TOPIC:

The general tenor of the discussion here is pretty squarely anti-CAMRA, perhaps because their definition seems legalistic and their tone elitist and sanctimonious (which wouldn't be my impression of them by any means, but others have different experiences), but surely they're on to something right with their focus on unfiltered beer on the yeast. Surely there's an acceptable definition of something–call it 'natural ale' for want of a better term, since we all agree 'real ale' is problematic– somewhere in the same ballpark as the existing definition. Isn't the whole point to derogate the sort of industrial processes that can strip beer of its natural wholesomeness and character? The exact definition may draw the the line too tightly, but I'd certainly support something along those lines. I'd like to hear Adam's further thoughts on the issue of cask breathers, but that definitely seems like a case where the narrowness of the definition excludes something that intuitively fits the bill.

Seán asked how I package my beer. I bottle lots of it. I've started batch priming with some of the original wort that I hold back after the boil. I think this preserves the character of the beer better than sugar, but I admit it's mostly guesswork trying to get the carbonation right (although I have found some calculation tables from that Braukaiser guy's website here[url:2s33q0o4]http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Accurately_Calculating_Sugar_Additions_for_Carbonation[/url:2s33q0o4]) The stuff I don't bottle I put into polypins or a pressure barrel. In each case the beer is dispensed through the force of gravity and the difference in air pressure. I like the results of the pressure barrel. I find it doesn't go off even after I'm forced to let a little external air in because there's still a layer of CO2 on the beer and it dispenses from the bottom anyway.

Your beer would indeed meet the definition of Real Ale, but so would beer which has been filtered, then had some magic beans[/url:2s600dw6] and a bit of sugar added at packaging time.

Most of my beer does not (my bottle conditioned stuff does). It is unfiltered, but it is served on top pressure so not "Real".

I don't have a problem with CAMRA. They have done a huge amount of sterling work for beer in the UK and that has influenced and encouraged craft beer in other countries too.

I find it funny the way they tie themselves up in knots with their orthodox definitions of what beer should be. Cask good, keg bad. No extraneous co2, so no cask breathers, but say nothing about filtration. They would rather that beer be thrown out, or served past it's best than have a pub employ a cask breather.

But none of this is really my business. I don't live in the UK and they can do what they like there. When I visit, I enjoy the casks beer and if I occasionally wind up a CAMRA member about cask breathers, it's all in good fun (although most CAMRA members I talk to have no problem with cask breathers, which is most unsatisfying).

What I dislike is when people employ the term here in Ireland. CAMRA do not campaign in the Republic of Ireland and their definition of "real ale" has no validity here. We have a growing number of excellent craft breweries in Ireland and some very talented home brewers producing wonderful beer. The last thing I want to have is someone using a definition form another country to imply one beers superiority over another, based on dispense method.

I suppose we do have to be thankful for the work that CAMRA has done over the years but equally the elitist attitude is somewhat grating.
I'm all for preserving good quality beer/ale but short of someone using poor quality ingredients/unsavory practices in it's production or serving then really they need to move forward with their definitions/outlook.
The world has changed a lot in the last 30/40 years. I dont see people complaining that the new Mac AirBook isn't enough like a Spectrum ZX!!

I miss the rubber keys.

"sbillings":1e85nn7t wrote: They would rather that beer be thrown out, or served past it's best than have a pub employ a cask breather.
[/quote:1e85nn7t]

I agree whole heartedly with everything you said except for this bit.

I think CAMRA admits that they would rather a pub use a cask breather than serve beer in poor condition; they won't let you in the Good Beer Guide and Cask Marquee would get rid of your window sticker if you get caught, but they seem to prefer cask breathers to beer past it's best. (Although their system does incentivise pubs to sell beer past it's best vs. put in a cask breather.)

I just read through the book "Cellermanship 5th Edition" by Patrick O'Neill, published by CAMRA Books; it spells out CAMRA's stances on these issues repeatedly and fairly clearly so it's been on my mind a lot lately.

The recurring theme is that CAMRA feels that pubs should sell Cask Ales within 3 days to ensure that they're in peak condition (and when I say "condition"$$ I don't mean the CAMRA definition of "proper carbonation levels between 0.9 and 1.1 volumes", but I mean a more holistic definition closer to the definition in the dictionary); they essentially say that if you can't get through a cask in 3 days as a pub owner you've either put on too many casks at a time or you've bought the wrong size cask and should've bought a smaller one so you could get through it in 3 days.

