Audience Participation: The Feasibility of the BrewBar

I was talking with some people yesterday and we were trying to think of a bar (not brewpub/restaurant) that brewed its own beer.

Can you think of any brewpubs that don't serve any food and don't distribute? Need not be Wisconsin-only. Bagged snacks are OK, but no re-heated pizzas (Ale Asylum) or dining rooms (The Great Dane). So, a bar that brews its own beer.

Off of the top of my head, I can think of three here in Wisconsin. Rowland's Calumet Brewery in Chilton. Although, to be fair, Rowland's does distribute kegs in the 30 mile radius around Chilton. The other is StoneFly in Milwaukee – although apparently even they opened a kitchen back in November. It does look like Silver Creek Brewery in Cedarburg is drink only – although, I could swear they had food, some questioning reminds me that maybe it was just popcorn (OK under our standards). So, of those three, only one actually fits our requirements.

If you were starting a brewery and did not want to distribute, but did not want to deal with the headache of food, what do you need? Live music seems a must. Probably a pool table. Maybe some TVs in the corner? Or, you know, make it like a bar. And sell your own beer. Silver Creek goes with other beers on tap just to provide some diversity. It would be interesting if this theory were challenged and a bar could only serve its own beer (although, I think, technically, that you have to have at least one non-brewery beer on tap under the current brewing laws – even The Great Dane sells Miller Lite if you ask for it).

Why do you think this is? Why don't more bars just have their own 7 barrel brewing systems? I mean, yeah, it seems kind of inefficient and risky if you don't know what you are doing. But back in the late mid and late 1800s, many bars also brewed their own beers; refrigeration issues made it difficult to keg anything, so the beers would have been served out of fermenters/conditioning tanks, which would have been kept cool in a basement, or, if you were lucky, a cave.

Anti-tied-house laws prevent distributing breweries from having their own bars. Maybe because there isn't enough money it? Most brewers think bigger scale? Anyway. A strange phenomenon.

Some Would Say That They Are Trying To Play For Both Teams

The big news last week is that Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch, is soon to release "Budweiser American Ale."

The world may, in fact, be coming to an end.

Indeed, in a new-ish sorta brewery about 50 miles north of Hot-lanta, where the Michelob specialty beers are brewed, A-B, who owns Michelob, is also working on a dunkelweizen (a dark, wheat beer), an Irish red ale, a run-of-the-mill brown ale and, of all things, an American barley wine.

The apocalypse is nigh. The horsemen are getting ready to ride. And my anus is fully dilated with the pigs' head just starting to breach.

The news is making its way through the blog-o-tron.

Some interesting highlights from that coverage:

So who is a Bud Ale aimed at? Just who does A-B think will be the customer for this product? According to an article in last Friday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the target audience is “what A-B’s marketing department calls ‘experimenters’ — drinkers who bounce around among various beers such as Yuengling, Fat Tire, Hoegaarden and Budweiser.”[cite]

Bud American Ale has 5.1 percent alcohol by volume, according to label filings. A-B received approvals for 12-ounce bottles and three sizes of barrels (half, quarter and 1/6).[cite]

the main text says: “Budweiser American Ale defines a new style of ale – The American Ale – created by Anheuser-Busch brewmasters to deliver robust ale taste that’s full-bodied, but not too heavy nor too bitter.” The side text says "Carefully brewed with barley from America's heartland and Cascade hops from the Pacific Northwest, this rich, amber-colored ale has robust flavor, and a distinctive, hoppy finish."[cite]

So, that really says it all. I could make some snarky comments about the impossibility of Bud succeeding in this. How ridiculous the segment of "experimental drinkers" is (really, do you know anyone that 'switches between Yeungling, Hoegaarden, Budweiser and Fat Tire'? I don't. The "experimenters" I know wouldn't touch Budweiser American Ale with your ten foot pole).

What I'd prefer to focus on is the name of this thing: Budweiser American Ale. I think it's deceptive and a terrible trademark. Think about this. How do you order one? "I'll have a Budweiser"? No. "I'll have an American Ale"? No, can't do that either. Lots of breweries make "American Ales" - American Pale Ales, American Amber Ales, American India Pale Ales, etc. And, even if it does become acceptable to order one as an "American Ale" it seems to me that it would dilute the meaning of those various labels listed above for others' uses. Moreover, it erodes the meaning of the phrase. So, what if "American Ale" becomes popular and Bud wants to expand the brand. Now we have the Bud "American Amber Ale"? The Bud "American IPA"? A-B has now absconded with the generic styles through erosion of a quasi-generic phrase.

Hey Barkeep! I’ve Got A Lot of Questions

Usually with "Hey Barkeep!" we try to answer one question in detail. This month we're going to take a few questions – some from real live folks, but some from the searches that end people on this site. As I'm sure you are aware, I have the ability to see how many people visit this site each day (for those interested, it's around 100 per day, plus another 100 from RSS feeds). About one-third to forty percent of those visits are from search engines. Did you know that I can also see what people searched for that resulted in them being at my site? It's great fun.

But first. Trust me we will do a much bigger piece on this closer to Memorial Day, but on Wednesday we were talking about beers for grilling and BBQs. So, what would I recommend for drinking with grilled chicken? On the first day that the ol' MBR grill got busted out for the year, we had grilled chicken marinated in tandoori and garam masala spices and a lemon artichoke salad (with some carrots and potatoes thrown in for good measure). Paired with this wonderful food, we had the De Proefbrouwerij Saison Imperiale, a Special Reserve Belgian Farmhouse Ale from the Brewmaster's Collection. It was purchased for $9.99 + tax (about $10.25 or so) at Steve's on the west side. Also under consideration for this meal was the Thiriez Blonde ($12.99 plus tax). The Imperial Saison (nomenclature aside) complimented the chicken well. While I would have preferred a bit more hops (maybe the Blonde would have been better), the pleasant fruity tartness cleaned the palate well and the additional body on a traditionally lighter-bodied beer didn't make me full. The musty, cherry and lemon aromas complimented the chicken's earthy spices and the salad's acidity. All-in-all, a good choice.

On to the searches; these are all real search terms that resulted in hits on this website in just this past week:

Q: "Steam beer is classified as which general beer style"
A: Back in January we talked about a taxonomy of beer. We talked about how the "family" of beer has two "genus" types – ales (top fermenting yeast) and lagers (bottom fermenting yeast). Steam beers use lager yeast, so they are technically, lagers. We then discussed how you can group the genus of ale or lager into two species: warm fermenting and cold fermenting. And in each genus you will have beers of each species. Most ales are warm fermented (temperatures above 55 degrees F), but porters are cold fermented ales. Similarly, most lagers are cold fermented (temperatures below 45 degrees F), but steam beers are warm fermented. So, to answer the question: steam beer is a warm-fermented lager.

Q: "Average amount of alcohol compunction"
A: Compunction: a feeling of deep regret. Despite my guess that the person meant "consumption" not "compunction" I would guess that the average amount of feeling of deep regret related to alcohol is fairly high and directly proportional to "consumption" on a rising logarithmic scale.

Q: "Drank too much and vomited"
A: Yeah. That'll happen. Probably a great amount compunction (see above).

Q: "Alcohol spending in Wisconsin"
A: For the most recent data I could find online (Fiscal Year 2002), the state of Wisconsin collected $9.6 million in excise taxes on beer. At $2 per barrel (although there are some breweries that only pay $1 per barrel), that's more than 4.8 million barrels (31 gallons) of beer. Given that Wisconsin only has 5.6 million people, 24% of whom are under 18, that's over a keg of beer per adult in 2002. To get a rough idea of the amount that we spend on beer, we can multiply the number of barrels sold by the going-rate for a keg (31 gallons, also called a "half-barrel", but one of these days we'll get into this weird naming system). Ranging from $45 (Natural Light) to $150 (Guinness), we can take a weighted average and call it, maybe $80? Would you agree that that's fair? So $80 a keg for 4.8 million kegs is $384 million or thereabouts. A third of a billion dollars on beer alone in the state of Wisconsin. Nice.

