Chapman 14th October 1880 AK mashing scheme

We’ll finish with a look at the mashing scheme.

It’s a rather complicated one. With no fewer than seven operations.

Things kick off with an infusion. Followed by an underlet. All pretty standard stuff. Then there’s something simply described as “O” in the brewing record. My guess is that it means “overlet”. That is, adding hot water to the top of the mash, rather than the bottom, as in an underlet.

There’s then the first sparge, which is followed by a second mash. Which is somewhat warmer than the first. Though the strike heat is lower. The process ended with more sparging.

As there are no column headers for the mashing details, it’s impossible to know whether the rightmost temperatures are initial heats or tap heats. I’m inclined to believe the latter. For all, except the initial infusion mash.

Chapman 14th October 1880 AK mashing scheme
operation	barrels	strike heat	initial heat	tap heat
mash 1	10	168º F	143º F
underlet	1	173º F
overlet	1	173º F
sparge 1	9	176º F		150.5º F
mash 2	3	160º F		150º F
sparge 2	4.5	164º F		158.5º F
sparge 3	4.5	161º F		160º F
Source:
Chapman brewing record.

 

 

Chapman boiling and fermentation in 1880

Moving on to processes.

Starting with boiling. Not that there’s anything very odd about it. For most beers, the first copper was boiled for 90 minutes and the second for 120 minutes. Times which aren’t anything out of the ordinary.

As none of the beers is super strong, it makes sense that there were no extremely long boils. The longest, for the second copper of Stout, was 160 minutes. I wonder if that was to try and darken the weaker wort a little. A dark colour being a bit of a requirement for a Stout.

Pitching times are a little on the low side. All of them, including for the weakest beers, are under 60º F.

The highest temperatures were generally 10º F to 12º F above the pitching temperature. So, generally a bit under 70º F. A pretty standard range of temperatures and pretty dull, really.

I can see from the brewing records that attemperators were used to control the temperature of the fermentation. The attemperators were generally switched on about two days into the fermentation and switched off about two days later.

Here’s a full fermentation record:

It’s interesting that the attemperators were switched off just before the wort hit its maximum temperature. 

Chapman boiling and fermentation in 1880
Beer	Style	boil time (hours)		Pitch temp	max. fermen-tation temp	length of fermen-tation (days)
X	Mild	1.5	2	58.5º F	69.25º F	8
XX	Mild	1.5	2	57º F	67.75º F	8
XXX	Stock Ale	1.5	2	57º F	66.5º F	8
AK	Pale Ale	2.5		58º F	69.25º F
PA	Pale Ale	1.5	2	57º F	68.5º F	5
S	Stout	1.5	2.67	58.5º F	69.5º F	7
Source:
Chapman brewing record.

Chapman 5th Oct 1880 XX fermentation
time (hours)	gravity	temperature
0	1067.9	57º F
13		59.5º F
23.5	1063.7	61.5º F
25	attenuators on
37	1054.8	63.75º F
47.5	1046.0	64.75º F
61	1032.4	66º F
72	1025.2	67º F
76	attenuators off
100	1020.5	67.75º F
107.25	1019.1	67.75º F
157	1015.2
	racked
Source:
Chapman brewing record.

 

 

Let's Brew - 1932 Youngs XXXX Ale

Just like Fullers with Old Burton Extra, Youngs also had a stronger Burton Ale. Something called XXXX Ale. Though it probably wasn’t called that down the pub.

It doesn’t seem to have been brewed very often. And was parti-gyled with XXX. I’m guessing that it was a winter seasonal beer.

Nothing to say about the recipe. This having been parti-gyled with the XXX Ale above.

Now here’s the big question: was this a genuinely Old Ale? Well, the only example I have was brewed in early November. If it was a winter beer, that means it was either consumed withing a couple of months, or aged for a full twelve months. 

1932 Youngs XXXX Ale
mild malt	13.00 lb	79.46%
crystal malt 60 L	1.250 lb	7.64%
No. 3 invert sugar	2.00 lb	12.22%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.11 lb	0.67%
Fuggles 120 min	2.75 oz
Fuggles 30 min	2.75 oz
OG	1079
FG	1029.5
ABV	6.55
Apparent attenuation	62.66%
IBU	53
SRM	23
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	WLP002 English Ale

Learn more about brewing at Youngs from former brewer John Hatch. 

Drinking habits

 For years, I drank a few bottles of St Bernardus Abt every day. It sort of defined me.

Not any more.

This year, I've drunk pretty much no beer at home. Why? A change in habits.

These last 12 months have presented a few challenges health-wise. Starting with my broken arm in Salvador.

Feeling a bit fucked, and in quite a bit of pain, I knocked off drinking for a while. Until it became a new habit.

I don't drink beer at home any more. I bought 11 Abts in December 2024 for Christmas. I drank the last one on 5th July 2025. Why the big change?

