Budwieser brewing is hard.

[orangehero]

As I understand the only extra ingredient in Budweiser is rice.

 

[JohnSand]

Reading that quickly, I saw "ice".
Then I'm thinking "Why the flocc would they put ice in beer? I mean, a saw a Spanish hooker do that once, but, hey it is better very cold..."
Oh yeah, he said "rice". Never mind.

 

[hunter_le five]

Reading that quickly, I saw "ice".
Then I'm thinking "Why the flocc would they put ice in beer? I mean, a saw a Spanish hooker do that once, but, hey it is better very cold..."
Oh yeah, he said "rice". Never mind.

 

[falkaveli]

Just a little something I worked up...

 

[cyberbrew]

The reason Budweiser is so "consistent" is that they brew it concentrated and then water it back to the right % alcohol. If I recall, they brew it at 7%-ish and cut it down to 5%.

That way they make more beer from a smaller fermenter, and if one batch is more or less efficient or there's some difference in grain or whatever from batch to batch it doesn't make as big difference in the final product.

This seems like brewing the easy way to me...

 

[okiedog]

I'm sure that AB had no idea the interest they'd generate in craft beer and home brewing when making their "anti-craft beer" ad. In that ad, they did something they had really never done before - they acknowledged the existence of the craft and home brew beer. Some AB Inbev VP probably got irked when he heard that U. S. craft beer sales had eclipsed sales of Budweiser! But when you point a goad at someone, make sure it is going to prick and not tickle the subject! Viva la Craft!

 

[syd138]

"Pilsners have their place in the world but call a spade a spade, Budweiser tastes like piss. Unless its free... then it tastes like ambrosia."

I'd say that Budweiser tastes like piss, and when it's free it tastes like free piss.

 

[SnakeRidge]

Just a little something I worked up...

Does this make me a job creator? I want to be a maker not a taker.

 

[orangehero]

The quote I think is misplaced. What I see from that chart is that Budweiser is at least 59 times more efficient at the whole beer thing. Put another way each Budweiser employee works as hard as 59 craft brew employees...that it takes 59 hipsters to do the same job.

 

[cantrell00]

Economy of scale. And the capital necessary to build the monster to begin with .

 

[schmoe]

Economy of scale. And the capital necessary to build the monster to begin with .

This. Very much this. Until you walk through the entire plant and see the packaging warehouse, you don't realize how much beer goes through this plants.

 

[Grossy]

The quote I think is misplaced. What I see from that chart is that Budweiser is at least 59 times more efficient at the whole beer thing. Put another way each Budweiser employee works as hard as 59 craft brew employees...that it takes 59 hipsters to do the same job.

Or flip it on its ear.:sly:

It take 59 times more effort to create quality beer.

Being 59 times more efficient at brewing bad beer is not something to be proud of.

 

[ubnserved]

Just a little something I worked up...

Brewed the "hard" way? After seeing this I think the only thing "hard" is what they are using for a mash paddle. Using a little wood to stir up their brew. They use beechwood also.

 

[orangehero]

Economy of scale. And the capital necessary to build the monster to begin with .

It has a lot to do with the level of process automation.

This is a real photo from a Budweiser control room:

 

[ubnserved]

The quote I think is misplaced. What I see from that chart is that Budweiser is at least 59 times more efficient at the whole beer thing. Put another way each Budweiser employee works as hard as 59 craft brew employees...that it takes 59 hipsters to do the same job.

You say the word "hipster" like it is a swear word.
I seriously doubt that very many brewing establishments would consider themselves hipster, Let alone most people on HBT. You can find out more about hipsters here http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Hipster. From what I read (and I did have to look this up) it seems hipsters are more likely to drink the beer than create it. But hey maybe I am wrong and some hipster on here can correct me. I don't know I was a "flower child" born halfway between the betnic and the hipster.

Having a clipboard and walking around once in awhile pushing a button does not constitute "working as hard as". This just means that sometime in the past the "hard" work required for brewing was automated and 59 "hard" jobs were eliminated. Additionally with craft brewers being privately owned for the most part the amount of automation sized for a smaller brewery is most likely not as available and the expense of a custom system is out of range for the smaller guy. On the plus side it is great to see hard working Americans putting other hard working Americans to work creating something that everyone can enjoy.

 

[ubnserved]

It has a lot to do with the level of process automation.

This is a real photo from a Budweiser control room:

Thanks for the pic.

Now imagine that each one of those screens represented 8.85 people. ...

 

[orangehero]

It's kinda hard to miss the winky face, so I don't know what you're ranting about. And yeah, hipster is a pejorative term. Try telling a hipster that they're a hipster.

 

[schmoe]

But beer brewing still smells awesome. Redds smells good brewing as well.

