Let's Brew Wednesday - 1915 Barclay Perkins Dark Lager

Barclay Perkins had the luxury of owning a small Brewhouse in addition to their main plant. In it they brewed small-batch beers but also experimental brews. This beer falls into the latter category.

Lager was popular enough in London to turn up publicans’ price-fixing agreements. But the war presented Lager drinkers with a problem: most of it was imported from Germany or Austria. Some replacement supplies were found in Holland and Denmark, but importing anything became more and more problematic as the war progressed.

Barclay Perkins brewed both a decoction and infusion mash a couple of days apart in March. This is the infusion mash version. I’ve chosen that for a couple of reasons. One: it’s easier for home brewers to do and infusion mash. Also, I don’t understand fully what’s written in that record. Lastly, it doesn’t seem to have gone very well as they didn’t get the extract they expected.

The recipe is very simple: two malts and two hops. The latter being Worcester (1914 CS) and Burgundy (1914 CS).

The fermentation was conducted at a proper, cool Lager temperature, never getting above 50º F. After primary fermentation it was racked to an aluminium tank in the cold store, presumably for lagering.

Unusually for Barclay Perkins, the brewing water wasn’t treated.

After the war Barclay Perkins built a shiny new Lager brewery and became one of the leading UK brewers of the style.

1915 Barclay Perkins Dark Lager
pale malt	11.25 lb	91.84%
amber malt	1.00 lb	8.16%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.25 oz
Strisselspalt 39 mins	1.25 oz
OG	1053
FG	1023
ABV	3.97
Apparent attenuation	56.60%
IBU	27
SRM	6
Mash at	157º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	45.5º F
Yeast	Wyeast 2042 Danish lager

The food value of beer

One of the things teperance nutcases kept banging on about was the destruction of food in producing alcoholic beverages.

Especially in wartime. They saw it as a handy excuse to press for total prohibition. Excpet there's one massive flaw in the argument: turning grain into beer doesn't destroy its food value.

The article below gives the Food Controllers detailed response to this allegation. While at the same time refusing to allow more beer to be brewed in munitions areas.

"FOOD VALUE OF BEER
OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON VEXED POINT.
Aberavon, Port Talbot, and District Licensed Viituallers’ Association forwarded the Food Controller a resolution pointing out the fact that a large number men had been brought to their district on war work, and that the restriction of the output of beer, therefore, caused greater hardship to the locality than was the case in districts where the adult male population had been greatly reduced by recruiting and migration to munition areas.

In reply the Ministry of Food stated that the various questions arising out of the consumption alcoholic beverages and the materials used in their manufacture were constantly occupying the attention of the Ministry. Having set out the Various representations made on the subject, the letter adds:—

In view of these conflicting representations, a careful survey has been made of all facts of the case, and the following conclusions have resulted:-

1. The present consumption the manufacture of alcoholic beverages less than one-third of the consumption in the pre-war period. This is due  (1) to the limitation of brewing, and (2) to the  prohibition of the distillation spirits. The effect has been to reduce the average alcoholic content of beer by nearly 30 per cent., and a considerable quantity beer at present brewed now contains only about 2 per cent. of absolute alcohol, as compared with 1 per cent. which is permitted non-intoxicating beverages.

2. The total waste of food due to the use of grain and saccharine substances in brewing at the present restricted rate is somewhat less than per cent. of the total food supply of the ration, or about equivalent to one week’s total of food in full year. This result is arrived at by crediting to beer only the solid food which it contains and allowing no food value to alcohol. As between the use of grain in brewing and the production of meat or milk, solid food recovered in brewing (excluding the alcohol) is about twice great that recovered in meat or milk from the same quantity of grain. This due to the fact that the conversion grain into meat or milk only between one-sixth and one-fourth of the food value of the grain is recovered in the meat or milk. The prohibition

3. The prohibition of brewing would involve immediately the substitution of other beverages in the dietary those who at present consume beer, and since food material is used in most beverages the whole of the materials used in brewing could not be saved unless all beer drinkers substituted water as a beverage.

The actual saving, if any, would be the difference between the food materials used in brewing and that which would be consumed in other beverages such as tea, coffee, and cocoa, with added milk and sugar. If additional supplies of these commodities were not obtainable, the increased consumption of them in re-placement of beer would lessen the present supply available for non-beer drinkers and especially for women and children.

