Ridgeway Blue

Don't know but is Bluebird bottle conditioned? Guess it was otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

Changing the subject, bottle conditioned beer-in-a-bottle (with the CAMRA Real-Ale-In_Bottle logo) hasn't really taken off in supermarkets, I guess they think that punters won't pick up cloudy beer with bits in. Shame. Talking of bottle conditioned stuff have you tried any Ballards bottles ? Excellent stuff especially the aussie named brew which slips my mind (with gold label). And its about time we had a trip to the brewery itself.

-- Grumps

Yes, it always used to be BC. I haven't seen it recently, so if it is not still brewed by Ridgeway then it's possible that has changed.

You think so? My local Tesco megastore seems to be increasing its range all the time. If there's a problem, I suspect it's down to individual buyers for individual stores not always appreciating the difference between BC (or RAIB if you prefer) and non-BC, so they might look at a bottle of London Pride and think "That's the stuff they serve down at my local, so it must be real ale".

...unless it's heavily marketed, overpriced and 'continental' (cf Ho*g**rd*n)

Will look out for it. But not today cos it's 'visiting Kent Beer Festival day' today. :-)

d.

There is I think, two very godd reasons for this.

Firstly, Tesco want to buy cheap, sell cheap. This might suit big breweries with high output, but not most micros. Especially those with a sensible business head. It is often, if not always, more profitable for a brewer to work at Tescos, than sell them beer.

Secondly, Tesco (and the other supermarkets) aren't daft. CAMRA may well say it's real ale, but it is no assurance of quality. If it were, Tesco et al would take notice (my first point then coming into play!). But it's not. The beer could be infected p*ss, but still be eligible for the label...

And bear in mind once a supermarket lists your product, your are responsible for seeing that your item(s) see a big year on year growth in sales when compared to the leading items in that sector. So that's heavily discounted (and subsidised) cans of Stella then.

And no, most punters won't pick up beer with bits in. They don't care for living yeast particles, they want a beer that will sit in the fridge & can be take round the neighbours without it looking like soup.

Steve Banfield

Extreme inconsistency of quality must be a major reason for the slow take-up of BCAs. Also I find few British examples (as opposed to Belgian ones) demonstrate much evidence of actually having conditioned in the bottle.

Yes, the care needed in storage and decanting means that with the best will in the world it will only ever account for a tiny fraction of the packaged beer market.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:39:45 +0100, PeterE wrote (in message ):

How on earth does the tie "promotes choice and diversity in the beer market"?

Even the Local Brewing Industry Report 2006 published by SIBA states:

"o Penetration within pubcos is constrained by the beer tie o A significant majority of respondents report losing regular customers to acquisition by pubcos and pub-owning brewery groups at levels similar to that reported last year o Fewer than 1 in 4 local brewers market their beers through pub-owning brewery groups o Bottled beer is increasingly important, partly driven by on-trade access conditions o Fewer than 1 in 3 local brewers supply through centralised logistic operators o Local brewers also under-trade with multiple off-trade retailers"

Many BCAs these days are made with yeasts that cling to the bottom of the bottle making cloudy drinks much less likely.

Hear hear.

To suggest that any form of beer tie is good for choice is absurd. That said, if you are suggesting that if you have enough owning companies (brewers or pubcos) then you are going to get ties to wider range of beers, then I sort of take your point.

But in the meantime such ties are only good for larger breweries, leaving a rapidly shrinking free trade market (and remember that many free houses actually aren't) to a rapidly increasing number of small breweries.

Steve Banfield

Very true. But they still won't tolerate trips to the neighbours BBQ (or further), placing in the fridge etc etc.

And regardless of well the yeast sediments, the quality can still be poor. Not always, but it is a lottery. Of course filtering won't improve the quality, but it is a costly excercise, and any brewery that is prepared to invest in this - either with plant, or through contract bottling - is more likely to be investing in the finished product. There are too many BCA's that are little more than homebrew. And one bad one will undo the work of several good ones. And that is where the CAMRA RAIB logo falls down. It is a good scheme in principle, but the scheme should have quality standards as well.

Steve Banfield

But in considering choice and diversity, you need to consider not only the total number of breweries but the market share they command. If we compare:

(a) a situation in which 3 brewers control 98% of the market, and 400 brewers control 2%, and

(b) a situation in which 3 brewers control 80% of the market, 40 brewers control 18%, and 160 brewers control 2%

Then I would suggest that in practice the latter offers the consumer much more choice and diversity, even though the total number of brewers is less.

"Loan ties" are a completely different animal. And unless you enact highly restrictive legislation preventing any business from owning more than one pub, you will end up with pub-owning companies which in effect will "tie" their premises by deciding which products are sold there.

Yes, and for this reason I tend to avoid any BCAs from breweries that don't have a reasonable track record. I've been disappointed too many times.

Agreed.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:04:37 +0100, PeterE wrote (in message ):

You can predict and legislate against oligopolies happening whilst you're at it on the grounds that it's anti-competitive.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 7:24:57 +0100, PeterE wrote (in message ):

Where do you get this from, the fear of oligopoly, the 20% thing? There is no evidence for it. It's why the Competition Commission exists (formerly Monopolies and Mergers), it deals with this kind of thing all the time - it's hardly unprecedented. It's had practise, if laymen like us are aware of potential pitfalls I'm sure experienced professional bodies can spot them too!

It won't improve quality per se (won't turn a bad beer into a good one) but IMO it will lead to a more stable beer (i.e. won't go off so soon in bottle) - which leads on to what the bigger/maybe more professional breweries do with their BC beers - i.e. cold stablilisation, filter & reseed with fresh yeast, having calculated (& if necessary, added to) the fermentability needed in the bottle.

As you say to do this takes some kit, time & attention to detail which some micros don't seem to be up to. (I have doubts whether all of the contract-bottlers are up to it too).

This also brings up the question of how 'real' a filtered then reseeded & BC'd beer is!

If it became known that a brewery did this with its cask beer, I reckon many CAMRA members would be upset, yet my guess is that without exception every Champ Bottled Beer of Britain has undergone this process.

For the past year or so I've been supplying mainly BC beer through local farmers' markets. I've got around this issue by bottling straight from cask, warm-conditioning & initially only putting a 2week shelf-life (now extended to 6weeks). Bit hazy sometimes, but no flavour probs as yet.

agreed, but I think it would be v difficult to regulate - any ideas? MikeMcG