1. American Craft Beer Fest returns to Boston on May 29 & 30, featuring 640+ beers from 140+ brewers. Tickets are on sale now.

Dixie - Dixie Brewing Co.

Not Rated.

Educational use only; do not reuse.

330 Ratings
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 330
Reviews: 169
rAvg: 2.79
pDev: 23.3%
Wants: 4
Gots: 22 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Dixie Brewing Co.
Louisiana, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  4.60% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 08-10-2001

No notes at this time.
View: Beers (3) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 330 | Reviews: 169 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of spycow
3/5  rDev +7.5%

Photo of Thorpe429
1.47/5  rDev -47.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Thanks to AndrewNations for bringing this bottle back. Served in a tulip.

Pours a clear golden color with a pretty good white head and some spotty lacing. The nose is dominated by DMS and the accompanying creamed corn character. Not much else. Maybe some grain. The taste is nothing but corn and quite gross. Really just bad. Feel is creamy and full of things reminding me of vegetables. Light with not enough carbonation. Drinks very, very poorly.

Photo of metter98
2.75/5  rDev -1.4%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

A: The beer is clear yellow in color and has a moderate amount of visible carbonation. It poured with a quarter finger high bright white head that died down, leaving a very large patch of bubbles on the surface and a collar around the edge of the glass.
S: Moderate aromas of corn adjuncts are present in the nose.
T: Like the smell, the taste is mostly filled with flavors of corn adjuncts and has a light amount of associated sweetness. Slight hints of grainy malts are also perceptible. No bitterness is noticeable.
M: It feels light- to medium-bodied on the palate and has a moderate amount of carbonation.
O: This beer isn't that bad for an adjunct lager and doesn't have any "off" flavors.

Photo of ygtbsm94
1.5/5  rDev -46.2%

Photo of BEERchitect
2.35/5  rDev -15.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

A friend thought he was doing me a favor by getting a six pack of these for us. Looks like every other lager. Yellow and carbonated. Foamy head that ran quickly. Smells like every other ordinary lager, slightly earthy, slightly sweet. Tastes like every other ordinary lager; mildly sweet, vegetable like, hopped only for bitter balance. Mouthfeel is neutral to raw. Finish is non-existent. If your buddy buys them for you, then drink it--it won't kill you. I promise. I won't recomend buying this one.

Photo of jaydoc
2.75/5  rDev -1.4%

Photo of BuckeyeNation
3.26/5  rDev +16.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

"I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand
To live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie.

--"Dixie" by Daniel Decatur Emmett (from Mount Vernon, Ohio)

Lightly dusty, burnished gold with butter colored accents.... and a far, far better head than I'm accustomed to seeing on a macro lager. The cap is parchment in color with a firm stickiness about it that results in persistence and a more than adequate display of lace. It isn't a stunner, but this beer, at least in terms of its appearance, has more character than the vast majority of its style peers.

The nose is an unqualified disappointment. The good new is that it smells nothing like a macro lager. The bad news is that it doesn't smell like much of anything at all. Meagerly malty, mildly musky, slightly sweet and very little else. Is this a hop-free beer?

Dixie isn't bad, it isn't good, it's just sort of... there. Thankfully, it doesn't have that bordering on nasty quality that is so prevalent in offerings from BMC. Believe it or not, I think that I can actually appreciate the fact that it was aged in cypress barrels (although if I hadn't read the label, I never would have come up with that on my own). There's a mild, spicy woodiness to the flavor that makes it semi-interesting and makes me wish that it played a more assertive role.

There was a moderate metallic character during the first several ounces, but all vestiges of it have now faded. Lightly sweet throughout, the beer manages to finish clean, dry, herbal and woody. Although the mouthfeel (light, properly carbonated) is no great shakes, it keeps my mouth interested all the way to the bottom of the bottle.

