Russian River Brewing Sucks

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn that's a good profit margin! I brew in 15 gallon batches of Lager with 35lbs of barley in the grain bill and one pound of Czech Saaz hops per batch (all top notch ingredients and slant my own yeast). My bottom line including propane is roughly $4.00 per gallon for the final product including the DME for a four stage yeast starter. At $7 per 10oz serving I'd make a KILLING in the commercial world!!!
 
Damn that's a good profit margin! I brew in 15 gallon batches of Lager with 35lbs of barley in the grain bill and one pound of Czech Saaz hops per batch (all top notch ingredients and slant my own yeast). My bottom line including propane is roughly $4.00 per gallon for the final product including the DME for a four stage yeast starter. At $7 per 10oz serving I'd make a KILLING in the commercial world!!!

How much are you paying for insurance, rent, storage, license/fees, transport, distribution, kegs, CO2, utilities, marketing, staff salary, etc.? Still at $4/gal?
 
if you don't like it, don't support it.

for the record, natalie and vinnie do a great job with the community and run a good local business that gives back to the community, provides a product that people really like and push the envelope of brewing in many respects. i think the criticism of their cancer efforts being disingenuous because you created a rumor of GMO crops is lame.

its fair to criticize them for sure (i don't like the carb level off their taps for most beers and the service is sketchy if you're not a regular) but i would never begrudge them for making a profit.

on the plus side, they've got their all-simcoe pale on tap right now and it's hitting its stride and one of the best beers they've ever made imo (i like it better than pliny). plus the all 402 pale is damned good too. hmmm... might be time to walk over there.
 
Because demand is sky high for the product, and the company is using that revenue to turn a greater profit. This is capitalism.

If demand were low, a smart company would lower prices whenever possible to satisfy customers. Demand is through the roof; this is not necessary.

Do note that just because grain prices may be lower does not mean there is less overhead. fuel prices, energy prices, insurance prices have ALL gone up noticeably in the last year.

Also note that $3.25 would be cheap here in Alabama - and a dollar goes much farther here thanin California. $3.25 is an inexpensive price for BMC here. There are zero craft beers available at that price point.

Exactly, we are both saying the same thing.
 
When is the last time you have bought something that wasn't cheaper at some point in the past? This thread is useless.
 
Shut up and get to the chopper, I pay 6.50 a pint for RR or good quality beers but lucky for me I'm a home brewer so I MAKE MY OWN BEER so shut up stop crying and do work son
 
OP sounds like a anti capitalism liberal to me. Most restuarants around here are 4.50 a pint, and thats for just the run of the mill stuff.

The beautiful thing about a free market is that it will fix itself. If they charge more than people are willing to pay, people wont buy it and they will have to lower the price.

If they dont then someone else will come along and take there place.
 
OP is a troll apparently, since they haven't said anything after the GMO complaint was disproved. I remember that dry hopping thread somebody mentioned as well, and the OP was a complete EAC about the topic.
 
rockfish42 said:
OP is a troll apparently, since they haven't said anything after the GMO complaint was disproved. I remember that dry hopping thread somebody mentioned as well, and the OP was a complete EAC about the topic.

I agree let's get the pitchforks and torches
 
A call to Cargill answered the GMO question, according to the product specialist I spoke with "No, we don't have anything like that. This question came up a couple weeks ago with the sales manager too. To our knowledge there is NO [brewer's] barley that is GMO at all"

So, that answers that... OP was misinformed regarding GMO brewer's malt and Cargill

Pricing? I asked them for a price breakdown (I actually have a project in the fire, I would have contacted them on this anyway). When I can speak with a sales rep, I will compare to other suppliers and see about the comparison. Even if they should turn out to be the cheapest, I would be surprised if it were by much. Briess and Great Western are very closely priced, I doubt Cargill would be much different.

$3.25/ pint is dirt cheap Standard price across the country for a pint in the mid-nineties was $3. Most places now it seems to be $4.