In the chapters leading up to the "Demand Valve/Cask Breather" chapter on pg 72, they talk about publicans in the past implementing "blanket pressure CO2" on casks in the past and that they often applied this blanket pressure by setting a normal CO2 regulator to 2 or 3 PSI, and then explain that CO2 regulators really aren't very accurate at these pressures and the result is pressures much higher that end up actually carbonating the beer beyond what it would be with proper traditional soft spile venting (1.1 volumes at 13C).

They then go on in the "Demand Valve/Cask Breather" chapter to talk about the cask breather as the "only acceptable" method of applying extraneous CO2 for pubs that absolutely can't get through a cask in 3 days. -There's a place in the book where I remember them explicitly saying that they'd rather see a pub carry cask ale and use a cask breather if they're a small pub and it takes them longer to get through a cask than to not carry cask ale at all. (Of course you'll get removed from the Good Beer Guide and the Cask Marquee programs.)

I feel much better about the CAMRA stance after reading it for myself. It definitely seems like they're erroring on the side of tradition and beer quality by essentially saying "if you can't turn over a cask in 3 days, you bought the wrong size cask and won't be able to guarantee quality after 3 days".

Can a cask breather give you good beer for a bit longer? Sure it can; CAMRA's own blind taste tests confirmed this but their stance seems to be that cask breathers are likely to lead pubs to leave casks around for too long and that they'll still having ageing-related problems even with cask breathers if unscrupulous pubs leave them on for too long.

CAMRA is an organization who's aim is to promote traditional British Cask Ale; the majority of the quality of cask ale (and therefore cask ale and CAMRA's reputation) relies upon the pubs themselves treating it properly; a stance that ensures that if pubs keep a cask on for more than 3 days that pub goers will know it and complain probably is more effective at controlling the pub's behaviors than an alternative that gives them a bit of leeway in selling dodgy beer.

The exact quote from the chapter is:
[i:1e85nn7t]It is not worth using demand valves (cask breathers) in outlets with normal sales volumes since it involves an unnecessary expenditure on gas and equipment. Furthermore, it can lead to lack of care in cask size control, with beers consequently being subjected to abnormally long shelf lives. With the breather, casks can be kept on sale for periods far longer than brewers ever intended, periods well beyond the sell-by-dates now common in the trade. the result is the beer, although still retaining condition and being protected from bacterial contamination, develops other unusual, "old" flavours that with normal cellar practice would not have had time to appear before the onset of flatness and sourness.[/i:1e85nn7t]

A very, very similar related quote is from the previous chapter on "Blanket Pressure" and I think describes the CAMRA stance pretty well.

[i:1e85nn7t]The acceleration in the various deterioration processes that occurs after a cask is half empty (when the remaining beer has a large surface to volume ratio) leads to the rationale for blanket pressure. The argument is that by excluding the air the "blanket" would both prevent the beer from biological contamination problems and preserve the condition. Proper choice of cask size to suit the level of trade, good cellar hygiene and good cellarmanship make it unnecessary; [b:1e85nn7t]use of blanket pressure is thus an admission of lack of foresight.[/b:1e85nn7t]
Nevertheless, there are a few exceptional circumstances in which it can be justified. Very low turnover outlets, especially ones with erratic trade patterns, may be obliged to use a blanket pressure system if they wish to offer a good quality cask beer rather than only keg.[/i:1e85nn7t]

-They then go on to explain that the only "proper" way to apply this blanket pressure is via a cask breather.

-Note their careful choice of words in the above paragraph. "Good quality "cask beer"". -They didn't call it "Real Ale" because it doesn't meet their definition.

CAMRA does talk about the desire to not allow possibly contaminated air into a keg and actually supports the use of "Manx pegs" which is an automatic spile that lets excess CO2 pressure off, like a soft spile and then pulls in air upon dispense through a sanitary air filter. (It still results in less than 1 volume of CO2 after 3 days of dispensing, but it's a nice middle-ground.)


Adam
P.S. I'm not saying I AGREE with CAMRA's stance on "top pressure"$$ just that it's more fair and thought-out than I originally thought it was.
My own personal opinion is that it would be better if you didn't have oxygenation of the beer towards the end of the cask and that the beer is carbonated at 1.1 volumes all the way through the cask instead of 1.1 at the beginning and 0.9 at the end. -The cask breather can do this and was designed to; it's the ideal situation IF you trust the pubs not to abuse this concession by selling beer past it's expiry date.

Thanks for the explanation Adam.