Dixie Beer is a New Orleans classic. It doesn't exactly rock my world, but it does make my mouth water for some of those gastronomic delights that only the Crescent City can provide. I'm sure that it's a more than adequate mouth cleanser for Po-boys, red beans and rice, etc. and it's just fine on its own as well. Old times there are not forgotten.

Photo of mikesgroove
3/5  rDev +7.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I think I may have worked my way through must of their lineup now, LOL. I keep getting these just for the sake of trying them to be honest. I am in search of the macro lager that I actually like. This one was served cold and poured into a pint glass on 06/25/2009.
The pour was about what I would have expected. Dull hay in color with lots of carbonation. A nice big head of fizzy white on top that only hangs around for a few moments before settling back down into virtually nothing. Dull aroma of musty bready notes with hints of light grain and a very light overall presentation. Taste is crisp, clean, and not long lasting. What is there is your traditional wet hay like flavor, hints of malts, and just the slightest bit of bite from a bitter note toward the end. Underwhelming but not really bad per se. Very light body, very light carbonation.
Overall not bad at all, just painfully average and more along the lines of everything else out there. I would not really go here again.

Photo of StonedTrippin
3.16/5  rDev +13.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3

for what it is, its really not all that bad. it has some real body for an adjunct lager, creamy feeling and really well carbonated. the only part of the mouthfeel i dont like is the sweetness is finishes with, unbecoming in a lager for sure, especially one designed to drink in hot humid weather. what i like about it is its intense bubbles and the fact that it actually has some flavor, albeit not the best one out there, its not watery, and its one of the few beers in its class that can proudly declare that. sweet corny grain thing, a minor metallic tang, and not much hops going on. i really dont think its as bad as its ratings, but you can do a lot better than this one if you are in new orleans, thats for sure. i can see the appeal of the sweet in a spicy oily food context, but i still would like it to be a bit drier. not horrible, way better than a bud light, but not one i will move towards again unless necessity strikes.

Photo of ChainGangGuy
3.23/5  rDev +15.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Appearance: Pours a clear golden body with a small, short-lived white head.

Smell: Light aroma of pale malts and cooked corn with a single, lone drop of honey.

Taste: Exceedingly pale maltiness with a sweet corn taste. Hops give a little zip of grassiness and a mild (and I do mean mild) bitterness. Fairly clean and crisp on the finish.

Mouthfeel: Light-bodied. Medium carbonation.

Drinkability: A "slow brewed" beer made for quick chugging. Tastes like a Pabst Plus.

Photo of biboergosum
1.82/5  rDev -34.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2

12oz bottle, at Pizza Brew in Calgary.

This beer pours a somewhat hazy, medium golden yellow colour, with one finger of weakly foamy, and mostly bubbly dirty white head, which leaves a few specks of islet lace around the glass as it quickly burns off.

It smells of rancid butter, turned corn mush, paint thinner, and little else. The taste is musty corn and rice cakes, diacetyl up the yin yang, stale yeast, a touch of plastic phenols, and a dry, non-hop oriented mustiness.

The bubbles are pretty low-key, barely registering on any level, the body medium-light in weight, and way more pithy than smooth. It finishes semi-sweet, the corniness sort of apologetic, but hardly making up for the lingering musty plastic notes.

Another Minhas contract brew, where they seemingly just rename one (I'm not about to investigate which) of their large stable of skanky adjunct lagers. This time, it appears to be one whose corners are thoroughly and duly ravaged.

Photo of emerge077
2.74/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.75

Bottle at Analogue, companion to their excellent cajun food.

Pours a pale orange gold, thin limp cluster of bubbles on the surface and clinging to the glass. No lace or head. Seems pretty well carbonated.

Aroma is nondescript, slightly sweet and crackery, touches of honey graham cracker.

Taste is bland, seltzer and crackers. Feel is limp and watery, it sort of fizzles out mid-palate with ebbing carbonation and a slight residual slickness. Overall it's not something to seek out, more of a novelty knowing the brewery's history. Minhas isn't the best choice for a contract brewer for anybody though.