Q: "What is rauch ale"
A: Rauch beers are smoked beers. They can be either ales or lagers. In either case, the malts are smoked before use, traditionally over beech-wood, in some cases hickory or apple woods. For the smoking process, the malted barley is confined with smoking wood for a period of time (as little as a few hours, as much as a day or two) then used in an otherwise normal brewing process. I haven't heard of breweries "cheating" and using "liquid smoke", but I'm sure it happens.

Q: "Returnable beer bottle Indiana"
A: Don't know. Why don't you ask the Hoosier Beer Geeks?

Why Even Keep Up The Pretenses

Are you excited? The latest Dane County BusinessWatch magazine is out! I know, as a beer geek you've been waiting all year for this issue. It's the issue where this bastion of fine business journalism looks at the "Best brews for BBQs. ... wines, too!" Don't forget the wines.

Well, imagine the shock, horror and amazement you would feel when you actually turned to page 31, to find ... this: (my comments in black)
Best Brews
for BBQs Wines too!
By Michael Muckian

Summertime, and the grilling is easy. Brats are jumping, and the temperature’s high. But what wines and beers go best with grilled meats? The answer often depends on what you’re preparing and for whom.

Wait a minute, now it's "wine and beer." What happened to "best beers" (and wines, too)? But still, the brats are jumping and the temperature's high. Perfect for an ice cold Capital US Pale Ale? A New Glarus Edel Pils? A Tyranena Three Beaches Honey Blonde? Heck, maybe a Furthermore Proper, a Central Waters IPA, or any of the dozens and dozens of Wisconsin summertime beers.

Grilled meats — burgers, brats, tuna steaks, hot dogs and ribs — appear either naked on the grill or dressed in tangy, sticky barbecue sauce that can alter the entrée’s flavor palette, dictating which beverages best match it.

mmm....ribs.

Sometimes it’s best to check with the experts before popping the wrong cork or twisting an incorrect cap.

Well, it's not always best to check with an expert first, but I understand what you're getting at.

“You want a wine that is imminently quaffable with a lower alcohol content,” says Craig Madigan, a registered first-level sommelier and general manager of Johnny Delmonico’s, the downtown Madison steakhouse. “A red wine with 14.5 percent alcohol level or more is too ‘hot’ for hot weather. Go with something lower in alcohol and more refreshing in character.”

I thought this was about beer (and wine, too)? This is starting to sound like it's more about wine. Moreover, it doesn't look like this "expert" would know a good, Wisconsin beer if it came gift wrapped. There's only three Wisconsin beers on the Delmonico's "Wine List" - Fauerbach Amber, Capital Amber, and Miller Mother-f'ing Lite. Now, I'm not slamming Fauerbach or Capital, they make fine beer, but, come on - Capital Amber?! This is a beer list chosen by a distributor, not by someone who knows anything about beer. I'm sure Mr. Madigan knows everything there is to know about wine, and admittedly, that's what he's talking about here, but I thought this was an article about "Best brews for BBQ ... and wines, too"?

Madigan says reasonably priced younger wines best complement outdoor grilling fare, something fruit-forward in character and acceptable to a broader array of palates. He recommends the following wines:
• Roshambo Zinfandel (about $14), from California’s Sonoma Valley, is not your typical fullbodied “peppery” Zin. Characterized by jammy fruit flavors, the wine is brighter than other zins and easier on the palate and the pocketbook.
• Qupé Vineyards Syrah ($19) is a richer, fuller wine, but one with good fruit, serving as a fine match for grilled fare.
• For something completely different, go with a Furst Gewürztraminer ($12). Gewurz is German for “spicy,” and the white wine, produced in France’s Alsace region, is redolent of fresh apricots and spice, delivering flavors both refreshing and unique to the average American wine palate.

Setting aside the derogatory "average American wine palate" we have now had descriptions of three wines and not a single beer even mentioned.

If you plan on serving beer,

Oh, here we go. The article about beer and we finally get the "if you plan on serving beer" like "not that you'd want to, but if you're going to ..."

