Take a look at this table:
The lowest price was 73 shillings a cwt (112 pounds), the highest 518 shillings. It doesn't need a mathematician to work out that's a huge blooming difference. Approximately 700%. And there were almost as massive changes from one year to the next. In 1823, 1824 and 1825, the price went from 124 shillings to 455 shillings and then back down to 80 shillings.
It's no wonder brewers insured themselves against such fluctuations by buying in extra in years where there was a glut of hops.
Posts
3 comments:
This boggles my mind though. It was known in the late 1700s that hops deminished with age. It was known that they lost both their character and antibacterial properties. I don't know the extent to which they knew how fast hops went off.
In numerous brewing manuals they mention all the above. Different breweries did things different ways. All were VERY specific about the year of the hops always being listed with the quantities.
The best (read most special) beers being made with the freshest hops.
So it doesn't make sense, fiscally, to me that they would over buy hops from a certain year b/c they were cheap. These hops would lose a vast amount of their abilities in just one year! I have a feeling it goes deeper than this.
Im betting the price is a function of the production volume and/or quality. The quality usually rises with a good year of weather and plenty of rain. However, I just have been poking through the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London and they mention this quote below:
--------
The rainfall of London before 1840 is largely a matter of speculation but fragmentary records exist as far back as 1729 and these are capable of furnishing some information A careful search through them fails to provide proof of any year before 1820 having a rainfall approaching 34 inches. (The Meteorological Magazine By Great Britain Meteorological Office)
---------
Bugger. So there is really no ability to see about the weather. They took 34" of rain a year to be very high. They show in 1821 and '24 that they got 34". These two points (although only two) don't corroborate any healthy crop. In 1840 it was said that it was a 'drought' year and very hot from July to September. This would suggest that the hop harvest was poor however the numbers don't entirely suggest this.
I still think that brewers wouldn't just buy when they are cheap. However Im not sure what 'brand' really did back then. Meaning how did the beers differ from year to year. Looking at the logs not very much. However when they hit the pubs they could be there for any amount of time.
The same recipe would have to be 'crunched' over a few years to see.
The hop factors and hop growers also hedged against glut/scarcity by betting on the annual hop tax yield - if you expected a glut, and low prices, you bet on a high tax take, if you expected scarcity, and high prices, you bet on a low tax take. Hops were VERY prone to insect attack and mould, which could devastate the harvest ...
Zyth, Absolutely. Downy mildew is still a problem with the 'traditional' varieties of hops. Most of the newer research done on hops is to breed varieties that won't get it. My hop guys here I talk to they say that you get both, the diseases and bugs, when you have wet and cool conditions which is why I was looking for weather info.
It is pretty neat about the 'betting' on tax rates though. It is amazing how much this stuff could fluctuate from year to year.
Post a Comment