Modem Times

I've noticed the same lack of "depth" in Phalanx, City of the Sun and Aurora. The aroma is almost always excellent but the taste finishes quick and light leaving me wanting more. It is the reason I rarely buy a second bottle.

Other IPAs with light malt don't seem to have this characteristic.

 

I too have had the 4 pack rings fall apart on me. Both in that a can fell out of the ring, and the 4 pack split in two, where the plastic holder physically ripped in two. Not robust.

And in reference to the turtle, that's why I always cut the rings before I throw them away.

 

Folks who think it's the turtle's fault have no inclination to cut the rings.

 

Those folks deserve a punch in the face.

 

The turtle should lose weight so it doesnt get stuck.

 

I agree, but I don't find this a flaw. Oneida, in particular, keeps me wanting more, but in a good way. It's low-ish ABV let's me sip on a 4-pack throughout the afternoon without getting trashed. It's not a "tasting notes" beer, just refreshing and bright.

 

Without getting into it in excruciating detail, we are well aware of the issue with the rings and are actively working to fix it with the ring manufacturer. We started running new rings a week ago that should make a difference. But we have some more ideas for how they can be improved even further, and we're receiving rings that reflect those improvements this week.

As for the turtle, the rings are photodegradable, meaning they break apart in the sun. My understanding is that this is the standard for all domestically manufactured beverage rings at this point. They're also made largely from recycled material and use considerably less plastic than the PakTeks, making them much more sustainable overall.

As for the lack of "depth" in our hoppy beers, what you're describing is simply lower IBUs than many other hoppy beers. This is very much intentional and something of a cornerstone of our style (what I would call "new wave" hoppiness, an approach we share with other young breweries). Our goal is: 1) To produce more sessionable beers, i.e. beers that are designed to be enjoyed repeatedly and by the pint, rather than simply being impressive at a bottle share or festival; 2) To make hoppy beers that prominently feature identifiable hop varietal character, rather than just generic "hoppiness." I'm aware that this approach is not to everyone's taste and that it makes us an outlier in San Diego certainly, but that's fine by me. Hoppy beers that are a sledgehammer of bitterness are just not our style; on the other hand, we love making beers that feature the flavor and aroma of the kickass new hop varieties that are available to craft breweries today. To each their own!

Cheers & thanks,
Jacob McKean
Modern Times Beer

 

Going to be in San Diego this Thursday and Friday for vacation. Any chance I'll still be able to get any of the Rum BA Monsters Park on tap at Modern Times or did that kick the night of the party? If they are long gone I have a Flora B/B if someone has an extra Vanilla or Coconut & Cocoa for an IP.

 

@ModernTimesJacob That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. The low IBU doesn't make the brews bad, but it was a quirk that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Kind of deceiving to have a very hoppy but not very bitter beer. I guess our taste buds are programmed to expect the two together. Thanks.

 

I assume you mean sessionable in the no-palate-fatigue sense? I don't think I'd consider Booming Rollers (6.8%), City of the Sun (7.5%), Phalanx (7.5%), Aurora (6.8%), et al sessionable in the traditional sense of being able to put back pint after pint over many hours and still be relatively sober. I mean, super traditional session beer in the UK is <4% ABV, and even in Germany most helles and pils don't stray much over 5%. Fortunate Islands, though, total session beer, IMHO.

 

The EPA requires rings to be photodegradable, but there's a question of the timeline. One manufacturer (Hi-Cone) claims they will degrade sufficiently in 3-4 weeks of ideal conditions, or 3-4 months of cool, cloudy weather. There are anecdotal reports of the rings taking 10-12 months to actually degrade to the point that they can be easily broken apart. Once they do degrade into little plastic chunks, they present a swallowing hazard to wildlife, and continue to do so as they break down further, even to the point of microplastics, which we are now realizing are a large, persistent problem for the oceans. They do use non-toxic LDPE, but that doesn't do anything about the physical hazard. There are biodegradable plastics available, but I haven't heard of them being used for rings.

While the rings are technically recyclable, many curbside programs don't take LDPE (plastic #4), and even if they do, they may not take anything but containers. So they often just end up in a landfill. PakTech holders are HDPE (plastic #2), which is usually taken by curbside programs, although they can still run into the container-only problem. They also claim to be photodegradable and made of post-consumer recycled content.

In other words, if you buy beer or soda with rings (MT's kind or PakTech), please continue to cut them! Photodegradable doesn't mean quickly photodegradable. Recycle them if you can. I enjoy Modern Times when I can get it, but I'm not going to be buying any cans with these rings. I'm out of your market, so maybe that doesn't matter, but I can't imagine I'm the only one who cares.

