The versions from before WW I couldn't be simpler: pale malt, then pale malt and sugar. Not that the later ones are super complicated. Crystal malt was added to the mix in the 1930's. Then during WW II, things like flaked barley, wheat malt and flaked oats put in appearance. By government command. Brewers were told they had to use these substitutes for malted barley.
You might want to look at the gravity, too. It tells a story of decline, sometimes gradual, at others disconcertingly rapid. Dropping from the heady heights of the 1070's, to the non-intoxicating depths of below 1030. 130 years of British brewing history in a single table. Who else can offer you that?
Whitbread Mild did limp on a little further, surviving even the closure of Chiswell Street in the early 1970's. On a personal note, I can remember drinking a few pints of it (unfortunately in keg form) in the Festival Inn next to Chrisp Street market in Poplar. It wasn't great.
Whitbread Mild grists 1836 - 1965 | |||||||||||||||||||
Year | Beer | OG | FG | App. Atten-uation | ABV | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl | colour | pale malt | brown malt | crystal malt | MA malt | PA malt | no. 3 sugar | other sugar | wheat malt | flaked barley | flaked oat | total |
1836 | X | 1077.0 | 1029.4 | 61.87% | 6.30 | 6.55 | 2.33 | 100.00% | 100.00% | ||||||||||
1837 | X | 1066.2 | 1030.5 | 53.97% | 4.73 | 7.65 | 2.15 | 100.00% | 100.00% | ||||||||||
1841 | X | 1077.0 | 1030.7 | 60.07% | 6.12 | 7.45 | 2.36 | 100.00% | 100.00% | ||||||||||
1850 | X | 1077.3 | 1029.1 | 62.37% | 6.38 | 8.36 | 2.76 | 100.00% | 100.00% | ||||||||||
1861 | X | 1066.5 | 1023.0 | 65.42% | 5.75 | 6.68 | 2.12 | 100.00% | 100.00% | ||||||||||
1871 | X | 1058.4 | 1016.6 | 71.60% | 5.54 | 5.90 | 1.53 | 98.57% | 1.43% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1880 | X | 1058.7 | 1013.6 | 76.89% | 5.97 | 7.45 | 2.03 | 94.59% | 5.41% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1890 | X | 1060.9 | 1015.0 | 75.39% | 6.08 | 8.02 | 2.18 | 89.29% | 10.71% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1901 | X | 1054.2 | 1014.0 | 74.15% | 5.31 | 6.03 | 1.44 | 90.91% | 9.09% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1910 | X | 1056.5 | 1016.0 | 71.69% | 5.36 | 5.48 | 1.31 | 85.21% | 14.79% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1911 | X | 1056.0 | 1010.0 | 82.15% | 6.09 | 4.99 | 1.18 | 89.19% | 10.81% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1914 | X | 1055.1 | 1017.0 | 69.16% | 5.04 | 5.95 | 1.35 | 92.86% | 7.14% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1916 | X | 1047.9 | 1008.0 | 83.31% | 5.28 | 5.95 | 1.26 | 91.84% | 8.16% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1917 | X | 1044.3 | 1008.0 | 81.95% | 4.80 | 6.52 | 1.25 | 88.24% | 11.76% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1917 | GA | 1033.5 | 1005.0 | 85.08% | 3.77 | 8.48 | 1.21 | 87.50% | 12.50% | 100.00% | |||||||||
1918 | MA | 1023.7 | 1003.0 | 87.36% | 2.74 | 10.95 | 1.16 | 77.16% | 9.26% | 13.58% | 100.00% | ||||||||
1919 | MA | 1023.5 | 1005.0 | 78.76% | 2.45 | 11.94 | 1.27 | 67.86% | 12.50% | 19.64% | 100.00% | ||||||||
1923 | X | 1042.1 | 1008.0 | 80.99% | 4.51 | 7.41 | 1.26 | 40+6.5 | 93.21% | 6.79% | 100.00% | ||||||||
1931 | X | 1042.0 | 1013.0 | 69.02% | 3.83 | 6.63 | 1.17 | 13+40 | 72.21% | 13.44% | 13.44% | 0.92% | 100.00% | ||||||
1933 | X | 1036.4 | 1008.5 | 76.65% | 3.69 | 7.14 | 1.12 | 17+40 | 73.45% | 12.40% | 12.72% | 1.43% | 100.00% | ||||||
1939 | X | 1033.9 | 1010.5 | 69.03% | 3.10 | 8.27 | 1.11 | 17+40 | 75.73% | 13.59% | 9.06% | 1.62% | 100.00% | ||||||
1940 | X | 1033.6 | 1009.0 | 73.21% | 3.25 | 8.12 | 1.14 | 16+40 | 24.30% | 13.08% | 54.21% | 4.98% | 1.56% | 1.87% | 100.00% | ||||
1941 | XX | 1031.2 | 1009.0 | 71.15% | 2.94 | 6.38 | 0.76 | 14+40 | 65.39% | 11.98% | 4.99% | 4.99% | 5.66% | 2.00% | 4.99% | 100.00% | |||
1942 | XX | 1029.1 | 1007.5 | 74.23% | 2.86 | 5.84 | 0.75 | 18+40 | 0.00% | 12.02% | 68.11% | 4.01% | 1.84% | 2.00% | 12.02% | 100.00% | |||
1943 | XX | 1027.8 | 1008.0 | 71.22% | 2.62 | 6.07 | 0.76 | 15+40 | 9.28% | 10.31% | 55.67% | 5.50% | 1.72% | 17.53% | 100.00% | ||||
1944 | XX | 1028.5 | 1007.0 | 75.44% | 2.84 | 5.79 | 0.71 | 15+40 | 0.00% | 7.30% | 72.00% | 4.17% | 1.91% | 14.61% | 100.00% | ||||
1945 | XX | 1028.1 | 1010.0 | 64.41% | 2.39 | 5.67 | 0.71 | 13+40 | 36.97% | 7.39% | 25.35% | 9.86% | 3.52% | 16.90% | 100.00% | ||||
1947 | XX | 1027.5 | 1008.0 | 70.91% | 2.58 | 6.30 | 0.73 | 15+40 | 0.00% | 8.11% | 82.24% | 7.72% | 1.93% | 100.00% | |||||
1948 | XX | 1027.7 | 1005.5 | 80.14% | 2.94 | 7.07 | 0.80 | 12+40 | 57.30% | 7.87% | 26.97% | 5.99% | 1.87% | 100.00% | |||||
1950 | Best Ale | 1031.7 | 1008.5 | 73.19% | 3.07 | 7.29 | 0.90 | 15+40 | 0.00% | 7.30% | 86.61% | 4.17% | 1.91% | 100.00% | |||||
1955 | Best Ale | 1030.9 | 1009.5 | 69.26% | 2.83 | 5.59 | 0.71 | 105 | 0.00% | 6.27% | 79.44% | 11.15% | 3.14% | 100.00% | |||||
1961 | Best Ale | 1030.4 | 1009.7 | 68.09% | 2.74 | 5.64 | 0.72 | 110 | 0.00% | 6.41% | 79.00% | 11.39% | 3.20% | 100.00% | |||||
1964 | Best Ale | 1030.6 | 1007.5 | 75.49% | 3.06 | 5.66 | 0.68 | 100 | 0.00% | 5.88% | 80.00% | 10.98% | 3.14% | 100.00% | |||||
1965 | Best Ale | 1030.7 | 1008.7 | 71.66% | 2.91 | 5.54 | 0.68 | 105 | 0.00% | 5.88% | 80.00% | 10.98% | 3.14% | 100.00% | |||||
Source: Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan archives | |||||||||||||||||||
Don't worry. I've not forgotten about or finished with hop additions and primings yet.
Ron, were the beers when quite strong drawn from the first mash? And when they dropped to around 5%, were they being party-gyled in a way analogous to porter? Is strong mild (and other strong) ale a survival of the strong beer/first mash, small beer/second mash tradition, changing to mixed mash brewing when strong beer wasn't regarded as essential for a brewer's main output? In other words, did ale finally match up to porter's different production method and lower average ABV finally?
ReplyDeleteGary
Gary, the early beers are almost all brewed alone. Or sometimes with a stronger XX or XXX.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen any brewing record where the first wort was used for a strong beer and the second for a weak beer. That's not the way they parti-gyled Ale or Porter. Some of the strongest wort was always used in all the beers.
There was no difference in the way Porter and Ale were gyled.
Then why historically was porter weaker than ale? Is it because the extract yield of coloured malts was less than that of pale malt? (I realize this changed effectively by around 1800 but by then the tradition of strength was fixed).
ReplyDeleteOr is it because porter was made entire (entire grist - all the mashes blended) before this approach was applied to ale in the form to be sure of 19th century part-gyling?
Gary
Gary
Gary, "why historically was porter weaker than ale?" that's always not necessarily true. In 1902 Whitbreader Porter had a higher OG than their X Ale.
ReplyDeletePorter was the strength it was because that's what market conditions demanded. There's no real difference in brewing technique. They just used more water in the Porter.
Like I've already said, the vast majority of X Ales in the 19th century were entire grist. When they weren't, the X Ale would be the junior party in the parti-gyle.
But there is consistent statement in the 1800's that porter (i.e., at that time, and from inception) was not as strong as ale. I would think the use of all-brown malts in the 1700's resulted in an overall weaker beer than ale. To be sure through use of more malt/less water they could have made more brown stout (in effect) but they didn't because surely the porter would have been too expensive.
ReplyDeleteWas it market conditions or technology that (initially) resulted in porter falling below the range of most ales?
Gary
Gary, there's no technical reason why Porter and Ale had different strengths. Only commercial ones.
ReplyDeleteWhile Porter was the standard drink of the working class, it was cheaper and weaker than X Ale. When X became the workers favourite, it dropped in strength, eventually falling below Porter.
Brewers could make their beers any strength they wanted, technically. It was commercial reality that set them at certain levels.
But once the taste for porter was acquired, and when it was made from all-brown malt or a decent proportion of it, it would have been more expensive to brew than ale; therefore I infer to compensate the difference, porter was (generally) sold at less strength.
ReplyDeleteIndeed this may have pleased the market which before seemed to have mixed beers to reach a similar gravity (three threads etc.), but that was more a happy accident.
The situation later was different because when mild became cheaper than porter as you mentioned, you could brew porter for essentially the same cost, as e.g., Guinness did.
Gary