For the February 2011 installment of The Session, Simon Johnson, of the Reluctant Scooper, asks beer bloggers across the globe to a address a straightforward yet complex question: cask, can, keg, or bottle? Simon says, “The question is simple but your answer may not be: Cask, Keg, Can, Bottle: Does dispense matter?” My answer is that it depends on the situation, there are pros and cons for each method. I’d also like to observe that Simon forgot one vessel: the growler.

If  you have been reading Beer 47 for a while, then you may already know about The Session. Those of you new to The Session, it is a virtual gathering of beer bloggers, who all write on a single subject on the first Friday of every month. It was started 48 months ago by Jay Brooks of Brookston Beer Bulletin and Stan Hieronymus of Appellation Beer.

To some folks, the method by which the beer is dispensed is of utmost importance. For me, on the other hand, it really depends on many more factors and each has method has their own distinct pros and cons.

I really enjoy beers on cask when I can find them fresh and in a place with high turnover. A fresh cask of beer can have a wonderful smooth creamy texture.  In general, I usually enjoy beer better at cellar temperatures, where the flavors and aromas are not masked by the cold, and cellar temperature is the proper serving temperature for cask ales. Casks are also naturally carbonated, which produces a much fine bubble.

Despite the benefits, awe, and reverence that casks have, there are down sides of cask conditioned beer. First, cask ales may not be as popular particular bars so the turnover rate will be lower resulting in old and flat beer. Next, the proper cask temperature (53º-57ºF) is not the same as room temperature and not all bars serve cask ales in this temperature range. This results in poorly stored, warm beer. Oddly enough, I’ve found that craft breweries in San Francisco take much better care of their kegs than most of the dozen or so pubs I visited in London back in August 2009.

Who doesn’t enjoy a good beer on draft? It is almost always handled and stored properly and even if the beer is weeks old it still tastes great. Furthermore, there are a few breweries that only offer their beer from kegs. Kegs are reusable. The environmental impact of kegs is also much lower than than of bottles and even cans. And you’re not going to find Pliny the Younger in anything but a keg.

One downside to kegs is that the serving temperature is usually very cold to prevent the beer from foaming up and I usually prefer my beer closer to 50ºF. I often get impatient waiting for the beer to warm up and indulge anyway. The other downside of a keg is that they are not portable. Even when you try to transport them, if you don’t get the beer cold enough or don’t let the beer settle, it will dispense foamy. I always run into this problem when bringing kegs of my home brew to parties.

Beer has been available in cans for decades, yet craft beer in cans is a relatively new occurrence. The benefits to cans are numerous. First, the beer never touches the metal, since all beer cans have lining for the purpose of preventing contact with the metal. Cans are more airtight (oxygen is bad for the beer) and prevent all light exposure. They are lighter, allowing more to be shipped on one truck at a time, and thereby using less fossil fuels which is good for both the brewer and the environment. Cans can also go where glass bottles cannot, such as golf courses, the beach, parks, hiking, etc. Finally, aluminum is easier to recycle and more often recycled than glass.

There is, however, some growing controversy around can. First, the surface mining of bauxite can have a environment impact on the areas from which it is mined. Next, the plastic lining in cans contains Bisphenol A, or BPA. Even though studies found that the amount of BPA found in soda (or beer) cans was low, it is a substance that can cause health problems. Check out the wikipedia article on BPA and other sources to make up your own mind on this matter.

Bottles offer the convenience of delivering your favorite craft beer from your own locality or from the other side of the globe. Furthermore, there certain beers that are offered in bottles and only bottles. For instance, Cantillon just would not be the same if it were made in a keg because bottling is a big part of the process of making their sour beer. Duvel is another example of a bottle only beer so much so that the draft version of Duvel was given a different name, Duvel Green. I would also venture to guess that bottles offer the most variety of beer to the consumer.

A few problems with bottles are that they are heavy and breakable. Not all breweries choose the proper color glass (brown) to bottle their beer, thereby allowing light to damage, or skunk, the beer. Brown bottles cut down significantly the amount of harmful light but stil are not 100% immune to the effects.

