 
carsonwarstler said:
But even if you dont agree with the taste, you must have respect for a brewery who is able to push that quantity out every day with the consistency and quality that they do, it's a phenomenal feat.

Can't agree more. Personally, I think it tastes like $h!+, but I know I can't and may never brew anything with as much skill and control as they do. To get a consistent, clear, clean product out the way they do is no small task.

There are a lot of things that I am not a fan of, but I can appreciate what they take to create. I try to keep that in mind for some perspective.
 
last year i brought some Anchor Steam Christmas Ale to a Christmas party my fiance and I go to every year. They had a beer contest; whoever brought the best "Christmas" beer won a prize (it was a Jagermeister package w/ shot glass - I love Jager lol).

Anyway; nobody liked the Anchor Steam, they all preferred a Bud Light (yea I know its not even a Christmas beer lol). There was a bit of a heated argument and eventually I said f*** Bud Light! Whoa they were pissed.

I'm not a fan of the "light" or "low calorie" beers; I usually have something always negative to say about them. Maybe its just me; but I like the flavor of beers and yea I've gained some weight b/c I don't care about calorie counts and whatnot lol What's the point of drinking a "light" or "low calorie" beer.. IMO mine as well drink a girly drink. :D
 
We have similar tastes (or more likely just similar distastes), but you still have to admit that what they do is impressive. You don't have to like it to appreciate it.
 
We have similar tastes (or more likely just similar distastes), but you still have to admit that what they do is impressive. You don't have to like it to appreciate it.

Definitely. It is quite an accomplishment to be able to become a beer empire.

I noticed someone mentioned the usage of rice. What is that in place of?
 
I always thought it had something to that lager when compared to ales was seen as the elite drink, back in the day of course. Because it was seen as the "Rich" beer it was highly sought after, and when breweries found ways to brew it more cheaply the market gobbled it up.

sort of like coffee.
 
CarnellSitka said:
I always thought it had something to that lager when compared to ales was seen as the elite drink, back in the day of course. Because it was seen as the "Rich" beer it was highly sought after, and when breweries found ways to brew it more cheaply the market gobbled it up.

sort of like coffee.

Interesting thought. Definitely could have played a role.

There was a tv special on the history channel one time that dove into the history of beer; I bet wed find out answers on there... Or at least one mans view of the answer that made it all the way to film.
 
I noticed someone mentioned the usage of rice. What is that in place of?

My understanding is that Bud and Miller use corn and rice, respectively, as adjuncts as inexpensive adjuncts for some of the grain bill. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong on this?
 
Someone may have mentioned but...

From my readings it appears that lagers have a longer shelf life than ales. The colder fermentation creates a more stable beer that can sit on the shelf and grow dust before it really goes bad.

I think that is the main reason most American Mega-breweries do lagers, so their turnover is minimal because a 30-rack of bud light, however terrible the flavor, won't have to be pulled off a shelf because it has gone stale. Yet again... money and time winning over quality ingredients and a love of the craft.
 
Light lagers aren't an american phenomenon. They are popular around the world. Despite the opinions of us beer snobs, people really do like them. The big companies spent lots of time "perfecting" recipes to appeal to the broadest possible segment of society. They spend just as much time driving down cost in their production chain so that their beer is about as expensive as soda.

Just think "McDonalds". Are they the most flavorful and high quality burgers you can get? No, of course not. Have they sold billions of them anyway? You bet.
 
Theres a show on Netflix called Beer Wars. It was said that it cost BMC 10 cents per bottle to make. The rest of the cost is marketing.
 
One article I read years ago about the transition from the old pre-prohiition days of assorted strong ales and lagers to today's monkey-see-monkey-do swill (aka BMC), was a reaction to the forces that drove prohibition and kind of an "If we make this stuff will you leave us alone to make a living" kind of thing. It was argued that light lagers, because of their weak taste, thin body and low alcohol appealed to women (sorry ladies, I didn't say it, the author did). Since most of prohibition was driven largely by The Christian Women's Temperance Movement, and other largely female groups, it was thought that by making a drink the ladies would find inoffensive it would keep them off the brewers backs. It is interesting that there was a great deal of cooperation between the women's suffrage groups and the temperance groups. So see what happens when you give women the vote? You're left drinking Clydesdale whiz instead of real beer. Sorry ladies, that last was mine, but was just a joke.
 
Just think "McDonalds". Are they the most flavorful and high quality burgers you can get? No, of course not. Have they sold billions of them anyway? You bet.

This. The McDonalds analogy is one that often comes to mind for me as well with BMC.
 
One article I read years ago about the transition from the old pre-prohiition days of assorted strong ales and lagers to today's monkey-see-monkey-do swill (aka BMC), was a reaction to the forces that drove prohibition and kind of an "If we make this stuff will you leave us alone to make a living" kind of thing. It was argued that light lagers, because of their weak taste, thin body and low alcohol appealed to women (sorry ladies, I didn't say it, the author did). Since most of prohibition was driven largely by The Christian Women's Temperance Movement, and other largely female groups, it was thought that by making a drink the ladies would find inoffensive it would keep them off the brewers backs. It is interesting that there was a great deal of cooperation between the women's suffrage groups and the temperance groups...

I'll confirm that I also heard that in a documentary about beer.
 
I've heard that too, but it isn't very convincing. It certainly doesn't explain the worldwide popularity of pale lager. It also doesn't account for the fact that the temperance movement had basically moved ALL beer to be weak and low alcohol even before prohibition.
 
Light lagers aren't an american phenomenon. They are popular around the world.

You are right, but most these countries have learned of light lagers from American brewing. I remember in Korea OB Beer was an attempt to replicate Budweiser. It's not that these are the best tasting, or--one could argue--the most liked, but that they are seen as representing American tastes.

I also think that many of these countries who have no beer culture of their own, know only what they see being consumed in America because of business and cultural interaction. It is kind of like people here who think of beer as only being BMC. How many of these same cultures think of McDonald's as the quintessential hamburger simply because they've had no others?
 
What's the point of drinking a "light" or "low calorie" beer.. IMO mine as well drink a girly drink. :D

Right. I love "girly drinks", like IIPAs and hopped up American red. I'm sure that's what you meant?

I think that if you define "big breweries", you'll get different answers depending on what you mean. If you mean the mega-corporations (both of them) that own Stella Artois, Budweiser, Beck, Goose Island, Rolling Rock, Blue Moon, Miller, etc, they make those because that is what sells for them. They are trying to break into the craft beer market by making up "fake" new brands that seem to be craft beers.

But if you define it as "new big American breweries", like Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada, which are big by microbrew standards, then they make many more craft beers that are great.
 
It can't be for the flavor. ;)


Seems that lagers take longer and require more resources to produce than ales.

So why are all the main breweries concentrating on these?

Contrary to what you might believe, it IS the flavor. Just because you don't like it, or think you have better tastes than the average beer drinker, it 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:
Thanks for the history lesson Revvy, that was really interesting/informative. I'm going to take a look at that book you recommended.
 
It can't be for the flavor. ;)


Seems that lagers take longer and require more resources to produce than ales.

So why are all the main breweries concentrating on these?

The simple answer to your question is that lager is the most popular beer style on planet earth.

To comment on your statement:

It can't be flavor? Why not? I fear your definition of lager is far too narrow if you believe a lager cannot have delicious flavor. If you classify all lager into the "American Light Lager" category then you may have a point. However, this is only one type of lager that does not define the entire range of the style. In fact, these beers range from bright spicy bliss to sweat malty mania. Are you aware that the following styles are all lagers?

Oktoberfest/Marzen
Bock
Dunkel
Doppelbock
Dortmunder
Eisbock
Maibock
Helles
Pilsner
Bohemian Pilsner
Rauchbier
Schwarzbier
Vienna Lager
Amber Lager
Steam Beer
and so on....

If you believe popular brands of the lager styles listed above don't have desirable flavor then I would suggest that either your pallet differs from the majority of informed beer advocates or you require a broader view (experience) of the style.

