SUGAR.
During the month under review no change in sugar values has been made, nor does the market position show any alteration. Deliveries are very satisfactory. The Ministry of Food has announced that, owing to a partial failure of the sugar crop in the British West Indies and to the necessity of conserving currency resources, it has become necessary to make a reduction in the sugar ration until further notice. The domestic ration was reduced on May 27th. From July 1st the allocations of sugar for manufacturing uses will also have to be reduced, but no alteration will be made in the allocation to any industry now receiving 40 per cent, of basic usage or less. In the early days of the war steps were taken to secure the fullest available supplies of raw sugar from the Dominions and Colonies, and the position would have been satisfactory but for the failure of the West Indies crop. It has only now been possible to measure the extent of the damage to this crop and of its effect on the sugar supply position. Arrangements have been completed for the purchase of the entire exports of the coming season's sugar crops of Australia, the Union of South Africa, Mauritius, Fiji, and the British West Indian Colonies. The total quantity involved is about one and three-quarter million tons, of which the United Kingdom proportion is about one and a quarter million tons. Arrivals of this sugar in the United Kingdom will be spread over a long period.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 495. (Published June 19th, 1940.)
Contextualisation. That's what I'm all about. 1.25 million tons of sugar for the UK. Wonder how much of that was used in brewing? Of course you do. And what better way to convey the information than a nice table.
Brewing materials (tons) | ||||||
year | malt | unmalted corn | rice, maize, etc | sugar | total malt & adjuncts | bulk barrels |
1938 | 468,944 | 710 | 34,404 | 94,739 | 598,797 | 24,339,360 |
1939 | 494,240 | 496 | 36,739 | 99,324 | 630,798 | 25,691,217 |
1940 | 492,892 | 396 | 18,179 | 76,639 | 588,106 | 24,925,704 |
1941 | 549,421 | 595 | 12,338 | 69,882 | 632,235 | 28,170,582 |
1942 | 545,905 | 2,632 | 19,110 | 70,571 | 638,219 | 29,584,656 |
1943 | 514,366 | 2,030 | 61,909 | 70,029 | 648,334 | 29,811,321 |
1944 | 531,058 | 7,159 | 62,056 | 72,932 | 673,206 | 31,380,684 |
1945 | 521,761 | 12,288 | 66,602 | 89,203 | 689,853 | 31,990,334 |
1946 | 498,850 | 6,888 | 56,637 | 89,501 | 651,876 | 31,066,950 |
Source: 1955 Brewers'Almanack, page 62 | ||||||
Around 70,000 tons of sugar were used in brewing in 1940 and 1941. That was about 25% less than in 1939. And about 5 or 6% of all that sugar coming in from the West Indies, Africa and the Pacific. Not that big a proportion, really. Then again, there were all those cakes, biscuits and cups of tea that needed sugar.
The average amount of sugar in beer fell, too. From around 15% pre-war to 10 or 11%. What the hell. Here's another table showing that:
Brewing materials (%age) | |||||
year | malt | unmalted corn | rice, maize, etc | sugar | total malt & adjuncts |
1938 | 78.31% | 0.12% | 5.75% | 15.82% | 11,975,941 |
1939 | 78.35% | 0.08% | 5.82% | 15.75% | 12,615,962 |
1940 | 83.81% | 0.07% | 3.09% | 13.03% | 11,762,114 |
1941 | 86.90% | 0.09% | 1.95% | 11.05% | 12,644,709 |
1942 | 85.54% | 0.41% | 2.99% | 11.06% | 12,764,377 |
1943 | 79.34% | 0.31% | 9.55% | 10.80% | 12,966,670 |
1944 | 78.88% | 1.06% | 9.22% | 10.83% | 13,464,119 |
1945 | 75.63% | 1.78% | 9.65% | 12.93% | 13,797,059 |
1946 | 76.53% | 1.06% | 8.69% | 13.73% | 13,037,517 |
Source: my calculation from figures in 1955 Brewers'Almanack, page 62 Notes: assumes a quarter = 336 lbs | |||||
I'm all worn out now. All that tabling and stuff. What I need is a nice cup of tea. Loaded with sugar.
