Hops in WW II

You guessed it. We're still back in 1943 with Wallenstein Laboratories. I'll be hewing rock in this particular data mine for a while yet.

This time it's hops. One area where WW II differed totally from WW I.

"Hops

In Great Britain most of the beer — one might say almost all — is unpasteurized and therefore dependent on hop antiseptics for its freedom from acid-forming bacteria. The restriction in supplies of hops gave rise to fears that bacterial instability would appear and perhaps increase, and that the flavor of beers would be detrimentally affected. Possibly difficulties have been experienced in connection with filtration of the wort through the hop back in certain breweries. But matters have not proved so bad as have been feared. For instance, no complaints have been heard regarding filtration, while the change in beer flavor has been gradual, and like that arising from the reduction in gravities, has been noticed much less by the public than if it had occurred suddenly. Moreover, such changes are accepted as inevitable.

The reduction in hop supplies has been serious. In June, 1941, a 20 per cent cut was imposed in the gross amount available to the trade. The actual quantity which passed through the Hops Marketing Board (which controls hops and their distribution) was 75 per cent of the total brewers' nominations. These nominations would have been the same in 1941 as the consumption during the datum year, if as many standard barrels had been brewed as in that year. But in 1942 the nominations, themselves, had to be cut by 20 per cent, and then only 80 per cent of the nominations were available, i.e., 64 per cent of the prewar quantities. In the present year hop rates in practice are about 1 to 1.2 lb per standard barrel, i.e., about 0.3 per cent, whereas in normal times this would have been almost double.

Hops are obtainable only under license, and a brewer who runs short may apply to the Brewers' Society for permission to secure a further allowance from his nominated merchants. Brewers usually carry a stock of hops over from one season to the next, new hops rarely being used. By now all reserves of this kind have been used up and brewers are living from hand to mouth; in many cases they have to use the new season's hops as soon as these are delivered. Matters were not helped during the London blitz back in late 1940, when some 50,000 pockets of hops were burnt. It was also on this occasion that the historic building, Brewers'
Hall — the home of the Institute of Brewing — was completely destroyed.

On the whole bacterial contamination, although on the increase, has not become so prevalent as was expected and most beer is being racked into casks comparatively free from both bacterial and wild-yeast infection. Even where instability is on the increase the quick consumption of the beer largely removes the trouble. In the summer of 1942 instability due to bacteria was unusually serious for a time in some beers, as indicated by laboratory tests. But the warm weather conditions which favored the growth of bacteria also increased beer consumption, thereby preventing much beer from being returned to the brewers. Since that time, however, the trouble has largely disappeared. No doubt the main causes were to be sought in low hop rates and lack of labor for adequate cleansing and sterilizing of plant, casks, etc."
"Wallenstein Laboratories Communications, December 1943, Volume VI, number 19" pages 156 - 157.

When the government imposed restrictions on the brewing industry in 1917, the demand for hops dropped dramatically and there was a glut. They government had to buy the whole 1917 crop to prevent the industry being destroyed. 1917 hops were still showing up in brewing records years after the war. In WW II there wasn't the same sudden drop in beer output and the British growers weren't able to meet demand. Britain had, of course, been dependent on imported hops for nearly a century.

Brewers had always liked to mix hops from different seasons to even out any changes in flavour. Running out of stocks from previous years must have been a real headache. I can imagine that there musty have been some pretty dramatic fluctuations in beer flavour as they swapped from one year's crop to the next. I knew that in the early part of the blitz many London warehouses and the goods within them had been destroyed. I hadn't realised hops had been one of the commodities affected.

With beer in short supply and being consumed within a few days of being brewed, the antiseptic qualities of hops would have been less required. In the days of Stock Ales kept for months before sale, this would have been much more of a problem. But by 1939, the vast majority brewed was already running beer.

