Substitutes in German brewing (part two)

More on the history of the Reinheitsgebot and the rules of malt substitutes during the early years of the German Empire.

It's quite a surprise to me to discover just how many restrictions there were in North Germany. I thought they's had pretty much a free hand. Not so.

III—REPORT BY DR. DOEMENS.
(Translated from German.)
1.
The following questions were submitted to me by Dr. Schidrowitz, and I have hereinafter answered them to the best of my knowledge and belief :—

1. What are the admixtures to beer that are prohibited—

(a) in Bavaria, and
(b) within the districts under the control of the North German Brewing Tax Union (Norddeutsche Braueteuer gemeinschaft) ?

In the year 1516 the Bavarian civil and police authorities issued a regulation prohibiting the employment of any materials other than barley, hops, and water in the manufacture of beer, both in Upper and Lower Bavaria, while at Nuremberg an order to the same effect had been made as early as the year 1200.

A police regulation of the year 1616 reiterates the prohibition relating to the admixture of foreign substances to beer in regard to Upper and Lower Bavaria.

Under an enactment which was made in 1806 for Upper and Lower Bavaria only, but was extended in the ensuing year to the remaining parts of the kingdom, excise dues were to be charged on beer not, as before, in proportion to the quantity of beer produced, but according to the amount of malt employed in its manufacture. Of substitutes (for malt or hops) this particular order says nothing, inasmuch as prior decrees dealing with that point were then in force, and are so even yet, having never been repealed.

The fact that the employment of substitutes was at no time allowed in Bavaria is borne out by the concluding sentence of the Bavarian Parliament (Landtag) on the 10th of November, 1891, which runs as follows:—

“The use of any substances other than, or any substitutes for, barley, malt, and hops in the preparation of brown beer, continues prohibited."

What is here meant by “brown beer” is low-fermented (as distinguished from high-fermented wheat beer, in the preparation of which the use of wheat malt, together with the ordinary barley malt, was permitted).

Article 7 of the Bavarian Malt Law of the 16th of May, 1868, which was amended in 1889, and is now in operation in its new form, provides:—

"That no substances of any description whatsoever shall, in the manufacture of beer, be added to, or substituted for malt (roasted or air-dried), and no unmalted cereals shall be used either by themselves or in conjunction with malt;”

Article 71 of the same law enacts—

“That whoever contravenes the restrictions herein set forth shall be liable to a fine of from hundred and eighty to five hundred and forty marks."

Now in view of existing precedents supplied by the decisions of the Courts, the construction to be placed upon Article 7 is that the law does not merely prohibit the use of malt substitutes proper, but that it makes the admixture to beer of any substances, whatever their nature, a punishable offence."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 243. 

No surprise that brewing with anything but malt and hops was an offence in Bavaria.

This next list of substances banned everywhere in Germany is interesting.

"Precedent, as established by decisions of the highest tribunals, shows that penalties have been inflicted for additions of salicylic acid, liquorice, caramel, and saccharin; also for making use of liquid carbonic acid in the manufacture of what is known as “champagne beer; "while for clarifying purposes isinglass shavings and other "finings” that will not mix with the beer, but the action of which is purely mechanical, are alone tolerated."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 243.

I'm very surprised to see caramel on that list. I'd thought that was allowed outside Bavaria. I knew saccharin had been forbidden. Which is really odd, because it the 20th century it was llowed in some types of low-gravity, sweet beers. Yet finings were OK, but not CO2. It all seems a bit random. Though I guess that's true today, where all sorts of things used in beer manufacture that don't end up in the finished beer are allowed.

"In the district under the control of the North German Brewing Tax Union the question of the employment of substitutes is settled by the provisions of the Imperial Code (which of course applies to Bavaria as well) relative to the manufacture and sale of food stimulants and articles of daily consumption; for section 10 of that law, dated May 10th 1897, says :—

"A term of imprisonment not exceeding six months and a fine not exceeding one thousand five hundred marks or either of these penalties, are incurred by—

“(1) an person who for purposes of deception in the exercise of commerce and trade imitates or adulteratcs food or stimulants ;

“(2) any person who with guilty knowledge and while concealing the fact sells or puts up for sale under a name designed to deceive or milead any food or stimulant that is deteriorated, imitated, or adulterated."

Under this section of the law the addition of saccharin in substitution for part of the amount of malt required for the production of beer of standard quality was held to be “beer adulteration,” and punished as such by judgment of the Imperial Court under date of March 2nd, 1893, and so was the addition to beer of other than pure grape sugar, by a judgment of the same Court dated March 4th, 1884.

Again, the employment of pure sugar and other malt substitutes is punishable where the beer is given a name such as “Bavarian (or Lager) Beer,” which by implication conveys the idea that no substitutes whatever have been used.
(Judgment of Imperial Court dated December 18th, 1882.)
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 243.

Grape sugar is glucose, by the way.

Interesting that the rules were stricter if you mentioned Bavaria or Lager. Like I said before, all a bit weirdly random.

Substitutes in German brewing

You may recall that I have a bit of a thing about the Reinheitsgebot. I find it a fascinating topic.

Of course, in the period this article was written there was no such thing as the Reinheitsgebot. That term only came into use after WW I. And until 1908, the law on only brewing from malt, hops, water and yeast only applied to Bavaria, not the rest of Germany.

But it seems that things were more complicated than that. There were restrictions on the ingredients that could be used in beer in the whole of Germany.

"The use of substitutes in Bavaria is forbidden absolutely. There are two laws bearing on the question:—

(1) The Food and Drugs Act, and (2) The Malt Act.— Under the Food and Drugs Act it has been decided by, the Courts in a series of cases that the use of any material which tends to make the beer appear or actually be better or worse than is actually the case - viewed in the light of the fact that normal beer in Bavaria is by law and popular opinion regarded as a product obtained from malt, hops, and water, and subsequent fermentation — is not allowable.

The use of any material which alters the normal composition of a beer, tends to hide natural deficiencies, &c, is absolutely forbidden. The enalty is a fine of not more than 1,500 marks (£75), and six months’ imprisonment. Anyone concerned in the use or sale of such substances is subject to these penalties. It has been decided by the Courts that the use of caramel, bicarbonate of soda, tartaric acid, heading powder, grape-sugar (glucose), tannin, salicylic acid, &c., are illegal under the Food Act, and the persons concerned were condemned to various penalties. These cases occurred in the years 1885 and 1886. (Literature available.)

Under the Malt Act (a fiscal measure), the use of any material whatever in the manufacture of beer, except barley, malt, hops, water, and yeast is absolutely forbidden. Where the offencc can be brought either under the Food Act or the Malt Act, the former is always put in force, as the penalties are heavier.

In Germany generally (Imperial Law — Reichsgesetz) apart from Bavaria, the use of certain substitutes is allowed, but if these substitutes in any way alter the composition of the beer from the normal (i.e. a beer brewed from malt and hops alone), or tend to make a beer brewed from bad materials appear better than it really is, or worse, the use of such substitute is forbidden except on condition that such beers be qualified as "substitute ” beers, and given a special name clearly showing to the public that such beer is not a normal liquid. If a pure substitute be used and the normal composition of the beer be thereby in no way altered, the beer may be sold as “beer,” but it may not be sold in such a manner as to make the buyer believe that it is a beer brewed from "normal” materials alone. This applies also to wine. From this, and the decision of the Courts, it appears that there is a rigorous check on the use of impure substitutes and the abnormal use of even pure substitutes. In Bavaria it is held by the authorities that even a pure substitute must alter the actual character and properties of a beer, and, if this view be adopted by the Judges in Germany, it is evident that the existing Imperial Laws are sufficient to prohibit their use absolutely in the whole of Germany. This view has been adopted by some of the Courts. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the use of substitutes is allowed in Germany, with the exception of Bavaria alone. As stated before, there are Imperial regulations as to analytical methods for detecting impurities and abnormal composition of wine, beers.

Apart from Chemical analysis, however, it was considered by all the authorities consulted in Munich that it would be quite impossible for a brewer to use substitutes without detection, and detection would mean his absolute ruin. Each brewer in Munich vies with the other in trying to produce a better beer; the quality of the beer is his chief advertisement. The manager of the largest brewery in Munich said to me, "If a brewer were detected in the use of substitutes — and he could not help bein detected — he would not only be ruined, but the people would try to lynch him as well.” This graphically expresses the very strong opinion on this question held in Bavaria."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 242.

So you were only allowed to use substitutes if they didn't alter the nature of the beer. That doesn't really fit with what I've read about German rice beer, where the whole point of its use was to produce something that was lighter and more delicately flavoured.

The idea of having to name beer that wasn't brewed from malt and hops alone something else was floated in the UK around this time. Campaigners for "pure beer" wanted beer contained adjuncts or sugar to be clearly stated as doing so. They didn't get very far with that one.

I wonder if any Bavarian brewerss were ever lynched? It wouldn't surprise me. They are pretty crazy when it comes to beer down there.

Real Kulmbacher

As promised, a look at a real Kulmbacher. Not just a concoction of pale beer and colouring. Or maybe it isn’t quite that simple.

“A sample of Kulmbacher beer delivered to an Institution was, because of its pale colour, which significantly differed from the beer as previously served, suspected of being watered. The analysis showed:

Specific gravity	1.0262
Alcohol	4.76%
Extract	7.35%
Minerals	0.27%
Nitrogen substance	0.62%
Lactic acid	0.27%
Maltose	2.19%
OG	16.36%
Degree of fermentation	55.07%

It was, therefore, a normally composed, content rich Kulmbacher beer whose pale colour was merely due to the fact that the Kulmbacher breweries no longer colour their beer with sugar colouring since the famous verdict of the  Criminal Court in Bayreuth.”
"Übersicht über die Jahresberichte der öffentlichen Anstalten zur technischen Untersuchung von Nahrung und Genussmitteln im Deutschen Reich für das Jahr 1902" by Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt, 1905, page 105. (My translation.)

Now isn’t that interesting? Kulmbacher, as we saw last time, was dark. Very dark. Now we know why: they were darkening it with caramel. I’m just trying to work out how that could ever have been OK in Bavaria, where I thought they were pretty strict about the Reinheitsgebot. Evidently not that strict.

I’m just guessing here, but that Bayreuth court decision looks like it was responsible for the rise of Sinamar, the beer-derived, Reinheitsgebot-compliant caramel substitute.

Looking at the specs, that beer would count as a Bock today, with an OG over 16º Balling and around 6% ABV. Though it was pretty typical for a Kulmbacher of the day. As this table demonstrates (our lad is the last one in the table):

Kulmbacher Export 1884 - 1902
Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1884	Aktien-Export-Brauhaus	dunkeles Export	Export Dunkles	0.18	1067.6	1025.9	5.39	61.69%
1884	Export-Brauhaus	Export	Export	0.13	1063.5	1023.0	5.24	63.78%
1884	Unknown	dunkeles Export	Export Dunkles	0.153	1061.9	1024.0	4.90	61.23%
1891	Unknown	dunkeles Exportbier	Export Dunkles	0.137	1065.7	1027.9	4.88	57.53%
1891	Unknown	dunkeles Exportbier	Export Dunkles	0.142	1067.6	1023.0	5.78	65.98%
1893	Aktien-Export-Brauerei	dunkeles Exportbier	Export Dunkles		1076.9	1025.8	6.63	66.45%
1893	Aktien-Export-Brauerei	Monopol-Kulmbacher	Export	0.203	1059.2	1013.1	6.01	77.87%
1902	Unknown	Export	Export Dunkles	0.27	1066.8	1020.2	5.95	69.78%
	Average			0.174	1066.2	1022.9	5.60	65.54%
Sources:
Chemie der menschlichen Nahrungs- und Genussmittel by Joseph König, 1903, pages 1102 - 1156
"Übersicht über die Jahresberichte der öffentlichen Anstalten zur technischen Untersuchung von Nahrung und Genussmitteln im Deutschen Reich für das Jahr 1902" by Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt, 1905, page 105.

As you can see, the suspicious sample is very close to the average for Kulmbacher Export.

More Kulmbacher or Porter next? It’s so hard to decide.

Rice in German beer

Rice in German beer, eh? It didn't end with the introduction of the Reinheitsgebot to the whole country in 1906.

The quotes below come from a report on the German brewing industry produced by the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee in 1946 which was reproduced in a recent issue of Brewery History. A group of British brewers went and had a nose around various German breweries and maltsters.

Schultheiss-Patzenhofer Brauerei, Berlin.
"Export beers were pasteurised and had for all practical purposes an indefinite life in bottle. In an effort to eliminate, ad far as possible, non-biological haze, the grst for export beers contained up to 20% of rice, of, alternatively, 20% of rice and 5% of maize."
Brewery History, Number 156, 2013, page 68.

Bavaria und St. Pauli Brauerei, Hamburg
"Export beers were brewed by the three mash system with an open boil for 2.5 hours. When available, 5 to 7% of rice  was added to the grist for export beers. At a later stage export beers were also primed."
Brewery History, Number 156, 2013, page 73.

Bill Brauerei, Hamburg
"For their export beers they used anything up to 20% of rice in the grist, and used, as far as possible, a low nitrogen barley of Moravian origin for the malt. The malt and rice were mashed separately, the rice being added to the mash after the albumin rest - i.e. the first stage."
Brewery History, Number 156, 2013, page 76.

I knew German brewers didn't have to stick to the Reinheitsgebot for export beers - other than in Bavaria - but I didn't realise rice was so popular. It looks like the practice was pretty common in Northern Germany.

Even though the report was written in 1946, it must be referring to pre-war practice as no beer was being exported just after the war. In fact not much was being brewed at all, other than for the occupying forces. What beer was brewed for the civilian population was just 2º Plato.

Reinheitsgebot exceptions

I'm now going to quote parts of Narziss's article which do directly refer to the Reinheitsgebot.

The first is something I'd wondered about after hearing that some Hefeweizen was bottle-conditioned with bottom-fermenting yeast.

"3.1.5. Yeast. The bottom and top fermenting yeasts are clearly defined and simple control methods described. Bottom fermented beer must be pitched with bottom yeast exclusively, top fermented beer vice versa with top fermenting yeast, but in order to achieve a sufficient second fermentation 0.1% bottom fermenting yeast may be added to the bottle or instead of this 15% bottom fermenting Krausen. Mixtures of both kinds of yeast are not permitted. In order to suppress infections of coccae or other lactic acid bacteria the yeast is acidified by sulphuric acid to a pH of 2 for 3-4 hours. The acid has to be removed afterwards by washing in a conical vessel."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, pages 353 - 354.

It seems a bit of a nonsense to me to insist that wheat beers can only be fermented by top-fermenting yeast but to allow secondary conditioning with a bottom-fermenting yeast. Where's the logic in that? If a Lager yeast is good enough for secondary fermentation why not for primary fermentation?

The harder I look at the Reinheitsgebot, the less sense any of it makes. Some things - like Lager yeast for bottle-conditioning - seem to be allowed just for the convenience of the brewer. And the stuff about sugar just a clumsy compromise to fit in with North German brewing practices.

"3.2. Export-Beers
In the North German Beer Tax Area, great quantities of light 'Exportbeer' were produced even prior to 1914. For these beers, which had to be kept apart from the domestic production, the use of maize, rice or sugar was permitted. This was a protective measure, to help the German export industry to meet the foreign customers' quality expectations and to attain a better shelf life. As stabilizer, tannin was used; its application had to be declared and controlled. The same referred to the use of ascorbic acid after 1948. The restriction on these raw materials and additives was that they may not exceed the amounts permitted by the regulations of the other countries. These dispensations had never been valid in Bavaria, Badenia and Württemberg. These countries had to brew their export beers according to the Purity Law. After 1948 the more liberal handling for the export beers was maintained, but the control measures achieved by the excise officers had been so tight and strong, that almost a brewery within a brewery was established. Thus, with the exception of some big export brewers the great majority of the others stopped the production of'Export-Beers'. This was favoured by the introduction of adsorbents for beer stabilisation like bentonite, but especially silica gel and PVPP. The use of tannin was dispensable."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, page 354.

The North German Beer Tax Area is, of course, the Brausteuergebied. An area that covered most of the German Empire, with the exception of Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, Alsace, Lorraine and Luxemburg. It had rather more liberal rules than the South up until 1906, when the Reinheitsgebot was applied to the whole of the Empire. So it's a little misleading to say that they were producing beers for export that contained maize or rice before 1914, because before 1906 such beers were also brewed for the domestic market. Rice beer was particularly popular.

Interesting that the reason they allowed adjuncts in export beer was so they could compete with foreign brewers. That's not very principled, is it? And I thought that was what the rules were all about, the principle of purity, not just commercial expediency. The foreigners like beer filled with crap? Let's brew it for them, then.

I'd love to know whether Beck's was brewed to the Reinheitsgebot. For a while - 1921 to 1949 - it wasn't sold at all in Germany and was a pure export beer. After Haake and Beck merged in 1921, I wonder if they used the Beck brewery just for brewing export beer? Presumably that would have masde it easier to comply with the rules if they were using adjuncts.

Light Greek Beer

A slight change of pace today. Or theme. For once  we're moving away from Scotland . . . and back to WW I. You didn't think you were going to escape all of my obsessions, did you? I just alternate between them, like a fairweather football fan.

The passage below is taken from a WW I propaganda magazine, as you can probably tell from its upbeat tone. But it does tell us something about beer, so I can forgive its other sins. Dann of Pretty Things passed it on to me. He was wearing a very similar uniform at the X Ale launch last week. Makes me think that we really should brew a WW I beer sometime. He's already got the dressing-up gear.

"LIGHT GREEK BEER FOR THE BRITISH TROOPS LANDED AT SALONIKA: ROLLING CASKS UP-HILL TO THE CAMP.
Greece produces a remarkably light beer - lighter than the lightest lager - and supplies of this were obtained for the British troops at Salonika. As mentioned in another page, the camp at Lembed, to which they marched after landing, was some four miles from the landing-place. Sellers of fruit and cheap drinks, we read,were sollicitous to offer their wares as soon as the ranks of the French troops broke up on arrival at camp, and no doubt the British had similar experiences. Later on, the soldiers were allowed to go into Salonika, where they were soon on friendly terms with the Greek soldiers in the town, and the diversity of uniforms about the streets made a picturesque sight. May complimentary remarks were made about the fine bearing and equipment of our own men."
"Illustrated War News", Nov. 3, 1915, page 23.

There's only one thing I know about Greek beer from this period. That it was brewed to the Reinheitsgebot because when Greece became a monarchy in the 19th century, they imported a Bavarian prince to be king. Germany was the prime source of royalty for several centuries. All those little states meant there were plenty minor royals knocking about.

I'm still trying to get my head around "lighter than the lightest lager". Isn't that water? I doubt the soldiers gave a toss. I know how coarse and heavy those British uniforms were. They were doubtless glad of anything liquid and alcoholic. Especially after rolling those barrels up a hill.

I hadn't realised that British forces had fought in the Balkans during WW I. I would tell you more, but it's such a complicated and confusing campaign I don't have the space. Or the inclination, if I'm honest.

Priming in the 1890's

Parliamentary committees. Don't you just love them? I certainly do. Because of the detailed records they left behind them.

In the 1890's there was a lot of debate about the freedom given to brewers by the Free Mash Tun Act of 1880. And whether or not it should be withdrawn again. So much so that a parliamentary committee was set up to investigate the matter. The evidence given by various industry professionals is fascinating. And a rare opportunity to hear brewers of the period speak frankly about their trade.

The excerpt below is from the evidence given by Mr. R. Bannister, Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry and of the Chemical and Microscopical Societies who had worked for more than 33 years in the Inland Revenue Laboratory.

"6595. A word or two in regard to priming ; the majority of the brewers resort to priming? —Yes, they do.

6596. Of course they find it advantageous? —Yes, it gets the beer into condition just before it is put into consumption.

6597. There is a certain amount of yeast left in the beer, which acts upon the sugar or saccharine matter?  —Always, and then it goes into fermentation, and makes the beer lively and sparkling, and that is necessary in another way too, in a great number of instances; because when the beer is removed from the brewery there is a certain quantity of sediment in the cask, and the beer is not clear; and if the publican had to wait till the beer cleared itself, he would have to wait a considerable time; so that they generally make the beer clear with finings; and the use of finings always flattens the beer. It is therefore very necessary that there should be a little sugar present so as to allow the yeast to ferment it as soon as ever the finings have been added.

6598. It being an advantage to have recourse to priming, is there any reason why brewers should not resort to sugar or saccharine matters for priming, and be forced instead to go to a cold infusion of malt ?—A cold infusion of malt would not answer the purpose equally as well, because it is not bright.

6599. But whether the priming were done with sugar or whether the priming were done with malt extract, it would create difficulty in determining whether the beer had been brewed from malt only or from malt and substitutes ? —Yes ; but, of course, the greatest difficulty would arise from the use of the sugar.

6600. Of course the priming adds to a certain extent to the sweetness of the beer ?—It does, because the sugar is added at that particular stage and it is not fully fermented when the beer is drunk.
6601. And of course if cold infusion of malt extract were used, that would also add in the same way to the sweetness of the beer?—Only to a very small degree.

6602. So far as it was effective for the purpose it would ? —Yes.

6603. As regards beer which has not been subject to priming, its sweetness has very little relation to the materials from which it was made, but to the degree of attenuation ? Entirely so.

6604. So that you might get a very sweet beer, if you wanted it, from all-malt; and you might get a beer which was not sweet at all from a mixture of malt and sugar?— That is so as a matter of course; it depends entirely upon the extent of the fermentation — and almost every brewer has his own plan of fermentation — and the degree to which he takes the fermentation in his finished beer.

6605. In the wort, after you add the yeast to it, which ferments most rapidly, the maltose or the glucose ? —The glucose goes first.

6606. Therefore what sugar would be left behind would be sugar derived from the malt, and not derived from the added glucose ? — There is a gradation ; the glucose goes more rapidly than the maltose, the maltose more rapidly than the malto-dextrine, and the maito-dextrine goes more rapidly than the dextrine."

There you have it. Primings were needed to restore the condition removed by fining. Basically helping beer to quickly drop bright and come into condition. Sounds fair enough to me.

I was going to end there. Until I read the next section. It's an interesting take on German beer purity:

"6607. I believe priming is not very much used in the German case of the German beer? — It is not, because it is not beer is required.

6608. Do we understand that their beer is filtered and then charged artificially with carbonic acid ? — To a large extent.

6609. They add carbonic acid specially, instead of allowing the carbonic acid to develop in the beer ? — Yes, it can be consumed more quickly.

6610. And that is the reason why the German beer is commonly delivered under pressure? — Exactly; and the German beer must be quite bright, and therefore there must be practically no sediment in the beer, because if there is the slightest sediment the pressure would force that sediment to the top ; it would cause it, not to ferment, but it would agitate it, and the beer would not look bright in the glass ; so that you must have the German beer quite bright throughout.

6611. And I suppose the added carbonic acid might be equally regarded as an impurity ? — That is the inference.

6612. It is something added to the beer after it is made? —Yes.

6613. And that is really the reason, is it not, why German beer is sent out in such small casks, made so strong ? — That is so, and if the beer is to be tested, as I have seen it tested over and over again at exhibitions, they are particularly careful to charge it with carbonic acid before it goes to the jury.

6614. It is something in the same nature as soda water in a less degree ?—Yes.

6615. With the result, that if a cask has been opened in the morning, the beer gets very vapid before the evening ? — Yes, it does, and of course the addition of carbonic acid gas is for the purpose of overcoming the difficulty of not keeping it a sufficient length of time in the cellar, because if it were left for a longer time it would have more carbonic acid gas in it. They get it into consumption more quickly by the addition of the gas."
"Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental committee on beer materials", 1899, page 247.

I've never seen CO2 called an impurity before. It seems Mr. Richardson was quite in tune with CAMRA and me.

Reissbier

I haven't mentioned this for a while. German Reissbier. Or rice beer. Exactly the sort of thing the Germans weren't allowed to brew, you would have thought. Not really Reinheitsgebot, you know.

Or maybe not.

I found this yesterday:

It comes from "Chemie der menschlichen Nahrungs- und Genussmittel" by Joseph König, 1889, page 834. Who would have thought it? Weihenstephan brewing rice beer. I'm shocked, disgusted and a little bit sad.

a difficult bookcase

Today's bookcase is a difficult one. Difficult to photograph, that is. Dolores's monitor is in the way.

German guides I've never used. That's the leftmost seven. Then there are two editions of Stefan Mack's inspiring "Fränkische Brauereikarte". "The Beer Drinker's Guide to Munich" is a guidebook I most definitely used. I doubt I could have found Forschungsbrauerei without it.


Here, tucked behind the monitor, are random German-language volumes. "Der Vollkomene Bierbrauer" is non-stop laughs. If you can read the blurry gothic typeface, the purpose of which seems to be to make all the capital letters look identical. Someone should invent reading glasses that convert gothic text into readable words.

Confession time. I own a book that I know has a few bits about Lichtenhainer. I didn't include it in my recent post about Lichtenhainer. For a simple reason. The gothic face it's printed in is a pain in the arse to read. Even with my glasses on. (Clearly not gothic-correction glasses.)

Wandering off. Here, crammed behind the monitor, are random German-language volumes. Some Austrian. It's a shame Conrad Seidl stopped doing his book on Austrian breweries. Packed with useful bits of information.


Leaning over is a book about Andechs. One section really annoyed me. Right after saying how the Reinheitsgebot ensured their beer was great, the author explains how they had stopped using wooden barrels and now used pressurised kegs. Kegging the life out of the beer was fine as long as it was brewed to the Reinheitsgebot.

Reinheitsgebot II

I was going to talk about Lichtenhainer. You know of the article I found about Lichtenhainer, don't you? Well, you should pay more attention. I mentioned it at the end of yesterday's post.

I won't bore you with the details (not these ones, I have some others already prepared). Today I discovered an incredible resource. I quadrupled my material on Lichtenhainer in 5 minutes. More than enough to make me a total Lichtenhainer bore. I'll be droning on about it for years. But not today.

Everyone's heard of the 1830 Beer Act. When the whole country was pissed for days after the price of beer was halved. That Beer Act. But there was another Beer Act in 1823. Not as radical as that of 1830, but with one fascinating section.

"That such persons brewing porter, or using in the brewing of such ale or beer any other ingredients than water, malt, hops, and yeast, or mixing therewith, or with the wort or worts thereof, any water, or other ingredient than hops and the necessary quantity of yeast and fining, all such porter, &c. shall be forfeited, and may be seized by any Excise officer ; That every offence against these rules shall be visited with a penalty of 200/- ; and a penalty of 50/- for every offence is imposed upon persons selling, or permitting to be sold, beer brewed under this Act, in any quantity at one time of nine gallons, or quarter barrel, or upwards, at a higher price than 27s. per barrel, or any quantity at one time, less than nine gallon-, at a higher price than 10d. per gallon."

A British Reinheitsgebot.

The Reinheitsgebot is often (somewhat contentiously) portrayed as a piece of consumer protection legislation. Now the second part of the quote - that's what I call consumer protection. A fify shilling fine (about the price of two barrels of beer) for trying to overcharge you. You may think "Look at those quantities - the smallest is a gallon. Who buys that much at once?" Ah, things were so different in the 1800's. There was a big trade in selling beer by the barrel to private households.

Notice how Porter is mentioned first? In the bits I haven't quoted, it just says beer and ale. Only when talk turns to the use of illegal ingredients does Porter get a mention.

Oh yes, and the bit about not adding water to the wort is relevant. I'm sure that's one of the reasons London brewers brewed the way they did. Three or four worts blended together to get spot on the right gravity for perhaps as many as three different strength beers. And why brewing manuals of the period have detailed instructions on how to do the calculations needed for blending worts.

Oettinger

I like to use Oettinger as an example for one of my pet theories: that it's possible to brew crap beer while sticking to the Reinheitsgebot.

You might claim in their defence that Oettinger's beers are cheap. Yes they are. And it's pretty easy to tell that from drinking them. Minimal lagering times (maybe they wheel the crates through a lagering cellar - it certainly doesn't taste as if they stop moving whilst in there) and cheap (in the low-quality sense) ingredients.

I haven't got a good word to say about them. They epitomise what is going wrong with German beer. Overcapacity and low prices are forcing many breweries to cut corners in order to survive. Hop extract is one of the worst culprits in debasing German beer. I have a particular aversion to it, but unfortunately can detect it all too easily. In pale hop-oriented beers like Pilsener, it's particularly offensive. If you want to see how it messes a beer up, try Oettinger Pils.

During the scramble to buy up East Germany's brewing industry, I found it apt that Oettinger got hold of the Gothaer Brauerei. Their beers were about my least favourite from the East. Somehow, Oettinger managed to make them even worse. That takes real skill and dedication.

Rice Beer

I have a bit of a thing about the Reinheitsgebot. Not in a sexual way, obviously. I'm a happily married man. I'm not going to start running after any pieces of consumer legislation. Oh no. Not me.

Let's start again. I was about to say that I've never cared for the Reinheitsgebot, but that's not true. Much like everyone else, I used to think it was pretty groovy. Until my RHG epiphany. Now I feel the need to proselytise.

I get very annoyed by the wilfull misrepresentation of the law's history by the German brewing industry. Generally, the impression is given that German beer has been all malt since Moses was at school. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before 1900 it was a purely Bavarian regulation.

I know, I know. I'll try and get to the point. Give me a chance. Rice beer. Or more specifically German rice beer. It's generally assumed that the use of rice in lager was an American innovation. Well maybe it wasn't.

Strange taste in reading matter, I said. One of my absolute favourites is "Zeitschrift für das gesammte Brauwesen". The 1894 edition is a cracker - I couldn't put it down. But don't worry. I'm not going to spoil the ending by revealing the killer's name. Absolute highlight is the article "Die Verhältnisse der Bierbrauerei im Deutschen Zollgebiete während des Etatsjahres 1892/93". I've never laughed so much.

Here's an example, discussing the raw materials used for brewing in North Germany:

• 
  Amongst malt surrogates, rice is gaining in popularity from year to year. It is used as an additive to the grist in the proportion of 1:2 or 3:5; and beers brewed with the addition of rice are renowned for their especially pleasant taste and clear pale colour. Since rice is slightly cheaper than malt and with regard to sugar content is superior (100 kg of rice is equal to 120-130 kg malt in this respect), so its use in beer is financially advantageous.

Rice was more popular even than sugar. In 1892/93 50,767 zentners of rice were used, but only 23,609 zentners of sugar. Those of you who believe in the absolute purity of German beer look away now. They also used potato starch and saccharin.

Who came up with the idea of using rice first, German or American brewers? Given that the flow of knowledge about lager brewing was pretty much one-way during the 19th century - westwards - my money's on the Germans. Why aren't they more proud of their invention?