Fact Sheets
My CAMRA new members pack contained two A4 double sided fact sheets with information about beer. One of these is educational to new members and explains the brewing process and defines what 'Real Ale' is. It also concedes that 'Real Ale' is a marketing term devised solely by CAMRA - fair enough this is solid information, good stuff.
The other fact sheet asks the question "Is standard British lager real ale?". Hmmm now I would assume that if someone had gone to the trouble to become a CAMRA member, then they would be able to tell the difference between ale and lager. Apparently "lager is weak in flavour and usually overpriced". This is a pretty big claim to make given that lager can be defined as any beer that has been allowed to mature by ageing. Even expanding the definition to include only beers that have been fermented with a bottom fermenting yeast does not support this statement, this blog describes many flavoursome lagers. Product pricing is a direct reflection of what consumers are prepared to pay for a product - I guess people are willing to pay more for lager. Either that or they don't consider a crate of Carling for £6 in Tesco expensive. Of course cask conditioned lagers such as Cain's Lager, Harviestoun Schiehallion and Atlas Latitude are exceptions to the rule as they are produced by independent brewers and are served from a cask rather than a keg. Lagers from Europe are acceptable as well as they have honourable tradition abroad, even though the brands are owned and produced by the same megacorps who own and brew weak flavoured, overpriced beverages in Britain. The example of Budvar Dark is given as a form of acceptable lager, even though it isowned distributed and marketed by InBev Anheuser-Busch who also produce leading UK lager brands Stella Artois, Becks and Staropramen. Yes honourable tradition indeed!
I also find the following quote hard to swallow;
"British lagers are not given the lengthy conditioning necessary to bring out the flavour of the lager style, because it costs more money".
I have a few issues here. Firstly lagering for a length of time does not bring out the flavour of the lager style, it mellows the flavour and makes it smoother. Lagering does costs more money, but UK generic lager comprises a grist which is cut with adjuncts and bittered with hop extract. The beer is ready for drinking sooner as it has less flavour to mellow.
The rest of the fact sheet complains about the rise in lager sales and market share over the last two decades and why it is more expensive, giving the reason that more money is spent on advertising. This is true, but most lager drinkers have strong brand loyalty. The products may be more expensive in the pub, but in the off licence trade they are usually less than half the price of bottled ale. The chap who buys a crate of Carling for £6 in Tesco is the same one who is willing to remain loyal to his brand and pay £3.50 a pint in the pub. I'm sure if he could buy mass produced real ale such as Green King IPA for £6 a crate he would drink it down the pub in draught form.
The flip side of the fact sheet asks the question "How can you be sure you are buying real ale?"
The text describes a few ways to differentiate cask dispense from keg dispense, even though the definition of 'Real Ale' does not have a problem with kegs for packaging as such with the issue being more with dispense by extraneous gas. I'm not going to get caught up in the push vs pull argument and if or how it makes beer better or worse as that is stupid. Beer is not better or worse because of the way it is dispensed. Anyhow the point I object to is that the terms 'real beer' and 'real ale' are used interchangeably. Somehow if a beer is not by definition 'real ale', then it is not 'real beer'. We all know that this is simply not true.
The rest of the fact sheet is devoted to bottled ales, and how pasteurized bottles and canned beer are not 'real'. I think most consumers would buy a beer based upon brand rather than how it was carbonated prior or post filling the bottle. Some ales that are pasteurised such as bottled and canned Fuller's ESB are generally regarded as better than the cask conditioned versions of the same beer. I feel that the whole "CAMRA says this is real ale" RAIB branding is more to do with raising money for the campaign than based upon any fact.
My Verdict: The CAMRA fact sheets are a practical education tool for new members who may not spend their days reading about beer on the Internet. For the fact sheets to be useful they need get the facts correct first rather than perpetuate rumours with misguided information. For the record, I think the facts sheets are a good idea, they just need to be prepared in a non prejudiced manner.
