Muddy waters

I was at a very nice beer dinner on Friday night. It was organised by CAMRA, the Westmorland branch as it so happens. The whole thing was very enjoyable, yes sure, I'd have preferred stronger more tasty beers and was a little taken aback by comments that a 5% beer was not for the faint hearted, but for the vast majority of the attendees I'm guessing the choices were to their preference.

There has been a lot of fuss over the last week regarding CAMRA's stance on keg beer. It was all started by Pete Brown, the outgoing¹ beer writer of the year. Martyn Cornell also jumps in with a bit of a dig at the only consumer beer movement in the UK. Anyone who knows me will also know that I am a CAMRA member who also has sympathies with the views of Pete and Martyn; I'd prefer there to be an all inclusive beer movement that concentrated on quality rather than where the CO2 in the beer comes from. However, perhaps we're not going to get there in the near future.

It was unfortunate that on arriving at the venue of Fridays dinner we went straight into the function room. Unknown to me the cask beers were all in a bar just across the way. The function room bar had the usual selection of keg beer and being in need of a pint several of us plumped for a pint of Guinness each. This later caused an interesting situation when the CAMRA volunteer beer runner for our table was handed an empty Guinness glass. He clearly thought about objecting, although I'm unsure whether this was due to it being dirty nasty keg or just because really his job was to run for the beers that were matched for the meal rather than clearing away dirty pots.

Pete Brown was speaking at the event. He spoke enthusiastically about beer and how it brings people together in ways that almost nothing else does. He spoke about how, when he was in advertising, found that it was the one product that would inspire passion more than any other product he was responsible for. I was sat on a table occupied largely by CAMRA sceptics. I think I'm right in saying that none of use would hide the fact. We all attended the event and enjoyed it. We all attend CAMRA organised beer festivals and largely enjoy them too.

Speaking later to another brewer who had been sat on another table, we observed that although the beers were all good examples of session beers there was little that stirred our inspiration; in our view a multi-course gastronomic delight requires different beers to the highly drinkable session beers that work well in pubs, but I suspect this view would probably be limited to our table and perhaps an equal number of other people in the room - perhaps 10% of those present.

Despite this misgiving the social cohesion between the people in the room was highly observable. Several brewers, active branch members and CAMRA sceptics alike, shared in a common enjoyment, in the form of a malt and hop based beverage that both tastes good and also enables a state of neurological contentment, where even us sceptics could mingle and love everyone there.

The Pub Curmudgeon makes some interesting observations on his blog regarding the CAMRA sceptic view. Mudgie himself often shows a healthy scepticism but interestingly warns of the problems of changing the definition of Real Ale. He also points out that often, and despite this point being denied by many, CAMRA manifests itself as the campaign against keg, rather than the campaign for cask. Sure, the official line is that it does nothing of the sort, but the blindness to this fact betrays the lack of understanding that some of us see activists as being the old dinosaurs that they deny they are.

Which brings me on to Tandleman² and his rebuke. A lot of important points are made, many I don't agree with, but it does make me think, what is the point in worrying? CAMRA exists because a lot of people support a point of view. They are a minority when you look at the total beer drinkers in the UK even to the point that it's tempting to wonder why they bother either. Cookie even suggests that cask should be abolished, which I know he doesn't really believe, but his approach does put this "shit storm" into perspective.

I'd like to see an all inclusive beer movement, one that even includes people who appreciate lout. But realistically it isn't going to happen anytime soon. As Tyson pointed out on twitter, you can't even get CAMRA to agree on sparklers, what chance have we got of changing the view on extraneous CO2? The view is just far too far entrenched for us to expect a change until it hits them between the eyes.

Stringers makes some interesting points about keg. I'm still actually trying to understand what their stance is, but it's thought provoking, which makes it all the more interesting. In the comments it is made clearer that perhaps it is silly to continually complain³ about CAMRA.

What seems clear to me, and is the main point in Tandleman's post that I disagree with, is that there is a growth of craft British produced keg beer. It's small at the moment but I do not agree that it is just done " .......for the gratification of beer geeks" and that " .....it doesn't actually exist". Meantime, for instance, has many outlets around London selling its keg beers. And anyway, do beer geeks not count? A smaller minority than cask drinkers perhaps, but they do exist and their, our, numbers are growing.

