Most macro brews are pretty straightforward. They are brewed with malted barley, adjunct syrups (usually corn- or rice-based), hops ( barely), water, and yeast. The brew them to high gravities and dilute them down to flavorlessness with deaerated water. Any extra ingredients cost them money.
Yeah, it’s the Tax laws, while in the US all alcoholic beverages are taxed on their alcohol content the tax rate differs depending on HOW the alcohol was produced.
Beer, Wine and Distilled alcohol are all taxed at different rates.
So an three identical bottles of alcoholic beverage all with a 5% alcohol
content would be taxed differently.
Products like Bacardi Breezers and Smirnoff Ice (And Bartles & James “wine coolers” (made by E-J Gallo)) are actually produced as unhopped beer (I.E. fermented from barley malt) filtered through activated
carbon, flavored, sweetened and artificially carbonated and are thus
taxed as the “beer” that they technically are.
Yes the products could be produced more easily by the simple expedient of diluting, sweetening and flavoring a distilled parent spirit, but they’d be taxed
at around twice the rate of a “brewed” beverage that cost would of course be passed onto the consumer and that would make the product less competetive in the market place.
AllanD
I don’t completely buy this. Fortified wines are some of the cheapest booze there is, and they’re jacked up to 18%. I would think a beer flavored soda with a minute’ 5% fortification would be cheaper ounce per ounce (including tax) than, say, Wild Irish Rose, which I see on sale for $2.29 for a 750ml bottle.
Not that I’m advocating brewers make beer flavored alcoholic soda. Considering some of the crap they’re already making the natural way. Have you ever had Huber beer? :eek:
If I understand the laws in my state, diluted beer flavored distilled alcohol would only be available at a liquor store. Only beer (3.2 beer at that) and beer derived drinks can be sold at grocery stores. That would be a major hit against mass distribution.
I’ll stand corrected then. Thanks.
Okay, corn-allergic Doper here.
I’m not a big beer drinker, but I didn’t realize that mainstream domestic macrobrews used corn.
How common is that? Is it like corn syrup in soda, so ubiquituous that I’m now stuck on diet soda for the rest of my life?
Anyone know if the various brewers would actually tell me if I’m allergic to anything they sell?
I’ll WAG on the Sterling situation.
I’ll assume the beer is probably brewed using a standard process that uses the cheapest grains. The packaging and bottling is very standard. Advertising and marketing are probably minimal.
Beer doesn’t age well. The brewery probably over-produced. It was time to get the stuff to retail before they had to dump it. They send their rep out to the distributors and start making deals right and left based on volume sales. They concentrate on Wisconsin because the state beer taxes are so low. After all, the beer lobby was very strong in Wisconsin.
The distributor has a bunch of beer that he wants to move quickly so he put a low price on it and stacks up cases in his retail store. Customer perception is “it ain’t so bad and at that price, it’s a deal.” Amazingly, everybody makes some profit in the process.
Here is a breakdown by a smaller Aussie brewer. The cost per case is fairly average.
They quote $12.51 for the beer $8.24 for packaging and a total cost with excise and GST of $33.52 and they sell it direct and keep all the $9.46 profit.
I remember hearing years ago that in Australia beer would be cheaper than lemonade if not for government taxes.