Musings on Budweiser

Joe Owades, who developed the process to brew "light beer" using the enzyme amyloglucosidase while working for Rheingold in the 1960s (resulting in Gablinger's) claimed in the early 80s (right before the release of Bud Light) that Anheuser-Busch did not use the enzyme because it was not "natural". (Owades disagreed, saying it could be found in the "human digestive system" ).

AB's 2 light beers at the time were Anheuser Busch Natural Light and Michelob Light. Owades said they used a malt powder which resulted in "more glucose to ferment into more alcohol" and then diluted. He claimed that Michelob Light was just diluted less than ABNL, thus it's unusually high calorie count.

As note by @JackHorzempa in this thread (or maybe one of the other two threads discussing the same topic currently happening - "Nostalgia" and "Beer Now and Then" - I can't keep them straight) AB in that era - late 1970s/early 1980s - had begun brewing their beers via "High Gravity" brewing process. Owades claimed they were among the last of the big brewers, after Carling, Schlitz, Miller and Pabst.

During the "Beer Wars" period in which AB and Miller were battling in the stores, in the press and to the regulators, Miller made a complaint to the BATF (then the primary Federal administrator for beer) ub 1979 over AB's claim of "Natural", which included these items:

(This was the first time I ever heard of "high gravity brewing" and I recall in one story in a weekly newsmagazine - I think - like Time or Newsweek, which went a bit further than Miller's complaint, saying that both Michelob and Michelob Light were both HG brewed, with the latter simply made by adding even more water.)

Note that today, Michelob Light is listed by AB as having 122 calories (more than most lights, but not as high as originally in the 1970s) compared to Michelob Original Lager (still on their website) at 151. ML now uses corn while the Original has been all-malt for a decade or so - so it obviously is not longer the base beer for the Light version.
https://www.tapintoyourbeer.com/

My favorite aspect of the Miller - AB complaining to the BATF is that in the 1990s, AB had an ad campaign ridiculing Coors for shipping high gravity concentrated Coors Light by rail from Colorado to their new facility in Virginia (not yet a brewery) where it was diluted, and not with Rocky Mountain water, and packaged for the east coast. Coors countered with the fact that AB brewed most of their beers by high gravity, too. AB's claim was along the lines of:
"Well, yeah --- but we do it in the same brewery! So it's fresher than shipping it cross country..." OK.

 

What do you think will or won't blow over?

 

That 80/20 consumption rule is called the Pareto principle in economics. It apparently holds true for beer drinking, and probably alcohol drinking in general. In other words, it's the 20%, the people who have a drinking problem, who consume enough booze to make it economical (affordable) for the remaining 80% of us.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/80-20-rule.asp

 

Minor detail: wasn't the developer of "Lite" beer Dr. Hersch Gablinger in Switzerland?

 

Gablinger isolated the enzyme and used it in brewing but (and the story varied over time - it's appropriate that Owades and Jim Koch worked together since both were big self-promoters) Joe Owades, working as a chemist for Rheingold at the time, created their process and recipe for Gablinger's Beer. Supposedly there were up to 70 different versions, taste tested at the NY's 64-65 World Fair. (I think the name Rheingold went with, complete with a picture on the label, drove Owades crazy the rest of his life).

Don't know who the couple was on the later cans. Owades and his wife, maybe?

Meister Brau of Chicago eventually got the process/recipe and created Meister Brau Lite - Owades' stories about that also varied - in some he gave it to them, other times it was a licensed deal, etc. Some stories claim Rheingold's management had no problem with MB getting the process since the marketed their beers in different regions but Ballantine brewed Meister Brau Lite for the northeast market.

Two falsehoods one can find on the 'net is (1) calling the Rheingold product "Gablinger's Diet Beer". It was never labeled or marketed as such. And (2) that is was a failure and quickly dropped. Maybe it was not the success Rheingold would have liked nor did it reach Miller Lite's level (obviously) but the brand lasted a decade as a Rheingold product and was then bought by C. Schmidt's & Sons of Phila. along with many other Rheingold brands and brewed and marketed by them for another decade, into the late 1980s.

Miller bought most of the Meister Brau brands when they closed in the early 1970s and Miller found some data on MBL's sales to blue collar workers and also took note of sales in Germany of their so-called "Diät biers" and thought they could succeed with the Lite brand if it wasn't marketed only as a Low calorie beer. Miller created a new recipe for it.

 

Interesting - thanks. Although I've also seen it expressed as "one quarter of the beer drinkers drink 3/4 of the beer" but - close enough.