Having said that, I am more of an ale kind of guy most of the time. However, I'd happily head down to the pub with you and buy you pints of lager until we found one you like. :mug::mug:

EDIT: Revvy beat me to the punch again. I hate it when work gets in the way of my ranting. :)
 
Also, network effects. Same reason we use the QWERTY keyboard, even though it may be inferior to other layouts. Yes, on the margin, ales may be cheaper, but the switching costs are too great.
 
Revvy -- Excellent post. And I think your book recommendation is going to go on my Christmas list.
 
One article I read years ago about the transition from the old pre-prohiition days of assorted strong ales and lagers to today's monkey-see-monkey-do swill (aka BMC), was a reaction to the forces that drove prohibition and kind of an "If we make this stuff will you leave us alone to make a living" kind of thing. It was argued that light lagers, because of their weak taste, thin body and low alcohol appealed to women (sorry ladies, I didn't say it, the author did). Since most of prohibition was driven largely by The Christian Women's Temperance Movement, and other largely female groups, it was thought that by making a drink the ladies would find inoffensive it would keep them off the brewers backs. It is interesting that there was a great deal of cooperation between the women's suffrage groups and the temperance groups. So see what happens when you give women the vote? You're left drinking Clydesdale whiz instead of real beer. Sorry ladies, that last was mine, but was just a joke.

You do bring up an interesting point concerning pre-prohibition vs post-prohibition. Before the 21st amendment was ratified, FDR signed the Cullen-Harrison Act legalizing the sale of beer with an alcohol content of 3.2% because it was considered too low to be intoxicating. This was the first legal beer the US could drink since 1920, and it sounds a lot like today's BMC.
 
Thanks for the recommendation, Revvy. I've just downloaded that book to my Nook and will be reading it!
 
Once you learn the history, then I think you start to look at the it less like an "us vs them" attitude. AND you realize just how much more beersnob attitude, and less historical accuracy framed "Beer Wars" and most of the ideas that beersnobs like to use to feel superior to others......

You know, there's so much beer on this planet, more than I think any time in the history of the beverage, let people drink what they like, and we drink what we like, and quit hating on what others choose as their beverage of choice.

I used to consider myself a beersnob, but I prefer the term beer geek or beer enthusiast these days. I like beer. Some I like better than others, some not at all, but I don't think myself better to someone who enjoys a bud light on a hot day.....
 
It can't be for the flavor. ;)


Seems that lagers take longer and require more resources to produce than ales.

So why are all the main breweries concentrating on these?
I'm sure it is for the flavor. It's what most people like, otherwise they wouldn't buy it.
We in this forum don't have a better taste in beer, we just have a different taste.
 
+1 on Ambitious Brew. Its a great book.

I found Ogle's description of the German "beer-garden" culture to be particularly informative. The German lagers were seen as a healthy alternative to the whiskey often drunk by men in the early 19th century America, thus gaining grudging support from the temperance reformers, and the family-friendly atmosphere of the beer garden helped to spur lager's rise to popularity.
 
Also, network effects. Same reason we use the QWERTY keyboard, even though it may be inferior to other layouts. Yes, on the margin, ales may be cheaper, but the switching costs are too great.

Off-topic trivia time: We've all heard the explanation that the reason the QWERTY layout was selected was to slow down typists and minimize key jamming, but the story also has it that the keys were arranged such that typewriter salesmen could demonstrate their new invention by typing the word "typewriter" using only the top row of keys (allowing them to type it faster and making their new invention seem easy as pie).
 
Once you learn the history, then I think you start to look at the it less like an "us vs them" attitude. AND you realize just how much more beersnob attitude, and less historical accuracy framed "Beer Wars" and most of the ideas that beersnobs like to use to feel superior to others......

You know, there's so much beer on this planet, more than I think any time in the history of the beverage, let people drink what they like, and we drink what we like, and quit hating on what others choose as their beverage of choice.

I used to consider myself a beersnob, but I prefer the term beer geek or beer enthusiast these days. I like beer. Some I like better than others, some not at all, but I don't think myself better to someone who enjoys a bud light on a hot day.....

While I agree with the sentiment of letting people drink what they want, and I don't begrudge BMC drinkers, I think that the underlying premise of "Beer Wars" wasn't that BMC is crap or that BMC made it because it was cheap or easy, but instead that they operate as monopolies and stifle people access to other beers. And also that they try and hide who made particular beers in order to people like they have a diversity of choices. At least that's what I got from the documentary, flawed history or not.