Madigan

Because he's clearly so knowledgeable about beer

suggests Samuel Smith Nut Brown Ale. Lighter in body, but with a nice caramel malt flavor, the British brew stands up to anything your picnic table can support without weighing the drinker down.

For a high temperature summer barbecue you recommend a nut brown?! Not to say you're not entitled to your opinion, but this suggestion is absurd from a professional. Besides the obvious fact that it's one of the few beers that he actually serves, who the heck orders a Samuel Smith Nut Brown in the middle of August to drink with burgers and ribs? If you're saying to yourself "nobody," you'd be pretty darn close. No Tyranena Bitter Woman, Lakefront Cream City, Lake Louie Premium. No. Screw all of those. You want a Samuel Smith Nut Brown. Does Mr. Madigan get a commission on the stuff?

For Josh Foley, a second-level sommelier and bar manager for the Capitol Chophouse in the Hilton Madison Monona Terrace,

ummm ... I thought this was about beer (and wines too)? Why are we still talking to sommeliers? You couldn't find a single person knowledgeable about beer to help you? The score is now 3 wines to 1 beer. Let's see, maybe Mr. Foley knows something about beer, at least the Capitol Chophouse sells Ale Asylum.

it’s food first, beverage second. The meat is always the constant, Foley says, but variations in sauces will drive the wine and beer selection. Sauces range from tangy vinegar and tomato-based variety to mustard-infused marinades to Asian hoisin and teriyaki sauces, each of which commands its own approach and colors beverage choices. Foley suggest the following matches:

• Tomato-vinegar basted meats call for a bold red, like the Castello Banfi Brunello (about $40). The structure and balance of
the Italian red wine, made from the Sangiovese grape, helps tame the sauce’s character and stands up to its more strident elements.
• Lighter sauces demand brighter wines, such as Campo Viejo Riserva ($15), a Spanish red made from the Tempranillo grape with a buoyancy that pairs an inherent earthiness with hints of wild strawberry.
• A mixed-meat grill – burgers, brats and chicken breasts are popular– calls for a more well-rounded wine, such as the Zilzie Shiraz ($12) from Australia’s Victoria region. The lighter body and brighter fruit make the wine a hit with more drinkers.

That's three more wines and so far, only one poorly suggested beer. This is absurd. Why was "beer" even in the title to this article? If you can't do something right, don't do it at all. Clearly, these guys know a lot about wine. The descriptions are interesting, and seem appropriate for the food. But so far, the beer knowledge is, excuse the phrase, piss poor.

Smoked meats create their own flavor demands, says Foley. A bold Zin can help cut the taste on the palate,

seven wines

while on the beer side he suggests extending that palate with a German rauch (smoked) beer.

Rauch beers with smoked food is widely considered obvious and a big no-no amongst the beer-food-pairing cognoscenti. The double smoked whammy is usually just too much - save the smoked beers for creamy, but firm cheeses like gouda and strong, rustic, non-smoked, foods where the smokiness adds flavor to the meal instead of compounding the flavors. So, Mr. Foley doesn't seem to be of any more help than Mr. Madigan.

Dan Carey, brewmaster for New Glarus Brewing Co., created his own version with Smoke on the Porter, part of his “Unplugged” series that mixes rauch beer elements within the body of a dark British porter. “I like Smoke on the Porter because the smoke element is more mellow and understated,” Foley says.

Besides the fact that this was New Glarus' winter seasonal beer and will likely be off the shelves by the time the summer grilling season rolls around, who would drink a full-bodied smoked porter in late July?

Sorry, but this article does absolutely nothing to educate consumers on beer choices for summer barbecues. It covered seven wines, and two beers that best consumed in the fall! And it was billed as a beer article, remember? "Best brews for BBQ's ... wines, too!" But it was actually, "Best wines for BBQ and a couple of beers that you will really like in late October."

In the coming weeks, I promise you we will post some actually usefully information about beers that you might actually enjoy with that bbq. In the meantime, please, please do not take the advice of these sommeliers.