Finally, there is the growler. Most growlers are about 2L or close to 0.5 gallons and are filled or re-filled directly at the brewery or from your own kegs of home brew. They are highly re-useable and offer both portability and the variety of what is available at a local craft brewery. I once filled a growler, put it in a back back, and rode my bicycle from the brewery home without any problem.

The downside of growlers is that you need one growler for each brew pub. In California and many other states, breweries can only fill the growlers from their own brewery.

Which is my favorite? I really like the idea of the growler. It’s portable and reusable container can can be filling from most any keg (depending on the growler). I just wish the laws were more flexible for the filling of growlers.

Appropriately chosen for Halloween, October’s topic for The Session is Frankenstein beer. This topic for The Session #44 was chosen and is hosted by Ashley V. Routson (@TheBeerWench) on her blog Drink With the Wench. The guidelines for the topic of “Frankenstein beers” were given as follows:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to write a blog post on “Frankenstein Beers.” There are no rules about how to write about this topic — feel free to highlight a Frankenstien brewer, brewery, beer tasting notes … or just your opinions on the concept.

In the story, Frankenstein was a scientist of sorts who had brought to life a creature made from both human parts and non-human parts. The creature was also larger than life at about eight feet tall. If I were to consider this an analogy for specific beers, I would look at the beers that are crafted from both typical beer ingredients and non-typical beer ingredients. I would also consider big, experimental beer. Sometimes these beers will be characteristic of the brewery and sometimes they are a special release, an experiment.

One brewery that comes to mind for being particularly experimental and almost downright crazy at times is BrewDog in Scotland. Many of their special release beers are not only experimental and pushing the limits but so is the marketing that goes along with it. On the mild end of the spectrum, the offer a lager, 77 Lager, hopped with Amarillo hops, not something typically used with lagers. On the extreme end of the spectrum is The End of History, a beer containing 55% alcohol by volume and bottled inside of a taxidermy-squirrel. Somewhere in between are beers like Dogma, which is an ale brewed with honey, kola nut, poppy seed, and guarana, and measures in at mere 7.8% alcohol by volume. Just like Frankenstein, BrewDog is pushing the limits, and also like Frankenstein, the intention was to create something beautiful. BrewDog, however, sometimes falls short of this. By creating monstrosities of beers, sometimes the flavor is sacrificed. I’ve heard second hand that Tactical Nuclear Penguin and Sink the Bismark are not very good. From my experience with Dogma, the beer was interesting and I could appreciate the concept but it didn’t blow me away. On the other hand, many of the beers produced by BrewDog get very good ratings on BeerAdvocate and RateBeer.

Another approach to Frankenstein beer is to take two different beers and blend them together. Southern Tier Brewing Company of Lakewood, NY has done this with their Gemini Imperial Blended Unfiltered Ale. This beer combines two big beers from this brewery, Hoppe & Unearthly, to produce a very tasty Frankenstein beer. It is a wonderfully balanced strongly hopped beer with flowery citrus aromas and sweet malty flavors with a snap of intensely wonderful hop bitternes. For more details, I have an upcoming review of this beer.

Another was to make you beer monstrous is to experiment with color. Magic Hat Brewing in Vermont has a beer called Wacko, a beer made with beet juice color. Why beets? It makes the beer red and South Burlington, VT is the beet juice capital of New England and the home of Magic Hat. Unfortunately, by the time I opened my bottle, maybe due some shipping or storage mishap, the redness was out of the beer, it was just a slightly orange-pink color when I tried it the other night.

There are numerous other experiments with beer that could classify them as Frankenstein beer. For instance, creating new styles like India Black Ale (a.k.a. Cascadia Dark Ale, a.k.a. Black IPA), or Belgo IPA certainly started off as experimental but has eventually come to be accepted as an “official” style.

Beer inoculated with Brettanomyces, made with fruit or vegetables, aged with various types of wood, made with hrebs and spices, or even all of the above; all of these beers could be considered Frankenstein but unlike Frankenstein’s monster they all have an accepted place in the craft beer world. You or I may not like a particular experiment but we can appreciate the creativity and the craftsmanship used to construct the beer and we also that somebody else probably enjoys it. But, for the most part, I’m enjoying all of this wonderful experimentation and creativity in the craft beer world to create these so called Frankenstein beers.

The Session #39 is being hosted by Mario Rubio at The Hop Press and the topic is Collaborations. The instructions for this Session were as follows:

Drink a collaborative beer. Who’s brewed some of your favorite collaborations? Who have been some of your favorite collaborators? Who would you like to see in a future collaboration? As the topic is collaborations, working with each other is encouraged.

Although I haven’t participated in the Session for a few months now, I couldn’t miss participating in this topic. Even though I’ve been a craft beer drinker for a number of years and I’ve been operating this blog for a year and a half, I can only recall one collaboration beer that I’ve tried. I was the SF Brewer’s Guild Imperial Common, which was available during SF Beer Week 2010. Although, the Imperial Common was a wonderful beer and a very appropriate style. In preparation for this topic, since I could not fill an entire article about one beer, I picked up a number of collaboration beers with plans to review each one before today. I picked up:

• Mikkeller-BrewDog Devine Rebel
• Sierra Nevada (with Anchor Brewing) 30th Anniversary Stout
• BrewDog-Cambridge-Stone Juxtaposition Black Pilsner
• 21st Amendment-Firestone Walker-Stone El Camino (Un)Real Black Ale
• Nøgne Ø-Jolly Pumpkin-Stone Special Holiday Ale
• Nøgne Ø-Gahr Smith-Gahrsen Andrímnir Barley Wine Ale

The 21A-Firestone-Stone collaboration was especially difficult to track down but thanks to @wesleybeero, I got the last bottle from the Potrero Hill Whole Foods. I was all set last Saturday to crack open one of these bottles when I came down with a cold that just wouldn’t quit, all week long. So I’ll eventually get around to reviewing each of these beers and when I do, I’ll update the above list with links to each review. I did, however, crack open the Mikkeller-BrewDog last Wednesday and you can read the review of Devine Rebel here.

Since I’m not able to go over each collaboration beer, I’ll discuss the topic of collaboration beers in general.

In general, collaborations are a great way for beer makers to get together with different points of view and create something that either may not have made on their own. Getting together for a collaboration also might just be an excuse to make something completely wacky but why not if the resulting product turns out well?

Collaborations are also a great way to promote homebrewing and an awesome prize for homebrewers. The bottle of Nøgne Ø Andrímnir Barley Wine Ale was actually brewed by the winner of a homebrew competition at the Nøgne Ø brewery. More well known is the Sam Adams Longshot American Homebrew Contest, where, again, the winners of the competition get to brew their winning beer at Sam Adams to be later sold in stores. There is even a category of the Great American Beer Festival specifically for this type of collaboration, Pro-Am. Finally, some even local breweries have regulars that have a good relationship with the owner or head brewr to the point where they are invited to collaborate and brew in the brewery. Since I never-ever-ever plan on owning my own brewery, this type of homebrewer-professional collaboration is very appealing given that this would be the only way I could ever brew “like a pro” and collaborate with a brewery.

And then there are collaborators that are in a unique category of there own like Mikkeller. Mikkeller isn’t a traditional brewery, it’s Danish brewer, Mikkel Borg Bjergsø, who goes around Europe and the United States brewing and collaborating at other breweries to produce a very unique line of beer.

It’s also a great marketing vehicle from a few perspectives. First, it gets out the name of several breweries for one release. You may have heard of Stone Brewing of San Deigo but maybe not Nøgne Ø of Denmark. Next, these collaborations are usually able to brew something a little out of the ordinary (even more so than usual) and still manage to sell the product. By having a limited release breweries can use word-of-mouth marketing and a necessarily scarce product to produce demand that well exceeds supply. In most cases this does not result in higher prices but some stores do take advantage of the “uniqueness” of the beer to hike the rates. This starts to bring us to the dark side of collaborations and special release beer in general. Certain beer becomes so rare that collectors must grab up every bottle they can find at the determent of the beer community at large. During SF Beer Week somebody sent me a picture of some douchebag who posted a picture boasting how much Pliny the Younger he hoarded. Limited edition beers can also lead you on a journey (annoying or enlightening) to new beer stores to find what you’re looking for.

How do you feel about collaboration beer?

]]> http://beer47.com/2010/05/the-session-39-collaborations/feed/ 2 http://beer47.com/2010/04/sf-chronicle-reports-about-ab-1598/ http://beer47.com/2010/04/sf-chronicle-reports-about-ab-1598/#comments Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:30:40 +0000 David Jensen http://beer47.com/?p=1116 Continue reading →]]> Today, April 6, 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle is running a story about the California bill, AB 1598, to outlaw caffeine in beer. It includes a few quotes from yours truly.

Here’s a link to the article:

San Francisco Chronicle: Proposal to ban caffeine in beer opposed

A few days ago I posted an article about California Assembly Bill 1598, which is currently in committee and will, as currently written, potentially outlaw any malt beverage that contains caffeine, including the beloved craft beer styles that include coffee such as espresso stouts, coffee porters, and more.

[Updated March 12 at 10:21am] In my previous post, I mentioned that, yes, Beall’s office is working with the Craft Brewers Association to clarify this bill. This does not mean, however, that we should not sit by idly and wait. We need to express our discontent to the California Assembly regarding this bill and the slippery slope that it creates. Don’t let coffee stout be outlawed by a technicality!

Since writing that article, I have seen much support against this bill on twitter and from readers of this blog. I also wrote letters to both the committee chair, Joe Coto, of Governmental Organization (G.O.) as well as Assemblyperson Jim Beall, who introduced the bill. I have not received a response, personally, until this morning.

This weekend I would like you to help out and protest this horribly written piece of legislation in the following manner:

• Find a craft beer made with coffee and enjoy it. Use Twitter to announce what coffee beer you are drinking and use the hashtags #noab1598 #iheartcoffeestout
• If you do not use Twitter, then announce what beer you had in the comments of this post.
• Write an email to Jim Beall, Joe Coto, or your California Assembly representative expressing your displeasure will AB 1598 and that you think it needs to be either completely re-written or, better, stopped altogether.
  • Jim Beall: Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov
  • Joe Coto: Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
• Put a this badge on your blog or website. A link back to this blog post is not mandatory but would be useful.

<a href=”http://beer47.com/2010/03/protest-the-california-bill-to-outlaw-coffee-stout-ab-1598/” mce_href=”http://beer47.com/2010/03/protest-the-california-bill-to-outlaw-coffee-stout-ab-1598/”><img src=”http://beer47.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/no-ab1598-badge.png” mce_src=”http://beer47.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/no-ab1598-badge.png” border=”0″ alt=”I heart coffee stout. No AB 1598.”></a>

With enough people involved, I’m sure we can all make a difference together and squash this frivolous law that would prevent us from drinking some great craft beer made with coffee.

Update: March 12, 2010 at 10:25am

I received a comment from Assemblymember Beall’s office below. They misunderstood that they had not replied to my message. So that everybody know what I sent to Beall and Coto, I will post my message here:

Assembly Member Beall,

I am writing to ask you to withdraw AB 1598.

I understand that the intent of AB 1598 is to outlaw caffeinated malt beverages that might be popular by young and underage drinkers. The desire to protect our youth is laudable but this bill serves to remove more liberties. There are several problems with the law in its current form:

1. It will also outlaw a niche in the craft beer market, which is coffee stouts, coffee porters, and yerba mate beer. There is wonderful roasty and mocha quality that coffee or espresso adds to these styles of beer that can not be reproduced otherwise. Furthermore, the coffee is naturally brewed and added to the beer during the standard brewing process.

2. There is already an FDA investigation with regard to caffeine and stimulant additions to malt beverages. My understand is that there are also already regulations and guidelines governing caffeine in beer. Why does California need another bill on the books when there are already Federal guidelines?

3. There are a few sections of the bill that state facts and make assertions with out the proof of the research behind those assertions. With out the research they are merely opinions. There is even a misguided assertion that social networks are comprised only of young people but the fact is that the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is 35+ and 18-25 is shrinking percentage-wise.

4. Finally, if the issue is marketing these soda-pop alcohol drinks to minors and young people, then write a new bill to outlaw the practice of marketing alcohol to underage drinkers. If you make it difficult or impossible for big alcohol to reach the underage demographic, then there will be no need for those products.

Finally, I also understand that you or the committee are already in talks with craft brewers about this bill. I’m writing to let you know that it is not only the craft brewers that are concerned with this bill but also consumers such as myself and the readers of my blog.

Thank you,
David Jensen
San Mateo, CA

Update: March 12, 2010 at 2:30pm

In addition to the comment below, I also received an email from Cris from Assemblymember Beall’s office. Cris did mention that the intent of the bill is to prevent manufacture of an unsafe product. Fair enough but I still have not seen the research (waiting on a reply for that) that explains what the unsafe levels are. Cris also provided a link to the FDA regulations on the matter:

FDA To Look Into Safety of Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages

From reading that it seems to me that the manufacturers of the beverages have to prove that it is safe but what is considered safe has not been defined. In its current form AB 1598 does assist in creating the definition of what is safe. It takes broad strokes that could be applied to your favorite coffee stout. Intention or not, it’s a bill that could become law, if how it is written does not reflect this supposed intention, then we have a problem.

Finally, here is my response to the email that I received from Jim Beall’s office.

Cris,

Can you forward references to the studies that caffeinated alcoholic drinks are unsafe? I’m curious about the unsafe levels and the circumstances studied. I’m also not sure what the problem is with this FDA regulation, the manufacturer has the burden of proof that the product is safe. I know one brewery that uses licorice in their beer and had to get FDA approval. The resulting product has safer levels of licorice than licorice candy. (Note: licorice can increase blood pressure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquorice). If the problem with the FDA regulation is the ambiguity of what is considered safe, then AB 1598 also does not address that. If any caffeine plus 0.5% alcohol is what is considered unsafe, then that is much much to board and I’m very skeptical of those numbers.

I also agree that the government needs to intercede on behalf of the public to protect the public from dangerous products. We should not have lead in toys. But it has not been proven to me, yet, what amounts are considered dangerous. Over short (or prolonged) periods of time alcohol in large quantities is dangerous and caffeine in large quantities is dangerous. But we don’t ban alcohol and we don’t ban caffeine, we regulate the amount that is considered safe and even then, it can still be abused so we encourage moderation and provide warning labels.

I’ve tried rum and coke, red bull vodka, jack and coke, espresso stout, coffee porter, and so on. At what point are these beverages unsafe? If we use scientific research to set limits on what is considered safe amounts of alcohol and caffeine that can be combined it and sold as a single unit, then I might be willing to accept that.

We don’t have to wait for the FDA to “catch-up” but we should not be so quick to jump the gun without the proper research (again, I’d like to see the research). Furthermore, the bill as it stands still it too broad and still make unsubstantiated or absurd statements. The whole thing about Facebook and MySapce still bothers me.

If the intent of the law is to regulate safe levels of alcohol plus caffeine, then keep it simple and word it as such.

I suggest writing the law as if it were an FDA regulation. Keep to the facts and keep the crap out.

You have a good weekend too.

Cheers!
David Jensen
San Mateo, CA

Normally, I only post articles about beer reviews, beer events, home brewing, and cooking with beer but something a little more political and beer related recently caught my attention. I was reading a post by @DevilsCanyon that linked to California bill AB 1598, which outlaws malt beverages that contain caffeine. I’m not lawyer or legislator but there seems to be some issues with this bill that could lead to outlawing coffee stout.

The bill language and some reference links can be found at the following locations:

• AB 1598
• AB 1598 Status
• Subpart F of Section 25.55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations
• Chapter 51 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations

Below are the questions and concerns that I have about the bill:

• Does it or does it not outlaw beverages such as coffee stouts?
  • This is my biggest concern. Will it prevent me from home brewing my own coffee porter or stouts?
  • There seems to be a section that exempts beer such as stout, porter, ale, lager, etc. but to me it is not that obvious.
• It leaves the terminology for “stimulants” open ended.
  • I interpret (or misinterpret) a situation where somebody like Uncommon Brewers might have to cease producing some of there beer if somebody considers anise or licorice or something else a stimulant, despite the fact that they have received FDA approval for their beer.
• It makes a bunch of assertions to justify the existence of this bill, some of which are hokey, false, or without proof.
  • For instance, according to the bill, social networking sites, like Facebook and MySapce, are used to market to, specifically, young people. I guess the California legislature knows the Facebook demographics better than Facebook. The truth is the 18-25 demographic on Facebook is shrinking percentage-wise. In March 2009, it was down to 35%.
  • Does caffeine and alcohol really impair you ability to know how drunk you are? Maybe there is a study for this but I’d like to read the study before it gets jammed into law as fact.
• The law outlaws caffeinated malt beverages but doesn’t touch Red Bull vodka. This is also a slippery slope, will Red Bull vodka be next? What about rum and coke?
• I was looking for Title 26 Section 5092 for the definition of “brewer” but could not find it and it seems that 5052(d) has replaced 5092 but I’m not certain.

What do you think of this AB 1598? Does it outlaw coffee stout and porter?

Update: March 9, 2010 9:20am

Mario from Brewed For Thought contacted and received a response from Tom McCormick of the California Small Brewers Assoc. which indicates that there should be no concern, yet, about this bill.

Mario,
Currently we are in direct talks with the bill’s author, Assemblyman Jim Beall (Santa Clara). We expect to amend this bill fully so that it has no impact on craft brewers. If that changes for any reason, we will certainly look at a letter writing campaign etc.
Thanks for your support!
Tom

Tom McCormick
Executive Director
California Small Brewers Assoc.

Personally, I won’t be unconcerned until the bill is dead. This bill has a slippery slope down which we should not slide.

I also found a few more links this morning:

• Beer Advocate Forums: Coffee Brews Threatened in California (Assembly Bill 1598)
• Coffee ales and lagers threatened in California by Charlie Papazian

Update: March 9, 2010 at 11:22am

Read the comments below. One read received a response from Jim Beall’s office as follows:

The Assemblymember is working with the craftsbrewer association to attempt to clarify the legislation. The intent of AB 1598 is to enforce federal legislation that prohibits alcoholic beverages that are spiked with stimulants.

Sincerely,

Frances Grammer

Senior Field Representative

If this is the case and the reason is to comply with federal regulations, then why is there all of that mumbo-jumbo in sections (a) through (j) of the bill? This bill needs a lot of work. They need to remove (a) through (j) and simply state it that the intent of this bill is to comply with the enforcement of federal regulations.

But now I ask, if there is already a federal regulation, why does California need a law on the books?

Update: March 10, 2010

FDA Investigation

I received a message on Twitter from @beerwars that this issue is similar to an ongoing investigation by the FDA. Here’s some details about that investigation: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/whats-in-your-kids-favorite-drink-big-brother-wants-to-know-01896.html

Jim Beall, California Assembly District 24

This bill was introduced by Jim Beall from District 24, which covers Santa Clara and parts of San Jose. Here is some information about Jim Beall:

• California Assembly web page on Jim Beall Jr.
• Jim Beall’s Assembly member home page
• Jim Beall for State Assembly 2010
• Jim Beall for State Senate 2012
• Campaign contributions for 2010 campaign
• Campaign contributions for 2012 campaign
• Email: Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

California Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization

This bill is currently in committee with the Committee on Governmental Organization. If your representative is on this list, then please send them an email with your displeasure about this bill. If you representative is not on the list, then send an email to Jim Beall or the committee chair, Joe Coto, District 23.

• Members of the Committee on Governmental Organization
• Joe Coto, committee chair: Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov