Discussion

        Our research group set out to settle, by the introduction of facts into the argument, the controversy surrounding the differences between light and regular beers.  With camps on both sides claiming superiority for reasons such as their beer being “low carb”, “less filling”, “tasteless”, “same great taste”, “too weak”, “too strong”, the list goes on…, there must be a winner to each of these arguments.  Before one could even begin to understand the results, and what they mean to the argument, one must first possess at least a basic understanding of the beer making process.  Initially there are carbohydrates, enzymes, and yeast in the pre-beer.  The enzymes turn the carbohydrates into sugars, which in turn are fermented by the yeast into ethyl alcohol, and carbon dioxide (Muller, 2000).  This is why we believed that the Bud Light would have lower calories, similar, but slightly lower alcohol content, and a higher amylase enzyme concentration and/or activity when compared to the Budweiser. 

    We found in this process that most of our predictions were in fact supported by our experimental data.  In the carbohydrate section of the procedure, we found by comparing the sample solutions to the sugar controls for Benedicts test (test for reducing sugars), that it is supported that there are more sugars with free aldoses and ketoses in the Budweiser than the Bud Light (Figure 12).  In Barfoed’s test for monosaccharides versus di- or polysaccharides, we found that both contained monosaccharides, or at least a greater proportion of them than longer chains.  Our data also indicate that there are more monosaccharides present in the Bud Light sample than the Budweiser sample (Figure 13).

    In Selivanoff’s test, both samples reacted quickly (<1 minute) in the hot water bath, however Budweiser had a higher concentration of ketoses according to the spectrophotometer absorbance reading (Figure 14).  Bial’s test tested for five versus six-membered furanose rings.  Both turned an olive green color indicating the presence of pentose furanoses (five-membered rings) (Figure 15).  Finally, in the Iodine starch test showed the presence of starch in both samples (Figure 11).

    These results (noted above) are to be expected though.  Due to the increased enzymes in the light beer, more of the carbohydrates should have been broken down into simple sugars (monosaccharide) and thus in Barfoed’s test, Bud Light resulted in a more complete reaction than Budweiser.  With this, it then should logically have a higher absorbance level than Budweiser due to the premonition that it reacted more, yielding a higher absorbance, which it did (Figures 22-25; Table 9, 10)).  This follows from our hypothesis that the light beer would have fewer complex carbohydrates than the regular beer because more of the sugars have been broken down by enzymes to be digested by the yeast.  Therefore, more sugars are available due to this increased enzyme activity and presence.  We tested for this by adding each of the sample beers and saliva to a starch/iodine mixture.  This purple mixture began clearing when the amylase in the sample solution began hydrolyzing the bonds between the polymer starches (Figure 27,28).  Unfortunately, our hypothesis is neither supported nor refuted, as the results of our enzyme tests are highly inconclusive (Tables 8-10).  By comparing the ratio of the rate of the absorption change in the saliva (DASaliva) to the concentration of amylase in saliva (mg/mLSaliva) to the ratio of the rate of absorption change in the Budweiser (DABudweiser) and the Bud Light       

(DABud Light) to their unknown amylase concentration through this equation: 
    DASaliva      =     DABeer   .
   mg/mLSaliva         ?mg/mLBeer

    From this we found that the Budweiser had approximately 1.27 mg/mL of amylase in it, whereas the Bud Light, surprisingly, had 1.25 mg/mL. These results do not necessarily support our hypothesis as we expected that the Bud Light would have more amylase than the Budweiser, but our results indicate otherwise.  However, there are many explanations that could explain the discrepancy.  There is of course the obvious explanation that the results are so close that they are statistically the same.  Also, as we are dealing with an enzyme in solution, we could have taken a sample from a higher or lower concentration than the actual average concentration.  In addition, as the temperature affects the ability of an enzyme to catalyze a reaction, and as this experiment was not temperature controlled, if the temperatures we different by more than a few degrees, the reaction rate may have skewed from normal (Muller 2000).  Imprecise measurements, though not expected to have occurred and minimized, may have occurred during any of the experimental process may also have led to the error.

    Because there is apparently a lower enzyme concentration in the Bud Light than the Budweiser, it makes sense that the Bud Light has a lower alcohol content  The Bud Light beer has an alcohol content of 4.6%, whereas the Budweiser had 4.9% (Yee 1998).  However, this significant a difference cannot be totally attributed to the marginal difference found between the amylase concentrations of the beers.  This difference most likely is due to the, often argued, fact that light beer is watered down at the brewery to make it more consumer-friendly (with fewer carbohydrates and greater alcohol, it would be absorbed more readily and therefore make one intoxicated quicker).  We found this to be in fact, supported by our experiment.  The absorbance of light across the visible spectrum wavelengths by the Bud Light was slightly less than the absorbance of light by the Budweiser at the same wavelengths (Figures 16-18; Table 5).  This follows from the logical conclusion that since both the beers started out with the same ingredients, they originally had the same absorbance, but since the light beer was watered down, its photosynthetic pigments were diluted in solution and therefore the Bud Light would absorb less (Table 5), thus having a reduced graph size across the visible light spectrum as compared to the Budweiser (Figure 17,18). 

    Using the support that these experiments provide, we can reason the arguments between light and regular beers.  In support of light beer, we found that it is lower in carbohydrates, it does have nearly the same punch with similar alcohol content to regular beer, and it therefore could be considered a ‘diet’ beer.  However, regular beer does have a slight edge in alcohol content, and is not watered down, preserving the more full flavor.  In conclusion, now that the facts are known, it still comes down to personal preferences, as one must decide whether they prefer the health benefit of light beer, or the fuller flavor of regular.