 |
|
| Beer (rec.drink.beer) Discussing various aspects of that fine beverage referred to as beer. Including interesting beers and beer styles, opinions on tastes and ingredients, reviews of brewpubs and breweries & suggestions about where to shop. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Medium-size breweries?
There's the big four breweries (Miller, Coors, Pabst, and Anheuser-Busch)
and then micro-breweries. However, are there breweries between these two? Ones that have national distribution and of a size in between these two? In other words, "medium" size breweries? Possibly ones that are on the decline, rise, or reaches a large size but have no desire to become as big as the big four. If there's many that are viewed this way, is there an online list of them? Or an online list that includes all sizes of breweries but is set up in such a way that medium-size ones are identified? Links would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Scott Jensen -- Like a cure for A.I.D.S., Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease? Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle. Go to http://tinyurl.com/6fsdg to sign up your computer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
As a general rule, there are fewer and fewer breweries falling between those
two extremes anymore. This can generally be credited to the enormous success of Bud/Miller/Coors in the 1970s to the present in capturing an ever-greater share of the market through advertising, distribution control, etc. Typical examples: In Baltimore the last of the large local breweries was a Heilemann brewery outside the beltway that, as I recall, had an annual capacity of about 600,000 barrels, and was running FAR below that capacity when it was closed in the 1990s. As I recall, the major Anheuser-Busch breweries--twelve of them scattered through America--produce about 1.5 to 2.2 million barrels EACH per year. So the local regional mass-market breweries (think Stroh's, Wiedemann, National Premium, etc.) are/were way too big for the product demands of today's lackluster or comatose small-brand beers, while also being WAY too big for microbreweries. (Staying in the same region, Frederick Brewing in Frederick, Maryland, a microbrewery built about the same time as the Baltimore Heilemann plant closed, has an annual capacity of about 60,000 barrels, and is currently running at about half that capacity in spite of contract-brewing for several regional Ohio brands.) Perhaps the largest "regional" brewery out there might be the newly-built Yuengling brewery outside Pottstown, Pa.; I think that the annual capacity of the old and new breweries is somewhere around 1 million barrels. Several folks wondered why a microbrewery didn't buy that Baltimore brewery; it would have been like buying a C-130 hangar to park your car. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> As a general rule, there are fewer and fewer breweries falling between those > two extremes anymore. This can generally be credited to the enormous > success of Bud/Miller/Coors in the 1970s to the present in capturing an > ever-greater share of the market through advertising, distribution control, > etc. Painfully true, and a lot of regionals have gone by the wayside. > [...] I clipped the part mentioning some of the regionals, but not for lack of merit. Not just Stroh's, Wiedemann, and National Premium went by the wayside, but they're as good a set of examples as any. Some of the brands still live on, though; Blitz-Weinhard's Henry Weinhard's brand and Rainier's lager are still brewed in one form or another. It doesn't really matter whether Miller or Pabst owns the brands, since they're brewed by Miller anyway. > Perhaps the largest "regional" brewery out there might be the newly-built > Yuengling brewery outside Pottstown, Pa.; I think that the annual capacity > of the old and new breweries is somewhere around 1 million barrels. Could be. Another sizeable medium-sized regional is High Falls, brewing the Genesee and JW Dundee's brands, along with a few others. F.X. Matt, with its own Saranac brand and its contract brews (including some for Brooklyn Brewing and Pete's) would also qualify as a surviving medium- sized regional. Perhaps the Lion Brewery in Pennsylvania might count as well, having survived while seeing 28 of its area competitors go by the wayside. San Francisco's Anchor Brewing could be considered another regional, and New Orleans's Dixie brewery, still hanging on, qualifies. > Several folks wondered why a microbrewery didn't buy that Baltimore brewery; > it would have been like buying a C-130 hangar to park your car. Buying a brewery and running it at 10% of capacity would have meant certain doom, and things are tough enough as it is. Some of the startups from the early years of the microbrewery boom are still around, and are getting to the point of being medium-sized regionals. The most obvious one might be Boston Brewing/Sam Adams, which took over a former regional brewer's plant in Ohio. Others that have grown to sizeable production volumes include the likes of Sierra Nevada and Redhook. The Pacific Northwest states no longer have any old-line regional brewers, after the shutdowns of Blitz-Weinhard and Rainier. The "big" producers in the region now include the likes of Redhook, Widmer, and Pyramid (including Portland Brewing). All the big-brewery beers come from elsewhere, mostly California and Colorado, with the exception of a couple of Henry's beers contract-brewed by Full Sail. It isn't a bad situation, except perhaps from the employment point of view; the big brewers had a few more people working there than the microbrewers do. -- dgs |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> San Francisco's Anchor Brewing could be considered another
> regional, and New Orleans's Dixie brewery, still hanging on, qualifies. > Buying a brewery and running it at 10% of capacity would have meant > certain doom, and things are tough enough as it is. I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to commercial beers. > Some of the startups from the early years of the microbrewery boom are > still around, and are getting to the point of being medium-sized > regionals. The most obvious one might be Boston Brewing/Sam Adams, > which took over a former regional brewer's plant in Ohio. Others that > have grown to sizeable production volumes include the likes of Sierra > Nevada and Redhook. Sierra Nevada is an option I like, Sam Adams was actually contracted out to a brewer however they may brew their own now. Redhook has the nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help them mass produce their product. Locals say that Redhook does not taste the same and the quality has gone down. > The Pacific Northwest states no longer have any old-line regional > brewers, after the shutdowns of Blitz-Weinhard and Rainier. The "big" > producers in the region now include the likes of Redhook, Widmer, and > Pyramid (including Portland Brewing). All the big-brewery beers come > from elsewhere, mostly California and Colorado, with the exception of a > couple of Henry's beers contract-brewed by Full Sail. It isn't a bad > situation, except perhaps from the employment point of view; the big > brewers had a few more people working there than the microbrewers do. A long time ago I purchased a Weinhard that had a Sam Adams cap, so there is a lot of regional brewing help going on. Full Sail was one of my favorites, for some reason does not taste the same since they are now employee owned. This could be that other Microbrewies are now better. I think this is a better situation for consumers who want quality however the cheap beers with no quality have gone under. Some microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia aware that Bud has a union. Scott |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Troyone" > wrote in message
ups.com... > I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK > but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to > commercial beers. Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial beers. And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had beer from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer from some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to be North American breweries, however). Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer. Period. > Sierra Nevada is an option I like, And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. > Sam Adams was actually contracted > out to a brewer however they may brew their own now. They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care where it comes from. > Redhook has the > nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help > them mass produce their product. Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly. It's also scheduled to end very soon now. > Locals say that Redhook does not taste > the same and the quality has gone down. And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with the brewing operations. (And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the impressive to begin with.) > A long time ago I purchased a Weinhard that had a Sam Adams cap, so > there is a lot of regional brewing help going on. Full Sail was one of > my favorites, for some reason does not taste the same since they are > now employee owned. This could be that other Microbrewies are now > better. I think this is a better situation for consumers who want > quality however the cheap beers with no quality have gone under. Some > microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia > aware that Bud has a union. I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any impact on the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the quality of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to ensure consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership structure and any employee structure. The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a very quick and unmerciful death. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Troyone" > wrote in message
