These are the earliest analyses I have. Not quite the earliest hard data I have, as there are a couple of brewing records from the 1830s. Ones which I used to think came from Reid, one of the original big London Porter brewers, but which I now realise3 are miscatalogued in the archive. My best guess is that they come from Combe.
The great thing about the first set is that it gives the intended destination. So I know for certain that they were India-bound. The gravities are, for the 1840s, pretty modest. To put them into context, In 1844 Whitbread X Ale, their weakest Mild, had an OG of around 1075º. XXX, the strongest Mild, was 1099º. Making the IPAs, which are as low as 1054º look pretty weedy.
Referring back to my last post, where I was comparing the price of Porter and IPA, in 1849, Barclay Perkins India Porter had an OG of 1064º. Higher than the average of the IPAs sent to India.
What does stand out in the IPAs is the very high degree of attenuation, averaging over 85%. Which is extremely high for the period. Few beers managed more than 75%. It's no accident. The lack of fermentable material was one of the protections beer bound for India had. As Stock Ales, they underwent a Brettanomyces secondary fermentation before getting on the boat. That left almost nothing for any nasty bugs to eat.
| IPA exported to India in the 1840s | ||||||
| When brewed | Package | Price/hogshead (in shillings) | OG | FG | ABV | App. Atten-uation |
| Jan 1844 | Bottle | 90 | 1067.6 | 1007.8 | 7.6 | 88.54% |
| Not known. | Cask | 90 | 1066.3 | 1008.0 | 7.4 | 87.93% |
| Not known. | Cask | 84 | 1062.0 | 1010.0 | 6.6 | 83.86% |
| 1844 | Bottle | 60 | 1053.8 | 1006.5 | 6 | 87.91% |
| 1844 | Bottle | 60 | 1053.8 | 1005.0 | 6.2 | 90.71% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 60 | 1054.2 | 1013.0 | 5.2 | 76.00% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 90 | 1065.6 | 1012.0 | 6.8 | 81.69% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 95 | 1067.1 | 1007.3 | 7.6 | 89.20% |
| Feb 1845 | Bottle | 90 | 1068.5 | 1010.5 | 7.4 | 84.68% |
| 1844 | Bottle | 90 | 1070.1 | 1010.3 | 7.6 | 85.38% |
| Average | 80.9 | 1062.9 | 1009.0 | 6.8 | 85.59% | |
| Source: | ||||||
| “Scottish Ale Brewer”, by W.H. Roberts, Edinburgh, 1847, pages 171 and 173 | ||||||
The second general export set has an even lower average OG, at a shade under 1060º, but an even higher degree of attenuation at almost 90%. Though the average ABV is identical at 6.8%.
| IPA exported in the 1840s | ||||||
| When brewed | Package | Price/hogshead (in shillings) | OG | FG | ABV | App. Atten-uation |
| Dec. 1844 | Cask | 84 | 1060.4 | 1005.3 | 7 | 91.30% |
| Not known. | Cask | 95 | 1069.4 | 1008.0 | 7.8 | 88.48% |
| 1845 | Cask | 90 | 1062.7 | 1012.3 | 6.4 | 80.45% |
| 1845 | Cask | 90 | 1064.2 | 1012.3 | 6.6 | 80.93% |
| 1845 | Cask | 90 | 1062.4 | 1012.0 | 6.4 | 80.77% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 90 | 1068.9 | 1007.5 | 7.8 | 89.12% |
| Jan 1846 | Cask | 90 | 1054.8 | 1006.0 | 6.2 | 89.06% |
| Mar 1846 | Bottle | 90 | 1052.3 | 1005.0 | 6 | 90.43% |
| Jan 1846 | Bottle | 65 | 1062.0 | 1005.3 | 7.2 | 91.53% |
| April 1845 | Bottle | 60 | 1048.4 | 1004.3 | 5.6 | 91.21% |
| 1845 | Cask | 60 | 1048.4 | 1004.3 | 5.6 | 91.21% |
| 1845 | Cask | 63 | 1049.6 | 1005.5 | 5.6 | 88.91% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 81 | 1061.3 | 1003.0 | 7.4 | 95.10% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 81 | 1058.4 | 1003.3 | 7 | 94.43% |
| April 1845 | Bottle | 81 | 1058.9 | 1003.8 | 7 | 93.63% |
| April 1845 | Bottle | 63 | 1055.2 | 1003.3 | 6.6 | 94.11% |
| Not known. | Bottle | 66 | 1054.4 | 1004.0 | 6.4 | 92.65% |
| 1845 | Cask | 90 | 1068.9 | 1007.5 | 7.8 | 89.12% |
| 1844 | Bottle | 90 | 1067.3 | 1009.0 | 7.4 | 86.62% |
| 1845 | Cask | 90 | 1069.2 | 1007.8 | 7.8 | 88.80% |
| Average | 80.5 | 1059.8 | 1006.5 | 6.8 | 89.39% | |
| Source: | ||||||
| “Scottish Ale Brewer”, by W.H. Roberts, Edinburgh, 1847, pages 171 and 173 | ||||||
Do you know what effect long transport might have had?
ReplyDeleteI've occasionally read that the constant motion of a ship at sea would rouse the yeast and cause more attenuation, but I'm a bit skeptical that it would matter to a beer already aged with Brett over the long run.
I also wonder if there might have been more oxygen getting into barrels loaded on a ship that was pitching and yawing all of the time. I don't have a good sense of how careful they were about keeping barrels from leaking air, although I also don't have a good sense whether that mattered compared to the way they were stored in warehouses.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteuncontrolled fermentation in the casks due to the effect of the voyage is why they fermented it out as far as possible before loading and deliberately flattened the beer.