Posts
11 comments:
I wonder how many drinkers are fooled by CAMRA into thinking that sugar is not allowed in real ale. I know a few brewers who are.
Have CAMRA ever said sugar's not allowed in real ale? I can't say I've noticed it. In fact I'm sure their definition of 'real ale' included the vague mention of 'traditional ingredients', not all malt.
Correct Ed, just the misguided perception of a strict definition of what real ale is and is not. Many believe that it is somewhat rigid like the Reinheitsgebot , and although CAMRA is not directly to blame, they could do a better job of informing the public of such matters. I am not bashing them, I am a member of CAMRA also.
Really interesting. Is 15% pretty consistent except for the war years? Did it go back up to 15% a few years after WWII? And thanks the tables...
Bill, in 1953 it was up to 12.8%. That's as far as my figures go.
Curious, in what form was the sugar mostly being used in the beer? I know invert syrup was often used, though was there other forms of fermentable sugar (raw, demerara, bleached) that made it into the beer?
Lastly, who made the invert syrup for the breweries? Was there an industry producing it for the brewers or was it something each brewery would manufacture in house?
Given the long use of sugar in English brewing, does CAMRA nonetheless only allow all-malt beers at its festivals?
If so, I am not sure I follow that since the definition of real ale seems otherwise drawn from the later 1800's concept of running ales, namely beers not allowed (as formerly, often) to have a prolonged secondary fermentation but rather beers held only a short time given an accelerated maturation via carefully measured amounts of yeast or priming sugar. (I believe CAMRA has no objection to sugar when used for priming).
Before this era of running ales, how were mild ales served especially before sugar and finings were on the scene? I would think they were often flat or, still freshly fermenting and cloudy, not fully cleansed.
In other words, I have understood that the modern idea of cask ale essentially dates from the later 1800's when addition of sugar or yeast in measured amounts was perfected, along with use of finings, to ensure a clear beer that had a bubble and some secondary maturing. It wasn't the old March or October beer or old ale, but (as I interpret it) a hastened version of that.
If this is so, and if sugar was used as we know in the latter part of the 1800's, why would its use not be considered proper? I suppose one reason, and not a bad one necessarily, would be no sugar was used before the later 1700's. But in that case, why not fix the definition of a mild ale as it was in that period i.e., before there was regular use of finings and priming sugar?
I still believe all-malt beer is best, but I wonder if there is a kind of dilemma here viewed in historical terms.
Gary
Gary, CAMRA does not insist on beers being all-malt and never has. Had they done, the number of beers would have been tiny.
Isinglass finings have been in use since before 1700.
In the days before Running Beers, they cleansed more carefully and let beers sit longer in the cask before dispense. The idea being that they should clear naturally. It was still cask beer, just produced in a slower way.
Max, the sugar was usually in the form of invert. There were specialist manufacturers: Garton, Manbré, and others.
If CAMRA does not insist on all-malt beers, it is being consistent. I thought I read on their website a while back that real ale to them excludes grain adjuncts and sugars, but I must be mis-recollecting.
Slower means different though in my opinion; cask ale as CAMRA defines it owes a lot to later 1800's practice.
I first read the suggestion that running ales were a new development in Roger Protz's works. I cannot recall now where, but he suggested this and I would agree with that based on my researches in recent years. One might say he was referring to the abandonment of long aging but once again that is what we are talking about...
Finings there may have been before the 1700's. I doubt they were used to any significant degree before the 1800's.
Gary
@Gary, the misinformation you seek is on the CAMRA beer styles web page. Look under bitter for Protz's mistakes about bitter being a late 19th century "running beer."
Post a Comment