Beer for the New Man?

r3nu4l

BBC article

So what do you think? Is Mid-Strength beer a good idea?

Positives:
Great because it means there is more choice and the freedom to drink something with lower alcoholic volume.

Negative:
Will this encourage people to think that because it's lower strength it's okay to drink a few and then drive home?

So long as it tastes the same I'm happy

oblivious

Look a Belgium 600 breweries in a small country with alcohol level that are commonly 8-10%, such beers are made to be enjoyed, you can only have a few big beer before your full and tired.

The problem is the larger culture of the pub, low tasting, and no character beers deigned to drunk in large amounts fast. I like real large, but not the stuff that is generally pass off around.

Blub2k4

They have mild in the UK right?
Admittedly it's a hangover from times when there was little or no potable water around so it's the only way a working man could get his 8 pints of fluids in a day, but my point is it's worked before.
Different times, different reasons but it could do it again I think.

oblivious

Mild was one the most popular ale in England up in till the 1940’s when there was increasing competition for pale ale, bitters and these days’ lagers. It was original designed in a time when town water supply as dangerous to drink and was much strong 6-8%. The name Mild actually mean fresh, nothing to do with its alcohol strength, whereas other ales of the time (old ales) were allowed to age and developed a stale flavor. These were mix together, sometime with pale ale which called an entire. This was then developed in to porter and finaly wahtr we know as stout porter or stout.

The mild that is around is a low alcohol beer 3-4%, but it also has another function. Sugars are left in the beer to energies the drinker, which are generally manual workers. A much better function than some beer just designed to be drunk in large amount to get you pissed easily.

noby

I read the article, and it seems to go on about the 'new man'. Couldn't this new man just have a half, or not try to drink pint for pint with his new men friends?

That's not to say this is necessarily a bad thing. My experience if milds is limited, but when done right they can be a tasty beer. If this was just a case of lager brewers getting into the mild market, then I'd say fair enough; but the marketing seems to be more about having some sneaky pints during the day, and staying in the pub longer, and basically 'now you can drink twice as much'. This I don't really like.

Plus when I read a quote like:
"We've finally cracked the mixture of art and science to brew a mid-strength lager that tastes just as good as a regular pint [of Carling]" it makes me smile. If you used all that art and science to come up with a decent beer in the first place then maybe that statement would have a little bit more weight.

Guinness also gets a mention in the article; does this mean the Limerick experiment was a success, and they're now going to roll out their 'mid-strength' brand? Will it last as long as some of their other brands, I wonder?

guildofevil

The new mid strength beers are just more of the same muck, but with less alcohol.

I have no problem with lower alcohol beers. In fact, my regular pint in the Porterhouse is TSB, which is 3.7% ABV by virtue of being a nice cask conditioned bitter, not an attempt to make a low alcohol beer.

I also brew beer ranging from 3.5% ABV to 11.5% ABV.

Responsible alcohol consumption is about knowing your limits. Just because a beer is lower in alcohol does not mean you can't get drunk on it. Just because a beer is high in alcohol does not mean you will get drunk on it.

bigears

I believe the term Mild came about due to the beer being lightly [midly] hopped. Quite a few British ales on tap are still in the 3.5% to 3.8% range and still manage to be a full flavoured beer.

I would have thought it possible to produce a decent tasting beer at mid-strength but it may not taste like the full strength version which would be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a failure. I think the mindset of the drinker is the hardest thing to get around. Beer is primarily a "man's drink" and lighter beer doesn't really fit the image. Of course it doesn't help that most 'lite' beers are lighter versions of already tasteless slop.

oblivious

bigears wrote:

I believe the term Mild came about due to the beer being lightly [midly] hopped. Quite a few British ales on tap are still in the 3.5% to 3.8% range and still manage to be a full flavoured beer.

We are both right,

The term mild originally meant young beer or ale as opposed to "stale" aged beer or ale. In more recent times it has been interpreted as denoting "mildly hopped" as opposed to a brown ale or pale ale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_ale

r3nu4l

noby wrote:

Guinness also gets a mention in the article; does this mean the Limerick experiment was a success, and they're now going to roll out their 'mid-strength' brand? Will it last as long as some of their other brands, I wonder?

Guinness are still testing Mid-Strength in the UK at least (According to Marketing Week anyway!) but I'm sure it will eventually be rolled out, although they are introducing Guinness Red here in a few months so Mid-strength won't be launched for a while!

I do think that given the Irish and English drinking culture and the 'pint-for-pint' mentality it is good to have the choice of a mid-strength beer.

As I said earlier I am worried that people will start drink-driving because they have had 'less alcohol' and also worried that 'macho' friends will think it funny to order full strength pints at the bar when a friend has asked for lower strength thus fooling someone into thinking they've had less than they think!

Regardless of whether you think lager is muck etc. I think it's a good idea overall but there are issues that need to be worked out

I too thought the 'new metrosexual man' tone of the article was strange...almost as if it isn't for "a mans' man", slightly irresponsible and giving out the wrong message...

rubadub

If the pubs lowered the price accordingly I would probably drink it the odd time. Taxation is directly related to percentages, but most pubs just ignore this, so many non-alcoholic beers are charged at the same price. If it is half strength I would not expect it to be half price, but would expect half of the duty to be reduced.

I was quite fond of 2% beers when abroad, you can swill all day and never get dehydrated or too pissed.

noby

r3nu4l wrote:

I do think that given the Irish and English drinking culture and the 'pint-for-pint' mentality it is good to have the choice of a mid-strength beer.

I agree. What would be better would be a shift away from this mentality. Surely this 'new man' they talk of would be strong willed enough to know his limitations and not succumb to some faux-macho peer pressure.
I thought the idea of allowing cafes to serve beers so you could have a glass with your lunch was a good step in the right direction, but as I recall it was shot down (probably by publican politicians).