Audience Participation: Lifting the Couch Cushions and Looking Under the Driver’s Seat

Who knew there was such a thing as "premium" light beer? Or, more precisely, who knew that Miller Lite is considered a "premium" anything?! But, it's still an interesting question.

Given the economic downturn, and beer's status (particularly craft beer's) as a luxury item, will people start turning to beers like Busch Light, Old Milwaukee and Milwaukee's Best instead of drinking Dogfish Head 120 by the case? According to Miller Brewing's henchman over at Ye Olde Brew Blog, "wide price gaps can encourage people to trade down."

Currently, the going price for a six of New Glarus Seasonal seems to be around $7.99; a case of the stuff will set you back a cool $32. Compare that with $17.49 for a 30-pack of Busch Light. A price gap of $14.50. The price gap between Miller Lite, a "premium light beer," and Busch Light, presumably not a "premium light beer," is $4.33, up from only $3.94 a year ago; and Miller is worried about defectors.

So, is a widening a price gap going to make you change your beer drinking habits? If not, what price reducing tactics, if any, do you intend to take?

Here at MBR we're hoping to get more free beer.

By the way, who determines whether a beer is, or is not, a "premium" light beer? (That's a serious question. If you know the answer or have a marketing data sheet breaking down beer into such categories, I'd love to see them.)

I Was Going To Post About Nutritional Information For Craft Beers

The problem is – it's not available. But what I really didn't know was that I was stepping into a decade long hornet's nest (mixed metaphors? Me? Never!).

 

This is a battle that has been on-going since 1993, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF") determined that "there was no significant consumer interest in having nutrition information on alcohol beverage labels." Then, in 2003, the issue was raised again when a brewery contacted the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB, the latest incarnation of what used to be the BATF) desiring to voluntarily put nutrition information on their labels. Then in December of that year the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and others formally petitioned the TTB to change regulations to require nutritional information on alcohol labels. But, don't go thanking them just yet – their interests may not be entirely in your interest. The Beer Activist Blog notes that "CSPI has long espoused the dangers of alcohol and is what many beer supporters would refer to as a neo-prohibitionist organization. I like some of the work they do, including this awesome table of alcohol industry donations to members of congress, but their overall attitude toward alcohol is that it is ruining America." This petition requested that that beer labels include the following "Alcohol Facts":

• Alcohol content
  
• Amount of alcohol in fluid ounces
  
• Number of calories
  
• Ingredients
  
• Number of servings per container
  
• The current definition of "moderate drinking" for both men and women published by the US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture
  

So, what do you think of these "Alcohol Facts"?

As a consumer, it doesn't seem to me that there is anything too objectionable. Well. Besides that "definition" of "moderate drinking" (currently defined as "one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men).

Yet, various groups have various objections. For instance, the Beer Institute, the primary beer industry trade group, objects to publishing alcohol content. This group would prefer to keep this information from you because "The alcohol content in most beers is in a very narrow range, and consumers are generally aware of that fact." Like the Beer Activist, I call shenanigans on that one. Beers can range from less than 4% ABV to over 20% ABV, while maybe a 16% range is "narrow" to some, it seems like a pretty broad range to me.

Why does the beer industry promote this theory? Well, "The fact is that distilled spirits can contain up to ten times as much alcohol per ounce as a can or bottle of beer. A whiskey drinker can consume as much alcohol in one swallow as a beer drinker consumes in one beer. Most cocktails that Americans will recognize contain more alcohol than a bottle of beer; many contain twice as much. … The misguided equivalence campaign favors an industry that imports most of its product and contributes disproportionately fewer jobs and tax dollars to the U.S. economy when compared to the beer industry." In plain English? The general theory for taxing alcohol is for the industry to help pay for some of the damage that it causes (e.g., increased hospitalization, drunk driving, etc.) – and the beer industry's stance is that by taxing by volume rather than total alcohol output the beer industry is disproportionately taxed for its relative contribution to public drunkenness. For example, in twelve ounces, you can have 4% ABV of beer, or you can have about a third of a bottle of tequila at 40% ABV. What the left hand doesn't want you to remember is that your average drinker drinks more beer than liquor. Moreover, some of these Beer Institute members are talking out of both sides of their mouth, as Anheuser-Busch, MillerSAB, and InBev (the world's largest beer distributors) are aggressively adding to their liquor holdings as well.