 

[joshesmusica]

Thanks for the pic.

Now imagine that each one of those screens represented 8.85 people. ...

i don't like seeing .85 of a person. it's always awkward and really hard to not stare at where the missing limb used to be.

It is however brewed to style though on a consistent basis. And they have won awards for it, more than once. Therefore, other brewers and judges feel the same.

the one thing that's a bit funny, *in my opinion,* is when i see someone who says that they brew to style. many people are attempting to create new styles every time they brew. so you take something like a lager, make it even more tasteless (by the way, lagers don't have to be completely tasteless), or do the same with a pilsner, and then call it american. now we have created the american lager, or even worse the american light lager, and it's crap. but hey at least we're brewing to style right?

if someone brews something "new" these days in the craft world and it's crap, they would never be able to continue with that crap style. it wouldn't make it. the reason why these ****ty beers and their styles came into being has more to do with businessmen making cheap beer, government regulation at the time, and WWII taking up most of the countries grains, which meant very little leftover for the small brewery. before that american style beers, even craft beers at the time, were not flavorless.

I hate them because I'm jealous, I'm jealous because years and years ago some dude made a great batch of beer. Obviously it was good. With this batch he blew up and took over the world made a bagillion dollars (if you don't know a "bagillion" is a lot of money) and was able to start buying a lot of cool **** to make more and more and more beers. I'm jealous of the bagllion dollars they made which allowed them to hire scientists and really nice shiny equipment. I'm jealous that they were able to take their home brew and magnify it by like a gabillion x2 (which if you didn't know is a lot of beer x2).

Look up the history of AB. it was not a craft brew that sold a bunch of money. it was a soap maker (the A 1/2) who bought out a local brewery, and whose daughter married a brewery supplier (the B 1/2). So it was basically two businessmen who saw their chance at a blooming business right after prohibition was lifted. They then settled on one of the cheapest beers to make, and because of their already accumulated wealth and affiliations, were able to streamline their product and delivery of that product way better than any of the smaller breweries at the time. Not to mention that they had some accumulated wealth and influence in order to buy more of the leftover grains (the ones not being used to fuel the troops) than the small breweries could.


summary of the above book:
1) they invented the crap style, and keep to that style, that doesn't make them praiseworthy.
2) they were never craft brewers or homebrewers who happened to make it big. they have been about profits since the beginning, never about making good beer.

 

[cantrell00]

"Quality" is in the mouth of The beholder, right?

I'll be the last one to praise Budweiser but the argument seems kinda silly.

Look at this way,,,

Who makes better steel? A blacksmith or a steel mill.
?

 

[kombat]

if someone brews something "new" these days in the craft world and it's crap, they would never be able to continue with that crap style. it wouldn't make it.

So how does AB-Inbev get away with it? Someone has to buy the beer, don't they? Why would people buy crap beer, with un unprecedented number of alternatives available?

the reason why these ****ty beers and their styles came into being has more to do with businessmen making cheap beer, government regulation at the time, and WWII taking up most of the countries grains, which meant very little leftover for the small brewery.

Right. But people still bought the beers. And they still do, in numbers that dwarf craft beer sales. Why?

before that american style beers, even craft beers at the time, were not flavorless.

And now we have all kinds of craft beer available, but the "flavorless" light lagers still outsell them by a gargantuan margin. Why would that be, if the beer is such "crap?"

1) they invented the crap style, and keep to that style, that doesn't make them praiseworthy.

What's wrong with inventing a new style? There are new guidelines coming out this year, and they'll add some new styles. Why is that inherently bad? And where do you think the beer styles came from? Were they handed down from God on a stone tablet, never to be messed with by man? Or did they evolve out of regional taste preferences, which a governing body eventually cataloged and documented? And if the North American beer market vastly prefers a bland, flavorless blonde lager with low IBUs and minimal esters, and they buy billions of barrels of such a beer every year, why shouldn't that style be added to the guidelines?

2)they have been about profits since the beginning

So what? Isn't every business? A craft brewery that doesn't give a rip about "profits" won't be in business for very long. And as an AB-Inbev shareholder, I'm quite pleased with their focus on profits.

 

[joshesmusica]

So how does AB-Inbev get away with it? Someone has to buy the beer, don't they? Why would people buy crap beer, with un unprecedented number of alternatives available?

why do you buy cheap liquor? or cheap wine? because the point isn't the flavor for most, it's the alcohol content. or because it's what they've always bought.

Right. But people still bought the beers. And they still do, in numbers that dwarf craft beer sales. Why?

again, the same point as above.