The hop rates quoted don't quite tally with the numbers I have, based on the quantity of hops used and the amount of beer brewed. Take a look:

Brewing materials (%age)
year	malt	unmalted corn	rice, maize, etc	sugar	total malt & adjuncts	hops per bulk barrel (lbs)	hops per standard barrel (lbs)	Hops per quarter (lbs)	barrels per qtr malt & adjuncts
1938	78.31%	0.12%	5.75%	15.82%	11,975,941	1.28	1.71	7.80	6.10
1939	78.35%	0.08%	5.82%	15.75%	12,615,962	1.25	1.67	7.61	6.11
1940	83.81%	0.07%	3.09%	13.03%	11,762,114	1.19	1.62	7.58	6.36
1941	86.90%	0.09%	1.95%	11.05%	12,644,709	1.00	1.43	6.68	6.68
1942	85.54%	0.41%	2.99%	11.06%	12,764,377	0.84	1.31	5.87	6.95
1943	79.34%	0.31%	9.55%	10.80%	12,966,670	0.87	1.39	6.00	6.90
1944	78.88%	1.06%	9.22%	10.83%	13,464,119	0.87	1.38	6.09	6.99
1945	75.63%	1.78%	9.65%	12.93%	13,797,059	0.86	1.36	5.96	6.96
1946	76.53%	1.06%	8.69%	13.73%	13,037,517	0.82	1.29	5.83	7.15
1947	80.37%	0.79%	5.22%	13.61%	11,762,748	0.81	1.37	6.22	7.68
1948	81.75%	0.60%	5.22%	12.42%	11,620,172	0.90	1.52	6.69	7.44
1949	82.94%	0.55%	4.61%	11.89%	10,956,343	0.98	1.61	7.15	7.32
1950	83.50%	0.52%	4.17%	11.81%	10,890,648	1.03	1.67	7.19	6.98
1951	83.27%	0.52%	4.06%	12.16%	11,147,566	1.03		6.91	6.69
1952	83.02%	0.46%	4.16%	12.35%	11,217,454	1.01		6.84	6.76
1953	82.78%	0.53%	3.89%	12.80%	10,975,250	1.02		6.91	6.78
Source: my calculation from figures in 1955 Brewers'Almanack, page 62 Notes: assumes a quarter = 336 lbs

It shows the hopping rate per standard barrel (36 gallons of beer with a gravity of 1055º) declined from 1.71 lbs in 1938 to 1.39 lbs in 1943, when the article was written. I make that about a 19% decrease, way short of the 50% suggested. Note how soon after the war, in 1950, the rate per standard barrel was back to its 1939 level.

A quarter century of change

You may have spotted I've a bit of a WW II theme going on. There's a reason for that. One that, if I'm feeling nice, I might tell you sometime. But not now.

I've been rooting around some brewers trade magazines from the war years. I've had them a while but have  yet to go through them fully. (That's the problem with having too many books: no time to read them all.) There's so much great material in them that it's hard to select what to share. Still I've plenty of time. I've another three or four hundred posts to write this year.

The article below is a review of what would, on the face of it, appear to be a deathly dull publication: "Licensing Statistics, 1938,". Not quite as boring, however, on more close observation.

SPECTACULAR LICENSING STATISTICS.
"Licensing Statistics, 1938," the Blue Book issued annually by the Home Office, makes dry reading for the layman, for it is a compilation (to use the official jargon) of " statistics as to the operation and administration of the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors in England and Wales." But its publication this month became for the Press headline news. The explanation is that included in the Report are statistics for 1913. Not only does this span a quarter of a century, but it also provides a comparison between two pre-war years. It was the significant changes in the nation's drinking habits during that quarter of a century that made the subject palatable to the ordinary reader. For ostensibly the nation drank only about half as much beer in England and Wales in 1938 as in 1913: the consumption in the former year was 14.22 standard gallons per head of the population, and in the latter year 27.86. This does not mean, however, that in fact the consumption = of beer has gone down by half, since the bulk barrelage has not descended in anything like so great a proportion. As to spirits, in 1938, 20.65 proof gallons of spirits were consumed for each 100 of the population, as against 69.65 in 1913—a drop of more than two-thirds.

The reasons for these declines are not far to seek. Whisky, which in 1913 cost 3s. 6d. a bottle, was 12s. 6d. in 1938 ; and as to beer, the term "four ale bar," which belonged to the days of 1913, has become "public bar" for the very good reason that the then prevailing duty of 7s. 9d. per standard barrel had,in 1938, been increased tenfold. In all the circumstances, it is surprising to learn that there has not been an even greater decline in the specific gravity - of the nation's national beverage — in 1938 it was 1041.02 deg., as against 1052.80 deg. in 1913. Another reason for the decline in the consumption of alcoholic beverages is that while the maximum permitted trading hours in 1938 were nine per day (eight hours per day were general in a large number of areas), in 1913 19.5 hours per day represented the maximum period of trading. Sunday hours also have been curtailed to five in 1938 as against seven in 1913.

Further than this, there are far fewer licensed houses to serve the needs of the public. On-licences in 1938 were 17.94 per 10,000 of the population, as against 24.04 in 1913. Off-licences, too, have declined for the same proportion of population, being 5.35 in 1933 as against 6.4 in 1913. We do not attribute the decline in consumption appreciably to this cause, however, since registered clubs virtually doubled themselves in the same period; they were 4.11 to every 10,000 people in England and Wales in 1938, as against 2.29 in 1913. Most spectacular of all is the decline in convictions for drunkenness, which, per 10,000 of the population, stood at 11.31 in 1938, as against 51.16 in 1913. With regard to the year 1938 itself, drunkenness convictions fell by 154. compared with the previous year, to a total of 46,603. It is interesting to learn that in England 30 per cent, of the drunkenness offences took place on a Saturday; 10 per cent, on a Sunday ; and 11 per cent, on a Monday. In Wales and Monmouthshire (where Sunday closing of licensed houses is in force, though registered clubs are permitted to open) the percentages were: Saturday, 39; Sunday, 5 ;  and Monday, 12.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 43.

This is the executive summary. There are about another 10 pages in the next couple of issues of "The Brewers' Journal" dedicated to the figures in the book. Enough figures, in fact, to deter me from harvesting them. When I get a better scanning program and it doesn't take almost 5 minutes a page, maybe I'll collect them then.

For my purposes (which I still don't feel inclined to reveal) the comparison of 1913 with 1938 is particularly useful. They demonstrate the long-term effect of WW I on British beer.

"ostensibly the nation drank only about half as much beer in England and Wales in 1938 as in 1913". That might seem an odd statement. And it is, because it's both true and false. The figures given are for standard barrels. A standard barrel being a nominal device for taxation purposes. It represents 36 gallons of beer with an OG of 1055º. Excise duty was calculated per standard barrel. Breweries had to convert their output into standard barrels to work out their tax bill. For example, two barrels of beer at 1027.5 make one standard barrel.

Pre-WW I, 1055 was close to the average gravity of beer, so the number of standard barrels consumed was close to the number of bulk barrels (the actual volume of beer). After 1914, as gravities tumbled, they grew further and further out of step. As you can see from this handy table:

British beer production 1913 - 1938
	1913	1914	1917	1918	1920	1930	1938
Production (bulk barrels)	36,296,000	37,558,767	30,163,988	19,085,413	35,047,947	25,061,956	24,205,631
Production (standard barrels)	34,712,175	36,056,416	26,621,091	13,814,369	25,113,447	19,548,326	18,053,000
Average OG	1052.60	1052.80	1048.54	1039.81	1039.41	1042.90	1041.02
Sources:
Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2005, p. 7
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 110
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 50

The amount of alcohol consumed through beer fell much more than the volume of beer drunk.

The other big changes over the 25 years? A fall in average beer gravity of about 22%. A more than halving of the hours pubs were allowed to open. A decrease of about 25% in the number of pubs per head of population, but a relative doubling of in the number of clubs. A tenfold increase in beer tax. Though not a tenfold increae in the price of beer. In 1914 Four Ale, or standard Mild, was called that because it cost 4d per quart. Or 2d per pint. For a beer that was around 1050º. In 1938, Barclay Perkins had Milds at 4d, 5d and 6d per pint. With gravities of  1031º, 1035º and 1043º respectively.

25 years. I've been drinking longer than that. Has beer changed as much in my drinking life as between 1913 and 1938? Probably not. Beers strengths have edged up a tiny amount, but are still below the 1938 level. With styles, I can see a parallel between the fortune of Porter in the past and Mild in my day. Going from common to rare to disappeared. And pub openeing times. They've been pretty much rolled back to the 1913 situation. DORA (Defence of the Realm Act) determined when Britons could drink for the greater part of the 20th century. I wasn't sad to see the annoying closing times it dictated finally swept away.

Russian Duties on Beer

You must remember earlier discussions of Russian import duties and how they messed up the trade of Burton brewers. The duty being only on Ale, London brewers like Barclay Perkins were still able to ship their Porter to Russia. I'm now started to wonder if that was really true. Because in the text below, the Russian import duty is on both Ale and Porter.

"§§. 79 and 80. Spirits, Wine, and Malt Liquors.—The question of the Russian duties on spirits and wine will no doubt be brought forward by the Chambers of Commerce of wine growing countries.

Porter and ale are articles in which Great Britain is considerably interested. It being the policy of the Imperial Government to promote the use of malt liquors in order to diminish the present deadly recourse in Russia to raw spirits, the object would be greatly furthered by the admission of British porter and ale at a small fiscal duty, equal to, or very little above, the excise levied from Russian brewers. The brewing of malt has been so much improved in Russia that some of the ales of St. Petersburgh and Moscow will bear comparison with those of Great Britain and Germany in regard to quality, while in reference to price they are produced so cheaply as to fear no competition from abroad. The demand for Russian beer would not be lessened by a greater importation of British pale ale and porter, which, on the contrary, would give fashion to the consumption of malt liquors. A considerable revenue would also be obtained by the reduction of the present disproportionate duty, which is 264 copecks per pood on porter and ale in casks, but which M. Kolesoff proposes to increase to 265 copecks per pood.

A reduction to 1 rouble per pood would increase the consumption, and, on a bulky article, would at the same time help to fill up the steamers that come to fetch Russian produce. The Commission will surely take into consideration that the present duty is nearly 25 times higher than the excise levied on beer.

The wholesale price of English malt liquor in casks is as follows :—

	per Ton	Value	Weight
	£	roubles	poods
Porter, best Barclay's	16	100*	70
Stout, Barclay's	18 to 19	113 to 120	70
Ale, Bass	20 to 21	125 to 130	70
Ale, Cobb's	18	118	70

The rate proposed by M. Kolesoff on porter and ale in casks would, therefore, fall as follows:—

	Value	Duty	Ad valorum
	roubles	roubles	per cent.
Porter, best	100	185	185
Stout, average	115	185	161
Ale, Bass	127	185	156
Ale, Cobb's	118	185	164

The duty on bottled porter and ale (22 copecks per bottle) is more especially objectionable, as it is not only a luxury, but in many oases a useful medicine, and yet M. Kolesoff proposes to increase the duty to 25 copecks (9.5d. per bottle). The great expense of sending bottled beer to Russia is alone sufficient protection, without an import duty equal to more than 200 per cent, ad valorem in the case of small bottles, and to about 100 per cent, in that of the larger sizes. A duty of 5 copecks per bottle would be amply sufficient for fiscal purposes on full-sized bottles or imperial pints, and half that rate on half- imperial pints.

It is a great defect in the present Tariff that the size of the bottles on which the duty is leviable is not specified. The wholesale price of an imperial pint of porter or ale is about 6d. (20 copecks, at the exchange of 2s. 8d. and 16 copecks at that of 3s. 2d.), while Messrs. Eliseyeff and other dealers sell a smaller quart bottle at 1 rouble, and a half bottle at 55 copecks to 60 copecks.

Importers of "comestibles" invariably take unreasonable advantage of high duties.

* At the Exchange of 38d. A ton contains 4 hogsheads, of about 270 ordinary bottles each. A hogshead weighs about 17 poods.
"Accounts and papers 1868 - 1869 of the House of Commons, vol. 26, Commercial Reports received at the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Consuls during the year 1868", 1869, pages 10 to 11."

It's heartening to learn how concerned the British authorities were about the health of Russian citizens. And the need to keep them away from vodka by having them drink British beer. Very noble-spirited of them. And surely totally disconnected from the earning potential of beer exports.

As you can see, the Russian duty was the same for all types of beer. Burton brewers clearly hadn't completely abandonned the Russian market, as Bass's name crops up in the tables. I wonder which of their Ales they mean? Burton Ale of Pale Ale. It is, unfortunately, impossible to tell from the limited information. It was a pretty burdensome duty: more than the value of the beer. No wonder it discouraged brewers.

If the law didn't specify the size of the bottle, I'm surprised they didn't start using half gallon ones. It seems the logical approach.

It makes you realise why British brewers exported most to parts of the Empire. No dependency of fickle foreign governments who could ruin your trade at the stroke of a pen.

Unions and carbonated beer

I thought this would make a nice follow-up to the photos of Marston's union set. It's a brewer, in 1940, recounting the changes over the 40 years he'd been brewing.

"Years ago most troubles were blamed on plant. Up to a point that was true. One remembers a particular brewery getting into most grave trouble largely because of worn-out plant, much of it old wood. They modernised the plant — but they also discarded some rules-of-thumb in exchange for laboratory control — and have long been happy again. There are instances, though, of successful brewing, under analytical control of materials, with plant that ought to be scrapped—success, that is, with running beers.

Fermentation has undergone changes. Nothing has produced a better draught beer than the Burton Union and the Yorkshire Square, though Edinburgh and some other centres have done admirably. But it seems reasonably certain that beers fermented in open vessels, all other things being equal, in most cases give a product more suitable for modern bottling owing to their more flattened condition. Scientific developments in pasteurisation may possibly alter this state of affairs. And some day a perfect pasteurisation may improve the keeping qualities on long ullage of draught ales, without detriment to flavour and character. One never knows. Some people think that draught ales will ultimately be wiped out. By your leave, never, if they have every ounce of skill, thought, scientific development, goodness of material and capital used in their production.

It is but 40 years since chilled and filtered beers were introduced. Now even Bass has found it necessary to present such beers to the public. (By the way, will Guinness ever be so bottled !) It is said that, in the long run, this great firm of Bass may find it essential to do all their bottled beers in this fashion. Not, to be hoped, while the present writer is alive. We may take comfort, a first-class naturally bottled pale ale won't die so easily. All the same, properly chilled, filtered and bottled, such ales have come to stay and to sell, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis (not the writer). Price has a lot to do with the popularity of chilled beers, since they are generally lighter and sell cheaper."
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 55.

Worn-out plant. That's nothing new. Many breweries were still using clapped-out plant after WW II. Come to think of it, some carried on into the new millennium. Lack of investment - whether caused by external factors, such as the war, or the tight-fistedness of owners - was the root cause of the closure of many breweries in the 1950's and 1960's.

Open fermenters best for carbonated bottled beer? That's an interesting thought, if rather counter-intuitive. The praise for unions and Yorkshire squares is less unexpected.

"some day a perfect pasteurisation may improve the keeping qualities on long ullage of draught ales, without detriment to flavour and character" not happened yet, as far as I know. As for draught beer disappearing entirely - no-one would think that now. You have to put the authors remarks into context. There was a huge upsurge in bottled beer in the 1930's. One which fizzled out after the war as drinkers switched back to draught.

Will bottled Guinness ever be chilled and carbonated? Unfortunately yes. But not for another half century. One Pale Ale -White Shield - is still available naturally-conditioned. Just a shame there's no longer Bass Red Triangle

Proud

New video, about British beer, being proud of it. Quick synopsis, mackerel smelling two thirds done.

Here it is:


Proud of British Beer from Society of Independent Brewers on Vimeo.

Bit long, but with this gem:

Marston's Union Room.

Where are the troughs? These don't look like the unions in Bernard.

Makes me proud to be obsessed.

Low-gravity beer for India

I was delighted to stumble across this little gem. It's taken from an article in "The Brewers' Journal" entitled "Forty years of Brewing".

"The writer is not nowadays in touch with the export market, but well remembers the beers he brewed for India thirty years ago, quite light in gravity, but all-malt, hops 13 lb. per quarter, and simply loaded with dry hops. Casks were not returnable, being bought outright by the contractors. So the cooperage proprietor was in clover. Beer matured for some months, good stuff then, but not sooner, for, being mashed at 153 deg. Fahr. initial, it was mawkish for long. One brewing peer, with a household name politically, had a large export business, probably not so large now. There was more money in it then, one fancies.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 56.

"Thirty  years ago" is in this case about 1910. Which is quite late for the India trade. In 1910 average gravity in the UK was 1052º. Just to put "quite light in gravity" into context. It seems fair to assume that this beer wouldn't have been much, if at all, above that level.

13 lbs per quarter is a fair amount of hops. About the same as in Whitbread's Export Pale Ale from 1912. That had about 14 lbs per quarter, as opposed to 9 lbs per quarter for the domestic version. "simply loaded with dry hops" sounds about right for a beer making such a long voyage.

I wonder who he means by "brewing peer"? Was a Bass or Allsopp ever made a peer?