OT: slops in beer

[Bill Wright]

From my sister:

Brian refused to accept a pint as the barmaid had poured beer from a
plastic container into the glass before pulling the pint.
She pulled him a fresh pint, but then the manager had a go at Brian for
having sharp words with the barmaid. It looks as though this is normal
practice, as each pump had a square plastic margarine tub balanced in
the slop tray underneath the bar. Makes you wonder what other unpleasant
or unhygienic practices go on there.

Bill

[F Murtz]

Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?

[Bill Wright]

The beer in the tray has passed over the hands of the barmaid. She has
been handling change, etc.

Bill

[Andy Cap]

Anything could have fallen into the tray and how long have the dregs
been in there ? There's no guarantee, that she empties it every time -
still wrong if she does,

[polygonum]

On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
> Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?

Often glasses are re-used. (Used to be absolutely normal but there was a
push to using clean glasses each time quite a number of years ago. I
doubt it has stopped the practice.) ) So anything flowing over a glass
might carry saliva and whatever else has got onto the glass from the
customer.

--
Rod

[misterroy]

I was instructed to use the slops when I worked in a bar in the late 80s. Pressure was put on the manager from the brewery, "a keg holds X pints and you only sold Y".
I think the drip trays that returned the drink to the pump had recently been banned.
Slops from the tray is not as bad as the second managers trick. We had two buckets, one for lager and one for beer. These buckets were drained back into the kegs at the end of the evening.
Beware any bar that has a means of collecting the overspill.
I had friends who worked at other bars and they were instructed to do the same.

[polygonum]

Don't know how much mythology this is, but always used to be said that
slops (i.e pulled but clean) beer could galley be added to the mild
but no other beer.

--
Rod

[Brian Gaff]

Depends on how clean the tub is and how long the liquid has been in it, I
guess.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5747c8a2$0$31220$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com...

[bm]

"polygonum" <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dqq8i1...@mid.individual.net...

Yep, many years back it was always done but only with mild.

[Fredxxx]

Given the price paid for a pint, and the markup from a barrel, I'm
surprised that nay pub would consider doing anything like that. 1 pint
pulled would pay for 5 pints of dregs.

[Muddymike]

On 27/05/2016 10:17, Martin wrote:

> but each pint of dregs is worth £2.50 profit, depending on the location in UK.

£2.50 that's a cheap pint!

Mike

[damdu...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 23:36:43 -0700 (PDT), misterroy
<rgdav...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
>> > Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?
>>
>> Often glasses are re-used.

>) So anything flowing over a glass
>> might carry saliva and whatever else has got onto the glass from the
>> customer.

>I was instructed to use the slops when I worked in a bar in the late 80s. Pressure was put on the manager from the brewery, "a keg holds X pints and you only sold Y".
>I think the drip trays that returned the drink to the pump had recently been banned.

Laws used to be different between Scotland and other parts of Great
Britain. Scotland required a clean glass for each serving long before
the England and Wales . Visitors to Scottish bars a few decades may
remember that the beer was dispensed from fonts taller than those in
England ,partly because their law requires (d) the glass too be filled
in full view of the customer so they could see what was going on.
Some of those tall fonts were designed to syphon spillage from the
glass back into the pour till the galls was full of liquid,canny
customers could see from the handle position if the bar person was
filling with 100% fresh beer from the cask or mixing with the
overspill. With fresh glasses in use then the overspill should only
have been contaminated by running over the bar persons fingers .

Until marketing men encouraged ever larger branded dispensers over the
past 30 year south of the border tap and beer engine spouts were low
down so it was easy for staff to top up from the drip tray with beer
that could have overflowed from someone else's glass or it was poured
into a bucket at the end of a session. One time ISTR that either duty
or VAT could be reclaimed so a good landlord was not necessarily
keeping it to re serve but to measure it though of course the
temptation to pour it back into a cask was often too much, Mild was
the favourite as usually the colour would not change too much and this
practice did not do much too enhance Milds reputation and caused it to
die out in many areas .
Some landlords reckoned a drop of lemonade in such a cask would liven
it up and put some bubbles back .
The practise also made a lot of drinkers switch to keg when it came
available, you can get beer back into a keg but it isn't as easy as
pouring into a cask via a funnel.