Photo of zeff80
1.61/5  rDev -42.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

I had high hopes for this one and it fell short. I was hoping it was surprisingly tasty like PBR but it wasn't. It looked like most of these lagers do with a pale gold color and a small, white, fizzy head. No lacing. The smell and taste were mostly corn and unappealing bitterness. An okay mouthfeel, crisp, sharp and very light. This is not worth trying unless you are attempting to sample every beer around.

Photo of NeroFiddled
2.84/5  rDev +1.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Clear, straw golden in color but with a brass cast. Unusual - light, but with a darkish tint? The head is white, creamy, and leaves some good lace. The aroma is of grainy malt, with what I tend to think of as an "adjunct" note, and some vegetal character. The vegetal is not real bad, but definitely not good either! The body is light-medium with a very fine, and gentle carbonation giving it a very soft and smooth mouthfeel. The flavor definitely expresses a good use of adjunct with a thin grainy - almost husky - maltiness that is sweet more out of lacking bitterness than residual sugars. The alcohol is noticeable, even in such a light beer - very odd It finishes lightly sweet with a lingering grainy/husky character that's somewhat astringent. Although it does have it's own unique character, this is not a well brewed beer and I'd imagine that even if it's sold at a price point a better beer can be had for less.

Photo of RblWthACoz
2.29/5  rDev -17.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours a slightly fogged straw gold with a minimal white head. Nose is like roasted malts with a sweet tone to it. Flavor has a roasted edge to it, but it just doesn't seem clean at all. Pretty uneven and out of balance. I don't like it. Feel is standard. I can't really say this is that drinkable.

Photo of Slatetank
3.25/5  rDev +16.5%

Photo of russpowell
3.31/5  rDev +18.6%
look: 2 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Another Wisconsin refugee beer, vice from the original source

Pours an effervescent golden with 2+ fingers off eggshell white head. Near zero head retention & lacing

S: Corny & some perfumy hops

T: Corny & grainy with some lemon hops up front. Slight metallic hops & caro syrup-like sweetness, along with apricot as this warms. Finishes with a slight metallic & lemon hop profile & hints of grapes, apples & honey

MF: Thin bodied & lively carbonation

Drinks easy enough, just a typical macro, maybe slightly better. I remember there being more of dry rice profile back in the day, but we're talking 10 years & one brewery ago

Photo of DrunkinYogi
2.75/5  rDev -1.4%

Photo of beernads
2.25/5  rDev -19.4%

Photo of jwc215
2.74/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured gold with a thin white foamy head that left some lacing.
The smell was thin - but an odd, sourish aroma was present.
The taste was of malt with a touch of sweetness. Some adjuncts and a touch of grass were mixed in. A touch of metal was noticeable.
The hints of flavors quickly disappeared, leaving a bland aftertaste.
Even though it's not watery, it lacked much body or flavor. Although I was able to finish it relatively quickly, nothing about it made me desire another one. Not much of a thirst-quencher, either. While not horrible, it's below average, and not worth it.

Photo of WesWes
3.12/5  rDev +11.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

The beer pours a pale gold color with a 1/4" white head that quickly fades to spotty lacing. The aroma is decent. It has a sweet pale malt scent and a slightly musty lager yeast aroma. There appears to be adjuncts present, but it does have a malty sweetness. The taste is average. It has a weak and watery pale malt flavor that goes down easy, but finishes with metallic aftertaste. The malty sweetness is gone in the taste. It does however have some hops which make it drinkable. The mouthfeel is average as well. It is a low bodied beer with good carbonation. This is an average lager. It has no real malt character at all. It's beer flavored water. It one and done for me.

Photo of InspectorBob
2.75/5  rDev -1.4%

Photo of Rochefort10nh
3/5  rDev +7.5%

Photo of wrightst
2.75/5  rDev -1.4%

Photo of duceswild
3.25/5  rDev +16.5%

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Dixie from Dixie Brewing Co.
66 out of 100 based on 330 ratings.