Bottle vs can

Alpha King, Gumball Head and ZD are still produced in bottles AND cans.

 

Excellent point.

 

What you u miss there us what the H2O did to that beer before you popped it and poured it.

 

Yeah but they dont send bottles of zombie dust to PA anymore

 

That's whack. You should move to a state where they care.

 

I like cans, I never used to but I feel they are doing something to the aluminum that doesn't react to the beer. Canned beers used to always taste tinny to me, but I've had more skunked beer in bottles than cans.

 

Yeah, can manufacturers line beer cans with what they describe as a "water-based polymer". Beer cans have always been lined, dating back to the original US cans of the 1930s manufactured by the American Can Co. which were tin-plated steel with the interior coated with a Union Carbide plastic called Vinylite, which ACC called by their trade name of "Keglined".

"Skunked" refers to beer that has been exposed to light (particular sunlight or florescent light), more technically called "Light Struck".

... so it is logical that it would be more common in bottled beer (as well as pretty impossible in cans ).

 

What is the term used for a canned beer that is chilled, warmed and chilled again. Would that be can skunked?

 

No, skunked beer is when the beer has been sitting in the sun and acquires an unpleasant aroma similar the compound a skunk will spray.

 

Hmmm... "Myth Struck", maybe? Beer ages/stales more rapidly when it's kept at higher temperatures, refrigerated temps preserve beer. Most sources agree that the only bad thing about the cold-warm-cold scenario is the time spent warm (well, and one's definition of warm - lots of people consider room temp. "warm" for beer, but not much else). Most beers are bottled/canned at low refrigerated temperature for ease of packaging (less foaming, etc) - so any beer bought warm/room temp and then refrigerated has just gone through one cycle. Another cycle will just add to the time it's not refrigerated.

Or, as one brewer said in the era before YouTube:

As noted in the post above, "skunky" while a fun little slang term for a bad beer, describes a specific off-flavor - the result of beer exposed to sunlight or florescent light which smells, tastes, and is chemically similar to that of a skunk's spray. Canned beer might taste revolting, be spoiled, infected, poorly-brewed or have gone stale but those are not "skunked".

 

I'm neutral about cans and bottles at this time. If refillable bottles were available in the US, I'd choose them. There used to be available in many areas of the US reusable beer bottles: Tall 12s and steinies in the east and midwest, stubbies in the northwest, quarts more widely distributed. The only brewery with in-house reusable capabilities in the US now is Straub (for their 16 ouncers, apparently). An efficient system would have a uniform industry bottle and decentralized washing capabilites. We're not likely to turn back the clock. Canada still has an efficient refillable bottle program (https://www.solidwastemag.com/feature/drink-up/) but refillable market share is dropping.

 

There is a returnable bottle system used by a number of breweries in Oregon:

https://www.bottledropcenters.com/buy-refillable-containers/

Cheers!

 

It would be interesting to see a bottled vs canned SNPA in a case study over time. They’re known for their obsession with oxygen, and as far as I’ve read they are state of the art. Common beer, different vessels done by experts, wonder if they’ve ever done such a study? Would seem silly to offer two containers if one was clearly better right? So why do the offer it up in both containers? My guess is to humor the consumer and neither are clearly superior to the other. Just my opinion.

 

Dale, why not ask Terence (@SierraTerence) if they ever conducted this study?

FWIW when I posed this question to my tour guide at the Sierra Nevada Mills River brewery he stated there was a preference for cans as being the 'optimum' package but they still bottled (mostly bottled) due to customer demand. It will be interesting to see whether Sierra Nevada customers continue to prefer bottles over the next few years. Maybe the casual craft beer drinker sector of the craft beer market prefers, and will continue to prefer, bottles?

Cheers!

 

I doubt on his own the tour guide would offer up an answer not approved by SN. Personally I prefer cans, but I’d doubt someone as influential as SN would do anything not science driven.

 

I like whatever gets the beer to me since all bars all closed in Hawaii.

 

An age old battle between liquid containers. Where glass falls short (as mentioned earlier) is around pools = not good, then again, just pour it in a non-breakable vessel and enjoy. With some beers (like cork and cage), probably better off conditioning in that format. Personally, I could care less as long as it tastes good.

 

I'm all for cans due to the aforementioned reasons, but bottles just have a certain style and charm about them that cans can't replicate.

 

Looking at the amount of transportation pollution and chemical processing pollution in the world today, my opinion that glass is far superior to aluminum makes more sense to me now than ever.