ups.com... > I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK > but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to > commercial beers. Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial beers. And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had beer from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer from some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to be North American breweries, however). Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer. Period. > Sierra Nevada is an option I like, And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. > Sam Adams was actually contracted > out to a brewer however they may brew their own now. They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care where it comes from. > Redhook has the > nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help > them mass produce their product. Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly. It's also scheduled to end very soon now. > Locals say that Redhook does not taste > the same and the quality has gone down. And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with the brewing operations. (And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the impressive to begin with.) > A long time ago I purchased a Weinhard that had a Sam Adams cap, so > there is a lot of regional brewing help going on. Full Sail was one of > my favorites, for some reason does not taste the same since they are > now employee owned. This could be that other Microbrewies are now > better. I think this is a better situation for consumers who want > quality however the cheap beers with no quality have gone under. Some > microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia > aware that Bud has a union. I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any impact on the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the quality of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to ensure consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership structure and any employee structure. The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a very quick and unmerciful death. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Jackson wrote:
>>Sam Adams was actually contracted >>out to a brewer however they may brew their own now. > > They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract > brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many > beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care > where it comes from. Here's a question I have to anybody who is familiar with contract brewing. Who is responsible for buying (and checking the quality of) the ingredients. Is it the microbrewery or the contract company? And who oversees the brewing process to ensure quality and to make sure that the beer is consistent from batch to batch? I think part of the bias about contract brewing comes from the idea that a microbrewer sends a recipe to the contractor and the contractor is responsible for the whole process. > The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer > is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a > very quick and unmerciful death. There is a history in brewing of companies looking to buy cheaper supplies as they get larger. If a privately owned brewer sells stock and becomes publicly owned, it's easier to boost profits by lowering supply costs than it is to boost demand. In the brewpub movement, it became easy to distinguish by tasting the beer between who opened a brewpub because he cared about beer and he wanted to share his passion with the public, and who opened one because he was opening a restaurant and he saw (in the '90s) that a brewpub was value-added. This perception might be the same one in brewing company size: a smaller brewing company cares about beer more. Tom W |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Jackson wrote:
> Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial beers. By your opinion, my opinion is that if a brewery commercially advertises Nationally on TV and Radio, there is commercialization. Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality. > And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had beer > from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer from > some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to be > North American breweries, however). This is why only the word of mouth microbrews spread through out the country because they're a better product than commercial beer. > Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer. > Period. Have you ever brewed? I prefer small batch brew over large batches the quality is noticable to me. > Sierra Nevada is an option I like, > And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even > bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts. > They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract > brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many > beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care > where it comes from. Beer geeks who brew know the difference! > > Redhook has the > > nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help > > them mass produce their product. > Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly. > It's also scheduled to end very soon now. > > Locals say that Redhook does not taste > > the same and the quality has gone down. > And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with the > brewing operations. We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than helping or giving in to a commercial company. Commercial breweries are not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising. > (And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the impressive to > begin with.) I have only heard the opposite but this is possible. > I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any impact on > the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the quality > of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to ensure > consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership structure > and any employee structure. > The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer > is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a > very quick and unmerciful death. I agree only "change" from one to the other may affect the difference in quality. Scott |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Jackson wrote:
> Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial beers. By your opinion, my opinion is that if a brewery commercially advertises Nationally on TV and Radio, there is commercialization. Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality. > And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had beer > from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer from > some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to be > North American breweries, however). This is why only the word of mouth microbrews spread through out the country because they're a better product than commercial beer. > Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer. > Period. Have you ever brewed? I prefer small batch brew over large batches the quality is noticable to me. > Sierra Nevada is an option I like, > And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even > bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts. > They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract > brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many > beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care > where it comes from. Beer geeks who brew know the difference! > > Redhook has the > > nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help > > them mass produce their product. > Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly. > It's also scheduled to end very soon now. > > Locals say that Redhook does not taste > > the same and the quality has gone down. > And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with the > brewing operations. We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than helping or giving in to a commercial company. Commercial breweries are not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising. > (And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the impressive to > begin with.) I have only heard the opposite but this is possible. > I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any impact on > the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the quality > of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to ensure > consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership structure > and any employee structure. > The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer > is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a > very quick and unmerciful death. I agree only "change" from one to the other may affect the difference in quality. Scott |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Jensen" > wrote in
: > There's the big four breweries (Miller, Coors, Pabst, and > Anheuser-Busch) and then micro-breweries. However, are there > breweries between these two? Ones that have national distribution and > of a size in between these two? In other words, "medium" size > breweries? Depends where you live (I'm guessing USA), but Australia has Boag's and Cooper's, with Grand Ridge on the rise. K -- nil illegitimi carborundum |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Wolper" > wrote in message
news 
