German craft beer

"Fresh from the tap" means in the case of Augustiner served via Bayerischer Anstich -- hardly the same thing as by CO2 pressure from the steel keg. You also said directly that there isn't a difference in quality between the ingredients used to produce Augustiner and those used to produce Bud...and the the resultant beer in both cases was a "largely flavorless product."

 

To be fair, I didn't read his comment as suggesting Augustiner and Bud are both flavorless -- I read it as him saying Bud and its ilk intentionally produce a consistently flavorless beer. After all, he said previously that Augustiner is better brew, just not by head and shoulders -- only head

 

And we've been over this - there isn't really a difference in quality in the ingredients - the ingredients are chosen to make a product - it's not like we have any indication they're using stale grains or old hops in Budweiser. The flavor that is produced is consistent and intentional - a sign of both quality ingredients and skill in production. That I don't like it is a different story.

 

I disagree. The barley that is malted -- as well as the process for malting it -- is of higher quality in Augustiner than it is in Bud.

 

I dig your debate, even if I don't agree with all of it, but I have to point out that there's no way for us to be certain the ingredients used in Bud/macro are quality (and there very well may be ways to show they're not). Have you ever seen the malt Bud uses? Or the hops? It's conceivable, is it not, that some of the flavors associated with Bud are due to lesser quality ingredients? That they can produce a consistent product is a different issue than whether that product is composed of quality ingredients. I can make bread all day long with genetically modified, poorly husked wheat flour -- it'll taste the same every time, but the quality of ingredients would be very poor indeed.

 

Well you got to the heart of what my response to herrburgess was going to be - I think simply stating "oh it's better quality" deserves some sort of evidence, because actually if anything what we know implies (but yes, does not prove) the opposite - if the quality of the ingredients were poor you'd expect far more variability in the product, especially in such a light beer. Granted they're large - so they inevitably mix sources to even out natural differences, but still.

And in general here I'm using Bud as a stand-in for the macros - I have not seen Bud's ingredients first hand, no, but I have known a brewer from a big macro and I have to say after being shown a lot of pictures of their ingredients, and having the process they go through for quality control I was cured of the "hurr, durr, macros use shitty ingredients, hurr, rice" thing pretty quick.

 

Perhaps there needs to be a definition of terms here - remember that "quality ingredients" != "produces flavors I like". Quality ingredients are those that reliably and repeatedly produce the flavors you are after.

 

Well, that's a debate that has raged on here before -- with no real resolution. Rather I think we first need to stop putting Augustiner and AALs in the same (or similar) categories in the first place before we can even begin to talk about the (IMO very real) differences in the quality of the ingredients.

 

I would. It doesn't, nor does Miller or Budweiser. Augustiner, on the other hand...

Yeah, I missed that "intonation" myself.

 

Well they are similar - I mean in the sense of taxonomy. Certainly when you zoom in there are significant differences, but within the scope of "beer", there's a whole lot in common between them. Whether we discuss them as being the same probably depends on the context. The only reference to them being similar was me stating "I don't like light lagers". I'm sorry if it upsets you that I don't like light lagers - but I don't - and they are both light lagers.

 

Again, I disagree with your understanding. To me that is tantamount to someone saying "I don't like dark ales." It may be true, but it shows IMO an astounding lack of understanding.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that BMC breweries exercise the ultimate in overall process control from beginning to end.

Using AB as an example, they exercise great care with respect to ingredient selection for ultimate control: they own a HUGE hop farm in Idaho, they own their own malting facilities in Idaho and Minnesota, they source only the finest rice (they pay more for their rice then the malt costs), etc.

The process control exhibited within their breweries is OUTSTANDING. I have taken tours of multiple AB breweries and the investment for quality control is exemplary. I have gotten to know one of the AB brewing scientists and it is evident that they invest to obtain the highest quality people as well.

AB also makes quality control a priority as part of their distribution chain; they make sure their wholesalers pull out of code product from retailers.

I am personally not a fan of BMC beers but I certainly recognize that superior quality control is exercised when producing and managing these products.

Cheers!

 

So do you like every type of beer? Do you like AALs? Why not - where's your understanding? What does having a taste preference have to do with "understanding"? You seem to have a hard time decoupling taste preferences from some sort of higher truth, which again, is ironic given your disdain for craft people who do the same.

Further to the general quality issue - this subject has been beat to death on BA, and the general consensus seems to always settle on their beers being quality, just not particularly tasty. I've seen it here and elsewhere that Mitch Steele, now of Stone, has praised the quality of Bud:

"You know, I still have a lot of respect for Budweiser. The quality focus that went into brewing that beer was enormous, and it’s really underrated as a quality brewed beer."

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/dining/index.ssf/2012/09/on_tap_interview_with_stone_br.html

This guy is a brewer for one of the premier brewers in the world - quality by any definition of the word. And you know better than him? That's silly.

 

Personally, I do like almost all styles of beer. But I don't think that's the point. If I were to say, for example, that "I don't like dark ales," then I am lumping beers that range in taste from bready to smoky to bourbony to raisiny, etc., into an artificial and very loosely defined category. Same applies to light lagers; they can be smoky, bready, raisiny, and even bourbony, too. Why, then say you have a taste preference for one (artificial) category and not the other? I just don't understand where that comes from if not from a profound lack of understanding. So, yea, maybe my own lack of understanding somehow mirrors the very one I criticize; but it's not for lack of trying. Still, I never bought the argument of "You're close-minded because you can't accept close-minded people." And of course I may prefer a Munich Helles over an AAL -- just as someone might prefer a BBA RIS over a Belgian Quad; but I'm certainly not going to put the one in the same category as the other.

 

Well I still drink Augustiner every so often, so we're both trying!

Anyway, I think at this point we're going round and round on this, and will just have to accept a difference of opinion. Research will continue.

 

Yep. If you ever get the chance, take a trip to Bamberg and (especially) the surrounding areas; you'll be walking/biking distance from 100s of different "light lager" flavors.

 

I'll be there in May.

 

He's also part of the plan to re-learn Germany about beer. Now that's silly!

To tell the truth, there are a whole bunch'a folks in the brewing biz who know diddly about beer, but more about marketing -- Steele may not be one of them, but his definition of "quality" when applied to Budweiser probably needs a good dose of qualification -- and now we're back to the semantics.

 

I think this is a good and important, even if unanswerable, distinction to make. I'm not sure I agree with your definition -- in my bread example, an ingredient that produces consistent results is not necessarily something I'd deem quality, knowing that I could make even better, higher quality bread with better, higher quality ingredients. But, of course, I can see your argument for why it should define quality.

What I will agree on is that the process of producing consistent loaves of bread -- my skill as a baker -- does indeed indicate quality. Likewise with macro -- being able to produce consistent batches of beer surely takes some amount of skill/quality.

In any case, the battle rages on. And so long as that battle involves drinking more beer, count me the hell in.