World hop production 1896 - 1909

The table craziness continues. I'm not sure why, but I seem to be regaling you with table after table currently. Blame my mania for collecting statistics. And Stan Hieronymous. He pointed me in the direction of this set.

In the period covered by this table, world hop production was dominated by four regions: the German Empire, Bohemia, the UK and America (not sure if it's just the USA of if Canada is also included). As the second table makes more clear, between 80% and 90% of the world's hops were produced in these regions. ANd in the German Empire, more than 50% of the hops were grown in Bavaria.

I'm going to have to dig out my Brauwelt Breviers and Statistical Handbooks because I'm sure they have recent figures on hop production. I'm pretty sure that the overall picture is similar but for one thing: the UK's share. While Bohemia, Bavaria and the USA remain major players in hop growing, the British industry has seen a steep decline in the last couple of decades. I really should dig out the numbers to show just how catastrophic a collapse there's been.

World hop production 1896 - 1909
Country	Area of production (hectares)		Estimated production (thousands of 50 kg)
	1908	1909	1896	1897	1898	1899	1900	1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908	1909
Bavaria	22,952	18,634	275	208	262	298	225	110	272	260	239	325	250	263	307	86
Württemberg	4,967	3,783	73	67	69	107	78	54	68	66	70	87	52	61	68	12
Baden	1,664	1,308	48	34	30	48	29	25	35	28	35	38	31	29	35	2
Alsace-Lorraine	4,564	4,131	85	75	63	83	77	55	65	70	79	125	72	95	104	12
Prussia and the rest of Germany	1,684	1,108	29	29	12	45	24	25	26	25	19	32	17	22	22	7
German Empire	35,831	28,964	510	473	436	581	433	269	466	449	442	607	422	470	536	119
France	3,030	2,800	63	72	61	79	72	64	50	57	51	71	75	79	80	27
Bohemia	17,280	15,420	185	117	150	195	155	282	133	65	128	293	103	236	284	104
Oberösterreich	849	849													7	4
Styria	4,395	3,252													25	22
Galicia	2,585	2,548	45	45	36	59	58	64	51	48	52	68	71	82	18	14
Moravia, Karinthia	607	512													10	5
Hungary, Transylvania	1,154	1,154													15	15
Belgium and Holland	2,341	1,922	88	70	25	103	52	80	65	83	103	107	45	55	78	29
Russia and other districts	10,160	8,412	128	120	64	80	80	80	60	60	40	100	55	80	75	60
Continental Europe	78,232	65,833	1019	897	772	1097	850	839	825	712	816	1246	771	1002	1128	399
UK	15,762	13,179	453	417	302	661	353	640	311	480	290	707	249	380	475	205
Europe	93,994	79,012	1472	1314	1134	1758	1203	1479	1136	1142	1106	1053	1020	1382	1603	604
America	20,251	17,659	309	344	339	380	329	332	360	402	435	504	571	520	410	310
Australia	861	750	14	15	13	15	16	15	15	14	14	15	15	14	14	10
World	115,106	97,421	1795	1673	1486	2153	1548	1826	1511	1558	1555	2472	1606	1916	2027	924
Source:
Barth Report 1910
http://www.barthhaasgroup.com/images/pdfs/Lupulo%201909-1910.pdf

World hop production 1896 - 1909 in % share
	1896	1897	1898	1899	1900	1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908	1909
Bavaria	15.32%	12.43%	17.63%	13.84%	14.53%	6.02%	18.00%	16.69%	15.37%	13.15%	15.57%	13.73%	15.15%	9.31%
German Empire	28.41%	28.27%	29.34%	26.99%	27.97%	14.73%	30.84%	28.82%	28.42%	24.56%	26.28%	24.53%	26.44%	12.88%
Bohemia	10.31%	6.99%	10.09%	9.06%	10.01%	15.44%	8.80%	4.17%	8.23%	11.85%	6.41%	12.32%	14.01%	11.26%
UK	25.24%	24.93%	20.32%	30.70%	22.80%	35.05%	20.58%	30.81%	18.65%	28.60%	15.50%	19.83%	23.43%	22.19%
America	17.21%	20.56%	22.81%	17.65%	21.25%	18.18%	23.83%	25.80%	27.97%	20.39%	35.55%	27.14%	20.23%	33.55%
total	81.17%	80.75%	82.57%	84.39%	82.04%	83.41%	84.05%	89.60%	83.28%	85.40%	83.75%	83.82%	84.11%	79.87%
Source:
Barth Report 1910
http://www.barthhaasgroup.com/images/pdfs/Lupulo%201909-1910.pdf

 

The numbers also show the volataility in hop production, with large differences from year to year. In the best year in this set, 1905, output was almost 2.5 times that of the worst year, 1909. You have to suspect something climatic, as the poor harvest seems to only apply to Europe in that year.


Hang on, I do have the 1953 numbers to hand. Let's compare 1908 and 1953. Should be fun. (I'm using 1908 because 1909 was a particularly poor year in Europe.)

Hop production 1909 - 1953 (kg)
Country	1908	%	1953	%
USA	20,500,000	20.23%	18,938,426	31.52%
United Kingdom	23,750,000	23.43%	13,513,440	22.49%
Czechoslovakia	14,200,000	14.01%	4,999,973	8.32%
Germany	26,800,000	26.44%	14,250,075	23.72%
France	4,000,000	3.95%	2,449,844	4.08%
Belgium	3,900,000	3.85%	974,339	1.62%
Australia	700,000	0.69%	1,422,467	2.37%
World Total	101,350,000		60,081,618
Sources:
Barth Report 1910
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 65.

You can see that hop production fell everywhere except Australia. The UK's share of world production stayed much the same, at around 23%. Germany's share fell a little and the USA's increased a little. But the four largest producers are exactly the same as in 1908. Why had hop production fallen? Because demand for hops had, particluarly in the UK. The drop in beer gravity and the move to less hoppy beer caused a huge fall in the quantity of hops required. It must have had a big impact on the world market, as the UK had been using a considerable proportion of the world's hops.

Barclay Perkins Ale production 1861 - 1870

There's something else I finally got around to in my last visit to the archives in London. Looking at the last in a set of documents called the Sanctum Sanctorum. They detail how much of each Ale was made in a year and the materials used to brew it. Dead handy figures to have.

For a random reason I can no longer remember, I hadn't photographed the one covering 1861 to 1870. A real shame, and not just for reasons of completeness. The 1860's was a crucial decade in the rise of Mild Ale and in particular X Ale.

You can see the Barclay Perkins output of X Ale more than doubled in the 1860's, from 47,000 to 97,000 barrels. Not only did the output of X Ale increase in real terms, the proportion of X Ale compared to other Ales also rose. It went from around 70% of the total to 88%. Gradually, all the stronger X Ales faded away. The same was true of London brewers, too. by 1900 XX, XXX and XXXX had disappeared from all the big London brewers' portfolios. The only stronger Ales brewed were in the form of Stock Ales: KK and KKK.

Barclay Perkins Ale production 1861 - 1870 (barrels)
Year	malt (qtrs)	hops (lbs)	X	XL	XX	XXX	KK	KKK	KKKK	Table	total	% X
1861	21,930	288,028	47,285	604	5,474	1,102	6,723	4,676	100		65,964	71.68%
1862	21,045	286,027	46,781	1,177	4,097	1,675	8,909	4,399	111	1,172	68,321	68.47%
1863	23,500	335,936	48,604	1,209	4,496	1,329	13,064	4,401	225	1,174	74,502	65.24%
1864	22,200	249,717	50,168		3,887	1,292	7,385	4,741	492		67,965	73.81%
1865	23,846	267,602	58,391		5,016	1,032	5,935	4,310	134		74,818	78.04%
1866	23,242	247,040	63,427		4,897	791	3,569	2,318	229		75,231	84.31%
1867	24,446	237,896	68,333		4,966	908	4,173	2,605	112		81,097	84.26%
1868	24,416	226,664	73,601		5,368	1,029	3,129	1,309			84,436	87.17%
1869	30,140	311,128	87,421		5,892	871	2,937	6,199	1,062		104,382	83.75%
1870	31,266	321,375	96,999		4,709	599	5,172	2,055	102		109,636	88.47%
Source:
Barclay Perkins document held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/672

Here's a little more historical context for those 1860's numbers:

Barclay Perkins Ale production 1834 - 1855 (barrels)
Year	malt (qtrs)	hops (lbs)	X	XX	XXX	XXXX	KK	KKK	KKKK	Table	total	% X
1834	5,695	51,270	3,434	8,014	812		622	507		985	14,374	23.89%
1840	22,111	239,324	16,936	9,514	2,804	302	4,589	6,575	466		41,186	41.12%
1845	24,810	402,083	22,497	8,502	3,274	98	4,366	5,313	176	1,164	45,390	49.56%
1850	23,625	327,556	32,604	7,765	1,975		2,686	7,351	204	1,097	53,682	60.74%
1855	20,018	294,198	35,153	4,870	1,018		5,445	2,722	102	960	50,270	69.93%
Sources:
Barclay Perkins documents held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/01/669, ACC/2305/01/670 and ACC/2305/01/671

It's odd what happened with X Ale in London. As it became the dominant style, the range of different X Ales contracted. Usually the opposite is true. When a style becomes more popular more different-strength versions appear. That's certainly what happened with Pale Ale. Not quite sure why it was the other way around with Mild.

The stronger Ales all had their peak output early on: XX in 1836, XXX in 1838 and XXXX in 1837.Clearly the working man had decided that X Ale was his favourite. When you look at the strength of these beers it's easy to see why:

BP Ales in 1839
Beer	OG
X	1071.7
XX	1087.5
XXX	1104.4
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/550.

Even a bottom of the range X Ale was a pretty powerful beer. Gravities fell a little over the century, but in 1869 the X Ales were still pretty formidable. Not something I'd want to drink a gallon of. Not something I could drink a gallon of.

BP Ales in 1862
Beer	OG
X	1066.2
XX	1081.2
XXX	1098.6
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/569.

Before 1834, Barclay Perkins had been a Porter-only brewery. Wisely, they had moved into Ale in the 1830's when the swing from Porter to Mild started. You can see that move accelerating in the 1860's and by the end of the decade more than 25% of Barclays output was Ale. Porter and Stout remained more important for London brewers than those in the provinces, but by the end of the 19th century they  were brewing more Ale than Porter. At Whitbread Ale first outstripped Porter in 1876*. At Barclay Perkins it took a little longer.

Barclay Perkins output 1834 - 1870
Year	Ale output	total output	% Ale
1834	14,374	343,569	4.18%
1840	41,186	400,838	10.27%
1845	45,390	396,784	11.44%
1850	53,682	397,360	13.51%
1855	50,270	357,836	14.05%
1861	65,964	373,043	17.68%
1862	68,321	383,436	17.82%
1863	74,502	418,461	17.80%
1864	67,965	415,721	16.35%
1865	74,818	415,142	18.02%
1866	75,231	428,000	17.58%
1867	81,097	423,444	19.15%
1868	84,436	405,622	20.82%
1869	104,382	409,327	25.50%
1870	109,636	410,710	26.69%
Sources:
Barclay Perkins documents held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/01/669, ACC/2305/01/670, ACC/2305/01/671and ACC/2305/01/672
"The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980" T. R. Gourvish & R.G. Wilson, pages 610-611

* Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/041 and LMA/4453/D/09/070.

Not drunk?

Just another random newspaper trport that mentions Lager. Odd how many people accused of crimes had been drinking Lager.

Just see what this particular criminal had knocked back:

"RATING ACCUSED.
Angus Black, a 22-years-old Devonport naval rating, pleading Not guilty" to burglariously breaking and entering a house at 15, Notte-street, Plymouth, on December 12, told the Recorder that after drinking thirty tots of whisky, fifteen small bottles of beer, and two lagers in a public-house, he "sort of staggered through the door of the house in Notte-street, thinking it was a canteen.

Mr. G. R. King Anningson, prosecuting on instructions from Mr. H. J. W. Ruse, said Black was found, shoeless, curled up behind the counter of the shop on the ground floor of the premises. A glass panel in the door had been smashed and there was a hole large enough for a man to go through.

Frank Screech, who lived on the premises, and PC. Burbridge both said Black was not drunk and did not appear to have been drinking. Found "Guilty." Black was bound over for three years in the sum of £10, a naval officer reporting that he would automatically be dealt with by the naval authorities. Mr. P. F. Atkin, instructed by Mr. P. A. Came, defended."
Western Morning News - Monday 06 January 1947, page 6.

Mr. Screech - great name that, very Dickensian - didn't reckon Black had been drinking? After he'd drunk 30 whiskies, 15 small bottles of beer and two Lagers? That's a scary amount of alcohol. Even I'd be stumbling after that lot. I'm surprised that a pub would sell him that much booze.

"dealt with by the naval authorities" - did they still have flogging in the navy back then?

Reconstruction in Northern France

We're now moving on to see what happened when the shooting stopped and the brewers returned to their wrecked breweries.

1,000 brewers were in the territory occupied by the Germans. All had seen their breweries stripped of copper and many of the buildings were damaged. But some had been able to re-equip with iron equipment and brewed a low-quality beer called "tiszane" from a little grain and some sugar.

The French government was already thinking about how to reconstruct industry in the occupied and war-damaged areas even before the end of hostilities. They decided the quickest and cheapest way to get the brewing industry back on its feet was to provide off-the-shelf standard brewhouses.

"All authorities agreed that great benefits in regard to cost and rapidity of rebuilding would arise through the previous preparation of standardised plants, but, again, the wishes of the 1,000 brewers most concerned who were in the invaded districts could not be consulted, and the uncertainty of how the war would end made it impossible to come to definite decisions. If the majority of the buildings should ultimately remain intact, it would be impossible to ask their owners to expend the large sums necessary above and beyond those covered by their indemnities to instale standard plant. Brewers could justly claim plant similar to that destroyed, but could hardly rely on their indemnity to cover the cost of the improved, and perhaps larger, and certainly more modern, plant contemplated in any plan of standardisation. If, on the other hand, further hostilities resulted in more complete destruction, it would be a simpler matter to envisage the rebuilding with standard plant."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 1921, pages 58 - 59.

The complicating factor was the compensation that the brewers would receive for their war losses. In many cases, it wouldn't have covered buying one of the new standard breweries.

They did eventually decide to go ahead with producing standard breweries:

"Finally, it was decided to commence with a programme that should not represent more than 15—20 per cent, of the pre-war production, and involving the construction of 40 brewhouse installations of 50,000 hectols. (30,000 barrels) and 25,000 hectols. annual capacity. In order that the small brewers of under 20,000 hectols. annual capacity should not be left out of consideration, a number of these plants were to be reserved for amalgamated groups of those small breweries, which, before the war, produced half the beer. Authorisation for this programme was obtained from the Office of Reconstruction in August, 1918."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 1921, page 59.

There was a similar situation in Belgium, where there were a large number of very small breweries. There, too, many of these little concerns grouped together to share a brewhouse. Which led to a big reduction in the number of operating breweries. The number of breweries in Belgium fell from 3,349 in 1910 to 2,013 in 1920*. That's a 40% reduction in the number of breweries. While beer production in Belgium had fallen from 16 million hectolitres in 1910 to 10.4 million hectolitres in 1920*. Though the average output per brewery did increase a little after the war:

Belgian breweries 1910 - 1920
	1910	1920
beer output	16,019,000	10,408,000
no. breweries	3,349	2,013
average output per brewery	4,783	5,170
Source:
"Het Brouwersblad" June 2004, pages 6 - 7.

The war had a massive impact on beer production in Belgium and France:

Beer production 1912 - 1922
	France	Belgium
1912	12,656,000	16,899,000
1913	12,844,000	16,727,000
1914	9,056,000	-
1915	5,824,000	8,139,000
1916	7,705,000	7,086,000
1917	7,115,000	5,391,000
1918	6,375,000	4,930,000
1919	10,785,000	9,488,000
1920	11,548,000	10,408,000
1921	12,254,000	12,536,000
1922	16,802,000	15,643,000
Source:
"European Statistics 1750-1970" by B. R. Mitchell, 1978, page 285.

Remember that in 1913 the breweries in the areas occupied by the Germans had brewed just over 7 million hl. And the output of beer in 1915 was just over 7 million hl less than is 1913. That's not a coincidence. Obviously breweries in the rest of France upped production for the rest of the war, but they were unable to fully compensate for the loss of the northern breweries, and output remained over 40% below the pre-war level.

It's clear from these numbers how important the northern breweries were for France. In 1913 they were responsible for 55% of France's beer production. No wonder the government wanted to get them back on their feet as soon as possible.

In areas where there had been little actual fighting, the situation wasn't too bad.

"As the rapid march of events liberated such regions as those of Lille, Roubaix, and Tourcoing, where the breweries were numerous and important, the position was found to be as follows. The buildings had in general not suffered greatly, although every copper vessel had been ravaged with most of the machinery, in some cases leaving only empty shells charred and damaged, while in others the breweries refitted with iron vessels were carrying on a precarious trade. Reconstruction generally meant the repair of remaining plant or the replacement of that destroyed by new."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 1921, page 60.

But not everyone was so lucky:

"Amongst the "Sinistrés" there soon appeared three classes:—

(1) Brewers who required only certain plant and casks to start work again, and whose chief desire was to replace that part of their equipment taken by the enemy as quickly as possible, so that they could start delivery of beer. These brewers, representing very large numbers of breweries, did not desire amalgamations which would inevitably lead to delays and uncertainties as to indemnities. Their sole object was to start work at the earliest possible moment with any sort of plant they could get, in order to profit from the high prices ruling, and not to be cut out by more energetic competitors.

(2) Brewers more seriously affected, whose building remained mainly intact, but whose plant was entirely gone. These in general demanded individual reconstruction, but a certain number preferred to wait and consider eventual amalgamations, of which a number have now taken place.

(3) Brewers whose buildings and material had been entirely wiped out. Theirs was the most difficult problem of all. Their cientele was scattered, and the resumption of their trade depended on its return and the resumption of the agricultural and other industrial Activities of the neighbourhood. For them, obviously, the building up of combined concerns was the most attractive, and many have formed groups and central breweries, but still a number are rebuilding as before."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 1921, pages 60 61.

In two years they were able to get a considerable number of the breweries up and running.

"By Autumn 1920 the steps described had already permitted the reconstruction of about 400 breweries mostly, of course, from the least damaged class and those requiring only the replacement of such plant as coppers and refrigerators. The more badly damaged will take much longer to refit. Difficulties of transport, strikes, reduction of hours to eight per day, and lack of coal and raw materials and high prices have all sadly deranged the reconstruction of industry in the ravaged areas."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 1921, page 63.

But remember that there had been around 1,800 breweries in German-occupied territory. Those 400 only amounted to 22% of the total. That must have meant a considerable number were awaiting reconstruction, even accounting for amalgamations that had taken place. How long did it take to complete the job of rebuilding? A good few more years, I'm sure.

Though as you may have noticed in the figures above, by 1921 beer output exceeded that of 1913, and by a large margin: 16.8 to 12.8 million barrels.

I keep coming across references to the eight-hour day in articles written around the end of WW I. It seems to have been one of the few good legacies of the war.

Reinheitsgebot exceptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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