> Here's a question I have to anybody who is familiar with contract brewing. > Who is responsible for buying (and checking the quality of) the > ingredients. Is it the microbrewery or the contract company? And who > oversees the brewing process to ensure quality and to make sure that the > beer is consistent from batch to batch? From some of the specifics I've known about various contract brewing arrangements, the answer is that there is no one answer. I've known some contract breweries that specify that you use their ingredients, especially their yeast. I've known some contract breweries that go to great lengths to work with the parent breweries' specifications and standards. It depends on the individual contracts. Of course, the larger a share of business you provide to a contract brewery, the more clout you're going to wield. Someone the size of BBC is going to have quite a bit of sway and ability to demand that their product be brewed the way they wish. > There is a history in brewing of companies looking to buy cheaper supplies > as they get larger. If a privately owned brewer sells stock and becomes > publicly owned, it's easier to boost profits by lowering supply costs than > it is to boost demand. You'd be surprised to find that the companies who do that aren't necessarily who you suspect. Anheuser-Busch, for instance, spends a lot on very high-quality ingredients. This is something that many beer geeks just refuse to accept. A-B brews Bud the way they do not because they're cheap. They do it because it's what sells, and what many people enjoy. They brew that recipe deliberately, and they don't scrimp on it. > > In the brewpub movement, it became easy to distinguish by tasting the beer > between who opened a brewpub because he cared about beer and he wanted to > share his passion with the public, and who opened one because he was > opening a restaurant and he saw (in the '90s) that a brewpub was > value-added. This perception might be the same one in brewing company > size: a smaller brewing company cares about beer more. An assertion I patently disagree with. Small does not mean more concern. I've encountered enough small breweries where people don't give a shit about the beer, and it shows. Size is simply not a reliable predictor of a brewery's quality. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Troyone" > wrote in message
oups.com... > Steve Jackson wrote: >> Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial > beers. > > By your opinion, my opinion is that if a brewery commercially > advertises Nationally on TV and Radio, there is commercialization. There is commercialization if you put your name on a tap handle. There is commercialization if you sell your beer in any bar or any store outside your brewery. There is commercialization when you put your name on a label. There is commercialization when you put your name on a beer mat. There is commercialization when you have neon signs created with your name. The defintion of "commercial" in this context means you produce something and sell it for money. Scale doesn't enter into it. Craft breweries are every bit as commercial as the big breweries. They just aren't commercial on the same scale. You honestly thing Sierra Nevada or Anchor wouldn't do national TV advertising if they had the income to support it? > Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality. Craft beers are successful for any number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with quality. There are successful craft beers that are of dubious quality. There are many defunct craft breweries that brewed outstanding beer. Simply producing a good product is not enough to guarantee success, in any business. > >> And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had > beer >> from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer > from >> some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to > be >> North American breweries, however). > > This is why only the word of mouth microbrews spread through out the > country because they're a better product than commercial beer. > >> Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer. > >> Period. > > Have you ever brewed? Yes, I have. Did for several years. > I prefer small batch brew over large batches the > quality is noticable to me. By this logic, the best beer is going to be brewed a gallon at a time, and there are diminishing returns the larger you go. By this logic, the lousy-to-mediocre brewpub down the street from me should be of better quality than Sierra Nevada. The premise is absurd on its face. I'll throw one question that has no bearing on the discussion (whether or not I've brewed has nothing to do with being able to evaluate the quality of beer) with one that's only slightly more relevant: Have you ever been the Europe? Because there are some very large breweries over there that brew beers that most small American breweries would give their left nut to brew. >> Sierra Nevada is an option I like, >> And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe > even >> bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. > > Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also > they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial > breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts. Belgian breweries use corn adjuncts. British breweries use corn adjuncts. And I don't know of many, if any, breweries that don't mill their grain shortly before brewing. And SN is indeed successful through a lot of word-of-mouth. They also are good marketers. > > >> They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of > contract >> brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood > so many >> beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I > don't care >> where it comes from. > > > Beer geeks who brew know the difference! To be blunt. Bullshit. Some of the best evaluators of beer I've run across don't brew. And I've known plenty of homebrewers who couldn't identify their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to beer quality. Less perjoratively, I've sat through many blind tastings where people who were convinced they could tell a difference between beers (based on various criteria) in fact could not. And, again, if someone's brewing a good beer, who the hell cares where it's from? > We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook > should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept > up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than > helping or giving in to a commercial company. ********. If you're in business, you try to make money as best you can. If Redhook's distribution-only agreement with A-B had succeeded in spreading popular acceptance of craft beer, American beer geeks would be walking around with giant stiffies every time Redhook's name was mentioned. Because the agreement didn't end up working out for Redhook, they become an easy whipping boy. By the way, Anchor has not kept up with demand and quality. Anchor Steam deteriorates ridiculously rapidly, and is a vastly different beer in the Bay Area as opposed to anywhere else. The other Anchor beers fare a bit better, but not much. I love Anchor, but they are the last brewery I would go to for advice on how to preserve quality as you widen your distribution. > Commercial breweries are > not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to > think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising. Large-scale breweries are sure as hell concerned about quality. They would not be in business if they weren't and they only need to look back at Schlitz in the mid 1970s to see what happens when you fall asleep at the quality switch. When have you ever heard of an infected Miller or Bud? When have you ever heard of an off batch of Coors? The majors are obsessed with quality. Just becuase you don't like the product they're making doesn't mean it's not of quality. Their craftsmanship is outstanding. They're devoting that attention into what I think is a wholly uninteresting product, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't have quality. I think the new Rolls Royce looks like shit, but that hardly means it's not a quality car. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Jensen" > wrote in message
... > There's the big four breweries (Miller, Coors, Pabst, and Anheuser-Busch) Technically speaking, Pabst is no longer a brewery (nor is it really in the company of those other three). Pabst is strictly a marketing company now; all of its beers are contract-brewed, mostly by SAB Miller. > and then micro-breweries. However, are there breweries between these two? Of course. If you want to be literal, a microbrewery is defined as one that brews fewer than 15k barrels a year. Numerous craft breweries outpace that, like Boston Beer Co., Sierra Nevada, Anchor. Plus, there are still several old regional breweries that still operate. Some examples of those have been mentioned in other posts. > Ones that have national distribution and of a size in between these two? See the more prominent craft breweries. Sam Adams (brewed by Boston Beer Co.) has nationwide distribution. Sierra Nevada pretty much does as well. Anchor's close. And even smaller breweries are coast-to-coast, if not in every state, like Stone from San Diego or Victory from Pennsylvania. > In > other words, "medium" size breweries? Possibly ones that are on the > decline, rise, or reaches a large size but have no desire to become as big > as the big four. If there's many that are viewed this way, is there an > online list of them? Or an online list that includes all sizes of > breweries > but is set up in such a way that medium-size ones are identified? Links > would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Do some googling. If you found a list of the 10 or 20 largest American breweries, you'd find 6 or 16 other than your four largest that would fit those criteria. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Jackson wrote:
> There is commercialization if you put your name on a tap handle. There is > commercialization if you sell your beer in any bar or any store outside your > brewery. There is commercialization when you put your name on a label. There > is commercialization when you put your name on a beer mat. There is > commercialization when you have neon signs created with your name. > The defintion of "commercial" in this context means you produce something > and sell it for money. Scale doesn't enter into it. Craft breweries are > every bit as commercial as the big breweries. They just aren't commercial on > the same scale. This perception of commercialism is word of mouth and reputation not high cost advertising during a Super Bowl with cartoon frogs! > You honestly thing Sierra Nevada or Anchor wouldn't do national TV > advertising if they had the income to support it? No they would not, I'm convinced they would not sell out. > > Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality. > Craft beers are successful for any number of reasons, many of which have > nothing to do with quality. There are successful craft beers that are of > dubious quality. There are many defunct craft breweries that brewed > outstanding beer. Simply producing a good product is not enough to guarantee > success, in any business. I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do you want to buy it? > > I prefer small batch brew over large batches the > > quality is noticable to me. > By this logic, the best beer is going to be brewed a gallon at a time, and > there are diminishing returns the larger you go. By this logic, the > lousy-to-mediocre brewpub down the street from me should be of better > quality than Sierra Nevada. The premise is absurd on its face. > I'll throw one question that has no bearing on the discussion (whether or > not I've brewed has nothing to do with being able to evaluate the quality of > beer) with one that's only slightly more relevant: Have you ever been the > Europe? Because there are some very large breweries over there that brew > beers that most small American breweries would give their left nut to brew. I have brewed 15 gallon batches nonetheless I prefer five gallon batches. I like the Trappist Beers from Europe, they're brewed like microbrew here and I would even like to go on a tour if possible. > >> Sierra Nevada is an option I like, > >> And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe > > even > >> bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. > > Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also > > they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial > > breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts. > Belgian breweries use corn adjuncts. British breweries use corn adjuncts. > And I don't know of many, if any, breweries that don't mill their grain > shortly before brewing. Belgium and the UK have commercial breweries as well as every other country in the world, all commercial advertising breweries take short and expense cuts using adjuncts. I would hope they all crack their grains before mashing but most commercial brewers do not. > >> They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of > > contract > >> brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood > > so many > >> beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I > > don't care > >> where it comes from. > > Beer geeks who brew know the difference! > To be blunt. Bullshit. Some of the best evaluators of beer I've run across > don't brew. And I've known plenty of homebrewers who couldn't identify their > ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to beer quality. > Less perjoratively, I've sat through many blind tastings where people who > were convinced they could tell a difference between beers (based on various > criteria) in fact could not. > And, again, if someone's brewing a good beer, who the hell cares where it's > from? If you put a good quality word of mouth microbrew next to any Sam Adams, I guarantee you I would be able to tell the difference. This could include any commercial advertising Brewery in the USA, they can not compete with any good word of mouth microbrew. "Who... cares cares where it's from"... what is in it... etc...? I want to know where the beer was brewed, what is in it, etc... because I care about my health. > > We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook > > should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept > > up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than > > helping or giving in to a commercial company. > ********. If you're in business, you try to make money as best you can. If > Redhook's distribution-only agreement with A-B had succeeded in spreading > popular acceptance of craft beer, American beer geeks would be walking > around with giant stiffies every time Redhook's name was mentioned. Because > the agreement didn't end up working out for Redhook, they become an easy > whipping boy. > By the way, Anchor has not kept up with demand and quality. Anchor Steam > deteriorates ridiculously rapidly, and is a vastly different beer in the Bay > Area as opposed to anywhere else. The other Anchor beers fare a bit better, > but not much. I love Anchor, but they are the last brewery I would go to for > advice on how to preserve quality as you widen your distribution. The brewers at Redhook did not need to expand when they did with Bud, they were doing just fine in fact could not meet the demand. They made the deal with Bud because of greed not necessity. A lot of other microbrewies may have considered them a sell out. In fact there are some microbreweries in the Bay area that turned down offers from Bud and Miller. With all the new Microbrews I have not bothered to drink an Anchor lately... you may be right. Is Mayflower still alive? > > Commercial breweries are > > not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to > > think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising. > Large-scale breweries are sure as hell concerned about quality. They would > not be in business if they weren't and they only need to look back at > Schlitz in the mid 1970s to see what happens when you fall asleep at the > quality switch. When have you ever heard of an infected Miller or Bud? When > have you ever heard of an off batch of Coors? The way the commercial brewers brew and sell what they think is quality is an off batch way of business in my opinion. I had a vinegar tasting Coors in the eighties and have not drank one since. > The majors are obsessed with quality. Just becuase you don't like the > product they're making doesn't mean it's not of quality. Their craftsmanship > is outstanding. They're devoting that attention into what I think is a > wholly uninteresting product, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean > it doesn't have quality. I think the new Rolls Royce looks like shit, but > that hardly means it's not a quality car. Agree I do not like the way they brew or their finished product, it may be quality by their definition of quality, obiously not anywhere else not even the beer review sites on the internet. Scott |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"> I have brewed 15 gallon batches nonetheless I prefer five gallon > batches. I like the Trappist Beers from Europe, they're brewed like > microbrew here and I would even like to go on a tour if possible. > Belgium and the UK have commercial breweries as well as every other > country in the world, all commercial advertising breweries take short > and expense cuts using adjuncts. > I would hope they all crack their grains before mashing but most > commercial brewers do not. > Be careful with what you write, or you might end up writing black and white in one sentence. The Trappist brewery at Westmalle, was since +/- 1990 the only brewery in Belgium, with Stella Artois in Leuven, where they had the new type of mashtun ( if that word could still be used - extractor is probably more apt) that is so efficient that the malt doesn't need to be crushed; the full maltgrains with the peels and everything are completely fine-grinded to powder. No more filterbed necessary. That's your microbrewery. BTW, production is 125.000hl/year. Brouwerij Slaghmuylder, most famous for its "Witkap" beers, has always used a portion of cornflour in its mash. They're a small, commercial brewer. Production is 80.000hl/year, there's a lot of USA "microbrewers" that produce more annualy. The only microbrewer that wouldn't give his left nut for being able to advertise on TV, is the one that is already producing more than he really could. JPP |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troyone > wrote: >I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do >you want to buy it? Pet peeve: People who profess to be beer geeks who can't figure out the difference between a brewery and a beer. -- Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child. plutchak at [...] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troyone > wrote: >I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do >you want to buy it? Pet peeve: People who profess to be beer geeks who can't figure out the difference between a brewery and a beer. -- Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child. plutchak at [...] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joel" > wrote in message
... > > Troyone > wrote: > >I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do > >you want to buy it? > > Pet peeve: People who profess to be beer geeks who > can't figure out the difference between a brewery and > a beer. Honestly. This guy is so perfect he's almost gotta be a troll. If he is, he's a good one. -- Lew Bryson www.LewBryson.com Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both available at <www.amazon.com> The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it, or respond to it. Spam away. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" > wrote in message
