Aging beer in cans?

ALL aluminum beer cans are lined with a neutral water-based polymer lining. Without a lining, the beer would come into direct contact with the metal, causing off-flavors and, eventually, probably failure due to corrosive chemical reaction.

As for the paranoia and conspiracy theories about the lining's BPA, do a forum search for the pro and con opinions (well, you'll have to sort out the BPA = Belgian Pale Ale comments).

 

Exactly what @jesskidden said. I am in the camp that believes that can lining does have BPA which is a synthetic estrogen that is released in extremely tiny does over time in contact with a liquid.

Do I still drink cans? You betcha, I just now know that my man titties are the result of poor diet and synthetic estrogen from cans.

Will aging in a can affect flavor of the beer? I don’t think so, I’ve had 10 year old MGD in a can and it actually tasted better than fresh.

Is aging in a can superior to that of a bottle? Not in my opinion- they are both a sealed container, also refer back to the BPA and man titties above.

 

No moobs here, and the five year old 10.50 I had was pretty tasty.

 

Aging cans is awesome. They keep light out. They're stackable and a more efficient use of space for those of us with small cellar spaces. 3 years is my max so far but I've heard plenty of people who have aged them much longer with no complaints.

 

I've aged quite a few cans of Ten Fidy, and my perception is that they probably age slower than other similar Imperial Stouts in bottles.

 

I'll have to report back in when I find someone to partake in my 5 year vertical of Ten Fidy with.

 

I'm in. I will bring a five year vert of Mephistopheles so we can compare cans and bottles.

 

It seems like that this layer you are referencing could have imperfections or could degrade over time also causing the beer to be exposed to metal.

Is this probable or is their evidence one way or the other?

 

I think it would degrade over time and/or have imperfections or is susceptible to any form of mechanical or chemical failure.

But logic could argue “do cellphones really give you brain tumors?” “Does smoking really cause cancer, or were they predestined?” “Are food dyes really causing gene damage, or is your kid just a turd?”

I think one would be incredibly naive to believe mass produced items are completely safe, especially when they are synthetic, and synthetics are known to break down for any reason- pH, UV light, heat, physical damage, etc.

 

I just found this thread while googling... and needed to go reset my password (haven't been on in a while) just so I could sign in and respond...

The irony of blatant chemophobia like this on a forum that discusses alcoholic beverages is literally too much for me to handle. I am actually going to schedule a doctor's appointment right now because I'm 100% certain that your post has given me cancer. Probably because it was "synthetic" or something. I dunno.

 

Unless you're heating your cans to >100C, the BPA in your can is staying right where it is, in the lining, because it's not alcohol soluble.

 

Haha relax, the cancer you likely have now was caused by cellphone radiation over the last 15 years or that weekly dose of benzene from filling your gas tank. Or, if you like we can talk about what is in your tap water if there is fracking anywhere near an aquifer by you. Let’s not get into the electromagnetic neurodamage from living under hi power electric transmission lines....

Life will kill you before trace amounts of can liner slowly gives you stomach cancer- or not, there still isn’t irrefutable evidence. Just accept that you will die (someday), and you can only control how happy you are up to that point- drinking canned beer brings me happiness.

 

Please Google "hormesis" and/or "hormetic curve" and "adaptive response".

More profound than I'm used to seeing on BA, but that makes it no less true.

 

I looked up hormesis and adaptive response and that pretty much (I think) sums up to what I’m referring to, only in this instance you have to believe in a hormetic curve (without controversy to its legitimacy according to wiki) to suffer the consequences of can liner exposure. I believe it is harmful- hell I believe a lot of our modern comforts are the root cause of our issues- however you have the whole vastness of beer drinkers to convince, which is why I play conservative with those claims. Up until 30, possibly 25 years ago smoking was considered a “diet” and therefore healthy; they did the same thing with amphetamines in WWII for pilots and troops, and later Twiggys in the ‘60s. My whole sarcastic bent was to say if you still don’t believe it will kill you eventually it doesn’t matter, because you will die. We all die. Muhwaa haaa haaaaaaaaaa!

 

Oh . . . definitely. Lots of stuff out there that is supposed to make our lives easier, less expensive, and more enjoyable is bad for us, like beer, and stuff that aids in farming and industry being more efficient is definitely fucking with all of us.

And, yeah, we're all worm food regardless of how well we lead our lives, but that shouldn't be a reason to not live them to the fullest.

 

One thing to consider, is there a difference in the lining of a beer keg? Really is there any difference in a beer aged in a keg for a few years at the brewery or in cans? Most of us would line up for a multi year barely wine from a keg wouldn't we?

 

Modern beer kegs are unlined stainless steel - beer cans are aluminum, lined with a very thin sprayed-on epoxy coating.

Before the universal adoption of the stainless steel keg, beer kegs of wood and steel, as well as most aluminum kegs, were lined with pitch. Some aluminum kegs were "Allodized" - a process that created a chrome-like coating.

 

I was literally just going to make a thread asking how straight jacket cans taste after a year. Thanks for the insight!