Habit. I realise much of my drinking over the years has been about habits. Those four or five Abts every night? A habit. Once illness broke that routine. Well, I didn't feel the need to do it any more. 

It's probably for the best. Even though I do still love Abt. I just don't want it to take over my life.

1970s Pilsator decoction mash

As you read this, I should be sipping a beer in a bar in Copacabana. Flash bastard that I am. Far away from the freezing cold of Amsterdam. 

More fun from behind the iron curtain. In the form of another decoction scheme.

It's been a while since I went on a decoction mash binge. Such a fascinating subject. Who would have guessed that there were so many different methods? And this is another new one to me.

The source is a brewing record image for a Pilsator. I can't remember where I got it, nor which brewery it is. Dead interesting, thougfh.
It's a type of single deoction. But with a twist.

It's mashed in at 50º C, then has rests at 64º C and 74º C. Weirdly, it's cooled back down to 64º C. Thn warmed back up to 76º C. Only then was the wort boiled. But only for ten minutes. Which seems pretty short. It can't have been very much wort that was boiled, as it only raised the temperature of the mash by 2º C.

What's odd about this method? Usually any boils are earlier in the process. And are used to raise the temperature of the mash considerably. For example, from 50º C to 64º C.

1973 DDR Pilsator mashing scheme
operation	time
	start	end	temp. º C	hl
3,500 kg pilsner malt mashed in	06:20	06:40	56	120
drain 1st mash	06:55	07:05		110
raise to 64º C	07:00	07:15
saccharification rest	07:15	07:45	64
raise to 74º C	07:45	07:55
rest 20 min	07:55	08:15	74
move to mash tun	08:15	08:25
cool to 64º C	08:25	08:35	64	140
drain 2nd mash	08:35	08:40		60
saccharification rest	08:40	08:55	76
raise to boil	08:55	09:25
boil	09:25	09:35
move to mash tun	09:35	09:45
saccharification rest	09:45	10:00	76
mash out in lauter tun	10:00	10:25
Source:
a random DDR brewing record I have

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1990 Youngs Special London Ale

Strongest of the Pale Ales, simply called “Exp” in the brewhouse, was sold as Special London Ale. Which was a bottle-conditioned beer.

Despite being parti-gyled with PA, the recipe was a bit different from the other Pale Ales. Specifically, this grist lacked torrefied barley. Not sure why that might be. It’s an ingredient that was usually included to improve head retention. Maybe they thought a bottled beer didn’t need that help.

Otherwise, the recipe is much thew same. Other than that, there are only two types of English hops, rather than three. Not sure what the reasoning behind that was, either.

I think this is one of the beers that is still brewed. I rather liked myself on the half dozen or so times I’ve drunk it. I particularly appreciated the high ABV, pisshead that I am.

1990 Youngs Special London Ale
pale malt	14.25 lb	93.94%
crystal malt 120 L	0.25 lb	1.65%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.67 lb	4.42%
Fuggles 60 min	4.25 oz
Goldings 10 min	0.75 oz
OG	1067
FG	1016.5
ABV	6.68
Apparent attenuation	75.37%
IBU	48
SRM	10.5
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	60 minutes
pitching temp	57º F
Yeast	WLP002 English Ale

Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.  

Zoigl 2012

I visit the Oberpfalz, dropping by Zoiglstube Schwoazhansl in Falkenberg, Zoiglstube beim Käck´n in Neuhaus and Schloßhof Zoigl in Windischeschenbach. With a bonus visit to not-called-Zoigl Kommunbrauer Paul Reindl in Neuhaus an der Pegnitz. From the, sadly, defunct communal brewery there.

 

DDR boiling and hop additions

More fun stuff from the example brewing record in Technologie Brauer und Mälzer. I hope you find it as interesting as I do.

Wort was generally boiled for around two hours. Which is on the long side compared to what happened in, for example, the UK. Youngs mostly boiled between 60 and 75 minutes. Another difference is that there was only a single wort and single boil in the DDR. While in the UK, other than for particularly small batches, there were usually at least two boils, often three or even four.

There were usually two or three hop additions. With these timings:

15-25%	when kettle filling
50-60%	start of boil
25%	15-30 min before end
Source:
Technologie Brauer und Mälzer by Wolfgang Kunze, VEB Fachbuchverlag Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1967, page 258.

Isn't that fascinating?

Now for a specific example. Which is of a brew of Helles Vollbier from sometime in the mid-1960s. This beer was boiled for 110 minutes.

1960s DDR Helles Vollbier hop additions (kg)
hop type	1st addition	2nd addition	3rd addition
timing	230 min	120 min	20 min
Czechoslovakian			10
Hallertau		15
DDR	10	5
hop extract 1:10	0.5
total	15	20	10
%	33.33%	44.44%	22.22%
Source:
Technologie Brauer und Mälzer by Wolfgang Kunze, VEB Fachbuchverlag Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1967, page 212.

