Avoiding tourist hell in Amsterdam

Mass tourism is making the centre of Amsterdam unbearable. Thankfully (or quite possibly because of it) there are now plenty of beer options. If you want to avoid tourist hell, these are a few suggestions.


Noord

On the north side of Ij (the water behind Centraal Station) is Noorderlicht. It has a limited beer menu, but has a great spot on the water. The ferry ride there is pretty cool, too (and free).

Café de Ceuvel isn't far awat. It's another funky sort of place with a few beers. Most of the draughts are from Gulpener, imcluding one brewed specially for the pub. Not made it t othis one yet myself.

A bit of a walk away is the Oedipus brewery and taproom. It was one of the early new wave of Amsterdam breweries. It's supposed to be quite nice, though I've not personally visited it.

Zuid

Butcher's Tears is a small brewery with a taproom a couple of miles out of the city centre, at the end of one of the strangest streets in the city. They've brewed a few of my recipes. Oh, it's also dead cheap for Amsterdam, with some beer under three Euros.

In the Rivierenbuurt you've got Goos and Tap Zuid vitually next door ro each other. Both offer a good range of Amsterdam beers.

Not far away in De Pijp is Dopey's Elixir, which was my first local when I moved to Amsterdam. They expanded the beer selection a few years back.

Troost has three brewpubs, one in De Pijp, one in the Westergasfabriek and one in the East. Their own beers can be a bit uninspiring, but they often have beers that they've contract brewed for others on tap.

Oost

Poesiat & Kater is a brewery and taproom, also in the East. They have two lines of beer, one old Dutch styles, the other modern stuff. The former are called Van Vollenhoven, named after a brewery which closed in the 1940's. It's another brewery that I've made a beer with.

Biertuin is a bar opposite Oosterpark which offers a selection of Amsterdam beers.

Joost is another place in the East specialising in Amsterdam beer. http://joost-amsterdam.nl

Right out at the end of the 14 tram, hidden in park there's 't Nieuwe Diep, a pub and distillery that also sells Czzech beer. It's in a lovely spot.

West
Bar Kauffmann, not far from where I used to live offers a combination of falaffel and beer. Not been yet, but it sounds an interesting combination.

This part of Amsterdam is rapidly gentrifying. A good example is Bar Frits, a small bar on the corner of Mercatorplein that offers craft beer and pretty nice hamburgers.

On the banks of the mighty Schinkel is Café Kostverloren, which has acouple of dozen different beers. There's an obvious ABInbev tie, but there are some interesting beers. Not been in myself.

City Centre

If you must drink in the centre, Proeflokaal 't Kelkje is just off the tourist hellhole, but surprisingly peaceful. It's owned by the same people as Nieuwe Diep and has their jenevers and Franconian beer.

Close to Centraal Station, but surprisingly unspoilt, is De Ooievaar. A few decent beers, some good jenever and just a brilliant, tiny pub. Probably my favourite pub in the city centre.

Just around the corner is another jenever bar, In de Olofspoort. It's stunningly beaitiful: like sitting in a Vermeer painting. The beer choice is pretty limited, but they have an ecxcellent range of jenevers.

Nearby is eccentric brewery De Prael. The beers can be a bit hit and miss, but it's cheap and quirky.


Noorderlicht
NDSM-Plein 102,
1033 WB Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 492 2770
http://noorderlichtcafe.nl


Café de Ceuvel
Korte Papaverweg 4,
1032 KB Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 229 6210
http://deceuvel.nl


Oedipus Brewing
Gedempt Hamerkanaal 85,
1021 KP Amsterdam.
http://oedipus.com/


GOOS eten & drinken
Maasstraat 74,
1078 HL Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 679 3443
http://www.cafegoos.nl/


Tap Zuid
Maasstraat 70,
1078 HL Amsterdam
Tel: 020 205 2002
http://www.tapzuid.amsterdam/


Dopey's Elixer
Lutmastraat 49,
1072 JP Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 671 6946
https://www.facebook.com/dopeyselixeramsterdam


Brouwerij Troost (De Pijp)
Cornelis Troostplein 21,
1072 JJ Amsterdam
Tel: 020 760 5820
http://brouwerijtroost.nl/depijp-amsterdam/


Brouwerij Troost Westergas
Pazzanistraat 25-27
1014 DB Amsterdam
Tel: 020 737 10 28
email: westergas@brouwerijtroost.nl
http://brouwerijtroost.nl/westergas-amsterdam/


