Yesterday, July 10, the highly anticipated first bottling run of the popular Pliny the Elder took place at Russian River Brewing‘s new production brewery in Santa Rosa, California. I was on hand to help out for the eight hours it took to do the run, emptying nearly three pallets of 16.9 oz. bottles onto the line and making hundreds of case boxes — my particular jobs — while Vinnie and team attended to the other details. Before we were even done with the bottling run, the first pallet was loaded in the van and whisking its way to area retail stores, but only accounts that agreed to store and display the beer cold. Suggested retail is $3.99, though you can also buy bottles at Russian River’s brewpub for $4.50, which is more in line with their pint pricing of $4.25. While we were still there bottling, both Vinnie and I got e-mails from friends saying they’d already bought bottles of Pliny at Ledger’s in Berkeley, which was fun. It was a long, exhausting day (I’m glad I don’t have to work that hard every day) but also very satisfying, too. The day before, Russian River also bottled several pallets of Blind Pig IPA.

The very first bottle of Pliny the Elder coming off the bottling line.

The new label.

A happy and tired Vinnie Cilurzo, after a day of bottling his Pliny the Elder Imperial IPA.
 

For more photos from the first bottling run of Pliny the Elder, visit the photo gallery.
 

Political pundit George Will, in his most recent column — Survival of the Sudsiest — took issue with Investor’s Business Daily considering beer to be a non-essential during hard economic times. And he was quite right to do so, as statistical data tends to suggest that beer is all but recession-proof. One would have thought somebody at IBD would have known that — or looked it up? — instead of just winging it with statements like the beer “industry’s continued growth, however slight, has been a surprise to those who figured that when the economy turned south, consumers would cut back on nonessential items like beer.” I don’t know who “those” people are, but I don’t think I want to take my financial advice from people who would ignore decades of historical data and go with their gut. Obviously, those guts are not filled with beer.

But perhaps the most interesting part of Will’s column was something he read in a 2006 book by Steven Johnson entitled The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic — and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World. In Johnson’s book, he discusses how at the dawn of civilization, survival often depended on how a person’s body reacted to and could tolerate the beer that was generally safer to drink than water. Over time, only people who were genetically predisposed with the ability to drink large quantities of beer survived, passing that trait down to their children so that perhaps today most of us have such an ancestor as evidenced simply by the fact that we’re here. As Will (and Johnson) explains.

The gene pools of human settlements became progressively dominated by the survivors — by those genetically disposed to, well, drink beer. “Most of the world’s population today,” Johnson writes, “is made up of descendants of those early beer drinkers, and we have largely inherited their genetic tolerance for alcohol.”

There’s a curious side consequence to this idea. I wonder how neo-prohibitionists will feel knowing that it may have been beer that made it possible for them to be alive today, complaining that beer is inherently evil and destructive of society. If indeed, as Johnson argues, beer may have saved civilization by offering those who could tolerate it a safer alternative to the disease-laden water of ancient times, then it becomes harder to defend the position that beer destroys society.

Last year, I got a particularly venomous, hate-filled comment, by a person calling himself the “savagist,” to one of my posts about hunter-gathers and early beer-making. It was one of those screaming screeds claiming I had no archeological evidence (but offering none of their own) and calling me and the ideas I was writing about all sorts of names. His attack was quite personal and very verbally savage (pun intended) which was all the more surprising since one of his points appeared to be that a society with alcohol created “imperialistic, druken (sic) goofs who create warrior classes.” I would have thought the opposite of such people might reasonably be expected to communicate their disagreements a bit more gently than the drunken warrior class that I — apparently — belong to.

No matter, Johnson is saying essentially what I was last year, but with even more authority, research, evidence and science. Between his book, and the wealth of historical record and scientific research, it seems to me pretty well settled that beer and wine had a very positive impact on early civilization’s growth. That most of us are here today as a direct result of alcohol, is just the icing on the cake, or perhaps more appropriately, the head on our beer. Survival of sudsiest, indeed.

Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are reporting that InBev has increased their offer to buy Anheuser-Busch from $65 a share to $70.

Warren Buffet is now saying he’s leaning toward endorsing the InBev takeover. Both Business Week and the CBC are also reporting that talks have turned “friendly” and they’re discussing takeover. Many analysts are also speculating that A-B will likely accept this offer, with a few even suggesting that this could all be over as early as Monday.

When this whole brew-haha began last month, there were several people who predicted that the offer could go as high as $70. It appears those people were correct. But it’s disheartening to think that all this ugly spectacle we’ve been witnessing was nothing more than A-B trying to get a higher offer. I’m cynical enough to understand that’s how business works, but every time such negotiations are revealed to be mere gamesmanship makes it even harder to trust corporate behavior than ever. There could be a sad day for the brewing world coming.

The Busch family is squarely in the public spotlight these days, with August A. Busch IV pitted against his uncle, Adolphus Busch IV in InBev’s takeover bid to acquire Anheuser-Busch. Today, as it happens, is the birthday of the original Adolphus Busch, who was born today in Germany’s Rhineland, in 1839. He moved to St. Louis in 1857, when he was eighteen, and eventually got a sales job with Charles Ehlermann Hops and Malt Co. After a distinguished stint as a soldier during the Civil War, he returned to his brewery supply job and married Lily Anheuser, the daughter of Eberhard Anheuser. Together, they had thirteen children, including Adolphus Busch II and August A. Busch I. after marrying Lily, he joined the family business, then known as E. Anheuser Co.’s Brewing Association, and eventually became a partner. When Lily’s father passed away in 1879, Adolphus changed the name to Anheuser-Busch.

In St. Louis, Adolphus Busch was busy transforming his father-in-law’s (Eberhard Anheuser’s) once-failing brewery into a grand empire. Adolphus, perhaps more than any other brewer, became known for his flamboyant, almost audacious persona. Tirelessly promoting his Budweiser Beer, he toured the country in a luxurious railroad car immodestly named “The Adolphus.” In place of the standard calling card, the young entrepreneur presented friends and business associates with his trademark gold-plated pocket knife featuring a peephole in which could be viewed a likeness of Adolphus himself. His workers bowed in deference as he passed. “See, just like der king!” he liked to say.

For more on Adolphus Busch’s history and legacy, see:

• The King of Beer (from 1929)
• U.S. Department of Labor
• Wikipedia

Today’s L.A. Times, in the food section, has an interesting looking recipe for beer cake. The recipe is adapted from a new book by food writer Tessa Kiros entitled Piri Piri Starfish: Portugal Found. She writes. “Use a lovely dark, full- flavored beer that will show up well in your cake. I used acacia honey and you can use other nuts instead of walnuts, if you prefer.”

It apparently takes about 1 1/2 hours to make and looks relatively easy … and very tasty, too.
 

As many of you probably know, Stan Hieronymus, who’s been blogging Real Beer’s Beer Therapy for many a moon — among much else — is on the road. Stan and his wife, Daria Labinsky, along with their daughter, Sierra, are currently on a 15-month trip around the world. You can follow their exploits on The Slow Travelers, a running blog written by the entire family. Stan will continue to post the occasional story over at Beer Therapy, but there will be times when he’s out of range for internet access and times when he’s just too darn busy having fun.

So I’ll be filling in for Stan and taking over the day to day duties of Beer Therapy. I’ll continue to write here, too, and I encourage you to read both. Beer Therapy will remain the place to go for news about the world of beer, whereas I’ll continue to analyze that news here on the Bulletin in my own snarky way.

It’s not exactly the Cuban missile crisis, what with row after row of deadly longneck beer bottles aimed at America’s shores instead of actual missiles, but it’s the best bogeyman Anheuser-Busch could come up with on short notice.
 

I’ve been around lawyers a good portion of my life, from relatives, my work and even my wife, so I understand that in situations like these, you try any argument, no matter how ridiculous to advance your cause. But even armed with that foresight, this one just smacks of desperation and feels like it’s doing more harm than good. I’m talking about the latest salvo from A-B HQ, responding to InBev’s announcement in a full page ad in Sunday’s St. Louis newspaper that should their takeover be successful, St. Louis would remain the North American headquarters of the new global entity. In the latest lawsuit filed by A-B, they’re citing the usual complaints: an illegal plan and scheme by InBev, through a course of deceptive conduct, to acquire control of Anheuser-Busch at a bargain price (despite its record price), making “false and misleading statements,” and similar typical blanket statements. But by far my favorite grasped-at-straw is this one, as reported by Reuters:

The suit also questions InBev’s claim that it would make Anheuser’s hometown of St. Louis the North American headquarters for the combined company, since InBev has a business in Cuba which cannot be managed from the United States.

The fact is that a nanosecond’s thought would make even the most un-business-savvy person realize that Cuba’s business could be managed from the location it currently is — probably from Europe, I imagine — while running the rest of North America from St. Louis, as promised. The janitor could have told them that, with no need to annoy the upper floors of MBAs.

But if you want to get fancy, a reasonable argument can be made that Cuba isn’t even in North America, but Central America. We certainly don’t think of any country south of Mexico as being part of North America, and Cuba is at least partially south of Mexico. Even the CIA World Factbook lists Cuba as being in the “Caribbean, [an] island between the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, 150 km south of Key West, Florida.” I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone suggest Cuba was a part of North America. Cuba is in between the Bahamas and Jamaica, neither of which are considered part of North America, either.

Other reports are saying the issue is that InBev somehow “concealed” the fact that they are doing business in Cuba. But that information is clearly disclosed on their website, as a moment’s searching reveals under Market Information By Country. It took me all of about 20 seconds.

I think my issue with raising Cuba is that it devalues the other arguments made in their lawsuit. The other issues raised by A-B about misleading statements and problems with financing are far more serious and material to the takeover bid. But by including this ridiculous and desperate-sounding complaint about Cuba it drags down those other arguments, making it all sound more questionable by association.

And it looks like I’m not alone. From a Bloomberg article:

The suit “seems more emotional than in the best interest of the shareholders,” Stephen Jarislowsky, chief executive officer of Jarislowsky Frasier Ltd. in Montreal, said in an interview. “Instead of simmering down and getting the best deal, they are being childish.” Jarislowsky’s company holds nearly 1.7 million Anheuser-Busch shares.

The fact that we’ve demonized Cuba, while at the same time consorted and aided an endless parade of far worse despots than Castro makes this whole argument even more preposterous. A-B has seven field offices in China (and operates 14 breweries there, with another one planned) and two in Russia (where they contract brew their beer). I mention this to illustrate that morality is not really the issue here, just the letter of the law. Neither country has a particularly good human rights record, but at least they’re not listed in the US Trading With The Enemy Act. In fact, Cuba is the only country covered by the Act. Until very recently, there were two, but President Bush removed North Korea from the list in late June. So presumably A-B International will start selling beer to North Korea from their contract brewery located in South Korea.

I say we invade Cuba again, this time at the Bay of Blind Pig IPA.

The Godzilla movie that is InBev vs. Anheuser-Busch took the fighting to the streets of St. Louis this weekend, beginning with a full page ad that InBev took out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the city’s largest newspaper. I’ve been unable to find out what the ad looked like exactly, but an AP story described it as InBev trying to convince locals that “the takeover would make for a stronger, more competitive global company,” with plans to expand the Budweiser brand globally (isn’t it already in most foreign markets?) with St. Louis remaining the HQ for North American business. In addition, InBev promised to keep all of A-B’s existing breweries open (for now, one presumes, since their track record in this regard is spotty at best).

Yesterday, InBev renewed its efforts to remove the A-B board of directors and replace them. Today, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper shot back with no less than four separate articles about InBev’s increasingly hostile takeover of hometown A-B. The first, Busch IV vs. Busch IV is all about the proposed board changes and the people InBev seeks to place on A-B’s board, including Adolphus Busch IV, and uncle of August A. Busch IV. The current 13-member board is made up of 10 independents and four local residents (2 of which are former A-B execs). InBev’s proposed new board would consist of 12 independents and only one local resident.

Next up is InBev’s takeover bid could depend on a rarely used gambit, an analysis of what InBev is trying as of Monday, which is instead of suing in Delaware to have the board removed is going directly to A-B shareholders and asking them to vote to remove A-B’s current board of directors. Then there’s an analysis of A-B’s response to the Delaware lawsuit, A-B sues InBev to block move to boot board, which describes A-B’s own counter-suit.

Lastly, there’s a column about Ed Martin and his efforts to keep the A-B takeover from happening. He’s the former Missouri Governor’s chief of staff who set up the SaveAB website. As of today, 66,700 Americans signed his online petition to stop the sale, or 0.02% of the approximately 304,549,209 Americans as of the moment of this writing, according to the U.S. Census Board’s PopClock Projection. That’s not exactly overwhelming support for his mission or indicative that many people share his view that A-B is an intrinsically American brand. Hell, his petition represents less than 19% of just St. Louis’ population. And even more curious, the 66,000 figure is eerily close to half of the number of employees that work for Anheuser-Busch. Factor in that each spouse would also sign the petition and you’ve got close to a zero sum game.

Whew, it’s tiring just keeping up with what’s going on as the two titan beer companies continue to duke it out for world dominance.

I heard a rumor today that Rodger Davis, former brewer at Drake’s, was hired to be the new head brewer at Triple Rock, now that Christian Kazakoff is moving to Iron Springs. I have now been able to confirm this with John Martin, co-owner of Triple Rock Brewery, whom I spoke with this afternoon. Martin also confirmed the continuation of the Bay Area Firkin Festival next year at the brewpub.

Rodger Davis, new head brewer at Triple Rock.