That Old Michi is Back

[Gillman]

That's interesting Dane, since the old Michelob used about 20% rice adjunct and the reformulated one uses 100% barley malt. I think what may have happened is, even with an all-barley malt specification, the taste was designed to be similar to what it was before. Maybe the idea was to make the body heavier and the mouth feel more round but keep the overall profile.

I agree with you that Budweiser and regular Michelob have seemingly gotten lighter in taste over the years. And, they are relatively hard to find as compared to Michelob Light and Bud Light. I guess A/B must have done studies and used focus groups to determine how its regular beers should taste today. Still, I tend to prefer a fuller taste than even reformulated Michelob has and hope one day they will bring back the "true" 1896 recipe. However Amber Bock may be better than ever and I look forward to trying it soon. (Maybe IT is the 1896 recipe? Who knows).

The experimental, micro-style A/B releases have mostly seemed a little bland to me although its Porter is pretty good.

A pilsener- or Munich-style beer is not easy to get right, even for the microbreweries. They do a great job in ale styles, but it is not easy to brew a lager beer well. It is a more complex product to make and it's harder than it may seem at first sight to brew a reliably fine-tasting lager beer. It really does take a lot of experience and tech support. There are good ones but you have to seek them out!

I like Lagunitas' Czech-style pils, which should be available in your market. There are many others, and I still feel Sam Adams Lager sets a standard.

Gary

[gr8erdane]

Here's one for you Gary, the other day when I picked up the Mich there was a couple perusing the microbrew section for most of the local microbreweries and we struck up a conversation. They pointed out a beer/ale I have since forgotten the name of but it says on the label it's made from SORGHUM. Having had homemade sorghum molasses, I would think that it was a bit too sweet for most but if you're interested in trying it I might be able to bring a couple with me to the Sampler. I know how you like to try new things....

[bluesbassdad]

Dane,

Could this be it?

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Gillman]

Thanks for that. I'd like to try it but I know you have to carry a lot coming in, so if it's too much trouble, that's okay!

Sorghum beer is interesting, beer from sorghum is made extensively in Africa from wild yeasts and is actually one of the oldest beer types around, so again we find "everything old is new again".

I'll have a case of beers with me from Toronto since I am driving in. Actually, they will be a personal selection of imports and local micro beers.

I have a retro-look Labatt wooden case released here about 20 years ago to hold the beers, should look good on the bar.

Gary

[ratcheer]

Having had homemade sorghum molasses, I would think that it was a bit too sweet for most ....

Dane, all beer is made of sugar from some source. The yeast converts the sugar to alcohol. So, while there could still be some sweetness left in the sorghum beer (by the brewer's choice), it could also be as dry as the brewer wanted. It just depends on how far they let the fermentation go.

Tim

[Joeluka]

I completely forgot about a very good All-Malt lager from Big A-B. The Brew Masters Private Reserve. This is one beer from a big Marco company I do find quite enjoyable. I was wondering if you have tried it Gary???

The beer has a nice Golden tone with a thick head when poured. The nose smelled of MALT, which is great for an A-B product, and slight alcohol. In the taste you get Malt again, sweetness and a hint of hops. The alcohol is hidden nicely and for a 8.5% brew that can be dangerous. Overall I would say that this is what EVERY beer should taste like from the big macro breweries and at least once a year I can say I enjoy an BCM product.

Give me my Brooklyn lager every time I feel like a Sunday football brew otherwise I'm sticking with my Barley wines, RIS, and Strong Belgians.

I have been going out of my way to try every kind of Oak-Aged beer I can find. I can't explain just how incredible some of them really are. I'll post a picture of all the one's I've purchased and hopefully we can get into a discussion on them.

[Gillman]

Thanks Joe, I will seek it out.

Gary

[gr8erdane]

It's not the AB brand but it is listed in your link, the New Grist from GASP Milwaukee???? Not even local. I'll bring a couple but after tasting them I thought them a bit bland. Probably just the thing on a hot day when you don't want a heavy beer though.

