Belgian beers 1839 - 1898

This is a sort of companion post to my recent series about Belgian beers in the 19th century.

Turns out I have rather more Lambic analyses than I thought. Though, sadly, only three give the level of acidity. Unsurprisingly, it's pretty damn high in all three examples.

What is a shock is the strength of some of the examples of Lambic. Only two of the seven are below 6% ABV. Even all the Faro is above 5% ABV. The strongest Lambics are almost 10% ABV - way, way stronger than any modern version.

Knowing how it was produced, the extremely high level attenuation is to be expected. All the bugs would have eaten through just about anything fermentable. The attenuation is particularly impressive if you know that before 1900 most continental beers were below 70% apparent attenuation.

Gerstenbier, in case you're wondering, is the same as Bière d'Orge. It's just the Dutch-language version of the name.

Belgian beers 1839 - 1898
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Acidity (%)	pH
1839	Unknown	Lambic	1085.1	1011.5	9.72	86.49%
1850	Unknown, Brussels	Lambik	1058.4	1013.2	5.89	76.39%
1850	Unknown, Brussels	Faro	1051.2	1011.2	5.20	77.17%
1850	Unknown, Louvain	Petermann	1069.6	1015.6	7.06	76.47%
1870	Unknown	Faro	1055.1	1013.5	5.41	75.50%
1871	Unknown	Lambic	1070.7	1008.7	5.60	86.95%	1.06	3.37
1872	Unknown	Lambic	1059.7	1003.3	7.42	94.47%
1889	Unknown	Lambic	1088.2	1011.1	9.71	86.46%	1.11	3.36
1889	Unknown	Faro	1055.9	1012.6	5.41	76.47%	0.9	3.4
1890	Unknown	Lambic	1061.4	1003.3	7.43	94.63%
1890	Unknown	Faro	1055.4	1013	5.41	76.54%
1898	Unknown	Lambic	1059.4	1003	7.43	94.95%
1898	Unknown	Faro	1054.5	1012.9	5.41	76.32%
1898	Unknown	Gerstenbier	1048	1002.5	5.96	94.79%
Sources:
"Bericht über die Entwickelung der chemischen Industrie während des letzten Jahrzehends" by August Wilhelm von Hofmann, 1877, page 382
Handwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie by Justus Liebig, Johann Christian Poggendorff, Friedrich Wöhler, 1858, page 1038
"Bericht über die Entwickelung der chemischen Industrie während des letzten Jahrzehends" by August Wilhelm von Hofmann, 1877, page 382
American Handy Book of the Brewing, Malting, and Auxiliary Trades by Robert Wahl and Max Henius, Chicago, pages 823-830
"Handbuch der chemischen technologie" by Otto Dammer, Rudolf Kaiser, 1896, pages 696-697
Brockhaus' konversations-lexikon, Band 2 by F.A. Brockhaus, 1898 http://books.google.de/books?id=oZ5PAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA999&dq=bierdruckapparat+konversationslexikon#PPA1000,M1

A British brewer describes Belgian beers in the 1880s

I love those descriptions of British brewers' and drinkers' encounters with Belgian beer. They're unanimous in their views: they taste dreadful.

To be fair, their opinions mirror my own on first encountering Belgian beer. Many years ago at a Great British Beer Festival in the late 1970s. "Is it supposed to taste like this?" was my reaction to Lambic. It just tasted like beer which had gone incredibly off.

While we're on the topic of Lambic, let's see what the authore thought of it:

"A beverage in great demand in the neighbourhood of Brussels, and which is also regarded in a very favourable light in Antwerp, and more especially at the Salon de degustation in the Exhibition is known as Lambic. The chief peculiarity, but certainly not the principal recommendation of this very remarkable ale, is to be found in the fact that not less than three and and sometimes as many as five years are required for its preparation. It is very low in gravity, and in that respect its consumption is possible to be commended; no yeast is added to the wort after it has been boiled, but it is allowed to undergo a spontaneous fermentation by storage iu unbuuged casks, in a cellar probably more remarkable for the number and variety of fortuitous germs floating about it, than for its cleanliness. That some stray yeast-cells find their way into the casks, and alighting upon a favourable medium, multiply with rapidity, is easily conceivable; but it will scarcely be urged, that the fermentation is purely alcoholic. Indeed, the difficulty, from an English brewer's point of view, will probably be to decide as to whether the aroma be attributable to casks winch have grown musty in the service, to butyric acid, to acetic acid, or to genuine putrefactive fermentation. In any case the combination is nasty; and it would be easier to induce an English farmer to cultivate a taste for olives than for lambic."

Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

Not exactly a ringing recommendation. Interesting that he says it's very low gravity. I've only a couple of analyses of 19th-century Lambic and one is 6.5% ABV.

Now he takes his axe to Faro:

"The second runnings of lambic wort are probably designed to develop a liking for this extraordinary article, for they are retained for the preparation of a beer known as Faro, which is practically intermediate between the running ale of the estaminets and lampic. Faro is not entirely fermented spontaneously, but has a small quantity of yeast added to it. When finished, it very much resembles a weak solution of hydrochloric acid. It may be tonic, but is not palatable, at least from our point of view."

Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

Not sure I've ever seen it mentioned before that some yeast was added to Faro. I don't think comparing Faro to hydrochloric acid is meant to be a compliment.

"A still more extraordinary product is that known as Biere Blanche. To the uninitiated it is not unlike workhoouse gruel in appearance, and, if one may judge by reports, there is not such a very great dissimilarity between the flavour of the two articles. If white beer be bright it is considered worth the drinking; but so long as it remains thick, it is consumed with evident relish. Your readers will not be surprised to learn that white beer is not adapted for store purposes, when they are told that it is with scarcely any hops, and that only half the wort is boiled, the remainder being conveyed direct from the mash-tun to the cooler preparatory to fermentation. Before pitching, it is mixed with the half that has been boiled, and to which a few hops have been added. This unique beverage has the colour of ginger beer, but is somewhat thicker in consistency. It is no exaggeration to state that the teetotal party might render good service to their cause by introducing white beer into England."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

Fair to say that he wasn't impressed with Witbier. Workhouse gruel: what a lovely description.

Amazing to think that some of these beers are so highly regarded nowadays.

Lambic in the 1930's again

Remember me saying I wished I had more old description of Lambic brewing? It turns out I did. And in a really obvious place.

What could be a more obvious place to look than "Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces"? (Investigation into the yeast type Brettanomyces') The Dutch author, knowing Brettanomyces played a role in Lambic brewing, clearly made a little trip down to Brussels to find out more. He picked a brewery you may have heard of.

"Thanks to the kind cooperation of Mr. A. Vossen, Director of Brasserie "Mort subite" in Brussels, I have been able to acquaint myself with the method of preparing "lambic". Essentially this is done as follows.

The grist for "Gueuze-Lambic" is a mixture of barley malt and unmalted wheat, in which the quantity of the latter raw material makes up 40 to 50% of the total deposit. After this mash has passed the usual temperatures for the protein degradation and saccharification, it is filtered, hops are added and the hopped wort boiled for about 5 hours. The amount of added hop is 800-900 grams per hl of wort.

To demonstrate better the significance of this number, it is important to note that for beer brewed in this country and also for the normal types of beer brewed in Germany, up to 250 grams of hops is added per hl of wort."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 24.

You can see that a large amount of hops is confirmed. Though this is much less - 2.8 to 3.2 lbs per barrel - than the 8 to 12 lbs specified in the 1932 Brewers' Journal article. Which source to trust? Not sure. It could just be different hopping rates at different breweries.

"The product thus obtained, after filtration, is put into flat coolers where it remains ± 24 hours; there is no artificial cooling.

During cooling, the wort takes numerous organisms from the air. After cooling the wort is put into wooden barrels of about 2 hl size and these vessels in a room with a temperature of 15 ° - 18 ° C.. Yeast is not added; A slow fermentation occurs spontaneously. A closing piece is placed on the barrels, in which a small opening is located; this opening closes iself automatically with exudates, which will float up through the action of the fermentation.

