Cask Conditioned Real Ale, Explained

It is pretty fun reading all the new, and different definitions of cask conditioned, or "real ale" in the media surrounding this event.  Fun, as in most of them are not quite right.

Like many traditional food stuffs, this is about a traditional method of preparing, in this case, a libation, that was born of necessity in times when there was little or no refrigeration, and the science behind fermentation was not well understood.  Beer was made in a brewery, but because it had to be kept fresh in order to drink, it was packaged while it was still fermenting (barely) which would keep it preserved under a blanket of CO2 given off by the yeast, in the latter stages of fermentation.

The keg (or cask) was delivered to a pub where the publican then took over responsibility for overseeing the completion of the fermentation, and waited for yeast and other suspended solids to settle out.  The artistry related to this role was almost lost, but has been revived in much the same way as we now have traditional breads, charcuterie and cheeses becoming available.  Some publicans would add more fermentable sugars to raise the alcohol, others would add hops for flavour, and to extend shelf life.  They would also often add finings to the beer, powders, or liquids that settle through the liquid, collecting protein and yeast solids as they settle, to help it clear, such that it would look better in a clear glass. It is these additions that can negate a beer's status as being vegan, as they often are made from animal proteins.

Nowadays, many people are further changing the beer by adding non-traditional, but usually fun ingredients to the cask.  The process is traditional, some of the things being added by the publican, or even by the brewer prior to delivery, may not be.  That, however has nothing to do with whether the beer (which is almost always an ale) is a "real ale".  To meet that test, it has to be still "alive", that is, the yeast has not been filtered out, removed, or killed off.  Most would be dormant, in the settled solids in the heel of the cask, meaning that you don't want to have to move it from the cellar until it's done, or you'll be serving cloudy beer.

Incidentally, this is also the source of the term cellar temperature - the temperature this beer was served at because no refrigeration was available.  Ice cold beer is usually too cold to taste its goodness anyway.  British ale is not served "warm".  It's served at about 12-14 C (54-57 F) and that is what most real stone or earthen cellars range in temperature if they are not left open to the summer heat.

Once tapped, kegs of beer are generally good for 3 to 5 days, after which the air that enters the keg to replace the volume of beer brings spoilage mechanisms with it, creating a distinct sour taste that most people find objectionable.  This temporary, naturally regulated window of drinkability is one of the charms of "real ale", but modern times have seen the amount and cost of the extra work required to create such a short window of opportunity, cause real ale to become a speciality item, often reserved for festivals, rather than a day to day libation.

Beer aficionados (geeks) welcome more of this style of service, recognizing the amount of work involved, and, perhaps more important, the cooperation and coordination required between brewery and publican in eventually getting drinkable beer to the glass.  It is not easy.

Well, it's easy to drink.

Conservation Design - Why and How we do it.

This post is for those of you who don't understand the fuss over Conservation Design, or Open Space Subdivision planning and development. It's not that complicated, but too often the reasons for doing it are overlooked, misunderstood, or held in suspicion by people who simply have not been properly shown what it's about.

In HRM, during the development of the Regional Plan, we took a good look at how this form of development might work, and planners attempted to write policy that would encourage it. Unfortunately, all that has really resulted is a clever, backhanded response by developers and their design consultants, to create the same unsustainable sprawl, with a commensurate lack of open space creation, as had been the rule before the Regional Plan implementation.

So, here, briefly, is a small example that shows the reasons why we should be doing this more. It's not because the result creates a more efficient way to live. It's not because it creates a more attractive place to live in. It's not because it results in better profit margins for the developer. And it's not because the result is a better environmental and public health outcome. It's because, done right, it's all of that and more.

Here is a sample piece of land mapping.

We have many things that are common to developing in Nova Scotia, especially in the areas of HRM under development pressure. Open, bare rock, lakes, wetland, places with some good soil, and land sloping to lakes.

To a developer, or anyone wanting to live here, that lakefront is the main draw. A developer wants to build a road to access that land, create as many lots along the lake as possible, and sell them quickly, with a minimal initial investment. Government, representing the public's desires, wants to limit the amount of road frontage per home to reduce future costs of maintenance, keep the sewage away from the lake, keep the sewage away from drinking water wells, and, where government is moderately enlightened, create open space that is connected to the lake, and other open space - a connectivity of open space that the deer and birds and other wildlife can use to get around without too much trouble from us.

Currently, the figure below shows the reflex reaction to this land by current development practice. Lots are limited in size individually because they will all have both a well and an on-site sewage disposal (septic)system on them. Their size is directly related to how good and deep the soil cover is on them.

Note the lots on the high side of the road have part of them in dirt, part on rock. That part with the dirt is for the septic system.

In this example, there are several septic systems that, although legally OK in terms of their clearance from a downslope well, are still above, and therefore upstream of someone else's well based drinking water supply. The road has to be extended is a long way in order to create the minimum frontage per lot required by the subdivision bylaws, and also to create a minimum width of a lot required by the Provincial Environment Regulations. Note also that there are 15 lots, and 6 have waterfront.

If this same land were treated as a clustered development, sharing water and sewer, it could be done quite differently.

In this layout, there are several major improvements. First, the number of lots is the same, and the number of waterfront lots is one more, but all the lots enjoy a common access to the lake. The road is much shorter, and therefore costs less to build and disrupts less land. Septic systems are not located all along the edge of the lake, but are replaced by a large shared system that can also become a part of a walking trail. There is, in this example, one well, shared among all the homes, and that is located far from the septic system, and in a location where perhaps even a dug well might work.

Most important, however, is the difference in land not taken over for development. The conservation of open space, mostly lands not that suitable for development anyway, and in a connected pattern, is far greater here. It's not logged and turned into lawns. It is available for wildlife, and for play.

This is a form of development that can result in a developer doing as well, or better from their land.  They can create a neighbourhood that, presumably, more people would want to live in.  The outcome should be at least the same number of lots, but with less investment in roads, and hopefully more lots in locations where people want their homes to be. The result, especially if practiced in a planned concerted effort with neighbouring land owners, should be development that maintains the connectivity of the ecosystem.  Servicing would be safer, and more reliable.  The cost of servicing could be less, and no more than 15 individual systems.  And it could be managed by the Municipal unit on a cost recovery basis, so we would know the system is actually working.

I have been a proponent of this approach, with central water supplied by a Municipality, for a long time.  As in: If you build it this way, we will allow access to "city water".  And if you build the sewage treatment to our specifications, we will take it over and pay for it with an area rate.  It's hard to believe how Halifax Water readily takes over huge expensive pumping stations that only add to their existing problems and costs at the waterfront treatment plants, and mean more effluent being discharged to the aquatic environment, but is apparently afraid of having to look after a small treatment plant with no outfall to a watercourse.  

We can and should use our expensive (geosmin laden) water supply as a carrot, or a beneficial tool, to direct development to where it is best for the Municipality, and not just for some quasi-independent water utility.   Shared sewage systems, operated on a cost recovery basis by the Municipality,  is the approach that is now taken in most North American jurisdictions, because it presents a far better environmental solution than simply connecting more people to the big treatment plants, sometimes miles away, that still don't work right, and never will get better.  In this case, the liquid effluent goes into the ground (as already suggested by existing design guidelines for sewage treatment), and the solids go to stabilization and composting.  Ultimately, they should return to the land as fertilizer, being free from the industrial concerns of a "Burnside mix" because this waste doesn't get added to the Big Pipe.  (If you are still afraid of fertilizer made from human waste, look up "Milorganite".)

All that is required is for our Governmental institutions to enter the 21st century and work at managing clusters of development on smaller, in-ground dispersal, sewage treatment systems.  Most other medium scale rural development such as condos, golf clubs, schools, rental cottages, camp grounds, and recreational facilities already rely on the same solutions.  In fact the Halifax Regional School Board is probably better at this that our illustrious Halifax Water utility, who have, apparently, not yet figured out that, in most things, Big is Stupid.  I mean, nothing could ever go wrong with a huge treatment plant serving all the peninsula, right?