[Gillman]

Since we talked so much about Ballantine, I thought I'd give a taste note on Ballantine XXX Ale, having got some recently in New York (16 oz. cans).

The can is marked with the name Falstaff and a P.O. box in Milwaukee, WI, so I can't tell where it is brewed.

It pours fresh and lively with good, natural beer smells. The main smell is of fresh, metallic-like hops. I can't tell which kind, I don't get Cascades or only that; maybe it is a blend of hops.

The taste is good: fresh again, zesty. An "oatmeal" maltiness underlies the taste. However, there is a bite of grain adjunct and this I don't like. I don't know what the percentage is, maybe 30% corn grits.

It is a good beer, make no mistake, and much more characterful than most American mass lagers, but it would be so much better if 100% malt, IMO.

Gary

[jesskidden]

Since we talked so much about Ballantine, I thought I'd give a taste note on Ballantine XXX Ale, having got some recently in New York (16 oz. cans).

The can is marked with the name Falstaff and a P.O. box in Milwaukee, WI, so I can't tell where it is brewed.

Sure you can. Turn the can over and check the date code (for best results, do this before opening or after emptying- I screw that up occassionally).

Here's Miller's explanation on how to read it. (Note- they give their beers 17 weeks, so subtract that from the "Best By" date for actual bottling/canning date):

How to Read Code Dates: Our codes can be found on the bottom of cans, the shoulder of bottles, and the dome or sides of our kegs. Additionally, all of our secondary fiberboard cases and carriers have codes as well. The code consists of two parts, a top half and bottom half. The top half has the ""Best Sold By"" date on it and consist of the month, day, and year. For example, the code 12 19 7 means the beer should be sold by December 19, 2007. The second line of the code contains production related information such as the brewery were it was produced at along with the packaging line. Take, for example, a code of A 1 52 37. The A would signify the day of week the product was produced, the next code the brewery it was produced at, followed by a two digit code that identifies the line. The last two digits provide MBC with the time period during which the product was packaged. Our day codes are A - G for Monday - Sunday. Our current Plant Codes are 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and represent breweries in Milwaukee, WI, Hood River, OR, Ft. Worth, TX, Eden, NC, Irwindale, CA, Albany, GA, and Trenton, OH. Each Brewery has a numerical designation for every production line and these vary with each brewery. Time codes are set up to change every fifteen minutes and start at midnight of each day. So time code 01 would be from 12:00 - 12:15 AM and so on until the last time code of the day is reached, which would be 96 at 11:45 PM - 12:00 AM.

It would be nice if they SAID it was a "Best By" date- I bought my last bottle and looked at the code and thought "Oh, it's from last month..." and it was actually past it's prime. I don't see the 16 oz. cans in my area of NJ- it's a nice size for a nonic beer glass- and it prevents skunking.

[Gillman]

Thanks, using this information, my can should have been sold by February 5, 2007! Grrr, I am a stickler for best-by dates and never would have bought this had I known it was past its prime. I have incurred odd looks for years in beer stores when screwing my eyes to read the more obvious codes on bottles and cans - a practice well worth following, I might add. Still, I must confess, the Ballantine tasted very fresh: I put this down to the brewing and canning skills of our large brewers. (I hate the taste of oxidised beer, something that afflicts too many micros). The date code indicates the brewery is Trenton, Ohio, as you projected. But truth to tell, I was a little put off by the adjunct in this sample.

Gary

[jesskidden]

Thanks, using this information, my can should have been sold by February 5, 2007! Grrr, I am a stickler for best-by dates and never would have bought this had I known it was past its prime. I have incurred odd looks for years in beer stores when screwing my eyes to read the more obvious codes on bottles and cans - a practice well worth following, I might add.

