Which is authentic IPA?

I stumbled over an intriguing table the other day. Showing the hopping rates for British beer types in 1905. Rather than just reproduce the table by itself, I've also put together another of my own. Based on information from Whitbread's brewing records. You guessed it: compare and contrast time again.

Here's the table from the book:

Average amount of hops used in different types of beer
Beer	Specific gravity before fermentation	lbs. of hops per barrel of wort
Mild ale	1050º-1058º	0.75 - 1.5
Pale ale	1048º-1055º	2 - 3
India pale ale	1055º-1064º	3 - 4
Strong ale	1065º-1083º	3 - 4
Porter	1050º-1056º	0.75 - 1.5
Single stout	1063º-1070º	2 - 3
Double stout	1075º-1083º	2.5 - 3.5
Imperial stout	1085º-1098º	3 - 4
Export stout	1060º-1098º	3 - 5
Source: "The Brewing Industry" by Julian L. Baker, 1905, page 92

What stands out? The relationship between Pale Ale and IPA. The latter is indicated as being both stronger and more heavily hopped. You can probably recall me mentioning the odd 3,000 times that IPA was not a strong beer. But here it is clearly indicated as PA's big brother.

Now here's my table of Whitbread's beers of the same period. I've taken the information from their brewing records, so it must be correct.

Whitbread beers in 1905 - 1906
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
X	Mild	1055.1	1013.0	5.57	76.42%	5.00	1.23
IPA	IPA	1050.1	1013.0	4.91	74.04%	11.99	2.63
FA	Pale Ale	1050.2	1014.0	4.80	72.14%	11.97	2.62
2PA	Pale Ale	1056.8	1018.0	5.13	68.30%	9.46	2.38
PA	Pale Ale	1063.4	1022.0	5.47	65.29%	12.01	3.40
KK	Strong Ale	1075.1	1028.0	6.23	62.73%	12.02	4.06
2KKK	Strong Ale	1080.2	1033.0	6.24	58.83%	12.02	4.33
KKK	Strong Ale	1085.8	1032.0	7.11	62.69%	12.02	4.63
P	Porter	1055.5	1013.0	5.62	76.58%	6.36	1.56
S	Stout	1075.6	1027.0	6.43	64.28%	7.76	2.89
SS	Stout	1086.0	1032.0	7.14	62.78%	8.57	3.81
SSS	Stout	1095.5	1037.0	7.74	61.27%	8.57	3.97
Source: Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Whitbread's X and Porter both fit Baker's specifications, in terms of SG and hopping rate. Whitbread's Stouts, though they have slightly higher SG's, have about the same hopping rate. The Strong Ales are a bit more heavily hopped than specified. But not by any crazy amount.

Then there's Pale Ale and IPA.You know what's funny? Whitbread's IPA fits the Pale Ale spec and their Pale Ale the IPA spec. Weird, eh? What's going on? Did Whitbread get their styles mixed up? Or did IPA mean something different to southern drinkers? I suspect it's probably the latter.

It looks very much as if Baker has based his IPA specification on Bass. Which I suppose isn't unreasonable. It's just that in London, brewers and drinkers had other ideas about what constituted an IPA. Which was the authentic IPA: London or Burton?

I'd have to say both. Because both types of IPA were brewed for the rest of the 20th century. Drinkers clearly weren't confused. But I suppose it's irritating for style nazis to have two different types of beer using the same name. It doesn't worry me. I'm here to record and describe the past, not to judge it. I'll leave that to the nazis.

Protz shield/Papazian Cup examples

This is the sort of thing I'm looking for.

 " . . originating in England in the early 1800’s, IPA was brewed to survive the voyage to the troops all around the world where many were stationed in India, where the hot climate wasn’t conducive to brewing. The beer was brewed strong and hoppy to prevent spoilage during the long trip, and the extreme temperature changes combined with the rolling of the seas resulted in a highly attenuated beer upon arrival."
Kegworks blog, http://www.kegworks.com/blog/2010/09/13/top-5-american-ipa/

"The original English IPAs were very strong and extremely hoppy, running 7-10% alcohol by volume. Brewers soon began producing similar ales for domestic consumption, but toned down both the alcohol content and the bitterness. This was partly as an effort to cater to consumer wishes, and partly because of the English taxation system. Until 1880, taxes were charged based on the raw materials used in the brewing process, but with passage of the “Free Mash Tun Act,” the tax assessment became based on the alcohol potential of the brew. Higher strength beers were taxed at a considerably higher rate, so lower strength beers became popular."
Angie Rayfield
http://www.suite101.com/content/whats-an-ipa-a26747

"The formal use of the term “Brown Ale” is tied to the introduction of Porter in the early 1700′s. Brown ale was likely known simply as “Ale” before that since almost all English ales would have been brown prior to 1700. The term “Brown Ale” was also used interchangeably for the next 100 years to describe both Porters and Stouts. Brown was in fact a generic term used to describe the insanely popular Porter of this period. [Ref: Daniels]

In the early 1800′s, some distinction was being made between Stouts, Porters and Milds. In many cases Brown ale was produced by making a Stout or Porter with the first runnings and then collecting the second runnings of the Mash to produce Brown ales. However, throughout the 18th century “brown” was still used extensively to describe Stouts, Porters and other dark beers brewed primarily around London."
Brad Smith
http://www.beersmith.com/blog/2008/07/09/brown-ale-recipes-brewing-styles/

"Russian imperial stouts were first brewed in the 18th century by brewers in Burton, England to be shipped to the court of Russian Empress Catherine the Great. Catherine apparently became quite smitten by stouts during a visit to England and demanded some be sent back to her when she returned home; unfortunately the first few batches did not survive the long trip to Russia. Catherine demanded that the English find some way to get her beloved porter to her, and being empress, she got what she wanted. To accomplish this goal the Barclay Perkins brewery crafted a stout to survive the trek much sweeter and stronger than anything available in England at the time and a new style was born."
Beeriety
http://blog.beeriety.com/2010/02/25/style-profile-russian-imperial-stout/

The more ludicrous the claims, the better your chance of winning one of these prestigious prizes

Papazian Cup/Protz Shield - last chance to enter

Friday is the closing date for my traditional end-of-year contest. So hurry up if you want to win some of the various books and self-promoting tat on offer.

The rules (in case you've been asleep for the last year) are simple. Find a piece of made-up. innaccurate or generally bollocky beer history writing and send it in as a comment. The Protz Shield is for British writers, the papazian Cup for everyone else.

The number of prizes will be depend upon a whatever mood I'm in when I decide the winners. If it's after my first couple of St. Bernardus Abts, I may well be rashly over-generous. Or generously over-rash. Or overly rash and generous. I think that's all the possibilities covered.

Grists and mashing temperatures in 1905

Another snazzy title there. It's no wonder readers flock to this blog. Today's text is a little something on grist composition and mashing temperatures. One of the main reasons I've selected it is the explanation of the use of several different pale malts in a beer. And why a proportion of foreign malt was used.

"In addition to English malt, brewers use some kind of malt made from foreign barley; for experience has shown, that beers brewed from a grist containing a proportion of foreign malt drain more easily in the mash tun, come into condition more quickly, and clarify more readily, than if the beer were brewed solely from English malt. Malts made from foreign barleys contain relatively smaller amounts of soluble albuminoids, and their lightness and large amount of husk help to make a buoyant mash, which drains easily. The barleys from which these malts are derived are grown and harvested under ideal conditions, and this, doubtless, accounts in a measure for the light, dry, and delicate flavour which such malts impart to beer.

Brewers fully recognise that two malts mashed separately under identical conditions will produce beers of very different character. Since it is most important that the beer of a brewery should be constant in flavour, the brewer tries to maintain a standard by using a mixed grist comprised of two or more malts. Thus if a brewer should be brewing a pale ale from a grist consisting of a mixture of a Pale English, Hungarian, and Californian malts, the chances of this mixed grist producing a wort of fairly uniform flavour and composition would be greater, than if one of the three malts were used. Again, if one of the malts showed some defect, the result would not be so unsatisfactory as if it were used alone. The proportions in which different malts are mixed calls for great judgment and care on the part of the brewer. Pale malt forms the principal constituent of most grists, London stout being excepted, the colour of the beer being adjusted by adding certain proportions of amber, brown, and black malts, or caramels.

Stock and export beers are mashed at a higher temperature than beers brewed for rapid consumption. The following table shows the approximate composition of the grist used in some typical beers and also the mashing heats:—

Beer	Mashing temperature	Grist
Pale or Stock Ale	151 - 153º F	Pale English malt	60%
		Foreign malt (Smyrna or Californian)	25%
		Flaked maize	5%
		Invert sugar	10%
Mild Ale	145 - 148º F	Pale English malt	35%
		Amber malt	15%
		Foreign malt (Smyrna or Californian)	30%
		Flaked maize	5%
		Invert sugar	15%
London Stout	148 - 150º F	Pale English malt	25%
		Amber malt	50%
		Roasted malt	2%
		Foreign malt	17%
		Invert sugar	6%

For London porter a somewhat similar grist would be used. A portion of the roasted malt would be replaced by caramel, and raw cane sugar might be used in place of some of the malt. London porter is usually brewed with from 15 to 20 per cent. of substitutes.

Beer	Mashing temperature	Grist
Irish Stout	148 - 150º F	Pale English malt	40%
		Amber malt	20%
		Foreign malt (Smyrna or Californian)	22%
		Maize	10%
		Roasted malt or barley	8%

The composition of these grists is, of course, only approximate, and varies according to the discretion of the brewer. There are, however, certain well-defined differences. In the superior beers a smaller percentage of malt substitutes are used than in running beer. In some Irish stouts and porters no substitutes are used, but this is not invariably the case. In Ireland practically no mild ale is brewed, porter and stout being the beverage of the country."
"The Brewing Industry" by Julian L. Baker, 1905, pages 75-77.

So, foreign malt was used because it had a good husk that helped drainage of the mash. I suppose the ffact that they were also cheaper than English malts is just a happy coincidence.

I confess that the Mild and London Stout grists look weird. All that amber malt. Not seen that in any records. And where's the brown malt in the London Stout?

I'm a bit confused about the mashing temperatures. Isn't Mild usually mashed at a higher temperature to produce a less fermentable wort? Or have I got that the wrong way around?