The other fact sheet asks the question "Is standard British lager real ale?". Hmmm now I would assume that if someone had gone to the trouble to become a CAMRA member, then they would be able to tell the difference between ale and lager. Apparently "lager is weak in flavour and usually overpriced". This is a pretty big claim to make given that lager can be defined as any beer that has been allowed to mature by ageing. Even expanding the definition to include only beers that have been fermented with a bottom fermenting yeast does not support this statement, this blog describes many flavoursome lagers. Product pricing is a direct reflection of what consumers are prepared to pay for a product - I guess people are willing to pay more for lager. Either that or they don't consider a crate of Carling for £6 in Tesco expensive. Of course cask conditioned lagers such as Cain's Lager, Harviestoun Schiehallion and Atlas Latitude are exceptions to the rule as they are produced by independent brewers and are served from a cask rather than a keg. Lagers from Europe are acceptable as well as they have honourable tradition abroad, even though the brands are owned and produced by the same megacorps who own and brew weak flavoured, overpriced beverages in Britain. The example of Budvar Dark is given as a form of acceptable lager, even though it is
I also find the following quote hard to swallow;
"British lagers are not given the lengthy conditioning necessary to bring out the flavour of the lager style, because it costs more money".
I have a few issues here. Firstly lagering for a length of time does not bring out the flavour of the lager style, it mellows the flavour and makes it smoother. Lagering does costs more money, but UK generic lager comprises a grist which is cut with adjuncts and bittered with hop extract. The beer is ready for drinking sooner as it has less flavour to mellow.
The rest of the fact sheet complains about the rise in lager sales and market share over the last two decades and why it is more expensive, giving the reason that more money is spent on advertising. This is true, but most lager drinkers have strong brand loyalty. The products may be more expensive in the pub, but in the off licence trade they are usually less than half the price of bottled ale. The chap who buys a crate of Carling for £6 in Tesco is the same one who is willing to remain loyal to his brand and pay £3.50 a pint in the pub. I'm sure if he could buy mass produced real ale such as Green King IPA for £6 a crate he would drink it down the pub in draught form.
The flip side of the fact sheet asks the question "How can you be sure you are buying real ale?"
The text describes a few ways to differentiate cask dispense from keg dispense, even though the definition of 'Real Ale' does not have a problem with kegs for packaging as such with the issue being more with dispense by extraneous gas. I'm not going to get caught up in the push vs pull argument and if or how it makes beer better or worse as that is stupid. Beer is not better or worse because of the way it is dispensed. Anyhow the point I object to is that the terms 'real beer' and 'real ale' are used interchangeably. Somehow if a beer is not by definition 'real ale', then it is not 'real beer'. We all know that this is simply not true.
The rest of the fact sheet is devoted to bottled ales, and how pasteurized bottles and canned beer are not 'real'. I think most consumers would buy a beer based upon brand rather than how it was carbonated prior or post filling the bottle. Some ales that are pasteurised such as bottled and canned Fuller's ESB are generally regarded as better than the cask conditioned versions of the same beer. I feel that the whole "CAMRA says this is real ale" RAIB branding is more to do with raising money for the campaign than based upon any fact.
My Verdict: The CAMRA fact sheets are a practical education tool for new members who may not spend their days reading about beer on the Internet. For the fact sheets to be useful they need get the facts correct first rather than perpetuate rumours with misguided information. For the record, I think the facts sheets are a good idea, they just need to be prepared in a non prejudiced manner.
Labels: CAMRA

35 Comments:
Possibly some beer diary fact sheets are called for.
Budvar Dark is state-owned by the Czech government. They haven't been best mates with A-B InBev over the rights to the names "Budweiser" and "Bud" for the last wee while now.
Incidentally, as an insider ;) can you (or your readers) shed any light on the rumour I heard that lots of CAMRA-certified "Real Ale In A Bottle" is pasteurised, force carbonated, and then given a token shot of yeast to qualify for the "CAMRA says.." badge?
I expect a Talismann rebuttal here shortly, with a potential session for The Doctor to be waterboarded. I think the point is that the terms "real ale", and "real beer" are bullshit. A beer that's been introduced to extraneous co2 is not "real?" What about the ingredients, and effect of effort/skill on behalf of the brewer? It's simple people, good beer is good beer, regardless of it being real ale, fake ale, Proper Real Keg(with a cherry on top), etc. It's beer, have some fun with it!
Beernut - oops, thanks for picking me up on that. A-B market and distribute Budvar, but I am not sure of which countries that deal applies. Let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story!
I'm not sure about the RAIB being reseeded, but I am sure that it happens with a lot of casks. Some of it comes out bright with minimal stillage at all.
That is why zealots and beer don't mix. Good beer is worth drinking, bad beer... is worth drinking if you don't have any good beer.
Any statement like "lagers are weak and pale" is asinine. But CAMRA, like all extremists, are working to push an agenda. I happen to think that their agenda tends to produce better beer, so overall, don't you agree that they are doing good work?
Hi Aaron,
I do agree that they do good work, that is why I became a member. I enjoy cask ale and I would like to be able to enjoy different varieties in more venues.
I don't think you have to mislead people to point them in the right direction.
Mr. Bennett, you've been mentioned around these pages previously. Frankly, you're a prostitute for your own agenda. What's makes you think that "CAMRA's agenda" tends to produce better beer? All CAMRA's agenda does is promote disdain and archaic beer dispense methods. In case you haven't noticed, it's the year 2009, not 1859. Quality beer can be dispensed with the Proper Real Keg method. I wouldn't expect you to understand that, Mister East Coast malt man, arse kisser to Ronald Pattinson. Put that in your chowder and smoke it!
Now now - children take it easy or I will order my goat eating dog to attack!
Wanker formerly known as wurst,
You have no idea what my agenda is, who I am, or what I'm trying to do, yet based on a grand total of three things I've written, you've made me into a straw man for everything that threatens your world view. Odd. I think -- as I've suggested before -- that you probably should get a life.
Some beers taste better in casks, some are better in kegs, some are better in bottles.
Tim, like I said, I agree. You don't need to mislead people. CAMRA sounds like it's probably full of the british version of douchebags like Wurst. But in the end, it all works out. It's only beer -- drink it and forget your worries.
I am pretty sure that 95% of CAMRA members just enjoy beer festivals and having a beer. It's the purists who are standing in the way of progression.
I may be a wanker Herr Bennett, but what does that make you? Surely you're not independent of various adjectives. You're a know-it-all that litters the beer blog world. You talk out of your backside like you're an authority. You're just another know-it-all home brewer pushing his agenda on what you do is the right way of doing things. Don't let the door leading to the garden of humor hit your dumpy ass on the way out!
yup. beer zealots == purists == people who spend more time wanking about beer then drinking it.
it's for the drinking. It's to be enjoyed.
Truly profound.
For your infomation tool, I probably drank more beer this weekend than you have in your lifetime.
A good read, Tim. In total agreement with you, as a fellow member who appreciates the good work CAMRA does, and despairs at the mis-information and wrong-headedness of the vocal minority.
Was intrigued to note a motion (put forward by Roger Protz and someone else) to revoke the current ban on pubs that use Cask Breathers being eligible for The Good Beer Guide is going up at the AGM.
Could spell trouble coach. A cask breather is just one step away from proper real keg. We all know how evil that can be!
Wurst,
You obviously have severe emotional problems... consider the topic closed.
Everyone else -- sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread -- apparently, wurst has a profoud issue with anything I say. Carry on, folks.
"I expect a Talismann rebuttal here shortly". Well think again Sausage. I don't suppose I can tire of saying that I welcome diversity in beer. Nor do I like misleading material and think that Tim has made some fair points. I think some of these fact sheets need rewriting by the sound of things. Nor do you find me using the term "real" very often. I prefer the accurate term "cask" and have said so many times. But acknowledging that clearly doesn't suit your purpose whatever that is.
Back to fact sheets, it would be rather difficult (probably) to do so in a "non prejudiced manner", but while stressing the benefits of cask ale, they certainly should make it clear they are aiming their barbs at the majority of British mass produced lager, not lager as a whole. I must have a look at them sometime.
Tool, don't blame my use of logic and reason as "emotional problems".
You're a wholesaler of bullshit as thick as your chowder!
Talismann, get off your high and mighty perch. You, although different than Tool(degree in waterboarding) are just another guy living behind a CAMRA designation. Having a CAMRA designation does nothing but perhaps imply you've got some sort of problem living with modern day technology and reality. Myself as an educational force, bring APRK to the forefront. We at APRK(laugh all you want, I've been endorsed by two UK breweries, Yippee!) want the world to know that extraneous co2 is your friend. The science of it doesn't lie Talismann, and the truth is that for the most part, CAMRA is full of shit.
This is what you get when you try and reason with the deranged.
http://www.lacoctelera.com/myfiles/manurhill/double.jpg
Forgot to add, I am well deranged. I do voice-overs for a living. What exactly do you do, work in a bank? Or can you live comfortably as a highly regarded CAMRA official?
I'm an Australian looking on and trying to fully understand the whole cask/keg/real/push/pull/sparkler/breather/lager/ale debate.
Geez, sometimes you blokes make it difficult to follow but, shit, it's far more entertaining than ten seasons of Big Brother!
Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner
Beer Nut,
Re bottled beers. I can only speak about those producers I know but their bottled beer is definitely not pasteurised etc. The same goes for their casks, regardless of how sure Tim is of the opposite.
Just how many brewers in the UK do you people actually talk to before you come out with this stuff?
Not sure who "you people" means, but me: none. If I had, it wouldn't be a rumour.
Should you happen to be speaking to some UK brewers in the future, be a dear and ask them to stop shipping beer in clear glass. Whatever about the conditioning processes which go in to making Shepherd Neame 1698 -- and I'm sure they're totally above board, and that there's no artificial CO2 in the bottle -- it's the clear glass that makes me reluctant to buy it.
Anyone else find it a bit weird that CAMRA appears to believe that gas provenance is a more important factor in bottled beer quality than glass colour?
I think it unlikely that CAMRA has a policy on glass colour. Maybe it should have?
I doubt if it would support clear glass. If it does, it shouldn't.
Beer nut: The brewery I worked at filtered out the yeast from their beer for bottling and added a different stain of yeast.
I haven't heard of anyone adding yeast to pasteruied and carbonated beer though.
Tim: How a beer is disensed has a large effect on the flavour so certainly can make beer better or worse.
Some of the best RIAB does indeed get reseeded. It is filtered and bottled under a blanket of CO2, not pressure, and then an appropriate amount of a different strain of yeast added along with sugar. It gives a better control of carbonation and maturation flavours.
This is not pasteurised beer and is not, in my view, adding token yeast just to call it RAIB.
Cask beer that is virtually bright and preconditioned before it goes into the cask is an interesting one. It does happen.
I agree with Ed that the way beer is dispensed can make it better or worse. While in my view cask normally makes most styles of British beer better, this is not always the case.
I agree on glass colour. Clear is plainly bonkers.
Ed. I agree. Cask ale that is poured straight from a tap is usually different in taste to one that is pulled through a beer engine. I think the beer engine gives the beer body and brings out the malt flavour more - but thats just my opinion. Some beer tastes good out of a nitrokeg, just as some beers are better out of regular keg.
I think it's the responsibility of the brewer to determine the best ways to package their products.
As for filtering bottle conditioned ale. There are microbiological reasons why you ressed with a lager yeast. Well that's what an employee of Little Creatures told me.
I think Proper Real Nitro Keg should be addressed. I will have to introduce it to the APRK family. Nitro as a gas is nearly identical to air. Air contains roughtly 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which is very similar to Guinness gas, or the gas used to dispense nitro beers.
I think Guinness is a great beer, it's just beer snobs who dismiss it as it's mass produced. I can also understand the plight of BeerNut and co. who have little other choice than Guinness.
I think the issue with Nitrokeg is when it's forced through a disk in the tap to give it the 'sparklered' effect. As with a sparkler attached to a swan neck, it strips flavour/bitterness out of the beer.
little other choice than Guinness.Eh? We've loads of choice other than Guinness. It's just that about 95% of it doesn't taste of much. Just like Guinness.
Even without nitro, Guinness is still pretty far from being "great", IMO.
Horses for courses Beernut. I like it, but then my taste is just as subjective as yours. Bland maybe, but I certainly don't think it's bad.
Can we find some common ground with Guinness Foreign Extra Stout?
Yeah, it's quite good. Never tried the Nigerian version, though. Special Export is still the best thing out of Diageo.
The bottled, non widget Guinness they send over here is great.
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