Carbonation question (re: cask history)

[MeridianFC]

I'm new to the forum so I apoligize if this has been asked before (just direct me to the appropriate section).

At what point in history did forced pressurization become the norm? I would guess that filtration entered at about the same point. I'm assuming at some point in brewing history there was a technological advance that made the operation of artificial carbonation possible. I'm curious what the dividing line in time is between refermenting in the keg (or bottle) and the more common modern method of forcing C02 under tremendous pressure into the serving vessel. I've often heard the 60s mentioned as the time that the lager revolution happened in Britain. In the US I can't fathom the mass produced beers from the post war era as being anything other than forced pressurized. Any idea beer historians?

Being a fan of real ale but also of several, mostly Bavarian, lagers I wondered if anyone was aware of any "real" lagers. I am familiar with Harviestoun's (Dollar, Scotland) Schehallieon which apparently is a lager but served in cask/real ale fashion. I've also had the St. Georgen Kellerbrau which is not filtered, but I'm not sure if it's bottle conditioned.

[Richard English]

I can't speak for the USA, although British drinkers were speaking scathingly about US beers (cold and fizzy - weak as water) ever since I started drinking in the 1950s.

To answer the technical question first - pressurised kegs and flash coolers had become reliable enough and cheap enough after the war for it to be worthwhile brewers' converting to them. The drink produced and dispensed in this way had many advantages: it did not deteriorate; no cellarmanship was required; there was no waste since there was no yeast. There was only one disadvantage - the beer tasted horrible. However, the brewers reckoned, with some justification since the US experience had proved it, that drinkers would soon forget what beer used to taste like and would accept the new Keg beer.

At the time I started drinking all British beers were cask-conditioned or bottled. Then, in the early 1960s, spearheaded by Flowers, there came the keg beer revolution. I remember the first time I tried Flowers keg and, to an inexperienced drinker it was a revelation. It cost 2/3d a pint (about 18 cents) as compared with the Meux's bitter I had previously drunk which cost 1/8d (about 14 cents). However, to my imature mind and untutored palate it was wonderful since it tasted of very little.

Apart from being more costly and therefore clearly a more sophisticated drink, it also had none of the strong flavours and hoppiness of the Meux's bitter - it was much easier for the untutored palate to deal with.

So I, and millions of other young drinkers, switched to keg beers with their attendent gas cylinders and flash coolers. The headaches and dispepsia I suffered every morning I put down to a normal by-product of drinking.

Beer engines were ripped out by the thousand and garish bar-top fonts were installed. Draught lager made its appearance with Carling Black Label in the vanguard. It was all going exactly accoridng to the plans of the megabrewers who were growing rapidly by taking over the traditional brewers and closing them down. Meux's soon disappeared along with its hoppy and economical bitter, the beer engines in "The Bull" to be replaced by a keg machine dispensing Ind Coope Keg Bitter. Flowers were swallowed up by Whitbread and their pioneering Keg Bitter was dropped (poetic justice some would say).

Then came CAMRA, started by just four men. By punching well above their weight they were able to show the British drinker what was happening to his pint and there was a massive customer revolt. The smaller brewers suddenly found that their "old-fashioned" beers were in demand and the mega-brewers started to take notice - even to the extent of starting to brew Real Ale again in smallish quantities.

In the years since CAMRA over 300 new breweries have started up in the UK (there had been none in the previous 100 years). New beers started to appear alongside the traditional brews and keg fonts began to disappear as beer engines came back.

I, like many other drinkers, suddenly realised what an idiot I had been to drink Keg beers. My reversion to Real Ales brought with it the benefit of a clear head and a settled stomach, even after the most significant binge.

Unfortortunately, although the battle was won the war goes on. The mega-brewers have switched their tactics in order to outflank the smaller Real Ale brewers and their weapon of choice is now massive marketing spend. The combined marketing budget of all the small brewers in the UK (or for that matter, all the craft brewers in the USA) couldn't pay for just one of A-B's TV advertising campaigns.

There is only one way to defeat the evil of the fizz-factories and that's to band against them as drinkers and that's best done under the banner of a campaigning organisation. CAMRA was the first and is still the most influential. If you haven't joined, join now! http://www.camra.org.uk/

[Beaver]

Is there anything like CAMRA in the US?

[Richard English]

Not so far as I'm aware but CAMRA has overseas members.

I have suggested before now that someone should set up a US chapter or chapters. I am sure that CAMRA would be delighted to give advice.

[Tweek]

There was only one disadvantage - the beer tasted horrible.

Once again you start in with your vodoo logic Richard. I submit that if that beer tasted horrible in the keg than it tasted horrible in the cask. CO2 is CO2. Show me some facts (scientific) that prove otherwise.

We all know that most of us dont like AB and such but that is not because of the CO2 that they use, believe me if it was served in a cask it would be just as foul.

I can understand you like the low carbonation and slight oxidation that happens in the cask, I quite enjoy it too, but when you sweep you generalizations across all keg beers being fizzy junk you are just plain wrong.

I am not knocking CAMRA or any of the crusaders out there, I just think it is important to note that it is not a all or nothing struggle. There is some damn fine ales that are force carbonated, some of the best Ive had in fact. Just because they are force carbonated does not make them inferior, it will always be the ingredients that went in it, and the level of which it is carbonated, not the method that will determine a good ale or not.

[Richard English]

Your theory is beyond reproach. Sadly the facts do not bear it out.

Compared with the cask-conditioned beers they replaced, keg beers tasted foul - and they still do.

It is not simply the force carbonation, it is the pasteurisation, filtration and other treatments that add to the foulness; the high levels of carbonation are just another factor.

Keg beer is sterile, it undergoes no secondary fermenation, its flavour cannot develop.

Cask beer that has a low-pressure applied carbon-dioxide blanket is a different matter entirely. That is not force-carbonation although some do not realise that there is a difference.

So far as your statement that "C02 is C02" is concerned, I agree that chemically the carbon dioxide produced through fermenation and that produced in the gasworks are the same. There is, however. a physical factor at work as well and I did once see the theory. Sadly I can't now trace it. However, as anyone can determine in a trice, drinks pressurised through a secondary fermantation and those pressurised through force carbonation DO NOT TASTE THE SAME. Just compare a cheap sparkling wine with a methode champanoise sparkling wine. The still wine from which each is made will be very much the same but the final drink is quite different. If you can't run to champagne, just compare the fizziness of a normal force-carbonated soft drink (a soda such as lemonade) with the fizziness of a bottle-conditioned lemonade.

Low pressure carbon dioxide blankets do not affect the flavour of the beer all that much, although it is worthwhile pointing out that CAMRA does not accept blanket storage - although there has been, and continues to be, much argument over the matter.

Unless and until somebody can find me a keg beer (ie, beers using the A-B type system as described in my first paragraph) that tastes as good as a decent cask-conditioned beer then I'll remain unrepentant.

[Tweek]

You are still comparing apples and oranges, even though you stated what the problem is. The problem is the chemicals and or ingredients used, not the method of carbonation. Also a methode champanoise will be superior because it was made from superior fruit, no one is going to take the time to create a methode if the fruit was crap to begin with. My point is only this, the beers that you are referring too (AB and the like) are foul because of the recipe not because of the carbonation, though I do agree that they carbonate it too much. That being said they could take that very same recipe throw it in a cask and like magic, still have crap. As far as undergoing a secondary fermentation there is many ways which this can be achieved with the end product still being in a keg, so that means nothing.
As far as force versus primed not tasting the same, my friend you are wrong. I have done taste tests on the same batch split up with multiple people and no one could pick the two apart. If time is spent getting the right carb levels through force carb you should just end up with a cleaner beer not a lesser one.

Youcant compare beers or wine made from superior ingredients served a certain way to those made with inferior ingredients served a diferent way and state that the serving method was what diferentiates the two. Its just not true.

[MeridianFC]

Thanks to everyone for their considered responses.

As far as CAMRA, I became an overseas (US) member this past year, though I've been following their work since the 80s and getting their publications, most notably the Good Beer Guides, since the 90s. While some could argue about the narrowness of their focus, no one can deny their part in making, what I percieve, a better beer culture experience in the UK.

RE,

If I understand you correctly you believe it was in the period immediately after WWII that the shift to forced pressurization happened in the UK. I would assume, that this being true, the move happened in the US about the same, maybe earlier given the US never really had as deep a realationship with ale (with obvious exceptions) or cask dispense.

It's my understanding from some brewery tours I've done that there is significant pressure required to achieve the correct pressure which seems to imply a certainy level of industrial sophistication.

Tweek,

I think I agree with much of what you're saying. I love cask beer and as RE points out outside of the taste/texture experience, which to me is the most important, the effects on me seem to be softened by the dispense/presentation method, though it should be noted much cask ale comes in significantly lessened strength (3-4.5%abv) compared to standard keg fare (5%+) at least over here in the US. It's complex situation and as you say one is often comparing apples in oranges. Cask Bud would probably one of the most vile "drinks" known to mankind. There are plently, hell there are hundreds of great and outstanding beers made for standard forced pressurized keg dispense. I can think of dozens of beers that are amongst my favorites that have been filtered, forced pressurized, and dispensed under CO2 gas pressure. There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat, though I'm sure you could argue there are some wrongs ways to go about it! ;)

What does come to my mind though is an experience I had recently over in Scotland. I happened in the same day to have Caledonian's 80/- in both cask and keg form. While both appeared to have been handled correctly, that is there were no obvious off flavors, aromas, etc., to my palate the difference was pretty immense. The cask was an infinitely better beer, speaking subjectively of course. Here would be a case of a good beer with the same recipe but different packaging and dispense methods, which I think is the core of the argument.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Youcant compare beers or wine made from superior ingredients served a certain way to those made with inferior ingredients served a diferent way and state that the serving method was what diferentiates the two...."

I agree 100%. Which is why I made the point about champagne versus sparklng wine made with injected carbon dioxide. It is an assumption that the basic wine is better in one than another (the wine used to make champagne is actually rather poor which is one reason why it's made into sparkling). This is one way of identifying the difference made only by carbonation.

Of course, rubbish beer will remain rubbish beer no matter how it's dispensed. In fact, I would imagine that A-B Buweiser dispensed at cellar temperature and with almost no carbonation would be even worse than the conventional variety!

[TheBeerSnob]

Originally posted by Richard English
I can't speak for the USA, although British drinkers were speaking scathingly about US beers (cold and fizzy - weak as water) ever since I started drinking in the 1950s.
...
Beer engines were ripped out by the thousand and garish bar-top fonts were installed.
...
Then came CAMRA, started by just four men.
...
In the years since CAMRA
...
I, like many other drinkers, suddenly realised what an idiot I had been to drink Keg beers. My reversion to Real Ales brought with it the benefit of a clear head and a settled stomach, even after the most significant binge.



Thanks for the history lesson through the eyes of one that has experienced the evolutions of change. I find myself now wanting to know more of CAMRA.

We've got a pub here in Anchorage, Alaska that tries to lend a "British" air. They've got a beer engine and recently served up a cask-conditioned winter seasonal that I found to be 10 times the beverage than when served off the "draught system". Pretty typical, too, the better quality of the engine-drawn brews...

Re mind and gut, I've found that quality brews bother me little unless I've really overdone it (which I try to avoid). My preference being un-beer. Un-filtered and un-pastuerized.

I'm a man; give it to me straight!

[Richard English]

Quote "... that I found to be 10 times the beverage than when served off the "draught system..."

Athough I have received much flack over this, your comment supports my statement and CAMRA's stance. Externally applied carbon dioxide can (and usually will) spoil a good beer. If the pressure is kept very low and the beer is not served through a flash cooler then it might be OK; sadly most barmen will crank up the gas and wind down the temperature and then serve through a tight sparkler.

That treatement is likely to spoil even the noblest of beers.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
Quote "... that I found to be 10 times the beverage than when served off the "draught system..."

Athough I have received much flack over this, your comment supports my statement and CAMRA's stance. Externally applied carbon dioxide can (and usually will) spoil a good beer. If the pressure is kept very low and the beer is not served through a flash cooler then it might be OK; sadly most barmen will crank up the gas and wind down the temperature and then serve through a tight sparkler.

That treatement is likely to spoil even the noblest of beers.

You always miss one point(on purpose I think) - everyone on here has had and enjoys cask conditioned ales. There are no qualms about it.

Just like you say we(most Americans - exceptions noted) have no idea how good cask conditioned English ales are, I'd say you have no idea how good current American brew pub beers are. We are able to enjoy the best of both worlds here.

[Richard English]

Quote "...I'd say you have no idea how good current American brew pub beers are...."

Actually I do have some experience - and I have NEVER said that there is no good beer brewed or served in the USA. I agree that the choice of beer now available in some parts pf the USA is now very good.

My comment above was solely to do with the many threads about artifical carbonation which I have said, many times, can spoil good beer - whether it be made in the UK, the USA or indeed anywhere.

By all means disagree with what I have said; argue your point; tell me I am talking rubbish if that is what you want to do. But please do not criticise me for statements that others have attributed to me, or for meanings that you have yourself inferred.

If you can find a single posting where I have made derogatory comments about good US beers or brew pubs and I will withdraw my comment immediately.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
If you can find a single posting where I have made derogatory comments about good US beers or brew pubs and I will withdraw my comment immediately.

See that's kind of the rub isn't it? I'd be hard pressed to find where you've made any good comments about US beers.

Originally posted by Richard English
...But please do not criticise me for statements that others have attributed to me, or for meanings that you have yourself inferred...

Come now Richard - you know that's not what I'm doing - I've read more than enough of your posts to know what should be attributed to you. If your posts aren't rife with implication and inference then you are completely mis-understood. I know that from my perspective you come across as genuinely believing that all other beers are inferior to English cask conditioned ales and that force carbonation and keg systems are inherently wrong(and produce poor quality beers) and should be removed from the face of the Earth.

An interesting thing would be for you to find a posting where you did anything other than deride AB-Miller swill, bolster the image of cask conditioned ales(and CAMRA), and gripe about force carbonation. If they exist( surely some do?) - they are few and far between.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English

Actually I do have some experience - and I have NEVER said that there is no good beer brewed or served in the USA. I agree that the choice of beer now available in some parts pf the USA is now very good.



Haven't you said that the last time you were in the US drinking beer was some 20+ years ago? A lot has changed my friend.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Haven't you said that the last time you were in the US drinking beer was some 20+ years ago?..."

No. I have not. My first visit to the USA was in 1979 (when I didn't find any good beer) )and the first time I found some reasonable beer was in 1986 when I went to San Francisco and tried Anchor Steam. My most recent visit was to Baltimore and its environs, which was, I agree, about eight years ago. However, even then it was noticeable how the range of beers had begun to improve - Sam Adams was one that I tried then for the first time. I will be in Orlando at the end of this year and hope to visit at least one brewery and to try even more US beers.

And incidentally, although it is relatively expensive here, I usually have some Goose Island IPA in my fridge - and I wouldn't do that if I didn't find it a fine beer (a point that I have mentioned in these pages more than once).

That many of my postings are about British beer and the way it is made is not surprising since that is something I know about and a topic that many have asked about. I agree that I have denigrated A-B and its clones many times and there are surely few here who believe that such denigration is inappropriate.

Quote "...An interesting thing would be for you to find a posting where you did anything other than deride AB-Miller swill, bolster the image of cask conditioned ales(and CAMRA), and gripe about force carbonation. If they exist( surely some do?) - they are few and far between....

Just check my postings! You will find I have posted on a huge range of topics including labelling, container sizes, smoking in bars, language, systems of government - and that's just in the past couple of months.

And I do not apologise for boosting CAMRA; I firnly believe that the revival of good beers that the USA is experiencing has much to do with CAMRA's success in preserving good beers in the UK. I feel quite sure that most Americans who now drink US craft beers do so only because they learnt about good beer from trying a quality import - probably from the UK.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
Quote "...Haven't you said that the last time you were in the US drinking beer was some 20+ years ago?..."

That many of my postings are about British beer and the way it is made is not surprising since that is something I know about and a topic that many have asked about. I agree that I have denigrated A-B and its clones many times and there are surely few here who believe that such denigration is inappropriate.


I apologize if I was wrong about the amount of time since visiting the US and sampling of US beers. Guess, I've just missed the posts that mention anything good about US beers.

The aboved mentioned denigration is correct(and even implied on this board) but even you have to admit that to see the same thing over and over and over and over and over again gets very tiresome. As a matter of fact, continuous reiteration of the same propaganda can have opposite from the desired effect.

No personal offense intended and I apologize if any was conveyed.

I would say one thing(and this may be the crux of the problem), to my way of thinking, saying "...Externally applied carbon dioxide can (and usually will) spoil a good beer. . " implies that(in your opinion) most force carb'ed beer is spoiled and since the highest percentage of all US craft beers are forced carb'ed it follows that you're saying that the highest percentage of US craft beers are spoiled. If I am to understand that those types of comments are really meant to apply to A-B and the likes then I have no beef at all and I rescind my comments.

[Richard English]

Thank you for this. No apology is necessary. We both have the same desire to see the quality of beer available to the discerning drinker improve and I certainly would not want to create an argument based on too narrow a definition of what constitutes good beer (which accusation is often levelled at CAMRA).

My comment "...Externally applied carbon dioxide can (and usually will) spoil a good beer..." is indeed what I said but it needs to be taken in context with the rest of the posting which says, "... If the pressure is kept very low and the beer is not served through a flash cooler then it might be OK; sadly most barmen will crank up the gas and wind down the temperature and then serve through a tight sparkler.

That treatment is likely to spoil even the noblest of beers..."

The critical point is, of course, how the barman looks after the beer and it is easy to spoil it by excess pressure. That can't happen with cask beer. Of course, it is also easy to spoil unpressurised cask beer by incorrect treatment - it's just a different kind of bad treatment! So maybe what we should all be lobbying for is properly trained staff!

Of course, as you say, A-B and its clones are probably beyond redemption and I make no apology for my scorn about such pretenders to the name of beer.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
My comment "...Externally applied carbon dioxide can (and usually will) spoil a good beer..." is indeed what I said but it needs to be taken in context with the rest of the posting which says, "... If the pressure is kept very low and the beer is not served through a flash cooler then it might be OK; sadly most barmen will crank up the gas and wind down the temperature and then serve through a tight sparkler.

That treatment is likely to spoil even the noblest of beers..."


