Let's start with the theory. This table is taken from a contemporary brewing manual:
Hopping Rates in the 1880's | |
type of beer | lbs hops per quarter |
Finest class of | 17 |
Ordinary first-class | 15 |
10-12 | |
7-10 | |
7-10 | |
4-6 | |
Export stout | 14-15 |
Double and single stout | 8-10 |
Porter | 4-5 |
Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, pages 312-313. | |
Now let's see what was really going on in breweries:
Barclay Perkins hopping rates in the 1880's | |||||||||
Date | Year | Beer | Style | OG | FG | ABV | App. Attenuation | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl |
31st May | 1887 | Hhd | Porter | 1053.0 | 1013.0 | 5.29 | 75.44% | 11.67 | 2.95 |
10th May | 1887 | BS | Stout | 1071.0 | 1019.4 | 6.83 | 72.69% | 7.75 | 2.50 |
24th Feb | 1880 | X | Mild | 1060.1 | 1009.6 | 6.68 | 84.03% | 6.90 | 1.90 |
21st May | 1886 | XX | Mild | 1076.0 | 1022.7 | 7.05 | 70.11% | 12.00 | 3.86 |
29th Jun | 1886 | XLK | Pale Ale | 1054.0 | 1014.1 | 5.27 | 73.84% | 12.00 | 2.68 |
15th Jul | 1886 | PA | Pale Ale | 1059.0 | 1016.1 | 5.68 | 72.77% | 16.00 | 3.88 |
21st Jan | 1880 | KKK | Stock Ale | 1090.6 | 1012.5 | 10.33 | 86.20% | 18.80 | 8.10 |
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records | |||||||||
Mmm. All the Barclay Perkins beers are more heavily hopped than what Southby suggests, except for the BS, which is ever so slightly less than the bottom of the range of values for Double Stout.
Whitbread hopping rates in the 1880's | |||||||||
Date | Year | Beer | Style | OG | FG | ABV | App. Attenuation | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl |
5th Jun | 1881 | P | Porter | 1054.6 | 1010.8 | 5.79 | 80.20% | 8.77 | 2.08 |
8th Dec | 1880 | Exp S | Stout | 1078.7 | 1018.8 | 7.92 | 76.06% | 13.35 | 5.41 |
1st Dec | 1880 | SS | Stout | 1079.2 | 1024.9 | 7.18 | 68.53% | 10.63 | 4.73 |
1st Dec | 1880 | SSS | Stout | 1091.4 | 1029.9 | 8.14 | 67.27% | 10.63 | 5.45 |
12th Jul | 1880 | X | Mild | 1060.9 | 1015.5 | 6.01 | 74.55% | 7.53 | 2.09 |
15th Jul | 1880 | XL | Mild | 1068.4 | 1019.7 | 6.45 | 71.26% | 7.45 | 2.36 |
26th Dec | 1880 | XX xpt | Mild | 1078.4 | 1024.9 | 7.07 | 68.19% | 9.36 | 3.42 |
12th Jul | 1880 | FA | Pale Ale | 1052.6 | 1008.6 | 5.83 | 83.68% | 13.52 | 3.58 |
9th Aug | 1880 | PA | Pale Ale | 1065.4 | 1014.4 | 6.74 | 77.97% | 17.12 | 4.30 |
15th Sep | 1880 | KK | Stock Ale | 1076.2 | 1025.5 | 6.71 | 66.55% | 12.44 | 4.36 |
11th Oct | 1880 | KKK | Stock Ale | 1084.2 | 1028.0 | 7.44 | 66.78% | 13.13 | 4.97 |
Source: Whitbread brewing records | |||||||||
The pattern is the same with Whitbread. All but one Stout, Exp S, is more heavily hopped than Southby's recommendation.
Truman ( | |||||||||
Date | Year | Beer | Style | OG | FG | ABV | App. Attenuation | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl |
16th Jan | 1883 | 6 | Mild | 1067.0 | 1018.6 | 6.41 | 72.31% | 5.56 | 1.51 |
16th Feb | 1883 | 7 | Mild | 1062.3 | 1013.9 | 6.41 | 77.78% | 5.77 | 1.50 |
16th Feb | 1883 | 8 | Mild | 1054.0 | 1015.0 | 5.17 | 72.31% | 5.77 | 1.30 |
17th Jan | 1883 | A | Ale | 1056.2 | 1015.5 | 5.39 | 72.41% | 2.50 | 0.49 |
22nd Jan | 1883 | C5 R | Ale | 1075.6 | 1024.4 | 6.78 | 67.77% | 5.74 | 1.78 |
23rd Jan | 1883 | C5 S | Ale | 1076.7 | 1027.7 | 6.49 | 63.90% | 9.15 | 2.87 |
16th Jan | 1883 | L 5 S | Ale | 1075.3 | 1023.8 | 6.82 | 68.38% | 8.57 | 2.75 |
23rd Jan | 1883 | L4 | Ale | 1080.9 | 1023.8 | 7.55 | 70.55% | 5.00 | 1.93 |
19th Jan | 1883 | L4 S | Ale | 1078.9 | 1028.3 | 6.71 | 64.21% | 9.83 | 3.47 |
8th Feb | 1883 | P1 | Pale Ale | 1066.5 | 1018.3 | 6.38 | 72.50% | 16.95 | 4.62 |
19th Jan | 1883 | P1 B | Pale Ale | 1067.9 | 1022.2 | 6.05 | 67.35% | 16.56 | 4.75 |
9th Apr | 1883 | P1 export | Pale Ale | 1068.7 | 1022.2 | 6.16 | 67.74% | 17.44 | 5.17 |
15th Jan | 1883 | P1 S | Pale Ale | 1067.3 | 1018.3 | 6.49 | 72.84% | 16.95 | 4.62 |
22nd Jan | 1883 | P2 | Pale Ale | 1061.5 | 1017.7 | 5.79 | 71.17% | 11.89 | 3.02 |
18th Jan | 1883 | P2 B | Pale Ale | 1063.2 | 1020.8 | 5.61 | 67.11% | 16.11 | 4.37 |
6th Mar | 1883 | P2 S | Pale Ale | 1062.6 | 1017.7 | 5.94 | 71.68% | 18.00 | 4.65 |
22nd Jan | 1883 | PA | Pale Ale | 1057.6 | 1016.6 | 5.42 | 71.15% | 11.89 | 2.83 |
6th Mar | 1883 | S4 | Ale | 1075.9 | 1026.6 | 6.52 | 64.96% | 9.60 | 3.15 |
14th Feb | 1883 | S4 x | Ale | 1077.6 | 1027.7 | 6.60 | 64.29% | 10.04 | 3.45 |
Source: Truman brewing records | |||||||||
For Truman's beers, the reverse is the case. Except for the Pale Ales, all are hopped below Southby's suggestions. Interesting that. I wonder what the situation was at Bass?
I keep finding more and more stuff on hopping. This theme may continue a while.
Did they record the alpha acid levels of the hops used? they were either low,or the beers were pretty bitter by todays standards.1.25 kgs per barrel,if i am right
ReplyDeleteI have analyses from the 1930's giving alpha acid levels. These show Fuggl's and Goldings as having between 4.25 and 6.25% alpha acid.
ReplyDeleteBritish beers were known for their high levels of bitterness in the 19th century.
And here today for the Golding, foursquare within that 1930's range:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.brewmasterswarehouse.com/product/0101427/kent-goldings-pellet-hops
This suggests to me that alpha acid levels have not for these classic English hops changed enough to warrant any supposition that pale ale was not plenty bitter in the 1800's. (Because I don't believe the hops would have changed drastically from the 1870's or so to the 1930's).
I think the variations can be explained by the fact that most brewers probably used a mix of old hops and new hops but in different proportions; they added at different points in the boil; and some may have re-used hops. While I'm prepared to knock off some of the IBU due to use of yearling and older hops, you have showed, Ron, that the best grades of beers generally used new hops - best pale and stout for example.
All in all, we need to accept that these old beers were very bitter. My first taste of Young's Ordinary and Holt's in the 1980's showed me that even after 100 years from their heyday pale ales could be sharply bitter, and these beers probably were even less so than back then.
Intense bitterness in my view is an excellent attribute of porter and pale ale, it "makes" the beers, creates the perfect balance between malt and sharpness. But the palate of the public at large has lost the taste for it, and today that kind of beer is a minority taste.
Gary
Gary,I have to agree that most beers of today are dumbed down somewhat as far as bitterness levels go.
ReplyDeletebut I think we are missing something as far as the way they used hops.
at 24% utilisation with only a 60 minute boil.unless I have my sums hopelessly wrong,that works with hops at say,6.0% alpha that would make the beer 90 Ebu!!do you reckon that it was really that bitter?
I do. Some boils were much longer than an hour, too.
ReplyDeleteGary
@Gary, et al.
ReplyDeleteAren't you forgetting that the alpha levels for pre-modern hops would have dropped quickly due to imperfect storage methods?
Loosely packed hops stored at room temperature and exposed to air lose some horrible percentage of their alpha acid within just a few months and are only fit to make lambic with after about a year.
While cramming hops into a "hop pocket" so that they're less exposed to air might have helped, I can't imagine it was a perfect system. Even with today's vacuum-packed, vapor-proof, refrigerated packaging hops still lose alpha acids during prolonged storage.
Did brewers use fewer hops right around harvest time (when fresh hops)and progressively more hops as the brewing year went on?
Likewise, did they use fresher (e.g., domestic or more expensive) hops in smaller quantities to brew the same style of beer?
Did historical brewers notice the reduced bittering and flavoring qualities of old hops or comment on off flavors they can introduce?
Thomas Barnes, hops weren't stored loosely at room temperature. They were stored tightly packed in a cold store. They were well aware of how the alpha and beta acids would break down.
ReplyDeleteBrewers never used fresh hops. Standard advice was not to use hops until a couple of months after harvest. It was also usual to use a blend of three types of hops, and to gradually introduce the new season's hops so there wasn't a sudden change in flavour of the finished beer.
One difference was that the hopping rate was increased in the summer, to counter the increased risk of infection.
About the only beers that ever got all fresh hops were expensive beers like Pale Ale of Imperial Stout.
I'll post more details of the hops for some of these beers tomorrow.
Anonymous, the boils were never as short as 60 minutes. 1.5 to 2.5 hours is typical.
ReplyDeleteEven if you take off 20-30% IBUs, for beers rating 90-100 IBUs as the old recipes seem regularly to call for, these are still very bitter beers. The old writers on porter often remarked that long aging of the beers would reduce the excessive bitterness, One, maybe Watkins, refers to a kind of mean obtained by this storage - he meant the hop and malt qualities become melded so that bitterness does not become unpleasant. Stock ales, and pale ale originally, and export stout, were stored and/or shipped for months on end. So this is part of the background to the high hoppiness. Once it became common to age for a short time or hardly at all, the hop rates fell, but it is all relative and again I was struck by the high bitterness of some English pale ales as late as the 1980's.
ReplyDeleteGary
Despite the advances made in hop agriculture during the 20C there is still a huge variation in alpha acid percentage for traditional varieties such as Fuggle and Golding. Over the last couple of years I have bought Fuggles at 3.5% and 6%. I am sure 19th century brewers must have had to contend with the same situation.
ReplyDeleteThis would be another reason for blending old and new hops. It would smooth out the variations and help to keep the bitterness more consistant (although at the very high levels in many contemporary beers I wonder if this is outside the range of percepible levels of bitterness?). Because they did not have AA values to work with this would help to prevent any nasty surprises when using new season hops which, from my experience, might have nearly twice the bitterness of the previous seasons crop. Of course they would quickly learn to assess the quality of hops with use but I would guess that crops from different suppliers varied quite greatly too. Many of the logs Ron has published show hops from various suppliers being use. Surely this is to smooth out the variations too?
And using newer hops in the better class of beers makes sense since the flavour (rather than bitterness) would have been far superior.
Some of the earliest references to artifical refrigeration in breweries are to its use in hop cold stores. Brewers were certainly aware of how to store hops to maximise their potential.