Rice in US Beers

[Joel]

Webster <dithered@email.net> wrote:
>Beer experts... Generally speaking, is it true that the major US brewers
>use rice in addition to barley in making their best-selling beers? If so,
>in ballpark terms, what proportions are we talking about?

If by "major US brewers" you mean brewers of light lagers
such as Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Coors, then yes, their
mainstream products use adjunct grains (corn or rice) to the
tune of 25-40% of the grist (I think by weight, but it may be
by % of fermentables; either way it's roughly the same).
(Anheuser-Busch tends to use rice; I think the rest use
corn.)

[jesskidden]

> As evidence of my unsophisticated beer palate, my favorite
> is bottled, ice-cold Guiness. Please tell me that Guiness is not
> adulterating their product with filler! I might have to get all beer-snobby
> and switch!

Well, there's no one "Guinness"- they make a number of different stouts,
sold in different markets around the world (17-19 by last count, IIRC).
If you're in the US, you could be talking about the "Guinness Draught"
that's sold in the bottles with the nitro "widget" or you may be talking
about Guinness Extra Stout, which is not an Irish product from the
Guinness brewery, but is brewed in Canada (and clearly noted on the
label). Depending on the market, brewed by either Labatt or Moosehead,
GES is "reportedly" just the local ale with Guinness extract added.
Neither product is very well-respected by Guinness purists, and most of
the various Guinness stouts being sold today (with a couple of
hard-to-get exceptions) aren't very well thought of by many of the "beer
snobs" (to use your phrase). I personally don't mind an ocassional (and
redundant sounding) draught "Guinness Draught" but there are a lot of
greater stouts on the shelves today.

I'm in the minority of "beer geekdom" tho', and don't necessarily reject
corn and rice as adjuncts (or consider them "adulterations"). I'm of
the small (but growing) segment that doesn't understand the acceptance
of wheat, various sugars, spices and fruits in their beer but reject
corn and rice simply because of the brewers who most use it and the
beers they brew.

[Joel]

In article <47601a35$0$5934$607ed4bc@cv.net>, <jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M> wrote:
>I'm in the minority of "beer geekdom" tho', and don't necessarily reject
>corn and rice as adjuncts (or consider them "adulterations"). I'm of
>the small (but growing) segment that doesn't understand the acceptance
>of wheat, various sugars, spices and fruits in their beer but reject
>corn and rice simply because of the brewers who most use it and the
>beers they brew.

I've found that homebrewers tend to be a little more
accepting of various adjuncts than random beer geeks.
But maybe only a little.

[Joel]

Jeffrey Kaplan <nomail@gordol.org> wrote:
>Previously on *****beer, jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M said:
>
>> I'm in the minority of "beer geekdom" tho', and don't necessarily reject
>> corn and rice as adjuncts (or consider them "adulterations"). I'm of
>> the small (but growing) segment that doesn't understand the acceptance
>> of wheat, various sugars, spices and fruits in their beer but reject
>> corn and rice simply because of the brewers who most use it and the
>> beers they brew.
>
>Wheat beers have a specific style to them. Spices, fruits, etc, give
>other flavors.
>
>Rice and corn, otoh, don't.

Rice, maybe. Corn definitely adds a particular flavor.
I can taste it in Rolling Rock and Shiner lager (and Bock),
to name a couple well-known examples.

>To the best of my knowledge, and some of this came from a Budweiser
>brewery tour, where rice and corn are used in beer, it's done for the
>specific purpose of a "filler". IOW, by substituting a portion of
>barley malt with rice, you reduce the cost of the product (and flavor,
>btw), without reducing the end result alcohol content.

Look into the history of brewing in America, and you'll find
it's not quite as cut and dried as all that.

[Joel]

In article <4760102f$0$5933$607ed4bc@cv.net>, <jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M> wrote:
>> Michelob is all-malt again
>
>Not that one can notice any difference, taste-wise <g>. It's as if they
>deleted the 20% of so of the grain bill that was rice, but didn't
>replace it with anything!

Actually, doing a tasting at a Bud plant can be very
informative. When you taste their products side by side,
in as fresh a condition as it can get short of sipping
directly from the lagering tanks, I think it's easy for
anyone with anything approaching a discerning palate can
taste a difference.

[jesskidden]

> In article <4760102f$0$5933$607ed4bc@cv.net>, <jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M> wrote:
>>> Michelob is all-malt again
>> Not that one can notice any difference, taste-wise <g>. It's as if they
>> deleted the 20% of so of the grain bill that was rice, but didn't
>> replace it with anything!
>
> Actually, doing a tasting at a Bud plant can be very
> informative. When you taste their products side by side,
> in as fresh a condition as it can get short of sipping
> directly from the lagering tanks, I think it's easy for
> anyone with anything approaching a discerning palate can
> taste a difference.

Yeah, I was being a wise-***, of course - tho' I found the new all-malt
bottled Michelob pretty underwhelming compared to the pilnsers and light
lagers coming out of some craft breweries. Agree that fresh, draught
Michelob at the brewery is pretty amazing- I had it once back in the
80's in Columbus and, after that, whenever I came across a Michelob was
always a disappointed. I had hoped the new version would be closer to
that sample I had years ago.