The estimated domestic consumption of milk in fluid gallons in the pre-war period was considerably greater than the present bulk of beer brewed. Probably at present it is approximately the same, viz., at the rate of about half a pint per head per day of the entire population, men, women, and children.

If the total grain used in brewing at present were all diverted to milking cows or used to re-place other foodstuffs used for milk production, the additional milk supply could probably be increased by about 23 per cent., on the other hand, a corresponding or possibly greater quantity might be consumed in tea, coffee, and cocoa used in re-placement of beer. The saccharine substances used in brewing are not of kind which are at present used for domestic purposes, and even if they Could all be diverted to other food uses than brewing, they would provide less than 1 oz. per week per head of the whole population.

4. The question whether, in case it becomes necessary to ration bread, there should be a deduction from the bread ration corresponding to the beer consumed by individuals, and, indeed, the subject of alternative rations generally, is being fully considered. It is thought by some authorities that any scheme of alternative rations to beer should aim at putting the various classes of consumers on a level in respect to beverages rather than to make beer and bread alternative. In this connection it is obvious that the needs of women and children would require be safeguarded as far as possible. The considerations above noted make it doubtful whether this would result from the further limitation of the supply of beer.

5. The reply to the contention that the present quantity of beer is inadequate is that any increased supply would inevitably under existing conditions involve less of other foodstuffs, and would, therefore, inflict hardship upon the non-beer drinking population. The maintenance of the food supply at its present level is already a matter of considerable difficulty, and it is therefore, quite impossible to increase the supply of any commodity involving use foodstuffs to any particular section of the community. It will be obvious that the problems involved are of a very intricate character, but in any case the principle of, equity to all classes of the population will be considered far as is practicable. Mutual toleration must be exercised by all classes, and especially between those whose habits in the consumption of food and drink are at present widely divergent.

Any measures considered necessary will be devised with a view to the conclusion the war, and the Food Controller relies on all classes to comply with them in this spirit."
Western Mail - Tuesday 09 April 1918, page 3.

It had crossed my mind before that with millions of youn men out of the country, a big proportion of beer drinkers were gone. You would expect a smaller supply of beer to have been adequate. Unless, of course, like Port Talbot or Carlisle, the population had been swollen by an influx of minutions workers.

Even - unfoundedly, in my opinion - excluding the food value of the alcohol, it was still more efficient to grain grain into beer than into milk. Pretty obvious, when you think about it. A lot of the food value is used to keep the cows warm and moving around. That's one of the reasons meat production was so limited during WW II. The government knew it was an inefficient use of scarce food resources.

That beer drinkers would have to find a replacement drink if there was no beer is not a point I'd considered before. It makes sense, though. Both for refreshment and for nourishment.

There were many in government during WW I - espcially in Lloyd George's own Liberal party - who were sympathetic to the temperance cause. Thankfully, the pragmatists were victorious over the ideologues and beer continued to be brewed. The effect on morale - as Churchill realised in WW II - would have been disastrous.

Letters

No-one writes letters any more. Personal letters, not ones from the bank, I mean.

Letters played such an important role in my life. And still I only write one a year.

Letters are where my writing started. When I lived far from home in New York. In those pre-digital days, pen and paper was the only way to communicate. Other than hideously expensive transatlantic telephone calls at a dollar a minute.

Letters, dull on rereading, prompted playing around with language and making jokes. Vitally, recording what I felt rather than what I saw. My website guides continued in the same style. The blog, too.

Letters that wooed Dolores. Portraying a me better than reality.

Letters that I loved writing so much. And still I only write one a year.

Hops in WW I

One of the main reasons I bought the 1922 Brewers' Almanack was this table. Frustratingly, the 1928 Almanack doesn't cover all the war years.

I'd noticed when writing recipes that fresh hops - ones from the most recent season - virtually disappeared aafter 1916. looking at the table, the reason is obvious: hop production had collapsed. The reason? The government ordered hop farmer to grub up some of their bines and grow food instead. Almost overnight the area planted with hops was halved.

I can see the logic. Fewer hops were going to be needed, as the emount of beer being produced had declined. And some of the hop growing areas - Kent, for example - are very fertile.

