It's an interesting observation I thought. I tried finding a German label online but was unsuccessful, I know that they have recently reintroduced the beer to the German market, so would be interesting to see the nutritional values listed. The UK market does seem a bit depressing with their continued and sustained alcohol taxation increases and abv cuts.
It is a bit curious I must say, and I am wondering the same thing myself. Based on various sources Budweiser is high gravity brewed, so diluted down to the required strenght (in the Swedish market we get the 5% version, and a 3.5% version for grocery stores). But that wouldn't explain the difference in calories if the abv is the same. So do they go through the trouble of brewing a different version that comes out to be higher calorie? If so why, and how? I will readily accept that this remains speculation at this point, but as someone who keeps tabs on the lager beers from the Swedish macros, and those being imported, and have for years, I do find it interesting and noteworthy. It is a bit lower compared to most domestic strong beer/Export/class III brands, which tend to be 5.2-5.3% abv. Pripps Blå Export however, which used to be the biggest selling beer brand in Sweden but is no longer, Sweden's Budweiser in a way, is 5% these days (in the 90s it was still brewed to be 5.6% abv, then by the early 2000s at 5.2%), and so is Carlsberg Export (used to be 5.1% years ago) and Heineken. I had a can of Carlsberg Export last week actually and I was struck at how light bodied it was (the 5.5% Carlsberg Sort Guld was more to my liking), which was also on my mind when I had the Budweiser yesterday. According to the stereotype the American adjunct beer should taste like water compared to the all malt Carlsberg, since both beers should be brewed to around the same original gravity, at or slightly over 11% plato, in accordance with modern brewing standards, but I think the Budweiser had more body than the Carlsberg. And as I drink lager beers of varying strenghts and original gravities in the 4-6% abv, 10-14% plato range, regularly, I have quite a few different points of reference to compare against.
Budweiser has been sold as such here since at least the 80s. It is is only in the last year that the branding has switched over to Bud, which is why I'm wondering if there has been a recent court loss, or if they have decided that streamlining packaging outweighs the importance of continuing the use of the brand name in the (very small) Swedish market.
Actually, now that I think of it, perhaps AB Inbev could just buy a brewery, or build one, in Budweis. Couldn't they then legally call it Budweiser?
They did that over a decade ago: AB InBev buys Czech ‘Budweiser’ brewer Updated 7:31 AM EST, July 2, 2014
Just looked at trending beers and Bud heavy and Bud light are currently doing so. See what you bastards did?!?
I know of one local bar that still has it on tap but if you ask for it, they throw a bottle at you. (?!)
I just finished watching this doc after you suggested it on this thread. Enjoyable watch. Ironically, I also recently finished reading Barrel aged stout and selling out. There were some chapters that discussed how sales reps were incapable of selling GI beers because they didn’t understand it and the (comparative to bud) complexities of their earlier beers like honkers, nut brown, ipa, etc. Even when they held tasting panels, it went over their heads. I felt like I witnessed a bit of this in the documentary as well. Especially when one of the top three panel tasters kept using the terms crisp or clean or refreshing while a small handful of others were using terms like esters, oxidized, and resinous. Also, a pet peeve of mine and I’m sure many of ours here, was the fact that they kept using the word lager to describe what they were brewing. “Nothing to hide behind when making a lager” or “looks like a lager” when referring to an American Pilsner/AAL. I guess when you’re only used to brewing and drinking bud, that’s the extent of your reference to a lager?
I thought I would share an example of this phenomenon. Here is a bottle of 4.3% abv Coors beer which uses the Coors Light label minus the light moniker that started selling here in Sweden this month. It is brewed by MolsonCoors at Staropramen brewery in the Czech republic with UK and Portugese and Taiwanese ingredients lists (so intended for those markets primarily). At 36 calories per 100 ml it is 127 calories per 12oz, so not the same as Coors Light. As far as I can tell it is a sort of hybrid between Coors Banquet and Coors Light with an abv adjusted for UK taxation. Also worth noting is the ingredients, which as per the Portugese ingredients list is Barley malt, Wheat, Barley, Glucose Syrup, Hops and Isomerized hop extract (the barley and wheat being unmalted in other words, and not being used in the US brewed Banquet or Light). The taste is how I would imagine normal Coors light to taste like. Very watery and light body, no malt taste to speak of, no hop taste and no bitterness. Only a light fermentation fruitiness can be found in the taste. The beer has no aftertaste either. A very bland beer. The Budweiser I had was a rich tasting beer in comparison to this.
In "the old days" (at least through the '70s), several US states (mostly midwest and west, including CO and UT, where Coors was big) had laws that allowed "3.2 beer" (3.2 alcohol wt % beer, 4% volume) to be sold in less restrictive licensing locations (often to ages 18 or 19 compared to 21 for "regular beer", usually 4.5 to 5.0 vol %). So adjusting the recipes was common. Even then, Coors might have done more than just add carbonated water to get "3.2" beer. And your 4.3 abv beer is only marginally less than the relatively (only relatively!) robust 4.5 abv lagers that were common in the post-prohibition era.
That's really fascinating. The abv. is very close to the coors light abv (4.2%), which makes you wonder about the extra calories. The calories are still a pretty far cry from the amount found in regular coors, but I guess it's all about the abv (from a taxation standpoint). Your description of the flavor profile sounds very coors lightish. The reason I find this so fascinating, is that I can't figure out why Coors doesn't stick to just selling regular coors light in the UK. Last time I was in Ireland, both Ab and Coors were really pushing their light beer products. Granted, that was a while ago (more than 10 years), but I can't see why that would have changed (especially considering England's aggressive taxation tied to abv). I wonder what markets Coors is selling this in. You mentioned the UK, Portugal and Taiwan in particular, but I wonder if there are other countries where this drek is being sold.
Regular Coors is 5% and about 147 calories. If you multiply those numbers by 0.86, you get very close to the European numbers of 4.3% and 127 calories. On the other hand, Coors Light (and most "lo-cal" beers) use strategies to reduce the "useless" calories from unfermented (more complex) sugars that can contribute to "body", often associated with malt flavors. Hence the lower calorie count but similar alcohol in Coors Light.
That's true. I was comparing it to coors light at 102 calories. Given that there's only a .1% difference in the beer mentioned by @Crusader, I was surprised the calorie count wasn't almost the same as coors light. What still surprises me however, is that Coors bothered to even go to the trouble of making this beer. Unless they feel there's some negative association with the "light" moniker, why not simply stick to selling coors light and be done with it?
You can be sure that it isn't much "trouble" to produce this beer. There was probably a significant brainstorming effort to balance cost, flavor, and marketing interests. My guess is that the flavor is meant to be close to Coors rather than Coors Light. If it's a success, a Euro Coors Light and Coors Zero could follow. But is seems that US style (~4%) light beers aren't as popular in Europe. Zero and ultra-low (2 to ~3.5%) alcohol beers are more common.
