Simple question: bottles or cans?

The emotional side goes to bottles (opening, pouring, drinking from, ...)
The practical side goes to cans (size, weight, no light, good for outdoors activites, ...)

 

I chose 50/50 because I don't really have a preference. However, I do like to collect different caps and save empty bottles for homebrewing!

 

I remember my father when he was in his 90s would open a bottle of Abbot Ale , drink half and loosely replace the cap. Next day he would pour out the rest of the beer. Two things became obvious; the level of carbonation held up remarkably well and allowed a normal head, and the beer was, if anything, better. As a dedicated cask ale drinker I am well aware of the way that limited oxygen can transform a good beer into a better one. I don't generally drink canned or bottled beers because they are dumbed down compared to the same beer in cask.
But of course, all good things come to an end because the transformation does not stop at that point (say 3 or 4 days to peak) and staling begins followed by souring.

 

Either way

I wonder how many of these quotes come from people that have first hand experience on smaller lines. The Wild Goose canning line I had experience with was generally around 100-150 ppb on the oxygen pick up. I mentioned that to a tech of the canning line manufacturer that we bought (Alpha Brew Ops). He previously was a tech for Wild Goose and he said that sounded like operator error or poor canning conditions. He said he regularly got them to run at <50 ppb. My friend at Pueblo Vida uses a Wild Goose mobile canner and they mentioned that they get down under 50 ppb as well. It just takes someone who knows how to can properly and a brewer that gets the beer properly prepped. On our Alpha line, it seems like it combines some of the strengths of a Cask line and a Wild Goose line and it has been running at 30 cans per minute (16 oz cans) with total packaged oxygen as low as 9 ppb. The highest we’ve seen was 35 ppb. This line with the depalletizer, pack out table, twist rinser, and ink jet video printer cost $15k less than the Meheen bottle filler we had at my last brewery with a labeler and gives far better results in regards to oxygen pick up. When you factor in the cost of bottling (which is much more expensive than canning), I don’t think anyone could reasonably make the “dollar for dollar” claim.

All DO tests at Tombstone were done with an Anton Paar CBoxQC.

 

Agreed.

And agreed again. When I shop for beer, I'm looking at the date and trying to determine if it was refrigerated, whether the beer is in a can or bottle is a secondary consideration. Also important to me is who the brewer is and if I trust them to have a high quality canning or bottling equipment, because as @honkey pointed out, not all cans [or specifically the canning lines] are created equally. I almost chose the poll's can option, because if all things were equal the 100% block of UV light is a big plus in the can's favor. Ultimately though, the poll's question is not as simple as it appears, so I selected 50/50 answer to kept all my options open.

 

I totally agree with your point without discrediting the other opinions. These brewers will clearly have more familiarity with the systems that are appropriate to their size. I previously responded to @JackHorzempa with:

.
.

Even though bottles are still dominant, canning costs and sales numbers must be huge motivators here (not to say that brewers aren't invested in quality though). I'm guessing that supply vs demand of actual cans can be the significant business obstacle (besides a canning line) that stands in the way of what might otherwise be a financial no-brainer... but I'm spit-balling without info.

 

The cost depends on a lot of factors. Right now, at Tombstone we pay 3 cents more per can than we would per bottle when you take into account all the packaging materials for either format. If we were doing labeled cans or printed cans, we would be paying a lot less, but our minimum order quantities would be too high for our business model that relies on always having new beers without flagships, so we have to use shrink wrapped cans. I think we would cut costs by 13 or 14 cents per can if we ordered printed cans or by 9-10 cents if we labeled cans ourselves. We could save more by using 6 pack ringers rather than the snap on carriers. I think that would save 6 cents per can. So with printed cans and six pack ringers, we could potentially save $4 per case and it would be significantly less expensive than bottling. That becomes a huge savings number when you are a production brewery trying to compete for shelf space and having to sell at low margins to a distributor. Fortunately, we are self distributed and at our volume it is not a huge deal... difference of about $30k a year, versus my last brewery where it would be a difference of $200k+ per year.

 

A couple of questions....

I notice some brewers are now packaging 4 packs of pint cans in cardboard. Maybe 6 packs of 12 oz cans, too, but off hand, I can't recall any. Now the question: what is the cost impact of that?

Second question: What is the recycling impact of the shrink-wrap labels?

 

On the topic of "spit-balling without info" I would bet part of the rise in popularity in cans also has something to do with aesthetics of printing labels/artwork on cans. I think it's obvious that cans are a superior canvas to bottles for creating eye-catching labels that consumers respond to. Some of the positive aesthetics and marketing of cans could easily be spilling over into a greater acceptance/preference of cans in general. People like to think their opinions aren't influenced by marketing, but most people are wrong about that.

 

It seems like that is mostly bigger breweries so they probably get a little bit of a price break, but I would estimate about 24-28 cents per box, but then you also lose the snap on carriers which basically negates the cost of the box. Some packaging companies will charge more for the boxes to have multiple colors. I don’t think he shrink sleeve cans have any impact on recycleability

 

I think I know the discussion those quotes came from and it was one of the most informative this forum has ever seen. Also saying that the Victory and Anheuser-Busch people are "employees" of those companies is true, but severely understates their positions and technical expertise.

 

Oxidation has different attributes, and some beers are enhanced, yes.

The example was probably a light lager. Nothing to hide it, not much in the way of anti-oxidants.

Edit - cask ale has live yeast, correct? Yeast is a great O2 scavenger.

 

FYI - I've seen the 360 cans for sale in NY and immediately thought of your past posts on the topic. I don't particularly care for them, but perhaps they just take some getting used to.

 

Sly Fox’s cool new “360 lid” is illegal in New York

Jim Koch also nixed the concept when he designed BBC's proprietary can for that same reason among others, according to a 2013 Boston Globe article.

But, yeah, I don't doubt that they might "slip through" - I mean, who's really checking? Or, the law may have been repealed (seems unlikely) or "reinterpreted". I remember sierranevadabill once saying that NJ beer labels must have that "CA CRV" statement on them (a law apparently enacted in anticipation of a deposit law that never did get passed) and I check all the beers in my beer fridge and found a couple brands that didn't have it.

 

Abbot Ale is not a lager of course.
Yes,cask ale contains live yeast. But the improvement to the beer after air is allowed into a cask is palpable.Perhaps the scavenging by the yeast helps to control changes to the beer and prevent premature acetification.

 

Tiny beer fridge? Yikes. Full size one near the man cave. You should be making some changes there.

 

Cans!

 

Can't believe we're still having this conversation. Cans Cans Cans (unless your a BPA hypochondriac).

1. Oxygen permutation superiority
2. Complete opaqueness to light
3. Weight (shipping considerations)
4. Compactness (shipping and shelving considerations).
5. Recycle ability

WTF?