Bit of a double whammy, as hop imports dried up at exactly the same time. I was slightly surprised to se Amrican hops from the 1914 and 1915 seasons quite regularly in brewing records. But not later seasons. In 1918 and 1919 really ancient American hops appear. Ones as  old as 1910. It looks to me like brewers were using up their emergency stocks.

That also explains how in 1917, 1918 and 1919 more hops were used than were available. The number s don't take into account old stocks lying around in breweries.

Aware that there was a shortage of hops, the government stepped in and bought the whole hop crop and distributed it to brewers. The system continued even after war's end, the aim being to rebuild the hop growing industry. To help this, no foreign hops could be imported until the whole UK crop had been sold.

Even with this help, the acreage under hops never got back to its 1914 level.

Table 15- Total quantity of Hops available for consumption in the United Kingdom, and the averages for ten years.
Year.	Area. Acres.	Estimated Production Cwts.	Imports less Exports. Cwts.	Available for Consumption. Cwts.	Consumption (See Table 2).	% imports
1905	48,967	695,943	83,278	779,221	656,792	12.68%
1908	38,916	470,761	257,792	728,463	562,247	45.85%
1909	32,539	214,484	118,568	333,052	548,445	21.62%
1910	32,886	302,675	163,105	465,780	551,248	29.59%
1911	33,056	328,023	102,167	430,190	574,260	17.79%
1912	34,829	373,438	223,566	596,994	549,507	40.68%
1913	35,676	265,641	234,837	490,478	561,708	41.81%
1914	36,661	507,258	73,778	581,031	559,423	13.19%
average 1905-14	38,518	376,803	166,008	542,802	560,549	29.62%
1915	34,744	254,101	191,059	495,160	467,142	40.90%
1916	31,352	307,856	135,385	443,241	450,257	30.07%
1917	16,626	226,763	4,446	230,209	329,334	1.35%
1918	15,626	138,491	6,664	145,155	263,392	2.53%
1919	16,762	187,795	151,485	339,280	400,000	37.87%
1920	21,685	258,042	452,124	710,166	450,000	100.47%
1921	25,186	236,172	214,364	450,536	425,000	50.44%
Source:
1922 Brewers' Almanack, page 119.

Licensing Act 1921

I didn't realise it at the time, but Licensing Act 1921 was the cause of much of my youthful frustration. At least when it came to pubs.

Becuase it's the piece of legislation that extended indefinitely the wartime measure of afternoon closing, introduced to stop munitions workers getting pissed rather than working. It was in force for more than 50 years, onlt being dropped by the Licensing Act 1988.

Though that only applies to England and Wales. The situation in Scotland was different. Until th 1970s it was even worse in Scotland: closing at 10 PM and no Sunday opening, except for hotels to serve "bona fide" travellers. Then legislation was introduced to bring Scotland into line with England, but which actually made the regime much more liberal. No afternoon closing and regular extansions after 11 PM.

These are the rules for pub opening times. They were tinkered with a little over the years, but the basics were much the same until 1988. It was slightly more liberal than the DORA (Defence of the Realm Act) which regulated pub hours during WW I. But not much.

"LICENSING ACT 1921.
11 & 12 Geo. V. Ch. 42.   Aug. 17 1921.
Past I.—-Conditions or Sale &c. of Intoxicating Liquor.

1. Permitted Hours on week-days.—(I) The hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied on week-days in any licensed premises or club, lor consumption either on or off the premises, shall be as follows, that is to say: eight hours, beginning not earlier than 11 in the morning and ending not later than 10 at night, with a break of at least two hours after 12 (noon):

Provided that—

(a) in the application of this provision to the metropolis "nine" shall be substituted for "eight," and "11 at night" shall be substituted for " 10 at night" ; and

(b) The licensing justices for any licensing district outside the metropolis may by order, if satisfied that the special requirements of the district render it desirable, make, as respects their district, either or both of the following directions—

(i) that this provision shall have effect as though "eight and a half" were substituted for "eight" and "10.30 at night" were substituted for "10 at night" ; or

(ii) that this provision shall have effect as though some hour specified in the order earlier than 11, but not earlier than 9 in the morning were substituted for "11 in the morning."

(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the permitted hours on week-days shall be such as may be fixed, in the case of licensed premises by order of the licensing justices of the licensing district, and La the case of a club in accordance with the rules of the club:

Provided that, pending any decision under this sub-section, the permitted hours on week-days shall be—

(a) in the metropolis, the hours between 11.30 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon, and between 6.30 in the afternoon and 11 at night: and

(b) elsewhere, the hours between 11.30 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon, and between 6.30 in the afternoon and 10 at night.

3. Permitted hours on Sundays.—(1) The hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday in any licensed premises or club, for consumption either on or off the premises, shall he as follows, that is to say, five hours, of which not more than two shall be between 12 (noon) and 3 in the afternoon, and not more than three between 6 and 10 in the evening:

Provided that in Wales and Monmouthshire there shall be no permitted hours for licensed premises on Sundays, or on Christmas Day when it falls on a Sunday

(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions the permitted hours on Sundays shall be such as may be fixed, in the case of licensed premises by order of the licensing justices of the licensing district, and in the case of a club in accordance with the rules of the club:

Provided that, pending any decision under this sub-section, the permitted hours on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday shall be the hours between 12.30 and 2.30 in the afternoon, and the hours between 7 and 10 in the evening."
Brewers' Almanack 1922, pages 64 - 65.

I wonder why London got longer hours than everywhere else?

Let's Brew - 1966 Boddington IP

I’m intrigued to see how Boddington’s Bitter developed in recent times. So another recipe, this time from a few years earlier.

This is taken from a photo that I didn’t take myself. It’s one of Bailey’s (of Boak & Bailey). I’m very glad he sent me some photos as they fill in a gap my own.

The most obvious difference with the 1971 version is the gravity, which is three points higher. There’s also no lager malt in this one. Otherwise, the grist is very similar: pale malt, enzymic malt, wheat, flaked maize and sugar. The same three proprietary sugars, DMS, Fla. And Br. As someone pointed out, DMS is probably Diastatic Malt Syrup.

The hops are very vague again. I all know is that they were English. And there were slightly fewer that in 1971.

The rate of attenuation is very high, just a tad under 90%, which must have left a very dry beer.

Where next? 1950s or 1980s?

1966 Boddington IP
pale malt	7.00 lb	80.00%
enzymic malt	0.25 lb	2.86%
wheat	0.25 lb	2.86%
flaked maize	0.25 lb	2.86%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	11.43%
Fuggles 90 min	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 min	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1038.5
FG	1004
ABV	4.56
Apparent attenuation	89.61%
IBU	23
SRM	6
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	62.5º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

Me in Sheffield soon

I'll be in Sheffield for their beer week.

Specifically, I'll be at the launch of a collaboration beer I've done with Abbeydale: an 1868 Scotch Ale.

These are the details:

19:00 – 20:00
Devonshire Cat
49 Wellington Street
Sheffield
S1 4HG

You can get tickets here:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/1868-beer-launch-with-ron-pattinson-tickets-43183255279?aff=erellivmlt

 If you want to do some preparation, you could pick up my Scottish book. It includes the recipe, along with hundreds of others:

Beer profits and prices

I'm back with the economics of WW I. I hope you're as fascinated by it as I am. Because I probably won't be stopping here.

There was a big increase in the tax on beer a couple of months after the war started, rising from 7s 9d per standard barrel to 23s. But after that initial big jump the rises were small: 24s in April 1916 and 25s in April 1917. But that all changed in 1918.

In April that year the tax doubled to 50s. There was a good reason for the huge increase: the amount of money the government was collecting from the tax had fallen dramatically. It was the government's own fault, really. Because they had cut the number of standard barrels that could be brewed to a third of its pre-war level. As the tax was paid on a standard barrel, this restriction had a direct impact on the tax yield.

Because brewers had been cutting gravities, there hadn't been ass big a drop in bulk barrels, as you can see here:

UK beer tax  revenue 1915 - 1919
Year ending April	revenue	bulk barrels	standard barrels
1915	£15,856,412	34,765,780	33,099,411
1916	£33,747,269	32,110,608	30,292,977
1917	£31,567,940	30,163,998	26,626,000
1918	£19,108,663	19,085,043	13,816,173
1919	£25,423,393	23,264,533	12,925,087
Source:
1928 Brewers' Almanack.

As you can see, even doubling the tax didn't fully restore the revenue raised.

This article appeared the day after the doubling of the tax.

