Canning is cheaper and more convenient from a production point of view. You're dealing with a pasteurised liquid that doesn't "condition" (and thus have a small potential to spoil) in storage, and you have nothing like the breakage/failure rate that bottles experience. I can understand canned ales being popular, but they're only rarely going to live up to their draught and bottled stable-mates. There's a good reason that so few brewers in continental Europe primarily use cans - because it doesn't do their beers any favours, and they refuse to brew "for the can". Over here the big breweries spent 50 years brewing for their own convenience, so you got abominations like Watney Red Barrel, which tasted equally vile on tap and in a Party Seven, and tinned Double Diamond, which tasted nothing like it's draught brother.
One of the micro-canning companies has this to say:
"
Does canning real ale effect its taste?
This is a debate that will run and run. Simply put, there will always be people who prefer drinking real ale out of a bottle / glass. We saw the same when we moved form corked wine bottles to screw tops. That’s absolutely fine, of course it is. However, there are many reasons / occasions when this is not possible / not wanted.
The traditional debate has centered on factors including taste, odour and colour. Beer is a sensitive beverage and exposure to both light and oxygen results in off-flavors. It’s a fact that the caps on bottles are rarely not completely airtight, creating a chemical reaction between oxygen and the hops. Bottles invariably let more light into the beer as compared with cans. Cans are impervious to light so the issue is immediately resolved. At WeCan we achieve DO levels of 10-20 ppb, protecting the flavour, reducing chances of creating an unpleasant aroma, and extending the shelf life (in excess of 120 days however dependent on beer type, pasteurisation etc).
Some of the proponents of bottles have remained steadfast in the claim that cans produce a metallic taste, however there has been little empirical evidence to support the claim.
Andy comments, “
I do find it slightly amusing that no one seems to mind the fact that kegged ale often sits in an aluminum keg!”
“We have worked with the manufactures of our cans to ensure that they are lined with water epoxy, which ensures there is no beer – metal contact”.
WeCan Solutions have even conducted a taste test where 3 / 4 blindfolded people stated that the beer that came out of our cans had a preferable taste to that out of a bottle. Why not try their taste test by contacting etc...."
Apparently there is a lining on the inside of the can that prevents beer touching metal, that was on one of the canning sites somewhere.
There's also the fact of what it is stored in, as well as what you drink it out of (same as the way you might decant wine to let it breathe).
I'd agree that historically, the 'big' brewers have canned for convenience rather than flavour. And that in fact the beer itself might even be a different recipe (see
CH1 's comment about London Pride being rotten on BA flights - I agree). But Pride is something primarily you drink uncarbonated from cask.
Also, a lot of the new wave are quite heavy on flavour and alcohol content and so are going to hold their own in a can better than shite like John Smiths and London Pride (in a can at least - I don't mind it on draught if its kept well).
Can't comment on
ViolentPanda 's European dark beers as I don't tend to drink them but I suspect they probably wouldn't be very nice in cans!!