I agree that CAMRA can only be changed by democratic process from within. This by itself shows that it's not likely to happen very fast, the active members are the voices that count, like it or not.

Perhaps, as Stringers and others have suggested, we shouldn't complain and just get on with the job of forming something that will satisfy these rare beer geeks. Perhaps it is already happening organically in this apparently on-line world that doesn't really exist. Yes, you know, the one that had scores of people meeting up in Manchester for one hell of a twissup. But of course, that can't of happened because we are all just on-line nutters who don't really exist.

One thing is for sure, CAMRA isn't going to change and the CAMRA sceptics are not going away; there is more chance that that Labour will start agreeing with Conservatives. Good job really, otherwise blogging would get a bit boring I suggest.

------------

¹Pete is most indignant that because the annual awards dinner is two weeks earlier this year, he is only beer writer of the 50 weeks rather than the year, bless.

²OK, sorry Tandleman, but I couldn't resist it.

³But I doubt I'll stop writing about what I see as our⁴ bad points any faster than Tandleman will stop defending the organisation.

⁴Just remember, I AM a member too and occasionally go to branch meetings. And I even like most of the members.

Appropriateness of beer technology

At the Great British Beer Festival I was invited to the Tasting of Fullers Brewer's Reserve No2, and a damn fine beer it is too. I had already been drinking a few beers of the Bières Sans Frontières and am still not convinced I have fully appreciated this beer, nor do I remember the exact detail of the talk John Keeling gave. I have a couple of bottles here so I will try to rectify my lack of full appreciation on another occasion, just so long as I don't do what I did last night and weigh into a bottle after the pub, when my palate is half shot.

Whilst I can try the beer again, what I always fail to do when listening to great brewers talk is remember all the detail of the brewers knowledge. John talked about the technicalities of bottling barrel aged beers, not a subject I'm completely incompetent at, as the success of Æther Blæc has proved, but I'd be a fool if I even pretended to know as much about the microbiology of beer as John does.

I seem to remember John talking about the brewers reserve No2 being a little more susceptible to Brettanomyces generated flavours as brandy has a lower ABV than whisky at cask strength. Actually, I can find no evidence that cask strength brandy is any weaker than cask strength whisky, so I may have misinterpreted¹ this point.

Whether specifically about the No2 or generally about barrel aged beers the point about the microorganisms in the wooden cask is important. John indicated that to enable the beer to be stable after bottling, chill filtering is required, and the beer reseeded with yeast. Although I don't chill filter I am very careful to get very good, recently emptied, long matured whisky casks for my whisky aged stout; this ensures as sterile an environment as possible before the beer comes into contact with the spirit soaked wood. Storing in as cool an environment as possible during maturation is also important.

I know of beer commentators who are horrified at the idea of bottle conditioned beers being re-seeded with yeast. Some purists think that the only correct way to make bottle conditioned beer is to chance the yeast from primary fermentation being strong enough to ensure secondary, anything else is cheating. This could not be a more erroneous point of view.

It is also worth referring back to a post by Zak Avery about beers that go wrong, the dicussions in there about Brettanomyces and a suggestion about pasteurising is interesting; every brewer has to consider what is best for their beer and moreover may not get it right every single time.

I would never make a bottle conditioned beer that wasn't first cleared in conditioning tanks, or perhaps a whisky cask, and then re-seeded and almost certainly primed at the bottling stage. I choose to use finnings where appropriate to clear the beer. Chill filtering may well have advantages to ensure unwanted spoilage microganisms are removed. I understand that Thornbridge have a shiny new centrifuge² which should remove these pesky little guys but leave the flavours much more intact.

I suspect that any good bottle conditioned beer will undergo some form of treatment indicated above. I certainly re-seed every bottle conditioned beer I make, it's madness not to.

This makes me wonder about the "fizzy chemical beer" mantra that occurs in some circles. The use of modern techniques and equipment to ensure quality beer doesn't mean the beer is not a high quality worthy product. It does not mean that re-seeded bottles are inferior to the purity of a bottle that depends on the primary fermentation yeast, quite the reverse. It does not mean that a keg of unfiltered beer is somehow inferior to a poorly kept cask of some poorly executed clone of yesteryears mild, quite the reverse. It does not mean that a week old cask kept under a gentle blanket of carbon dioxide is inferior to a 3 day old cask of the same beer even under ideal cellar conditions, quite the reverse.

As we improve our brewery and our abilities we will be turning to technology to help us out at any point we feel it is appropriate, we hope it will make our beer better and better and better. If it loses us points with the purists then so be it.

----------

¹I sometimes wonder if my honesty is what keeps me from getting any paid writing roles; after all, a real journalist wouldn't be caught admitting that the story might not be true.

²Look in the comments in this post.

Beer Writers' perspective

I have Google Alerts set up on certain keywords. It generally tells me when popular ranking sites are saying something about beer or real ale or pubs. Jamie Goode's wine blog generated one such alert. His post is about the judging of the British Guild of Beer Writers awards. It seems the decisions are made, so everything I write from now on goes towards next year.The trouble is I've got nearly three weeks of increasing suspense before I find out the results. It's enough to turn a man to drink. Jamie, quite rightly, gives away no secrets.

I noticed Jamie reports a couple of interesting topics that seemed to dominate the work entered. One is the good old Portman group versus BrewDog. An argument that most beer writers love to hate and hate to love with equal proportions. The other is more interesting to me.

"A recurrent theme seems to be that although CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) has done some good things for beer in the past, they currently seem a bit out of touch and stubbornly defensive of their own particular vision of ‘real ale’."

Being one of the entrants who might have put this point across to some extent, I'm interested in why such an unbalanced view seems to dominate. It would be all to easy for me to say that it proves the point; beer writers are saying it is so, it must be true.

I'm not comfortable in saying that. I think there might also be the case that the CAMRA view might not have been well represented in the entries.

Shall we discuss?

That was a short one. Is all this twittering making me less verbose?

Real Ale IS important

Do you ever stare information in the face and not get the full picture? I know I often do. But then there is such a terrific amount of information in the world that it is impossible for any one mortal to understand everything. Just to make one's capacity for complete understanding more difficult somebody, sometime ago, invented the Information Superhighway which helps deliver tremendous amounts of knowledge all over the world via the Internet.  Beer information is only a small part, and beer blogging an even smaller part of this virtual world.

Despite the relatively tiny size of the interactive beer information system languishing on the web, I cannot manage to absorb all the fact and opinion. Just to complicate matters, CAMRA have kicked off a forum, which provides further trains of thought to consider. This forum has found critique in some quarters, but personally I think it is a good idea. CAMRA has an image problem, some are unable to accept it has, but it is there. I'm not saying the image problem is fair, and there is indications that it is improving, but it is still there. I believe the forum will show why there is an image problem and the vast majority of members who read the discussions are going to work this out and act.

There are some discussions that clearly show entrenched positions that are as futile as the WWI front line tactics over 90 years ago. However, one of the threads was a very interesting discussion on cask breathers, a subject I also discussed previously. I discovered the CAMRA forums as a result of a link from this thread to my post. That's nice, I put my pennies worth on the forum a couple of times and also noted that there was a motion put forward to challenge the CAMRA view at the AGM. All progress I thought, probably as a result of the discussions causing realisation that the CAMRA position was more than just a little bit silly and entrenched.

A little while later I was reading Tims interesting anti CAMRA views and noted that he claimed the forum to be "full of ignorance and the usual CAMRA brainwashing drivel". Now this puzzled me slightly as I had posted on the forum, although I now realise in fact, not in the particular thread Tim was referring to. I commented to Tim that the forum can't be completely full of drivel because I'd posted there, make your own mind up if that's true. In any case, Tim responded with the facts as he saw them:

"I did notice that the thread regarding cask aspirators started with a whole lot of rubbish, but has resulted in an interesting discussion and put the issue back on the agenda for review at a CAMRA weekend away. A positive outcome which is a direct result of your blog post. You should be proud."