"BEER PROFITS AND PRICES.
It is difficult to get a definite idea of what the effect of the increased duty on beer is to be on the trade, either as regards the manufacturers or the retailers. The present prices, in so far as control is exercised, are to be changed in the case of whisky, but so far beer prices remain unchanged, 4d. per pint and 5d. per pint, according to gravity. Whether they are to continue in that position is uncertain but the hope is expressed that the Food Controller will at an early date issue an order on the subject, whichi will clear up a doubtful situation. A popular feeling in both branches of the trade is that not only the manufacturers and the merchants, but the public too should be asked to bear a part in the new taxation, and it has been stated that a fair share of the burden on the consumer would be to ask him to pay a penny more on his beer per pint, making the price for the lower gravity 5d. instead of 4d., and that of the higher gravity 6d. instead of 5d.

One authority, a retail man, expressed the opinion that in Scotland at least, whatever was the case over the Border, the public were getting at the present time a very good article for the money they were paying, that is considering everything, and a brewer confirmed that view. The latter, however, was inclined to think that the manufacturers and the publicans could each manage, out of the profits they have been and are making, to bear the whole burden between them should it be decided that the present controlled prices of beer the consumer is called on to pay must continue. As to that, there are differences of opinion. That handsome profits have been made out of beer, either by the brewers or retailers, or both, is an opinion strongly held by the man in the street, and it will be for Lord Rhondda to consider that point and decide whether or not the controlled price to the public should be raised or should remain as it stands.

THE RETAILER'S POINT OF VIEW.
A retailer expressed the hope that the Food Controller would see fit to control the price the retail traders have to pay to the brewers for their beer — that would only be fair; he said, when the retailers could charge no more than a certain fixed price. Their oncost charges had increased very greatly, and by controlling the price to be charged by the brewers it was felt that they would be more fairly dealt with, and that there would be a chance for them attaining to at least their pre-war profits in regard to beer. As an example of the increased expenses of the retailer, it was stated that a pint glass tumbler now costs nearly one shilling, and that in the case of breakages by customers or the taking away of a tumbler such an outlay became necessary, and in return the retailer would receive no more probably than 5d. for the pint of beer consumed.


CONSUMPTION INDEPENDENT OF PRICE.
The general view seemed to be that by the increase of the duty by 25s. per barrel a heavy additional burden would be placed upon the trade, but there was no disposition to grumble at the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exohequor. As one man put it, "We recognise it as a perfectly legitimate war charge if only the Food Controller sees to it that it is equitably applied, be that it is shared in by the brewers, the retailers, and the public." A brewer's representative doubted the efficacy of the new taxation, holding the belief that it was pretty much a case of handing money over from one hand to another. What was received from direct taxation would be at the expense of what would in ordinary course have come from the excess profits tax. Another view, also from the brewing side, was that the Government were endeavouring to get at the retail people, who were believed to be making considerable profits on recent sales, through the brewers,  who generally paid on excess profits, whereas the retailers, as a rule, did not do so. A large quantity of beer is still being consumed, and the fact that, generally speaking there has been decreased drunkenness is due more to the fact that, on account of the scarcity of materials, beers of a strong gravity are not being made as formerly, and that the public have acquired a taste for the lighter quality, the sort that has been described as "teetotal-beer," the kind that "you could drink a barrelful of without any intoxicating effects. The opinion has been expressed that even if the price of beer wore increased to th public there is little likelihood that the consumhtion would be decreased."
The Scotsman - Wednesday 24 April 1918, page 4.

You can understand why publicans would be alarmed at the tax doubling, yet the retail price remaining the same. At least for the price-controlled categories. Beer under 1030º retailed for 4d. and that of 1030º-1034º for 5d. Though anything with a higher gravity could be sold at any price the landlord wanted. That would change in 1919, when price controls were introduced for beer of any gravity.

I've read in several places that drinkers got used to the lighter beers and as a result cases of drunkenness had fallen. I can't imagine I would have thought that. A 2.5% ABV Government Ale would have been a poor substitute for a 5.5% ABV pre-war X Ale.

Publicans' profits again

Thanks to Edd Mather for sending me a fascinating document showing wholesale beer prices for May 1919.

It shows the prices agreed by regional brewers' associations for the various price-controlled classes, which at the time were 4d., 5d., 6d., 7d., and 8d. It's fascinating because there's considerable variation in the prices.