Brouwerij Troost Oost
Land van Cocagneplein 1A
1093 NB Amsterdam
Bel: 020 760 5821
Mail: oost@brouwerijtroost.nl
http://brouwerijtroost.nl/oost-amsterdam/


Poesiat & Kater
Polderweg 648,
1093 Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 333 1050
https://poesiatenkater.nl/


The Bier Tuin
Linnaeusstraat 29,
1093 EE Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 665 0956
https://debiertuin.nl/


Bar Joost
Molukkenstraat 33,
1095 AT Amsterdam.
Tel: 06 43748787
http://joost-amsterdam.nl


Proeflokaal 't Nieuwe Diep
Flevopark 13a,
1095 KE Amsterdam.
Tel: 06 27076065
http://www.nwediep.nl/


Kauffmann - Falafel & Beer
Reinier Claeszenstraat 4b,
1056 WJ Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 846 1606
http://barkauffmann.nl/


Bar Frits
Jan Evertsenstraat 135,
1057 BV Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 233 9796
http://www.frits-amsterdam.nl/


Café Kostverloren
Tweede Kostverlorenkade 70,
1053 SB Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 820 3161
http://www.cafekostverloren.nl


Proeflokaal 't Kelkje
Oudezijds Achterburgwal 164A,
1012 DW Amsterdam.
Tel: 06 25378104
http://www.kelkje.nl/


Proeflokaal de Ooievaar
Sint Olofspoort 1,
1012 AJ Amsterdam.
Tel: 06 31586941
http://www.proeflokaaldeooievaar.nl/


In de Olofspoort
Nieuwebrugsteeg 13,
1012 AG Amsterdam
Tel: 020 624 3918
http://www.olofspoort.com


De Prael
Oudezijds Armsteeg 26,
1012 GP Amsterdam.
Tel: 020 408 4469
https://www.deprael.nl/

Let's Brew - 1956 Tennant's Lion Pale Ale

If it weren’t for the fact that Tennant brewed a weaker Pale Ale called Light Dinner Ale, I would have guessed that this was their Light Ale. The gravity is certainly in the Light Ale range.

One thing I don’t understand: why is it branded as Lion Pale Ale? It’s not as if a Lion was their trademark, as it was for some other breweries, such as Matthew Brown or Camerons. It’s got me stumped. Unless, like Rock Ale, it’s a brand acquired from another brewer.

The grist is a little different from their draught Pale Ales. Principally in not containing any lactose. The other little idiosyncrasies like enzymic malt and malt extract are present, however. And there’s some crystal malt. At least I think there is.

The records of many of the beers have a cryptic entry, below and apart from the rest of the grist. In the case of this beer, it says “90 gal. N of E crystal”. It made no sense to me. Gallons implies something liquid to me. What the hell was liquid crystal?

I only twigged today when I looked further through my photos. In particular, a Glucose Stout record. Where something described as “N of E crystal” appears in the grist. It does mean crystal malt then. And that’s volume gallons. They’re measuring it in gallons often because it isn’t a round number of bushels. At least that’s my guess.

I’ll be publishing corrected recipes for the other Tennant beers.

Nothing much else to say. Other than that there were 2 cwt. each of SBS and CWA, which I’ve added to the No. 2 invert.

1956 Tennant's Lion Pale Ale
pale malt	4.25 lb	60.41%
crystal malt 60 L	0.33 lb	4.69%
enzymic malt	0.125 lb	1.78%
flaked maize	1.00 lb	14.21%
malt extract	0.33 lb	4.69%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	14.21%
Fuggles 90 mins	0.25 oz
Goldings 90 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 40 mins	0.25 oz
Goldings 20 mins	0.25 oz
OG	1034
FG	1009
ABV	3.31
Apparent attenuation	73.53%
IBU	34
SRM	6
Mash at	146º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	145 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

A Modern Lager Brewery - malting

We're back looking at a modern Lager brewery. Or at least what passed for one in 1917.

This passage on malting has some useful tidbits. But also confused the hell out of.  In particular, the bits about using hot air for kilning.

"Malting.—The Continental system of pneumatic transport is now familiar to every English brewer, while barley cleaning and grading machinery offers a very limited scope for invention in any country. That steep aeration is advantageous is generally conceded and the foreigner has undoubtedly given much attention to this matter, for the latest form of aerating appliance not only forces fresh air into the grain, but draws away the bad air and effluvia present among the corns, it being claimed for this combined treatment that it ensures a quicker start and more uniform growth, together with sweeter and healthier floors.

All systems of germination are employed—the old-fashioned floor, the Henning Drum and the Saladin Box, to mention those best known, while the Kropff system is said to be yielding satisfactory results in respect of economy of working, increased yield and mellowness of the malt produoed. Mechanical floor turners are in use at the Brasserie Maxeville, at Nancy, France, where "two of these machines have successfully dispensed with the services of ten men.

The kilning of the malt differs from the system in vogue in England. In the first place always two and sometimes three floor kilns are used, while hot air only is employed for drying and curing, the products of combustion not passing through the grain. Two forms of kilns are employed, one with horizontal heating tubes, known, curiously enough, as the English kiln, and the other, the Calorifiere, with vertical tubes. By a convenient arrangement of dampers and shutters, hot, warm or cold air may be passed through the upper or drying floor, and almost any degree of heat obtained on the lower or curing floor, whereby all classes of malt, from the palest Pilsener to the darkest Munich may be produced.

Interesting as a description of the making of the various malts would be, space will not permit of more than a passing glance at the general outlines of Continental practice."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, vol. XVII, 1920, page 490.

Why did the hot air confuse me? Because the implication is that it isn't how things were done in Britain. But I thought kilns using indirect heat had been first developed in the UK. Am I missing something here?

Johnny Foreigner paying lots of attention to steep aeration? There must be something dodgy about it, then. I don't really have an opinion on the topic, myself. Knowing bugger all about malting, as I do.

Want to know some more details of steeping and kilning? Of course you do.

"Steeping and Kilning.
A Moravian barley will be steeped 88 hours.
Temperature of water 50° F.
Water changed 8 times.
Growing period 10 days.
Turned 25 times.
A short growing period would be 7—9 days.
A medium growing period would be 9—11 days.
A long growing period would be over 11 days.
Sprinkling, if needed, may take place on the 5th, 6th, or at latest 7th day.

Atomising the water into the form of mist over the growing pieces is much practised on the Continent, being obviously less conducive to irregular growth than sprinkling with a can.

Kilning.
The finishing temperature (in the malt) for the three types of malt employed in lager brewing vary as under:—

Pale 140° to 178° F.
Medium 196° to 207° F.
Dark 201° to 212° F.

Particulars of treatment on the kilns:—
For pale and medium malts... 12 hours on upper (drying) floor.
                                                12 hours on lower (curing) floors."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, vol. XVII, 1920, pages 490 - 491.

I'd love to tell you how that tallies with UK practice. But I can't be arsed to look it up. That would entail walking upstairs to the library. Maybe tomorrow.

The Salts of Brewing Waters

If you follow me on Twitter, you might find some of the following familiar. I posted an image of the table without explanation a few days ago.

I love analyses of brewing waters. Especially when I come across ones I've never seen analysed before. As is the case here with Leeds. Never seen anything about Leeds water before.

The article divides brewing waters into three classes:

A. Burton-like water full of gypsum
B. Chalk waters without gypsum.
C. London-like water with lots of carbonates and sulphates.

"THE SALTS OF BREWING WATERS.
BY T. A. GLENDINNING, A.I.C.
BREWING waters, which are chiefly derived from wells or borings, are on a somewhat different footing from potable waters, for, in the latter, purity is the desideratum, and if, in addition, poisonous metals are absent and the solid matter not excessive, the water may be considered as satisfactory. In the former, however, besides purity, a knowledge of the dissolved salts is almost, if not absolutely, essential. It is unnecessary for me to remind you of the great influence of geological construction upon the character of the beers brewed in any district, the gypsumous waters of Burton, long famous for pale ales, and the soft, stout-producing waters of Dublin and London, being typical examples. We shall find it simplify matters to divide waters roughly into three classes—(a) Gypseous waters (that is, rich in calcium sulphate), such as are found at Burton. (b) Waters containing little or no gypsum: to this class belong those derived from the chalk, and those poor in dissolved salts, like the Leeds town supply. (c) Waters containing no gypsum, but carbonates and sulphates of the alkalis. Such are derived from below the London clay, and are admirably adapted for producing black beers.

The accompanying tables give two typical examples of each class. The figures represent grains per gallon :—

(1) An artesian boring ; (2) Burton deep well; (3) Deep well in the chalk; (4) Leeds supply; (5) Very deep boring; (6) Also a boring.

We will assume that a water analysis has been made, and yielded a quantitative knowledge of the bases and acids present, which you will admit can be obtained with every pretension to accuracy. A list of these bodies doubtless appears very interesting, and, if imposingly drawn up, might possibly: inspire respect, but it has one fatal disadvantage, which is its  almost, if not complete, uselessness in the hands of the manufacturer. A chemist might form some idea as to the constitution of the salts present, but the information deduced would be limited if one had to criticise the water as to its value for brewing purposes. The reason is not far to seek, for though a glance tells us, for example, that the dissolved salts are rich in lime and sulphuric acid, it does not follow that all the lime or all the acid exists in solution as calcium sulphate, for there may be other salts of lime and also sulphates of other bases present. It has hence become necessary to have as accurate an idea as possible of the salts present, and since these cannot be directly estimated, the acid and basic bodies are combined in the most probable manner, and I may say that the data thus obtained are of great value. In setting about this combination, the following facts are taken advantage of :—(1) The affinity of potassium for chlorine is greater than sodium, hence chlorine is combined with potassium before sodium; (2) Calcium nitrate is decomposed by potassium carbonate, sulphate, and chloride, the sodium salts probably acting in the same way. The alkalis are therefore given the preference over lime for nitric acid; (3) Magnesium sulphate is decomposed by calcium chloride, and consequently it seems natural to unite sulphuric acid with lime rather than with magnesia.

	A		B		C
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Silica	0.24	0.49	1.1	0.07	0.28	0.7
Alumina	0.18	0.49	0.04	0.07	0.61	0.43
Lime	16.34	36.33	17.37	2.01	9.92	13.46
Magnesia	2.09	10.15	0.49	0.52	3.24	4.6
Soda	5.89	7.25	1.72	0.77	21.07	10.7
Potash	-	0.86	-	-	-	Trace
Chlorine	7.98	2.37	1.99	0.8	6.08	3.64
Sulphuric acid (SO3)	19.86	52.29	5.14	1.36	12.42	14.31
Nitric acid (N2O5)	-	1.25	3.51	0.13	0.16	0.16
Sodium chloride	11.13	3.9	3.28	1.32	10.02	5.99
Sodium nitrate	-	1.97	-	0.19	0.25	0.25
Sodium sulphate	-	10.21	-	-	22.04	17.01
Sodium carbonate	-	-	-	-	9.59	-
Calcium chloride	1.9	-	-	-	-	-
Calcium nitrate	-	-	5.33	-	-	-
Calcium sulphate	33.76	77.87	8.74	2.31	-	8.02
Calcium carbonate	2.64	7.62	21.34	1.69	17.54	18
Magnesium carbonate	4.39	21.31	1.03	1.09	6.8	9.66
Silica, iron, and alumina	0.41	0.98	1.14	0.14	0.89	1.13
	54.23	125.45	40.86	6.74	67.13	108.6

* A paper read before a meeting of the Yorkshire section of the Society of Chemical Industry."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, page 94.

You can see that the Leeds water has an extremely low mineral content. I really wish I knew what Tetley's water treatment was. Undfortunately, it isn't mentioned in their brewing records.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1956 Tennant's Rock Ale

Tennant’s Mild had the rather odd name of Rock Ale. There was a simple explanation, according to Frank Priestley:

"Tennant's produced four draught been and five bottled beers. The draught beers were: Bitter Beer (BB), Best Bitter Beer (BBB), Rock Ale, which was a dark, mild ale and Queen's Ale. Rock Ale probably originated at the Nottingham Brewery (see later). The Nottingham cellars had been excavated out of the solid rock on which the old town stood. Beers stored in the cellars were known as Rock Ales."
"The Brewer's Tale" by Frank Priestley, 2010, page 11.

The beer itself is a pretty typical post-war Dark Mild. Not all that dark, with the colour all deriving from sugar. The high degree of attenuation must have left it tasting quite dry.

It’s another simple grist, with just base pale malt and a dash of enzymic malt. Plus loads of sugar of various types. The No. 3 is my substitution for SBS and CWA. I’ve no idea how accurate that is.

The hops are all classic English varieties: Kent Fuggles (1954), Worcester Fuggles (1953 and 1954 CS), Worcester Goldings (1955 CS) copper hops, plus Kent Goldings (1955) dry hops.

The original mashing scheme started at 143º F, then raised to 148º F, presumably by an underlet, and held there for two hours.

1956 Tennant's Rock Ale
pale malt	5.50 lb	76.44%
enzymic malt	0.25 lb	3.47%
malt extract	0.07 lb	0.97%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.125 lb	1.74%
No. 3 invert sugar	1.00 lb	13.90%
caramel 500 SRM	0.25 lb	3.47%
Fuggles 90 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings 40 mins	0.25 oz
Fuggles 40 mins	0.25 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.125 oz
OG	1033
FG	1006
ABV	3.57
Apparent attenuation	81.82%
IBU	15
SRM	16
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

Calling Cincinnati

I'll be in Cincinnati on Thursday 26th April and Friday 27th April. I did have an event pencilled in, but that seems to have fallen through.

Feel like hosting a talk? Or showing me your brewery? Or brewing a collaboration beer? Or just having a beer and a chat? Get in touch.

It'll be my first time in Ohio. Anything I shouldn't miss?

While you're here, maybe you should consider investing in one of my recent books. Let's Brew! is packed with fun recipes. most of which I've never published on the blog.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ronald-pattinson/lets-brew/paperback/product-23289812.html

Scotland! vol. II is the definitive history of Scottish beer over the last 150 years or so. Other than a few recipes, of which there are almost 400, all the material is new.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ronald-pattinson/scotland-vol-2/paperback/product-23090497.html 

The Brewing Trade in 1892

The 1890's were good years for British brewing. Output was up and profits were good. Business was doing so well that many decided to convert into limited companies. Which provided them with bucketloads of cash to buy pubs.

On the other hand, licensing restrictions made it virtually impossible to get a new pub licence. And in many areas licensing magistrates were actively reducing the number of pubs, driving up their cost. Some breweries that came late to the game - Allsopps, for example - over-extended themselves, leading them into sever financial difficulties when trade got worse in the new century.

As you can see from the figures below, brewing contributed a considerable sum to the nation's finances. Which was good in a way, as it meant the government was unlikely to take too radical actions against brewing becvause of the financial consequences.

There's also a mention of the man with the best name in brewing, Cosmo Bonsor. Though it doesn't mention it, he was at the time a director of Combe. After that firm's merge with Watney and Reid he ewas a director of the new amalgamated company.

"The Brewing Trade in 1892.
The Annual Parliamentary return recently issued at the instigation of Mr. Cosmo Bonsor, M.P., furnishes much information I of very considerable interest to the brewing a trade, and at the present time, when the public are eing moved with indignation at the confiscatory proposals of the present Government, this return becomes of very much more than trade interest. From previous articles in these columns on the production and consumption of beer, our readers already know that the quantity of beer manufactured in the United Kingdom during last year was much above that of the previous year, and now we find from these returns that a larger amount of duty was paid during the twelve months ended September 30, 1892, than in any year since 1881; we cannot go further back than this, because prior to 1881 the duty was levied on the malt, and not on the beer as at present, and any comparison between the two systems would be valueless.

The following figures give the total amounts of beer and licence duty charged to brewers for sale during the last twelve years, and the result last year compares very favourably with that of any previous period :—

1881	£8,498,044	1887	£8,845,919
1882	8,668,405	1888	8,782,725
1883	8,449,721	1889	9,323,171
1884	8,746,529	1890	9,864,556
1885	8,664,319	1891	10,039,217
1886	8,539,329	1892	10,079,678

It will thus be seen that the total amount paid last year (i.e., for twelve months ended Sept. 30, and unless otherwise stated this period is meant in all cases) was £10,079,678, which represents an increase of £40,461 in excess of the preceding year, and £215,122 more than in 1890. This state of affairs, while eminently satisfactory to the brewing trade, must be particularly annoying to the parties championed by Mr. Caine, Sir W. Lawson, and their allies, and the more so because, going hand in hand with the increased consumption of our national beverage, is the great diminution of drunkeness, crime, poverty, and ignorance; this is a bitter potion to swallow for those who would wantonly destroy a legitimate trade without any redress.

It is now a fact, established beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the number of brewers continues year by year to grow less, and this has been the case ever since the repeal of the malt tax, the principal decrease being among the smallest members of the trade. During last year the falling off amounted to 578 as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, and the total decrease from 1880 to 1892 inclusive was 10,558. We have compiled the following table to show how rapidly this diminution in the number of brewers has been continuing since 1880, when there were no less than 21,223 who took out licences :—

Number of Common Brewers Paying for Licences in Year Ended September 30.
	1881	1882	1883	1884	1885	1886	1887	1888	1889	1890	1891	1891
1,000	14,948	14,499	13,864	13,199	12,608	12,155	11,716	11,586	10,705	9,986	9,283	8,766
10,000	1,677	1,619	1,592	1,560	1,537	1,529	1,533	1,518	1,479	1,447	1,370	1,303
20,000	275	275	274	289	270	260	271	264	273	274	284	276
30,000	88	84	79	85	83	85	94	89	108	130	126	136
50,000	63	66	58	64	66	68	68	74	69	72	74	78
100,000	32	36	40	39	38	39	42	38	48	53	54	55
150,000	7	11	11	10	10	9	11	9	13	16	20	20
200,000	7	6	6	9	9	7	6	6	5	5	5	4
250,000	2	2	2	2	1	3	3	3	3	2	2	2
300,000	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	4	3	2
350,000	—	1	1	1	1	1	1	—	1	2	3	3
400,000	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	3	3	2	1	1
450,000	3	2	1	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	2
500,000	1	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	3	3
550,000	—	—	—	1	1	1	1		1	—	—	1
600,000	—	—	—	—	—	-	—	1	1	2	2	1
1,000,000	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	—	—	—	—
over 1000000	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2
Total	17,110	16,609	15,937	15,268	14,633	14,166	13,755	13,598	12,756	12,000	11,233	10,855
deacrease compared with preceding yrs.	4,113	501	672	669	635	467	411	157	842	756	767	578

The Brewers' Guardian 1893, page 89.

What the article says about the decline all being in the smallest categories is true. All the categories greater than 10,000 barrels were either stable or increased. The authorities were quite happy to see many of the very small breweries to close because they were more difficult for the Excise to chek up on.It was much easier to check up on a smaller number of larger breweries.

The situation is now completely reversed. From what I hear the Excise can't cope and most of the smaller breweries are never checked out.

Why dry hop? (part three)

I'm continually amazed at what grabs my readers' attention and what doesn't. I thought that the article I've based these posts on was intrguing, but rather obscure. Something only of interest to a few professional brewers.

There isn't going to be much commentary from me this time. Partly because I'm not sure that I really understand it all. Partly because it's Easter and I've got better things to do.

"It must be remembered, in considering the results of this last experiment, that the influence of the yeast of the beer had been completely prevented by the chloroform, and that if the yeast had been still in possession of its functions, hydrolysis would have proceeded with even greater rapidity, as we know very well that under the combined action of organised ferments and diastase hydrolysis often goes on much more rapidly than under the influence of the diastase alone. As it seemed possible that the diastatic activity of hops might be due wholly or in part to the seed: which they generally contain, we have made comparative experiments with the hop strobiles, in one case including the seeds, and in the other after the seeds had been carefully picked out. We also append a determination of the diastatic activity of the foliage leaves of the hop plant. The results are calculated out for the amount of maltose produced from soluble starch by 10 grams of the material acting under standard conditions :—

(1) Hop-cones, including' seeds, 9.60 grams maltose. (2) Hop-cones, freed from seed, 2.06 grams maltose. (3) Foliage leaves of hop plant, 2.01 grams maltose.

The seeds doubtless contribute largely to the diastatic activity of hops, but the bracts of the strobiles, which are really leaf organs, have also a very marked hydrolytic effect,  yet an aqueous infusion of the same hops, no matter how concentrated it maybe, is incapable of producing any diastatic in fluence. We have already referred to the difficulty there is in extracting enzymes from some kinds of tissue, owing to the tenacity with which they are retained by the cell protoplasm, but it is very seldom indeed that an aqueous extract of such tissue, when properly prepared, is entirely without action, as is the case with the hop infusion. It therefOre seemed in the highest degree probable that there was something extracting from the hop which prevented the diastase going into solution. As we know that hops contain a considerable amount of tannin, and that tannin has a very great retarding influence on diastatic action, owing to its rendering insoluble that class of albuminoids to which diastase belongs, it seemed highly probable that the tannin of the hop was responsible for the abnormal results obtained with the aqueous infusion. Such was, in fact, found to be the case.

In the first place we found that an aqueous infusion of hop extracts less diastase from a given quantity of malt than does distilled water under similar conditions. This is shown by the following experiment :—

Two dilute malt extracts were prepared:

(1) By digesting 0.5 grams of finely divided malt with 100 c.c. of water for 48 hours.

(2) By digesting 0.5 grams of the same malt with 100 c.c. of water and 3.5 grams of hops for 48 hours.

On filtration the relative diastatic activity of these two extracts was determined. The relation was found to be as follows, No. I being taken at 100:—

(1) 100.0
(2) 16.1

We see that in (2) the addition of 3.5 grams of hops per 100 c.c. to the extraction water has reduced the diastatic activity of the resulting malt extract to about 1/6. That this remarkable result is due to the tannin of the hops prevent. ing the diastase going into solution was proved in the following manner :—

When an aqueous infusion of hops is shaken up for a short time with some raspings of untanned hide the tannin is completely removed from the infusion, but no other constituent of the hop extract is touched.

A strong aqueous extract of hops was prepared by digesting hops with a comparatively small quantity of water for 48 hours. The filtrate was divided into two parts, A and B.

A. 100 c.c. of the hop extract was digested with 1 gram of finely divided malt for 24 hours.

B. 100 c.c., treated in a similar manner, but the tannin was first removed by shaking with hide filings.

After standing on the malt in each case for twenty-four hours the dilute malt extracts so produced were filtered off, and
their diastatic power determined. This was measured by the amount of maltose hydrolysed from soluble starch by an equal volume of each extract, all the usual conditions being fulfilled. The following numbers show the amount of maltose produce by 100 cc. of the extracts :—

                     Diastatic Activity.
Infusion A    0.000 grams.
Infusion B    11.250 grams.

We see that in A the amount of tannin in the hop extract used had been sufficient entirely to prevent the dissolution of the diastase from 1 gram of malt; whilst in B, which differed from A merely in having had its tannin removed with hide filings, the diastase had readily gone into solution.

We are now in a position to understand how it is that it is impossible to prepare an infusion of hops showing diastatic activity, although the hop-strobile contains a very notable quantity of diastase, which is brought into action when the hops themselves are immersed in the liquid containing a hydrolysable substance.

The tannin is contained for the most part in special cells of the leaf-tissue, and, under ordinary circumstances, does not come in contact with the diastase, which exists to a greater or less amount in the general starch-containing parenchyma. When, however, the dried leaf-issue is treated with a comparatively small amount of water, the solution of the tannin is sufficiently concentrated to prevent the diastase entering into solution. When, on the other hand, the hops are immersed in a comparatively large amount of liquid, the tannin, which diffuses first in point of time, forms such an extremely dilute solution that it has but little or no effect upon the diastase which difluses into the liquid at a much slower rate. There is another reason, also, in the case of beer why the tannin of the hopping-down hop does not arrest diastatic action. Unless beer has been very highly hopped indeed in the copper, it always contains, after the fermentation is finished, a sufficient quantity of albuminoids of the right kind to precipitate tannin from solution. This is doubtless the fate of the tannin of the hop used in dry-hopping; it is quickly removed from the sphere of action, and cannot consequently exert the least inhibitory action on the “freshening” power of the hop. In considering the results which we have recorded in this paper - results which, we think, have given a complete explanation of the influence of dry-hopping on the after fermentation of beer - no doubt certain practical questions will suggest themselves to you; and, of these, perhaps the one of greatest importance, is the bearing these experiments have on the method of curing the hops at the time they are picked. It is not long ago since we had an authoritative statement from a gentleman closely connected with hop growing, that the temperatures employed in drying on the oasts are much too low, and that hops will keep very much better if dried at a higher temperature. We do not dispute the accuracy of this statement but we must give a word of warning to hop growers who carry out this suggestion, that they will run very great risk of destroying in the hops one of those qualities which is essential to the production of a suitable article for dry-hopping."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, pages 107 - 108.

I had no idea that tannin prevented distase from going into soultion. So does that mean that too ,amny hops in the mash tun could bugger up conversion? Or am I getting this totally wrong?

Be happy to hear the thoughts of anyone who understands this better than me.

A Modern Lager Beer Brewery (part two)

Thus article on Lager brewing is very handy, in that it explains the technical differences between beers made the British and continental ways.

This brief section on malting explains something I'd wondered about. I've lots of late 19th-cntury analyses of Lagers and is most cases the attenuation is rubbish, rarely more than 65% apparent.

"During a discussion upon a paper on Continental Brewing Plant I read before the London Section some years ago, Mr. Chaston Chapman defined the difference between infusion and decoction brewing very concisely and epigrammatically in the expression "Malting versus Machinery," but on consideration I am inclined to modify that pithy conclusion, for an English malt will not produce a satisfactory lager beer, any more than would a lager malt yield a perfect infusion beer; wherefore one must go considerably deeper into things, to discover the reason for the great difference between the two final results.

The production of a lager malt occupies considerably less time than does one suitable for infusion beers, but it is the shortness of its growing period and the rapidity of its kiln drying that prevents that loss of nitrogenous matters and checks that development of a comparatively high diastatic capacity, characteristic of a well-made English malt, whilst it is just these qualities—which are even more accentuated in the "chit," "short grown," and other malts made on the newer systems recently suggested — as for example, the Kropff — which go to build up those vital initial factors determining the high residual extract and low alcoholic percentage of a lager beer. Here then we have the starting  point of that divergence between the two beers, which divergence becomes wider and wider as the brewing process proceeds, and demonstrates the truth of the old saying that "the malt is the soul of the beer."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, vol. XVII, 1920, pages 486 - 489.

It's the malt that was to blameas it produced a less fermentable wort. Good to know.

Though it seems that the mashing scheme also contributed to the lack of fermentability:

"The next step, after having secured the right kind of malt, is to mash it on such lines as will give the correct type of wort. This, however, is best obtained by means of the three mash decoction process, which consists in mashing cold and leaving this cold mash a definite time for the enzymes to absorb the water, which they do better at a cold than at a warmer temperature.

An alternative method is to mash for an initial temperature of 100° F., at which the proteolytic enzyme is most active, and to allow the mash to remain at that temperature for a definite period, in order that it shall become slightly acidified, either naturally or by the employment of a culture of lactic acid bacterium; such acidification assisting the digestive action of the peptase, whereby much of the insoluble nitrogen is transformed into peptone. Griesmayer differentiates between peptone, which is also partly formed during kilning together with the parapeptone produced during curing on the kiln at high temperatures, and those cleavage products of gluten and fibrin origin which are the results of boiling the various portions of the mash, but to all of which he ascribes the highly nutritious properties, palate fulness, and remarkable foaming capacity characteristic of true lager
beers.

Again, by the perfect control which may be effected by boiling the various portions of the mash, the proportions of dextrin to maltose may be accurately adjusted, and refractory starch so modified, that the extract yield of a given malt is much higher when treated by the decoction process than would be obtained by infusion. This is evidenced by the comparative analyses of Infusion and Decoction grains, the approximate extracts being respectively:—

Infusion... 11.5 per cent. Decoction... 5.5 per cent.

Further, by reason of the high finishing temperature, conversion is arrested, and the type of wort fixed, whereby the degree at which attenuation shall cease, is determined.

Although the three mash method is the one originally employed in the production of lager, owing to improvements in the manufacture of the malt, certain modifications have, from time to time, been suggested, notably by Windisch, who may be regarded as the pioneer of the more rapid mashing processes, among which may be mentioned the "Schmitz" and the "Spring," all of which have the object of preventing any undue saccharification of the newer and more diastatic malts now available, at the same time saving time and fuel."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, vol. XVII, 1920, pages 489 - 490.

A triple decoctoin was a traditional Bavarian method of mashing, the exact details of which varied from city to city. And there were also double or even single decoction mashes. Especially for Pilsner beers, methods involving less boiling were employed to keep the colour as pale as possible.

German brewers often use acidified malt to lower the pH of the wort. Not being allowed to just add lactobacillus because of the reinheitsgebot.

Decoction was a way of squeezing a reasonable yield from crap malt. There was no need to go to all that trouble with British malt, which was well enough modified to produce a good yield with a simple mashing scheme. Though it sounds from the sudden end to conversion was to deliberately create a finished beer with lots of unfermented sugars.

Lots more of this yet to come.