Rice in US Beers

Not in so many words, but that is the gist of it. IIRC, the guy running the "class"/tour said that rice is used in their beer because it has a neutral flavor, and provides sugars for the yeast.

The reason for the "beechwood aging" that they used to always mention is essentially the same. Beechwood is a light wood, and when bleached out provides zero flavor content, but it does provide lots and lots of surface area for the yeast to settle on.

Compared to barley.

If the filler costs less than what it's replacing... Rice may or may not be a cost effective replacement to barley +now+, but was it always so?

But that is not filler. It is part of a conscious decision to flavor their beer a certain way. The brewer knows that a full flavored ale won't sell well so why brew somehting like that.

Well, to me that's "filler".

The brewer knows that a full flavored ale

Its not quite that simple.

There have been generations in this country who believe that beer is supposed to taste like Bud, Millers or Coors.

Now where do you think they got that idea?

Not from learning about Beer at the Map Room; the Hop Leaf or Delialah's in Chicago.

No, that's using ingredients to get a certain flavor profile.

The brewers of Trappist and abbey beers make fairly significant use of sugar, because they have decided not to brew a heavy high-gravity beer, but a lighter one. Is that filler? Of course not. Just because they've decided not to brew something that drinks like a barleywine that has the same alcoholic strength does not mean they're just throwing in other ingredients for the hell of it.

The use of adjuncts in standard pale yellow lagers is about obtaining a particular flavor profile. You may not like the flavor profile, but even A-B aren't throwing stuff in their beer just for the hell of it. There's a purpose, and it's not cost-reduction, as they don't skimp on what they spend on their ingredients.

-Steve

The geneations of ber drinkers got the idea that light flavored beer tastes good from their own taste buds. That is what they enjoy and they have voted with their pocketbooks. Don't characterize the majority of beer drinkers as being dependent on someone else (such as yourself) to define what is and is not a good tasting beer. It is clear that a lot of people enjoy the taste of Bud, Michelob, Stella Artois. And the big brewers have proven themselves to be quite capable of producing consistently good beers that meet those taste expectations.

If a full flavored ale or lager was attractive to most beer drinkers then some of the small brewers would have found their products to be in great demand and the Coors and Budweisers of the world would have seen their sales plummet. But that has not happened and we all know who is successful in total sales volume.

And yes, the brewers do work diligently at coming up with the correct mixture of ingredients to deliver that complex light taste. And yes rice is part of that flavor picture.

I suspect that beer drinkers got that idea by drinking beer end finding they enjoyed a certain taste. The condescending and snobbish attitude of your question is truly amazing. You characterize the world of beer drinkers as divided between: 1. A great many non- thinking drones that follow the dictates of Bud and Stella. 2. Thinking snobs who thoughtfully analyze and consume certain beers usualy from small microbreweries.

You characterize the

I think you are starting to see the light indeed. There are the masses of blaa-ing sheep that let the ads think for them; and the thinking, that prefer to choose for themselves after using what nature gave them: their senses. Yes, you have come close to the truth.

To avoid having someone accuse you of making up stories by quoting statements out of context be sure to include the rest of the paragraph.

Except that in recent years, sales of the big three brewers have remained flat in aggregate in terms of market share, and craft beer is the fastest-growing segment of the market.

Well, for one of them. The others use corn.

-Steve

A couple of good articles about a craft brewer, on the history of adjuncts in US beer (and the craft beer fans' prejudice of same) that I read years ago and just found on the 'net the other day:

While I have other objections with the book Ambitious Brew (mostly a history of the "winners" of US brewing- BMC- and, then, decidedly pro-Koch's Boston Beer Co., and neglecting a lot of other interesting, and once important, beers and breweries), the author does do an excellent and apparently well-researched (using original sources) explanation of the origins of the use of rice and corn in US brewing mid-19th century.

I agree with the "Ambitious Brew" review. It seemed well researched, indeed. The bit about protein coagulation seemed a very plausible reason for the use of rice. Likewise, I was disappointed about the lack of info on the lesser known brewers.

Have you read the book "From The Land Of Amber Waters"? It's about the brewing history of brewing in Minnesota. I have yet to read it, but flipping through the pages it seemed like a very detailed and beautifully imaged book.

"John S." wrote

What is unattractive about a "full flavored ale or lager" is they are not consumed in larger quantities except by seasoned alcoholics. This translates into lower sales at the pump and the Big Three know it. So brew an unbelievably consistent product known as a session beer which the average saloon patron will consume in quantity. Coors took Killians Irish Red, convert it from an ale to a lager, and started selling it. It has significantly more flavor than Colorado Kool-Aid. But it sells better in six packs and cases than it does in bars because it does not get sget slugged down.

What is "complex" about light tasting beer? Complexity is a function of flavor. The Big Three are selling session beers which by definition are beers with a "clean, crisp taste and no after taste".

I missed where in that thread someone wrote that characterization. IMRHO, if you're drinking beer after a hot-n-sweaty work day, a cold can or three of Millers, Coors, or Bud is a great idea. If you're drinking to get a buzz, Schlitz Malt Liquor Blue will get you there is two or three

22oz cans. If you want a beer that has taste, body, or both, that's when to look for a microbrew. And keep in mind - just because it came from a microbrewer does not mean it's worth the money.

Dick

Right. I sometimes think of that famous line from Jack Nicholson : "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH" and I apply it to the Bud drinkers : "YOU CAN'T HANDLE A GOOD BEER" Most beer drinkers today could not handle the taste of a beer as it was brewed a 100 or 200 years ago. Then again, I don't know if I could either. Anyone got any 100 year old beer for me to try ?

Is there a reason why you insult Stella by grouping them in with the one of the Big Three?

If and when that is true, it might be better stated as "YOU CAN'T HANDLE A DIFFERENT BEER." The Big Three brew a minimum flavor, clean, crisp, light bodied beer that is much like a Chinese dinner since you'll be thirsty for another one as soon as you finish this one - great for sales. I sat in a pub with a swill drinker drinking pints on Saturday afternoon. He finished four Buds to my two McEwan's. It wasn't that he was drinking faster; he was just swallowing the beer while I was savoring it.

Talk about swill. That was pretty rank stuff the patriots were drinking!.

I hope not!

Dick

Know anybody at Coors UK?

Ha? What bitters? Where? In my experience a little flaked maize maybe but not in the 30 - 40% line. More like 2 or 4.

Peter