Of course, members of the beer geekery with giant cellars of unconsumed (and dying?) beer complicated that rule of thumb for the craft segment of the industry - "20% of the geeks will buy anything we put out if we call it "rare" and especially if we make them wait in line for it! They don't even care what it tastes like first!"

 

Big beer couldn't produce a quality helles for the same cost as their mainstream beers. Start with higher ingredient cost. They probably would need to re-engineer at least their brew houses to deal more efficiently with an all malt product. AB plunked some cash into their NH brewery to make some of their crafty brands. Longer aging would require a bigger aging facility (more cooling too!). And they would be faced with getting their beer accepted. The bigger craft brewers faced problems when they tired to become national, because their sales in secondary markets never rose enough to get adequate distribution. BA comments show that quite a bit of beer sits on the floor getting old with minimal sales. The big guys have advantages; they could advertise and push their distributors to stock up. But they have failed with some of their smaller labels even with those advantages.

 

I don't remember the Coors slogan "Rocky Mountain Water" being applied to Coors Light. If so, they weren't doing anything wrong by adding VA water to the beer. I'm splitting hairs, here. But isn't that the whole point of ads and promotion?

 

It's an interesting question: does the 80/20 Pareto ratio apply to "connoisseurs" as well as regular drinkers? Do 20% of all beer geeks consume 80% of the craft beer? I think of the movie "Sideways," in which Paul Giamatti plays a wine expert who is able to proclaim vintages "transcendent." He ends up consuming an enormous amount of wine, at one point swilling it from jugs on the counter of a fancy winery he's visiting (wine dregs spat out by tasters). We quickly see the very faint line separating the wine connoisseur from the wino.

 

I agree, all malt does require different equipment, but I think it would be less expensive than a brew house setup for adjuncts. The rice Bud uses needs to gelatinize in a cereal cooker prior to mashing, all malt breweries don’t need a cereal cooker. On the other hand, many German breweries use a triple decoction mash which requires extra equipment, so there’s no one way to brew. I believe that you can make a world class lager with a single infusion mash, but others disagree. I’ve seen some highly rated Pilsners on BA made with a single infusion.

I was talking more about ingredients, Bud has a similar ABV and original gravity as a typical helles, sure Bud uses less hops than a good Helles, but we’re not talking hazy IPA level of hops anyway. I also tend to believe AB when they say that it costs more to brew with rice than without. I didn’t believe that in the past but I’m now convinced that Bud makes the beer that they do because that’s what their customers want, not because it’s cheaper.

I believe it was Honky from Tombstone Brewing that posted on here that filtering reduced the need for extended lagering time in his brewery.

 

It's a bold statement to suggest that you've got a better grasp of the business of industrial beer than the literal most successful brewers in the history of humanity

 

I definitely don’t think that I have a better grasp on AB’s business than they do, sorry I gave that impression. I think I was saying the opposite. AB does not cut corners and Budweiser is not a cheap product. Just look at how much they spend in advertising. That is not a company that is afraid to spend some money, and they are incredibly successful while doing that. I think rice plays a big role in their popularity, although I’m sure they could’ve used corn and still bend just as successful.

I think they excel on both the technical and marketing side of brewing. They were the first company to ship by refrigerated train car and opened regional breweries to in part to supply a fresher product. It’s the stuff valued by people on this site. I just don’t care for their products.

 

Really? When I look at the shelves in places that carry Budweiser it isn't especially cheap at all

 

I agree, I think we’re saying the same thing.

 

Well there was a "taste" of the precious Rocky Mountain water in the beer. And didn't AB say about one of their beers that they knew of no beer that was more expensive to brew? That statement either professed a vast ignorance or some very creative accounting.

 

I tried a bottle of Bud "heavy" at a bar in Key Largo last year when my wife and I were stranded there (that's another story). I had not had one in many years--50?. I was surprised by how sweet it was--tasted almost like a soda pop. I guess it wasn't cold enough, but it had just been delivered from the bar. I gather over the years the ibus have been reduced, to please (?) the majority of drinkers. Not a beer I would go back to.

 

In my opinion there is no need for the question mark part. AB wants to sell a large volume of beer and if the majority of their customers prefer reduced bitterness then they will make changes accordingly.

I would like for AB to produce a differing product (more bitterness, more hop flavor) but it would seem they are not interested in producing a brand that that won't sell over a million barrels per year. Although for some reason they make an exception as regards Ziegenbock. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cheers!

 

Well, there was Space Dust...