 

Certainly appreciate your perspective. One thing to consider about the PakTeks is the quantity of material used (this is the big one) and the additional weight that creates in shipping, both to my brewery and to the end user. After evaluating all of the variables, I am confident the Hi Cone rings are the more sustainable option. Most people seem to focus on recyclability (which is itself a very energy intensive and wasteful process) rather than the amount of energy and material it takes to make something to begin with, which is the biggest factor, at least when it comes to carbon footprint. For instance, it is much more sustainable to not use a cardboard box for our cans than to use one made from 100% post-consumer recycled content. But you can't put marketing copy trumpeting your sustainability choices all over nothing, so most people don't tend to look at something with an absence of packaging and think, "They made the sustainable choice." They also don't look at the cardboard box covered in recycling symbols and marketing copy and think, "That box took a lot of energy and water and chlorine and other stuff to make, and it has a much greater impact on the environment overall than half a gram of plastic." So, for me, using less stuff overall is my preferred approach because I believe it's more effective, although no approach is bulletproof. Just my perspective.

Cheers & thanks,
Jacob McKean
Modern Times Beer

 

Thanks, I do understand the decision to come at the issue from the the side of looking just at the carbon footprint. And you're right, these rings do probably have a lower footprint, and lower waste in their production. Those are great things, and I'm happy that you've considered them. There is no perfect option, and you have to make the best choices you can for your business. I would say that PackTech holders or small cardboard boxes have more potential for reuse by the consumer, which is ideal, although most people probably do throw them out. I have a couple sets of the PackTech rings that I've reused for for bringing a mixed set of cans with me, and I always need boxes for something or other (I may be guilty of hoarding boxes in a closet...)

To be honest, my biggest concern with these is the accumulation of microplastics (some of which do break down to toxic chemicals) in aquatic ecosystems. You may have seen recent news articles about the microbeads used in beauty/hygiene products. The same problems apply. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a good example of the level of microplastic accumulation out there. This is a relatively new area of research, and so there isn't much data yet indicating a negative impact on populations, but there does appear to be one for individuals of some species (especially bottom-dwelling ones), and they definitely move up the food chain. It is speculated that they may allow invasive species to hitch a ride and spread, as well.

That, and I just want people to know that despite the EPA regulations, it is still important to cut up the rings before you throw them out. I'll think about, and look into the carbon impact some more though, and might come off my stance of never buying these types of rings.

 

While I think the cardboard boxes are ugly, and probably not the best thing in the world, I will agree with reusing them.

I keep a 12 pack box in the house and fill it with used bottles, then I take that box down to the recycle bin and dump it out and bring it back up, using it about 15-20 times this way. Smaller boxes or any other box I either use to pack gifts, use for storage, or if I don't have anything else to use it for I try to use them to hold dry garbage instead of using garbage bags.

 

This talk of sustainability has me wondering why breweries continue with this outdated model of charging on-premises draft prices (or more) for their growler fills. Growler fills are clearly the most sustainable option, especially if there aren't any illogical requirements such as a branded glass. There's no packaging and distribution costs, yet there's a premium charge on fills. What a bizarre world we live in.

 

Because they can?

 

Sure, of course, that's the obvious reason, but it's short-sighted. Only time will tell how long current models will last.

 

They will last as long as people let them. The main issue is that for every 1 or 2 people that have been buying long enough to finally say this too much, you have 6 or 7 people new to craft beer who dont care about paying more than what its probably worth.

 

Is there an example of a brewery that really goes bottom dollar on its growler fills, at least compared to bottles?

I suspect some of the price bump has to do with our lovely 3-tier model. In other words, if you are really undercutting growler fill prices, you may tick off your distributor. Or at least they are worried about that...

 

It's not short-sighted at all, it's maximizing profit based upon their demand, and most breweries can't meet demand. When supply outstrips demand, they can drop prices and draw people back in with good deals. Aside from that, there are a couple of factors that go into growler pricing:
1) Waste. Most breweries run the tap until the growler has been overflowing for several seconds to minimize headspace and oxygen intake, so they're likely using 80+ ounces of beer to fill a 64 ounce growler. You're only getting charged for 64oz but more than that is coming out of the keg.
2) Opportunity cost. If a brewery can sell every ounce of beer without growlers, then filling growlers reduces the lifespan of a batch and risks having empty taps between batches. Empty taps makes a brewery less appealing to visit and reduces overall income.

Most breweries charge less per ounce for growler fills than they do for draft beer consumed on premise, but more per ounce than bottles/cans. Considering the costs inherent in each format, it makes sense to have it set up that way. If you want to minimize your cost per ounce, buy bottles. If you want growlers, you're paying a premium for the freshness and/or expanded selection.