Oracle of the week
A few people have blogged about the public forums that CAMRA have added to their website. I don't have the time to read many blogs or forums these days, but I did take a cursory glance over some of the posts to see what the fuss is about. I can see what the problem is straight away. There is one forum thread which features The Beer Nut discussing why CAMRA place such importance on the provenance of carbon dioxide. The whole thread is full of ignorance and the usual CAMRA brainwashing drivel, but one pearl of wisdom from a chap called Richard English really does need to be highlighted!As a bit of background, Richard English is a CAMRA life member and seems to have an opinion on every issue raised on the forum. Basically he comes across as a self appointed spokesperson for CAMRA. Why then did he say, and I quote;
.
"carbon dioxide generated naturally in the cask or bottle is physically different from that introduced from a cylinder"
.
As carbon dioxide is a compound and as such has constant physical properties regardless of origin, he has clearly been misinformed during his CAMRA brainwashing 101 class. For this reason as well as being a self appointed know all, "The Beer Diary" is pleased to announce Richard English as Oracle of the week. Congratulations!
posted by Tim at
Friday, March 20, 2009
23 Comments:
Oh good lord. Someone should set Ben Goldacre on him.
Would I be correct in thinking that although carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, that injecting carbon dioxide as a gas is different from it being a byproduct of further fermentation, so the beer itself is physically (or at least chemically) different? I can't be bothered to go and check the forms you mention to read the discussion though.
Carbon dioxide is carbon diaxide regardless of where it comes from. There is no physical or chemical difference between carbon dioxide as a bi-product of fermentation or froma tank/cylinder.
The gas is dissolved into solution, where it comes from has no bearing of affect on taste or physical/chemical characteristics.
I have heard of this. the carbon dioxide injected in from a cylinder is made artificially so is an inorganic compound, whilst that generated as a byproduct of fermentation is generated from a natural source and so we have to consider it organic. Hence it is the difference between organic and inorganic carbonation. The inorganic version gives the beer a sharp edge and menas that true beer afficionados cannot stomach it.
The bloke sounds a right buffoon. I suspect Viz's "Real Ale Twats" may have been inspired by him.
This is one of his posts:
"And when you're in a pub and you see a stranger eyeing the bar and possibly uncertain as to what to order (a common enough situation in major cities with foreign visitors) say something like, "The Pride's drinking well today" and watch the look on the stranger's face when he or she tries proper beer for maybe the first time."
Curious Gregor: Please confirm that you are taking the piss.
I thought it was a piece of pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo genius that I created, based on the view of science before the first "organic" compound was made from an "inorganic" compound. I am also sad to say no one has ever told me a beer is drinking well. Hopefully one day someone will, so I shall start looking confused in pubs more often.
I had originally named this post Twat of the day, but toned it down. I think the message still comes across.
Curious gregor - over carbination pushes the carbonate buffer towards carbonuc acid. That is what gives the beer the sharp edge. It has nothing to do where the gas comes from.
Jeff P - If RE I sgoing to sprout that shit then I assume that the other customer just looks at RE like he is some kind of bearded tool.
But I think that if you created cylinders of so called organic carbon dioxide then you could probably persuade a good chunk of these true ale believers that carbonation would be a good thing taht made the "cask" flavours come through even stronger. You just need a serious enough looking web-page.
Why doesn't CAMRA do something the adulteration of beer with dihydrogen monoxide?
I shouldn't CAMRA bash so much, but they are such an easy target when they have blokes like RE in the ranks
It is absolute nonsense - C02 is CO2.
However, there are surely good valid arguments for carbonation via fermentation rather than cylinder injection.
1. The same biological process that makes the CO2 also makes other compounds that affect flavour and mouth feel
2. Sitting around with dissolved CO2 in the beer is bound to affect the maturation of the beer, compared to adding CO2 at the last minute.
Good post. I've very familiar with Richard English. He's been on many home brew forums spouting his horseshit. I've done the tests, and concluded there's no difference between extraneous co2 and co2 created naturally. Anyone who says there's a difference should fuck off and drop beer for wine. When the air enters the cask it's all the same. Why these fools continue to make things complicated is beyond me.
Tim, I could get upset you know. I posted in that forum so surely it's not completely full of ignorance.
Jeff, that damn Dihydrogen Monoxide gets everywhere. I'm finding in my roof timbers at the moment. Do you have any reliable removal method? I've considered petrol and a match but figured that might cause a whole lot more problems.
Hi Dave, I never said that it was completely full of ignorance, but commented that RE is spreading his brand of Drivel as gospel in that particlar thread.
I did notice that the thread regarding cask aspirators started with a whole lot of rubbish, but has resulted in an interesting discussion and put the issue back on the agenda for review at a CAMRA wekend away. A positive outcome which is a direct results of your blog post. You should be proud.
This differentiation between "natural" and "unnatural" versions of THE SAME MOLECULE drives me insane.
The widespread lack of understanding of very basic scientific principles is genuinely depressing.
OK, rant over.
Thanks Tim for the compliment. I was of course pulling your leg.
" A positive outcome which is a direct results of your blog post. You should be proud."
Having read, and commented on this just before a busy night, it took a while to sink in - wow! I didn't realise my post was that significant!
If it goes through then of course I'll be proud. Possibly also humbled and perhaps a little scared.
At last a go at CAMRA that makes sense. The RE bit I mean.
"carbon dioxide generated naturally in the cask or bottle is physically different from that introduced from a cylinder"
Just a thought. I suppose he could have meant in what it does to the beer, not its chemical make up? No. I am being too kind.
While I find your almost knee jerk CAMRA bashing increasingly tiresome, I (grits teeeth) must admit you do seem to have a point regarding RE. He does rather seem to have a view on everything - wonder how he finds time for the day job?
There are plenty of opinions about this one. For some reason I get a lot of nasty emails about my CAMRA bashing and a lot of comments, but these posts also tend to get the most visitors and pageviews!
Maybe I should make Friday's post a regular 'Beat up CAMRA' theme?
Post a Comment
Comments welcome, however if you are a ticker, weird beard or anonymous spammer expect to have your comments edited or removed.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home