Gary

Yeah, I've always been a date code reader (I used to carry a "cheat sheet" in my wallet to remind me of some of the more difficult ones like Anchor's). What's particularly annoying nowadays is the mix of "Best by" and "Brewed on" dates, so even when you figure out the "date" you have to ask yourself, yeah but date of "what"? Be glad you bought cans.

Sadly, even with the limited geographical area where Pabst still markets Ballantine Ale, it isn't a big seller and does seem to sit around, so knowing the code is a must. It's not only Ballantine, tho'- I see lot of "out of date" beers like the Sam Adams line and many Brooklyn beers, as well. I blame the minimum order and discounts for large quantities that some distributors offer. And the total lack of concern on the part of the distributors and the retailers.

But truth to tell, I was a little put off by the adjunct in this sample.

Gary

Well, the Ale's been adjunct brewed since the beginning in the 30's but it's possible than Miller uses corn syrup - the Beer Institute's Almanac (Excel file http://www.beerinstitute.org/statistics.asp?bid=200 [i love this thing] ) shows that corn usage in the US industry is down by close to 50% since the mid-90's, and the use of "Sugar and Syrups" is up in the same proportion- who else would be using it in those 100's of millions of pounds quantity?) and it's always possible the malt/corn ratio has decreased. That combined with the decline of the hops (seemingly both the quantity and quality), certainly makes the beer taste much different to me than even the versions out of the Pabst, Stroh and Falstaff (maybe even Heileman?) breweries in the 90's.

Perhaps this thread should be retitled- "That old Mich is Back- Wish it was the old Bally Ale instead..." <g>

[Gillman]

The hop flavours seemed quite forward - I would not change them but I would change (increase) the malt spec. The flavour falls off with that thin, metallic feel of some kind of adjunct. I guess it was always there but it seemed more noticeable this time. Beer quality depends so much too on freshness.

The big challenge the micro industry has in my view is to get its product out in reliably good shape - I can't count the bad beers I've had which were simply soured or damp paper oxidised. In New York recently in one of the pubs, a beer advertised as just received, from a well-known micro, was half vinegar, and I am speaking of draft. This is where the big producers have the advantage due to pasteurisation and their sophisticated labs. Sure, there are a number of small producers who brew well and ensure their product is shipped fresh but it can be hit and miss and also, they simply lack control often once the beer is sent from the shipping dock.

Gary

[jesskidden]

The big challenge the micro industry has in my view is to get its product out in reliably good shape - I can't count the bad beers I've had which were simply soured or damp paper oxidised. In New York recently in one of the pubs, a beer advertised as just received, from a well-known micro, was half vinegar, and I am speaking of draft. This is where the big producers have the advantage due to pasteurisation and their sophisticated labs.

Gary

Yes, and the Big Brewers simply have a greater turnover and the distributors depend so much on them, that they seem to take better care of those "bread and butter" brands. (After all, in the US, how many times does one hear the local distributor, be it "Smith Brothers" or "Springfield Beverage" called "the Bud distributor" or "the Miller guy" even tho' they may represent 10-20 brands of beer?)

It just seems to me that popularity of the "multi-tap" (even those with a pretty bland, BMC + "likely suspect" Imports selection) only insures low turnover and stale beer for the less popular brands. I was in a typical "blue collar" sports oriented bar the other day and didn't expect much and was surprised to see a German dark hefeweizen on tap- of course, it was tap #14 out of 14, with all the rest BMC-Yuengling-Stella-Heineken-Guinness-Smithwicks, etc. I was probably the only one in the 100-patron place drinking that German beer- and the only one in days, I'd guess from the flat, off flavored beer I was served... I'd much rather see 3-5 beers on tap, well-maintained and one "good" choice, so that all us non-sheep <g> would be forced to drink the good stuff and turn it over quickly.

[Gillman]

I've run into that exact problem many times.