This issue also affects what an appropriate serving size is. I would argue that an appropriate serving vessel for the Dogfish Head 120 IPA, a 21% ABV beer, is a champagne flute. In that case a single twelve ounce bottle is two servings, not one. To get the same alcohol content of one twelve ounce bottle of the 120 IPA, you could drink almost a whole six pack of Miller Lite (which one looks like the better deal now?) This all means that the "typical" nutrition information is effectively cut in half – making beer look almost downright healthy!

Then, in 2005, the TTB finally published a proposed rule, setting out the standards for putting labels on bottles of alcohol. There was significant disagreement among the commenters at this time about whether the labels should be mandatory or optional. The medical associations, CSPI and distillers all favored mandatory labeling. The brewing industry preferred that labeling remain optional; ostensibly because the labels would increase costs. There was also disagreement whether to list alcohol content by percent (as is traditional) or by actual volume (about .6 fluid ounces per 12 ounces of "regular" beer, 5 ounces of wine and 1.5 ounces of 80 proof liquor). Recognizing the wide range of alcohol content of beer, the US Bureau of Consumer Protection noted that "Beers in the marketplace range from approximately 3.3% to 17% ABV, thus delivering between .39 and 2 ounces of alcohol per [12 ounce] serving." Perhaps thinking that consumers may be interested to see exactly how little alcohol is in a 12 ounce "regular" beer (only .6 of an ounce? That's not much is it?), the CSPI withdrew their request to display alcohol content by actual volume. The breweries were also in favor of a percentage approach mainly because "a standard serving size is not consistent with the manner in which many alcohol beverages are actually consumed."

During the course of the 2005 process, the comments clearly indicated that "consumers are very interested in having information about the calorie and nutrient content of the alcohol beverage products they purchase. These consumers expressed the view that this information should be available on the product's label."

The latest proposal, issued in July of 2007, merely amends the 2005 proposal to solidify the requirements around the concerns raised to the 2005 proposal – comments for this 2007 proposal ended at the end of January 2008. This proposal would require a "Serving Facts" label that displays alcohol content by volume (disclosure of ounces of alcohol would be voluntary), the serving size (defined as the amount of the alcohol beverage customarily consumed as a single serving – for beer less than 10% ABV, 1 serving is 12 ounces, over 10% ABV, 1 serving is 5 ounces), calories in the serving, carbohydrates, fat, and protein. This proposal would have a delayed effective date to allow a three year implementation period so that small businesses could use up existing label stock and get new labels produced that conform with the requirements.

While the government deleted a comment from "J. Citizen", as a "J. Citizen" myself, maybe I can use my own forum to comment. Really, more information can't be a bad thing. Unfortunately, so many companies use these labels for misleading purposes (e.g., by using unrealistically small serving sizes, etc.). But, as Starbucks is finding in New York City where all chain restaurants are now required to display calorie, carb and fat information at the point of retail sale, more information doesn't necessarily equate to lower sales. People just want to be informed of what they are putting in their bodies. Moreover, the definition of serving size promulgated by the TTB seems eminently reasonable. While quite a few people will drink an entire bottle of, say, the Dogfish Head 120 IPA at 21% ABV by themselves, it doesn't seem absurd to recognize this as, at least, two servings. Interestingly, the craft beer industry suggests (pdf) even more specific serving sizes: 12 ounces for less than 10%, 6 ounces for 10-20%, and a mere 2 ounce serving size for beers over 20% ABV – a shot of 120 IPA anyone? While I applaud the effort, I think that this breakdown unduly "rewards" high alcohol beers (basically divides calorie and carb information in six!) and is not particularly realistic (to wit: the aforementioned champagne flute of 120 IPA).Where the government gets it wrong, I think, is not requiring full ingredient information. There is some suggestion that this is intentional so that people don't realize just how unprocessed some beers are as compared to others. But again, if we view this as a consumer protection regulation, don't you want to know that the beer you are drinking contains more corn than barley? Or more "lemon flavoring" (and the components of that "flavoring") than actual lemons. I recognize the "hassle" of re-tooling bottling lines, or more specifically the labeling portion of the bottling lines, to accommodate this regulation. However, the phase-in period seems reasonable and, really, how much of a hassle can it be? I don't see how it requires anything more than moving some text around on the label to accommodate the "Serving Facts" and printing the label. Perhaps the bigger hassle is actually learning how to calculate this information? Indeed the Brewers Association suggests that reporting tolerances be expanded so that small breweries without the labs of the bigger breweries don't "accidentally" violate the regulation.

Recognizing the inevitability of this regulation, the brewing industry also finally recommends that they be allowed to use as small of a label as possible, preferably a linear display over a full "serving facts" panel.

Wisconsin Brewery Tour

This is the Wisconsin Brewery Tour, we check the various breweries around the state and fill you in on what's going on. It's a good way to get everyone up-to-date on what the Wisconsin breweries are up to for the month (or so).

Minhas: Nothing new to report. They still don't have any information about Lazy Mutt on the site; in fact the first result when I google "lazy mutt beer" is a press release 'review' from the Sioux City Journal. By the way, RateBeer gives it an "8" ("nose and taste of corn, cardboard, and hay. Club soda finish") and BeerAdvocate gives it a "D+" ("Kind of like rotten fruit mixed with molasses.")

Ale Asylum: Nothing new to report on their site. Rumor has it that the Tripel is out this week, though.

Blu Creek: Nothing new on their website; the events are still from 2007.

Capital Brewery: You can get tickets for the Belleville American Music Festival (July 11-12, 2008) at the brewery. The Beer Garden officially opens on May 23rd; May 24th is Saturday Night at the Movies with National Lampoon's European Vacation!

Central Waters: Nothing new to report. The tap room at the brewery in Amherst is open Friday 4-9pm and Saturdays 3-9pm.

Furthermore: The 2008 Fatty Boombalatty is on shelves as of March.

The Great Dane: Bands at each of the locations regularly through May. Mother's Day (May 11) brunches downtown and in Fitchburg - reservations recommended.

Gray's: Nothing new to report.

Lake Louie: Still nothing new.

Lakefront Brewery: Lakefront is one of the few micros available at Miller Park. May Madness for the Guitar Hero tournament begins May 11. Beer dinner on May 9.

Minocqua Brewing: Will be at Red Crown Lodge on May 10th.

New Glarus: In July New Glarus will be releasing a Beliner Weiss for its "Unplugged" series - this should be really fun as it is a style that is very rare outside of Germany. We'll have more when it is out. Edel Pils is out in May and Dancing Man Wheat is out in July.

Pearl Street Brewery: No new news to report, apparently.

Rowland's Calumet Brewing: Finally online!! Beer Fest on May 18th is sold out.

Rush River Brewing: Still unavailable in Madison or Milwaukee. Their hefeweizen is now in season!

Sprecher: MaiBock was released last week. May is Sprecher's Book Drive - so take them a book! May 5th is the "Blessing of the Bock" at the Falcon Bowl. And May 18th is the Calumet Beer Fest!

Steven Point Brewery: Nothing in the near future. The "Nude Beach" wheat ale is out on May 1st.

Leinenkugel's: Summer Shandy is out and distribution has been extended. Leinie Lodge Family Reunion is June 14th.

Sand Creek: I was intercepted by StopBadWare.com when I tried to visit. Is everything OK up there?

Tyranena: May 4th is Brunch at the Brewery. May 5th is Bark and Brew, a series of doggy seminars. Brewers Gone Wild now available: Devil Over A Barrel Imperial Oatmeal Coffee Porter Aged in Bourbon Barrels (that's a hell of a name!)

Viking: website was down - sorry guys!