And now we have all kinds of craft beer available, but the "flavorless" light lagers still outsell them by a gargantuan margin. Why would that be, if the beer is such "crap?"

if you're just looking for a jolt of alcohol without much flavor or calories in it, then of course it's not crap. and also there are lots of signs pointing to the fact that many people are moving over to the craft beers. around 2009 the beer sales in the US were declining, while craft beer sales were increasing. showing more people moving over to craft beer.
and although there continues to be more styles available, because of distribution laws, the bmc beers will always have more availability.

What's wrong with inventing a new style? There are new guidelines coming out this year, and they'll add some new styles. Why is that inherently bad? And where do you think the beer styles came from? Were they handed down from God on a stone tablet, never to be messed with by man? Or did they evolve out of regional taste preferences, which a governing body eventually cataloged and documented? And if the North American beer market vastly prefers a bland, flavorless blonde lager with low IBUs and minimal esters, and they buy billions of barrels of such a beer every year, why shouldn't that style be added to the guidelines?

you're now starting to just quote me at random and taking it out of context. i never said inventing a new style is a bad thing. i said that nowadays, unless it's a good style, it's not gonna make it onto the new styles list, because of craft beer drinkers. back then they created the style because it was the cheapest to make. it became the biggest style in the US due to many factors that have nothing to do with the flavor of the beer, and more to do with politics and business. in fact their main point was minimal flavor.

So what? Isn't every business? A craft brewery that doesn't give a rip about "profits" won't be in business for very long. And as an AB-Inbev shareholder, I'm quite pleased with their focus on profits.

again, only quoting half of what i said in order to take it out of context. i never said every business shouldn't care about profit. i said they cared only about turning a profit, not about making good, flavorful beer.

if you're going to argue just for the sake of arguing, at least have the decency to not take quotes out of context.
arguing that the beer must not be crap because of how much it sells every year is not a valid argument. especially from the american perspective, which cares less about quality and mostly only about price and how quickly it's available. see mcdonalds, walmart, folgers, etc.

 

[kombat]

I was only trying to point out that you seemed to be implying that consumers are idiots and will buy what they're told, billions of barrels at a time, even if they don't like the product. That's obviously absurd. They don't sell billions of barrels of crappy tasting beer just because it's the cheapest or because millions of people are just trying to get drunk in the cheapest way possible. As hard as it may be for you to accept, but most of those people buying Bud Light actually like the taste of that beer. You don't, and that's fine, but don't try and make it seem like people are retarded lemmings, succumbing to mind-control and forking over billions and billions of dollars for something they don't like. That's nonsense. It's insulting and arrogant.

 

[falkaveli]

Brewing is art. In the art industry....quality is generally mutually exclusive with quantity (at least at large scale). Think Folgers vs. small roasters.

 

[JohnSand]

Somebody shoot this thread. Please.

 

[1977Brewer]

Somebody shoot this thread. Please.

But it's so fun.

 

[JohnSand]

 

[joshesmusica]

I was only trying to point out that you seemed to be implying that consumers are idiots and will buy what they're told, billions of barrels at a time, even if they don't like the product. That's obviously absurd. They don't sell billions of barrels of crappy tasting beer just because it's the cheapest or because millions of people are just trying to get drunk in the cheapest way possible. As hard as it may be for you to accept, but most of those people buying Bud Light actually like the taste of that beer. You don't, and that's fine, but don't try and make it seem like people are retarded lemmings, succumbing to mind-control and forking over billions and billions of dollars for something they don't like. That's nonsense. It's insulting and arrogant.

not being arrogant, being a realist. when there's only a certain type of product available, people get used to consuming that. and from then on, they prefer that one, not because they're mindless robots, but because it's what's familiar.
anecdote: my father in law drinks only the cheapest coffee sold in stores (norway's version of folgers). he goes so far as to say that it's the best one sold in stores. it's not. it's just that when he first started drinking coffee the selection was awful, and it was the cheapest of the crap ones available. that doesn't make the flavor of that coffee good just because he still prefers it. it just simply means it's what he's known for years and years, so in his mind there's no reason to branch out.

 

[joshesmusica]

Somebody shoot this thread. Please.

these are some of my favorite responses to threads like this. it kinda makes you start to wonder about that mindless robot thing mentioned above, doesn't it? when someone seems so clearly forced to read this type of thread, yet they hate every minute of it.

 

[kombat]

Then why doesn't McDonald's control 97% of the hamburger market? Big Macs are crappy, but people got used to them early, so by your logic, they'd have no reason to branch out and try a Five Guys burger or a Works burger or any other kind of burger. They'd go to a pub and ask, "Do you guys have Big Macs?" "No, but we do have a Peppercorn Blue Cheese burger made from local beef." "Ugh, no thanks. I guess I'll just have some French fries. I only eat Big Macs, not that hipster, craft burger crap."