The problem with the system of price controls was that it only concerned retail prices, not wholesale ones. Brewers could, in theory, charge anything they liked. Though, obviously, they wouldn't want to bankrupt all their tenants.  Despite that, a publican's profit margin was wafer thin.

Some of the prices - the Birmingham non-discounted ones, for example, don't seem to leave anything for the publican. The wholesale price of 4d. beer varied between 68/- in Sussex and 95/- in Birmingham.

PRICES. MAY 31. 1919.
	Locality.	4d.	5d.	6d.	7d.	8d.
1	Berkshire	72/-	80/-	105/-	120/-
2	Bedfordshire	72/-	90/-	106/-
3	Burton (for Tied Trade)	77/5	97/3	115/3	126/-	144/-
4	Bucks,	72/-	90/-	102/100	126/-	144/-
5	Birmingham	95/-	-	135/-	155/-	175/-
	do.      Discount 20%	76/-		108/-	124/-	140/-
	do. 25%	71/3		101/3	116/3	131/3
6	Bristol mininum	69/-	87/-	104/-	120/-
7	Blackburn	70/-	-	116/-
8	Bolton	69/-	83/-	98/-	112/-
9	Bradford	72/-	90/-	108/-	126/-	144/-
10	Cambs.	74/-	86/-	108/-
10a.	Control Board Carlisle.	71/-	85/-
11	Gloster and Wilts	69/-	87/-	104/-	120/-	136/-
18	Halifax	72/-	90/-	108/-	126/-	144/-
15	Hants	74/-	92/-	112/-	130/-
14	Herts	72/-	90/-	108/-	126/-	144/-
10	Kent	72/-	88/-	106/-	124/-	150/-
16	Leicester (minimum gravities)		80/-	96/-	112/-
17	Liverpool	70/-	84/-	100/-	115/-
18	London	69/6	85/7	110/6	121/9
19	Lancs.	69/-	83/-	98/-	112/-
20	Manchester	69/-	83/-	98/-	112/-
21	Norfolk   (prices not unlfonr)	70/-	84/-		120/-	135/-
22	Northants.	72/-	84/-	96/-	108/-
23	Northumberland and Durham	72/-	84/-
24	Notts Maximum Discount 20%	72/-	84/-	104/-
25	Norwich	70/74	86/-	108/-
26	Newcastle	72/-	84/-	108/-	-
27	Oxford	72/-		108/-
28	Potteries	72/-	86/-	104/-	120/-	136/-
29	Preston.	70/-	84/-	99/-	117/-	132/-
30	South Wales minimum.	66/-	78/-	95/-	120/-	130/-
31	Shrewsbury	72/-	84/-	105/-	120/-
32	Surrey	72/-	90/-	108/-	130/-
33	Sussex,   also a 3d. at 56/-	68/-	82/-	102/-	118/-
34	Sheffield.	72/-	84/-	96/-	108/-
35	Wiltshire (Minimum)	69/-	87/-	104/-	120/-	136/-
36	Yorkshire do.	72/-	90/-	108/-	126/-	144/-
37	Younger W.	70/-	86/-	102/-	112/-
Average Price about		71/10	86/2	105/4	120/9	141/7

This table should make the marginws easier to see. I includes the cheapest and most expensive wholesale prices for each category:

retail price per pint	wholesale price per barrel	wholesale price per pint	mark up	% mark up
4d	68/-	2.83	1.17	29.17%
	95/-	3.96	0.04	1.04%
5d	78/-	3.25	1.75	35.00%
	92/-	3.83	1.17	23.33%
6d	96/-	4.00	2.00	33.33%
	112/-	4.67	1.33	22.22%
7d	108/-	4.50	2.50	35.71%
	155/-	6.46	0.54	7.74%
8d	130/-	5.42	2.58	32.29%
	175/-	7.29	0.71	8.85%

I can't see how a publican could survive if forced to pay the highest prices.

In case you weere wondering, these are the gravity bands for each price category:

Price control categories February to July 1919
price per pint	gravity range
3d	below 1022
4d	1023-1028
5d	1029-1034
6d	1035-1041
7d	1042-1049
8d	above 1050
Source:
“The British Brewing Industry 1830-1980” by T.R. Gourvish and R.G Wilson, 1994, Cambridge University Press, page 323.