You'll notice that the first hop addition is a bit larger and the second a bit lower than that recommended by Kunze. Though the timings are the same: first addition as the kettle starts to fill, second when the kettle is full, third 20 minutes before the end of the boil.
 

DDR Helles Vollbier decoction mash

I spent a couple of days this week writing a talk about beer in the DDR that I'll be giving in Germany next month. It's been a lot of fun.

Much of the material I already had. But there were a couple of areas I had to research a little. One being mashing. Obviously, Kunze's Technologie Brauer und Mälzer was my source. Where I came acorss something I'd previously missed. A brewing record for a Helles Vollbier.

Including just the sort of thing I love. A really detailed mashing record. It's a dual decoction. Though the first is a cereal mash doubling as a decoction. Which is fascinating. As a cereal mash with rice is how Budweiser was made during Mitch Steele's time at Anheuser Busch. You can hear him talk about it here:


Of course, Budweiser didn't get a second decoction, like this Helles did.

It's quite a long process. Six hours in all. Then they spent another four hours running off the wort and sparging. No wonder it never become popular in the UK.

DDR Helles Vollbier decoction mash
action	mash tun			mash kettle
	time	hl	º C	time	hl	º C	time taken
mash in 1,000 kg rice and 1,000 kg pilsner malt				0:00 - 0:35	55	50	35
raise to 65º C in 20 min				0:35 - 0:55	55	65	20
rest 10 min				0:55 - 1:05	55	65	10
raise to 78º C in 15 min				1:05 - 1:20	55	78	15
rest 20 min				1:20 - 1:40	55	78	20
raise to boil in 25min (adjunct mash)				1:40 - 2:05	55	100	25
boil 35 min				2:05 - 2:40	55	100	35
mash in 200 kg Munich malt and 1,800 kg pilsner malt at 50º C	1:45 - 2:00	60	50
rest 40 min	2:00 - 2:40	60	50
mix with adjunct mash	2:40 - 3:00	115	64				20
rest 35 min	3:00 - 3:35	115	64				35
pull decoction				3:35 - 3:40	50	64	5
raise to 77º C in 5min				3:40 - 3:45	50	77	5
rest 10 min				3:45 - 3:55	50	77	10
raise to boil in 15 min				3:55 - 4:10	50	100	15
boil 20 min				4:10 - 4:30	50	100	20
raise to 75º C mash out	4:30 - 4:40						10
rest 30 min	4:40 - 5:10						30
raise to 78º C	5:10 - 5:15						5
saccharification rest	5:15 - 6:00						45
						total	360
Source:
Technologie Brauer und Mälzer by Wolfgang Kunze, VEB Fachbuchverlag Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1967, page 212.

 

 

Inconsistent fermentation at Youngs

I'm currently processing the Youngs records from 1990. They're fun, because they are so complete. Loads and loads of information crammed into them.

What's particularly good is that the results of laboratory analysis are included. With handy things like pH, colour and bitterness. Which is where a surprise came. The inconsistency of the bitterness levels.

John Hatch, former brewer at Youngs, mentioned that the FG of one batch could vary a lot acroos different fermenting vessels. The main cause being the difference in size and form of the vessels they had installed. This was why they would blend post-fermentation, to even out the differences.

I hadn't expected to see even bigger differences in bitterness levels across the different types of fermenters. Which, I suppose, was another good reason to blend.

I'm using as an example a single-gyle brew of Special Bitter on 3rd April 1990. The batch was split across four fermenters: numbers 20, 24, 25 and 29. The volume of beer in each varied considerably.:

FV 20    85 barrels
FV 24    144 barrels
FV 25    376 barrels
FV 29    110 barrels

I'm pretty certain that the three smaller vessels are all older rounds. Whereas the large vessel is clearly one of the 400 barrel cylindro-conicals.

This is the fermentation record:

The conical fermenter was pitched a couple of degrees warmer. Though it was one of the rounds that hit the highest temperature. The conical had the lowest FG of 1009.5º. While two of the rounds only got down to 1011.5º.

The lab results are even more diverse:

 

The bitterness levels vary from 33.5 to 39.5 EBU. That's quite a range. With the most bitter beer from the largest volumes. The biggest difference is in the yeast count, however. Which is way higher in the conical. Interesting, that.

I can't help wondering if these beers tasted noticeably different. With their varying FGs and bitterness levels, they surely must have.
 

Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.  

George Thompson interview part two

George Thompson continues to talk about continuous fermentation, including details of cleaning and maintenance. With a couple of disturbing accounts of industrial accidents. And a discussion of Watney's yeast and yeast harvesting. 

Let's Brew - 1990 Youngs Special

Another beer brewed in large quantities was Special.  This batch, for example, was 715 barrels. A bit less than Ordinary, but still quite a lot of beer.

Though it doesn’t seem to have been parti-gyled with Ordinary, the recipe was pretty much the same. Base malt, crystal, torrefied barley and No. 3 invert sugar.

I should, perhaps, make some mention of the hops. There were three types, all English, with no vintage listed. I know from brewer John Hatch that the hops they used were Fuggles and Goldings. Which seems right for a traditional cask brewer.

I have, again, upped the hop quantities to hit the bitterness level indicated in the brewing record.

1990 Youngs Special
pale malt	9.50 lb	89.41%
crystal malt 120 L	0.125 lb	1.18%
torrefied barley	0.67 lb	6.31%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.33 lb	3.11%
Fuggles 70 min	2.75 oz
Goldings 10 min	0.67 oz
OG	1047
FG	1010.5
ABV	4.83
Apparent attenuation	77.66%
IBU	39
SRM	7
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	70 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	WLP002 English Ale

Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.  

Continuous fermentation (part two)

I’d always laboured under the assumption that the main reason for dropping continuous fermentation was that it produced beer that tasted shit. I’m now beginning to doubt this. At least as the main cause of the system being ditched.

According to taste tests carried out by Bishop, continuously fermented beer only scored marginally worse than that produced by batch fermentation. Though with just six tests, the sample size was pretty small.  As further proof, Bishop comments that continuous fermentation beer wasn’t blended with batch fermented, as would have been the case if there were significant flavour differences. And none of the customers complained.  (The least ringing endorsement that you can imagine – no-one complained.)

According to George Thompson, who ran the system at Drybrough, even the quality control people in London couldn’t tell the difference between batch and continuously fermented Heavy. 

Yet, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, UK brewers abandoned the system. If the beer quality was acceptable, why was this the case? You can probably guess: economics.

Continuous fermentation systems were good at producing large volumes of a single beer, but rather inflexible. Switching from one beer to another could be a complicated and lengthy process. Running the systems proved more difficult than expected, requiring constant monitoring by highly skilled personnel. Making them more expensive to run than batch systems. 

In addition, there were big advances in cylindroconical technology, speeding up batch fermentation and providing a more flexible method of fermentation. 

At Drybrough, it was probably the need to monitor the system 24/7 and the cost of employing shifts of workers for the task, which the conical fermenters didn’t require. 

I was most intrigued by the impact of the system on yeast. In the early days, Drybrough’s system was run for very long periods – more than six months. But it was found that the yeast began to change at certain point, leading to a different flavour profile in the beer. To prevent this, the system was brought down twice a year: midsummer and midwinter. 

Yeast harvested from the continuous fermenter was more vigorous than that from conicals and at Drybrough was used to ferment stronger beers. 

This is an excerpt from my book on 1970s brewing, "Keg!". Get your copy of "Keg!" now!

Listen to George Thompson, who ran the last continuous fermentation system in the northern hemisphere, talk about the process.

Continuous fermentation

A dream of some large brewers was continuous fermentation. Where fresh wort was continuously added to fermenters as finished beer was taken out. A process way more efficient that traditional fermentation. 

Briggs described the potential benefits:

there was real hope for the commercial success of continuous systems with the advantages comprising:

• lower capital cost
• lower working capital because of less beer in process, as a result of faster throughput
• lower product cost as a result of lower beer losses, more ethanol and less yeast
• lower fixed costs because of less manpower as a result of less cleaning and automatic
• fermenter control. 

The first attempts were made in the late 19th century and several different systems were tried in the years leading up to WW I. None proved successful in practice. One system involving beer moving from one open tank to another was revived in the 1950s, with experiments in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. It was in the latter two that these trials were put into practice in the 1960s. 

In the UK, the process was championed by L.R. Bishop, who worked at the Watney brewery in Mortlake. He seems to have dedicated a good chunk of his career to developing the process, starting in 1925 when he was a post-graduate student. But it was only after WW II that his interest was able to take practical form, in the shape of a 1,000-gallon pilot plant. When this proved a success, a 1,000-barrel plant was constructed. 

By the early 1970s, Watney had the system installed in four of their breweries: Mortlake, Mile End, Drybrough and Murphy. Between them, they were capable of producing 20,000 barrels a week. Or around a million barrels a year.  Which was around 22% of their total output.  The bulk of this capacity – 13,000 barrels per week - was at Mortlake. 

At its peak in the early 1970s, around 4% of UK beer was brewed using one of the continuous fermentation systems.  Though much of that seems to have been at Watney. With their capacity equivalent to 2.7% of UK production.  

This is an excerpt from my book on 1970s brewing, "Keg!". Get your copy of "Keg!" now!

Listen to George Thompson, who ran the last continuous fermentation system in the northern hemisphere, talk about the process.