[jesskidden]

> Previously on *****beer, jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M said:
>
>> I'm in the minority of "beer geekdom" tho', and don't necessarily reject
>> corn and rice as adjuncts (or consider them "adulterations"). I'm of
>> the small (but growing) segment that doesn't understand the acceptance
>> of wheat, various sugars, spices and fruits in their beer but reject
>> corn and rice simply because of the brewers who most use it and the
>> beers they brew.
>
> Wheat beers have a specific style to them. Spices, fruits, etc, give
> other flavors.
>
> Rice and corn, otoh, don't.

And (tho' you and I might not care for the result) that "lack" of flavor
(which the brewery probably calls"lightness" or "clean tasting") is
something that brewer *wants* in his beer.

The use of wheat can result in a pretty "bland" beer, as well- much of
the unique flavors of German & Belgian wheat beers are due to brewing
styles and the yeasts. There are a number of pretty bland US-style
"wheat beers" which, without the additional spicing or addition of lemon
and poured into opaque glassware (hidding the cloudiness), would be just
as "tasteless" as typical "Industrial Light Lager".

> To the best of my knowledge, and some of this came from a Budweiser
> brewery tour, where rice and corn are used in beer, it's done for the
> specific purpose of a "filler".

As Joel notes elsewhere, those "fillers" were necessary in 19th century
US brewing (due to differing US barley) and the resulting "light" taste
(which started out trying to mimic European pilsners) became one that
the vast majority of US beer drinkers came to favor.

And the sugar used by some UK and Belgian breweries is just as much an
empty "filler" adjunct as corn or rice.

> IOW, by substituting a portion of
> barley malt with rice, you reduce the cost of the product

This is not as clearcut as the "beer geek common wisdom" suggests- rice,
at times, can rival the cost of malted barley and preparing the adjuncts
in separate "cereal cooker" vessels requires addition equipment and
steps (granted, some of those costs are one time fixed ones).

[Steve Jackson]

> Wheat beers have a specific style to them. Spices, fruits, etc, give
> other flavors.

There are all sorts of wheat beers brewed. Some have diverse flavors; some
are quite bland. I wouldn't say wheat's got any special place in brewing,
other than being used moderately frequently in a couple prominent beer
regions.

> Rice and corn, otoh, don't.

Corn is frequently used in English bitters.

> To the best of my knowledge, and some of this came from a Budweiser
> brewery tour, where rice and corn are used in beer, it's done for the
> specific purpose of a "filler". IOW, by substituting a portion of
> barley malt with rice, you reduce the cost of the product (and flavor,
> btw), without reducing the end result alcohol content.

If you search back in the archives, I think you'll find some information
from Lew Bryson about the rice and the fact it's not a cost-saver. It is a
way to create a lighter beer, both in body and flavor, while preserving
alcohol content. Which is the primary motivator behind the heavy use of
adjuncts in light fizzy yellow lagers.

-Steve

[Joel]

In article <47604287$0$5968$607ed4bc@cv.net>, <jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M> wrote:
>Joel wrote:
>> In article <4760102f$0$5933$607ed4bc@cv.net>, <jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M> wrote:
>>>> Michelob is all-malt again
>>> Not that one can notice any difference, taste-wise <g>. It's as if they
>>> deleted the 20% of so of the grain bill that was rice, but didn't
>>> replace it with anything!
>>
>> Actually, doing a tasting at a Bud plant can be very
>> informative. When you taste their products side by side,
>> in as fresh a condition as it can get short of sipping
>> directly from the lagering tanks, I think it's easy for
>> anyone with anything approaching a discerning palate can
>> taste a difference.
>
>Yeah, I was being a wise-***, of course - tho' I found the new all-malt
>bottled Michelob pretty underwhelming compared to the pilnsers and light
>lagers coming out of some craft breweries. Agree that fresh, draught
>Michelob at the brewery is pretty amazing...

Well, I didn't say it was *amazing*, just that one could tell
a difference between it and the cereal adjunct brews. ;-)

[jesskidden]

> In article <47604287$0$5968$607ed4bc@cv.net>, <jesskidden@LYC0S.C0M> wrote:

>> Yeah, I was being a wise-***, of course - tho' I found the new all-malt
>> bottled Michelob pretty underwhelming compared to the pilnsers and light
>> lagers coming out of some craft breweries. Agree that fresh, draught
>> Michelob at the brewery is pretty amazing...
>
> Well, I didn't say it was *amazing*, just that one could tell
> a difference between it and the cereal adjunct brews. ;-)

<g> OK, you got me there. Re-reading that, I think I should have
further explained my "amazement" (at tasting and smelling hops in a
macrobrew) by saying "...amazing (compared to the relatively bland
bottled and draught versions I'd had previously)" thus using this
definition:


> amaze· (? ma-z?)
> transitive verb
> 1. to fill with great surprise