Is there really in difference between beer in a can versus in a bottle?

To be on the safe side I always choose the can when having a choice.

 

The only difference is the can provides the features of being totally impervious to light and air (oxygen). Both of these are good features.

Oh, and cans are lighter in weight so they yield efficiencies in transport (e.g., reduced energy costs).

Cheers!

 

For the macro beers, there should be no difference in taste for beers that are brewed and packaged on the same time schedule regardless of whether the beer is in bottles or cans. The macro brewers go to great lengths to make certain their beers taste the same from batch to batch.

If you're comparing small breweries, there can be noticeable taste differences from batch to batch regardless of cans or bottles due to various factors such as different supplier sources for ingredients, changes in brewing procedure, or maybe the brewer is still tweaking a new recipe.

 

I would guess that many here would do the same but my approach to what's the "safe side" is very different.

If given the option of a bottle or can, any of the below can happen:

- I go with the fresher product.
- I go with the cheaper product.
- I go with cans if the bottles are clear or green (usually even if the beer is "light stable").
- I go with bottles if I know the producer utilizes a mobile canner.
- I go with bottles if I know the product needs to be shipped to a different facility for canning.
- I go with bottles if that product is packaged with higher levels of carbonation.
- I go with bottles if it's the only product that undergoes intentional and additional fermentation after packaging.
- I probably go with bottles if I'm drinking from the packaging container.
- If only one product is filtered and/or pasteurized, it can be a toss up.

What I find odd about the cans="safe side" thinking, is that ever since cans became the popular craft beer packaging choice, I seem to encounter far more posts on BA about people receiving incredibly damaged "fresh" product due to oxygen issues. If one were to just use talk on BA as any indication of safety (as limited as that approach is... but nonetheless looking at "the rubber meeting the road" rather than an idealized chart), one would think that cans represent a much greater gamble with beers aimed at the BA crowd. I don't know why there's a disconnect.

Buuut... the OP is asking about Bud Light and much of what I said above doesn't really apply. I don't think one has to worry too much about the "safe side" in that case, but I would go with the fresher product if applicable. I only ever did a side-by-side in that realm once - with a can and bottle of Miller High Life. Some people swear there's a noticeable difference (mainly due to carbonation). Unfortunately, I don't even remember my takeaway from that side-by-side (I'm not smart), but my lack of memory might indicate that any differences weren't all that important to me. If the clear glass bottled High Life was light-struck (not that I would expect it to be), I certainly would've remembered that.

 

Yes there is.

High Life in a bottle is better for me. It’s a bit more bitting than the can. The cans are more creamy and carbonated and have a slight different taste. This could be from the carbonation.



Enjoy

 

Generally, I don't drink lite beers, not saying I wouldn't, because there could be that rare time I went somewhere and didn't bring my own beer or horror of horrors, it was the only beer available at the store.
That being said, I would choose a can because aluminum is potentially 100% recyclable.

 

Do cans also over time hold more carbonation? Or is the fact that these AB and Coors beers flying off the shelf quickly not make that much of a different than to the craft beer that may sit a month on a shelf?

 

To me it is down to someones personal preference. I get the no skunking and less oxidation argument, but honestly I can't remember the last time I had any skunked/light struck beer at all (and I buy lots of Saison Dupont), and have had more under filled cans that lead to oxidation anyway than bottles. I use to work at my friends beer store one day a week (just as a fun thing to do and get a few extra bucks along the way) and we constantly found under filled cans and sent them back to the brewers for a refund, or just obviously poor canning techniques as it could still be oxidizes anyway without under filling (don't ask me how, but thats the only explanation we had for the different colors and cardboard taste we found in the same beer from the same batch). The only real constant was, breweries that had good QC practice always had quality and consistent products. Thats it, buy from them full stop IMO.

The only other aspect I can think of to determine if you want cans or bottles specifically, is in what environment are you drinking? Are you going to the beach, a tale gate, or on a camping trip, cause the accepted package might be cans in that case.

Edit: For the macros, it just doesn't matter as they have good packaging and QC all the way. Again, its down to personal preference and in what setting are you drinking in.

 

Best thing to do is to answer it for yourself. Buy the beer you like in can and bottle noting the best buy or canned/bottle dated on each one and try to get as close as possible. Have someone pour these 2 beers into 3 cups that are the same type(marking which is which, 2 of one and 1 of the other). Then you try to pick the odd beer out. Do this with several of your friends and you can then decide if you can detect a difference. If you are drinking out of the container, then yes I think there is a difference. Bias is formed on drinking out of a can or bottle and most people normally prefer one over the other.

 

Eh, I wouldn't bring my friends into the decision making. God love em, but they all have awful taste in just about everything (only slightly sarcastic)

Edit, except for my friend that owns the beer store, his tastes are better than mine ha.

 

For popular AALs I doubt there’s a difference, they’re fresh.

There’s no way in the world you can convince me that a crimped cap is a better bet than a sealed can. Cans are impervious to light and completely sealed, if the brewery cares about oxygen ingress then the equipment will be first rate and the product tested. I don’t see how a bottle improves on this part of the packIcing over a can. Perhaps the process is more involved than I know?

 

Cans are filthy. If you don't wash them beforehand anything that touches the top of the can comes into contact with the contents. I also question how long the liner used in beverage cans holds up over time, for those that like age/cellar their beers.

Bottles aren't perfect, but at least bottle caps don't drop into the beer when you open them.

 

I believe that the answer to that question is yes. With a can there is zero gas exchange: no air (oxygen) ingresses and no CO2 comes out.

In contrast the cap liner of bottled beer is made out of a plastic material which is gas permeable. Over time air (oxygen) ingresses into the bottle through the cap liner and presents an issue as regards beer stability (i.e., oxidation). Since there is more CO2 within the bottle as compared to the ambient air some CO2 will out-gas over time. Having said this I have had bottled beers for a very long time (approaching 5 years for my homebrewed Quad beers) and those beers never became flat so I wonder whether this is a big issue as regards bottled beer and CO2 (carbonation).

Cheers!

 

Glass is also 100% recyclable if it is diverted correctly and clean. However, because of our broken recycling system in America (which is built on having a market to sell to and has you throw everything into the same bin/truck), glass and plastic end up in the landfill much more than you would think. Heck, the county I lived in when I lived in Maryland flat out told the local paper that the glass collected in the recycling bin was landfilled. Now, it was used to construct the drainage layer, which is a necessary layer in landfill construction, and therefore could be argued that you are preserving other materials and therefore it is technically recycling, but not what most people envision.

 

Given that there is a market for recycling aluminum is it safe to day that the aluminum cans that I place in my recycling bin will indeed be recycled into new aluminum (e.g., new aluminum cans)?

Cheers!

 

More than likely. Aluminum and cardboard are the two things recycling programs regularly make money on so they will do their best to get it all. The rest is either variable based on location whether you make money on it or not, or loses money.

 

Well, for folks who prefer that their beer packaging actually gets recycled into the same (or similar) product it would seem that aluminum cans are 'better' than glass bottles within this context.

Cheers!

 

Was just making the point on the "100% recyclable" agrument it is in theory a wash. But in practice I agree with you (and I also prefer cans for this and other reasons including the light penetration and cost of transport, plus they take up less room in my fridge and cool faster).