Once again I will reiterate that profit margins on bottled beer are RAZOR thin... pennies per bottle once ingredient costs, labor, packaging and general overhead are accounted for. Keg profits are better, but still low... A per keg cost of $70 is a good ballpark (includes labor and utilities to produce the beer, but not general overhead which still needs to be covered-things like loan payoffs on equipment/cooperage, rent, salary of non production personnel, etc.). If a brewery has to sell through a distributor they can expect to get $95 for that keg. Lets say the other costs add $10 to the brewery's cost, they make maybe $15 on that keg. That is a ridiculously small margin! IF the brewery is lucky enough to be able to self-distribute, they could sell the keg for $150. That brings the margin into a more sane range, but it is also a LOT more work. Essentially, you have to sell a LOT of beer to make a profit! If a small brewery can sell over the bar, the profit on that beer is probably carrying everything else. Vince Cottone of Sound Brew, a well known industry consultant, suggests that the minimum output for a production brewery to be profitable is 3k bbl/year... even that could be pushing it IMO.
 
I live about 10 Min from Russian River, and I go at least once a month. Their beer is no more expensive than any other brewery in this area. I am opening a Nano just up the road, and I will be charging really high prices for local craft beer. If you want really good beer and you want it to be cheap, make it. I have paid over 10k in permits alone, grain is not cheap, and employees are over the top expensive. I am doing it because I love brewing. Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to complain about Russian River, complain about the bartender that never has anything nice to say and feels to important to be friendly, not about their prices.

Random aside, are you the one who's going into Barlow when/if they finally open?

:off:
 
I have not had a RR beer nor have I seen one. I surely will be on the lookout though. I see that Pliny is at the top of a lot list here. I'll trust that.

I think I will take the position that they were under valuing their beer at $2.50 when it should have been at least $7 a pint. What a great gesture on their part. At $3.25 they are still going above and beyond. Look at how well they treat their patrons.

As in life...a lot can be summed up in one word...perspective!
 
I somewhat agree with the OP, regardless if his intention was to troll. Craft breweries for the most part try to steer those mainstream drinkers towards the 'better' side of beer, and one of the factors consumers have to deal with is a higher price point, fine. But when profit becomes the intention, it takes away the 'craft' in craftbeers IMO. I've had many of RR beers, will i stop purchasing them? No... but i will be more inclined to drink others before RR.

You must not be aware of the purpose behind a business.

A business (also known as enterprise or firm) is an organization engaged in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers.[1] Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, where most of them are privately owned and administered to earn profit to increase the wealth of their owners. Businesses may also be not-for-profit or state-owned. A business owned by multiple individuals may be referred to as a company, although that term also has a more precise meaning.
The etymology of "business" relates to the state of being busy either as an individual or society as a whole, doing commercially viable and profitable work. The term "business" has at least three usages, depending on the scope — the singular usage to mean a particular organization; the generalized usage to refer to a particular market sector, "the music business" and compound forms such as agribusiness; and the broadest meaning, which encompasses all activity by the community of suppliers of goods and services. However, the exact definition of business, like much else in the philosophy of business, is a matter of debate and complexity of meanings.

I'd say that 70 BBL capacity still qualifies them as a craft/micro brewery and if you look at the other local "craft/micro" breweries (Lagunitas, Aleworks, Bear Republic, Hopmunk etc) as well as other local bars/pubs the median price for a pint of beer is $4.50 - $5.50 normally and $3 - $4 during happy hour (FYI none of those are for 20oz pours).

I'd say Russian River is well within those guidelines. Add in they've been able to keep their prices stable while costs have gone up and adding a new production facility. Trying to pass off a comparison today's prices to when a brewery opened 8 years ago without exploring all factors is just idiotic.

Add in that Vinnie is a hell of a nice guy and I'll still gladly drink RR beers occasionally. Plus I've heard that they give happy hour pricing all day every day for AHA members (I'm not one, so take that with a grain of salt).

Bottom line is, if you don't like their business practice don't give them you're business, but don't expect rational people to get behind your irrational arguements.
 
But we're all craft maaaan...and it's like we're all brewing together maaaan... it's like we're one big brewery maaan so share the beer maaan. Besides beer comes from nature maaan..and no one owns nature!
 
Again for Oldworld, which malts are GMO from Cargill? They certainly sell GMO corn and soybeans but AFAIK there are no commercially grown GMO barley malts.

