Same Beer... Now in a Can. Improvement?

Cans prove better since they have less weight and thus Less energy used to transport. IF all cans are recycled then the can really wins. If the can is tossed it's not better due to mining pollution. Lots if glass gets dumped into land fillss or crushed as landfill cover. Too expensive to recycle them.

Enjoy

 

... well, there you go. Beyond 2 months is quite normal where I shop. I will buy pale/ipa up to 3 months, but try to avoid beyond that. All that said, my experience with SAME beer in cans/bottles is that the canned version has been consistently better (not ALWAYS, but on the whole).
My rules to myself these days:
--Less than 1 month, packaging irrelevant.
--Between 1 and 3 months for styles which fade, always take canned if possible.
--Beyond 3 months, try not to purchase hop-forward product, no matter the packaging (imo, hops don't magically remain fresh when canned, nope --- try 8-month-old Dale's Pale ..... not a great beer imo, whereas fresh Dale's is pretty much my top pale ale period).
-- If not a hop-forward style, packaging less important than reputation of brewer for quality, within 12-18 months.

Here's the 'pepsi-challenge' as it were. I still have in my fridge a 2-month-old Troegs HopKnife, canned 9-21.


Anyone wants to come over and bring their HopKnife bottled 10 weeks ago to do a blind comparison, I'm ready. From my experience I wouldn't wager on the bottle at this point. I had 2 sixes of the bottled HopKnife this year (and last year, when I didn't see any cans), in early August from the July batches. It's a nice beer, can be close to great, but you really do want it fresh to get the seasonal hops, and to get your money's worth. My feeling, from experience, is that the 2-3 month bottled HopKnife is nowhere near as crisp or flavorful as the 2-3 month canned HopKnife.
Don't label me as the "never-past-one-week-ips" douchebag either. I'm easy. Drink 6-month old FinestKind, HopNosh, FlowerPower all the time when the price is normal. Further, if it's not a hop-forward beer, I am good for ambers/porters/stouts out to 12-18 months, no matter the packaging. I have had 18-month Guinness Import Extra that was horrible, so I retain the right to reject even the robust-est of beers if they are not from the current year or so. Just saw some of Smutty's early-'15 packaged ReallyOld BrownDogAle today, and should have bought a few 4-pks of already-aged bottles but kept my pocketbook in check. We'll get some later.

 

Some brown bottles have a chemical in them that requires a CA Prop warning about it's potential health side effects. Glass isn't always healthy either.

edit: I should probably state that for the most part I tend to like glass bottles, but I do see the upside to canning. Cans are def lighter, easier to recycle, and good to drink on the move. The process to create cans unfortunately isn't a very good one, but what other options do we have?

 

Absolutely, best example is Corona light bottle vs can. Hate the beer but tolerable in the can. PU and Konig are somewhat better in can.

 

Pilsner Urquell is better in a can for sure.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we see some can-only breweries explore bottling as they see supplies dwindle or get alot more expensive. And then the spin will be about how great bottling is after all. Its been discussed on BA how really successful brewers like SN have no problem with the quality of their bottling line.

 

I think it's better. A lot easier to haul around!

 

In general, bottled beer will have lower total package oxygen at the time of bottling but it will pick up oxygen through the cap seal over time. Cans usually have greater TPO at canning, but they do not pick up any more oxygen over time. And with no light getting in, cans are better for beer over time than bottles.

 

Most brands I cannot tell the difference between the bottle and can, but there are exceptions.

Sierra Nevada canned offerings - taste better from the bottle (especially the pale ale.....just tastes "off" to me.)...I do like Nooner from the can better than the bottle though.

Bells Two Hearted - Better from the bottle (Canned version I bought didnt even taste like Two Hearted, not bad, just not Two Hearted.)

Those are the only 2 I can think of. I prefer most everything else from the can.

 

Completely agree.

 

The vast majority of glass used in beer is inert. The BPA issue is one reason I would never age a canned beer. We know for a fact that it seeps into the beer, we know it has effects on lab animals and is banned in baby food, and we don't know the impact on adults. Unless you're specifically headed to the pool (and even there I do glass into solo cups) or golf course, why take the risk?

 

The only other way to say it is: "it depends."

 

I thought Smuttynose Finest Kind tasted better in a can.

 

The greater problem isn't beer. Even if you never drink a canned beer again you're still going to consume BPA from other sources. I don't drink soda, I like natural whole food, I don't eat canned food or much processed food, but when you go to a restaurant you don't know how they store their food, etc. You can't get rid of it all.. Protesting beer cans is not the way to eliminate BPA from our lives. Do you think that we can eliminate all cans? A healthier alternative is the solution, but for now, we have to deal with what we got.

Also, I think all the people who have been ingesting canned beer and other items their whole life, that are still living and healthy are proof that consuming some BPA from beer cans isn't going to kill you quicker than much of anything else.

 

BPA lining in cans is still fairly new. I wouldn't say we can safely say it has no effect based on the data we have.

You are right that avoiding canned beers isn't going to remove BPA from your life, but when the effects of any compound are in question, I don't think it's poor form to avoid it when you can. Maybe it's absolutely nothing. Until we know, I want to ingest as little as possible.

 

Cans are lighter, easier to transport, and more compact when empty.

Plus, I've never had an empty can shatter into a thousand pieces when I drop it on a ceramic kitchen floor.

 

Those guys go on and on about not putting things into our bodies, but neglect to mention alcohol in the product they are making.

 

You'd die of alcohol poisoning years before the active component in BPA ever does the damage people say it causes.
The way that BPA becomes dangerous is also not ever going to become an active worry for the vast majority of beer drinkers, because it only occurs when you heat up the vessel and begin reusing it. Sales reps who keep their canned sample product in their trunk all summer. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

 

Well I didn't say it was nothing, or it had no effect. And I respect you for avoiding something that is deemed harmful. In no way do I support the use of BPA, I wish it was never created. My point is that, by avoiding cans you may be doing more harm to the brewers than to the overall picture, BPA and eliminating it. BPA is in a lot more than just cans. Just about every canned food product has BPA too, as well as almost anything plastic. You just can't get rid of all BPA, especially by avoiding canned beer alone.

 

It appears that this has turned into another BPA debate?

Below are examples of other food items which are packaged in containers which have BPA: