A Harsh Warning

[Richard English]

In the most recent edition of First Draught, the Fuller's Fine Ale Club magazine, there is a salutory warning in an article by Tim Webb. Belgium, like England, has many breweries (about 120) producing a huge range of beers, many excellent, some good, and just a few that are truly foul.

40% of the beer produced in Belgium is exported (this being made easier since, unlike the situation in England, most of Belgium's finest beers are bottled).

And, in this small but distinguished country, brewers of some of the world's finest and most unusual beers, which is the ONLY brewery that has more than 10% ot the market?

It is chemical-fizz makers Interbrew, the A-B of Europe who have a 70% share of the market. They, like A-B produce an almost tasteless alcoholic fizz that is sold cheaply and drunk by the empty-headed morons who believe that the sole purpose of beer is to produce a stake of aggressive intoxication in the shortest possible time.

Interbrew are the manufacturers of fizz such as Stella Artois and the once-great Boddingtons. In Canada they inflict their rubbish on the poor natives in the name of Molson and Labatt.

The Belgians, like the British, are being seduced by clever advertising and aggresive promotion, and welcome with open wallets these "Greeks bearing gifts", little realising that their only purpose is to overwhelm the smaller, quality producers until they can excersise their monopoly and reduce all beer to a uniform yellow, weak, tasteless and highly profitable chemical fizz.

In the USA you know what it was like and, to your everlasting credit you have loosened, if not yet cast off, A-B's shackles. Sadly the Belgians have probably not yet woken up to the danger (just as we, in England, were oblivious to it until CAMRA came along and are, even now, not so aware as we should be)

Support them by eschewing the products of all the fizz-manufacturers, even those sold under once-great names such as Boddingtson, Newcastle Brown, Stella Artois, Tetley's and other names from the past that are now simply cynical branding exercises of the fizz-manufacturers.

[Theakston]

Yes they are a large corporation, for the most part pushing mass produced fizz (Although Stella is perhaps one of the better mass produced fizzies) but they also produce HOEGAARDEN and LEFFE beers. HOEGAARDEN has some excellent beers ranging from the White beer to the Grand Cru. So they aren't all crap.

Of course I'm in no way a supporter of the large corporations taking over smaller craft breweries but with Hoegaarden the quality and range seems to be maintained while the market has been expanded and they otherwise would probably have closed

The Boddingtons they push in the USA is worse than a mere shadow of its former glory (I grew up on it), but hadn't it gone that way before Interbrew took them over? (I seem to remember that Whitbread was responsible?)

I'd rather drink the craft brews when I can get them but personally I'm glad that they have put Hoegaarden on my supermarket shelf.

[msmith855]

Nice article first of all! And I agree in large part, that you should not become a victim of cleaver marketing and settle for lower-class beers... however I was also completely unaware that Interbrew owned Hoegarden for example which I always considered to be a very fine brew of exceptional taste. This leads me to wonder how do you easily identify when a good beer is now part of a "monopolistic" bigger company, and even more importantly does it even matter? Just food for thought....

[Richard English]

The information about who owns whom (in the UK) is in the CAMRA Good Beer Guide and there is also some information on the CAMRA site.

I have also found that by checking the breweries' own sites it's often possible to find out the names of their brands.

As there are very few decent beers that are owned by the giants, it's not a big problem to identify them and then decide whether or not to drink those brands that are part of a fizz-manufacturer's portfolio.

[chazwicke]

I occasionally enjoy Redhook ESB even though I know it is owned by A-B. Fortunately, A-B seems not to have fiddled with the formula and really helps with distribution. It has not been a big detriment to the Redhook Line. Redhook may not make the best beer but it is far from the worst. I find it quite drinkable.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Fortunately, A-B seems not to have fiddled with the formula ..."

Just give them time...!

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
I occasionally enjoy Redhook ESB even though I know it is owned by A-B.

A-B doesn't actually "own" Redhook, they're "investors" of sorts. In fact, I think they're even less than 50 percent partners. Redhook's owners sold the partnership to A-B for capital to start their east coast brewery and also to be able to utilize A-B's vast distribution resources. If I reacall correctly, part of the partnership was a stipulation that A-B would never have any say on Redhook's brewing process and procedures.

This all may have changed and evolved in the 8 (?) or so years that A-B has been involved, but the beer hasn't reflected it if it has.

S.

[Richard English]

Call me a cynic, but the promise to keep to the old recipe is one that Whitbread always made when they took over a brewery.

That was about a year before they closed it and started to sell their own rubbish under the old name. There's no agreement at all that can't be broken if you have the money and the will.

Vide "Boddingtons the cream of Manchester"

[BelgianBeer]

I understand your concern, but I do not feel the situation is as bad as you fear, at least in Belgium. Interbrew does have a big market share, but I guess there is one important difference with the likes of other giants like A-B and Heineken: the variety of its offerings (I can only speak for its offerings in Belgium). It's market share is not just the result of pushing a watered-down pilsner, but of the offering of a wide range of other (including "specialty") beers as well. True, some of these beers have fared better under Interbrew control than others (compare Hoegaarden, which is still okay, with the charade the sell as gueuze under the once-proud Belle-Vue brand), and there are signs which warrant caution. But the point is, I guess, that even most Belgians do not go from their teenage drinks to Orval or Gueuze Girarding overnight. They pass through Stella Artois, Hoegaarden and Leffe first (as I did).

So the real question is whether the brewers making the truly great Belgian beers are suffering from Interbrew's commercial succes. It seems to me that the answer is no. The sheer number of breweries has certainly gone down, but the diversity of the beer landscape has almost as certainly gone up. Some rather boring regional brewers, each mostly making their own average pilsner, have gone out of business. But microbreweries creating exciting new brews, and reviving old ones, have sprung up. In most Belgian pubs you'll still find at least a couple of world-class beers on the list, even if it has gone down to twenty-something, is dominated by Interbrew stuff, and the owner knows nothing about good beer. Even in lousy hotel bars, you are often saved by Duvel, Orval, or, in the worst possible of scenario's, Hoegaarden.

To me, the greatest danger to the Belgian beer culture in the long term comes not from Interbrew, but from young people increasingly seeking their buzz in alcopops.

In the short term, however, I can't complain, writing this as I am with next to me a glass of 2-year old draught Lambic from Girardin, pulled from a cask that I purchased at the brewery last week at the amazing price of 13 EURO for 10 liters (which amounts to 30 eurocents - about the same in dollarcents - per glass)...

[Richard English]

Obviously I hope you're right. However, Belgium is now going through a similar scenario to that which the UK suffered some years ago and, inevitably, it is lead by youth (as you so rightly point out).

We all of us tend to stick with the habits we form in our teenage years, which is why so many organisations like banks and newspapers try to seduce youngsters by offering them amazing startup deals. Once hooked on a particular newspaper or bank, surprisingly few people ever change.

And drinking is similar. Chemical fizz is designed to appeal to the immature palate by being easy and undemanding to drink and the objective is to convince the young that it's the drink for them. And if you acquire a taste for Heinekin and drink and enjoy it, why would you want to change?

Why would you trust the words of an old codger who obviously doesn't know anything at all about life and drinks boring old beers that aren't even advertised on the television?

So, although I'm delighted that you're optimistic, don't allow your guard to slip so that your optimism becomes complacency! You might suddenly find that you're the new older generation and the beers you used to love have all disappeared since the drinking majority are all buying chemical fizz. After all, that's what happened in almost every other country in the world, so why not Belgium?

[chazwicke]

At least in the United States much of the micro renaissance was aimed at the younger generation. Brewpubs for a time were all the rage. Trendy, well monied establishments just had to brew thier own or have a brewery attached. Although many of these fad driven business ultimately did not survive the seed was at least planted that there is beer out there that actually has flavor. I know most Americans still follow the herd to the Coor's Light section of the beer cooler but there is a sizable group that opts for the better brews. I have seen our local supermarket shelves grow to include plenty of options. Many more than in the 70's. Of course you still have to make it past the rows and rows of the the Macros first. But at least we have a choice and we are a premium beer market that retailers recognize and provide for to some extent. Also there are plenty of specialty stores and gourmet markets that cater to the micro and import market trying to appease the savvy beer drinker. While a fair amount of that small, trendy brewery product is no better than the macros many who did try a flavorful beer had their eyes opened. And I believe a debt of gratitude is owed to organizations such as CAMRA because they helped preserve something that micro pioneers such as Jack McAlliffe of New Albion fame enjoyed and tried to bring home to the states. I also do not mourn some of the fad driven establishments demise. Many just did not produce great or consistant beer. And their reason for being was not, in my opinion, all that pure. The bad ones were shaken out. I am just glad that the serious ones survived and continue to brew fine brews. I am glad for all the choices we in the States have and hope for it to continue to grow. We do have a decent and growing segment who are dicerning and do care what they drink and this group is made up of young and old.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
Call me a cynic, but the promise to keep to the old recipe is one that Whitbread always made when they took over a brewery.

There's no agreement at all that can't be broken if you have the money and the will...

The key here being that A-B hasn't "taken over" the Redhook Breweries. But you're so correct about the ease of breaking an agreement.

It's been some time since RH and A-B embarked on their partnership, and while Redhook's ESB isn't the best of its style out there, it's still a pretty passable brew. Their Blonde is pretty good too.

S.

[chazwicke]

I agree Steveh, The Red Hook is a decent but not great beer. IMHO it is better than any of the Pete's or Sam Adam's beers. All of which I regard as stepping stone beers.

[chazwicke]

I guess an analogy to the A-B Redhook relationship is my own situation. I am a business owner who sold a very minority stake in my company to a Fortune 500 company. The direct a lot of business my way and I benefit greatly from the relationship. The are almost totally hands off. However, even though they in no way have any control based on their ownership share, if they were to make some suggestions I would certainly listen.

[steveh]

Richard, if I had stuck with habits I had as a teenager (some 25 years ago), I'd still be drinking Old Milwaukee, Old Style, and Olympia! Ol' habits CAN die easy! ;)

S.

[fretlessman71]

OK... perfect opportunity to break my "200 posts" moniker here....

Red Hook is, indeed, a GREAT beer. In exactly the same way that Coca Cola is a great cola (to me). I've always preferred Coke over Pepsi because it seems to have some character to the flavor - I actually enjoy Coke only mildly chilled, much like my favorite brews. There is a wonderful caramel flavor that comes out when sipped. Now, Coke has also managed to become the best selling cola in the world while keeping this flavor and formula. This is not to say that there aren't smaller cola companies out there who could do a better job than Coke; I'm saying that Coke has managed to stay marketable AND flavorful.

Red Hook, while not enjoying the massive success that Coke has over the last century (or A-B, for that matter), has had nationwide popularity while still maintaining the flavor of their beer. I don't know that there are many out there would disagree with that statement (their new brew, Sunrye, seems to be a terrific summer brew). Red Hook brews don't try to be something they aren't; rather, they are what they are, and they try to make very good beer. Now, if Big Beer would only take that same approach...

[Fast_Eddy]

The supermarket that I shop at has about 40% of its beer space allocated to real beer. Plenty of english, belgian, german beers available. Many american micro's too.

It's very true that if I'd stayed with teen habits then my fridge would be stocked with Bud but instead it's my home brews and Young's Double Chocolate.

All of friends from work drink high quality brews - I even converted by boss to a certain extent by way of Pilsner Urquell.

Maybe I'm a little sheltered here in Austin but I think that A-B is maybe not gaining customers at the rate they used to.

[MmmBeer]

I, personally, feel very optimistic about the american beer market. I am 23, and while I see a lot of my peers drinking chemical fizz, I also see a lot of them preferring "better beer". And when I say better I mean the good ones, and the mediocre ones (Sammy, Pete's, the middle of the road folks).

I think one of the major differences with here and over the pond is that our great beer has been developed very recently. While Europe's beer is still changing, the tradition there was great beer. We are developing our great tradition now. That makes it a very exciting time here. When I am 50 I wonder which beers will still be around? Sierra Nevada, Anchor, Sammy, these guys have established themselves as being more than just beers for people who know beer. I wonder who's next?

[Richard English]

Just in case there has been any misunderstanding, let me quite what I said in my post. I actually wrote "...We all of us tend to stick with the habits we form in our teenage years..."

I did not say we never change them, I said we tend to stick with them. The older people who post to this board will by definition, be those who have changed since, in their teenage years in the USA, there was no good beer. They must, therefore, have developed a taste for good beer later. However, it is clear from its overwhelming popularity, that chemical fizz is still the choice of the majority - even the older ones; they have not changed their teenage habits.

The power of teenage imprinting can easily be proven if you examine older people's preferences for such things as sports teams and popular music. Most people continue to support the team they supported when they were young and like the music they grew up with. Some do change, of course, but they are the exception, not the rule.

And it is the same with food and drink. Few people are sufficiently adventurous or motivated to change. I do not have percentages but I suggest that they are in single figures.

Has anyone seen any research findings?

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by steveh
Richard, if I had stuck with habits I had as a teenager (some 25 years ago), I'd still be drinking Old Milwaukee, Old Style, and Olympia! Ol' habits CAN die easy!

S.

I had the same thought as I was reading through this thread. Back in those days, I drank my share of Coors and Olympia and even Schaffer. As a teenager I thought that Lowenbrau and Moosehead were "classy" beers. :D

Thank God I eventually grew up.

However, Richard's points are more than valid. That is why the tobacco, alcohol, food and fashion vendors spend so much of their time wooing the teenage audience.

[Brownbeard]

I always prefer "good beer". That said, when I grab the cooler and hit the river bank for a night of catfishing, I will almost always grab a 12 pack of Coors or Leinenkugel's, occasionally Bud. Sometimes watered down swill just fits. I would never buy a beer that has the word light anywhere on the label. Of course, I come home and drink some nice hoppy ale with my catfish dinner. Never soil the dinner table with cheap beer.

[fretlessman71]

Uggh.... there's GOT to be a better choice than THAT.... maybe a nice pilsner or something....?

[Brownbeard]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Uggh.... there's GOT to be a better choice than THAT.... maybe a nice pilsner or something....?

Well, I like to take canned beer when I go fishing. It is just easier to deal with all the way around. In Iowa, nothing but swill is available in cans. You can't even buy rolling rock in a can here. So, I drink cheap beer when I fish. Of all the canned swill available, I find Leinenkugel's and Coors to be the best. I have been drinking Coors for so many years that it is palatable. This is not indicative of my home or bar drinking by any means. Fishing only. At the hockey games we go to, I drink Labatte's Blue or Michelob Amber Bock.

[Richard English]

Why is it that "cans are just easier to deal with all the way around?"

I agree they are lighter than bottles and they are slightly less fragile. But surely you go on a fishing trip in your car, don't you? laden up with all the paraphenalia of such a trip includng food and other supplies. What's the big problem with taking a few bottles along?

I would far sooner have good beer in bottles than swill in cans - hey, I'll put up with carrying the extra weight from the car to the river bank!

[Brownbeard]

It really has more to do with hauling bottles into brush, they are, as you said more fragile. It is also easier to deal with the empties, cans can be crushed and take no space at all once empty. If I were going with the kids and sitting in one spot on a nice clean riverfront, good beer all the way. When I am tromping through the brush, up to my ass in river water, cans are just way too easy. I cun put a six pack of tall boys in my cargo pants.

[steveh]

I've seen Paulaner's lager in cans around southern Wisconsin/northern Illinois. I have friends who buy it, the Paulaner, in cans for the same reasons as you; camping, hiking, fishing.

Oh, and I really can't allow this to get by on this forum: Michelob Amber Bock? Life's too short to drink bad beer.

S.

[Brownbeard]

When in Rome, man. I would not have it at home, but at an event where I get to choose between that and Bud Light, I will go Amber Bock every time. I generally get the oil cans of Labatte's. They just started selling those at our arena. You know how it is, sporting arenas never sell truly good beer.

[Brownbeard]

How is Boddington's in the can? They just got that at the local grocer. It has to be better than Bud.

[Payson]

Now that you have discovered the joys of homebrewing you could bottle a few in PET and take them fishing without fear of breakage. Speaking of which, fishing and brew..... wonderful! Might have to wet a line after work.

[Richard English]

Everything's better than Bud - even Boddingtons.

Just so long as you don't think that canned Boddingtons is what good English beers taste like!

Tomorrow afternoon is GBBF for me. Take pity, please. I have to decide which of around 1000 different beers I'm going to drink in the time available to me...

Boddingtons will not be one of them, nor yet will be John Smith's or Newcastle Brown or Tetley's - or any of the other apologies for Real Ale with which the fizz-factories seek to deceive the drinking public!

[Brownbeard]

I understand the difference between good and bad beer. Been drinking good beer for quite some time now. I am just looking for an alternative to lame canned beer for those 5 or 6 occasions a year when I get it. I don't like doing Guiness, because in the situations I would be having it, I want to drink from the can. Don't like drinking Guiness from the can.

[Richard English]

I don't think you'll be able to get good (or even reasonable) beer in a can. All canned foodstuffs have to be sterilised, which, in the case of beer, means pasteurisation and filtration.

No pasteurised beer will be anything but mediocre.

Only beers that are cask or bottle-conditioned will be superb; anything else varies from second-rate to awful.

I have also mentioned that I do not believe, either, that any beer can be properly appreciated when drunk from the can or bottle - any more than could a fine wine or great malt whisky.

I think I'd change the size of my rucksack were I in your situation!

