Talk:Foster's Lager

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Foster's Lager is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Beer on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Beer Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Picture size

Somebody ought to shrink the size of the picture. Even a beer as good as Foster's shouldn't be allowed that much space on a wikipedia article. =P wongabird 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Suitable for Vegans and Vegetarians

They use fish swim bladders called isinglass to clarify Foster's Lager so it is not suitable for vegans or vegetarians. I have added a reference. 62.3.70.68 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Point removed due to fish used in virtually every lager. Dr Wong 07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Unfortunately from this sentence: "Unfortunately this resulted in the alcoholic strength of the local product being reduced from 5% ABV to about 4% ABV." Spaaarkz

[edit] Popularity in Australia

Some clown removed this section which I have re-instated as it presents an accurate story about how Fosters became unpopular in its own Birthplace! I take it that the vandal works for CUB. Also altered an inaccurate statement that Heineken is an imported beer in Australia. Not so, it is brewed here under licence by Lion Nathan. Also note that licence, in British and Australian usage, is a noun, as in 'driver's licence'. The form license is a verb... e.g 'licensed to kill'. --MichaelGG 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Further strengthened this section by including some refs as to Fosters Groups "preferred beers" in Australia, plus a link to an interview with the current operations manager at the Yatala Brewery (Formerly the Powers Brewery mentioned in this section). Powers was pre-internet so very few references to it still exist, although CUB trots out Powers Gold in 30 can blocks as a Christmas special.--MichaelGG 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fosters pint.jpg

Image:Fosters pint.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. [Confusing uninformative waffle and threats deleted.] BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A rationale has now been placed on the image page. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dog flavour

Question about Foster's: It is more or less similar to American beers, with one important difference: It has a distinctive dog flavor to it. What exactly accounts for this dog flavor and just what is it that makes the dog flavor so different, so appealing? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sceptical, but "Assuming Good Faith" ...)
What is a "dog flavour"? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have been clearer. Of course, I've never tasted dog, per se, but of course everyone is familiar with the smell of dog. As an experiment, you might try a comparison: First, take a taste of your standard issue American beer, say Budweiser or Miller, then a taste of Foster's. Try to pinpoint the difference.

To me, the difference is dog flavor. Now what is dog flavor? It's a certain je sais quoi I might describe as the flavor of an American lager steeped with dog. That is to say, imagine taking a vat of Budweiser, allowing a small pack of dogs to swim in it, filtering, then bottling. I believe the result would bear a striking similarity to Foster's.

Now obviously, Foster's probably does not use this approach to achieve their distinctive flavor. But what do they do instead? That's what I'd like to know. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. I see. Thank you for clarifying that you did, indeed, mean exactly what you said.
I presume you're aware that a dog may have several smells? (e.g. wet dog, dusty dog, freshly washed dog, etc.)
Is the flavour you're referring to associated with any particular dog smell, or just "generic dog"?
But I digress. In answer to your original question, I believe it's something to do with the grain/yeast combination. I will investigate further, but it's difficult to find Foster's in Australia these days, and American-made Foster's probably tastes different anyway; certainly British-made Foster's has a different taste to Australian-made Foster's. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And yes, I imagine a dog flavoured beer would have a certain je ne sais quoi. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to have left out a crucial "ne." Had it a certain je sais quoi, I suppose I wouldn't be asking after it.

As to what sort of dog, I suppose I was thinking something between dusty dog and just-finished-playing-frisbee dog, not so much a freshly washed dog. Of course, the procedure I describe above would certainly result in a wet dog, but a dog wet with beer would pretty obviously smell and probably taste like whatever beer it's been in, so it's not much of a way to describe the beer itself. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect the water used by the various breweries makes the difference. As I was a teen, the local Budweiser used water from the Merrimack River. Before the Clean Water Act, one could make beer from the water but not swim in it. Frothing rabid dog corpse flavour would have been an improvement. Considered superior at the time was Carling's Larger ("Hey, Maybel, Black Label"), brewed from the water in Lake Cochituate. Imagine my surprise in the 1990's to find Carling's Black Label Ice for sale in London: quite tasty but a different flavour. jmcw (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But of course! It's most unlikely that the recipies would be different; much more likely to be due to the local water. (And local health regulations?)
Also, when I was young, I read a delightful little book called "We keep a pub". (I still have it somewhere, but can't put my hand on it at the moment.) It told of a number of factors affecting the flavour of beer in British pubs. However, I assume you're referring to Foster's-in-cans, so that's not relevant here. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
More likely the hops. Australian beers use hops such as Pride of Ringwood that are unknown in the USA. For many years Fosters Brewing Group have used hop extract rather than boiling the hops in the wort and maybe export the necessary extract (which is very compact compared to fresh hops) to the USA. When living in England prior to migrating to Australia, Fosters struck me as having a distinctive 'aniseed' or 'caraway' twang. I don't notice it now as it tastes almost identical to the other Fosters Group offerings such as Victoria Bitter and Carlton Draught, so my taste buds have obviously adapted. --MichaelGG (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)