Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Budweiser Negotiating to Buy Budweiser

By

No, you read that right. In April it was announced that the Czech Republic, who owns and operates Budejovicky Budvar — from the Bohemian town of Budweis — was considering selling it to the highest bidder to help with the country’s budget woes. Naturally they used the gentler word privatize, but the result is the same. Forbes is reporting that Anheuser-Busch has been in negotiations for some time now.

A-B and Budvar have been bickering over the Budweiser trademark for over a century, though recently A-B agreed to distribute Czechvar (Budvar’s trade name in the U.S.) in the American market. Buying the Czech brewery would make good sense from a business point of view, because the still numerous pending trademark disputes would simply vanish, saving untold millions in legal fees. Plus A-B would be able to market its own Budweiser uniformly throughout the world. Currently there are a number of nations where Budvar has prevailed in litigation and the American Budweiser must be sold in those countries under a different name. Buying the brewery then seems like it would be worth its weight in gold. Of course, the Czech government is apparently not one to let an opportunity pass it by and is exploiting the situation. They’re asking $1.5 billion, even though that’s twelve times its annual sales of just over $125 million. Most valuations use a formula of around 2.5 times annual sales, making a pricetag of $300 million or so a bit more reasonable, at least to prospective buyers.

A-B began selling beer under the name Budweiser (admittedly taking the name from the Bohemian town of Budweis) in 1876 (registering the trademark in 1878), whereas the present brewer, Budejovicky Budvar, didn’t begin brewing until 1895. But as the Czechs are quick to point out, beer was being brewed in the town of Budweis since the 13th century, since 1265 to be exact. And in that time before trademarks and brand names per se, beer brewed in the town was called Budweiser to distinguish it from beer made in other towns, it just wasn’t made by the same company. To a number of people, however, the dispute is about more than just who used the brand name first. To the Czechs it’s understandably a matter of national pride. How do you tell someone they can’t use the name of their own town on their own labels with a company name that also includes the name of the town?
 

 
Well if you’re Anheuser-Busch, you rely on the fact that you’ve spent millions and millions of dollars building a brand name and some upstart company shouldn’t be able to just waltz in and trade on all that hard work. And while I do understand A-B’s position, I’d be more sympathetic to it if this dispute just started recently after they really have created a worldwide brand name over many, many years spending untold dollars to do so. But that’s not exactly what happened. This dispute began early in the 20th century, only ten years or so after the modern Budvar was formed and only 30-odd years after Anheuser began using the Budweiser name. At that time they were certainly a successful company, but nowhere near the international behemoth they are today. Looked at today, it’s much easier to accept A-B’s arguments, but not when the dispute began. The vast majority of the effort and resources that A-B has spent building up the value of the brand name took place after Budvar began complaining that A-B was using their town’s name. I’m not sure that matters from a legal standpoint (though perhaps it should) but it just feels wrong. I know that’s idealistic and isn’t how the world really works, but I’m not convinced that most people want to live in a world where the bully with the most money usually wins. A-B may have even figured out a way to market Budweiser in the Czech Republic, by buying another local brewery, Jihocesky Pivovary, which is currently located in southern Bohemia. But in 1997 they found documents indicating they were the first brewery in Budweis, having been founded in 1795.

But buying Budejovicky Budvar would finally and forever put this dispute to bed. I just don’t know if that’s really the right result. It certainly doesn’t feel like it would end the controversy or really answer the question of who really should be entitled to use the name “Budweiser.”

 

National Toast for Michael Jackson Planned

By

Details for the National Toast to Michael Jackson are being finalized and it will take place on Sunday, September 30 at exactly 9:00 p.m. EST (6:00 p.m. for those of us on the left coast). Bars, breweries, brewpubs and restaurants are being invited to participate with the following press release:

“At 9:00 pm EST on Sunday, September 30, beer drinkers across the continent will raise a glass to the memory of the man who did more than anyone to further the cause of good beer, the one and only Beer Hunter, Michael Jackson. And your establishment can play a part!

“Participation is simple. Just download a copy of the official poster and print out as many as you want, adding in the details of your particular event. It could be a single toast, an all-night celebration or a more organized remembrance. Then decide how you’d like to contribute to the National Parkinson Foundation, whether “passing the hat” for donations, contributing all or a portion of the night’s revenue or selling a single keg for the charity.

Later this year, “a ceremonial contribution on behalf of all the participating bars, restaurants and brewpubs will be made at the Great American Beer Festival on Saturday, October 13. See the Brewers Association website for GABF information and tickets.”

If you own a bar, brewery, brewpub of restaurant, please consider participating. You can find more information on how to sign up at the Michael Jackson Memorial. If you’re just a lover of great beer, please ask your local favorite beer establishment to participate.
 

 

Raise A Glass To Michael Jackson September 30

By

A national toast is being planned for Michael Jackson, and as a fund raiser for the National Parkinson Foundation. It is tentatively set to take place on September 30. Details will be listed at the new Beer Hunter website. The old Beer Hunter site has been archived at a new location. Apparently, “participants will be able to register their site and download a poster, and drinkers will find a list of toast sites.” Personally I’d like to see 100% participation from the online beer community. There isn’t one of us that doesn’t owe Michael, at some level, a debt of gratitude.

 

Arcane Beer Laws

By

The U.S. is filled with strange laws, and the world of beer is not immune. In fact, in the states I’m familiar with, they are some of the most incomprehensible, nonsensical laws one could imagine. Many were created just after Prohibition, when almost every state rewrote their alcohol laws. And some are more modern, showing quite clearly that we have learned little in the intervening 75 years.

Of course, there are many of these odd laws that I don’t know about and, happily, Carolyn Smagalski has filled in some of the blanks. Carol writes a terrific column on beer at BellaOnline, a website for women. Here is her list of some of the quirkier ones by state:

Silly Beer Laws by U.S. State: A-M
Silly Beer Laws by U.S. State: N-Z

If you know of any others in your state, please let me know. I think I’ll start keeping a list.
 

Still More Beer Health Claims

By

While reading over the text of the latest study showing a decreased risk of kidney cancer for moderate beer drinkers, I noticed in the References a couple of older studies that showed that beer and/or alcohol had both specific and general health benefits. Most of the 37 academic papers listed as references were about renal cell cancer (a.k.a. kidney cancer), but these two, both from 2000, were about other health benefits of beer consumption.

The first, Beer increases plasma antioxidant capacity in humans, was published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. Here is the PubMed abstract:

The positive association of a moderate intake of alcoholic beverages with a low risk for cardiovascular disease, in addition to ethanol itself, may be linked to their polyphenol content. This article describes the effect of acute ingestion of beer, dealcoholized beer, and ethanol (4.5% v/v) on the total plasma antioxidant status of subjects, and the change in the high performance liquid chromatography profile of some selected phenolic acids (caffeic, sinapic, syringic, and vanillic acids) in 14 healthy humans. Plasma was collected at various times: before (T0), 1 hour after (T1), and 2 hours after (T2) drinking. The study is part of a larger research planned to identify both the impact of brewing on minor components potentially present in beer and their metabolic fate in humans. Beer was able to induce a significant (P < 0.05) increase in plasma antioxidant capacity at T1 (mean +/- SD: T0 1,353 +/- 320 microM; T1 1,578 +/- 282 microM), returning close to basal values at T2. All phenolic acids measured in plasma tended to increase after beer intake (20% at T1, 40% at T2). Syringic and sinapic acid reached statistical significance (P < 0.05 by one-way analysis of variance-Fisher’s test) at T1 and T2, respectively. Plasma metabolic parameters (glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid) and plasma antioxidants (alpha-tocopherol and glutathione) remained unchanged. Ethanol removal impaired the absorption of phenolic acids, which did not change over the time of the experiment, accounting for the low (and not statistically significant) increase in plasma antioxidant capacity after dealcoholized beer drinking. Ethanol alone did not affect plasma antioxidant capacity or any of the antioxidant and metabolic parameters measured.

The second one, Nutritional and Health Benefits of Beer, was published in the November 2000 issue of The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. Here is the PubMed abstract:

Physicians should be aware of the growing evidence supporting the nutritional and health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle. The recently approved voluntary label on wine (“the proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption”) implies that physicians should promote wine as the preferred source of dietary alcohol. However, studies evaluating the relative benefits of wine versus beer versus spirits suggest that moderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease. From a nutritional standpoint, beer contains more protein and B vitamins than wine. The antioxidant content of beer is equivalent to that of wine, but the specific antioxidants are different because the barley and hops used in the production of beer contain flavonoids different from those in the grapes used in the production of wine. The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have not been generally endorsed by physicians for fear that heavy consumers may consider any message as a permissive license to drink in excess. Discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination. There is no evidence to support endorsement of one type of alcoholic beverage over another. The physician should define moderate drinking (1 drink per day for women and 2 drinks per day for men) for the patient and should review consumption patterns associated with high risk.

Interesting stuff and not terribly surprising given that recent years have seen a growing body of such findings. What’s perhaps more curious is how silent the neo-prohibitionist groups are about all of the health benefits of moderate consumption. It’s getting harder and harder for them to maintain their shrill evils of alcohol position in light of these generally unbiased scientific findings. What’s perhaps more troubling is that their very inflexibility, especially their refusal to entertain lowering the drinking age or allow reasonable alcohol education, are actually causing the problems associated with immoderate drinking to increase. By forcing kids to drink underground, without benefit of parental or adult supervision or example, today’s generation seems far less equipped to learn moderation.

Take for example, the neo-prohibitionist position undertaken by government studies that defines binge drinking as five drinks in one session. If physicians in many other studies suggest that two drinks per days is considered to be the definition of moderate drinking, then the distance between healthy drinker to problem drinker seems fantastically small. That makes one or both standards all but meaningless. But since it would be hard to argue that the standard of two drinks per day is too high then it seems to me a prima facie conclusion that it’s the binge drinking standard that is out of whack.

But these groups with government collusion continue to demonize alcohol and refuse, where possible, to allow parents to teach their children about how to drink, with the predictable result that newly freed college students binge at the first opportunity. As former Middlebury College president John M. McCardell Jr. — and the founder of Choose Responsibility — asks, has making the drinking age 21 stopped kids from drinking? The answer is quite obviously “no,” which suggests that this approach does not work as intended. And with the growing body of health benefits associated with moderate drinking, aren’t these prohibitions simply doing more harm than good? I think an argument can be made that by not allowing alcohol education and making alcohol a forbidden taboo, neo-prohibitionist groups are actually causing more binge drinking and keeping young people from realizing the health benefits of moderation.
 

MADD Hopping Mad Over Movement to Lower Drinking Age

By

On the heels of a growing debate and movement to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, MADD has issued an “Action Alert” to its members and affiliate neo-prohibitionist groups asking them to let their friends, family and legislators know the “facts.” Though in reality what they’re hoping to do is reinvigorate the moral zealots and remind legislators that common sense and following the will of the people are anathema to staying in office. Politicians don’t like to be portrayed as being for underage drinking, but that’s exactly what would happen to anyone with the temerity to express an opinion other than their own.

They must be feeling the heat from people speaking out against the current drinking age, because their rhetoric seems more vicious than usual. And their press releases use the word “fact” an awful lot despite not really offering anything new or anything that is actually a fact. To my way of thinking, if you can reasonably debate something claimed to be a fact, then it’s not really a fact in the first place. Here are the three points on which they hang their latest argument:

  1. Almost 50 high-quality studies have found conclusively that the 21 minimum drinking age decreases alcohol-related fatalities by 16 percent
  2. The brain continues to grow into the early/mid-20s and that drinking before this can damage the brain irreversibly
  3. In most countries with lower drinking ages, intoxication is much more common among young people than in the United States

So let’s look at these so-called “facts.”

1. There’s nothing conclusive about these studies and many experts believe that alcohol-related fatalities were already in decline before the drinking-age was effectively raised in 1984. Then there’s how you define “alcohol-related fatalities,” which in many cases includes passengers who’d been drinking or even victims. So that means that if a sober person accidentally ran over someone who’d been drinking, it was counted as an alcohol-related fatality. That hardly sounds like a high-quality study to me. Most, if not all, of these studies suffer from the same sorts of problems. They’re hardly ironclad facts that everyone agrees upon.

2. This is a beautiful one. Fear is always a great tool of propagandists. Apparently all of the people of the rest of the world have damaged brains, as does everyone of my generation who drank before reaching the age of 21. Except that virtually every other country’s kids beat the pants off of us at math, science and other academic measurements. Imagine how smart the rest of the world would be if only they didn’t allow their kids to drink. I guess they’d all be super-geniuses. If this was really the danger they make it out to be, no country on Earth would allow drinking before the brain fully formed. I’m going to assume this is only a problem if someone drinks to great excess and that would more properly be curbed by making it legal earlier and teaching responsibility and moderation both through parental modeling and learning in the home.