news:Esssd.5 > Perhaps the largest "regional" brewery out there might be the newly-built > Yuengling brewery outside Pottstown, Pa.; I think that the annual capacity > of the old and new breweries is somewhere around 1 million barrels. Current production is probably about 1.5, 1.6 million bbls. Their current capacity, with the old brewery, the new brewery, and the Tampa brewery, is up around 3 million, and they have room to expand that further. > Several folks wondered why a microbrewery didn't buy that Baltimore brewery; > it would have been like buying a C-130 hangar to park your car. Wickedly inefficient, ayup. -- Lew Bryson www.LewBryson.com Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both available at <www.amazon.com> The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it, or respond to it. Spam away. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troyone wrote:
> Steve Jackson wrote: > >>There is commercialization if you put your name on a tap handle. There is >>commercialization if you sell your beer in any bar or any store outside your >>brewery. There is commercialization when you put your name on a label. There >>is commercialization when you put your name on a beer mat. There is >>commercialization when you have neon signs created with your name. >>The defintion of "commercial" in this context means you produce something >>and sell it for money. Scale doesn't enter into it. Craft breweries >> are every bit as commercial as the big breweries. They just aren't commercial on >>the same scale. > > This perception of commercialism is word of mouth and reputation not > high cost advertising during a Super Bowl with cartoon frogs! Eh? I can pick up local papers in my city and see plenty of adverts places by local craft breweries. Word of mouth and reputation is nice, but once a brewery grows to a certain size, that isn't enough to pay the bills, so they have to engage in some form of marketing. >>You honestly thing Sierra Nevada or Anchor wouldn't do national TV >>advertising if they had the income to support it? > > No they would not, I'm convinced they would not sell out. Guess again. Nice little idealist world you live in, but it's not reality. >>>Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality. >>Craft beers are successful for any number of reasons, many of which have >>nothing to do with quality. There are successful craft beers that are of >>dubious quality. There are many defunct craft breweries that brewed >>outstanding beer. Simply producing a good product is not enough to guarantee >>success, in any business. > > I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do > you want to buy it? So you're not capable of addressing his argument, and have to be stupid about it? You're not even bright enough to know that there's no such thing as "Anchor Steam Brewing." You don't have room to imply that someone else is stupid. >>>I prefer small batch brew over large batches the >>>quality is noticable to me. >> >>By this logic, the best beer is going to be brewed a gallon at a time, and >>there are diminishing returns the larger you go. [...] Have you ever been the >>Europe? Because there are some very large breweries over there that brew >>beers that most small American breweries would give their left nut to brew. > > I have brewed 15 gallon batches nonetheless I prefer five gallon > batches. I like the Trappist Beers from Europe, they're brewed like > microbrew here and I would even like to go on a tour if possible. Once again, you don't even bother to answer the question. And what you do as a homebrewer has little to do with brewing beer as a business, as many a homebrewer has learned the hard way. You also don't know much about the Trappist breweries. Two of them are, in fact, sizeable operations, barely qualifying as "microbreweries" at all. >>>>Sierra Nevada is an option I like, >>>>And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even >>>>bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries. >>> >>>Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality Eh? You've never seen print ads for SN? >>> also >>>they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial >>>breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts. This, Zippy, is what we English-speakers call a "non-sequitur." The vast majority of brewing enterprises don't mill their malt until it's time to add it to the mash. And it has nothing to do with adjuncts. >>Belgian breweries use corn adjuncts. British breweries use corn adjuncts. >>And I don't know of many, if any, breweries that don't mill their grain >>shortly before brewing. Exactly. Hey, you must be one of those folks from the "reality-based" community. > Belgium and the UK have commercial breweries as well as every other > country in the world, all commercial advertising breweries take short > and expense cuts using adjuncts. Um, no. It's against the law to use adjuncts in Germany, yet there are several big breweries that advertise quite a bit. They also do a lot of point-of-sale marketing with beer-mats, signs, glassware, and loads of other stuff. > I would hope they all crack their grains before mashing but most > commercial brewers do not. Right. They wait 'til after the mash. >>And, again, if someone's brewing a good beer, who the hell cares where it's >>from? > > If you put a good quality word of mouth microbrew next to any Sam > Adams, I guarantee you I would be able to tell the difference. I'd love to take you up on this, because I'd be laughing my head off as you proved yourself wrong. > "Who... cares cares where it's from"... what is in it... etc...? So now you're assuming what other people are thinking, based on their words? Don't put words in other people's mouths. All it does it reveal the paucity of your argument, as you build your own little strawman. > I want > to know where the beer was brewed, what is in it, etc... because I care > about my health. Bwahahahaha! So big deal. If Boston Brewing's beer states plainly on the label that it was brewed in Portland, Oregon, or Seattle, Washington (as it was at one time), and it's brewed with exactly the same stuff at either location, using the same methods, what's the difference? And what guarantee do you have that some random microbrewer's beer is "healthier" than some other random not-so-microbrewer's beer? >>>We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook >>>should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept >>>up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than >>>helping or giving in to a commercial company. >> >>********. If you're in business, you try to make money as best you can. If >>Redhook's distribution-only agreement with A-B had succeeded in spreading >>popular acceptance of craft beer, American beer geeks would be walking >>around with giant stiffies every time Redhook's name was mentioned. Because >>the agreement didn't end up working out for Redhook, they become an easy >>whipping boy. Actually, were it not for that agreement, Redhook would be toast by now. They expanded way too quickly, and it's pretty much A-B that's saved their bacon and kept them in business. But you're right in that the agreement was very much a mixed blessing for Redhook. >>By the way, Anchor has not kept up with demand and quality. Anchor Steam >>deteriorates ridiculously rapidly, and is a vastly different beer in the Bay >>Area as opposed to anywhere else. The other Anchor beers fare a bit better, >>but not much. I love Anchor, but they are the last brewery I would go to for >>advice on how to preserve quality as you widen your distribution. > > The brewers at Redhook did not need to expand when they did with Bud, > they were doing just fine in fact could not meet the demand. Incorrect. They wanted to fund market expansion. The management at the brewery saw what they thought was an opportunity to increase their distribution reach, and at the same time, by raising money on the public market, they could fund that reach. > They made > the deal with Bud because of greed not necessity. Wow! I'm impressed! You've actually seen Redhook's internal company communications and know this for a fact? You're not, in fact, just talking out of your ass? > A lot of other > microbrewies may have considered them a sell out. What "a lot of other microbreweries" though about Redhook's business is irrelevant. And which other microbreweries would those be, hmm? > In fact there are > some microbreweries in the Bay area that turned down offers from Bud > and Miller. Really? Which ones? >>>Commercial breweries are >>>not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to >>>think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising. Yes, and those black helicopters with A-B's logo are monitoring your beer-drinking habits, citizen. It's best for all if you just obey. >>Large-scale breweries are sure as hell concerned about quality. They would >>not be in business if they weren't and they only need to look back at >>Schlitz in the mid 1970s to see what happens when you fall asleep at the >>quality switch. When have you ever heard of an infected Miller or Bud? When >>have you ever heard of an off batch of Coors? > > The way the commercial brewers brew and sell what they think is quality > is an off batch way of business in my opinion. Your opinion and a dollar will still be short of what's needed to buy a pint of microbrew at my local. The big megabrewers aren't holding a gun to anyone's head. They make the stuff they make, and for whatever reason (ones I can't quite fathom, either), people buy and drink the stuff. So, while I have no interest in the bland stuff the big brewers make, someone does, and that's why they control 90+% of the market in the USA. >>The majors are obsessed with quality. Just becuase you don't like the >>product they're making doesn't mean it's not of quality. Their craftsmanship >>is outstanding. They're devoting that attention into what I think is a >>wholly uninteresting product, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean >>it doesn't have quality. I think the new Rolls Royce looks like shit, but >>that hardly means it's not a quality car. > > Agree I do not like the way they brew or their finished product, it may > be quality by their definition of quality, obiously not anywhere else > not even the beer review sites on the internet. "Not anywhere else" ?? Do you have any concept of the science behind quality control? There are plenty of professional publications that go into detail on the strict quality control procedures at Anheuser-Busch. They simply can't afford screwups and inconsistent product. As far as "the beer review sites on the internet," spare me. The people posting to those sites are a self-selecting sample of people who, for the most part, have an interest in specialty beers. The average Joe Sixpack isn't likely to bother with ratebeer.com at all. What Joe Sixpack is looking for is a mild-tasting product that tastes hardly at all of what a lot of people think beer should taste like, and he wants is a product that is consistently like that. I don't care for it, as is the case with a lot of the people who talk about beer on Usenet and the Web-based review sites, but I'm also aware that I've self-selected myself out of the mass beer market - at least in the United States and Canada. In Germany, I'd drink a mass-market beer without much in the way of hesitation at all. -- dgs |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troyone wrote:
>>San Francisco's Anchor Brewing could be considered another >>regional, and New Orleans's Dixie brewery, still hanging on, qualifies. >>Buying a brewery and running it at 10% of capacity would have meant >>certain doom, and things are tough enough as it is. > > I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK > but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to > commercial beers. Your preference for microbrews (or mine or anyone else's, FTM) does not equate to "quality." Quality, in production terms, is measured in terms of product consistency, and in strict adherence to processes that guarantee that product's consistency. The typical microbrewery beer is often widely variable in quality; for those of us that like them, we generally don't have a problem with that, as long as they fall more or less in the range we've chosen to like. >>[...] Others that >>have grown to sizeable production volumes include the likes of Sierra >>Nevada and Redhook. > > Redhook has the > nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help > them mass produce their product. Locals say that Redhook does not taste > the same and the quality has gone down. Anheuser-Busch is a brewery. Budweiser is its flagship brand. A-B made a deal with Redhook that involved A-B buying some equity (in the form of stock), thus investing in Redhook. In return, Redhook was guaranteed access to A-B's huge, well-developed distribution network. That's where Redhook gets the "Budhook" handle. Redhook beers definitely don't taste the same as the inconsistent beers they were making 22 years ago. The quality, however, has not gone down. More people are drinking Redhook than 22 years ago, but again, in production terms, quality is defined in termed of an ability to make a producting using a repeatable, consistent product. Redhook is able to do this. Their beers aren't as attractive to the beer geeks any more, and they don't compete in terms of strong flavors with some of the craft breweries' products that have come along since then, but Redhook does have a market niche. If they can make a profit more than two quarters in a row, they might even be on to something. I'm no longer as a big fan of their beers as I might have once been, but I'll still drink a Winterhook now and then. But then, what do I know? I'm only a local. >[...] Some > microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia > aware that Bud has a union. Eh? Which microbreweries are union houses? Very few of them are that I know of. -- dgs |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Troyone" > wrote in message
oups.com... > Steve Jackson wrote: >> There is commercialization if you put your name on a tap handle. > There is >> commercialization if you sell your beer in any bar or any store > outside your >> brewery. There is commercialization when you put your name on a > label. There >> is commercialization when you put your name on a beer mat. There is >> commercialization when you have neon signs created with your name. >> The defintion of "commercial" in this context means you produce > something >> and sell it for money. Scale doesn't enter into it. Craft breweries > are >> every bit as commercial as the big breweries. They just aren't > commercial on >> the same scale. > > > This perception of commercialism is word of mouth and reputation not > high cost advertising during a Super Bowl with cartoon frogs! "This perception of commercialism"? I have no idea what you mean. But, regardless, "commercial brewery" means one that sells beer in exchange for money. Period. And they all advertise in some fashion. Except one that I know of: the Westvletern monestary doesn't put anything but a colored cap on their bottles. No labels, no signs, no nothing. They just sell the beer out of a window at the monestary. Otherwise, every brewery that sells beer advertises in some fashion. It may not be on TV, but a tap handle, a sign, hell, even a name on a beer is an advertisement of some form. Or, if you want to be really picky, a promotion, of which advertising is a subset. > > >> You honestly thing Sierra Nevada or Anchor wouldn't do national TV >> advertising if they had the income to support it? > > > No they would not, I'm convinced they would not sell out. I'm convinced you're either very wrong, very naive, or quite possibly both. Both breweries already advertise. And anyone business owner that wouldn't look for a way to increase their business in an intelligent fashion probably shouldn't be in business - and likely won't be for long. I don't know Fritz Maytag or the owners at SN, but I'd be willing to be that if they thought if the cost of advertising would bring in enough new business to pay for the advertising as well as increase profits, they'd do it in a heartbeat. They may be good brewers, but they're also good businessmen. >> > Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality. >> Craft beers are successful for any number of reasons, many of which > have >> nothing to do with quality. There are successful craft beers that are > of >> dubious quality. There are many defunct craft breweries that brewed >> outstanding beer. Simply producing a good product is not enough to > guarantee >> success, in any business. > > > > I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do > you want to buy it? Wow, that's one of the lamest retorts I've seen in a while. Why not just address the point? Or do you disagree that there are successful craft breweries that brew not-so-great beer, or that breweries that brewed great beer have gone belly-up despite their superior product? > I have brewed 15 gallon batches nonetheless I prefer five gallon > batches. I like the Trappist Beers from Europe, they're brewed like > microbrew here and I would even like to go on a tour if possible. As others have pointed out, at least a couple of the Trappist breweries are far from micro in scale. The largest is a very modern operation, and they're very commercial, advertising heavily in Belgium, and advertising on a limited basis in the States as well. Not to mention, Germany has several enormous breweries that advertise like crazy and still manage to produce some damn good beer. Ditto the UK. > Belgium and the UK have commercial breweries as well as every other > country in the world, all commercial advertising breweries take short > and expense cuts using adjuncts. Bullshit. As another poster pointed out, that's patently illegal in Germany. And yet you can't run around various parts of Germany without seeing a Paulaner sign or the Jever logo on a top-league soccer team or Bitburger ads on the TV. Fuller's advertises heavily in the UK. Guinness advertises heavily everywhere. Not to mention, SN advertises. Anchor advertises. Goose Island advertises. And I'm not even talking tap handles and the like. I'm talking buying advertising space in newspapers, magazines, etc. And, by the way, adjunct usage is not necessarily a shortcut or expense reducer. If you're as well-versed on homebrewing as you claiim to be, you should know that. You should know that English bitter is pretty much always brewed with a bit of corn or sugar. You should know that many Belgian beers are brewed with more than a bit of sugar. It's what you do with the adjuncts, not the use of adjuncts, that can make a beer insipid. > I would hope they all crack their grains before mashing but most > commercial brewers do not. Offer some evidence to support that claim, please. > If you put a good quality word of mouth microbrew next to any Sam > Adams, I guarantee you I would be able to tell the difference. This > could include any commercial advertising Brewery in the USA, they can > not compete with any good word of mouth microbrew. How does that statement hold up in light of the fact that SN, Anchor, Goose and countless other craft breweries advertise? And don't change the parameters of your claim for a third time by now claiming that you're referring only to TV. > > "Who... cares cares where it's from"... what is in it... etc...? I want > to know where the beer was brewed, what is in it, etc... because I care > about my health. What on earth is possibly in any beer that's going to be detrimental to your health? That is, quite frankly, the stupidest argument I've ever heard. The one remotely legit health argument that could be made is the frequently made claim that Budweiser gives many people nasty headaches. This claim is true. One chemical (and, no, it's not an added chemical, anymore than alcohol is an added chemical) that's present in Bud - acetaldehyde - is part of what causes the discomfort of a hangover in the first place, so the increased levels can make Bud hangovers even worse. But here's the thing: the acetaldehyde has nothing to do with any adjuncts in that beer. It's a natural byproduct of their yeast (it's a natural byproduct of most yeasts, in fact, but that one churns it out like crazy in comparison). If you brewed an all-malt beer with that yeast, you'd still have the same problem. > The brewers at Redhook did not need to expand when they did with Bud, > they were doing just fine in fact could not meet the demand. They made > the deal with Bud because of greed not necessity. A lot of other > microbrewies may have considered them a sell out. In fact there are > some microbreweries in the Bay area that turned down offers from Bud > and Miller. For example? > Agree I do not like the way they brew or their finished product, it may > be quality by their definition of quality, obiously not anywhere else > not even the beer review sites on the internet. "Not anywhere else"? Roughly 90 percent of beer drinkers in the U.S. would disagree with that statement. I don't like what they brew, either, but that doesn't mean it's not a quality product. It just means it's not an appealing product. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dgs" > wrote in message
... > As far as "the beer review sites on the internet," spare me. The people > posting to those sites are a self-selecting sample of people who, for > the most part, have an interest in specialty beers. The average Joe > Sixpack isn't likely to bother with ratebeer.com at all. Not only do those review sites draw a very small subset of the population, those sites tend to be highly skewed even among craft beer drinkers. Take a look at their various rankings, and try to find more than a couple beers that don't fall into at least one of three categories: 1. High bitterness 2. High alcohol 3. Stout/porter Those sites - more accurately, the users and posters on those sites - are heavily biased toward beers that are huge and bold. I like huge and bold beers at times myself (I'm drinking a Sierra Nevada Celebration right now - and this year's version is a letdown, by the way), but that's not all there is, and in general I much prefer well-balanced beers that showcase a variety of flavors. You don't get much of that on those sites. Beers like Goose Island Summertime or LaConner Pils haven't got a chance there. > What Joe > Sixpack is looking for is a mild-tasting product that tastes hardly at > all of what a lot of people think beer should taste like, and he wants > is a product that is consistently like that. I don't care for it, as is > the case with a lot of the people who talk about beer on Usenet and the > Web-based review sites, but I'm also aware that I've self-selected > myself out of the mass beer market - at least in the United States and > Canada. In Germany, I'd drink a mass-market beer without much in the > way of hesitation at all. And I do every time I go over there. As I do in Belgium and the UK as well. Just because the largest breweries in the States and Canada brew insipid beers does not mean that's the case everywhere in the world. It's most definitely not the case in those three countries. And you know what, if A-B or Coors decided to brew a beer that was every bit as enjoyable as a SNPA or Victory's Prima Pils, I'd have no hesitation in buying them. -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Your preference for microbrews (or mine or anyone else's, FTM) does
not > equate to "quality." Quality, in production terms, is measured in terms > of product consistency, and in strict adherence to processes that > guarantee that product's consistency. The typical microbrewery beer is > often widely variable in quality; for those of us that like them, we > generally don't have a problem with that, as long as they fall more or > less in the range we've chosen to like. You seem to be the only one here that is even reasonable to the argument. Everyone else here defends the Commercial Beer industy as though they either work or have stock in Bud/Miller etc... > Anheuser-Busch is a brewery. Budweiser is its flagship brand. A-B made > a deal with Redhook that involved A-B buying some equity (in the form of > stock), thus investing in Redhook. In return, Redhook was guaranteed > access to A-B's huge, well-developed distribution network. That's where > Redhook gets the "Budhook" handle. Sell Out!!! > Redhook beers definitely don't taste the same as the inconsistent beers > they were making 22 years ago. The quality, however, has not gone down. > More people are drinking Redhook than 22 years ago, but again, in > production terms, quality is defined in termed of an ability to make > a producting using a repeatable, consistent product. Redhook is able > to do this. Their beers aren't as attractive to the beer geeks any > more, and they don't compete in terms of strong flavors with some of > the craft breweries' products that have come along since then, but > Redhook does have a market niche. If they can make a profit more than > two quarters in a row, they might even be on to something. I'm no > longer as a big fan of their beers as I might have once been, but I'll > still drink a Winterhook now and then. > But then, what do I know? I'm only a local. You know some of the locals disagree, possibly some people liked the uneveness as long as the quality of taste was good. > Eh? Which microbreweries are union houses? Very few of them are that I > know of. Mad River, I beleive is still Union. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
From BeerBrewing.com
U.S. Beer Industry The U.S. industry is divided into three basic levels of brewing according to annual production: high-volume, regional, and small breweries. Although numerous and showing strong signs of growth, small breweries accounted for less than three percent of total U.S. beer shipments in 1997. Large Breweries The large breweries are those with annual shipments of over 15 million barrels (31 gal/barrel). All U.S. breweries in the first tier are owned and operated by the three largest brewing companies in the United States: Anheuser-Busch Inc., Miller Brewing Co., and Adolph Coors Co. The top three brewers accounted for over 80% of the industrys shipments in 1997. Most of these breweries €“ which are publicly held €“ are located in Texas, Colorado, Wisconsin, and New York State. Regional Breweries Regional breweries are those with annual shipments of less than 15 million barrels, but greater than 15,000 barrels, and with distribution usually regional in scope. Most regional breweries are privately held by single plant brewing companies. Some of the larger regional breweries are Stroh Brewery Co., Pabst Brewing Co., Genessee Brewing Co., Falstaff Brewing Corp., Latrobe Brewing Co., D.G. Yuengling & Son, Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing, Matt Brewing Co., and Spoetzl Brewery, Inc. Many former microbreweries that have doubled or tripled in size are now considered regional breweries (for example, Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. and Redhook Ale Brewery). Regional breweries accounted for an estimated 15% of total U.S. beer shipments in 1997. Most of the regional breweries are located in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Wisconsin, and California. Microbreweries and Brewpubs Small breweries consist of both microbreweries and brewpubs. Some of these brewers object to this classification and prefer the appellation of "craft brewer," which refers to a brewer of primarily specialty, niche products. These small brewing enterprises started making their appearance in the United States in the late seventies. "Microbreweries" was a designation initially given to brewers because of their small volume of production (less than 15,000 barrels of beer annually). There is no apparent rationale for this delineation, and there are a number of microbreweries that produce more than 15,000 barrels annually. A brewpub is a restaurant-brewery that sells the majority of its beer on-premise, a common practice in Europe. Annual production for brewpubs rarely exceeds 5,000 barrels. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Jackson wrote:
Massive snip > > And you know what, if A-B or Coors decided to brew a beer that was every bit > as enjoyable as a SNPA or Victory's Prima Pils, I'd have no hesitation in > buying them. A-B did do some craft style beers out of the local brewery (Fairfield CA), some of which were very interesting (It was too long ago to give exact details). On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've never seen but would try. Nels Shipyard winter ale - my current favorite -- Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company, specially here <-- Use this address for personal Email My Lurkers motto: I read much better and faster, than I type. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote in message
news:cp4ne4 > On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've never > seen but would try. Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. -- Lew Bryson www.LewBryson.com Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both available at <www.amazon.com> The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it, or respond to it. Spam away. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lew Bryson" > wrote in
om: > "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote in message > news:cp4ne4 >> On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've >> never seen but would try. > > Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. Had it, thought it sucked, found out the next day it was brewed by A-B. Felt good about myself that my intense dislike of it had nothing to do with the fact A-B brewed it. -- ************************************************** *************** Dan Iwerks thinks that the beer you're drinking probably sucks. The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot. ************************************************** *************** |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lew Bryson ) wrote:
: "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote in message : news:cp4ne4 : > On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've never : > seen but would try. : : Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. : Tried it a while back and survived the experience with a definite feeling of ambivalence. I wouldn't turn it down but I don't think I'd buy it either. -- Bill reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan Iwerks" <dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom> wrote in message
> "Lew Bryson" > wrote in > > > "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote in message > > news:cp4ne4 > >> On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've > >> never seen but would try. > > > > Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. > > Had it, thought it sucked, found out the next day it was brewed by A-B. > Felt good about myself that my intense dislike of it had nothing to do > with the fact A-B brewed it. Pick it out as "the sucking one" in a blind tasting with Guinness, Murphy's, and Beamish, and I'll be impressed. -- Lew Bryson www.LewBryson.com Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both available at <www.amazon.com> The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it, or respond to it. Spam away. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lew Bryson" > wrote on 07 Dec 2004:
> "Dan Iwerks" <dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom> wrote in message >> Had it, thought it sucked, found out the next day it was brewed >> by A-B. Felt good about myself that my intense dislike of it >> had nothing to do with the fact A-B brewed it. > > Pick it out as "the sucking one" in a blind tasting with > Guinness, Murphy's, and Beamish, and I'll be impressed. Bring it on, ya pussy. I've tried the Bare Knuckle twice - once ordering it, once being told to "taste this" without knowing - it's rather a bit thin, certainly thinner than Guinness et. al., and it's not nearly as rough as Guinness. It's certainly not just a colored beer; they use actual dark malts with actual ale yeast, and that's lovely, but it ain't on a level with the Irish stouts. (Disclaimer: I was selected for a survey 18 months in advance to decide on a bunch of the marketeering bullshit that went into this beer. I made fun of them.) Witzel |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Benzel > wrote:
>Lew Bryson ) wrote: >: "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote: >: > On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've never >: > seen but would try. >: >: Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. > >Tried it a while back and survived the experience with a definite feeling >of ambivalence. I wouldn't turn it down but I don't think I'd buy it >either. Is that the stout they were pouring at the GABF? I tried it, and it was, while not at all unpleasant, kinda just there. I asked some technical questions about it to the shiny, well- dressed A-B guys, but they had no answers. I guess I should have asked them about talking frogs or something. -- Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child. plutchak at [...] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Witzel" > wrote in message
> "Lew Bryson" > wrote on 07 Dec 2004: > > "Dan Iwerks" <dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom> wrote in message > >> Had it, thought it sucked, found out the next day it was brewed > >> by A-B. Felt good about myself that my intense dislike of it > >> had nothing to do with the fact A-B brewed it. > > > > Pick it out as "the sucking one" in a blind tasting with > > Guinness, Murphy's, and Beamish, and I'll be impressed. > > Bring it on, ya pussy. I've tried the Bare Knuckle twice - once > ordering it, once being told to "taste this" without knowing - it's > rather a bit thin, certainly thinner than Guinness et. al., and > it's not nearly as rough as Guinness. Just had a damn near perfect pour of Guinness yesterday, and I'm not sure I'd agree with you. I want to try this blind tasting myself, because I think it might be an eye-opener. Blind comparison tastings are very educational. Everyone should do them more often. Wish I could, but Cathy refuses to wear a blindfold and pour beers nekkid. -- Lew Bryson Their clothes are weird, their music sucks and they drink malternatives. And now you tell me they probably don't think Sierra Nevada is cool? This is what the passage of years does to you: It makes everyone around you more stupid. -- Michael Stewart 6/24/02 www.lewbryson.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Witzel" > wrote in message
> "Lew Bryson" > wrote on 07 Dec 2004: > > "Dan Iwerks" <dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom> wrote in message > >> Had it, thought it sucked, found out the next day it was brewed > >> by A-B. Felt good about myself that my intense dislike of it > >> had nothing to do with the fact A-B brewed it. > > > > Pick it out as "the sucking one" in a blind tasting with > > Guinness, Murphy's, and Beamish, and I'll be impressed. > > Bring it on, ya pussy. I've tried the Bare Knuckle twice - once > ordering it, once being told to "taste this" without knowing - it's > rather a bit thin, certainly thinner than Guinness et. al., and > it's not nearly as rough as Guinness. Just had a damn near perfect pour of Guinness yesterday, and I'm not sure I'd agree with you. I want to try this blind tasting myself, because I think it might be an eye-opener. Blind comparison tastings are very educational. Everyone should do them more often. Wish I could, but Cathy refuses to wear a blindfold and pour beers nekkid. -- Lew Bryson Their clothes are weird, their music sucks and they drink malternatives. And now you tell me they probably don't think Sierra Nevada is cool? This is what the passage of years does to you: It makes everyone around you more stupid. -- Michael Stewart 6/24/02 www.lewbryson.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joel ) wrote:
: Bill Benzel > wrote: : >Lew Bryson ) wrote: : >: "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote: : >: > On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've never : >: > seen but would try. : >: : >: Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. : > : >Tried it a while back and survived the experience with a definite feeling : >of ambivalence. I wouldn't turn it down but I don't think I'd buy it : >either. : : Is that the stout they were pouring at the GABF? I tried : it, and it was, while not at all unpleasant, kinda just there. : I asked some technical questions about it to the shiny, well- : dressed A-B guys, but they had no answers. I guess I should : have asked them about talking frogs or something. Definitely not as I was not at GABF. Also did not run into it in the staging area at WBC while stewarding and I'm not sure it was entered as that was back in March and I ran into it more like July this year. I am stretching to recall -- think it was the Long Beach Yardhouse -- the wife and daughter were drinking Lindeman's Kriek -- maybe San Diego Brewing -- those are the only two places I've been with the wymmyn that have Lindeman's draft so it had to be one or the other. -- Bill reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Benzel > wrote:
>Joel ) wrote: >: >: "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote: >: >: > ..."Bare Knuckle Stout" ... >: >: Is that the stout they were pouring at the GABF? > >Definitely not as I was not at GABF. Also did not run into it in the >staging area at WBC while stewarding and I'm not sure it was entered as >that was back in March and I ran into it more like July this year. I'm struggling to figure out how you not being at GABF and not seeing it at WBC means it was a different A-B stout that I tasted at the GABF. Has A-B brewed and marketed more than one stout in the past six months? -- Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child. plutchak at [...] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lew Bryson" > wrote in
m: > "Dan Iwerks" <dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom> wrote in message >> "Lew Bryson" > wrote in >> >> > "Nels E. Satterlund" > wrote in message >> > news:cp4ne4 >> >> On the web page I see reference to "Bare Knuckle Stout" which I've >> >> never seen but would try. >> > >> > Had it, bought it again, certainly in the style of dry stout. >> >> Had it, thought it sucked, found out the next day it was brewed by >> A-B. Felt good about myself that my intense dislike of it had nothing >> to do with the fact A-B brewed it. > > Pick it out as "the sucking one" in a blind tasting with Guinness, > Murphy's, and Beamish, and I'll be impressed. That would require me to be a bit more of a fan of any of those three in order to set it up. Do I think I could do it in a blind tasting? Being that I'll never get a chance to try, I'll say hell yeah. I should probably throw a pointless insult in there as well, but that seems like work. Then again, dry Irish stout isn't exactly a fave, excepting Dominion's yummy version (and Sly Fox's as well, which I think was pretty damn good). -- ************************************************** *************** Dan Iwerks thinks that the beer you're drinking probably sucks. The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot. ************************************************** *************** |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Popularity of the small and medium-size Adidas Porsche Design | General Cooking | |||
| medium-size oranges | Baking | |||
| medium-size oranges | Baking | |||
| Medium, Medium Rare | General Cooking | |||
| List of medium-sized and mega breweries. Adjustments appreciated. | Beer | |||
Linear Mode
