Anheuser-Busch Resurrects Faust

Anheuser Busch making world class beers is like McDonalds serving prime steaks.

 

So is Bourbon County Brand Stout is no longer world class? AB owns Goose Island 100%, no matter what name is on the label.

 

The real question I think, or the more debatable question, is whether American brewers, ale or lager beer brewers, were using caramel malt as early as the 1880s, or as Jim Koch would claim, the 1860s. My understanding is that caramel malt was used as a means of approximating the benefits of using the coloring power of black malt without the astringency or harshness that was associated with this kind of malt. Weyermann started production of black and caramel malts in the late 1880s, and I have records of a Swedish lager beer brewery using caramel malts by 1907:

 

Yeah, but it's been discussed time and again that A-B is letting the Goose Island brewers "do their thing." After all, that's why A-B bought them in the first place. So, to the question of whether or not A-B is brewing world class: No. They're buying other brewers to do that for them.

 

Hate to break it to you but all breweries run on a bottom line, micro or macro.

 

It's a Willi Becher, very common in Germany. Libby Glass makes one for their beer set -- wouldn't be surprised if that isn't one of them.

 

But do you really think the AB brewmasters are incapable of brewing world class beer if they were given that directive from the AB executives? Mitch Steele formerly worked at AB and he seems to have no problem now brewing world class IPA's at Stone.

 

Also erects statue of Aleister Crowley.

 

And I'm sure his experience at AB has had a positive effect on the overall quality of Stone's beers since his arrival, too.

 

The variable is that Mitch Steele is no longer brewing at A-B -- he has his own equipment. I have to wonder how "tuned in" the A-B equipment is to the same stuff they've been brewing for so long -- so maybe better stuff can't really be brewed in the big house?

How long did it take A-B to crank up their smaller breweries to brew the "lesser" Goose Island beers? And those really aren't "world class" as much as Bourbon County.

And look at Coors, they brew their better stuff at their pilot brewery in Denver, not in Golden.

But my point was more to; they don't have to -- they're letting others do it for them and reaping the profits.

 

Why is it necessary to use this malt at all in these recreations? Why not just 6 row and any adjunct deemed appropriate to the time? I have had a number of beers from large brewers which use caramel or crystal malt and I don't really like the taste, it is as if a sweet sugary thing is added to the basic flavors of dextrin and maltose. I "know" the taste, it tends to be characteristic. The Brits often use it to add to pale malt for pale ale and bitter, but these beers (or American lager for that matter) didn't typically use black malt to fix a color problem, i.e. back in the Victorian era. Why use it now? That said I have not tried the new Faust as yet.

 

Point taken. I'm sure they'd have to make changes to their breweries.

Based on their website , AB operates 12 breweries in the US. So are the individual AB breweries producing beer in batches that are that much larger than say Sierra Nevada, Boston Beer, or even the Goose Island facility? I honestly don't know.

 

I also question the use of caramel malts in every supposed throwback lager beer, but it is clear to me that black malt, or coloring malt, was used by alot of bottom fermenting breweries from the mid 1800s and onwards. In the UK this malt was known as patent black malt, in Germany, Austria-Hungary and elsewhere this was known as farbmalz, or color-malt, which was roasted in a drum and used for coloring purposes. Since it was malted prior to being roasted it was still a malt, and thus compliant with the Bavarian and later German beer legislation.

 

The big question is: are these particular GI beers (Honkers, IPA, Urban Wheat) brewed using the high-gravity technique (which then requires a further dilution prior to packaging) used at these facilities? If so, then there could be a point made that their character is being 'diluted' as well.

 

I would think no, they probably leave out that step in exchange for the better margins (not having to sell GI beers in 30 packs for 20 dollars etc). There's no reason for them to change what isn't broken when they can get better margins out of the deal. Budweiser et al has devolved over they years to accomodate volume discounts, GI might experience this in the future but for now I think it will remain untouched.

 

Yeah, I could see it going either way, myself. I only bring it up because this is the one thing I haven't seen addressed in a lot of the commentary regarding the GI acquisition. I have seen some people posting here say that they have noticed a decline in Honkers, but without knowing if there have been concessions made in the process it's hard to know what context to place that in.

 

But in the 1800's, pale ale in England did not use black malt (that I am aware of).

In any case, what is it that this caramel malt is felt to add that was lacking in beer made before its invention? If even Koch is using it for his lager, why in other words? What would Boston Lager taste like with all-two row pale malt?

 

See this post by @jesskidden regarding the early US-style Vienna Beers:
http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/samuel-adams-boston-lager.196003/page-3#post-2614824

The recipe at the bottom calls for Medium Caramel Malt, and this seems to be the style that SABL is based upon.

 

My interpretation of the abundance of caramel malt in early American craft beers (Anchor Steam, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, Boston Lager etc.) is that it provided a means of increasing the body and mouthfeel of the beer, by providing unfermentable sugars, which was compatible with the higher degree of attenuation which had become the standard in brewing by that time. They could have added more fermentables to the grist, but that would have meant a higher abv. Also caramel malt had become an established practise in British brewing as a means of fortifying low-gravity beers, giving more body and mouthfeel to a beer, which inspired many of the early American craft brewers. That's my interpretation at least. Early 20th century, or 19th century lager beers didn't need caramel malts for body since they were less attenuated, the body came from pilsner, vienna or munich type malts in beers of relatively higher gravity and realtively lower abvs (i.e lower attenuation). Caramel malts instead provided a means of lessening the percieved acrid or roasted flavors imparted by black malt in dark colored beers.

 

I don't think this is exactly fair. Yes, all breweries run themselves so they are profitable (or, at least, all of the ones that stay afloat), but I don't think it's true that all breweries are run to make money.