Brewing water

I'm really enjoying Southby's  "A Systematic Handbook of Practical Brewing". Even if he does go on a bit at times. And keep boasting about his own inventions. But self-publicism and long-windedness aside, it's packed with fascinating facts. Like the comparison of different brewing waters you're about to read.

Burton brewing water (from valley gravels overlying the red marles)
	grains per gallon
Carbonates of lime and magnesia precipitated on boiling	11.4
Lime not precipitated on boiling	17.7
Magnesia not precipitated on boiling	4.3
Sulphuric acid	33.9
Chlorine	3
or combined
Carbonates of lime and magnesia	11.4
Sulphate of lime	43
Sulphate of magnesia	12.9
Alkaline chlorides	5
Source: "A Systematic Handbook of Practical Brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 159.

"The above analysis was made many years ago, but analyses which I have made of the waters from these Burton valley gravels during the last few years give similar results. When these waters are pure their composition is the same now as it was thirty years ago, and their most marked characteristic is that the amount of sulphuric acid is just sufficient to combine with all the lime and magnesia present in the water, and not precipitated from it on boiling in the form of carbonates. The proportion which these sulphates bear to one another varies slightly, but is roughly as three of the lime sulphate to one of the magnesia sulphate. The dilution of these waters varies much more, than the proportion of the salts to one another in any one water. Thus in good Burton brewing waters the carbonates of lime and magnesia vary from ten to nearly twenty grains per gallon. The sulphuric acid from fifteen to over forty grains, and the chlorine from two to three and a-half grains. Within these limits of dilution beers can be brewed with the true Burton characteristics, but the best results are obtained with waters containing from eighteen to twenty-eight grains per gallon of sulphuric acid. My remarks on these waters only apply in their full force to such as are free from organic impurities, and from their oxodized products ; which latter, in the form of nitrates, now contaminate, to a greater or lesser extent, the majority of the Burton wells situated within the town. A brewer using a pure Burton water can scarcely fail to produce a brilliant delicate and delicious ale, if his malt and hops are of moderately good quality; but it is far otherwise with the contaminated springs which so many Burton brewers have now to depend upon.

The other source of Burton brewing water is from borings sunk to various depths into the marls underlying the valley gravels. These borings are very uncertain, for sometimes one boring will yield a large supply of water, and another sunk within a few yards of it to an equal or greater depth, will yield no water at all.

The following is an analysis of a pure and good water from one of these borings :—

Burton brewing water (from marls below the valley gravels )
	grains per gallon
Carbonates of lime and magnesia precipitated on boiling	15.4
Lime not precipitated on boiling	25.5
Magnesia not precipitated on boiling	10.2
Sulphuric acid	56.8
Chlorine	2.5
or combined
Carbonates of lime and magnesia	15.4
Sulphate of lime	61.9
Sulphate of magnesia	30.6
Alkaline chlorides	4.2
Source: "A Systematic Handbook of Practical Brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 159.

This water is evidently of the same general character, as those from the valley gravels, but it is more concentrated, and the proportion of the sulphates is two of lime sulphate to one of magnesia sulphate, instead of three of the former to one of the latter."
Source: "A Systematic Handbook of Practical Brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 159 - 161.

Here's a table compiled from various analyses of brewing water given by Southby:

Brewing water (grains per gallon)
	Burton above marl	Burton below marl	Dublin Grand Canal	chalk water (South of England)	New River (London)	Thames Valley deep well (London)	brewing well Lea Valley
Carbonates of lime and magnesia precipitated on boiling	11.4	15.4	11	14.2	11.2	4.9	12.2
Lime not precipitated on boiling	17.7	25.5	0.9	1.1	1.1		0.7
Magnesia not precipitated on boiling	4.3	10.2	0.9	0.1	0.2		1.7
Carbonates of the alkalies						13
Sulphuric acid	33.9	56.8	0.5	0.6	0.9	8.4	2.4
Chlorine	3	2.5	1.2	0.9	1.4	8	1.6
Nitric acid				0.2	0.4
or combined
Carbonates of lime and magnesia	11.4	15.4		14.2	11.2	4.9	12.2
Carbonates of the alkalies						13
Sulphates of the alkalies						14.4
Carbonates of lime and magnesia precipitated on boiling			11			12.2
Sulphate of lime	43	61.9	0.8	1	1.5		1.7
Sulphate of magnesia	12.9	30.6					2.1
Alkaline chlorides	5	4.2				13.9
Chloride of calcium			1.1	1.4	1.4
Chloride of magnesium			0.7				2.2
Carbonate of magnesia not precipitated on boiling			1.2
Nitrate of magnesia				0.3	0.8
Chloride of sodium					0.8
Source: "A Systematic Handbook of Practical Brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, pages 161 -165

There's possibly more to come about water. If I can make it through Southby's verbosity.

Malt usage ca 1885

Yes! More Southby. This time his take on the use of different malts.

There are a couple of points of note in the following text. Firstly, it confirms mine and Zythophile's distinction between London and Dublin Porter, namely the use of brown malt. Maybe one day I'll get to see some Irish brewing records to get this 100% straight. (Dolores seems quite keen on visiting Cork, where the Murphy's records have recently been made accessible to the public.)

Then there's the stuff about Mild. It's a pity he isn't more precise about the colour. What he says seems to back up my ideas about Mild becoming first an amber colour and only going properly dark in the early 20th century.

And finally there's the bit about using some wheat malt in Porter and Stout for head retention. I've not come across it brewing records of the period, but I know that post-WW II many Bitters contained a small amount of wheat for the same reason.

"The following are the malts used for different qualities of malt liquor.

For pale ales, of course, only the palest malts can be used.

Mild ales are in most localities brewed of a higher colour than pale ales. When the requisite degree of colour can be obtained from malt dried at the ordinary temperature no coloured malt should be used, but when additional colour is required it may be obtained either by using amber malt, or a very much smaller quantity of black malt. For colouring ales really first-class black malt answers, I think, better than amber, and gives less empyreumatic flavour, but inferior qualities of black malt should never be used for this purpose.

Porter and stout are brewed in Dublin from high-dried pale malt and black malt only, but London brewers generally prefer a grist containing all the three qualities of coloured malt, viz.: amber, brown, and black, in addition to the pale malt. In the case of black beers, as in that of high-coloured ales, I think that if the black malt is only good enough, the amber and brown may be dispensed with, and an additional amount of black substituted for them.

When black malt only is used in brewing porter and stout, one of black by measure, to seven of pale, is sufficient for the blackest beers, and one of black to twelve of pale is about the smallest proportion used, even in Ireland, where the black beers are generally far less highly coloured than in London.

I may here mention that there is a great advantage in using a proportion of wheat malt, prepared by my process, to replace some of the ordinary pale malt, in black beers. A proportion of about ten to twenty per cent, of wheat answers well, and promotes that fullness of palate, and permanent creamy head so much admired by consumers of stout and porter."
Source: "A Systematic Handbook of Practical Brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 217 - 218.

There's a great section of brewing water in Southby. I'll post that when I've put all the details in a nice, neat table. The excitement never stops.

Hop substitutes ca 1885

Today's Southby text is on the topic of hop substitutes.

I was trying to recall when hop substitutes were legalised. I know it was before 1880. Just after the excise tax on hops was dropped, I think it was. 1860's or 1870's. If I remember, I'll look it up.

I have occasionally seen hop substitutes in logs. Whitbread used them in the 1940's, presumably because they couldn't get sufficient hops. It didn't last for long.

"Bitters other than hops, commonly known as " hop substitutes," are a class of brewing material which, while deprecating the unnecessary use of, I am not prepared to absolutely condemn, provided always that only such substances are used as are at least as wholesome as hops themselves. Of course the use of any injurious bitter is as wicked as it is utterly illegal, and any one guilty of such an abominable practice deserves to be visited with the severest penalties, but as long as only wholesome bitters are used the public are in no ways defrauded. It is a mere matter of taste, and if they do not like the flavour of the beer, they will quickly compel the brewer, in these days of universal competition, to revert to the use of hops only, or if he persists in brewing beer that the public taste objects to, the ruin of his trade will be the sufficient and appropriate penalty.

Hops, from a dietetic point of view, are a wholesome tonic bitter, but with decidedly narcotic properties; quassia is likewise a wholesome tonic bitter, with slight narcotic properties. Beer, therefore, in which the bitter is partially derived from quassia is quite as wholesome as if hops alone had been used in brewing it. Whether the quassia imparts as pleasant a flavour, is a matter for the consumer to decide. If he likes the flavour of quassia as well as that of hops he is not defrauded in any way when he buys beer bittered with quassia, it is just as wholesome, nutritious, and tonic, as the beer bittered with hops. The same quantity of the quassia beer will not make him quite so sleepy as the hop beer, but that can scarcely be considered a disadvantage. If, on the other hand, the consumer does not like the flavour imparted by quassia, so well as that imparted by hops, he can purchase his beer from a brewer who uses hops only, and he has thus the power in his own hands of compelling the brewer to use hops and not quassia, if he prefers the former.

This question of the substitution of other bitters for hops is often argued as if it was analogous to the admixture of chicory with coffee, but the resemblance is only superficial, for hops and other wholesome tonic bitters are of about the same average dietetic value, whereas chicory has none of the special and valuable properties of coffee, and its unacknowledged admixture with coffee is a distinct and palpable fraud.

The following is a list of the principal wholesome bitters which may be honestly substituted for a portion of the hops used in the copper. There is no known substance which can be substituted for hops in " dry hopping."

Quassia 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 16 lbs hops
Calyso 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 12 lbs hops
Chiretta 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 10 lbs hops
Gentian 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 7 lbs hops
Camomile flowers 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 5 lbs hops

Quassia, as I have already stated, is tonic and slightly narcotic
Calyso is a very wholesome bitter, non-narcotic and with a slight stimulating action on the liver. Beer brewed with a proportion of Calyso is more wholesome to most people than that in which hops only have been used.

Chiretta, a very wholesome liver tonic, perfectly nonnarcotic

Gentian, a wholesome tonic bitter.

Camomile flowers are a wholesome tonic, with slightly aperient properties.

As none of the above bitter substances contain any appreciable amount of tannin, this substance must also be added at the rate of one pound of good soluble tannic acid, for every 100 pounds of hops substituted by the other bitters.

Notwithstanding the wholesome character of the above substances, I cannot advise brewers to use them when hops are at a moderate price. The public undoubtedly prefer a beer bittered with good hops only, and therefore brewers who confine themselves to the use of hops, are pretty sure to compete successfully with those who use a proportion of other bitters. When, however, hops rise to an extravagant price, a few good hops used with a proportion of the other bitters, will enable a brewer to produce a beer which the public will prefer both to that brewed with very inferior hops, and also to beers brewed with good hops only, but reduced in gravity to such a point as will allow of a fair profit.

As a general rule, not more than one-third of the hops should be substituted by other bitters, and certainly one-half the usual quantity of hops, and other bitters substituted for the other half, is the extreme proportion in which it is safe to use the latter.

There is one aspect of this question which brewers should always bear in mind, and that is, that none of the other wholesome bitters have anything like the same antiseptic power as hops, and consequently that a beer brewed with the latter will, if other things are equal, keep better than a beer in which other bitters have been substituted for a portion of the hops. Of the substances I have enumerated, calyso comes nearest to hops in its antiseptic properties.

The so-called hop substitutes and hop supplements, are all preparations or mixtures of one or more of the above bitter substances." (Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, pages 259-262.)

That's it for Southby for the moment. Unless I get desperate again.