Malt Liquors Sold in the UK

I've just tripped over a great series of articles that appeared in the British Medical Journal in 1869 and 1870. Entitled "Malt Liquors Sold in the United Kingdom", it's exactly what you would expect: an overview of the beers available in Britain.

There are five parts, each covering a different type of beer. What caught my attention were the analyses of beers. I can never get enough numbers.Especially 19th century ones. They provide a wonderful snapshot of a beer landscape that's very different from today's. Reason enough for me to pester you with them.

It's a key moment spot in beer history. When continental breweries were beginning to catch up - and indeed overtake - their British rivales. Both in terms of technology and scale. For the previous century and a half British brewers had led tyhe way. Now it was time for them to start paying attention to developments elsewhere.

We're going to kick off, appropriately enough, with the introduction. Enjoy.

"REPORT ON THE MALT LIQUORS SOLD IN THE UNITED KINGDOM:

WITH ANALYSES AND COMMENTS.

Although the recent introduction of the cheaper kinds of wine into this country has led to their being used much more largely than was the case before the alteration of import duty, it appears to have had little influence on the. habits of the chief beer-consuming class, and our national beverage is still, for a large portion of the community, as important an article of diet as ever; while its manufacture, employing a large amount of capital and labour, and constituting a gigantic industry, is a great source of trade, of individual profit, and of revenue to the state.

The following statistics* will furnish an idea of the extent of the business of beer brewing in this country.

	Malt		Sugar		total quantity of malt equivalent to the malt and sugar used in brewing
	charged with duty	used in brewing	used in brewing	Equivalent in malt, 200 lbs sugar to 8 bush. Malt
	bushels	bushels	lbs	bushels	bushels
1865	48,538,412	45,093,778	3,698,180	140,883	45,234,661
1866	50,163,487	50,777,200	7,628,206	290,598	51,067,798
1867	50,915,828	49,392,856	26,532,403	1,010,758	50,403,614

At the rate of 2.5 bushels per barrel, these quantities would represent about 20 million barrels of beer brewed annually in the kingdom.

The general excellence of British beer, in its various modifications, has long been recognised ; and although beer is largely consumed in other countries, it has been customary to consider both the method and system of manufacture adopted in this country, as well as the product itself, as being in most respects far superior to any other. But, as in other branches of industry, the preeminence we have held in regard to foreign countries has, during late years, been lessened or done away with by their more rapid progress in manufacturing arts; so in the production of malt liquor, we are now threatened with a foreign competition which would probably have been regarded as ridiculous a few years ago.

Of other countries than this, where beer is consumed and produced, Germany has long been famous, both for the capacity of its beer-drinkers, and for certain peculiarities of the beer made there; especially that kind known as Bavarian beer, which is brewed in a manner somewhat different from that generally practised in this country. During the last thirty years, great attention has been paid in Germany to the brewing of malt liquors by some of the most eminent chemists and scientific men, among whom the name of Liebig stands prominent. The various governments have also given great assistance in promoting and improving the manufacture ; so that while very great progress has been made in the rationale and practice of the art of brewing, the manufacture has considerably increased, and beer is now largely brewed, upon the Bavarian system, in many other parts of Germany, even in the wine districts, especially in the neighbourhood of the Rhine, and in Austria, ** where its production has extended, since 1848, through all the provinces along the Danube, even to the Black Sea. So great, indeed, is the repute of the German brewers, that it is now customary with some of our largest brewers to employ in their establishments German chemists ; from which fact, it may be inferred, that persons with the requisite technical skill and scientific acquirements cannot be obtained in this country. At the Paris Exhibition, last year, the Viennese and Bavarian beer attracted great attention; and as it is from this direction that the competition, already referred to in the production of beer, is now commencing to be exercised, it is conceived that it would be of interest to examine what are the qualities of this beer as compared with the various kinds of malt liquor made here.

In making the comparison, the question of actual or possible adulteration will be, for the present at least, left out of consideration, and it will be, meanwhile, assumed that the various kinds of beer are simply the fermented product of malt and hops. Thus considered, beer should consist chiefly of water, alcohol, and extract,—consisting of sugar, dextrin, and nitrogenous substance,—together with carbonic acid, small amounts of acetic and lactic acids, and the saline substances partly originating from the water used in brewing, and partly extracted from the malt and hops.

From this point of view the quality of beer, independently of its characteristics of flavour and aspect, will vary according to the proportions of malt and water used in the brewing. This is indicated by the relative! amounts of alcohol, acetic acid, and extract contained in the beer, since the amounts of these constituents together bear a definite relation to the specific gravity of the unfermented wort, which is greater or less according to the proportion of malt to water.

The degrees of attenuation, or loss of gravity of beer-worts, corresponding to various amounts of alcohol produced, by fermentation, have been very carefully determined ; so that by estimating the amount of alcohol in beer, and adding the corresponding degrees of gravity lost by the wort, to the specific gravity of the beer after being deprived of its alcohol, the specific gravity of the unfermented wort — or the original gravity of the beer, as it is termed — is ascertainable. The amount of malt used in producing the wort is then indicated by the rule, that it is at the rate of 1 bushel per barrel of beer for every 27 degrees, by which the specific gravity of the wort — or original gravity of the beer — exceeds that of water.

* For these data, we are indebted to the knowledge of Mr. G. Phillips, Chemist to the Inland Revenue Department.

** The total quantity of beer brewed in Austria, during 1866, is stated to have been about 4 millions of barrels, of which quantity upwards of 200,000 barrels was brewed in three breweries situated near Vienna and Pesth."
"British Medical Journal 1869, vol. 1", 1869, page 83.

What had attracted in Britain attention was the new Bavarian Beer (or Lager) that was taking continental Europe by storm. It's the beginning of the Lager explosion that was about to transform brewing everywhere in Europe. Apart from Britain.

I find it astounding that British breweries employed German brewing chemists. Why couldn't Britain educate enough of its own?

Next its Austrian beer. Another one of my special interests. Especially when a certain Mr. D gets a mention.

Coloured malts in the 1920's (part one)

Where was I? WW II, the 1920's or the Edwardian Age? I'm beginning to lose track, I've so many threads going at once. I remember. Malt in the 1920's. Courtesy of our good friend JR.

But enough of my failing mental capacities and on with a plump, juicy quote, as ripe as a golden grain of barley. Here you go:

"Brown or Blown Malt is made by subjecting well-vegetated barley — after the moisture has been duly got rid of — to a sudden blast of intense heat generated by heaping up the kiln fire with oak or beechen faggots or billets. The result is an increase of bulk averaging 25%, if all the conditions are favourable. Owing to the risk and tho high rates of insurance demanded in consequence, this malt is generally made at certain centres by maltsters, the large London breweries being alone able to profitably make for themselves.

Amber Malt is manufactured from ordinary malt which, however, is subjected on the kiln to the colouring and flavouring influences obtained from high temperatures maintained for a relatively long period in the presence of a fairly heavy moisture content. These temperatures range from 160 to 180; or even higher, and with careful preparation the diastase should not be completely destroyed, leaving a D.P. of from 8 to 10 Lintner. Amber malt is valuable in the direction of contributing a "malty" flavour and aroma to stouts, but its employment has been found useful for the same reasons in beer production when using large proportions of maize and rice flakes. Amber malt yields an extract of exceptional brilliancy, and it assists the clarification of other worts by increasing coagulation or "break" due to the degree of caramelisation the malt receives in the special kiln treatment to which it is submitted on the kiln.

Crystal Malt is prepared as follows: after undergoing normal germination on the floors the grain is soaked in a somewhat dilute sugar solution, or any weak solution of saccharine substances. The malt is then cured in the ordinary manner on the kiln and its manufacture completed by methods similar to that adopted — although in a modified form — for roasted or so-called patent malt. Crystal malt yields an intensely malty flavour and aroma peculiar to itself. It is valuable for colouring mild ale, to which it confers improved flavour, an enhanced palate-fulness and an attractive rich colour."
"Brewing and Malting" by John Ross Mackenzie, 1927 , pages 254 - 255.

I collect descriptions of brown malt and its manufacture. "You need hobbies to keep yourself sane." The reverse is true in my case. Ross Mackenzie describes the dangerous method of manufacture used in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Where the temperature of the kiln is suddenly raised by throwing on wooden faggots.

I've quickly checked his claim that the large London brewers made their own brown malt. Unfortunately, there's nothing conclusive. Whitbread in this period were buying their brown malt in. Courage and Barclay Perkins don't specify any source in their brewing records. All, of course, continued to include brown malt in all their Porter and Stout grists.

So amber malt aids clarification. I'm not exactly sure I understand why caramelisation should help clarification. Barclay Perkins were very keen on amber malt in the 1920's. It was in all their Stouts and Milds. Whitbread, on the other hand, didn't use it at all. Their stronger Stouts - SS and SSS - had contained amber malt, but these beers had been discontinued during WW I. Courage didn't use it either.

Crystal malt has been used in different ways over the years. Initially it was mostly used in Mild Ales. In the 1920's, Courage included it in the grist of all their Mild and Strong Ales, but not in their Porter or Stout. Truman used no crystal malt in their Burton brewery until after WW II. Lees were the same, only introducing it to their grists in the 1940's. Whitbread occasionally used it in their Porter and Stout, and always in their Milds. Their Pale Ales contained none until 1927, after which it was a constant in their grists. Barclay Perkins confined the use of crystal malt to its Mild Ales and Strong Ales.

It's funny. I always thought of crystal malt as a typical ingredient in Bitter. But that only really became true after WW II.

Domestic bottled beer

Guess what? We're back with early 20th-century bottling. I thought you'd be pleased. This time the focus is on beers for the domestic market.

"Turning now to the production of beers for home consumption, there can be no doubt about the advantage which accrues from a trade which is sufficiently extensive to admit of the brewing of special gyles for bottling. The brewer who is obliged to bottle his ordinary beers is generally seriously handicapped  in comparison with his larger and more fortunate competitors. It does not of course follow that the productions of a brewery intended for cask trade are always less suitable for bottling; but, as a rule, a beer intended for this branch of the trade may be considerably improved by slight modifications, which would either not pay in the case of the ordinary cask beers, or which might actually prove undesirable. Some brewers who brew specially for bottling take the opportunity of reducing gravities slightly in comparison with cask beers, but this is not always wise. In many trades it happens that the taste in bottled beers is quite distinct from that in cask beers. The popular palate in respect to the latter may be in favour of a somewhat sweet, or only slightly bitter, ale, whereas the chief characteristics required in the bottled ales are possibly fine hop character, as well as practical immunity from sediment.

There is no doubt that as a general rule beers, both ales and stouts, which are intended for bottling, need more hops than are required for the same qualities consumed from the cask. We all know that, apart from any question of flavour bottled beers are particularly prone to the disease of ropiness, which of all beer diseases does more harm to a trade than any other. We also know perfectly well that the only natural and effective antidote is the hop, and that, however cleanly we may be in our production, we cannot hope for perfect safety with an insufficient percentage of this material.

Confining ourselves for the moment to the production of the highest qualities of bottling pale ale for home consumption, such as those of the best known Burton firms, or beers of similar character, it is obvious that perfection is only attained by the use of the very best materials, followed by sufficient maturity in cask and natural clarification before the ales are bottled. Indeed, one can go further and maintain that the very best results can only be obtained from season-brewed beers. It is admitted, of course, that in many parts of the country the popular palate is incapable of appreciating the perfection of quality that is thereby developed, and that consequently it seldom pays to lock up capital so long. But there are some highly successful firms who make a practice still of bottling season-brewed ales in the slacker months of the year, so that they may rely upon thorough maturity and perfection during the summer.

Besides the question of hopping, which is of special importance in regard to both copper and casks, that of attenuation is also of particular consequence in the production of all kinds of beer for bottling. Ales, such as we have just been considering, which will be allowed ample time to pass through all the desirable phases of secondary cask fermentation, may naturally rack rather higher than those which will have to be bottled within a few weeks of their brewing. It is of course impossible to lay down, or to suggest, any hard and fast rule on account of the variations of materials and surrounding conditions; but most brewers will agree that about a fifth of the original gravity is usually a desirable point to be aimed at."
"The bottling of English beers" by Arthur Hartley, 1906, pages 23 - 26.

Special gyles for bottling. They certainly existed amongst London brewers. The earliest one I can identify is Truman's Bottling Keeping Porter from 1840. As you cvan see from the table below, it was indeed more heavily hopped. At more than double the rate of the standard draught Running Porter.

Truman Porters
Date	Year	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	Pitch temp
6th Jul	1840	Runner	1062.6	1020.8	5.53	66.81%	11.0	2.69	64.5º
10th Jul	1840	M Keeping	1064.0	1018.8	5.97	70.56%	15.9	3.93	65º
11th Jul	1840	Keeping	1061.5	1019.7	5.53	68.02%	16.1	3.92	65º
14th Jul	1840	B Keeping	1071.2	1024.1	6.23	66.15%	18.2	5.87	64º
Source: Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document B/THB/C/41

A more pertinent example is this, from just a few years after the book's publication:

Barclay Perkins Bitter
Year	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	Pitch temp	dry hops (oz / barrel)
1914	XLK (trade)	1049.9	1012.2	4.99	75.58%	7.51	1.52	60º	4.00
1914	XLK (bottling)	1045.0	1009.4	4.71	79.07%	7.51	1.35	60º	4.00
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document ACC/2305/1/603

In this case the gravity of the bottled beer is indeed a little lower than the draught version. The recipe, however, is identical. The bottled version had fewer hops per barrel, because more barrels were brewed from exactly the same recipe. The book recommends attenuation to about a fifth of the original gravity: in other words 80% apparent attenuation. You'll note that that XLK about bang on that.

I'm pleased that Burton Pale Ales get a specific mention. And there are a few more details about their manufacture. Bass was conditioned for very long periods in the cask before bottling. Presumably to both completely attenuate the beer and give it time to spontaneously drop bright. By season-brewed, I'm pretty sure he means the period October to March. Some old adverts specifically state that Pale Ales and Stock Ales were brewed in October. You can understand why keeping beer for between 12 to 18 months before sale went out of fashion. It's a costly business.

The author clearly isn't impressed with some groups of drinkers and their ability to appreciate a properly-brewed Pale Ale. But his assertion that many draught beers were quite sweet, while bottled ales were bitter is a bit odd. Perhaps it's because he's comparing different types of beer, say draught Mild to bottled Pale Ale. I can see no evidence in the brewing record of bottled Pale Ales being significantly more heavily hopped than draught versions.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1933 Kidd AK

Remember the plan to do complete sets of draught beers from a specific brewery for a specific year? I didn't think you would. We've finished Barclay Perkins beers from 1942 and can move on to the second set: Kidd from 1934.

Kidd and Sons of Dartford in Kent was one of a series of breweries bought by Courage in the interwar years. There was the Camden Brewery in1923; Farnham United Breweries in 1927; Noakes in 1930; Kidd and Sons in 1937; Hodgsons Kingston Brewery in 1943. Those names look familiar? They should do. There are odd brewing logs for all of them except for Farnham United Breweries in the London Metropolitan Archives. (The Archives featured in a programme on BBC last night called "Filthy Cities". Unlike me, they let Dan Snow down into the bowels of the building.)

AK is another of those things I obsess about. Let's make this clear right at the start: it isn't Light Mild. AK is one of the types of Light Bitter Beer that appeared in the final decades of the 19th century. As drinkers began to demand lighter, less-alcoholic beers, brewers developped a new class of beers .

A standard Pale Ale of the 1880's had an OG in the range of 1060º to 1065º. If you brewed it properly, it took several months to be ready for sale. AK was 1045º to 1050º and was tapped within a couple of weeks. It was at the forefront of the new class of Running Bitters. After 1880, brewers had a clear incentive to turn their beers around quicker. The new system  introduced that year taxed beer based on the gravity of the wort before fermentation. Brewers settled up with the excise at the end of ever y month. Which meant that the tax would have been paid on a fully-matured Pale Ale months before the beer could be sold.

In 1900, AK was as common a beer name as IPA, especially in the South. Cheaper than full-strength PA, it was often one a brewery's best-selling beers. Only one remains: McMullen's AK. I can remember just one other being around in my drinking life, Hole's (later Courage) AK, brewed in Newark. So where did they all go?

They were the victim of falling gravities after 1914, similar to Porter. Breweries had a habit of retaining the name of their most prestigious Bitter, usually PA, as they cut gravities and culled their beer range. AK, being the bottom of the Bitter pile, was often the first to be cut.

I'd love to see AK make a comeback, though I doubt it ever will. At least commercially. There's no reason why you home brewers can't bring it back to life at home.





On that optimistic note, it's time to pass you on to Kristen for all that technical, home-brewer type stuff . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

This little beauty is one I’ve made a few times in the limited time I’ve had the recipe. It was gyled with the pale ale but at only 1.0025 points difference they are nearly identical and you aren’t gaining anything gyling these babies up. As for the AK’s, I just love the AK’s and really do wonder why they died out like they did. The combination of grainy husky American 6-row malt with the elegant English pale malts (MO, Optic, etc) really make this beer layered. The maize is usually never enough to be ‘corny’ but you definitely get a ‘maizy’.


Ingredients

Grist – Optic, because of its maltiness, is my preferred choice here. Some of you always email me and ask me what you can use to replicate 6-row American malt. We’ll, other than another source of 6-row malt, not really much. I do find that distillers malt, which is usally accessable to more people does a decent job. You get some of the huskiness but not all of it. But, as always, do what you can do. The mild malt in this recipe really doesn’t do much. Leave it out if you are lazy. If not, add it. Any flaked maize will do just fine from anywhere. Even the stuff out of the grocer didn’t make a noticeable difference. The No2 is very important as it gives a nice little fruit that you can get from No1. That being said, I’ve used Golden Syrup and although different, made avery very nice product that had more toffee and caramel lightness than the fruit when compared side-by-side. However, guys, lets face it. We’ve given you numerous ways to make your own invert syrup. If you haven’t done it yet, get off your butts, make a few pounds of it and you’ll have it one hand to use when you need it.

Hops –  I know, you are saying, ‘BLOODY FINALLY A BEER WITHOUT FUGGLES AND GOLDINGS!’ yes, a beer without fuggles and goldings. These hops are 100% not by choice, they are very much directly from the log. 100% Brambling Cross. What do you get out of these. Me, I get lemon and black currants. They are kinda Goldings-y but much rougher and elbowy. If you haven’t used them, give them a shot. If you can’t find BC’s, you can replace them with Brewers Gold or Cluster. You should be able to find one of them. All three hops are kinda ‘catty’ so if you aren’t a fan, pick something else!

Yeast – Again, the yeast really depends on you. For this beer, I find that the dry Nottingham strain does a very very good job. Crisp, clean, fruity. The Whitbread strain is a perennial favorite so give that a go. If you can find it, the Timothy Taylor strain is brilliant in any dry, crisp golden bitter…thing.


Processes

Advanced Mash – There was a short underlet but the single infusion worked pretty much exactly like the multi-infusion. Really, nothing special.

April's theme

April looks like being a real treat. For those of you interested in Stock Ales and bugs. I've been tunnelling into the virtual paper hill like crazy the past few days. And the real paper mountain I call my book collection.


You'll be chomping down my mouldy bread all month. The highlights include:

• more about bottling naturally-conditioned beers
• brettanomyces fun
• acidity in 19th century Porter
• October Beer
• Guinness

Some of the posts are even written.

All I need now is a snappy name for the series. Old Stuff? Acid trip? Mother-in-law? Bugs and vats?Ageing April? Yeah, that'll do. Ageing April it is.

I need to go and lie down now. The excitement's too much.

Brettanomyces and Pale Ale

This is a question that's troubled me for some time: did long-matured Pale Ales contain brettanomyces?

Looking at it logically, it seems quite likely. I know many English pitching yeasts contained brettanomyces. In running beers, they wouldn't have been apparent as the beer would have been consumed long before they could have made their presence felt. But Pale Ales were Stock Ales, matured, as we've learned for up to 12 months in the barrel.Plenty of time to affect the beers flavour.

Then there are the union sets. A perfect place for brettanomyces to hide with all that wood and piping.Even if the pitching yeast contained no brettanomyces, there's a good chance a Pale Ale would have picked it up from the unions.

Then there are the descriptions of Pale Ale picking up its distinctive flavour only after a long maturation. You know what that screams at me? Brettanomyces. What else takes so long to develop?

I've lots of analyses of 19th century Pale Ales. But they aren't much help. Brettanomyces wasn't identified until just after 1900. So no hard evidence, just guesswork and supposition. And you know how keen I am on that as a research method.

Until a few days ago. When my latest book purchase flopped onto the doormat. "Onderzoekingen over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" ("Investigations into the yeast species Brettanomyces".) As far as I know, it's the only book about brettanomyces. Weird that it's in Dutch. Luckily, that isn't a problem for me.

I found out about the book from "The Brewers' Journal" for 1940, which contains a review of it. You can probably guess what followed. I did a search in Abebooks and located a copy. (And there was only one, so bad luck if you'd like your own copy.)

I wondered if it would have anything about Pale Ale. I wasn't disappointed. That's putting it too lightly. I hit the jackpot. Not only was a Pale Ale analysed, but it was the most renowned of them all: Bass Pale Ale.

As already noted, Brettanomyces yeasts also play a role in the fermentation of English beer types "ale" and "Stout". Maturation does not, as with "lambic", take place in bottles but only in barrels. However, these are also bottled unfiltered. I examined samples bottled in this country of "Pale Ale" and "Stout" from Bass & Co., Brewers, Burton on Trent. For isolation of Brettanomyces strains from these samples a portion of the sediment was swabbed on malt agar and chalk plates and yeast-agar-glucose and chalk plates, which were incubated at 30° C.

After two days, several yeast colonies were observed, but which did not appear to form acid. After 7 days between these, very small colonies were visible, which dissolved the chalk around the colony. On the plates from the "Stout" two types of acid-forming colonies were distinguished, hard and soft. The majority were hard, and under the microscopic these were all found to be identical to each other. A hard and a soft colony tubes were scraped off into test tubes and then isolated into a pure culture in the way described for "lambic". The soft culture we will call for the time being St. I and the hard St. II.

On the plates on which were spread the dregs of "Pale Ale". only the hard acid-forming colonies could be isolated. These were apparently identical with St. II. In this context it should be remembered that the beers came from the same brewery.
"Onderzoekingen over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by M.T.J. Custer, 1940, page 27. (My translation.)

Did Bass Pale Ale contain brettanomyces? Yes it did.

But it's more interesting than just that. Did you notice that the Stout contained two different types of brettanomyces, but the Pale Ale just one. That implies that one of the types almost certainly wasn't in the pitching yeast. Unless the Pale Ale and Stout were pitched with different yeasts.

There were differences in the way Bass made their Pale Ale and Stout. Pale Ale was matured in carriage casks, Stout in vats. Had the Stout picked up the soft St. I type from the vats?

There are still lots of unanswered questions. But one thing we know for sure: Pale Ale did sometimes contain brettanomyces.

Export bottled beer

I told you bottling held a weird fascination for me. Which is why we've returned to "The bottling of English beers". I suspect this won't be the last time we visit it. (Unless, of course, WW II distracts me again.)

This particular extract discusses bottled beer for export. Which was still being made the proper way, without any on this new-fangled chilling and carbonating.

"The production of beer for bottling naturally depends to some extent upon the particular bottling process for which it is intended, and it will be convenient to consider first the question of beer designed for bottling upon the maturing process. In this case, the main consideration is the production of a beer that will come into bottle condition without the accumulation of excessive sediment, or of too high bottle condition.

Amongst these beers of natural maturation we must include those which are intended for export. Unfortunately this particular trade is now so restricted that any remarks upon it can only interest comparatively few readers. At the same time, no book upon such a wide subject as "Bottling" would be complete without some reference to this branch of the trade. The export trade entails the acme of success in primary production, for beers that are intended for export bottling must be produced from the best materials and upon the soundest lines. The most successful firms still use malt alone in the production of these beers, but they will admit that as a rule they draw heavily upon a foreign supply of barley. The ales intended for this class of trade are frequently stacked in the open, and are matured in this way for fully a year. They are thus subjected to the extremes of winter and summer, and may to some extent be considered as cold stored.

At any rate, there can be no doubt that beers which are stacked in the open, and are merely shielded by straw hurdles or hop-sacking, are much less amenable to any variations of climate with which they may have to contend after transference to bottle.

This gradual influence of climate is, however, a very different thing in its resultant effects from the more artificial methods which have recently come into use in the production of beers for home consumption. Beers which have been matured and exposed in this natural way are, of all others, the least susceptible afterwards to the influence of varying temperature, and they have acquired this character without loss of natural flavour. They are not bottled until they drop spontaneously brilliant, and this alone ensures the minimum degree of sediment in bottle. It must not be assumed that they are entirely immune from cloudiness at reduced temperatures, because this is not the case. They do show a cloud in bottle if the weather is very cold, but they are usually intended for warmer climates than that in which they are produced and bottled, and the consequence is that directly they get into warmer regions they develop their characteristic flavour and condition upon which the trade depends. These beers may be seen quite hazy in their original store, but on slightly warming they entirely recover, and pour out brilliant, with only a slight and distinctly compact and adhesive sediment. The export trade in bottled stout is not very great, but the finest quality is still matured in vat for some two years before it is bottled, and this is a further proof of the fact that time is yet an important factor in the production of malt liquors of really high quality."
"The bottling of English beers" by Arthur Hartley, 1906, pages 21 - 23.

Which beers are they talking about? Bass and Guinness, amongst others. They both still had a decent export trade at the time.

"this particular trade is now so restricted" that author says. Britain's beers exports fall dramatically at the end of the 19th century, due to several factors. Like the establishment of breweries in colonies such as India. And competition from German and Danish lagers in tropical markets. British brewers had a technological edge earlier in the 19th century, before artificial refrigeration. They brewed beer that could last, unrefrigerated and in fluctuating temperatures for months, if not years. Lager had a very short shelflife once it was taken away from ice. At least when it was in barrels. Bottled it didn't have the same problem. And there's another reason: the rise in the export of beer in bottles rather than casks.

I was gobsmacked the first time I read of how Bass stored their Pale Ale: stacked up in the brewery yard, exposed to the elements. Except in particularly hot weather, when dampened straw was strewn over the barrels. Sounds like a sure way of getting sour beer to me. It's a testament to the keeping qualities of Bass Pale Ale that it could easily withstand such trials. I suppose it makes sense that a beer that had been through this would be less likely to spoil due to a change in climate later in its life.

This is a teasing statement: "directly they get into warmer regions they develop their characteristic flavour and condition". It begs the question, what was that characteristic flavour? And did it ever acquire that flavour if it remained in the cool British climate?

Nice to see that detail about vatting Stout before bottling. Up to two years in a vat. That's not bad. I suppose that would apply to, in addition to Guinness, Barclay Perkins Stout, which was also widely exported.

Why drink from a tankard?

This comes from another of the many books I never quite got around to looking through properly after purchase. A slim volume of Mallermé. Just joking. A slim volume, written by an anonymous author in the 1930's. Unusual, because beer wasn't considered a suitable theme for books.

The introduction -  where the author complains of the proliferation of wine books and paucity of beer books, despite beer being a far more popular drink - gained my immediate sympathy. It's a complaint that you could just as easily make today.

The section I'm treating you to is about drinking vessels. And more particularly, why drink from a tankard. There are a couple of surprising answers.

"I have spent a great deal of time seeking for an authoritative ruling as to the kind of vessel from which beer should be drunk. Should it be drunk from a glass or from a tankard? What kind of glass or tankard should it be drunk from? Should it first be poured into a jug or should it be transferred direct from cask or bottle to the drinking vessel?

These are questions I have asked in country inns and in London clubs. I have asked stockbrokers and road sweepers, air pilots and bus conductors, policemen and politicians. But although they most of them hold definite views upon the subject they can give no reason for holding those views and their views show in extraordinarily wide variation.

'Why,' I asked a ploughman in Norfolk, do you drink your beer from a tankard?' 'Because it tastes better that way,' he replied instantly. But he was unable to say why beer should taste better when drunk from a metal container than when drunk from a glass.

'Why,' I asked the head of a drapery business in London, 'do you drink your beer from a tankard?'

He thought For a moment. 'I suppose it's just a habit,' he said. 'Everybody does.'

When I pressed him further he hazarded the suggestion that the tankard was traditional. 'Why,' I asked a pilot as I stood at the bar of a west country aerodrome, 'do you drink your beer from a tankard?'

'Because it keeps it cool,' he replied. I asked him if he had any scientific evidence of that fact and he replied that the co-efficient of conductivity of pewter was higher than that of glass.

'You must keep the beer cool,' he said, 'if it is to be at its best and to do that you must provide for a quick flow of heat from the beer.'

I wondered if the provision of a container made of metal with high conductivity might not rather conduct the heat from the surrounding air into the beer; but I did not put the point.

The most surprising argument I heard in favour of the metal tankard was that, if there was a fight, you could hit a person on the head with a tankard without doing him so much harm as if you hit him over the head with a glass. 'I suppose,' drily remarked someone else who was listening to the conversation, 'that is why glasses are used in nearly all public houses nowadays.'

Many experienced drinkers seem to regard the drinking of beer from a glass as a sort of sacrilege and it is strange that they can offer no rational explanation for their views. I have never heard glasses advocated; but I have many times heard tankards advocated with considerable violence. Yet one could say that a glass enables the colour of the beer and its clearness to be appreciated although a tankard does not."
"A Book about Beer" by A. Drinker, 1934, pages 73 - 75.

I like the last explanation best: it doesn't do as much damage in a fight. Ah, the British, with their fish and chips, cups of tea and fighting. They haven't changed much over the years.

And that pilot knocking back a pint in the airport bar. Not something you see often nowadays, what with the ridiculously over-protective safety rules. Doesn't it make you wish you were living in the 1930's? Though there were a couple of less attractive features of the decade: the rise of fascism and the start of the world' most destructive war ever. Still, no decade's perfect, is it?

Bottling in 1906

The development of modern British bottled beers for some reason fascinates me. Odd, since these are exactly the kind of beer I never drank. Brown Ale, Light Ale, weak Stout.

Filtered, pasteurised and carbonated, they sat on a shelf behind the bar awaiting a pensioner to mix them with his Mild or Bitter, or for one of the few reamianing grannies with a taste for Sweet Stout. They were deeply unfashionable even in my early drinking days in the 1970's. Now they're one rung down in popularity from unfashionable: virtually extinct. Who still makes such beers? A few die-hard established breweries like Harvey's. A more pertinent question is perhaps: who still drinks such beers?

The following quote gives a good, concise overview of the early development of carbonated bottled beer. It's so good (and I'm so lazy) that I'm repeating it whole.

"It is but a few years ago that the majority of brewers in this country were entirely averse from any new departure of the kind, the general contention being that it entailed an immense amount of extra trouble, which would in no way be repaid by increase of profit. Consequently, many brewers owning tied houses allowed a valuable portion of their trade to fall into more enterprising hands.

For many years those brewers who bottled at all were content to confine themselves to beers that had acquired decided maturity in cask, and no attempt was made to bottle any ale that had not become spontaneously brilliant. The system of artificial fining prior to bottling found only gradual favour concurrently with the lessening demand for stock beers in general. Even now there are some brewers who rely upon spontaneous clarification for the perfection of their bottled ales, and there can be no doubt whatever, so far as bottle quality is concerned, that they are amply repaid for the extra time involved. But in these days time is the very thing that brewers object to give, not because they do not know that it is the very essence of high-class production, but because they are aware that with comparatively few exceptions the consumer does not appreciate the difference. Loss of time is therefore loss of money also. No one will dispute the fact that the finest bottled ales are those produced on these original lines. They are not only superior in palate, but are also cleaner and less prone to heavy sediment. It is, in fact, the bottling of immature ales that has been so largely responsible for the heavy bottle deposit which has for many years past been one of the chief difficulties in connection with the trade.

The aim of modern brewers has latterly been chiefly directed to the production of a bottled ale with little or no maturity and free from objectionable deposit. For many years their efforts in this direction were confined to the clarification of green beers by isinglass finings coupled with artificial carbonation, and it is idle to deny that in some breweries very satisfactory commercial results have been attained. More recently the filter has to some extent taken the place of ordinary finings, gas absorption being induced either before or after the clarifying process. Now whichever system of artificial carbonation is adopted, there is always the danger of subsequent haziness, and of eventual sedimentary deposit. Very much, of course, depends upon the quality of the ale under treatment in respect to the degree of haziness, and the time which will elapse before the deposit is serious. But in any case such beers are the sport of weather conditions, and can never be relied upon to improve in bottle. Indeed, the usual tendency, after the first few days in bottle, is towards deterioration.

But still more recently, indeed within the last four or five years, English brewers have taken a further important step in the production of "non-deposit" beers. This step has undoubtedly been prompted by American experience, for American brewers have been the pioneers of chilling and filtering as applied to top-fermentation beers. So far as I am aware, the first important communication which came prominently before us with regard to this process, as carried out in the United States, was the paper upon "Recent Advances in Brewing in the United States," by Dr. Horace T. Brown, F.R.S., published in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1897. Although up to that time no practical move had been made in this country, Dr. Brown tells us that "it is now some years since it occurred to me when thinking over the causes of the 'chilling' of beers, that if we could cool an ordinary top-fermentation ale down to a very low point and hold it there until sufficient time had elapsed for the maximum separation of the resins, &c, to take place, then filtration whilst in the cold state ought to give us a beer which, after again acquiring the ordinary temperature, would be practically unaffected by any subsequent cooling, providing the degree of cold did not exceed that of the original cold storage condition. I saw, in fact, that in this way an ale could be obtained which would be proof against chilling, and which might be made to retain all the natural gas which it originally possessed." Having thus explained that the idea was no novelty to him, he goes on to admit that the problem had already been practically solved by American brewers, and to describe their particular methods. Now this paper was followed in the succeeding year by another on "Cold and Sparkling Ales'' (Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1898), by H. Van-Laer, D.Sc, who also gave his American experience. In this paper it is interesting to note that although generally giving great satisfaction, the author admits that "certain brewers assert that the system robs the beer of its ale taste." I have purposely referred somewhat particularly to these two communications, because they not only prove my previous statement as to the American origin of our "non-deposit" processes but constitute an historic record of a new departure in our bottling system."
"The Bottling of English Beers" by Arthur Hartley, 1906, pages 1 - 5.

The modest quantities of bottled beer produced in Britain was, until the late 19th century, made in a very old-fashioned, time-consuming and labour intensive way. Very long maturation in cask, followed by hand bottling and a further period of maturation to give the beer condition. Unsurprisingly given the expense, only top-class beers were usually bottled. Things like Bass Pale Ale, Guinness Extra Stout, Barclay Perkins Brown Stout. The process was too expensive for cheap beers.

But two things happened towards the end of the 19th century. Strong, matured beers lost popularity to lighter beers. And brewers began to filter and artificially carbonate beer, slashing production times and making bottling economically viable for less expensive beers. The result was a new class of beer. Low-gravity bottled Pale Ale.

These beers had a variety of names. Luncheon Ale, Light Dinner Ale, Light Bitter Ale. Eventually they morphed into a style that still limps on today: Light Ale. As some of the names betray, these beers were intended to accompany meals. The practice of keeping a cask at home was losing popularity and families were instead buying bottled beer. Much less fuss and no risk of the beer going sour before it had all been drunk.

There was one important feature of most of these new bottled beers: they were pale in colour. Any sediment was pretty obvious, especially if the beer wasn't carefully poured. Brewers were keen on producing sediment free beers that would sparkle nicely in the glass. Hence their enthusiasm for artificially carbonated beer. It can't be a coincidence that the other popular category of bottled beer, Stout, remained bottle-conditioned much longer.

Much of the development of carbonated bottled beers seems to have been prompted by what customers wanted: bright, sparkling beer with no deposit and no waste. Brewers just filled this demand. Though, personally, I'm sure I'd have preferred the properly matured bottled beers. I'm used to being out of step with public taste.

Propaganda war

The temperance killjoys didn't have it all their own. The brewing trade weren't shy of publishing their own propaganda. I'm wondering which side makes me more uneasy. See what you think after reading this lot:

BEER — "MAKES WILLING, HAPPY WORKERS."

MORE FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.

BEER OR PIGS?

"The food value of beer is more than half that of the brewing materials used, whereas the food value of the pig meat (fed on those materials) is less than one-fifth of that of the same materials."
Professor A. D. Waller, University College,
London, 1940.

PATRIOTIC BEER DRINKERS.
"To-day the beer drinking community obviously does not resent the additional beer tax as an injustice. It is happy enough to contribute what it can. And there is a good reason for that. A good deal of the enduring life of our country has been built up round the places in which this noble community holds its meetings. Here, with talk and song and good comradeship, with darts and shove-ha'penny and devil-among-the-tailors. the spirit has been maintained which makes our people go into war as friends who know and trust one another."
Daily Sketch, May, 1940.

BEER MAKES CONTENTED WORKERS.
"A willing and happy worker will get more work done, and do it better, than an unwilling and discontented worker. It is in this direction that alcoholic beverages like beer make their chief contribution to economic efficiency."
Lord Horder. K.C.V.O., M.D.

ALCOHOL IN TIMES OF STRESS.
"Alcohol is an uplift for the mind. Under the conditions of modern civilisation and in these days of concentration - the constant endeavour to put twelve hours into six — it is obvious that at the end of such a day the mind of man girts into) one track. He has no uplift. There alcohol comes in very well. Alcohol, in moderation, gets that man out of the track. It lightens
his mental touch."
Lord Dawson of Penn, K.C.B., M.D.

THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH.
"Hampstead Heath has long heen a favourite Bank Holiday resort of Londoners. When I was young it was littered with men - and women, too — in various stages of intoxication. The streets in all our cities resounded to the tipsy hauling of unsteady roysterers. The magistrates  used to  spend the whole of the next day fining iIn in or indicting short terms of imprisonment. Hampstead especially had a formidable list of such cases. Now there are not any."
Hamilton  Fyfe,  writing to the  Press, on Easter Tuesday, 1940.

TOMMY CAN BE TRUSTED.
"The British soldier can always he trusted to take his glass of beer without any risk of giving away the small amount of knowledge about the war in his possession."
Major-General Sir John Kennedy, in the Weekly Scotsman, February, 1940.


NOW AS THEN.
"There is no man in this House who has fought the licensed trade harder than I have; but I am bound to say that they have met the appeals which I made to them in a patriotic spirit, in an attitude of mind which could leave nothing to be desired from the point of view of anybody who is trying to help this country along."
Mr. Lloyd George, in the House of Commons May 4th, 1915.

A HIGH IDEAL.
"After the church, the public-house ought to be the most sacred spot in town or village: and after the public house, the school."
The Very Rev. Edgar Rogers. Dean of Bocking, Essex, January, 1940.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.
"The statistical evidence at present available does not suggest that a strictly moderate use of alcohol unfavourably affects the mortality rates of the users."
From Suggestions on Health Education,' 1940 Edition. (Published by the Board of Education.)

MORE PRAISE FOR ALCOHOL.
"Alcohol's  general position in medicine has been established by clinical observation over long ages. To begin with, it is the most common vehicle in which standard drugs are prepared and is, of course, a valuable drug itself. It is likewise a food, and supplies energy faster than any other food there is. It is the only food known to medicine which has a drug action, and the only drug  known to medicine which  has food value. Thus it is a provider of energy and a sedative simultaneously. It furthermore provides the energy at a minimum cost to the body, since it does not have to be digested. The energy is liberated into the cells directly, without the work of conversion into another form. Still further, it leaves nothing which has to undergo the process of elimination. If diluted with water it acts as a detoxicant, ridding the body of poisons through the increased urination."
From "Liquor, the Servant of Man," by Dr. Ferdinand C. Helwig and Mr. Walton Hall Smith. Published in the USA, 1940.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 654. (Published August 21st, 1940.)

Roysterer. That's the second time I've come across that word. Public drunkenness, as that little item about Hampstead Heath demonstrates, is nothing new. Talk of a massive increase in excessive boozing in modern Britain aren't so much an exaggeration as an invention.

"Liquor, the Servant of Man," It sounds like the title one of those documentaries presented by Troy Maclure. I'm not sure I share its rosy view of alcohol as both food and drug.

Propaganda. Ugly stuff, whoever's writing it.