The table relates to one of my recurring themes, though it may not at first be that obvious. What theme is that? IPA was not a strong beer. It gives an insight into why IPA was the strength it was.
During the 1850's and 1860's Whitbread brewed a shitload of Porter under contract for the Indian market. I mean a shitload - 50,000 barrels in 1860. Out of a total of 174,929 barrels of Porter. Or 29% of the Porter they brewed.
So was their Contract Porter brewed stronger than their standard Porter to help it survive the voyage? Not really. As you'll be able to see below:
Whitbread Porter and Contract Porter (for | |||||||||||||||
Date | Year | Beer | OG | FG | ABV | App. Atten-uation | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl | boil time (hours) | boil time (hours) | boil time (hours) | Pitch temp | pale malt | brown malt | black malt |
10th Jul | 1855 | P | 1059.0 | 1015.5 | 5.75 | 73.71% | 10.81 | 2.79 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
6th Nov | 1855 | P | 1059.8 | 1018.3 | 5.50 | 69.44% | 3.78 | 0.91 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
7th Jul | 1856 | P | 1054.8 | 1013.0 | 5.53 | 76.26% | 10.99 | 2.95 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
25th Nov | 1857 | Contract | 1059.8 | 1015.5 | 5.86 | 74.07% | 20.28 | 5.29 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 63º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
25th Nov | 1857 | Contract | 1059.8 | 1015.5 | 5.86 | 74.07% | 20.28 | 5.29 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
9th Dec | 1857 | Contract | 1058.7 | 1016.1 | 5.64 | 72.64% | 20.14 | 5.18 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
21st Aug | 1857 | P | 1054.0 | 1013.3 | 5.39 | 75.38% | 12.21 | 3.17 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
9th Mar | 1858 | Contract | 1061.2 | 1020.8 | 5.35 | 66.06% | 20.33 | 5.36 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
16th Oct | 1858 | Contract | 1058.2 | 1017.2 | 5.42 | 70.48% | 20.43 | 5.54 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
6th Nov | 1858 | Contract | 1062.6 | 1018.8 | 5.79 | 69.91% | 20.26 | 5.96 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
29th Nov | 1858 | Contract | 1060.7 | 1016.6 | 5.83 | 72.60% | 20.02 | 5.70 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
6th Mar | 1858 | P | 1052.9 | 1016.1 | 4.87 | 69.63% | 3.33 | 0.79 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
24th Mar | 1858 | P | 1056.0 | 1014.4 | 5.50 | 74.26% | 3.27 | 0.80 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
22nd Jan | 1858 | P | 1054.0 | 1015.2 | 5.13 | 71.79% | 3.03 | 0.74 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
5th Jul | 1858 | P | 1053.7 | 1016.9 | 4.87 | 68.56% | 11.65 | 2.68 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
25th Nov | 1858 | P | 1054.6 | 1014.7 | 5.28 | 73.10% | 9.95 | 2.45 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
7th Sep | 1858 | P | 1055.7 | 1018.8 | 4.87 | 66.17% | 12.93 | 2.78 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
24th Sep | 1858 | P | 1053.2 | 1016.6 | 4.84 | 68.75% | 12.25 | 3.00 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 120 | 40 | 8 |
19th Oct | 1859 | Contract | 1060.1 | 1019.7 | 5.35 | 67.28% | 20.43 | 5.67 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
9th Nov | 1859 | Contract | 1059.8 | 1018.3 | 5.50 | 69.44% | 20.50 | 6.02 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
25th Jan | 1859 | P | 1056.8 | 1016.1 | 5.39 | 71.71% | 3.56 | 0.91 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
28th Jul | 1859 | P | 1057.9 | 1018.3 | 5.24 | 68.42% | 11.51 | 2.97 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
10th Nov | 1859 | P | 1052.1 | 1015.2 | 4.87 | 70.74% | 1.64 | 0.42 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
11th Apr | 1860 | Contract | 1056.5 | 1015.5 | 5.42 | 72.55% | 20.31 | 5.93 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
9th Aug | 1860 | P | 1054.0 | 1015.8 | 5.06 | 70.77% | 11.19 | 3.02 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
7th Nov | 1860 | P | 1055.4 | 1015.0 | 5.35 | 73.00% | 9.84 | 2.58 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
30th Dec | 1861 | Contract | 1059.8 | 1016.6 | 5.72 | 72.22% | 20.82 | 5.56 | 1.5 | 2 | 2 | 64º | 140 | 50 | 10 |
8th Jul | 1861 | P | 1053.5 | 1015.8 | 4.98 | 70.47% | 10.37 | 2.63 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
25th jul | 1861 | P | 1052.6 | 1015.2 | 4.95 | 71.05% | 10.74 | 2.63 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 64º | 141 | 50 | 9 |
2nd Jan | 1862 | Contract | 1058.2 | 20.54 | 5.35 | 1.5 | 2 | 2 | 64º | 140 | 50 | 10 | |||
8th Apr | 1862 | P | 1054.6 | 1015.5 | 5.17 | 71.57% | 10.03 | 2.25 | 1.5 | 2 | 2 | 64º | 131 | 40 | 9 |
Source: Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives Documents: LMA/4453/D/09/049 LMA/4453/D/09/050 LMA/4453/D/09/051 LMA/4453/D/09/052 LMA/4453/D/09/053 LMA/4453/D/09/054 LMA/4453/D/09/055 |
The Contract Porter was sometimes a tad stronger, but that was caused by a drop in the strength of the domestic Porter during the 1850's. The two versions were pretty much identical, but for one significant difference: the Indian one had about twice as many hops.
See how standard Porter sometimes dropped below 1055, but the Contract Porter never did. There's a reason for that, as I explained not long ago:
"Ale, Pale or Bitter ; brewed chiefly fur the Indian market and for other tropical countries.—It is a light beverage, with much aroma, and, in consequence of the regulations regarding the malt duty, is commonly brewed from a wort of specific gravity 1055 or upwards; for no drawback is allowed by the Excise on the exportation of beer brewed from worts of a lower gravity than 1054."Simple - Whitbread wouldn't get the tax back if the gravity of Contract Porter fell below 1055.
"Ures' dictionary of arts, manufactures and mines, Volume 1" by Andrew Ure, 1867, page 306.
If you're wondering about the standard Porter entries that have less than a pound per barrel of hops, I think I have an explanation. In the winter months, when most of the Contract and Keeping Porter was brewed, far fewer hops were used in standard Porter. It seems they were re-using some of the tons (literally) of the hops used in Keeping and Contract Porter.
No comments:
Post a Comment