3. This claim is mostly based on a European study that appeared to show higher “intoxication rates” but the study itself, in it’s conclusion, said only that “the pattern of alcohol consumption reveals that frequent drinking is most prevalent among students in the western parts of Europe, such as the British Isles, the Netherlands, Belgium but also in Austria, the Czech Republic and Malta. Very few students in the northern parts of Europe drink that often (my emphasis).” “Frequent drinking” and “intoxication” are two very different things. The definitions are not necessarily comparable and, as such, these are hardly facts.

One interesting side note is that the only example given by MADD (on their new propaganda website Why 21) — which they also call the best example — is to “look at what happened in New Zealand.” They continue:

“In 1999, New Zealand lowered its purchase age from 20 to 18. Not only did drunk driving crashes increase, but youth started to drink earlier, binge drinking escalated, and in the 12 months following the decrease in legal drinking age, there was a 50 percent increase in intoxicated 18- and 19-year-old patients at the Auckland Hospital emergency room. Clearly, Europe has serious issues with youth alcohol use.”

Hmm, how to put this delicately? Apparently being a teetotaler makes you unable to know anything about geography. Last time I checked, New Zealand wasn’t anywhere near Europe, not even in the same hemisphere. Talk about keeping your facts straight, they don’t even know what countries are in Europe. Is it possible many neo-prohibitionists are also flat-earthers and don’t believe in maps? That would certainly fit my perspective of many of them.

Another howler in the Myths & Facts at Why 21 is in their explanation about why being able to vote or die in the military are not sufficient reasons to also be allowed to drink. They note that different “rights have different ages of initiation,” such as the minimum age to get a hunting license, drivers license or even get married. They then state that “these minimum ages are set for a reason” and list the reason for the drinking age as the following:

In the case of alcohol, 21 is the minimum age because a person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. Drinking alcohol while the brain is still developing can lead to long-lasting deficits in cognitive abilities, including learning and memory.

Anybody ever heard that as the reason why the drinking age is 21? Me neither. That certainly wasn’t how they sold it in 1984. Back then it was supposedly to reduce drinking and driving. But the WMD story didn’t fly I guess so now it’s regime change in the guise of developing brain scares. Again, if this was anything other than smoke and mirrors, the rest of the world would have sat up and done something about it, too. Can you really believe that only Americans love their children enough to protect them? Who is naive enough to believe Europeans or the rest of the world wouldn’t rush to protect their own kids’ developing brains if a true threat actually existed?

Another thing that doesn’t fly is the ages for hunting licenses, driving, buying tobacco and legal consent for sex and marriage. All of those occur before one becomes a legal adult, which happens at age eighteen. So those rights are regulated to people who are not yet considered adults. It’s done by adults to protect people who it is believed need such protection. The over 18 examples they give are the ages one can be elected to Congress and minimum age requirements imposed to rent a car or hotel room. The minimums for Congress (25), the Senate (30) and President (35) were set down at a time when living to 35 made you an elder statesman. I can see no reasonable sense in which this is comparable to the drinking age. Trying to insure more experienced men and women would represent us in government bears no relationship to at what age you can drink a beer. And the minimums to rent a car or stay in a hotel are industry standards and are about liability and risk management. They have nothing whatsoever to do with rights or the law. It’s not illegal to rent a car if you’re under 25, it’s just that no major car company will take your business. It’s a decision fueled by commercial interests, not a mandatory law imposed by our government.

So as far as I can tell, all of the under-18 regulated behaviors and the over-18 ones MADD uses in their rationalization, be they constitutional or business-oriented, are in no way related to the idea of what it means to be an adult. And that, I think, is the crux of the argument. I don’t think anyone would dispute that to vote or to fight and possibly die defending our nation makes you an adult. If participating in our democracy or fighting for it doesn’t make you an adult, then I don’t know what else possibly would or, indeed, could. At 18 you can also enter into contracts, gamble, hunt, buy cigarettes, drop out of school, have sex and/or get married without your parents consent. Really, the only legal good I can think of that’s denied eighteen-year olds is alcohol. And as the rest of the world does not deny its adults in this way, one can only conclude that fanaticism and moral zealots have gotten their way. That a few souls have decided it’s time to show the MADD Emperor’s nakedness, I can only say “what took you so long.”

 

Craft Beer Growth Continues Double-Digit Growth in First Half of 2007

By

The Brewers Association just released the sales numbers for craft beer covering the first half of 2007. It’s all good news and craft beer is again showing double-digit growth at approximately 11%, which is the same percentage growth rate it sustained in 2006.

From the press release:

The Brewers Association, the trade association that tabulates industry data for craft brewers, reports craft beer sales and growth continue to break records. The volume of craft beer sold in the first half of 2007 rose 11% compared to this same period in 2006 and dollar growth increased 14%. For the first time ever craft beer has exceeded more than a 5% dollar share of total beer sales.

Overall, the U.S. beer industry sold one million more barrels in the first half of 2007 compared to 2006, with 400,000 of these new barrels produced by craft breweries. This equates to 3.768 million barrels of craft beer sold in the first two quarters of 2007 compared to 3.368 million barrels sold in the first half of 2006.

Scan data from Information Resources, Inc. provide additional data points that confirm strength for the segment. Craft beer sales in the supermarket channel through July 15th, 2007 showed a 17.4% increase in dollar sales compared to the same period in 2006. This growth in sales was higher than any other alcohol beverage category.

“The 1,400 small, independent and traditional craft brewers in the U.S. have hit their stride,” said Paul Gatza, Director of the Brewers Association.“United States craft brewers are making many of the world’s best beers, and the marketplace is responding.”

Coupled with the growth statistics has been a tidal wave of media coverage in the first half of 2007 including NBC’s Today Show on July 3 stating, “Beer is the new wine and can go with just about any food.” Additionally, Gallup, in its latest poll on alcohol beverages, announced for the second straight year that “Beer Again Edges Out Wine as Americans’ Drink of Choice.”

Julia Herz, Director of Craft Beer Marketing for the Brewers Association concluded, “Craft beer market share is steadily and consistently growing. A grassroots movement is responsible for this success as appreciators continue to trade up.”

The definition of craft beer as stated by the Brewers Association: An American craft brewer is small, independent and traditional. Small = annual production of beer less than 2 million barrels. Beer production is attributed to a brewer according to the rules of alternating proprietorships. Flavored malt beverages are not considered beer for purposes of this definition. Independent = Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer. Traditional = A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of its volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.

In addition, the Brewers Association released the following charts:

 

 

MSNBC On the Drinking Age

By

MSNBC had a very interesting article about the recent surge in support for lowering the drinking age to from twenty-one to eighteen again. Apart from nations that don’t permit alcohol at all — usually for religious reasons — we have the highest age for allowing drinking of any country in the world. For the vast majority of nations, it’s eighteen. To me it’s as simple as if you can vote and die as a soldier defending our country, you should at least be able to drink a beer. I’ve never heard a convincing rebuttal to that. In my opinion, it should be a part of how we define adulthood.
 

Oregon Leads Small Brewers Caucus

By

maps-or
Last month, 34 members of the House of Representatives formed the Small Brewers Caucus to monitor and effect issues of interest to craft brewers. The week after the Craft Brewers Conference, on May 15, the caucus held its first meeting just prior to a reception on Capitol Hill celebrating “American Craft Beer Week” hosted by the Brewers Association.

From the original press release:

hse-sm-brew-caucus

The House Small Brewers Caucus, co-chaired by U.S. Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) and Greg Walden (R-Oregon), is currently composed of 34 Members of Congress who share an interest in the issues of importance to America’s small brewers. Brewers Association Board of Directors who were in Washington that day to participate in the American Craft Beer Week celebration, listened as Congressman Walden stated that the primary mission of the Caucus is to provide an interactive opportunity to learn about the dynamics of running a small business as a brewery, the brewing process itself and the quality and value of the beer and brewing activities. Several other Congressmen also in attendance spoke briefly to the group, among them Congressman DeFazio who is himself a homebrewer and a primary sponsor and leader in the successful effort to pass House Resolution 753 of 2006 commending American craft brewers and recognizing the first American Craft Beer Week.

“The fact that Members of Congress recognize the unique place small brewers and craft beer have in our society, is extremely gratifying and important,” said Brewers Association President Charlie Papazian also in attendance at the meeting. “There is a very real danger that the voice of the small members of the brewing community may not be heard over that of its larger brethren, so a group of legislators bound by a common interest in the history, tradition and excitement that are hallmarks of today’s small brewers, should help ensure our issues get fair consideration.”

The story is starting to get some attention in places where craft beer is closely tied to the local economy. For example, in Portland, Oregon, the Oregonian recently ran a story about the new caucus, focusing on the fact that both co-chairs are Representatives from Oregon. (Thanks Jim, for sending me the link.) Frankly, that makes sense given Oregon’s beer scene. With three other Oregonian members of the caucus from the Beaver State, that’s a total of five of the 34 members (or almost 15%). Most of the other members also appear to be from states with vibrant craft beer cultures. For example, California is the only other state with five members, including — I’m proud to be able to say — the Representative from my own District, Lynn Woolsey. She represents both Sonoma and Marin counties. New York and Pennsylvania have four members each, and there are three from Colorado, and two from Michigan. The eleven remaining members are each from a single state. Curiously, there’s no one from either Washington or Wisconsin. That seems surprising, since both states have quite a few breweries. It also appears to be a largely bipartisan group, with 20 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

It’s certainly nice to see our elected officials paying to least some attention to craft beer and the concerns of those who brew it.

The 34 members of the Small Brewers Caucus:

Rep. Peter DeFazio, co-chair (D-Ore.)
Rep. Greg Walden, co-chair (R-Ore.)

Rep. Harry E. Mitchell (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.)
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.)
Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.)
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.)
Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa)
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.)
Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.)
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.)
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.)
Rep. Mike Arcuri (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.)
Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.)
Rep. Charles Dent (R-Penn.)
Rep. Phil English (R-Penn.)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Penn.)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.)
 

If your representative isn’t on this list, consider writing him a letter and asking him or her to join the caucus and support small businesses such as craft breweries in their district.

sm-brew-caucus-fish
Representative Peter DeFazio, Gary Fish, owner of Deschutes Brewery, and Representative Greg Walden — all from Oregon — enjoying craft beer at the Capitol Hill reception May 15.

Krusovice Komes to Amerika

By

Monday night I attended a presentation at the Toronado for the San Francisco launch of Krusovice, a beer from the Czech Republic. An old friend of mine, Dave Deuser, is the local rep. for the beer, which is (or was, but more on that in a minute) part of the Binding Group, a German company that owns several breweries, including DAB, Radeberger, Clausthaler, and Tucher. He had Krusovice’s head brewer and a translator who works for the brewery in tow.

Binding USA is bringing two of Krušovice’s beers into the U.S. market, the Imperial and the Cerne. The Imperial, which they call a Czech Premium Lager, is very clean with soft, round flavors. I was quite impressed with it. It used all Saaz hops and was right up there with the best tasting lagers I’ve had. The Cerné is a dark lager made with pale and specialty malts. At only 3.8% abv, it was very easy drinking. It had delicious sweet malt flavors.

The presentation was very thorough and included a thick, spiral bound book that the brewer went over page by page, calling out “turn page now” in his best Germanic command voice. The Royal Brewery of Krušovice has a rich history, having been founded around 1517. In 1581, the brewery was purchased by Emperor Rudolf II, whose visage still appears on the labels. When he moved his capital from Vienna to Prague, he moved it to the nearby town of Krušovice and it became a “Royal Brewery,” a distinction it continues to claim to this very day.

In 1945, after World War II it became the property of the state, in this case Czechoslovakia, until it was privatized in 1991 and then was purchased by the Binding Group in 1994. Binding completely modernized the brewery facilities and began exporting the beer in 1997. As of 2005, Krušovice was the 5th largest brewery in the Czech Republic.

All their beers use a double decoction method, which is fairly common in Germany and for lagers. Many craft brewers use infusion mashing since it requires less equipment and is generally quicker, and while there is a debate about which method is better, it seems moot as long as the end result is both what you were trying to achieve and tastes good.

Krušovice is currently sold throughout most of Europe, Australia and now North America (or at least in the U.S. and Canada). 63% of Krušovice is sold in kegs, 32% in bottles and 5% in cans. It’s apparently wildly popular in Russia, which accounts for more than half of all exports.

And that brings us to the weird part of the evening. Halfway through their tour of the States, they got the word that Krušovice had been sold to Heineken, who was looking to make greater inroads into the Russian beer market. So it was a testament to everybody’s professionalism that presentation went as well as it did. My friend Dave didn’t now what his role would be now regarding Krušovice, but it’s likely Heineken will bring in their own people and the Binding folks won’t be involved any longer. As for the brewer, I’m sure he must have felt at least a twinge of uncertainty for his own fate, but everybody continued to champion the brand as if nothing had changed. I’m not sure I could have done as well under those circumstances.

It was a fun and informative evening, with two very tasty beers to make it all the more enjoyable.

Krusovice’s head brewer (at left) and his translator.