I've trawled through it a few times using different search terms. When I find a useful article, I save the pdf and extract the text. I've quite a pile of them, waiting for my attention. Including one on the food value of beer. Which I've finally got around to looking at.
Not that I'm all that interested in the food value of beer. But the article has loads of tables with data taken from beer analyses. And I'm a total tart for any type of beer analysis.
What makes them particularly handy is that there are separate tables of London and provincial beers of different types. Giving me a chance to check something I've seen mentioned but have never found real proof for: that London-brewed beers were stronger. I think originally it was because London brewers, being on the whole quite large, could brew more efficiently. As beer generally sold for the same price everywhere, there wasn't much competition on price. Brewers drew in drinkers by offering a stronger product.
I've combined two different tables from the article, plus added a calculated ABV. First, London Milds:
Composition of London Beers | |||||||
Calories per pint. | |||||||
Total Solids per cent. | Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent. | Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1). | ABV | Solid Matter. | Alcohol. | Total. | |
Mild Ales. | |||||||
No. 1 | 4.35 | 3.16 | 1:0.72 | 4.01 | 102 | 126 | 228 |
No. 2 | 5.00 | 2.98 | 1:0.59 | 3.78 | 116 | 118 | 234 |
No. 3 | 3.87 | 3.41 | 1:0.88 | 4.33 | 90 | 136 | 226 |
No. 4 | 6.00 | 3.94 | 1:0.65 | 5.00 | 140 | 156 | 296 |
No. 5 | 4.91 | 3.08 | 1:0.62 | 3.91 | 114 | 121 | 235 |
No. 6 | 4.74 | 3.18 | 1:0.67 | 4.04 | 110 | 126 | 230 |
No. 7 | 5.17 | 2.90 | 1:0.56 | 3.68 | 120 | 115 | 235 |
No. 8 | 4.90 | 4.37 | 1:0.89 | 5.55 | 114 | 174 | 288 |
No. 9 | 4.62 | 2.98 | 1:0.64 | 3.78 | 108 | 118 | 220 |
Average | 4.84 | 3.33 | 1:0.68 | 4.23 | 114 | 130 | 244 |
Source: | |||||||
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, pages 84 - 88. |
That's odd. The average ABV is what I would expect for a London X Ale, a bit over 4% implying on OG of around 1043. But that average has been distorted by the two much stronger examples, Nos. 4 and 8. The relative large proportion of calories which comes from the solid matter implies a fair amount of unfermented material in the finished beer. You'll see better what I mean when I compare Bitter and Mild in a later post.
Now here are the country beers:
Composition of Country Beers | |||||||
Calories per pint. | |||||||
Total Solids per cent. | Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent. | Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1). | ABV | Solid Matter. | Alcohol. | Total. | |
Mild Ales. | |||||||
No. 27 | 2.47 | 2.81 | 1:1.13 | 3.57 | 58 | 112 | 170 |
No. 28 | 4.40 | 3.83 | 1:0.87 | 4.86 | 103 | 152 | 255 |
No. 29 | 2.32 | 2.92 | 1:1.25 | 3.71 | 54 | 116 | 170 |
No. 30 | 2.69 | 3.61 | 1:1.34 | 4.58 | 63 | 143 | 200 |
No. 31 | 2.81 | 3.57 | 1:1.27 | 4.53 | 65 | 142 | 207 |
No. 32 | 3.29 | 3.06 | 1:0.03 | 3.89 | 77 | 121 | 198 |
No. 33 | 4.02 | 3.58 | 1:0.89 | 4.55 | 94 | 142 | 236 |
No. 34 | 4.54 | 2.92 | 1:0.64 | 3.71 | 106 | 116 | 222 |
No. 35 | 4.57 | 2.74 | 1:0.59 | 3.48 | 106 | 109 | 215 |
No. 36 | 6.58 | 3.58 | 1:0.54 | 4.55 | 153 | 142 | 295 |
No. 37 | 2.53 | 2.19 | 1:0.86 | 2.78 | 59 | 87 | 140 |
No. 38 | 3.24 | 2.70 | 1:0.83 | 3.43 | 75 | 107 | 182 |
No. 39 | 3.49 | 2.60 | 1:0.74 | 3.30 | 81 | 103 | 184 |
No. 40 | 4.76 | 2.00 | 1:0.60 | 2.54 | 111 | 115 | 220 |
No. 41 | 4.79 | 3.06 | 1:0.63 | 3.89 | 112 | 122 | 234 |
No. 42 | 5.74 | 4.15 | 1:0.72 | 5.27 | 133 | 165 | 298 |
No. 43 | 3.61 | 2.79 | 1:0.77 | 3.54 | 84 | 111 | 195 |
No. 44 | 3.28 | 2.93 | 1:0.89 | 3.72 | 76 | 116 | 192 |
No. 45 | 3.38 | 2.94 | 1:0.86 | 3.73 | 79 | 117 | 196 |
No. 46 | 2.49 | 2.54 | 1:1.02 | 3.23 | 58 | 101 | 159 |
No. 47 | 3.99 | 3.78 | 1:0.94 | 4.80 | 93 | 150 | 243 |
No. 48 | 2.72 | 2.81 | 1:1.03 | 3.57 | 63 | 112 | 175 |
No. 49 | 3.15 | 3.15 | 1:1.00 | 4.00 | 73 | 125 | 198 |
Average | 3.69 | 3.09 | 1:0.83 | 3.92 | 86 | 123 | 209 |
Source: | |||||||
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, pages 84 - 88. |
As you can see, the country-brewed Milds were indeed weaker. But I was surprised to see that to see that they were also more highly-attenuated. That becomes much clearer when you make a direct comparison of the averages:
Calories per pint. | |||||||
Total Solids per cent. | Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent. | Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1). | ABV | Solid Matter. | Alcohol. | Total. | |
London | 4.84 | 3.33 | 1:0.68 | 4.23 | 114 | 130 | 244 |
Country | 3.69 | 3.09 | 1:0.83 | 3.92 | 86 | 123 | 209 |
% difference | -31.17% | -7.77% | 0.25% | -7.77% | -32.56% | -5.69% | -16.75% |
The country beers have less of everything: alcohol, unfermented material, calories.
One word of warning. There are at least two different types of Mild in the country beers. Ones around 3% ABV are 4d Ales, while those around 4% are X Ales. There aren't any of the former in the London examples, though such beers were brewed in London.
But, as you say yourself, the London average has been dragged up by those two strong examples. If you discard the >5%ers as outliers, you get averages of 3.87 (country) and 3.93 (London) - no difference to speak of.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there were two strong outliers out of 9 in London, vs one out of 23 in the 'country' samples, may be significant - on the other hand, 9 is a much smaller sample size than 23.
Shame you can only work with the figures you've got, isn't it.
I've never been this excited to see a Hancock's label!
ReplyDelete