Now I read that just before evening food service "I know all that" I thought, and disappeared into the kitchen to cook some food. But then the significance started to niggle at my brain. Did my post really have that effect? Personally I think a whole lot of other peoples views, including for instance The Beer Nut, has had a dramatic effect on this positive outcome. Indeed, a realisation by the majority that one or two individuals are probably talking out of the top of their head helps. Even if it was my post that caused this result, I can't take all the credit as there were others feeding me relevant technical information.

Still, it's quite a humbling experience to slowly realise that I might have played a part in CAMRA reconsidering their stance on cask breathers. It's one of a number of dogmas that are on my tick list to challenge. A list that is one of the reasons for starting this blog in the first place. I should surely be proud, as Tim suggests, to have had this sort of result. Alas there is something bothering me about the potential for such a major change of CAMRA rulings.

But don't worry, I'm not going back on my original quest to change this view. I really do hope that the view is softened a little. Many people realise there is more to good beer than real ale. It is possible for great beer to come from a keg. I know, I've had some. Rarely do we get good keg beer in this country. What we need right now, in the industry, is some very strong innovation. We need pubs and beer brewers to be ever more innovative and to be able to think outside the box. Most dedicated breweries and pub owners are scared to be progressive because of CAMRA. Abolishing the demonetisation of both cask breathers and keg beer is essential.

But what if the "thin end of the wedge" argument shows some sign of realizing the worst fear? I don't want to be remembered as the man who killed cask ale. In fact I don't want to see Real Ale as a style of beer diminish even slightly. I don't think it will, even if we see a growth of craft keg beer, but I want to make sure.

So, if you are a CAMRA member, just have a think about the full picture. Cask breathers will improve the reliability of quality beer. Making quality beer more available through appropriate use of good technology can help the industry. Help me work towards supporting the cask breather as a solution in the right circumstance and I promise I'll show you that it can build the future of cask beer and the pub industry.

And I'll always fight for Real Ale.

Natural Carbonation

Suitable for a beer wedding?



Seehttp://forum.camra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=85 for background
also see http://stonch.blogspot.com/2009/03/really-really-bad-idea.html
Oh and http://hardknott.blogspot.com/2009/02/toeing-line.html which is where it started for me.

Sorry about the video quality. I'll use spot lights next time. It was done in one take as I only had one bottle. I know, you can't see the bubbles, but they are there, honist.

Now make your own mind up.

Oh, I've just tried my kegged micro brewed fizzy rubbish. It's picked up enough un-natural carbonation now. It tastes bland and fizzy, just like I wanted it to, but it's about 10% the price of the Duvel shown here.

Some people think that us in the industry should not talk about dispense methods as it only distracts from more important things like the beer tie. Perhaps they are right, too many people who think they are experts on how beer is best dispensed actually know jack poo. Maybe they should just concetrate on drinking good beer and leave us to make and serve it, even if that does mean blankets of N₂ (That was especially for TheBeerNut, in case he drops by) Good beer speaks for itself.

Cellar Practice

Having deliberately set out to be controversial in the last post, perhaps it's time to reassert my belief in real ale. I expected some comments to my questions about cask breathers and I really enjoyed the considered responses. I probably expected more agitated comments but in reality it was a good debate.

Unfortunately my followers dropped from 18 to 17 today. I wonder if someone got upset. Well tough really, as Tandleman points out it's a difficult subject but one we should not shy away from.

Let me show you my little world where some of the magic happens. It's not that pretty but it's special, it's my cellar. This is where we really do cask condition our beers. I thought I might take the reader through some of my thoughts on cask conditioning without cask breathers.

Now, this is a special treat for my blog readers. I know it needs a coat of paint. You are my guests in here, just be nice boys and girls and don't pick fault.

The key secret to keeping cask ale good is reducing the amount of bacteria and oxygen getting to the beer and maintaining CO₂ levels in the beer.