I work in the barley and malt industry on the R&D side. Our stakeholders are the American Malting Barley Association (AMBA) and other large breweries. I know AMBA does not recommend any variety of barley that is GMO. I don't know of any GMO barley that is available commercially. I mentioned a project to my advisor that involved adding a more thermostable beta-amylase gene to barley and was told that under no circumstances would the barley industry have anything to do with GMO crops. I would love to see a source to the OPs claim that RR is using GMOs.

On a side note I am in favor of feeding the world using less pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides so therefore I am a proponent of GMO crops.
 
No matter what the price is compared to your area it still jumped 30% or so and you get a smaller amount - that's lame. It's happening in most industries though - more money for less.

My problem with backing this comparison is that it's not realistic. If this happened within the last year I'd agree.. but he's comparing pricing and pour size from what it was years ago.
 

A one line post and a link to a Huffington Post article that barely refers to one or two studies is not a compelling argument. Show me peer reviewed academic research and some consensus, not some blogger/journalist type skimming over an abstract or misunderstanding what a study is saying. I am not going to make one judgment or another on this topic - but this is a case of needing legitimate sources.
 
A one line post and a link to a Huffington Post article that barely refers to one or two studies is not a compelling argument. Show me peer reviewed academic research and some consensus, not some blogger/journalist type skimming over an abstract or misunderstanding what a study is saying. I am not going to make one judgment or another on this topic - but this is a case of needing legitimate sources.

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service data:

GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 318.4 million pounds over the first 13 years of commercial use, compared to the amount of pesticide likely to have been applied in the absence of HT and Bt seeds.

Report: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/13years2009-fullreport-11-16-09.pdf

Do you have data to show that's not the case?
 
USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service data:



Report: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/13years2009-fullreport-11-16-09.pdf

Do you have data to show that's not the case?

Why would farmers choose to use gmo crops if they could grow non-gmo crops cheaper because they use less herbicide, fertilizer, and pesticides? Why aren't all farmers organic if they can grow just as much as non-organic and can do it cheaper?

There is a market for seeds. Monsanto doesn't force the soybean industry to grow GMO soybean. However, >90% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO. Why? Yield? Cheaper to produce? Government/chemical company consipiracy?
 
Government/chemical company consipiracy?

Some would think so. That's why I'm asking...

It was the atrazine issue several years ago that got me looking into the issue more because it doesn't make sense.

Farmers are in the industry to produce as much as they can for as little cost as they can, right?

It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...
 
There is a market for seeds. Monsanto doesn't force the soybean industry to grow GMO soybean. However, >90% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO. Why? Yield? Cheaper to produce? Government/chemical company consipiracy?

Damn those soybeans! They are leveling vast amounts of the amazon to grow those GMO'd out F***ers
 
Why would farmers choose to use gmo crops if they could grow non-gmo crops cheaper because they use less herbicide, fertilizer, and pesticides? Why aren't all farmers organic if they can grow just as much as non-organic and can do it cheaper?

There is a market for seeds. Monsanto doesn't force the soybean industry to grow GMO soybean. However, >90% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO. Why? Yield? Cheaper to produce? Government/chemical company consipiracy?

they are certainly trying to pressure everyone to use their seeds, or sue them if neighboring farms use their seeds and by chance cross-pollinate
 
Some would think so. That's why I'm asking...

It was the atrazine issue several years ago that got me looking into the issue more because it doesn't make sense.

Farmers are in the industry to produce as much as they can for as little cost as they can, right?

It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...

Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. Usually farmers plant what is cheapest and yields the most.

A lot of the anti-GMO people are (surprise surprise) organic agriculture proponents. The report you linked to was written by someone at The Organic Center.

Literally speaking all crops are genetically modified. Humans have been selecting for traits for thousands of years thereby modifying the genes of crops. Breeding modifies the genes.

There is no need to fear GMOs. For example a plant that produce a small protein in the leaves (example) that stops bugs from eating them doesn't affect humans when humans eat the seeds of said plant.
 
they are certainly trying to pressure everyone to use their seeds, or sue them if neighboring farms use their seeds and by chance cross-pollinate

Yep, they sell seeds that grow for one season, then you must buy more for the next crop. Add the fact that they have patents on some of these seeds and the size of their pockets to defend those patents/force out anyone who tries to compete with them and you can plainly see they have a monopoly and a death grip on farmers.
 
Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. Usually farmers plant what is cheapest and yields the most.

A lot of the anti-GMO people are (surprise surprise) organic agriculture proponents. The report you linked to was written by someone at The Organic Center.

Literally speaking all crops are genetically modified. Humans have been selecting for traits for thousands of years thereby modifying the genes of crops. Breeding modifies the genes.

There is no need to fear GMOs. For example a plant that produce a small protein in the leaves (example) that stops bugs from eating them doesn't affect humans when humans eat the seeds of said plant.

Oh I completely understand. In my opinion "organic" is more of a fear than GMOs, especially when the label says "Organic: hecho en Mexico."

I tell that to my anti-GMO friends all of the time. If it wasn't for GMO, we wouldn't have corn.
 
Yep, they sell seeds that grow for one season, then you must buy more for the next crop. Add the fact that they have patents on some of these seeds and the size of their pockets to defend those patents/force out anyone who tries to compete with them and you can plainly see they have a monopoly and a death grip on farmers.

I understand the concern for the farmers here but the companies did invest billions into these products and should have some right to protect their investment. If they didn't make money they wouldn't be selling them. The farmers have the option of growing non-gmo and thus growing their own seed but it's not cost effective for them to do that either.
 
It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...

Depending on the land condition, with GMO seeds you can skip a spray. You save money on the herbicide + time/personnel + equipment + diesel.

Here is the breakdown for soybeans. Note these numbers DO NOT include time/personnel, equipment costs, or fuel. This is only herbicide costs:

Non-GMO (double spray) = $41-$77/acre
Roundup-Ready (single spray) = $43-$59/acre
Roundup-Ready (double spray) = $55-$75/acre
Liberty Link (single spray) = $42-$50/acre
Liberty Link (double spray) = $54-$66/acre

With good land management practices, most farmers can easily avoid having to apply the second spray. This is a HUGE cost saving and most farmers are aiming for that. I can tell you from personal experience, avoiding the 2nd spraying is the difference between successful use of GMO seed and barely breaking even with a crop.
 
Here is a report by the USDA looking into 10 years of GMOs. USDA shouldn't have conflicts of interest. There are also a bunch of references therein that could provide useful. I've only skimmed the report but I'll read it later. Got a tee time to make now!

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf

Thanks. :mug:

FWIW, I just wish they'd ban atrazine in the U.S. like they have in pretty much the rest of the world.
 
Depending on the land condition, with GMO seeds you can skip a spray. You save money on the herbicide + time/personnel + equipment + diesel.

Here is the breakdown for soybeans. Note these numbers DO NOT include time/personnel, equipment costs, or fuel. This is only herbicide costs:

Non-GMO (double spray) = $41-$77/acre
Roundup-Ready (single spray) = $43-$59/acre
Roundup-Ready (double spray) = $55-$75/acre
Liberty Link (single spray) = $42-$50/acre
Liberty Link (double spray) = $54-$66/acre

With good land management practices, most farmers can easily avoid having to apply the second spray. This is a HUGE cost saving and most farmers are aiming for that. I can tell you from personal experience, avoiding the 2nd spraying is the difference between successful use of GMO seed and barely breaking even with a crop.

Ugh, now I'm having flashbacks to working in the soy fields after we finished detassling all of Nebraska's corn!!!!
 
One issue I can agree with the OP on is price!! :mad:

I can remember when Vinnie first started homebrewing in San Diego, he used to give his beer away! It was Free!!!

What's up with that! Why no more free beer? ;)


the above statement is intended to poke fun at the troll who started this thread!
 
Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. Usually farmers plant what is cheapest and yields the most.

A lot of the anti-GMO people are (surprise surprise) organic agriculture proponents. The report you linked to was written by someone at The Organic Center.

Literally speaking all crops are genetically modified. Humans have been selecting for traits for thousands of years thereby modifying the genes of crops. Breeding modifies the genes.

There is no need to fear GMOs. For example a plant that produce a small protein in the leaves (example) that stops bugs from eating them doesn't affect humans when humans eat the seeds of said plant.

GMO is not cross breeding amongst a species to encourage the desired traits, they are splicing genes from different kingdoms

there is definitely reason to question the effects of GMO's on both mammals as well as the environment

this study documented organ damage in lab rats with different varieties of GMO corn
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top