Though the systems which drew drip tray beer back into the glass did
almost die out in the 80's having been only been seen in the North for
years the use of a clean glass each time lead to their return or at
least not covert use in parts of Yorkshire in recent times. There use
is defended in almost religious way by some in that county as it helps
with the large head style favoured in the North. Perhaps Yorkshire
bar persons wear disposable gloves for serving now but I doubt it,
and IME when establishments get really busy the fresh glass each time
rule gets relaxed to appease customers who would rather keep their
existing cool glass rather than see the next drink poured in to a hot
glass just out of the washer.
But if I was in a pub exhibiting this sign I would be looking hard at
the bar persons hand hygiene.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-21T5RpulVbs/UiWnUxMAcYI/AAAAAAAAFLc/25F_RD_jXhk/s1600/autovac.jpg

G.Harman

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ni8bd7$u92$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

The answer is to stick to pre-packed beer, then.

--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[charles]

In article <vImdnbWuD6t8hdXK...@brightview.co.uk>, Muddymike

£4.05 on Wednesday night in our local

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Rod Speed]

"Fredxxx" <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ni92jf$spq$1...@dont-email.me...

I'm not. With all those pubs going bust, you shouldn’t be surprised.

> 1 pint pulled would pay for 5 pints of dregs.

Pity about their costs.

[Muddymike]

On 27/05/2016 11:01, Martin wrote:

> £2.50 is the profit in a £3 pint.
>
If they sell the slops then it 100% profit as they are getting money for
something that would have been thrown away.

Mike

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <8l6gkblfttmma7pv1...@4ax.com>,

Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 10:52:37 +0100, Muddymike <ne...@mattishall.org.uk> wrote:

> £2.50 is the profit in a £3 pint.

Given the tax is nearly 50p, that's good going.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

[Fredxxx]

On 27/05/2016 10:17, Martin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 10:08:25 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>

> but each pint of dregs is worth £2.50 profit, depending on the location in UK.
>

> Another nasty trick is not to flush the plumbing sufficiently after cleaning
> fluid has been used.

It doesn't, it represents 60p loss, the price a pub will purchase it's
beer.

If demand outstripped supply I would agree with you, but that is rare
and down to incompetence.

[Tim Watts]

On 27/05/16 11:01, damdu...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 23:36:43 -0700 (PDT), misterroy
> <rgdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:22:53 AM UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
>>> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
>>>> Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?
>>>
>>> Often glasses are re-used.
>> ) So anything flowing over a glass
>>> might carry saliva and whatever else has got onto the glass from the
>>> customer.
>
>> I was instructed to use the slops when I worked in a bar in the late 80s. Pressure was put on the manager from the brewery, "a keg holds X pints and you only sold Y".
>> I think the drip trays that returned the drink to the pump had recently been banned.
>

A pub in York in the 80's used to sell "witch's brew" for 20p a pint
that was all the slops. At least you knew what you were getting!

[Peter Crosland]

Definitely needs reporting to the local environmental health authorities.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Bill Wright]

On 27/05/2016 11:01, Martin wrote:

>>> but each pint of dregs is worth £2.50 profit, depending on the location in UK.
>>
>> £2.50 that's a cheap pint!
>

> £2.50 is the profit in a £3 pint.
>

The extra profit from a sale that does not increase wholesale purchases
or overheads is the price of the sale.

If you sell something that would otherwise go to waste you increase your
profits by the sale price.

Bill

[Adrian]

Not so fast...

The _EXTRA_ profit is the difference in the profit you make on selling
the slops versus selling a straight pint. So if there's 80p of overhead
being saved on a sale that would have given £2.50 profit, then the EXTRA
profit is 80p. The £2.50 profit would have been made anyway, because you
were selling a pint anyway. It's just that, by saving the 80p, you've
made £3.30 instead of £2.50.

Not that the profit on a pint really IS £2.50. That's just the margin on
top of the materials cost. Then there's all the other overheads... But
they don't affect that _extra_ profit, since they'd come out of the £2.50
margin on selling that straight pint, perhaps leaving only 20p or so
actual profit from that pint. But the extra from selling slops is still
80p.

[Norman Rowling]

On 27/05/2016 07:22, polygonum wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
>> Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?
>
> Often glasses are re-used.

This is illegal in Scotland. Every pint must have a fresh clean glass.

[Bill Wright]

On 27/05/2016 12:25, Adrian wrote:

> Not so fast...
>
> The _EXTRA_ profit is the difference in the profit you make on selling
> the slops versus selling a straight pint. So if there's 80p of overhead
> being saved on a sale that would have given £2.50 profit, then the EXTRA
> profit is 80p. The £2.50 profit would have been made anyway, because you
> were selling a pint anyway. It's just that, by saving the 80p, you've
> made £3.30 instead of £2.50.

Yes you're quite right. I was thinking more about my trade, where I
might sell scrap rather than throw it away.

Bill

[Adrian]

So if the slops could fetch 10p elsewhere - as pig feed, perhaps - then
the extra profit by selling them as a pint instead would be 80p-10p, so
70p.

[Indy Jess John]

Also, the glasses have been through a dishwasher-type cleaner which runs
at a high enough temperature to sterilise the glass. The drip tray
(which is what they call the margarine tub around here) doesn't get
cleaned at a high temperature (and it wouldn't survive if someone tried
it) and can thus harbour fungi or bacteria.

Some landlords use the beer from the drip trays to make steak and ale
pie (which sterilises the beer during cooking). Most empty it down the
sink. It certainly shouldn't be served to customers.

Jim

[Max Demian]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:17:52 +0100, Bill Wright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
> > Bill Wright wrote:
> >> From my sister:

> >> Brian refused to accept a pint as the barmaid had poured beer
from a
> >> plastic container into the glass before pulling the pint.
> >> She pulled him a fresh pint, but then the manager had a go at
Brian for
> >> having sharp words with the barmaid. It looks as though this is
normal
> >> practice, as each pump had a square plastic margarine tub
balanced in
> >> the slop tray underneath the bar. Makes you wonder what other
unpleasant
> >> or unhygienic practices go on there.

> > Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is
unhygienic?

> The beer in the tray has passed over the hands of the barmaid. She
has
> been handling change, etc.

I thought beer is naturally antiseptic, which is why they used to
give it to children as soon as they were weaned.

--
Max Demian

[Tim Watts]

Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <kkrl1d-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,

Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
> Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
> with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
> Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
> really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.

It's the act of fermentation that kills most bugs. Not the alcohol content
as such.

Which is why returning slops to a real ale wasn't as bad as it seemed. As
the beer still fermented in the cask.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

[TimW]

On 27/05/16 12:35, Norman Rowling wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 07:22, polygonum wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
>>> Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?
>>
>> Often glasses are re-used.
>
> This is illegal in Scotland. Every pint must have a fresh clean glass.
>

I thought it was illegal in england too.

The barman in the pub in the village used to always ask if I wanted
clean glasses and when I asked him why he said they had to be clean
every time by law - unless I said I didn't need them clean.

In that pub the clean glasses were generally pretty dirty so If you got
a clean one it was better to stick with it I always thought.

Tim W

[alan_m]

On 27/05/2016 03:29, Bill Wright wrote:

>. Makes you wonder what other unpleasant
> or unhygienic practices go on there.
>

> Bill


Especially as properly maintained and properly cleaned bar furniture and
lines results in empty slop trays so there is no need to recycle the slops.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[alan_m]

On 27/05/2016 13:30, Max Demian wrote:

> I thought beer is naturally antiseptic,

That's why beer near goes off!

Beer was once safer than water but only because in the process of making
beer the water was boiled.

[alan_m]

But decrease the profitability of the pub when the customers doesn't return.

[Tim Watts]

On 27/05/16 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <kkrl1d-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
> Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>> Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
>> with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
>> Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
>> really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.
>
> It's the act of fermentation that kills most bugs. Not the alcohol content
> as such.
>

Suffocation of oxygen respiring organisms I presume?

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 27/05/16 15:32, alan_m wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 12:21, Bill Wright wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 11:01, Martin wrote:
>
>> If you sell something that would otherwise go to waste you increase your
>> profits by the sale price.
>
> But decrease the profitability of the pub when the customers doesn't

> return...
>
...as he's died of cholera...
>


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

[Tim+]

alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 03:29, Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> . Makes you wonder what other unpleasant
>> or unhygienic practices go on there.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> Especially as properly maintained and properly cleaned bar furniture and
> lines results in empty slop trays so there is no need to recycle the slops.
>

Better still get it served straight from the keg with no pumps, pipes or
other paraphernalia in the way twist barrel and glass.

Tim

--
Trolls and troll feeders go in my killfile

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, its the alcohol. Eventually it kills the yeast too. It drowns in its
own poison. Thst wahy we have 'surgical spirit' containing alcohol, and
why Europe drinks not-fermeneting-any-longer small beer, cider and so
on, because it sterilises doggy water.

Asian races drink tea for the same reason. Boiling water also kills bugs.



Anything Plowperson says can generally be found to be wrong.

[Bill Wright]

On 27/05/2016 13:16, Indy Jess John wrote:

> Also, the glasses have been through a dishwasher-type cleaner which runs
> at a high enough temperature to sterilise the glass. The drip tray
> (which is what they call the margarine tub around here)

No she says they were marge tubs in the drip trays!

Bizarre!

I think she'll be writing to the owners, and the council. I found her
all the contact details, including the CEO of the pubco.

Wether she'll bother I don't know.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 27/05/2016 13:37, Tim Watts wrote:

> Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
> with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
> Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
> really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.

If it stings when you put it on broken skin it's antiseptic!

Bill

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <7m2m1d-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,

Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
> On 27/05/16 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <kkrl1d-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
> > Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
> >> Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
> >> with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
> >> Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
> >> really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.
> >
> > It's the act of fermentation that kills most bugs. Not the alcohol content
> > as such.
> >

> Suffocation of oxygen respiring organisms I presume?

Not really sure of the how and why. Just what I remember being told at
school.

At one time small beer was drunk by most - including kids. Very low
alcohol content but safer than the water available then.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

[Tim Watts]

On 27/05/16 15:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/05/16 15:37, Tim Watts wrote:
>> On 27/05/16 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <kkrl1d-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
>>> Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>> Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
>>>> with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
>>>> Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
>>>> really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.
>>>
>>> It's the act of fermentation that kills most bugs. Not the alcohol
>>> content
>>> as such.
>>>
>>
>> Suffocation of oxygen respiring organisms I presume?
>>
> No, its the alcohol. Eventually it kills the yeast too. It drowns in its
> own poison. Thst wahy we have 'surgical spirit' containing alcohol, and
> why Europe drinks not-fermeneting-any-longer small beer, cider and so
> on, because it sterilises doggy water.

Not at 4-5% alcohol!

[S Viemeister]

On 5/27/2016 11:50 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>> On 27/05/16 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>> Not really. It has been made with boiled water rather that the stuff
>>>> with cholera etc in that came straight out the well (in medieval and
>>>> Victorian times). The alcohol content is too low to be any use - you
>>>> really need to be up to spirits level to be much use.
>>> It's the act of fermentation that kills most bugs. Not the alcohol content
>>> as such.
>> Suffocation of oxygen respiring organisms I presume?
>
> Not really sure of the how and why. Just what I remember being told at
> school.
>

It is my understanding that heating the water to scalding, before mixing
up the brew, is what made it safe(r) to drink, as the heat killed off
many disease organisms.

[S Viemeister]

On 5/27/2016 10:26 AM, alan_m wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 13:30, Max Demian wrote:
>
>> I thought beer is naturally antiseptic,
>
> That's why beer near goes off!
>
> Beer was once safer than water but only because in the process of making
> beer the water was boiled.
>

Yes.

[Max Demian]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 13:37:08 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>
wrote:

I think communion wine at 15% is supposed to make it OK to use a
common chalice.

--
Max Demian

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <dqrauv...@mid.individual.net>,

Ah. OK. So why go to the bother of making small beer - especially for the
kids?

You certainly can't brew at those temperatures - you'd kill the yeast. It
works best at warm room temperature.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

[damdu...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:50:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:


>> >
>> > It's the act of fermentation that kills most bugs. Not the alcohol content
>> > as such.
>> >
>
>> Suffocation of oxygen respiring organisms I presume?
>
>Not really sure of the how and why. Just what I remember being told at
>school.
>
>At one time small beer was drunk by most - including kids. Very low
>alcohol content but safer than the water available then.

Not always if you believe this tale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thetcher

One of the Brewers who served the area mentioned was called Strongs,
they pinched the inscription off the gravestone to promote their beer
at one time.

Here sleeps in peace a Hampshire Grenadier,

Who caught his death by drinking cold small Beer,
Soldiers be wise from his untimely fall

And when ye're hot drink Strong or none at all.

G.Harman

[John Rumm]

On 27/05/2016 13:16, Indy Jess John wrote:

No need to empty it down the sink. You collect it all in the "spoilt
beer" barrel and send it back to the brewery. They can then have HMRC
assess the alcohol content of it and issue a refund on the duty paid.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[newshound]

No, you heat the water to about 60C, then pour it over the malted barley
to extract the sugars, and *then* boil it to sterilise. Then you have to
cool it down to fermentation temperature before adding yeast (via heat
exchangers to recover heat).

[Tim Watts]

On 27/05/16 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>> It is my understanding that heating the water to scalding, before mixing
>> up the brew, is what made it safe(r) to drink, as the heat killed off
>> many disease organisms.
>
> Ah. OK. So why go to the bother of making small beer - especially for the
> kids?
>
> You certainly can't brew at those temperatures - you'd kill the yeast. It
> works best at warm room temperature.
>

You're both right...

The boiling water is put on the malted barley to extract the sugar and
other components.

That's cooled and the yeast added, then fermented.

That's the first wash, leading to the strongest beer as there's plenty
of sugar. IIRC that would be the men's evening beer. Too strong to be
drinking that on a hot day in the fields.

The more boiling water is used on the barley to get a 2nd beer. This is
something that could be drunk throughout the day being a lot weaker
(less sugar, less alcohol).

Once more and you have the small beer - think of using a tea bad 3
times. I have no idea how string that was - probably not very - hence
suitable for kids.

I have no idea why noone realised that it would be sufficient to just
boil the water and drink it after cooling (or perhaps they did!).

[Tim Watts]

On 27/05/16 17:52, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <5586e95...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)

> Hmmm. One supposes they let it cool. But then why would they have known
> to boil it in the first place. Hmmm again.
>

To extract the contents of the malted barley :)

[Ian Jackson]

In message <svvgkbpv5o9phend5...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> writes


>
>There was a recent court case involving undiluted cleaning fluid being
>served to
>somebody as beer recently.

I believe that was one of Father Jack's favourite tipples (Harpic?).
--
Ian

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 03:29:07 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

> From my sister:
>
> Brian refused to accept a pint as the barmaid had poured beer from a
> plastic container into the glass before pulling the pint.
> She pulled him a fresh pint, but then the manager had a go at Brian for
> having sharp words with the barmaid. It looks as though this is normal
> practice, as each pump had a square plastic margarine tub balanced in
> the slop tray underneath the bar. Makes you wonder what other unpleasant
> or unhygienic practices go on there.
>
> Bill

Where on earth was this? I've been pubbing it large since 1973 and have
never in all that time seen such a thing.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 13:30:32 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

> I thought beer is naturally antiseptic, which is why they used to give
> it to children as soon as they were weaned.

You're getting confused with gin.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:45:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Anything Plowperson says can generally be found to be wrong.

He votes Labour so that tells us everything we need to know about his
intelligence level.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:50:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Not really sure of the how and why. Just what I remember being told at
> school.

You presumably went to one of those crappy Labour-run secondary moderns,
Plowperson.

[Rod Speed]

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ni9q37$tfd$2...@gioia.aioe.org...

Beer doesn't and isn't.

[polygonum]

On 27/05/2016 17:42, Max Demian wrote:
> I think communion wine at 15% is supposed to make it OK to use a common
> chalice.

However, simply being silver helps to kill many bacteria!

--
Rod

[polygonum]

On 27/05/2016 19:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> You're getting confused with gin.

Very easily done. :-)

--
Rod

[9pl]

"S Viemeister" <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:dqrauv...@mid.individual.net...

That wasn’t necessarily how beer was made in those days.

[9pl]

"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:270520161752414297%timst...@greenbee.net...

> In article <5586e95...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>

> Hmmm. One supposes they let it cool. But then why would they have known
> to boil it in the first place.

Not known so much as necessary to get what you need out of the wort
to make a viable liquor which is then filtered, cooled and fermented.

> Hmmm again.

[9pl]

"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message

news:270520161851497201%timst...@greenbee.net...
> In article <sOqdnXuAs-B64tXK...@brightview.co.uk>,

> Ah, that starts to make more sense. But how did beer makers know to do
> that before bacteria were known about?

They didn’t. They ONLY knew that that was necessary to get the
starch out of the mash that they needed to ferment to make beer.

> Did they just discover that step of the process by accident?

Nope, by experimentation on what it took to get the starch out of the mash.

> Or did they *not* know about it and their beer tended to spoil?

Nope. Beer can spoil in the fermentation stage when wild yeast
gets into the brew. But it is quite easy to avoid that happening.

Other stuff like cider just often uses the wild yeast to good effect.

> Or did they do something else entirely?

Nope, that is how beer has been done for
millennia now with some variation in the detail.

[newshound]

Rather my thoughts too, and I have nearly a decade on you.

[Ian Field]

"Indy Jess John" <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dUW1z.1538638$2u3.1...@fx35.am4...

> On 27/05/2016 05:17, Bill Wright wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:

>>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>>> From my sister:
>>>>
>>>> Brian refused to accept a pint as the barmaid had poured beer from a
>>>> plastic container into the glass before pulling the pint.
>>>> She pulled him a fresh pint, but then the manager had a go at Brian for
>>>> having sharp words with the barmaid. It looks as though this is normal
>>>> practice, as each pump had a square plastic margarine tub balanced in
>>>> the slop tray underneath the bar. Makes you wonder what other
>>>> unpleasant
>>>> or unhygienic practices go on there.
>>>>
>>>> Bill

>>> Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?
>>
>> The beer in the tray has passed over the hands of the barmaid. She has
>> been handling change, etc.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Also, the glasses have been through a dishwasher-type cleaner which runs
> at a high enough temperature to sterilise the glass. The drip tray (which
> is what they call the margarine tub around here) doesn't get cleaned at a
> high temperature (and it wouldn't survive if someone tried it) and can
> thus harbour fungi or bacteria.
>
> Some landlords use the beer from the drip trays to make steak and ale pie
> (which sterilises the beer during cooking).

In a posh pub I used to frequent, one of the regulars spent a night
scrounging what collected in the drip trays to stew steak in.

[Bill Wright]

It was a pub that is part of a large chain. It was in Sheffield. Don't
worry, when I have some written responses I will put then where you can
see them.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 27/05/2016 19:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Talking of gin, this afternoon I had two coffees on an empty stomach,
then nothing for an hour or so, during which time I was taking gentle
exercise with a the strimmer. Then I caught the temporary cook with a G
& T. Not to be outdone I made one for myself. OK, it was a triple G and
not a lot of T. I had one mouthful, and within three minutes I felt
peculiar. I took another sip and I thought I was going to faint,
honestly! I've never had a such a swift reaction to alcohol. I left the
glass, still 7/8ths full, until I'd eaten.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 27/05/2016 20:38, Rod Speed wrote:

>> If it stings when you put it on broken skin it's antiseptic!
>
> Beer doesn't and isn't.

Precisely. But why have you been wasting beer?

Bill

[Bill Wright]

This was my reaction. I have heard tales of course, but I've never seen
owt like that. I just wish I'd been there because Brian is quite
diffident and I am not.

Have no fear I will report developments.

Bill

[alan_m]

On 27/05/2016 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>
> Ah. OK. So why go to the bother of making small beer - especially for the
> kids?

It's because in those times it wasn't realised that boiling the water
killed the bugs.

>
> You certainly can't brew at those temperatures - you'd kill the yeast. It
> works best at warm room temperature.
>

You don't add the yeast at the boiling stage.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[bm]

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message

news:niarah$acs$3...@gioia.aioe.org...

Because he's Wod Speed.
LMAO.

[bm]

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message

news:niar4r$acs$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Sup it down m'lad, then you can type bollocks like Wodney.

[RayL12]

It is a little known fact that, A small amount of alcohol WILL do more
good than harm. A small amount will do a lot to strip clean the arteries
and veins. It was a great benefit in the winters when we ate mostly hi
energy, hi fat preserved foods.

This increases the ability of the body to get more work done. However,
all this junk suddenly taking up the use of your 'motorways' means that,
for a while, there is a 'cloudiness' in body and mind. A little later,
you will 'feel' the clarity and apparent gain of energy. 'One for the
road' is good sense if it was taken an hour before driving.

Such things happen with other natural treatments such as massage. If
you are not sure what a person is putting in their body and, how long it
is since they last 'shook it up', a massage of one degree or another may
determine the amount of whatever 'junk' gets kicked up. Some people can
suffer badly. When a massage, (Swedish, from my experience), goes well,
it can give you the feel of floating as you walk and freedom of joints
throughout. Yoga does much the same with the joints.

Being active before the alcohol means that the system is already busy,
fast paced. When the affect does kick in, it is a hard and fast.

A toast to your health...,

[RJH]

Please do. I can guess who you mean, but I've never seen it done.


--
Cheers, Rob

[Rod Speed]

Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>>> If it stings when you put it on broken skin it's antiseptic!

>> Beer doesn't and isn't.

> Precisely. But why have you been wasting beer?

I don't.

[Paul]

On 27/05/2016 08:56, Martin wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2016 07:22:51 +0100, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 27/05/2016 05:10, F Murtz wrote:
>>> Although I do not agree with it could you explain why it is unhygienic?

>> Often glasses are re-used. (Used to be absolutely normal but there was a
>> push to using clean glasses each time quite a number of years ago. I
>> doubt it has stopped the practice.) ) So anything flowing over a glass
>> might carry saliva and whatever else has got onto the glass from the
>> customer.
> Economisers that returned beer back to the barrel were polio vectors in the
> 1950s.

Autovac economisers are still fairly common in West Yorkshire, using a
stainless steel drip tray with a controlled return to the pump cylinder
(not to the cask) and fresh glasses are insisted upon in most pubs that
use them. Properly trained staff only allow the beer to run over the
clean glass but i have seen it flow over a handful of rings in the past.

http://rednev-rearm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/pouring-slops-back-into-beer.html

Cheers,

Paul


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

It happens all of the time, you just need to try to look behind the bar.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viLK8cMKUnY

[alan_m]

On 28/05/2016 18:14, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

>
> It happens all of the time, you just need to try to look behind the bar.
>
>

Beware of pubs with a waiter/waitress service. To save you getting up
from the table to get your next round of drinks a member of staff will
bring the beer to the table. You will not see what goes on behind the
bar. It's much the same with restaurants masquerading as pubs.

I have seen on many occasions where the slop trays have been emptied
into glasses sat behind the bar and then filled from the pump when a
customer orders a beer. Usually seen in pubs where the dispense is
deliberately designed to give a short measure by way of a big head and
there is much overflow from the glass. In many pubs the slop trays are
not cleaned at the end of a session - just emptied and left to dry.

[Tim Watts]

I haven't had waiter service for beer (aside from with a meal) other
than at the Hofbrauhaus in Munich. And the waiter was a dead ringer for
a young Dustin Hoffman.

[Anonymous]

Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 10:08:25 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>> On 27/05/2016 03:29, Bill Wright wrote:
>>> From my sister:

>

> Another nasty trick is not to flush the plumbing sufficiently after cleaning
> fluid has been used.

..and another is to continue pulling pints after the lees are hit until
someone complains. Usually me.

What has this to do with digital TV?

George

[Anonymous]

Dustin Hofbrauhaus?

I think many (most?) German Brauhauser have table service. At least in my
experience in Munich, Augsburg and Koln.

George

>

[Ian Field]

"Anonymous" <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1776678330.4864...@news.datemas.de...

The breweries own all the TV stations and broadcast a load of crap so
everyone turns the telly off and goes down the pub.

[lott...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 27 May 2016 03:29:02 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
> From my sister:
>

[lott...@gmail.com]

[Brian Gaff]

Must have been a long hangover to last three years.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
<lott...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81680c9d-c876-4858...@googlegroups.com...