Firstly lets consider bacteria. Air contains bacteria, quite a lot actually. Letting air into the cask and coming into contact with the beer is bad news. As Ted and others said in the comments on my previous post there are filters that prevent any bacteria from coming into contact with the beer. We have one such filter, which we normally put on what we expect to be the slowest moving beer. We really need to buy more and put them on every cask.

The second enemy of cask beer is oxygen. Now there is some disagreement about the merits of oxidisation of beer. There is a school of thought that says oxidisation can improve certain beers. It certainly changes the characteristics of beers. Some beer drinkers detect oxidisation as a significant off flavour.

Oxidisation aside, most spoilage bacteria need oxygen to multiply. In the absence of oxygen they can't do a great deal of harm in the short period a cask is on sale. If we limit the amount of oxygen and bacteria getting at the beer then the beer will last longer before detectable off flavours occur.

Finally though, CO₂ is the friend of cask beer. But if we concede that we are not going to add any by artificial means what can we do to ensure there is enough? In cask conditioned beer the residual fermentable sugars left over from primary fermentation are digested by yeast. Rather handily the yeast also uses up any oxygen that might be hanging around. This is good as we don't want any in our beer. So, during cask conditioning we eliminate oxygen and increase CO₂. The level of CO₂ we refer to as the level of condition. Sometimes people talk about volumes CO₂ which effectively is a measure of fizziness. Too much fizziness in cask beer makes it difficult to dispense. Especially if you prefer the correct northern methods of dispense using a sparkler. Most cask beer is vented and allowed to gas off before dispense; Hard pegging the vent hole, to retain the valuable gas, once the correct level of carbonation is achieved.

On dispense of course this vent hole is opened to allow air into the cask. If we didn't do this the beer would end up under vacuum resulting in flat or under conditioned beer. If we are clever, and I admit sometimes I'm not, we replace the hard peg back in the vent hole when we are not serving beer to retain CO₂ and prevent air entering the cask. If we are really clever, which clearly I am not, we buy race spiles or something similar. These are a one way valve that prevents CO₂ escaping. Eventually too much air and bacteria get in and the beer spoils and CO₂ escapes. The result is flat vinegar. The beer should be removed from sale long before this happens.

What perhaps disappointed me about the comments to my post was that no one picked up on the fact that much of the beer that is dispensed from casks is in fact not cask conditioned. To quote the CAMRA web site:

"Real ale is a beer brewed from traditional ingredients (malted barley, hops, water and yeast), matured by secondary fermentation in the container from which it is dispensed, and served without the use of extraneous carbon dioxide."

I repeat that much cask ale has very little secondary fermentation occurring in the cask. There is simply next to no yeast left in the beer. This is done to ensure the brewery has as fast a turn around on casks as possible by ensuring the beer does not need to be in the casks for long.

Perhaps this is not a problem. By this definition, providing some fermentation occurs in the cask then perhaps it's OK, but in reality most of this secondary fermentation happens in conditioning tanks in the brewery and not in the container from which it is dispensed. Moreover, it occurs under artificially added CO₂

Beer that is racked straight from the fermenter, as is the case with my beer, has a good supply of yeast. Secondary fermentation does indeed happen in the cask and the beer is in the cask for at least a week and normally more than two weeks. The yeast uses up oxygen that helps prevent spoilage bacteria from growing. When all the oxygen is used up the secondary fermentation slows significantly as yeast cannot digest maltose easily in the absence of oxygen.

Once the cask is vented and the oxygen starts to come into contact with the beer the oxygen is used up in further fermentation maintaining condition in the beer. This also helps to inhibit oxidisation and bacteria growth by continuing to produce a natural blanket of CO₂.

As a result, I find it is the beers that are not produced using conditioning tanks that keep better. The beers that have sufficient yeast and residual maltose tend to stay good for longer after the cask is vented. If we are to frown on the use of extraneous CO₂ in our casks I think we should consider that perhaps conditioning tanks are not good either.

OK, that was a lot of technical stuff. I considered cutting it down but then thought damn it, there doesn't seem to be much on the interweb about cellar practice. If this is some help to someone then it's worth publishing the lot. If the reader disagrees with my points then feel free to comment, that's what it's all about. For the know-it-alls who have just had their intelligence insulted, I apologise.

