I fail to understand why brewers are put under pressure to compromise their craft by producing reduced alcohol beers. Given most beer styles are already far lower in alcohol than wines and spirits, why should brewers have to start tinkering round with them to make them even weaker?
In times gone by the weakest beers, such as mild ales or ‘boys’ bitters, were made using second or third ‘runnings’ from the mash tun. While the first concentrated runnings were used to make the stronger beers, brewers then passed water through the grain for a second or even a third time. The resulting diluted extract contained less sugar for the yeast to ferment, thus producing a weaker beer.
Nowadays, when making low-alcohol beers, brewers tend to produce a standard strength beer and then remove some of the alcohol. This is usually done either by osmosis - by passing the beer through a membrane - or by heating it to evaporate off some of the alcohol. Unfortunately both processes can compromise the malt and hop flavours of the beer. As well as removing alcohol, osmosis tends to strip out flavour and body, while heating can produce undesirable ‘cooked’ flavours.
I’m even less impressed with the current trend towards reduced carbohydrate beers. Having sampled Speight’s Traverse, Export 33 and Pure Blonde I’ve come to the conclusion that low-carb beers just don’t cut it. In each case the malt and hop character is toned down to the point of blandness and the lack of mouthfeel combined with a high level of carbonation results in something which reminds me more of soda water than beer. Be assured, I won’t be drinking any of them ever again.
Why are low-carb beers so bland? The answer is, once again, a result of the brewing process.
In beer (and wine) it is unfermented or ‘residual’ sugars which harbour the carbohydrates, so to produce low-carb beers brewers have to reduce these residual sugars. This is achieved by maximising the production of fermentable sugars during the mashing process and then extending the fermentation and coaxing the yeast to ferment as much of the sugar as possible.
The downside is that the resulting beer - which is generally of conventional alcoholic strength – tends to be thin, dry and lacking maltiness and mouthfeel. Worse still, having reduced the residual sugars which give beer its malty flavour and body, the brewer then has no choice but to tone-down the hop bitterness to ensure the finished beer is balanced and not too astringent. It’s a no-win situation!
Given the difference between a standard beer and a low-carb beer is usually less than 10 grams of carbohydrates - the equivalent of half an apple - I can’t understand why anyone other than diabetics would bother!
The bottom line: Given the option of low-carb and low-alcohol beers, in each case I’d much rather enjoy a full-strength beer along with an equivalent sized glass of water.
Cheers!