German craft beer

No, it needs no qualification at all. This guy has brewed with a big macro, with Stone and done collaboration brews with micros in at least the US and Europe, maybe elsewhere. He has had a view into the brewing process at every scale that exists, and has participated in brews in a wide variety of facilities. Trying to write him off as somebody that "may not" (or may, of course is the implication) be more about marketing is absurd.

 

I have had the pleasure to have conversations with Mitch Steele at the National Homebrewers Conference. I can assure you he is not a marketing sort of person; he is a hard core brewer and an extremely knowledgeable and experienced brewer at that!!

Cheers!

 

Took me a bit to find it, but there was an AB employee on here that refutes that claim, and I've seen statements elsewhere as well saying it's false:

http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/bmc-rice-source.146840/page-2#post-2139883

 

Douglas,

The rice that AB uses is of high quality and the rice they purchase is not cheap.

@Peter_Wolfe was kind enough to provide a lot of detail on the type of rice they use in making AB beer: http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/bmc-rice-source.146840/page-2#post-2139883

Cheers!

Jack

 

I hate when that happens.

Cheers!

 

I think one of the sources of that legend may be a quote from an ABI exec in this article from 2012. (I've linked to page three, see the end of the fourth paragraph)

While it is very nice that industry people comment on these threads, it's also a good opportunity for them to put out the message they want you to hear. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm just saying that I would take whatever such a person says with a grain of salt. Or perhaps I should say a kiss of hops.

 

“The old Anheuser-Busch insisted on using whole grains of rice in its beer. AB InBev was fine with the broken kind. “Our purchasing of rice has to do with how fresh the rice is, not whether it is whole or broken,” says Vallis.”

And as @Peter_Wolfe further explained it in his post:

“In the last 20 years we've learned a lot about what makes rice high quality for brewing; these were things that were never considered in detail before. We do allow a low amount of broken rice into our supply stream, but it must meet pretty stringent quality requirements. Broken doesn't always equal poor quality for brewing, but it could.”

I would never discourage folks from using a ‘critical eye’ when reading things

Cheers!

 

No, I think Breadwinner got it right in his last post.

And I didn't say may or may not about Steele, I outright said he may not be one of them, inferring that he probably isn't.

 

I guess I just wouldn't be so quick to say @einhorn was the victim of an Urban Legend. The Bloomberg article, as written, certainly carries two implications: (a) that broken rice was a cost-cutting move (by including this fact in a paragraph of other cost-cutting measures), and (b) that this was seen to impact quality (by saying that the Busch family insisted on using whole grains).

From what I've read (skimmed) above, Mr. Wolfe doesn't seem to refute whether or not what they use post-merger is less expensive than whole grains, but he does a very good job of explaining why broken rice can still be considered a quality material to use in brewing.

 

To use your terminology of "grain of salt", you should apply that to the Bloomburg article. The title of "The Plot to Destroy America's Beer" should provide all of the 'heads up' you need that this article was going to be 'slanted'.

Cheers!

 

Are people actually positing that Bud/AB InBev doesn't sacrifice quality for cost-saving measures? This after years of lamenting the slow, steady decline of the CAP style? I certainly hope not.

FWIW, here's another article about their cost-cutting measures as they apply to barley: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/07/16/3280760/less-water-more-beer.html

Note the discussion of water usage and overall moisture used to grow this barley.

 

Don't know how it works in the internet world, but headlines are not always written by the reporter/journalist. With respect to the slant, I would guess that Bloomberg is an independent operation and legitimate news source (AFAIK), by which I mean the report was written to journalistic standards, as opposed to Food Babe/blogosphere garbage. In other words, I don't think they came up with the headline first and then told a reporter to write something that supports it. On the other hand, Peter Wolfe is a representative of AB-InBev, and it is in his best interest to shine as positive a light as possible on his employer. I know which one I'll trust more, I'll say that...

 

My suggestion: utilize your 'critical eye' in all cases.

Feel free to 'reach a conclusion' based upon you own personal 'critical eye'.

Cheers!

 

I mean, assuming you can produce the same quality barley with less water usage, that's a good thing, no? Whether the barley is of the same quality (or whether it matters when you're making American adjunct lagers) isn't clear from the article.

 

Agreed. I'd need to read more about the moisture content, etc., to know for sure what (if any) impact this has on quality. As it stands, I only have my own brewing experience to go on. And in my experience, German pilsner malt is superior to U.S. pilsner malt in terms of not producing any unwanted/off flavors in pale lager styles.

EDIT: that's not entirely true; I also have experience drinking many other brewers' beers made with German vs. U.S. pilsner malt. I find the same to be true in those cases.

 

I do! Which is to say, I try to. Do you have reason to believe that Bloomberg would up and do a hit-piece on Bud? I'm happy to hear all sides.

Bloomberg is a legitimate news source, with reporters who are (presumably) fact-checked before anything goes to press. I'm sure the article would have been retracted if incorrect. Do I believe everything that I read? Of course not (yes I do), but I will definitely choose to believe what appears to be a well-sourced, well-researched, and independently reported "newspaper" article (for lack of a better word) before I believe someone who has a vested interest in public perception (see also, Washington Post v. Richard Nixon I guess, no offense to Mr. Wolfe on the indirect comparison).

 

As a non-brewer, I find this fascinating -- what do you suppose is the difference between the two countries' maltings? Do you know anything about their relative moisture contents?

 

I think one of the main differences is the climate. Obviously Germany is ideally situated geographically to produce excellent barley (and where it's more suited to produce grapes, people produce more wine than beer). In a sense, then, there is IMO a degree of terroir that plays a role. I'm not decided on what role things like GMOs, pesticides, and growing cycles play (but I suspect they also play a role). The other major factor is in the malting techniques. As @einhorn mentioned earlier, places like Augustiner still use floor-malting techniques, which definitely affect the taste of the final product. Also places like Weyermann employ proprietary processes and equipment (on the tour I did, this was the only part o the operation we were not allowed to photograph: the kilning rooms) that just seem to produce a more evenly malted product. Their QC was impeccable, too.

In short, it's the same things that make German breads, yogurts, and chocolates more refined than most U.S. takes (especially the macro ones). Tradition, terroir, and taking no short cuts.

EDIT: I know something -- but not nearly enough -- about the moisture content differences. I do now scan the analysis code on every Weyermann bag we brew with to get the batch malt analysis...but I have a lot to learn about how to compare the numbers and what the differences mean.

 

Oh my, is the big, bad boogeyman (BMC) back!?!