Of course I understand about context (and I don't think I took it out of context) but are you simply referring to the treatment of cask beers then? I know cask beers are more in the context of the thread(not that thread context means a lot around here) but you used the statement in reference to a comment about draught systems - draught systems like the ones that are prevalent in the US beer drinking society.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I really like cask beers and I really like beers that you probably would consider to be poorly handled and over-carbonated. I think they both have their place in beerdom and I slightly favor the latter to the former.

I will agree that I can not stand to be served overly cold beer. Beer, IMO, should be served no colder than 48 F and usually I prefer a beer to be around 50-54 F. I'm sure I look silly in some bars with both hands clamped tightly onto the beer trying to warm it up so I can actually taste it.

[barley ben]

I'm sure I look silly in some bars with both hands clamped tightly onto the beer trying to warm it up so I can actually taste it.

You too?! Even my girlfriend looks at me wierd while I'm doing it.

[Stodbrew]

I agree, Fast Eddy, I much prefer to drink my beers at cellar temp. If I could drink cask ales every day, I'd be ecstatic.

However, Richard, in this country, the vast majority of people expect cold, overly carbonated beer. I'm not just talking about the big three, either. The same goes for brewpubs and micros, as well. While, being a pub brewer myself, I and all of my brewing colleagues are trying our best to spread the word of cask conditioned ales. We have a very long road ahead of us however. One hundred plus years of history is on the side of the big boys. It will most definitely be a long time coming. Baby steps!

[Richard English]

Quote "...Of course I understand about context (and I don't think I took it out of context) but are you simply referring to the treatment of cask beers then?..."

You will recall that my orginal posting was in reply to the beer snob who said "...They've got a beer engine and recently served up a cask-conditioned winter seasonal that I found to be 10 times the beverage than when served off the "draught system". ..."

In other words, the cask-condtioned beer was, in his opinion, the poorer for being served using the "draught system". Unless I am mistaken he was there referring to the high pressure carbon dioxide system that most of the world's drinkers mean when they speak of "draught (or draft) beer".

People who have grown up drinking highly carbonated and well-chilled beers will usually like them since that is the tatse they have acquired and expect. I can take some time to acquire a taste for "flat warm beer" which is what a UK-style beer is by comparison. I beleive that those who persevere and learn to appreciate cask-conditioned beers usually then prefer them - but I am sure there will be exceptions.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
It is not simply the force carbonation, it is the pasteurisation, filtration and other treatments that add to the foulness; the high levels of carbonation are just another factor.

Keg beers in the U.S. aren't pasteurized - at least that was the case up to a few years ago. Part of Miller's whole campaign (stolen in part from Coor's) for its "Genuine" draft was to tout its not being pasteurized, thus tasting more like draft beer. In taking a tour of the brewery at that time, they showed us the bottling and kegging line where the beer traveled one way to be pasteurized and bottled as Miller High Life - or another way to be kegged or bottled as Miller Genuine Draft (the irony being that MGD "on" draft was introduced about a year later - nothing like marketing a name).

Keg beer is sterile, it undergoes no secondary fermenation, its flavour cannot develop.

Kegged beer (the better beers over here, and most of Europe) already has its flavor developed before it's kegged, therefore there's no call to condition it.

Here's a question, why is England the only country to cask condition its beer (discounting the rise of the trend in the U.S.)? Not to question a process that develops a fine product, but it's been proven that ale can still be made pretty tasty and enjoyable without cask or bottle conditioning. Not to mention other beers that are just as enjoyable but are far from being "brewed to be conditioned."

S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Keg beers in the U.S. aren't pasteurized ..."

I have already made the point that the term "Keg Beer" means, in the UK, something very different from what it means in the USA. In the UK, Keg Beer, by definition is pasteurised and filtered. Thus there can be no such thing as a "natural" Keg Beer. I would be interested to know what the US definition of "keg beer" is and how it differs from "draft beer".

Quote "...Kegged beer (the better beers over here, and most of Europe) already has its flavor developed before it's kegged, therefore there's no call to condition it..."

This is quite true and it once of the reasons why Keg Beer is popular. It is a sterile product and thus has a long self life.

Quote "...Here's a question, why is England the only country to cask condition its beer ..."

Before A-B and others invented the pastuerised rubbish they call beer, all countries' draught beer was cask conditioned. That the UK's is not is due solely to the efforts of CAMRA. The breweries were well on the way to turning the UK into a fizz-beer desert in the 1960s and had not CAMRA been formed it is likely that the memory of good beer would be no more than that. It happened in the USA and much of the rest of the world, after all.

Quote "...but it's been proven that ale can still be made pretty tasty and enjoyable without cask or bottle conditioning..."

There are some acceptable beers that are not bottle-conditioned and there might be some draught beers of which the same could be said. I have never yet found any - as I have never found a sparkling wine that is anywhere near as good as a methode champagnoise sparkler.

Please enlighten me as to which beers you reccommend that come close to being "tasty and enjoyable" when compared with a cask or bottled conditioned brew. I have tried and enjoyed Dogfish Head and Goose Island recently and they are very good - and both bottle-conditioned.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
US definition of "keg beer" is and how it differs from "draft beer".

Keg beer and draft beer are the same here in the U.S. - I believe they are also the same in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Czech republic.

Before A-B and others invented the pastuerised rubbish they call beer, all countries' draught beer was cask conditioned.

A-B might pasteurize their draft in England, but I'm pretty sure they don't over here, and U.S. keg/draft beer does have a shorter life than bottled/canned.

All countries'? First I've heard of that - even lagers? Can you point to a source?

There are some acceptable beers that are not bottle-conditioned and there might be some draught beers of which the same could be said. I have never yet found any -

You don't try hard enough because you believe man only lives by cask ale alone. And I did say "tasty and enjoyable," not just acceptable.

Please enlighten me as to which beers you reccommend that come close to being "tasty and enjoyable" when compared with a cask or bottled conditioned brew. I have tried and enjoyed Dogfish Head and Goose Island recently and they are very good - and both bottle-conditioned.

In your country? The Ridley Witchfinder Porter I just reviewed is quite tasty, any of the Young's beers that aren't CC or BC are fine examples of the craft. In Germany, any of the Maibock or Bock beers soon to be available. Any of the Munich Dunkels or Marzen Amber Oktoberfests. Any of the fine Pils available. In the U.S? There isn't enough room here - you'll just have to visit Chicago on your next trip and we'll show you around. Also - see my review of the Three Floyd's Dreadnaught IPA on draft (yes, draft, not draught) - not CC, and not pasteurized.

Fact of the matter is; I, like you and many, enjoy a good cask ale, but I don't believe they're the end-all of the beer world. I would not give up my Capital Winter Skal, or a Great Lakes' Dortmunder, or a Lake Front Stein Beer to drink only cask ale. And don't even think of touching my Spaten Oktoberfest!

S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...All countries'? First I've heard of that - even lagers? Can you point to a source?..."

Before pasteurisation was invented (by Pasteur) no beer was pasteurised. The only way of preserving it was by bottling. Beer just did not keep in those days.

Pasteurisation of beer (like pasteurisation of milk or cheese) helps preserve it but does affect its flavour.

[studentofbeer]

im not sure about this, but i dont believe anchor brews are bottle conditioned. actually i have a feeling a lot of quality american microbrews arent bottle conditioned (for instance i didnt know dfh was, and i dont think things like rogue are, are they???) If i dont see bottle conditioned on the bottle i figure its not. so my understanding is that there are a lot of non-bottle conditioned beers that i drink with gusto.

[MeridianFC]

In the UK forum I think we agreed on this general and not very scientific, colloquial definitions:

UK cask or real ale- a non filtered, non pastueruized ale, naturally carobnated (without forced pressurization), stored and dispensed without external CO2 or CO2 & N2 gas pressure.

UK Keg beer - any beer (ale or lager) that has been filtered, pasteurized, and carbonated under forced pressurization. Any beer stored* or dispensed with CO2 or CO2 & N2 gas. It seems there is little or no "middle ground" beers as exhibited by some US Microbreweries.

*please see the cask breather discussion in the UK thread

US Keg beer - Any beer (ale or lager) that is not cask. Beer may or may not be filtered, pastuerized, force carbonated. These beers are, however, almost always stored and dispensed with CO2 or CO2 & N2 gas pressure. US keg beer is typically not pasteurized. In the US the term "keg" usually just refers to the vessel (typically a ciruclar metal tank available in 13.2, 15.5, etc. US gallons).

Some examples of the variety:

Old Dominion (most varieties) - filtered, but not pastuerized. They do have some beers that are not filtered or pasterized.

Bells - not filtered or pasteurized.

Anchor - not filtered but pasteurized in bottle.

Franklins - not filtered or pasteurized.

but all of these are normally served using a CO2 system.

US cask beer - pretty much matches the UK definition.

While I am a fanatic for cask ale (full disclosure, I'm a US CAMRA member), there are many, many great beers that are served in the "UK Keg" or "US Keg" format that I consider world classics. In addition to the breweries I mentioned above Andechser, Augustiner, Paulaner, or any number of German breweries. Dogfish Head and Goose Island that Richard mention are always served via CO2 dispense (I'm not sure if either are filtered but I somehow doubt it).

[Brownbeard]

I know that Rogue beers are bottle conditioned. I am pretty sure Anchor is as well. I have found that bottle conditioned beers tend to be better, but I agree with Tweek that this is a result of better beer, not better conditioning. This discussion is always heated for some reason. I was recently in Minneapolis and had the IPA on tap at the Town Hall brewery. They had it both cask conditioned and on "draft". The only difference I could tell was that the cask conditioned was a little less carobanated. This, in my opinion, did not make it a better brew. Both were excellent. I am not sure I am sold on the "cask beer is better" argument. If you start with good ingredients and use a good recipe, and care for the beer properly, you are going to have good beer. It is truly bad form to lump A-B and the like in with any other beer. They are a different thing alltogether. I truly believe the cask beer tradition will never catch on in the US because of drinking behavior. Unlike the in the UK, the pub is not a staple of the community here. More often American drinkers drink at home. The cask requires that you consume the beer quite quickly, in our society, this is not cost effective.

[chazwicke]

Hey, It is lonely out here where I DO think cask ale is the end all and where all of beer.

I DO think it is simply the best that the world has to offer.

That being said, I sure like lots and lots of other beers that are out there whether they are cask conditioned or not. All that I can say is that over the past 28 years I probably have tasted well over 7,000 different beers (I wish I had kept a list) and have traveled to 17 countries and 44 states, having visited hundreds of breweries large and small. I still enjoy the English cask conditioned beers the most. I DO generally put them above all other beer. I drink them whenever I can. In general I find them sublime.

I regularly drink bottled and draft / draught beers of all types and styles and love many of them. And I have had bad cask beer. But when cask is at it's optimum it, IMHO, just can't be beat.

This is a broad generality I know, and there are exceptions to every generality.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Dogfish Head and Goose Island that Richard mention are always served via CO2 dispense ..."

The brew I am speaking of was bottled - ) have not been able to find either of them on draught.

[MeridianFC]

I think you would find them a most agreeable pint even though they are served via CO2 dispense.

Brownbeard and Chaz both have good points.

I think it's important to consider that if a brewer is aware how his product will be handled on the serving end he or she can forumulate recipes accordingly. I think many of the UK beers that are the keg version of former (or stille extant) cask beer tend to show how bad something can be if it's meant to be served one way but altered to maximize shelf life and made another. I mentioned in another thread the almighty chasm of taste that exists between Caledonian 80/- cask and Caledonian 80/- keg. Theoretically the same beer but one taste will disabuse one of that notion.

There is a whole wide world of great beer out there. It might be obscured by a river of mass produced piss, but it is out there.

Now, when can I get some more cask lager?

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
Before pasteurisation was invented (by Pasteur) no beer was pasteurised. The only way of preserving it was by bottling. Beer just did not keep in those days.

All of that is true, but that doesn't mean all draught or draft beer, in all countries, was cask conditioned, as you said:

"Before A-B and others invented the pastuerised rubbish they call beer, all countries' draught beer was cask conditioned."

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
In the UK forum I think we agreed on this general and not very scientific, colloquial definitions:

Very succinct, thanks for those definitions.

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
Hey, It is lonely out here where I DO think cask ale is the end all and where all of beer.

I DO think it is simply the best that the world has to offer.

I disagree with your opinion, but I'll fight to death your right to have it!

S.

[chazwicke]

The bottom line is that it is all subjective anyway.

And yes I do love some lagers too!

(especially Schlenkerla) :)

I guess I just like beer period.

[Richard English]

Quote "...All of that is true, but that doesn't mean all draught or draft beer, in all countries, was cask conditioned, as you said..."

How else would they have stored and dispensed draught beer, then?

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
Quote "...All of that is true, but that doesn't mean all draught or draft beer, in all countries, was cask conditioned, as you said..."

How else would they have stored and dispensed draught beer, then?

Sure, they "stored" them in casks (or kegs) but they didn't "condition" them in the style of English brewers, adding extra sugars or yeast, or hops, possibly finings for some clearing. C'mon Richard, you and I both know that English cask ales are very distinct, and the processes to make them so is a unique process. I just wondered why England is the only brewing industry that follows it.

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
UK Keg beer - any beer (ale or lager) that has been filtered, pasteurized, and carbonated under forced pressurization. Any beer stored or dispensed with CO2 or CO2 & N2 gas.

Paging through Jackson's New World Guide last night, I see that he talks about "keg" beer in the U.K. as having a distinctly different meaning than that of the U.S., especially as compared to cask ales. I didn't realize that English ales not cask conditioned (packaged to be served at establishments with no provisions for cask ale) were nearly always pasteurized. This is surprising as so many U.S. kegged beers are not. It makes one wonder how different (read: better) the ales might taste without the pasteurization.

S.

[Theakston]

One point worth mentioning is that in the UK Kegs are still usually dispensed from the cellar. Therefore they do use more carbonation than is generally applied in the avarage US bar as they have to push it upstairs. Once in the bar area the beer usually passes through an awful flash chiller device that cools it in the pipes.

In the USA most bars keep their kegs directly under the tap in a refrigerator. So they can dispense the beer under less pressure and without the need for a flash chiller.

As far as Cask in the USA. I've seen several instances if "cask" that would definitely not fit the CAMRA definition. quite often they are served this way afrter having been conditioned in a different vessel.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Sure, they "stored" them in casks (or kegs) but they didn't "condition" them in the style of English brewers, adding extra sugars or yeast, or hops, possibly finings for some clearing...."

Now I understand why there has been so much confusion about this topic and why some have suggested that cask beer won't last.

If normal beer (by which I mean beer of normal quaffing strength of 4% or so) is allowed to complete its fermentation (by using all its sugar) and is then put in a cask as "bright beer", the resulting drink will be usable for just a few hours - a day at most. Because it is not fermenting it will soon release all its dissolved carbon disoxide and after a few hours will be flat. As there will be no carbon dioxide layer the beer will be exposed to the air and will start to turn to vinegar. Very soon it will be undrinkable.

Thus normal beer was delivered to the pub while still ferminenting and served as soon as it had cleared sufficiently. It remains drinkable until the sugar has all been used and then it will suffer the same fate as the bright beer mentioned above.

That is the way in which all draught beers were dispensed for hundreds of years - and not just in the UK. Efforts to improve the keeping properties of beer included the addition of preservatives (hops were orginally added for just the reason) or, of course, to increase the strength of the beer. Beer of wine strength (say 14%) will last as long as wine - some weeks in a cask and years in a bottle.

The reason why the UK is one of the few countries that uses cask-conditioning is simply because the UK has kept to the old ways. It's not something special that has been invented in the UK, although its relative rarity now means that many people assume it is.

And as for why we have kept to the old ways - in a word, CAMRA!

[barley ben]

And as for why we have kept to the old ways - in a word, CAMRA!

So if CAMRA told you to jump off a bridge, would you??

Sorry, it popped in my head and I had to say it!!

[Richard English]

Quote "...So if CAMRA told you to jump off a bridge, would you??..."

There is a difference between believing in a cause so strongly as to be evangelical about it and being brainwashed.

Since fewer Americans know about CAMRA than know about good beer, I feel fully justified in promoting the name of the organisation that, more than any other, preserved the great traditions of honest brewing - that those who are now posting to this board are enjoying.

Had it not been for CAMRA the US choice now would almost certainly be between Bud, Millers or Coors. Those who do not know the history of CAMRA's battle to preserve good beer should take the trouble to learn it and be grateful for what CAMRA's efforts have done for them.

[barley ben]

Had it not been for CAMRA the US choice now would almost certainly be between Bud, Millers or Coors. Those who do not know the history of CAMRA's battle to preserve good beer should take the trouble to learn it and be grateful for what CAMRA's efforts have done for them.

I don't know how true that is. Most people in america did not know what CAMRA was until they already had a taste for good beer. Not to say if it was the reason for the ever growing boom of american micro's then almost every micro would we offering only cask conditioned and bottle condtioned beers. I believe most people that drink quality beer because they were tired of the macro swill that dominates this country and started looking for better imports and micros.

[barley ben]

Quote "...So if CAMRA told you to jump off a bridge, would you??..."

That was just a joke and I wasn't implying that they brainwash you. Just a joke!!!

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English

Had it not been for CAMRA the US choice now would almost certainly be between Bud, Millers or Coors. Those who do not know the history of CAMRA's battle to preserve good beer should take the trouble to learn it and be grateful for what CAMRA's efforts have done for them.


This is true in the UK but much less so in the US. The impetus for the reforms in the American beer scene are generally attributed to the home brew movement and the the work of the members of AHA(Charles Papazian et al).

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by barley ben
I don't know how true that is. Most people in america did not know what CAMRA was until they already had a taste for good beer. Not to say if it was the reason for the ever growing boom of american micro's then almost every micro would we offering only cask conditioned and bottle condtioned beers. I believe most people that drink quality beer because they were tired of the macro swill that dominates this country and started looking for better imports and micros.

It's a complicated issue to be sure. I think what Mr. English might be getting at is many of the leading lights of the American brewing renaisance we're influenced to varying degrees by beers they encountered in Europe, specifically real ale from Britain and traditional lager from Germany and to a lesser degree specialties from Belgium (at least in the beginning). If there had been no CAMRA, no real ale, ergo nothing (less?) to influcence the Maytag's, et. al.

The point about homebrewing's influence, the AHA, and Charlie Papazian is well taken, though I would venture a lot of folks got involved in homebrewing after sampling great beer from elsewhere. That is how I got started.

If CAMRA asked me to jump off a bridge I'd certainly not do it.

Unless there was a pint of Bitter & Twisted at the bottom.