If it was simply a matter of BMC being $2 and X Pale Ale being $3 then I would agree with your premise, people who wanted a different taste would pay a premium for it, everyone is happy end of story. While the smaller breweries wouldn't be able to compete on price, we'd all be capable of making a real choice.

But its not that simple, the fact is that BMC use their market share to make sure that their beers are displayed over a certain percentage of the retail space, force distributors to carry a certain percentage their product, abusing the three-tier distribution model, etc.

Effectively Beer Wars was about the monopoly that exists in the beer market, not about the fact that Lagers(or macro-American Light Lagers) suck and so do people who like them(although it is right that they all largely taste the same to each other). That is the way that its "us versus them." Them being the macrobreweries who effectively pervert capitalism with their monopolistic brewing practices versus us, the beer drinkers who want to see a true choice available in the beer world.
 
Off-topic trivia time: We've all heard the explanation that the reason the QWERTY layout was selected was to slow down typists and minimize key jamming, but the story also has it that the keys were arranged such that typewriter salesmen could demonstrate their new invention by typing the word "typewriter" using only the top row of keys (allowing them to type it faster and making their new invention seem easy as pie).

Interesting, I had not heard that one. To stay off topic, there seem to be tons of myths about QWERTY and the Dvorak keyboard. At any rate, QWERTY was certainly not made to slow typists down. The inventor, Christopher Sholes arranged his keyboard so that the keys most likely to be struck in close succession were approaching the type point from opposite sides of the machine. Whether or not this slowed down typists, I'm not sure, though I doubt it, but it was not the intent.
 
Effectively Beer Wars was about the monopoly that exists in the beer market, not about the fact that Lagers(or macro-American Light Lagers) suck and so do people who like them(although it is right that they all largely taste the same to each other).

Funny, but where I live even our chain grocery stores carry more craft beer than they do macro beers. kroger's, Meijer's, even the local IGAs carry a huge selection of craft and imported beers, and devote more shelf space to said beers. Than they do to domestic light lagers these day. Even the most "Ghetto" of the liquor stores in Detroit have some alternatives to those beers.

My first "special" beer was Double Diamond Burton ale, bought in the kind of inner-city party store where the also kept the "chore boy" scrubbies and sold plastic roses in little glass test tubes at the front counter (if you don't know chore boy and little glass test tubes can be used to smoke crack with, they're quite popular in inner city stores.)

We also have 100 micro breweries in Michigan.

In fact I've been trying to find the Budweiser Brew Masters series that we've been talking about in other threads, and I JUST CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE.....I can find any craft, imported and micro beer that are distributed in my state, especially those brewed in Michigan easier than I can find the Budweiser product.

I've been buying imported and craft beers since 1986, and more of it every year. I just don't buy that they have as much power as you think they do. The genie is out of the bottle, the distributors, and the store owners know which side the bread is buttered, they have the real power. They know beer culture is here to stay and they know that a decent amount of the population nowadays is more interested in pay 17 dollars for a bottle of x craft beer. They know that they have to nowadays sell 2 cases of budlight, for every 12 dollar 4 pack of Founder's Breakfast Stout that a large segment of the population is clamoring for.

Or 1 Utopias for every 12 cases of Bush lite?

They're not going to allow the macro breweries to dictate to them how they have to make their money these days.....they're going to cover all bases.

The market drives things, not the producers.

So, from where I'm looking, where I can buy more craft beers, and attend beer tastings everyweek in my local pharmacy I find those "beerwars" arguments about how much power the "evil empire" has over beer distribution anymore about as believable as most 9-11 conspiracies.

This is a DRUGSTORE.....They have three "Beer experts" on staff.
382159_436953013031801_1159830061_n.jpg


382159_436953016365134_1878417829_n.jpg


Here's a list....

And that's just one store.....If this is the result of a three tier system, than it's fine by me.

I think those arguments are just more looking for a reason to hate, than they're having that much of a stanglehold these days. There's room for it all.
 
Back
Top