It needs for the micros to be addressed at different levels: better care taken with racking and bottling; more attention (where possible) to how the product is sold at distribution point; and less reliance by retailers on the multi-tap (or rein it in to 5 or 5 beers as you said).

All the consumer needs is one bad experience and he will never go back to that beer (or only reluctantly).

But brewing and fermentation also need to be studied and understood better by some micros. A cream ale recently tasted here was clearly off, tasting as if a cleaning agent of some kind was in the bottle! (Although personally I think it was a yeast management issue). The case was marked in a way to show it was fresh stock and maybe it was but it was half-spoiled and really undrinkable. A drain pour.

I would rather have an indifferent mass market lager which almost always will be in excellent condition than a poor-quality microbrew.

Gary

[Joeluka]

I've run into that exact problem many times.

It needs for the micros to be addressed at different levels: better care taken with racking and bottling; more attention (where possible) to how the product is sold at distribution point; and less reliance by retailers on the multi-tap (or rein it in to 5 or 5 beers as you said).

All the consumer needs is one bad experience and he will never go back to that beer (or only reluctantly).

But brewing and fermentation also need to be studied and understood better by some micros. A cream ale recently tasted here was clearly off, tasting as if a cleaning agent of some kind was in the bottle! (Although personally I think it was a yeast management issue). The case was marked in a way to show it was fresh stock and maybe it was but it was half-spoiled and really undrinkable. A drain pour.

I would rather have an indifferent mass market lager which almost always will be in excellent condition than a poor-quality micro brew.

Gary

I'm wondering what kind of micro brews you're getting in Canada. You seem to have had nothing but spoiled beers over and over.

Now when you say you would rather have a Big Beer lager instead of a micro, are you talking about micro-lagers or pretty much every single style of beer out there?? I have never had a Barley-wine or Russian Imperial Stout brewed by Big Beer, so I wouldn't know what to do in those case's? I'm wondering if you just don't bother with styles of micro that Big Beer doesn't bother brewing (Barley-wines, Dubbels, Triples, Double Imperial Pale Ales, Lambics, Gueuze, Eisbocks, Quads, Saisons, Biere de Garde, Strong Ales, Old Ales........)

I guess my question to all this is, What is your idea of what a "Beer" should be?? Not the ingredients but the style?? Do you consider cold Lager's as the standard beer for all?

[Gillman]

My comments, which reflect of course my own experience and opinions, extend equally to the U.S. where I've had as much experience sampling microbrews as in Canada - maybe more.

I did not say I get spoiled beers over and over. I do feel that too many beers coming from the craft brewers - as available in the normal retail channels - have faults which are not intended by the brewer and are restricting sales that would otherwise occur. This is especially so with bottled beers.

Part of the problem is I think that micros do not (most of them) pasteurise, which means the beers have limited stability. This and the low-tech bottling procedures used in some small operations often causes damp paper oxidation, or a wild yeast reaction in the bottle, within a relatively short time from shipment. The problem is exacerbated by a frequent inability to keep the product continuously cold until consumption.

The answer is to sell the stuff real fast, before it has a chance to go off. It was not for nothing though that Louis Pasteur did his great work on yeast fermentation and management with beer. He supplied the solution - heat treatment to kill residual yeast cells - and it is used widely in the alcoholic beverage businesses including for many wines and ciders, but the flip side was the deadening of taste that often comes with heat pasteurisation.

Personally I do not like pasteurisation (in beer - for milk it is great) but it is undeniable that it assists tremendously the stability of beer.

I believe a beer should be true to its type, that is, well-brewed for its style and free from the kind of faults mentioned (including the toffee-like taste that can come from excess or improper pasteurisation). I realise that only micros make, say Imperial Stout, a style I much enjoy. (I think A/B had a couple of versions out of a strong stout but they were in limited distribution and I believe are not continuously produced). Ditto for most of the interesting beer styles and new emerging ones out there. But no matter how well-brewed a beer is and how interesting the style, if it is afflicted by damp paper oxidation it makes the product into something different, not nearly as good of course and not intended by the brewer. I have friends and acquaintances who are brewers, both home and commercial, and I find they view things essentially as I do.