[Richard English]

Quote "...I believe most people that drink quality beer because they were tired of the macro swill that dominates this country and started looking for better imports and micros..."

True. And why did they suddenly start to do that after three-quarters of a century of drinking nothing but chemical fizz (but just a few years after the UK's Real Ale revival)?

And where did these quality imports come from? South America?Canada? Japan? Australia? Spain? Italy? No. They came from those few countries who had managed to hold out against the relentless march of the chemical fizz factories. And which was the major country that satisfied that demand? You should know the answer to that!

Apart from the UK, only Germany (where there was a measure of protection from the Reinheitsgebot), Czechoslovakia (where there was a measure of state control) and Belgium came into the picture at all.

Then the US micros started to brew in order to fill the newly created demand for good beer.

The US beer revival is an excellent thing. It is, though, still a fragile flower which A-B could crush with comparitive ease if it wanted to do so. That it hasn't bothered is because it doesn't yet feel it matters. Probably 90% of the beer sold in the USA is chemical fizz - so the fizz factories don't care. Just wait until it becomes a threat - and be ready then to protect your newly acquired tradition of brewing. Make sure that you have something like CAMRA there when you need it - as you surely will!

[chazwicke]

I was home brewing before 1978 when it became legal. We used......British beermaking kits that a buddy of mine's family regularly sent from over there. Also the recognized father of the microbrew movement is Jack McAuliffe who came back from being stationed in Scotland with a taste for real beer and opened New Albion the first real microbrewery. In the 70s the beer scene here was dismal. Only a few regionals that made some beers with flavor and imports such as real lowenbrau had any flavor at all. And we did get Old Peculiar in the small black cans.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by Richard English
Quote "...I believe most people that drink quality beer because they were tired of the macro swill that dominates this country and started looking for better imports and micros..."

T

This is absolutely true! In my case at least. We kept looking for something better after we started drinking some of the imports that were available back then. We even thought San Miguel from the Phillipines was better than most American beers back then. I routinely made trips up to St. Marys, PA to bring back cases of Straub beer because it had some flavor (even though it was corn). That was a 5 hour drive one way. ( Didn't hurt that we usually brought back in excess of 35 cases on those runs) . And Yuengling Porter was another palatable American beer.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English

... which A-B could crush with comparitive ease if it wanted to do so...

Rubbish.

[bigmf]

I have to agree with fast eddy here. There will always be demand for beer tastes that Anheuser Busch cannot provide. They cannot wipe out that competition without making beers that fit those tastes, which I find so unlikely as to be near impossible. Predatory pricing schemes would fail, as we already pay more for micro-brews and no matter how wide the price discrepancy got, we still would. Using monopolistic powers on the supply side would only cause A-B difficulty with the ATF and competition bureaus as the USA has always frowned on such practices, be it from the Rockerfellers or Bill Gates.

[bigmf]

Also, Canada had a larger effect on the US than you might think. One writer (I can't remember who) described Canadian lagers as a cross between US lagers and continental pilsners. These would have been the first new tastes many US beer drinkers would have tried as they were the cheapest and most available imports. I'm not even suggesting that Canadian Macro-lagers are good, but they are better than those of the US. The Canadian macrobreweries also had many styles of beers that the American Macros did not. Molson Export Ale still survives today, while Labatt's Velvet Cream Stout was pushed out of the market by Guiness. The Canadian and American micro-brewery shift started in the early 80's, only a few years after CAMRA started.

I'll give you that CAMRA has done some good for people on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, but the same forces that caused CAMRA to be formed were at work in North America at the same time and were having similar effects over here.

Unfortunately prohibition in the US had harmed the brewing industry in both Canada and the US such that the change to better beers takes longer due to the greater capital requirements for brewing in North America.

I'm done for now.

M.

[MeridianFC]

"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics"

With that out of the way, I present the following:

http://www.beertown.org/education/statistics.html

US market share by segment (2002)
Large brewers & traditional regional = 85.66%
Imports = 11.26%
Domestic specialty/craft = 3.08%

1,365 breweries in the US (2003)

290,342,554 population (July 2003 est. CIA World Factbook)

According to "The American Brewery" by Bill Yenne (2003), A-B brews 98,000,000 barrels a year, more than the next 6 biggest brewers combined.

A-B's precentage of the US market is estimated at between 45-52%, depending on who you ask.

http://www.dted.state.mn.us/PDFs/beer.pdf

To think that around 50% of the beer in a country with a population near 300m (how's that for playing fast and loose with numbers) is a bit frightening. As a poster above said I don't think A-B would bother crushing craft brewing like a little bug because it/we just don't matter right now, but to think they could not/would not/do not make the market place extremely unfriendly is folly. I know from personal experience with the distribution set up locally what happens when A-B doesn't get its way (American Eagle/American Potomac anyone?).

There will always be those of us who want something more out of beer and I hope we've reached a point where we don't go back to the bad old days, but if any of you do any kind of travelling you'll know that there are places that craft brewing does not reach but the long arm of MegaBrewCoInc always does.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
... As a poster above said I don't think A-B would bother crushing craft brewing like a little bug because it/we just don't matter right now, but to think they could not/would not/do not make the market place extremely unfriendly is folly....

Making it unfriendly and squashing it like a bug are entirely different things. A-B could no more end the micro-brewpubs existence than could Microsoft end Linux's existence. Where Microsoft has more money and market share.

The backlash against A-B would be unbearable(from a business perspective)...granted a large number of A-B drinkers would be lured away by Miller or Coors(because Miller/Coor's would probably start marketing against A-B's "unpatriotic" campaign against the little guy). How long would it be before A-B was accused of unfair business practices and dragged into court? Not long......

We all love the little guy - it's predicated on our country's creation.

[chazwicke]

They can play dirty. And it is all about shelf space.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Rubbish..."

Don't be complacent. Complacency has killed more companies than just about anything.

Most countries (including the USA) had wonderful and diverse brewing traditions a century ago; most countries 30 years ago had none. Just a few have managed to climb out of the slough of chemical despond.

Don't think that because the micro-brewers have won a few small battles that they have won the war.

A-B and its clones have the muscle to defeat the small brewers is that's what they decide to do. They tried very hard (and are still trying) to take over (and then close) the real Budweiser plant in the Czech republic when it was mooted that it was to be privatised. Thanks to a concerted campaign by CAMRA and others it didn't happen. But don't think A-B won't try again. They will.

[TheBeerSnob]

The chicken, the egg, the beer or Camra?

Hmmm...I'll liken this all back to the late 70's when I passed that miracle American marker of 21.

In the Seattle area, before Red Hook, we suffered with Rainier (great commercials, in the 80's, but poor beer). Or one could get Olympia, Hamms, AB, M, or Generic. A few stores sold Augsburger. Either a golden, a dark or, sometimes, a bock.

Being the cheap young snob that I was, price dictated much. And damned if those Auggie-doggies weren't cheaper than the locally brewed Rainier! And what I also discovered: they tasted better, too!

Anchor Steam starts being sold. Other brews filter in. I'm hooked. Have been ever since. Did CAMRA have a hand in any of this?

The earliest mention I can find about CAMRA puts it into the mid '70's. Did that have an affect on beer sold in Washington State? I don't know. But without further evidence, I'd have to say: Why not? Maybe not real likely, but then again Maybe.

Richard, what can you lend to this history lesson?

-TBS

[Richard English]

I would refer you to the CAMRA website but it is unfortunately very coy about the history of CAMRA, although it does have this passage :

"CAMRA saved real ale, it is no exaggeration to say, and as a result saved many independent breweries. No new ale breweries were set up in the UK for the fifty years before we were founded. There are now around 300 new brewers producing real ale, part of a massive real ale revival".

When CAMRA was founded, in the mid 1970s, the UK, like all other countries, was being flooded by a tide of chemical fizz. Brewers were closing weekly. What was happening was simply what had happened in the USA years before. Those few traditional brewers who hung on - Young's, Fuller's, Timothy Taylor - all were under threat and many succumbed. In the USA Anchor was just about the only brewery of any size that was making reasonable beer.

CAMRA had little direct affect on the USA in those days but its success in saving beer in the UK had a direct affect on the perception of those who tried UK beers. I am quite convinced that the craft beer revival in the USA happened because those who started it had seen the success of the new breweries in the UK - as CAMRA say, over 300 since CAMRA, none in the previous 50 years.

Minimise neither the benefits that CAMRA has and can still offer nor the threat of the chemical fizz brewers!

[steveh]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
...many of the leading lights of the American brewing renaisance we're influenced to varying degrees by beers they encountered in Europe, specifically real ale from Britain and traditional lager from Germany and to a lesser degree specialties from Belgium (at least in the beginning). If there had been no CAMRA, no real ale, ergo nothing (less?) to influcence the Maytag's, et. al.

There was also an influence of trying to recreate American beer from before prohibition and the Second World War. A time when the brewing industry in the U.S. wasn't making bland, colorless swill.

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
I was home brewing before 1978 when it became legal. We used......British beermaking kits ...

So I have to ask, because I started brewing my own beer to make better beer than was available around me, why was (is?) there a home-brew industry in Britain? Pure hobby interest? With good beer at just about every corner, why make it at home?

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English If normal beer (by which I mean beer of normal quaffing strength of 4% or so) is allowed to complete its fermentation (by using all its sugar) and is then put in a cask as "bright beer", the resulting drink will be usable for just a few hours - a day at most. Because it is not fermenting it will soon release all its dissolved carbon disoxide and after a few hours will be flat. As there will be no carbon dioxide layer the beer will be exposed to the air and will start to turn to vinegar. Very soon it will be undrinkable.

I've seen German breweries (specifically Munich and Bamberg) use wooden casks/kegs for gravity dispensing quite often - very large kegs that will only be finished in a 24 hour period during a festival of some sort. In fact, I've seen a keg tapped 30 minutes before a Biergarten's closing (if the customers need more beer, they need more beer!) then resealed to be retapped at opening the next day.

These were not high-octane beers and not pasteurized, their fermentation had been completed in the cold, lager process, and allowed to clear the same way. While not "live," in the manner of cask ale, they were definitely not "fortified" with chemicals and preservatives - very much natural.

Shelf life? No real beer will last forever, we all know that, but there didn't look to be any rush to empty these barrels - other than to savor the tasty brew inside! The natural carbonation in these kegs can act as the carbon dioxide blanket for protection against the contamination of outside air, but the point of comparison is that the breweries have employed these methods for centuries, and it's a completely different process than maturing and serving cask ale.

Many of the micros in the U.S. are brewing good beers following these time proven procedures. But again, we only discuss to the conclusion that the diversity of beer in this world is a happy benefit to us all.

S.

[Theakston]

Originally posted by steveh
So I have to ask, because I started brewing my own beer to make better beer than was available around me, why was (is?) there a home-brew industry in Britain? Pure hobby interest? With good beer at just about every corner, why make it at home?

S.

cheapness. That was the only reason I and my friends (fellow cheapskate students) started brewing in the UK. Kits were cheap and they were half sugar - gack! The national drugstore chain - Boots the Chemists - made a good amount of fairly decent ones.
At that time it was actually more expensive to buy beer in the can/bottle than on cask at the local pub. but even cheaper to brew up a kit for a party.

[bigmf]

I have to agree now, with much of what Richard English has said. The renaissance of good beer in North America was brought about by the same forces as it was in the UK. People were looking for something better. New brewers most likely looked to the UK and saw that there would be demand for better beer, while lobbyists probably looked at the CAMRA model for ideas.

AB failed to close the czech budweiser brewery because people would not be complacent about the matter. A-B would fail to crush the craft beer industry because the complacency is not there. They can make it difficult, bet we all know how far we would drive to get a good beer from a store that sells it.

In Canada, the Labatt's and Molson breweries are under scrutiny every year from the competition bureaus (bureaux? - I don't have time to look it up). This has allowed some strong microbreweries to thrive as the big two do not want any undue attention. Big Rock in Calgary, Granville Island Brewing in Vancouver and Sleeman's in Guelph all started as tiny operations and are now quite successful and sell beers that aren't matched by the big two. I can't turn up numbers and percentages for the Canadian breweries but I would be dumbfounded if the numbers were as bleak as those of the United States. I have read stories that the big two are very concerned by their continued loss of market share, but year after year it keeps getting eroded. They cannot stop the trend without breaking competition laws. This would most likely worsen their competitive position.

Anyway, as I alluded to in an earlier post, A-B, Coors and Miller, all led by successful businessmen, must understand this problem as well. If beer drinkers' choice is threatened they will strike back through the government and competition laws. There is no complacency. No brewery or any business is more powerful than the government - take a look at microsoft.

M.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by Richard English
Quote "...Rubbish..."

A-B and its clones have the muscle to defeat the small brewers is that's what they decide to do. They tried very hard (and are still trying) to take over (and then close) the real Budweiser plant in the Czech republic when it was mooted that it was to be privatised. Thanks to a concerted campaign by CAMRA and others it didn't happen. But don't think A-B won't try again. They will.

You miss the difference don't you?

The rest of those countries(UK included) are steeped in brewing/beer tradition. In the US, beer has mostly sucked(no real tradition to speak of) since prohibition(and there's some historical record to support that it mostly sucked before prohibition) - so the state of beer in the US currently is from the waxing, ultra-vigilant, we've-had-to-fight-tooth-and-nail-to-get-it-where-it is-today perspective - it was very recently created and you can't be complacent while you're actively engaged in battle, now can you? I (and I bet most everyone on here) make a concerted effort every single day to convert people to better beer(my definition).

Let's look at this way - the best A-B could ever do would be to recreate the very same conditions that caused the beer transformation in this country in the first place, and we already know where that leads.

American big business is having no success forcing their ideas on the US populace lately, especially when there is a fanatic core of supporters(and I know plenty of fanatic diehard craft beer supporters)...examples, Microsoft->Linux and RIAA->file sharing(and this is illegal and can't be stopped).

Last thing and then I'm done with this...

The people that are/should be credited with the resurgence of good beer in the US are the ones that caused the changes - the ones that set up the infra-structure - the ones that opened the brewpubs - the ones that opened the micro's - the ones that started and go to GABF - the ones that brew their own beer and give to their friends - the ones that tell restaurant owners that their beer selection sucks - those are the ones that transformed US beer. Saying that someone tasted a beer somewhere else and that was the impetus is no more meaningful than saying that England owes it entire brewing history to Egyptian(or was it Sumerian, either way) slaves. While it is technically true it has no real meaning - the people that effect the change are the ones that deserve all of the credit.

[chazwicke]

I would argue that WWII was one of the causes of beer getting worse here in the States. There was rationing of grains and so some brewers were forced to substitute rice or corn or other adjuncts which caused the beer to lighten a bit. And women were just becoming drinkers during the same period. They got used to the lighter beers being offered. Of course consolidation was also hitting full force at that time too. It was the beginning of the end until, as we have stated, imports awakend many of us to the fact that there were better beers out there. And that beer could actually taste better than what we were getting from the 40 or so U.S. brewers out there at the time.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by bigmf
I have to agree now, with much of what Richard English has said. The renaissance of good beer in North America was brought about by the same forces as it was in the UK. People were looking for something better. New brewers most likely looked to the UK and saw that there would be demand for better beer, while lobbyists probably looked at the CAMRA model for ideas.

AB failed to close the czech budweiser brewery because people would not be complacent about the matter. A-B would fail to crush the craft beer industry because the complacency is not there. They can make it difficult, bet we all know how far we would drive to get a good beer from a store that sells it.

In Canada, the Labatt's and Molson breweries are under scrutiny every year from the competition bureaus (bureaux? - I don't have time to look it up). This has allowed some strong microbreweries to thrive as the big two do not want any undue attention. Big Rock in Calgary, Granville Island Brewing in Vancouver and Sleeman's in Guelph all started as tiny operations and are now quite successful and sell beers that aren't matched by the big two. I can't turn up numbers and percentages for the Canadian breweries but I would be dumbfounded if the numbers were as bleak as those of the United States. I have read stories that the big two are very concerned by their continued loss of market share, but year after year it keeps getting eroded. They cannot stop the trend without breaking competition laws. This would most likely worsen their competitive position.

Anyway, as I alluded to in an earlier post, A-B, Coors and Miller, all led by successful businessmen, must understand this problem as well. If beer drinkers' choice is threatened they will strike back through the government and competition laws. There is no complacency. No brewery or any business is more powerful than the government - take a look at microsoft.

M.

I believe that the mega brewers as well as neo prohibitionists are large threats to the craft brewing industry as well. I do not believe it could ever get as bleak as the 70s were but it can get a lot worse than we have it now. Fortunately, many people are aware of this threat and many, many people now have a taste for good beer so there will always be a percentage of brewers who will cater to this market no matter how hard the big guys hit. And also there is tons of home brewing equiptment out there and homebrewers with lots of knowledge and skill who will continue brewing even if there was another prohibition. I would even start to brew again if this happened. I will not give up my beer! I think a CAMRA type of organization in the States would do much good. Primarily in education. Our drinking culture is different than the pub culture of England but I can see a day when the two culture may be closer together then they are now.

[bigmf]

I guess I have a different point of view since I come from Canada, but I see no threat from the neo-prohibitionists. They seem to be viewed up here as on-the-fringe. They just don't seem to have any foothold whatsoever. Of course we have had some legal issues up here that wouldn't be thought of in the U.S. (Remember the right for women to go topless in public and the decriminalization of marijuana issues?)

M.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by Fast_Eddy
You miss the difference don't you?

The rest of those countries(UK included) are steeped in brewing/beer tradition. In the US, beer has mostly sucked(no real tradition to speak of) since prohibition(and there's some historical record to support that it mostly sucked before prohibition) - so the state of beer in the US currently is from the waxing, ultra-vigilant, we've-had-to-fight-tooth-and-nail-to-get-it-where-it is-today perspective. I (and I bet most everyone on here) make a concerted effort every single day to convert people to better beer(my definition).

Let's look at this way - the best A-B could ever do would be to recreate the very same conditions that caused the beer transformation in this country in the first place, and we already know where that leads.

American big business is having no success forcing their ideas on the US populace lately, especially when there is a fanatic core of supporters(and I know plenty of fanatic diehard craft beer supporters)...examples, Microsoft->Linux and RIAA->file sharing(and this is illegal and can't be stopped).

Last thing and then I'm done with this...

The people that are/should be credited with the resurgence of good beer in the US are the ones that caused the changes - the ones that set up the infra-structure - the ones that opened the brewpubs - the ones that opened the micro's - the ones that started and go to GABF - the ones that brew their own beer and give to their friends - the ones that tell restaurant owners that their beer selection sucks - those are the ones that transformed US beer. Saying that someone tasted a beer somewhere else and that was the impetus is no more meaningful than saying that England owes it entire brewing history to Egyptian(or was it Sumerian, either way) slaves. While it is technically true it has no real meaning - the people that effect the change are the ones that deserve all of the credit.

I agree that we owe a large debt of gratitude to the pioneers who helped bring about this revolution. And the everyday schmucks such as myself who have fought the hard fight for years. The existance of this board speaks to the interest that is out there when it comes to good beer. So we may be a small army but we are growing and can be a formidable force against the bad beer brewers and neo prohibitionin activists. That is why a national organization similiar to CAMRA might be a good idea here in the US. I can see it being kind of an umbrella organization to many of the smaller local clubs, and groups. Maybe just a good source of information. And to act on a national level as a lobbing force. I am a CAMRA member now and would like to see a similar type organization here in the States.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by bigmf
I guess I have a different point of view since I come from Canada, but I see no threat from the neo-prohibitionists. They seem to be viewed up here as on-the-fringe. They just don't seem to have any foothold whatsoever. Of course we have had some legal issues up here that wouldn't be thought of in the U.S. (Remember the right for women to go topless in public and the decriminalization of marijuana issues?)

M.

We have an active prohibitionist movement here. Mostly masked by other organizations such as MADD. This is one of the reasons I usually do not support any "anti" movement such as the non smoking movement (even though I don't smoke except for a very occasional pipe or cigar). I believe that when any anti group is successful others such as the prohibitionists learn and use those successful tactics.

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
I would argue that WWII was one of the causes of beer getting worse here in the States. There was rationing of grains and so some brewers were forced to substitute rice or corn or other adjuncts which caused the beer to lighten a bit. And women were just becoming drinkers during the same period. They got used to the lighter beers being offered.

While I agree with what you're saying, Fast Eddy is correct in that there is evidence of lousy beer in the U.S. before prohibition or WW2. Capital Brewing of WI makes a lager they call 1900 because it's based on a discovered beer recipe from 1900. One of the main ingredients is corn grits, and I honestly believe it tastes like Old Style - and have told the brewmaster so!

S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...The natural carbonation in these kegs can act as the carbon dioxide blanket for protection against the contamination of outside air, but the point of comparison is that the breweries have employed these methods for centuries, and it's a completely different process than maturing and serving cask ale..."

Whereas I agree that there is a difference between the way in which German and English beers are brewed, just answer me this:

If the beer is not fermenting in the cask, and if there is no external carbon dioxide introduced, what maintains this carbon dioxide blanket you speak of?

In an unsealed cask it will disappear very quickly and the beer will go flat, just as a glass of soda will go flat. Soon afterwards the beer will begin to spoil, just as a poured glass of beer will begin to spoil.

You might be OK for the few hours of a one-day beer festival, that I have never disputed, but for the days that are usually expected for beer storage that will not do.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by chazwicke
We have an active prohibitionist movement here. Mostly masked by other organizations such as MADD. This is one of the reasons I usually do not support any "anti" movement such as the non smoking movement (even though I don't smoke except for a very occasional pipe or cigar). I believe that when any anti group is successful others such as the prohibitionists learn and use those successful tactics.

the neo-prohibitionists are everywhere. We have been fending them off here in the bible belt for a long time. They actually had a door to door campaign last year. It was awesome, my screen door has "clear" stickers on it that proudly proclaim my membeship in the IBS, AHA, BAA & MBAA. I just pointed to them and laughed.

[chazwicke]

I have found that they usually come disguised as some do-good busybody. But I know they are out there.

[hopjack13]

i've got a matt on my door step that says "NOT WELCOME, GO AWAY!" seems to work okay ;)

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
If the beer is not fermenting in the cask, and if there is no external carbon dioxide introduced, what maintains this carbon dioxide blanket you speak of?

We all know that just about every other (real) beer around is brewed to have more carbonation than an English cask ale. The German beers (and other well made offerings) have gone through their fermentation and (natural) carbonation process in primary and secondary fermenters, but why am I explaining this? You know the brewing process as well as any of us.

Why does the German beer I witnessed hold its carbonation? More robust carbo to begin with? Better sealed kegs? It's certainly not the brewmasters (or publicans) adding doses of sugar or yeast to the keg in the cellar to finish the fermentation or boost the CO2 - and there certainly was no external C02 hooked up to the robust barrels I saw. Especially the one that was tapped, 4 or 5 beers were poured from, then resealed and hauled into the cooler for the night.

I'm unsure on the type of venting a German keg has, but there must be something to allow for a good flow - maybe on the spigot itself? Time for some more research I guess...www.lufthansa.com...

S.

[chazwicke]

I have witnessed the opening of a ceremonial keg for a Mayday celebration in Bavaria. The town Mayor came and pounded the spigot into the end of the keg and beer splashed all over the place. I gather that this is similiar to the ceremony at the Hofbrau Haus.

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
I have witnessed the opening of a ceremonial keg for a Mayday celebration in Bavaria. The town Mayor came and pounded the spigot into the end of the keg and beer splashed all over the place. I gather that this is similiar to the ceremony at the Hofbrau Haus.

And exactly the same way a keg of that manner is tapped at the Augustiner Keller - except maybe for a little more care on the spillage.

Were you at a Mayday celebration, or Fruhlingsfest? Purely by chance, I witnessed the ceremonial "O'zapft ist!" at Munich's Fruhlingsfest - in the second row of observers!

S.

[chazwicke]

It was a Mayday fest. I was in the Town od Bad Reichenhal (I know I misspelled that). Between Munich and Salzbourg.

[chazwicke]

I probably have pictures somewhere.

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
It was a Mayday fest. I was in the Town od Bad Reichenhal (I know I misspelled that). Between Munich and Salzbourg.

The home of the German Alpenkorps, gorgeous area! IIRC, there's a Brewery/Gasthaus between there and Berchtesgaden that was lovely!

S.

[chazwicke]

I was there for my wife's German grandmother's 80th Birthday. It of course is a "bad" or "spa" town and we enjoyed the visit there. Her Grandmother lives in Berlin. She is 93 now. That trip was also long ago. We did visit Austria, Germany, France and England on that trip. Traveled via the famed Orient Express. While I have been to Europe many times since then it has been a while since I was back in Germany. I really need to go and I would like my son to visit there as he has yet to travel to Germany. My wife's uncle and cousins live in various parts of the country and have all stayed with us when visiting Washington DC. All have extended invitations but I actually prefer staying at hotels. These days when I plan a trip over I usually end up in the UK and you can guess why. But Bamberg has been calling..

[Richard English]

Quote "...It's certainly not the brewmasters (or publicans) adding doses of sugar or yeast to the keg in the cellar to finish the fermentation or boost the CO2 ..."

How do you know? In the UK beer is supplied by the breweries in an unfinished condition and is allowed to clear in the cellar. The publican may, but will probably not, add hops. He will not add priming sugar.

When the beer has cleared he will tap and serve it. How do you know that's not what happens in Germany? Their beer must either undergo a secondary fermentation or have external carbon dioxide applied - or go flat relatively quickly. As I said, it might last a beer festival but not much longer.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
How do you know? In the UK beer is supplied by the breweries in an unfinished condition and is allowed to clear in the cellar. The publican may, but will probably not, add hops. He will not add priming sugar. When the beer has cleared he will tap and serve it.

According to Jackson, a good publican will have the resources to add fermentable sugars or yeast in order to "complete" the conditioning of a cask ale (I don't remember hops as an option, but that certainly could have been the impetus of dry-hopping). Maybe a publican's responsibilities really have been cut since Jackson wrote his book?

How do you know that's not what happens in Germany? Their beer must either undergo a secondary fermentation or have external carbon dioxide applied - or go flat relatively quickly. As I said, it might last a beer festival but not much longer.

Of course it undergoes a secondary fermentation, in large secondary fermenters in order to carbonate the beer. The definition of the term Krausening is to take a measured amount of newly boiled wort, with its fermentable sugars still intact, and add it to a batch of beer entering a secondary vessel. This fresh beer is consumed by the left over yeast and CO2 is produced. When the beer has undergone a complete Krausening and (as the cask ales) cleared in lagering tannks (and some beers undergo filtering as well), it is then bottled or kegged - ready to serve. It's not kegged to lie down in a cellar and be watched over and "tweaked" until deemed ready for consumption. Many micros here in the U.S. follow this method, not just German brewers. I've even followed this method when home-brewing and kegged my beer.

Am I being put on here? Are you testing my knowledge of all this process Richard? I know cask ales are your favorite, but you struck me that you knew much about all beers.

S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...it is then bottled or kegged - ready to serve. It's not kegged to lie down in a cellar and be watched over and "tweaked" until deemed ready for consumption. ..."

I suspect that, yet again we have a problem with language here. The term "keg" and "cask" do not mean the same in the UK. Beer can be bottled to condition in the bottle or it can be conditioned at the brewery and then bottled (although if it has feremented out it will need to have carbon dioxide added at the time of bottling or it will be flat.

Cask beer cannot be conditioned in the brewery in the same way since the cask is not a pressure vessel (wooden casks, expecially are quite porus). Kegs, in UK parlance, are pressure vessels and could thus contain beer under pressure although, if the beer has fermented out completely, carbon dioxide will need to be added just as with brewery-conditioned bottled beer.

Remember, this thread started when I suggested that all beers (before pasteurisation) used cask conditioning and I stick by that. Pressure vessels (such as kegs) are a relatively new invention and their predessors, wooden casks, could only hold a relatively low pressure. So, as I said, in those days you would have had bottle-conditioned or cask conditioned beer - or flat beer.

[hopjack13]

hey steveh , congrats on passing 1000. cheers to one of the most knowledgeable beer drinkers here! i must say i've enjoyed reading your post and look forward to more.

also congrats to Mr. English for passing 700, also a knowledgeable quaffer who's posts have enlightened us all!
i'll drink two for each of you!

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by steveh
According to Jackson, a good publican will have the resources to add fermentable sugars or yeast in order to "complete" the conditioning of a cask ale (I don't remember hops as an option, but that certainly could have been the impetus of dry-hopping). Maybe a publican's responsibilities really have been cut since Jackson wrote his book?



Of course it undergoes a secondary fermentation, in large secondary fermenters in order to carbonate the beer. The definition of the term Krausening is to take a measured amount of newly boiled wort, with its fermentable sugars still intact, and add it to a batch of beer entering a secondary vessel. This fresh beer is consumed by the left over yeast and CO2 is produced. When the beer has undergone a complete Krausening and (as the cask ales) cleared in lagering tannks (and some beers undergo filtering as well), it is then bottled or kegged - ready to serve. It's not kegged to lie down in a cellar and be watched over and "tweaked" until deemed ready for consumption. Many micros here in the U.S. follow this method, not just German brewers. I've even followed this method when home-brewing and kegged my beer.

Am I being put on here? Are you testing my knowledge of all this process Richard? I know cask ales are your favorite, but you struck me that you knew much about all beers.

S.

For no particular reason I'll throw in that in addition to kraeusening Germans brewers also employ a technique called spunding to create carbonation. This is where beer is sealed into a pressure-capable vessel before it has finished its primary fermentation.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
I suspect that, yet again we have a problem with language here. The term "keg" and "cask" do not mean the same in the UK.

Richard, if you can use the term cask conditioning to define any form of secondary fermentation of beer, I'm going to use keg/cask/barrel freely and at will.

We all know the differences between an English cask for conditioned beer (even though some of those firkins appear identical to some of our 1/4 barrels...) and a U.S. keg on this board - or at least the process that goes into them and the beers they yield.

As far as pasteurization of beer, it was a great discovery for mass-marketing brewers who wanted to ship their beer around the countries or world. But the later advent of refrigeration (especially in rail cars) helped those breweries keep their kegged beers fresh for travel as well, without the pasteurization.

It's a sad turn of events that "kegged" beer in England seems to have become exclusively pasteurzed, filtered, and artificially carbonated, but it's just not so in other parts of the world. As I mentioned, I saw mega-brewer Miller filling their kegs and bottles with unpasteurized beer.

On the matter of wooden casks being pourus and allowing CO2 to escape quickly, I can only tell you what I've witnessed many times - unpasteurized (because it only traveled down the block from the brewery), naturally carbonated beer, in wooden casks, being dispensed over many days' time - their secondary ferment having occured at the brewery en mass, and yielding much more head than an English cask ale would (or should) ever have.

And what about the use of wooden casks as lagering vessels throughout Germany and Bohemia? Their beers building great amounts of carbonation over weeks of aging. Maybe not all wooden casks are equal?

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by hopjack13
hey steveh , congrats on passing 1000. cheers to one of the most knowledgeable beer drinkers here! i must say i've enjoyed reading your post and look forward to more.

Thanks for the sentiment Hop, this is a great board and has really rekindled a deep enthusiasm for beer that was dormant for some time. The love of beer was there, but not the true enthusiasm, and it's apparent in everyone on this board!

Cheers,
S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Richard, if you can use the term cask conditioning to define any form of secondary fermentation of beer, I'm going to use keg/cask/barrel freely and at will..."

I have only used, continue to use and will in future us the term "cask-conditioning" to refer to secondary fermentation in the cask. Secondary fermentation if the bottle I call "bottle-conditioning". If I have misled you elsewhere by seeming to use such terms otherwise, I apologise.

You may use the term keg, cask and barrel interchangeably if you wish but be aware that others may misunderstand you. A cask is a vessel of any size; a barrel is a cask of a specific size - 36 Imperial gallons. A keg in the USA is a cask of around 30 US gallons, which is about the same as a barrel (so the term is interchangeable). In the UK a keg, when applied to beer, is a pressure vessel.

There is another thread on this board about accuracy in the use of language and we should be aware that US and UK English is different. If misunderstandings are to be minimised then it is better to use terms that are unequivocal and to translate those which can be capable of misinterpretation.

[Brownbeard]

Are there any keg conditioned ales sold in the US? I would think that the yeast would prevent that. So, essentially the cask ales are actually consumed before the secondary fermentation is completed, I never really got that before. If I put the brew through a secondary fermentation, put it in a keg with more priming sugar and seal it up, how is that different than a cask ale, except for the higher carbonation due to a sealed vessel? I enjoy carbonated beer by the way. When my beers are in the conditioning process and are not quite fully carbonated yet, I do not care for it.

[Richard English]

Quote "...how is that different than a cask ale, except for the higher carbonation due to a sealed vessel?..."

It's not. Although the control of the level of carnonation by spiling is one of the tasks of the cellarman in a British pub. But all British cask-conditioned beers will be "flat" compared with US "tap" beers.

I can't see that the presence of yeast in beer would be a problem in the USA; many US bottled beers are bottle-conditioned and as such throw a yeast deposit.

[Brownbeard]

I can't see that the presence of yeast in beer would be a problem in the USA; many US bottled beers are bottle-conditioned and as such throw a yeast deposit.

I was thinking more along the lines that the beer would be going through with the kegged beer.

Richard is making me think that when I get my kegging going, I need to have a picnic pump for taking my kegs to parties, then I would be essentially hand drawing my beer. Richard a picnic pump is a device that forces air into the keg to push the beer out, as opposed to CO2.

[MeridianFC]

It makes me crazy when folks call cask/real ale flat. It is not flat it is in fact carbonated, but to a much lower level than forced pressurized beer. I think the figures I last saw had cask beer at about 1/2 the level of standard UK keg beer. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact figure in ppm.

That said, I have certainly noticed when going from UK keg beer to cask, the cask seems somewhat "flat". I have also noticed when going from cask to UK keg that the keg beer seems overly "fizzy". I guess it's all relative.

When Harviestoun bottle their Bitter & Twisted I believe it's artificially carbonated but they use 1/3 less CO2 than in "standard" beer. It's appreciable difference. I might try to set up a home taste test with bottle conditioned, lower carbonation, and regular forced pressurized if I can find similar enough beers.

Brown,

the home brewing thing reminded me I had several of those 5l mini kegs, the kind you see in the stores sometimes, and I'd condition in the keg but there was handle/pump that you put CO2 cartridges into force the beer out, but you still had to drink the brew within 48-72 hours IIRC. Kind of a hybrid set up.

[Richard English]

Quote "...I was thinking more along the lines that the beer would be going through with the kegged beer...."


One of the challenges facing publicans serving cask-conditioned beer is that of yeast deposit. When the cask is delivered to the pub it will be actively working and, of course, having been rolled onto the dray, driven to the pub, rolled into the cellar and placed onto its stillage it will be a cloudy and unattractive liquid.

Depending on the brew it will begin to clear after maybe 24 hours (although it will still be working) and it's the cellarman's job to judge when it is ready to be tapped and served. Of course, until there is a spare pump it can't be put on and so it might be that a drinkable cask is not actually put on until a day, or days, after it could be.

Once the cask has been tapped its life is limited (the table whose links was recently posted here gave expected lifetimes of various beer types) and once the fermentaion has finished the beer will soon turn into vinegar.

It is the judgement of the turnover needs of such a perishable product, combined with the care needed in handling, that makes cask-conditioned beer a relative rarity outside of the UK. "Keg beers", "tap beers", "fizz beers" - call them what you like were a revelation when they arrived. The publican simply rolled the keg off the dray, connected it up and served it. He didn't have to wait and didn't even have to worry about the temperature of his cellar, since the in-line cooler took care of all that. What's more, the "fizz beer" would last almost for ever!

Small wonder, then, that the licensed trade embraced the new fizz beers with great enthusiasm since they removed, at a stroke, the skills needed to keep cask beers and the waste associated with poor stock management. Just like sliced white bread (that never goes stale) and processed cheese (that fits so nicely into the spaces on the supermarket shelf and, in its shrink-wrapped anonymity lasts for ages), fizz beer was of huge benefit to manufacturers and sellers alike.

The fact that it tasted terrible in comparison to the "real" equivalent (as is the case with soggy sliced white bread and plastic cheese) was considered unimportant, since consumers were felt to have little discrimination.

And the producers were almost 100% right. In most countries of the world, fizz beer became just "beer" and whole generations grew up to whom "beer" was a cold, fizzy, yellow, weak and almost completely tasteless liquid. Most Americans had never known anything else for over half a century.

Fortunately, in the UK, for reasons I have already explained many times, the situation was different and (by a hair's breadth) we managed to avoid being completely swamped by a tide of chemical fizz.

The rest of the world's drinkers have much to be grateful for!

[chazwicke]

I'll continue to drink the "flat," warm beer.

:D