[hopjack13]

if i had to bring canned beer in order to fish i think i'd just give up fishing. when me and my wife go to the drive in with the kids i'll bring a 750ml bottle of chimay (blue) and a couple of gobletts . then we'll sit and enjoy a glass together. while watching one of the two movies they're playing. we don't sit and get hammerd because we have to drive home with the kids, but i don't see anything wrong with just one glass. when me and my bro go fishing we carrie an ice chest together full of bottles. and the bottles go home with us in the same ice chest on the way back.
we usually fill the ice chest with a little water and even if it's just ice the bottle don't bang around againt eachother. plus if your ass deep in water the ice chest will float! depending on how full it is. okay can i have my change now?

[Theakston]

OK I agree with Richard that canned beer will not be as good as bottled but if circumstances mean you must drink canned beer there are some decent cans available in the USA now.
Some belgian whites:
Wittekerke and Hoegaarden are now in cans.
Boddingtons is OK but you wouldn't want to drink it from the can as it has the nitrogen widget that causes it to foam, designed to produce a "draft like" head and mouthfeel when poured into a glass. Anything marked "Pub draft" will be the same. Most English Ales are done this way. I recently saw Youngs Chocolate Stout in a can. Probably nitro too.

[Brownbeard]

It's sort of like eating at McDonalds. I hate it, try like hell to avoid it, sometimes though it's just the most viable option. I like to drink beer when I fish, but southern Iowa catfishing does not lend itself to bottled beer. And I will not take bottles on the boat. It is just impractical. I was looking for advice on canned beer, not lectures. Thanks Theakston. I will see if I can get those at the local microbrew monger.

[fretlessman71]

Look for Dales Pale Ale out of Colorado, now also in a can. I think the Ska Brewery is trying to do the same thing.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
I have also mentioned that I do not believe, either, that any beer can be properly appreciated when drunk from the can or bottle - any more than could a fine wine or great malt whisky.

While I agree that beer is best drunk from a (its own) proper vessel, there are times when I get home from work, crack open a bottle, and drink it straight from the neck. I'm sure it's more of an American habit, inherited from our fathers, but there's something comforting in that first beer of the evening straight from the bottle.

One of the most amusing scenes I ever saw was in Michael Jackson's Beer Hunter series - the chapter on U.S. micros with a strong focus on Anchor Brewing. There's the unflappable Mr. Jackson interviewing Fritz Maytag at a brewery event around an evening campfire - Michael consuming an Anchor product from the bottle! He looked quite uncomfortable, and almost didn't look like he knew how to hold the bottle properly - I had to chuckle.

Who knows, maybe years from now, the American beer bottle will be revered as a traditional drinking vessel just as the German Krug or English Imperial Pint! ;)

S.

[Richard English]

I was at the GBBF yesterday and decided to have a bottled beer. There was a large selection of bottle-conditioned ales but the organisers would not supply any one of them unless you had a proper drinking vessel. Then they would open the bottle and pour it in - or wait while you did so. Bottles were not allowed to be taken from the stand.

Thus, amongst the hundreds of drinkers, nary a one was drinking from a bottle. You've no idea how pleased I was to see that. We all have our likes and dislikes; I happen to think that drinking from bottles (or cans) is an unattractive and unecessary affectation. Bottles are designed to hold beer; drinking vessels are designed to drink from. You wouldn't transport beer around the country in a beer glass so why drink from a bottle?

Brownbeard, I am sorry if you feel I am lecturing; I was merely trying to point out that, just as is the case with eating at McDonalds, there is usually an alternative and I myself would try it before assuming that I just had to make the best of a bad job.

I know nothing at all about southern Iowa catfishing and why it doesn't lend itself to the taking of bottled beer; in the days when I used to fish (just course fishing in English rivers and lakes) I took my beer in bottles (or sometimes, if the pub was open when I passed, took a carry-out container with a few pints in it). I had no problems in taking sufficient beer to see me through the day.

[hopjack13]

http://www.realbeer.com/news/articles/news-001790.php
there's an artical on canned beer (micro) here on this site.
might help????

[steveh]

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, factory-workers in Chicago would carry their lunches to work in a metal pail. These pails had a wire-like handle and fitted, removable, hinged lid for a top. At lunch-time the pails were emptied of food-stuffs and given to neighborhood boys who would run it to the local tavern to be filled with beer for the factory-workers' accompaniment to his mid-day meal.

On the walk home from the factory in the evening, the workers would stop to have the pail filled again for home consumption. And yes, these pails were often used as drinking vessels as well. So the precedence of transport and consumption from the same container had already been set. Maybe this was the prompt of drinking straight from the bottle over here? Oh yes, these pails were nicknamed "growlers," it's where the concept of today's brew-pub carry-out was born.

As I said that while I agree that beer is best consumed from its proper vessel, I'm still not stuff-shirted enough to not occasionally slurp from the bottle! ;)

S.

[fretlessman71]

If I had to drink swill beer, I'd certainly drink it straight from the bottle or can. Why, you ask? Easy..... have you ever SMELLED that stuff? YECCH! (Sorry, Brownbeard.... just too tempting.... :D )

[Brownbeard]

I am right there with you. That's why I am searching for the best canned alternative. I have yet to come accross anything that I felt was a "better" alternative to getting the best macro-brew I can find here, and that is Original Coors. Mind you this is something that comes up a few times a year. If I am going to be sitting on a bank next to a campfire or something, I will take a good beer. But when wading through the river banks, to have a few beers with me, the bottles are just a cumbersome lot. I've tried it, and wound up with a beer soaked taklebox.

[hopjack13]

actually...if your going to drink beer (if thats what you want to call it) from a can, it's best to cut a hole in the side and shotgun it.......
:D

[Brownbeard]

Originally posted by hopjack13
actually...if your going to drink beer (if thats what you want to call it) from a can, it's best to cut a hole in the side and shotgun it.......
:D

Aaahhh...Takes me back to high school.

[davesarman]

I think it comes down to availability. There are a few decent beers in cans, if one must go that route. I live in Minneapolis and James Page makes a pretty decent Vienna Lager in a can. I don't know if they distribute as far as you live or not, but I think that would be a perfectly suitable substitute. Find a lager liquor store and you probably can find something more palatable then a macro that is in a can. But, that being said, I'd still try and figure out a way to take bottles. How bought a party pig? It would float and by the time your finished with it, you could crush it and you probably wouldn't care if you caught fish or not!

[chazwicke]

I agree with Richard, beer should be consumed from a proper vessel. I always have mine in a glass and always serve it to guests that way too. When I am camping I have an old glass mug. If I am visiting someone elses home and they offer a beer without a glass, I ask for one. I tell them it tastes better that way and it does. The pour allows some of the gas to escape as well.

[Beerconnoisseur]

Originally posted by Brownbeard
It's sort of like eating at McDonalds. I hate it, try like hell to avoid it, sometimes though it's just the most viable option. I like to drink beer when I fish, but southern Iowa catfishing does not lend itself to bottled beer. And I will not take bottles on the boat. It is just impractical. I was looking for advice on canned beer, not lectures. Thanks Theakston. I will see if I can get those at the local microbrew monger.

As mentioned earlier a party pig is an alternative. You can also try filling a 2-liter bottle with your favorite beer, and then using a carbonator cap to keep the beer from going stale. If I had to, I would go this route, since you can dump the bottle afterwards, and it might even help in places where they don't allow cans (local rivers, lakes, etc).

Unless, of course, you simply prefer the taste of canned beer to beer stored in other vessels.

[Brownbeard]

Originally posted by Beerconnoisseur
As mentioned earlier a party pig is an alternative. You can also try filling a 2-liter bottle with your favorite beer, and then using a carbonator cap to keep the beer from going stale. If I had to, I would go this route, since you can dump the bottle afterwards, and it might even help in places where they don't allow cans (local rivers, lakes, etc).

Unless, of course, you simply prefer the taste of canned beer to beer stored in other vessels.

This sounds like a great option, I have been considering grabbing a carbonator cap and trying it. Could I simply pour my bottled beer into the 2 liter then cap it?

[Beerconnoisseur]

You can. You may need a CO2 ball lock injector (item KEG950 and KEG955) from morebeer.com for providing carbonation, especially if you don't already have a homebrew kegging system.

They also stock carbonator caps (KEG 580), but there is another
thread (http://www.realbeer.com/discussions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=938) on cheap carbonator caps, if you are interested.

[Herb Ninja]

Originally posted by BelgianBeer
In the short term, however, I can't complain, writing this as I am with next to me a glass of 2-year old draught Lambic from Girardin, pulled from a cask that I purchased at the brewery last week at the amazing price of 13 EURO for 10 liters (which amounts to 30 eurocents - about the same in dollarcents - per glass)...

:eek: Thats a steal if I ever saw it. Id buy a glass for a few euros, and if offered to me right now id pay way more then that.