Thanks must be extended to all my brewing mentors for this information. In particular Stuart at Foxfield and Mike Parker of Hesket Newmarket and Cask Marque.

Toeing the line

I have been advised not to broach this subject. The general feeling from within the industry is that it is too much of a controversial point to risk the wrath of CAMRA. To even mention the words in my blog will raise suspicions that I might be up to some sort of skulduggery in my cellar. I've always thought that risk can bring a bit of excitement to life, so hang it, I'm going to talk about cask breathers.

Before I go any further I need to point out that I do not use cask breathers and I am very unlikely to ever do so. The reason is simple; I believe I am an honest man. If CAMRA ask me if I use such things I would have to answer honestly. If any member of my branch wanted to see in my cellar I would be only too happy to show them. If CAMRA finds out that a pub is using cask breathers then the pub is not considered for inclusion in the Good Beer Guide. So while my pub is in the Good Beer Guide and CAMRA has it's rules I wish to be true to their policy.

I think I know enough about beer and brewing to be able to analyse this ruling. CAMRA's repulsion to cask breathers, in my view, is not an overall help to the pub and beer industry.  It is an issue that I see as being akin to extreme fundamentalist in in nature. After all, the only real argument against cask breathers is that it is the thin end of the wedge. I would like to find a way to compromise.

What I cannot and do not accept is the argument that CO₂ at atmospheric pressure will somehow damage the beer. If the beer is already conditioned then the CO₂ is simply stopping the air getting to the beer, that air contains oxygen and bacteria which damage beer. CO₂ is not going to be detrimental to the beer as it won't get into it. Beer gives up CO₂ to atmospheric pressure, so the only thing that will happen to beer in casks with cask breathers is it will loose condition, slowly, until an equilibrium is found.

There has been much discussion in the wine industry surrounding the use of screwtops. Although still controversial the wise people would argue that the only thing the stopper can do to damage wine is let in air. Screw tops are safer, cork is much more likely to be faulty and so the result is oxidized wine. I see the argument over air verses CO₂ as the same thing. Air damages beer, CO₂ does not. CO₂, might make it more gassy, but that is it. Oxygen is bad for beer, CO₂ is good for beer.

It is interesting that one of the key definitions of cask beer is that it is conditioned in the cask. I wonder how many ale drinkers know that many breweries don't actually cask condition. Many breweries, indeed some surprising ones, actually use conditioning tanks. These tanks are slightly pressurised with artificial CO₂. The beer is racked into the casks when nearly bright and with a reasonable level of condition making it virtually ready to serve. It is not uncommon for beer to be in the conditioning tanks one day and being served on a bar somewhere the next. The beer is not in the casks long enough for conditioning to occur. Why are conditioning tanks with added CO₂ OK but casks that have the same are not?

I know of pubs that cannot sell 72 pints of real ale in 3 days. I know some pubs that would like to put more beers on at a time, mine for one. Yes I know pins might be part of the answer, but in my experience pubs that order pins from breweries are not considered worth the effort for the brewery. Most of the time there is incentive for ordering more volume, not less. Many breweries do not offer pins as an option.

It's all very well CAMRA advising pubs that they should reduce the number of beers on sale if quality cannot be maintained. I agree that this is very good advice. I also know from my time running this pub that customers like a choice. Indeed, customer choice is one of CAMRA's mantras.

I currently have 4 fizzy taps in use, three cask beers and a real cider on handpull. I have ten handpulls in total which all get pressed into action on occasion. Normally 3-5 is the number we run to maintain quality. Even then my own brewed beer outsells anything else on the bar and it is the beer from other breweries that suffers.

Even if cask breathers were acceptable I would probably not use them on Hardknott beers as they sell fast enough. The dark beer that is currently on my bar is a keg product because I know I would not sell a cask product fast enough at this time of year. Why can I not put a cask product on, with a cask breather and make sure I declare it on the pump clip? Why do I have to resort to keg for a style of beer I would much prefer to source from a local microbrewery?

Right, now I will await your comments with anticipation.