Rice vs. Corn Syrup in Beer

I'll break this up into the questions you asked.

When did rice become a 'good' ingredient?

Rice really gets a bad reputation here. A lot of Craft Brewers or "beer enthusiasts" will say that its just a cost cutting ingredient. Although for a lot of breweries this may be true, rice also serves its purpose. It will lower the body and color of a beer its used in. Even the germans used rice when they migrated to the US because it was difficult to get a clean, crisp pilsner with the types of barley that was growing at the time.

Why is Corn Syrup viewed negatively?

Corn Syrup is a very easy "trigger" word for companies to use now in their marketing campaigns. With the push for a more organic and "healthy" lifestyle High Fructose Corn Syrup has really come to light in the public eye. The uninformed consumer doesn't know the difference between these two products therefore the perception of the term "corn syrup" is all grouped into one bad category.

Anheuser Busch uses corn syrup to brew some of their beer products

They use corn syrup in other brands that they weren't advertising in that commercial. AB took advantage of the fact that they have complete control of the advertising market during the Super Bowl. Although they use corn syrup in other beers it is all about the perception they created for the consumer.


Cheers!

 

Ahh... it was a bit before that and by numerous other brewers besides Anheuser-Busch. Just some example from the US (and a few Canadian ones) in the post-Repeal period - RICE ADJUNCT IN US BEERS

They used it in Germany, too, according to Pabst historian Thomas Cochran in his 1948 history of the company:

Nope, but I've been in AC in a hotel with lousy cell phone reception or... maybe, he lost my number?

 

Two things to keep in mind:

1. Neither market share nor barrelage equates to revenues, let alone profits.
2. Even if Bud Light revenues and, more importantly, profit attributable to Bud Light are falling, merely decelerating the decline could be extremely valuable to AB InBev given how large the sales of Bud Light currently are. Are we likely to see an uptick in those numbers in the near future? No. Does that mean that those Super Bowl ads didn't have a beneficial effect on AB InBev's bottom line? Heck no.

 

Of course, Anheuser-Busch's total US market share during that same period more than doubled, going from 22.7% in1977 to about 48% in 2010 - mostly on the strength of Bud Light as it grew to eventually outsell the flagship.

 

I legitimately appreciate that historical record, but all of those ads appear to predate all but the earliest parts of the craft beer era and the remarkable consolidation of the major AAL producers (I do know that there has been a long history of mergers and acquisitions in the sector, but not to the point of consolidation that we've seen in the last few decades). Am I wrong to think that there was a de-emphasis of rice in advertising in, say, the 1980s or 1990s until recently?

I don't understand what you think there is for me to prove. I'm just saying that the metrics you're tracking never will prove or even indicate anything about whether AB InBev got its money's worth out of its advertising, regardless of where the numbers land. You're effectively predetermining your conclusion by creating a highly improbable standard surely not shared within AB InBev (i.e., "moving the goalposts").

Let me ask you this: Given that Bud Light's market share and barrelage are likely to decline no matter what advertising campaign AB InBev uses, do you advocate that AB InBev suspend all advertising for Bud Light? If you're going to judge an advertising campaign a success only if it results in increased sales, you're probably not going to judge any Bud Light advertising campaign a success any time soon. Can't win; don't try, right?

 

You might be thinking (or the teacher might have been referring to) a couple Canadian breweries that had to use rice syrup because they didn't have cereal cookers.

Using actual grain is preferable because of the sugar profile - if you're making a syrup outside of the brewing process, chances are it's going to be almost pure glucose. Going with the traditional cereal cooker/barley mash route results in a maltose profile. It also adds cost to make an outside syrup, and doesn't do anything beneficial for you unless your process requires it for some reason.

To my knowledge (which certainly isn't infallible), rice syrup is not used in any US breweries for making Bud or Bud Light. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a syrup, corn, rice, or otherwise, but why spend extra money and energy when you have the barley enzymes there already to work for you?

 

The easiest people to convert to Bud Light are going to be their direct competitors. They aren't going to convert craft beer drinkers. Pulling from Miller Light and Coors Light is their best opportunity to increase or sustain shares for Bud Light. Easiest way to do that is to point out what the difference between "us" and "them" is. Using corn in their value line-ups reeks of a do as I say and not as I do mentality, but so did all the people in power drinking during Prohibition....

 

I do actually find it funny that they attacked Miller and Coors when I think most of their market share is going to the various Constellation & Heineken mexico brands, at least here in Texas it seems so

 

I notice that MillerCoors distinguishes between "maltose" and "dextrose" corn syrup, using dextrose for the brands one would most associate with lightness (Coors brands along with Miller Lite), whilst using "maltose" corn syrup for Miller High Life (but not High Life Light, which I guess again hints at the purpose of dextrose compared with maltose), Leinenkugel's Original and Hamm's (with Hamm's Special Light using both dextrose and maltose). I take it that the different forms of corn sugar results in slightly different fermentation profiles?

 

Increasing sales, certainly, but keeping their regular customers believing in the the product is a strong motivation as well.

 

Yeah, different flavors can pop out based on the sugar profile, and most yeast will preferentially take up glucose over maltose/maltotriose, because it's energetically favorable. This means if you have a bunch of glucose in the wort alongside a bunch of maltose, most yeasts will downregulate the expression of membrane-bound maltose transporters and just go to town on the glucose. This results in incomplete or stuck fermentations.

So you kind of have to stick to one sugar profile or another, and if your wort is primarily barley, it makes sense to have your adjuncts maltose profiled as well (a little bit of glucose/fructose is ok - you don't get into real trouble until you start going over a third).

You will get a different flavor profile if your sugar profile is glucose/fructose - it'll be cidery. That's not always a bad thing, but it can be odd in beer. I've had some value brand beers made with corn syrup that definitely had that cider character. If there's no fructose, it's better, from a flavor standpoint. Commodity level high fructose corn syrup does not make good beer. If you mash corn grits and convert the starch with barley enzymes, it can make terrific beer.

Most light beers are made using a cocktail of debranching and amylase enzymes that just convert everything to glucose, so you can use whatever adjunct you want with few issues and it'll attenuate in the 90-95% range. That's also how all the craft "Brut IPAs" are made that are popping up here and there.