No question I have great experiences with fine microbrewed, and other fine, beers. I love good beer and have promoted it in many forums for many years.

I do not care for North American mass market lager (which is lager brewed by large companies since no micro lager is mass market except maybe for Sam Adams Lager, I beer I admire).

But if presented with a micro beer - any style - that is not in good condition (and I stress, not in the condition intended by the brewer for consumption, or optimum consumption) I will take the mass market lager over that because at least its taste is not adversely affected by evident faults.

As to how often this happens, not as much as it used to. Our craft brewers are more skilled than, say, 20 years ago. But in order for craft brewers to grow faster and find new markets, they need in my opinion ever to be mindful of the technical side and how distribution can affect the taste of what they produce. I'd say 1/3rd or more of the bottled craft beer I buy just isn't in optimum condition. If I am careful with best-by dates, that assists, but only to a limited extent.

Coors of Golden, Colorado has always had a high reputation for quality (less evident now than 30 years ago before the micro and import phenoms). This was founded on not using heat pasteurisation, ensuring its products were refrigerated from shipment through to retail sale and recalling overage product. Coors beer is perhaps not what it was (and has been eclipsed anyway by Coors Light) but the point remains valid: the company took rigorous steps to ensure its beers were fresh at point of sale. That helped its early growth a lot. Sure, as a big company they have the resources to do that and their distributors have the incentive to treat the product with kid gloves, but Coors wasn't always a big company! I think the small players can learn much from the way Coors handled the beer quality issue, e.g., using fine filtration instead of heat pasteurisation and ensuring fresh product at point of sale. Most big brewers, in fact all today, are very concerned with beer quality and I tip my hat to them. They may not make fancy styles but they understand what can harm good beer taste.

I know a microbrewer in Canada who will not sell his beer licensed establishments if he feels turnover isn't high enough or the product handling good enough to ensure top quality. It is this kind of attention to detail that results in great beer experiences and repeat orders, IMO.

Gary

[JeffRenner]

I know a microbrewer in Canada who will not sell his beer licensed establishments if he feels turnover isn't high enough or the product handling good enough to ensure top quality. It is this kind of attention to detail that results in great beer experiences and repeat orders, IMO.

Larry Bell, owner of the renamed Bell's Brewery (Formerly Kalamazoo Brewing Co.) here in Michigan, a regional brewery of acclaimed ales, stouts and lagers, has pulled his entire line out of Chicago because the distribution was sold to another distributor that he didn't feel took proper care of the beer.

Considering that the Chicago market was largely responsible (along with the phenomenal sales of Oberon, a summer wheat beer of near-cult status) for the brewery becoming a regional rather than a one-state brewery, this was a remarkably ballsy move. Perhaps even more-so considering that Chicago alcohol distribution is allegedly very involved with organized crime.

Here's hoping that Larry doesn't end up sleeping with the fishes. :eek:

Jeff

[TNbourbon]

In my year-plus foray into beer, about the only thing I've discovered with any consistency is that I have a preference for amber lagers, and had been buying Michelob's Amber Bock with some regularity. But, I've now drunk through a 6-pack of the new-version, all-malt Amber Bock, and just don't care for it as much as the older variety. Of course, the older version is gone now, and would be tending toward too old if I could find some, since the new version has been here a couple of months now.

So, last night -- after checking A-B's website to make sure IT hadn't been changed, too (no mention found in the announcement:grin: ) -- I picked up the Michelob Ultra Amber, or Bock Light, instead. It's still in the standard bottle, and still tastes reminiscent of the old Amber Bock. So, I guess -- at least until they change this one, too -- this will become my 'house beer'.

If they ruin this one, too, I think maybe I'll just stick to bourbon.