That's what I was getting at, and apologies if the implication that large amounts were used. I was simply countering the blanket, absolute statement that rice and corn don't lend anything to a beer.
-Steve
Everything you add to a beer lends something to it. Keep in mind that American Swill is intended to have its clean, crisp finish mask its lack of flavor. But if you like beer "sans saveur", fine with me. Just don't bore us with how good it is.
Per Monty Python, "American Beer is like having sex in a canoe, it's f...kin close to water"! I think it was said in response to tasting Coors (which is NOT beer)! But almost any American Lager could have prompted that response.
In the early 80's, I won a beer tasting competition by correctly naming 13 of 15 beers from a list of 20 possible beers. I was able to distinguish between Coors light and Miller Light. Is there really a discernible difference?
Dick - Your Local Condescending Aficionado
Why do you say Coors is not beer?
If you need to ask, I can not help you.
Because he's being silly. It's not a beer he cares for, but it's incontestably beer. Moreso than stuff like DFH's Chateau Jiahu or Unibroue's Quelque Chose, since the fermentables are all from grains.
Beer lovers do more harm to their image by slamming successful brewers like Coors than anything else they do. "You might like Coors, but I think you'll like this better," wins a lot more converts than "How dare you drink that watered-down horse piss? Here, have a real beer, you uneducated lowlife."
Do I drink Coors? No. Can't stand the stuff. But claiming that it's not beer is just plain stupid.
Rice and Corn in beer?
Yes, more brewers than most people imagine use "FILLERS"
"Fillers" according to webster is "one that fills - as a substance added to a product (as to increase bulk, weight, viscosity, opacity, or strength.)"
"Beer" according to webster is "an alcoholic beverage usually made from malted cereal grain (as barley), flavored with hops, and brewed by slow fermentation."
Rice and Corn are most certainly "cereal grains". To say one is not a beer simply because it uses them, would be like saying some stouts are not beer because they use "Oatmeal"
These adjuncts ARE most certainly "Fillers". When you are brewing beer, you need so many pounds of malt per gallon. You cannot make a "light" beer simply by using less malt and more water, it doesn't work that way. You have to FILL in that void with some other fermentable product, which is ALWAYS some form of sugar. Corn and rice can be used to fill that void with minimum affect of flavor. Rice sugars are NOT cheap by any means, they can cost as much if not more than malt. Corn sugars are cheaper but must be used sparingly to avoid a "hot" alcohol taste. Wheat, can most certainly be classified as a "Filler" because historically is was used when barley was in short supply. For those of you think Wheat Beers are "bland" you really need to get out and try a larger variety of beers.
As for the "100 year old beer" there are brewers out there who have been brewing the exact same recipes for well over 100 years. The only thing that has really changed is attention to cleanliness. To revert back to traditional brewing is to use water, malt, hops, and yeast. That's is BEER
For those of you who think the "BIG 3" got where they are because they make the best beer, would be like saying Ford makes better cars than Mercedes because they sell more. It's an issue of QUANTITY not QUALITY for the big boys. Artificial preservatives do not belong in beer or wine, only a moron will argue.
And for the moron who said "What is unattractive about a "full flavored ale or lager" is they are not consumed in larger quantities except by seasoned alcoholics." Well, REALITY CHECK. I have NEVER heard of an alcoholic polishing off a case of, say - Guinness, on a Sunday afternoon. HOWEVER, I HAVE heard of alcoholics polishing off a case of Bud/Mil/Coors/etc...in an afternoon. Probably much kinder on the wallet.
Beefjerky
Ah, but it most certainly *can* work that way. I have both brewed and tasted mild ales that are both low in alcohol and high in flavor, which where simpy breweed using less malt.
True enough. Twinkies, Wonderbread, and Bud.
CLIP
By your definition ALL brewers are "guilty" of using fillers.
The point I was trying to convey was, that just because a beer has rice, corn, or any other "FILLER" in it, doesn't automatically deem it a bad beer.
Beefjerky
Two items.
#1 By drinking ice-cold beer you are missing much of the flavor. Cool to cold depending on style is good, but ice-cold kills much of the taste/mouth feel and can kill the aroma, which may provide much of the perceived taste. Try a cool and cold Guiness. The "Lite" beers are not so much affected by being served ice-cold as there is little flavor/aroma to reduce.
#2 One man's filler is another man's adjunct. For example, oatmeal for stout, wheat, rye, etc. Adjuncts can improve head retention, mouth-feel, color and flavor. Much depends of the brewers' motives. For example, if the rice and corn[maize] are used to lighten the color/taste then these are adjuncts and may be required for certain styles [lite/light], but if the rice and corn are used mainly to reduce the amount of [expensive] malt then these are fillers.
Guinness (at least that brewed for England and N. America) contains flaked barley. It's your call whether you consider it a filler or an integral part of the beer; it's all semantics. The bottom line is to drink it if you enjoy it. Incidentally, there are plenty of beer snobs who won't touch Guinness.
Beer snob? Just a condescending aficionado!
I'll have a stout if, and only if, it does not have a coffee taste to it. Same for porters.
Dick
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.