Many of my more snobbish beer buddies have extoled the benefits of drinking beer in cans. I content that dark amber glass bottles, to all intents and purposes, perform as good at blocking the UV light that spoils beer and are a better package from a taste and asthetic standpoint. I further content that the craft beer industry is colluding to slip the consumer a lower cost product while charging a premium. What’s the dope on beer cans?
If the can is adequately surface-sealed, it is possibly superior to glass on two fronts: zero UV transmission, and more positively sealed under all conditions. Thin or second-rate coating of the aluminum, as is often encountered in mass-market beers, will produce a noticeable “can” taste. One might assume that the craft beer canners are using care to use better/best quality can material.
The main benefit of beer in cans is that it’s legal to carry it on Missouri streams, where glass containers are prohibited. The secondary benefit is that cans are easier to stack in a cooler than bottles.
And you can shoot at them over and over again.
And you can put them under your shirt to cool down (you, not the cans).
I think Kirin beer was the first beverage to appear in humongous tall cans, because I remember buying them one summer just for that sometimes when stuck in the city.
I prefer the cans if they don’t have the can taste. Mainly because they are recycled. Where I live, bottles aren’t recycled and they end up in the landfill.
If you have to carry those beers for any distance then you can count out the weight of all that glass you didn’t buy.
Slight hijack, but which is more environmentally friendly? Are more fossil fuels burned in the production of cans or bottles? And then there’s the issue of recycling…
I think most of both are recycled these days, but the overall process for aluminum is more efficient. Glass is also heavier, meaning a larger carbon footprint for its transport.
I still won’t drink beer out of cans. And plastibulbs are right out. (Call me “Gallagher,” anyone?)
I guess that US beer is different to UK stuff, but bottled tastes significantly better and you pay more for it.
UK beer is not intended to be drunk ice cold, just chilled
I, personally, have no preference taste-wise. I think bottles look better, but cans are easier to transport and dispose of. This is one of those cyclical arguments that come off as faddish. Like corks or screwtops.
As far as craft-beers go, their use of bottles initially resulted from the fact that, 30 years ago or so, the major breweries were buying up the smaller ones and combining bottling operations with their own. These smaller breweries often used older equipment that predated the popularity of aluminum cans. This put a lot of bottling equipment on the used equipment market. This was the equipment the micro-breweries bought and used. They also exploited a marketing angle that many people believed (rightly or wrongly) that beer tasted better from a bottle.
At the same time, the majors were pushing aluminum cans as the preferred container, due in part to the lower shipping costs because of the lower weight. When the cost of aluminum was higher, the recycling angle was hyped. Certainly, the ability to skirt “no glass containers” restrictions is an advantage for cans over bottles.
Now, the “micro-breweries” have become “craft-breweries” because the volumes they are brewing exceeds that allowed by the “micro-brewery” label, and used bottling equipment is not as inexpensive as it was. When a member of my old home-brew club opened his own commercial brewery, he offered his product only in cans (and kegs to local bars). He told us that he decided on cans because he could buy a canning line for less than half the cost of a bottling line, and the cans cost less than bottles. For his start-up, this was a very important consideration. This was a decade ago, and I have moved away, but last time I was there, I did notice that he was selling his product in bottles.
Controlled studies have confirmed that people are prone to fooling themselves with utter nonsense. However, it is beyond debate that the kind of music you listen to markedly affects the taste of beer. :eek::smack::rolleyes:
I prefer cans because I can fit more beer in my fridge/cooler than bottles. This creates greater thermal mass, making my refrigerator/ cooler more efficient and saving the earth’s precious resources, and…this way, I have more beer.
Studies have shown that beer in brown bottles, drunk while listening to the Grateful Dead, tastes markedly fresher and better than beer from aluminium cans drunk while listening to Myron Floren.
They’re cheaper and very well marketed.
Can manufacturers will tell you they chill faster and stay colder longer than bottles because aluminum is an exceptional conductor AND insulator.
Yup. Cans are easier to carry home & take less room in the refrigerator. Plus–Houston stopped recycling glass. Well, you can take your bottles to a recycling center–but you can’t put them in the recycling bin that gets emptied every two weeks.
Several local & regional breweries offer fine beers in cans. Drink from the can–or pour into a glass!
Corks are for aging that fine red wine you put down in the cellar. There are no cellars in Houston.
You are wrong.
Also, nitpick: “I contend” not “content”.
As beer has a shelf life regardless of how it’s packaged, I’m not sure that the difference between dark bottles and cans is significant for the time frame in which you want to drink good craft beers while they’re fresh.
As beer spends most of its time in something between dim warehouse light and the dark anyway, it really shouldn’t get all that much UV exposure. I suppose if you buy so much Coors LIght you have to stack the cases in the back yard, it’s an issue, but…