The beer remains 2 to 3 years in the casks and then after clearing it is filled into bottles where the fermentation and lagering continue at the same temperature for about 2 years. The product thus obtained is the so-called "Gueuze-lambic "; it has an original gravity of 13-14° Balling.

The resulting product of two to three years fermentation and lagering in the casks is already suitable for consumption itself. It is also sold on draught under the name of "gueuze".

"krieken-lambic" is "lambic", where an appropriate amount of cherries is added in the barrels.

In passing it should be mentioned here that "faro" and "mars" which are also Brussels special beers are prepared in a similar way to "lambic ", but these beers have a lower original gravity than "lambic "."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, pages 24 - 25.

I think we all already knew that Lambic was left in a cooler. 24 hours is a long time to be in a cooler. Longer than you would need to cool the wort. Clearly cooling isn't the only consideration at play here.

I'll admit to not quite understanding the bit about the closing. Oh, the original book is in Dutch, by the way. It's my translation here. Exudates is what Google translate comes up with for the Dutch word "afscheidingsstoffen". If anyone has a better translation, let me know.

A gravity of 13-14° Balling, with the 90% attenuation you would expect from Lambic, leaves a beer of 6 to 6.5% ABV. Which is a bit higher than today. Two or three years in cask on the other hand is much like today. Though it confuses me that Gueuze-lambic is used for the version refermented in bottles and just Gueuze for the younger draught stuff. That's definitely different from current practice, where the names would be Gueuze and Lambic respectively.

Faro and Mars are once again said to be lower-gravity versions. No mention of sweetening, which I though was an essential feature of Faro.

""Lambic" is only be brewed in the cold seasons, viz. from October to April. In the last twenty years it has been attempted, through the use of pure cultures of the yeast and bacteria species generally found in "lambic", to shorten fermentation and lagering to 5 to 6 months and also to brew in the summer. However, this process has not made much progress.

For the fermentation of lambic Brettanomyces yeast is now considered essential; these probably also tend to get into  the wort during cooling. This is not so surprising, since the air and the coolers are undoubtedly sufficiently contaminated with these yeasts."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 25.

I wonder if any of the commercial Lambic breweries currently use pure cultures? It wouldn't surprise me. But, unlike the Brewers' Journal text, this does state that Lambic was usually spontaneously fermented, with the infection starting in the cooler.

That was informative, wasn't it? Maybe I should look to see if I have more stuff like this about Lambic.

Lambic in 1932 (part two)

We're back with that 1930's article on Lambic. With more surprising stuff about blending.

I wish I had more material like this on Belgian brewing. Then again, maybe it's better I'm not distracted any more than I already am from my primary aims. But every time I read something modern about Belgian beer history I get uneasy. The same assumptions that have plagued histories of British beer seem at play. Projecting the present into the past being the most dangerous.

First some more about the beer itself.

"The spontaneously fermented beers of the Brussels district are usually brewed from equal parts of malt and ungerminated wheat. Several types are frequently obtained from the same brew. For example, the first wort gives Lambic, the later runnings give March or small beer. Faro is obtained by blending the two. The Lambic is often kept two or even three years before use. Gueuse-lambic is natural Lambic to which no additions have been made. The customer may add sugar if he so desires. It is often kept several years in bottle."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

I've read about the three types of lambic brewed from a single mash in 19th-century texts. I can't imagine that they currently make anything weaker than Faro. I wonder if that's brewed as is or made from diluting Lambic? It's interesting how the term Gueuse-Lambic is used differently from today. Now it means a blend of aged Lambic blende and bottled. Back in the 1930's, it seems to have meant uncut Lambic. I wonder when the meaning changed?

The grist sounds much like today: a mix of malted barley and unmalted wheat.

"One is frequently asked what is the origin of the name Gueuse-lambic. It may simply be the Lambic of the poor. It is known that the latter adopt as a title of honour the name which was given to them in contempt. The poor woodmen and sailors reserve for themselves the best drinks and foods they produce."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

It's all very well coming up with an explanation about the Gueuse bit, but what about Lambic?

Now some more about blending.

"Tasting is a very important ceremony in the preparation of special beers. As with all luxury drinks, the aim is always to please customers. Each brewery consequently has a taster who has to determine the quantity of candy syrup or old beer which must be added. He has to regulate the blends and must know the taste of every customer. Each brewery thus tends to produce a beer of special flavour and the fermentations differ from one brewery to another. Details of brewing also influence the flavour. Thus blending in cask or fermenting vessel have different effects. It has been noticed that the flavours marry better in the latter case, as some of the constituents of the old beer may be modified during fermentation. The Lambic may contain all sorts of disease organisms and may have suffered from ropiness or haze. The yeast must consequently progressively become more infected, and the bad effects show themselves in the beer after quite lengthy periods of storage, sometimes months or even a year. Wort to which additions are to be made is comparatively strong, and in it 25 to 50 per cent, of wheat or other grain is used, with 8 to 12 lb. per barrel of hops. The beer is fermented in large storage casks and clarifies spontaneously. After the secondary fermentation it is kept long enough to become definitely acid."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

You can what they mean by blending is quite different from today. We'd now proably call mixing with syrup or vinegar cutting rather than blending. And note again that they mention blending in old beer with wort before fermentation. Having a skilled blender is still important in Lambic breweries. I can remeber being told that was one of the problems at Belle Vue. That produced some of the best Lambic, but not having good blenders couldn't get the most out of it. Or maybe it was just the sugar and other shit they were putting into it.

Yeast getting infected? Isn't that the whole point of Lambic brewing? That's rather a lot of hops for beer of this strength. Sadly, there's no mention of their age. I'd be shocked if they used that quantity of fresh hops, as it's a 19th-century IPA type level of hopping.

I'm intrigued by it souring "after the secondary fermentation". What's going on then? Is there a tertiary fermentation? Having seen a breakdown of a Lambic fermentation, it seems to go through multiple fermentations, with different organisms taking the lead, after finishing primary.

"The alcohol content of Lambic varies from 4 to over 6 per cent., with solid matter between 6 and 3 per cent. The beers are better fermented in open casks than in fermenting vessels as the attenuation is too rapid in the latter. The lactic acid develops first followed by the acetic. The fermentation is slow and the characteristic flavour is not developed in less than a year. The beers are very dextrinous.— Petite Gazette du Brasseur."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

Now there's a thing. While many Belgian styles have become stronger Lambic hasn't. If anything, it's got weaker. Nowadays they're always around 5% ABV. I know that there were stronger versions because I've an analysis of a 19th-century Lambic that was 6% ABV.

That's it for this article. Must pan the Brewers' Journal for some more nuggets.

Lambic in 1932

One of my big problems is harvesting information then forgetting about it before I have time to use it. Like this article about Lambic in the Brewers' Journal.

It seems to be a translation of an article from the French-language brewing periodical, "Petite Gazette du Brasseur". It provides a tantalising glimpse into pre-war Lambic brewing.

"LAMBIC

Visitors to Belgium usually wish to taste some of the beers typical of that country, such as Lambic or Faro, though they afterwards admit, not infrequently, that their palates would require a certain amount of education before they could fully appreciate the special qualities of these beverages. One of the characteristics of these beers consists in the use of grain other than barley. Wheat is generally used in the form of raw grain mixed with malt. The quantity employed may be even equal to that of the malt, it is usually said that wheat beers froth a great deal, but it would be more correct to say that they hold their head better than all-malt beer. Lactic and acetic acid are very quickly produced in them, and this is one of the characteristics of the Special Brussels beers. The high percentage of acids produced esterifies the alcohol during storage and gives the typical aromas to these beers. Use of different kinds of wheat gives special characteristics to the beers, while rye, oats and buckwheat are also occasionally used in addition."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

"their palates would require a certain amount of education" what a polite way of saying they spat out Lambic in disgust. because that's probably what happened when it was first sampled by the unwary or unwarned.

I'm not an expert in Belgian styles and their history. So the fact that I hadn't heard of grains other than barley or wheat in Lambic doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't surprise me. In the Middle Ages and early modern periods beer in the Low Countries and Northwest Germany was often brewed from multiple grains. Using a combination of barley, wheat, oats and rye wasn't unusual.

The high acid content shouldn't surprise you. I thought it was mostly lactic acid in Lambic, but don't quote me on that. In general, pleasant acidity in beer usually comes mostly from lactic acid.

Now something about fermentation:

"The fermentation methods adopted in the breweries may resemble either bottom or top fermentation. In the first case the temperature is kept below 50 deg. Fahr. and the yeast settles on the bottom of the fermenting vessel. The top fermentations are carried out at the temperature of the air and the yeast comes up. In certain cases the fermentation is spontaneous and started by organisms from the air or in the casks. This fermentation is very slow, and is not now used in the breweries devoted to making these beers."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

What an odd thing to say: "may resemble". It implies that while they may look on the surface like top- or bottom-fermentation, something else is really happening. But the last part I find most surprising. That Lambic brewers no longer spontaneously fermented. Is he only talking about larger commercial Lambic brewers? He must be, because the little ones around today I think have always stuck with spontaneous fermentation.

The way they blended also has some surprises:

"Additions of wort or very acid old beer play a very important part in the brewing. These are made in variable proportions to suit the taste of customers, and sometimes even vinegar or acetic acid are added. The old beer is acid and has passed through a sequence of diseases. If it is added to the casks, it is advisable to pasteurise it by heating it for a short time at 158 deg. Fahr. If the old beer is added before fermentation, it may be boiled for a few minutes in the copper and afterwards passed over the refrigerator before mixing with the wort in the starting vessel."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

Remember recently in a piece about brewing during WW II in Belgium it was mentioned that vinegar was used to sour blends in place of Lambic? It's clear that the practice pre-dated the war. Surely just adding vinegar to make it sour is cheating?

I can't imagine that old Lambic is pasteurised today before blending. And I'm certain no-one blends in old beer before fermentation starts. I t makes you realise that blending Lambic hasn't necessarily always been performed ass it is today.

I think that's enough for today. Next time we'll be learning more about the people who drank it.

The CO2 content of Porter

In response to a question about the CO2 content of 1890 Truman Export Stout, featured in yesterday's Let's Brew, here's yet another bloody table.

Have to rush. My curry is burning.

Bière de mars, Lambic, Faro

Hey, I've been looking for more about Peeterman, but found this, too. About Brussels beer. In French.

Now there's a reason I'm leaving it in French. The web is far too anglophone. This is my bit to even things up. That I don't have to bother translating it is just a happy side effect.

Remember the Booth passage about pharo. Where he said it was the stronger than lambic? This text disagrees. Bière de mars, Faro, Lambic. That's the three subtypes of Brussels beer in ascending order of strength. Sounds more like it.



A. — Bières De Bruxelles.
— En fait, c'est habituellement avec le même brassin que se préparent le lambick, le faro et la bière de mars.

Le lambiek est la bière forte fabriquée avec les premières trempes ; la bière de mars est la petite bière, préparée avec les dernières trempes, et le faro est la bière moyenne, résultant de la réunion de toutes les trempes.

Ordre du travail. —
1° Introduction de parties égnles d'eau froide et d'eau bouillante dans la cuve-matière jusqu'à 4 ou 5 centimètres au-dessus du faux fond.
2° Addition de la balle de froment qu'on répartit sur le faux fond.
3° Introduction de la matière farineuse.
4° Addition par le faux fond d'eau à +-50 degrés, puis d'eau à 90 degrés de manière à remplir la cuve.
5° Brassage et mélange exact.
6° Ou jette de la balle de froment sur la surface.
7° Introduction, jusqu'au faux fond de paniers coniques faisant fonction de filtres.
8° Enlèvement'du liquide des paniers, qu'on porte à la chaudière.
9° Soutirage du liquide d'entre les fonds et réunion avec le précédent.
10° On allume le feu sous la chaudière.
11° Seconde trempe à l'eau bouillante.
12° Extraction de celte trempe et réunion avec la première.
13° Ébullition pendant vingt minutes.
14° Relevage de la matière dans la cuve et addition de balle de froment, d'abord sur le pourtour des parois, ensuite sur le milieu.
15° Retour du moût qui a bouilli et léger brassage.
16° Soutirage par le faux fond.
17° A mesure que la filtration s'opère et que le liquide coule dans le réservoir, on ajoute le reste du moût dans la cuve-matière.
18° Nettoyage de lu chaudière.
19° Introduction, dans celte chaudière, du liquide et du houblon, et ébullition pendant six heures. Cette mise en ébullition doit être accompagnée d'agitation et de brassage, pour éviter que la matière s'attache au fond et brûle.

Cette première qualité de moût formera le lambick. Pour cela, après l'ébullition, on suit ainsi le traitement.
20° Mise au bac à houblon et filtration.
21° Refroidissement.
22° Mise en guilloire vers +14 à +16 degrés, ou +10 à + 12 degrés selon la saison.
23° Entonnage immédiat sans levure. Fermentation (rès-lente, qui ne se termine qu'en dix-huit mois ou deux ans. Ouillage convenable.

Travail de la bière de mars. — Lorsque le premier moût destiné à faire le lambick est dans la chaudière avec le houblon, on a porté à l'ébullition, dans une autre chaudière, l'eau de la troisième trempe, on y a lavé les paniers filtres et cette eau est envoyée à la cuve-matière. Brassage très-court. Repos d'une demi-heure. Soutirage par le faux fond. Quatrième trempe, comme la troisième. Réunion des liquides de ces deux trempes dans la seconde chaudière avec le résidu de houblon du lambick. Refroidissement. Entonnage comme pour le lambick. Travail de fermentation identique.

Travail du faro. On réunit le moût de lambick et le moût de bière de mars, et l'on entonne le produit mélangé. Ou bien encore on coupe le lambick fermenté avec de la bière de mars fermentée séparément.


"Guide theorique et pratique du fabricant d'alcools et du distillateur", by Nicolas Basset, published by Librairie du Dictionnnaire des arts et manufactures, 1870, pages 631-632.


As a special treat, I have translated the recipes:

bière de mars and lambic
wheat 680 kg
malt 660 kg
total 1340 kg
Aalst hops (lambic) 39 kg
Aalst Hops (bière de mars) 19kg
lambic 34.5 hl
bière de mars 34.5 hl

(The bière de mars and lambic were party-gyled)


faro
wheat 1760 kg
malt 1672 kg
total 3432 kg
hops 92 kg
faro 98.4 hl

"Guide theorique et pratique du fabricant d'alcools et du distillateur", by Nicolas Basset, published by Librairie du Dictionnnaire des arts et manufactures, 1870, pages 637-638.

Method of brewing at Brussels (1830's)

Just for a bit of variety (and because I'm having arsing issues) today I'm posting another extract from David Booth's "The Art of Brewing". This time the continental town in focus is Brussels. As you must already have realised from the title.

You must be as excited as I am to find such an early account of lambic brewing. And in English, too, so I don't have to piss around translating it. I'll let you be the judge of it accuracy. The bit where pharo is called a strong beer has me wondering.


[The following passage is taken from "The Art of Brewing", by David Booth, 1834, Part IV pages 44-45.]

"The following is the present mode by which they brew their favourite beverage :—

The construction of the interior of a brewhouse in Brussels is very similar to what it is in England. There are two coppers; and the mash-tun has a false bottom, with a trunk which leads the liquor underneath it.

Four quarters of malted barley, and four quarters of raw wheat pretty finely ground, mixed up with a portion of wheat-chaff, are put into the mash-tun; and from those materials (which fill up two-thirds of the content of the tun) are made 19 barrels of strong beer.

The goods, having been completely wetted with cold water, are mashed with about 18 barrels of hot liquor. The mash is very stiff; and the heat, when finished, is 122 degrees. It then stands an hour and a half to infuse; when the cock of the mash-tun is opened, and what runs into the under-back is immediately pumped up into the wort-copper, and mixed up with 56 pounds of very fine hops. It is to be observed, that the wort runs from the mash-tun very turbid, and with difficulty; so that, to get it off with as little delay as possible, they make use of wicker baskets, about three feet deep, and eighteen inches square, which are dipped in the goods, and the worts which filter into them are laded out with brass bowls.

A second mash is then made with ten barrels of hot liquor; and, the mashing being finished, the heat is 144 degrees. This mash is allowed to stand an hour; when the same means of extricating the worts from the grains are found necessary.

Three mashes now follow in succession for the strong beer; but the quantity of hot liquor in each is so small as only to rise to the surface of the goods. The heats of these mashes increase regularly, from 134 to 173 degrees, taken in the tun immediately after mashing.

By the pumping up of all these worts the wort-copper is completely filled. The moment when it began to boil, two large handfulls of unslacked lime were thrown into it, and the boiling continued for eighteen hours. The worts are cast upon the coolers, and cooled down to the lowest possible degree—in winter, almost to the freezing-point. The whole of the worts are then turned into a large tun, where they remain for two days, without the least sign of fermentation; after which, they are drawn off into casks to undergo the spontaneous fermentation described in Chapter 4, Part III.

At the end of the first year, the beer is still foul; at the end of two years, it is clear; and it is still brighter the longer it is kept. The bottoms of the casks that had stood full for two years had very little grounds, and those of a much darker colour than the beer.

The strong beer is called Pharo, chiefly when brewed in the winter season; and Lambic, when it is brewed in summer. The Pharo is kept longest. Both seem to be very strong, but the Lambic is the milder-tasted."

Here's the section on spontaneous fermentation mentioned above:

"The Brewers of Brussels (whose method of brewing will be afterwards more particularly described) also trust to a spontaneous fermentation. Their strong-ale worts, after being cooled as low as is consistent with fluidity, are bunged up into casks of the size of a barrel, and stored in a room, exposed to all the variation of temperature, during twenty-four months of probation. A small vent-hole is bored in each cask, out of which a little froth issues for the first fortnight. These holes are pegged up at the end of about three months ; loosely at first, but closely soon after, when no air or froth is seen to issue. Long boiling is reckoned inimical to this as well as to the other species of fermentation."
"The Art of Brewing", by David Booth, 1834, Part III page 15.

I may continue on my continental theme. Or just as quickly forget about it again. I make no promises.

German, Czech, Belgian, Dutch and British beers in the 1850's

In preparation for my historic German beer series of posts, here are some analyses of German, Czech, Belgian and British beers from the 1850's.



This is the text that accompanied the above table.

"The following serves to complete the characteristics of these beers:

Ale is a bright, more or less bitter (mild or bitter ale) full-bodied, strong beer. Porter is a dark, more or less Bitter, full-bodied, strong beer. Bavarian beers are moderately full-bodied, moderately strong, lighter or darker, more or less bitter. Austrian and Czech beers are similar to Bavarian, only they are often somewhat more full-bodied. Belgian beers, in terms of the amount of alcohol and extract are also close to Bavarian, all have a slightly sour taste. Berliner Weissbier has little body, is weak and highly-carbonated. Braunschweiger Mumme can hardly be called beer, it tastes like malt extract or couch-grass extract.""Handwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie" by Justus Liebig, Johann
Christian Poggendorff, Friedrich Wöhler, 1858, pages 1038-1039.

I've also managed to sneak in my weekly Barclay Perkins reference. Though you'll see that their name has been misspelled "Barkley und Perkins".

And because someone on the Babblebelt was asking about old sources for Lambik, here are some more analyses of Dutch beers: