Sierra Nevada Pale - Can Vs Bottle

I dont have anything against bottles just prefer cans. Better suited for activities. 16OZ would be even better!

 

Can, just because it takes up less room in the fridge. As far as taste goes I can't tell a difference. I try to buy SNPA as fresh as possible so maybe that's why.

 

Another thing to consider is light exposure. Obviously cans are the way to go in this regard and you never know how well the beer has been treated by the distributor or retailer before it gets to you. I think this is a bigger danger than oxygen (if you're not cellaring).

 

CAN CONDITIONED!

 

I remember just a few short years ago when this topic was brought up,people were kinda scared of cans wondering/saying they give off a metalic flavor in the beer.Total nonsense as the can is specially lined.Good to see this poll going in favor of cans as beer is MUCH better off. No light, less empty space inside, tight seal.

Cheers All....

 

I doubt SN is in that category, though .

Carton, here in NJ, uses a mobile canner, but they are sticklers about how their beer is stored and sold. It must be kept refrigerated at all times or they won't distribute to that store.

 

very slightly off topic, but Firestone Union Jack in the can seems much better than in the bottle to me. Way more hop nose...

 

Michael, it is intriguing that you should mention that. Cold storage temperatures slow down the oxidation processes. So, if one were to package their beers with a high TPO (Total Packaged Oxygen) amount, it would greatly behoove them to require that their beers be stored cold by retailers. I am not specifically stating this is the case with Carton and their mobile canning service packaged beers but it makes you think a bit.

Cheers!

 

I've already thought about it . And I have come to the conclusion that they are going above and beyond with the resources they have to make sure that I can get some tasty beers whenever I see them.

 

I feel the same way about SN in a can. I prefer bottles, and in my mind they taste different, but I know better. Generally I reach for the canned version of a beer, given a choice, but I prefer SN in a bottle.

 

I'm beginning to like cans more and more.

 

I've never had (or even seen) any of Sierra Nevada's beers in cans so far, so I can't really say much as far as Sierra Nevada Pale Ale goes; all I know is that it's pretty good out of a bottle. But in my only experience with both canned and bottled versions of the same beer so far (Yuengling), the canned version was noticeably better... and the bottles/can came from the same exact store, so no differences in storage could be to blame. So I have to wonder.

Then again, with Yuengling it's not just can vs. bottle but can vs. green bottle, so the difference may be bigger there than with Sierra Nevada's short squat brown bottles.

 

I prefer both.

 

our TPO runs 50-80 PPB, obviously not a concern

 

Apologies for making inferences otherwise.

 

I recycle everything, and every beer I drink gets poured into a glass, so I really don't care either way.

 

It is a good practice to compare the same beer in cans and bottles using a blind tasting.

Have someone pour the beers and have them presented without you knowing which is which. Even better, have 2 glasses of one package and one glass from the other package format, and see if you can pick out the one that is different. I have done this in a group, and the canned beer was deemed to be better.

 

It really depends on the filler, rather than just a container. Bottle fillers can pull a vacuum and jet the bottle after filling, thus driving TPOs to fairly low values. Can fillers flush the can with CO2 to remove the O2 from the empty can and use undercover gas to protect the beer on the way to the seamer. If any of these components are poorly designed or maintained, you are going to get high TPO.

Once the beer is in the package, on a bottle will continue to have ingress through the crown lining. Newer linings have minimized this, but it can't be totally eliminated.

 

Can is optimal...but I still prefer a bottle...hmmm...

 

I really think with a brewery with as good of quality control as SN, the difference is if you like cans or bottles and not so much about the science of how the beer ages in the containers. SN is bound to have very low oxygen pick up in both their cans and bottles. Furthermore, their Pale Ale is bottle conditioned, so the yeast helps to fight the effects of the minimal amount of oxygen they pick up.

My answer is, if I'm drinking straight from the package, the can is far superior. If I'm pouring into a glass, the bottle is superior. The ridge on the mouth of the can effects the disruption of CO2 as it pours, whereas the bottle is a straight shot into the glass. We can get into the whole argument of light going through brown bottles, but the reality is that unless the beer is very old, or the retailer sucks, lightstruck SNPA shouldn't be a problem. I used to buy year old SNPA when I lived in Troy, Alabama and never once thought it tasted lightstruck... Hop flavor definitely was degraded, but never light struck.

In regards to the rest of the beer world in general... There are a lot of budget bottle fillers and canning lines in use by smaller breweries. With our bottle filler, I notice oxidation at about the 10 week mark. I have made a few modifications to our process and now we are closer to the 12 week mark. With a nearby breweries cans, I notice it around their 8th week. However, a different nearby brewery has a slightly better canning line and I have never tasted oxidation within 3 months (I have samples of all the breweries near me that package. I keep them warm and sample once a month). I don't know of any brewery that is currently using a better bottle filler (Meheen) nearby. The Meheen is probably the most popular bottle filler for breweries brewing less than 30,000 bbl or so a year.