Singapore swinging

“Again? You’re going to Singapore again?”

“Yes, Dolores. I told you.”

“Did you? But you were there just a few weeks ago. Why are you going again?”

“To judge.”

“Oh. And how much is that costing us?”

“Not too much.”

“That’s what you always say.”

Dolores was impressed with me returning to Singapore so soon. But she’s given up trying to make me see reason.

No Dolores to say goodbye to me this time She left for Germany this morning. And Alexei is only just back from work when I leave.

Schiphol isn't too busy. In no time I'm in the lounge loading up with whisky. Once I've downed the first brace, I go for some food. I was expecting rendang again. But this time they have butter chicken Which is really nice.

When I've eaten that, I get myself another brace of whiskies. For food round 2 I it’s cheese and pastrami. And another pair of whiskies. I need to get in my ration of those. I wouldn’t want to be flying completely sober. Not with my age and reputation.

Am I slowing down as I get older? Of course I fucking am. None of us can defy the march of time. Which inevitably tramps all over all of us, sooner or later.

I wander down to the gate a little after 8 PM. And don't have to wait long before boarding. Thankfully. I hate hanging around at the gate. Especially when I could have spent that time stuffing myself with food and booze for free in the lounge.

An hour or so after take-off they serve a meal. I opt for the chicken. Though I don't eat much of it. A few mouthfuls. I do eat all the fruit, mind. Being such a healthy bastard.

I start watching Thenderbolts, but keep dozing off. I’m still not sure what it was on about. Some superheroes doing shit for some reason or other.

Not long after dinner, the bloke sitting next to me has a chat with one of the cabin crew. Then he and his wife just disappear. Have they upgraded? I can't imagine they've moved elsewhere in economy, as they said the flight was full. I'm not complaining, as I've room to lie down.

I get a pretty decent kip. Waking up about 2.5 hours out from Singapore. And watch some TV. Just total crap. My brain isn’t in the mood for anything complex. Like a genuine plot. Just feed me some pap with a spoon.

Breakfast isn't very appetising. I only eat the fruit. And drink a coffee and an orange juice.

The arrival gate isn’t quite in Malaysia this time. It’s not so far to immigration and baggage retrieval. My bag comes out pretty quickly. Soon I'm speeding towards my hotel in a taxi.

I've a couple of hours before the welcome dinner. Which I kill with some internet fiddling and duty-free whisky. It’s a pretty nice hotel with a decent-sized room.

At 18:30, we take a bus to the venue. Which is a rooftop restaurant in a small hotel. With stunning views of the city. There’s just the one downside: no bogs. You have to go down to the ground floor for toileting purposes. Which is a bit inconvenient. Especially for oldies like me.

There are a couple of judges I've met before. Like Kjetil Jikiun, a Norwegian bloke I judged with in Balneário Camboriú in Brazil in March. It’s a very international group. Lots from Asia, unsurprisingly. A good spread of ages, too. Most of the Asian judges are quite young. Not so much the Europeans. Some of whom are even older than me.

I have fun telling people how Charles Guerrier, this competition’s organiser, broke my arm in Brazil last year. When his legs stopped working after a day drinking cachaca. Luckily, I was pissed as well, which helped numb the pain.

There are a few beers on draught. Including Lion Brewery Boss IPA. Which is really nice. Better than in the brewery a few weeks back. Maybe the view is making it taste better.

The food is various meat bits. Which are quite pleasant. I’m not sure which meal my body thinks it is. Almost certainly not dinner. Just as well that it isn’t too heavy.

I go straight back to my room when we get back to the hotel. I'm not tempted to carry on in the bar, as some judges do. I need to get my body in sync with the time zone. Otherwise, the next few days will be a nightmare.

Just time for a quick eye-closer of whisky. I have no problem falling asleep.



Jayleen 1918 Hotel
42 Carpenter St, 
Singapore 059921
https://www.jayleen1918.com.sg/ 

Illicit Brewing

After 1880, the rules on domestic brewing changed. The most notable being that such brewers were obliged to take out a licence, something which hadn't been required before.

These rules covered both farmers brewing for their employees and those just home brewing for themselves. These rules remained in place until the 1960s. And, while you might have expected such rules to kill off home brewing, it did, in fact, survive. With licences being issued right up until the end.

You can see in the table that, in 1900, 12,734 licences for brewing beer "not for sale" were issued. Which were for those brewing as the gentleman in the article below. Note that it was only during WW I that commercial licences became the majority.

Total brewing licences 1881 - 1920
Year	not for sale		for sale		total
	number	%	number	%
1881	71,876	81.1%	16,798	18.9%	88,674
1882	110,025	87.5%	15,774	12.5%	125,799
1885	88,007	86.4%	13,799	13.6%	101,806
1886	95,301	87.7%	13,308	12.3%	108,609
1890	25,281	69.0%	11,364	31.0%	36,645
1895	17,041	65.3%	9,050	34.7%	26,091
1900	12,734	66.4%	6,447	33.6%	19,181
1905	9,930	65.2%	5,311	34.8%	15,241
1908	8,481	63.8%	4,808	36.2%	13,289
1909	7,568	61.9%	4,667	38.1%	12,235
1910	7,006	60.8%	4,512	39.2%	11,518
1911	6,855	61.3%	4,329	38.7%	11,184
1915	4,741	57.1%	3,556	42.9%	8,297
1917	5,217	61.8%	3,223	38.2%	8,440
1918	1,602	33.7%	3,148	66.3%	4,750
1919	1,879	38.1%	3,054	61.9%	4,933
1920	2,999	50.7%	2,914	49.3%	5,913
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 157.
Brewers' Almanack 1922, page 117.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 118.

 

Illicit Brewing.
At the Sampford Petty Sessions, held on the 22nd ult, John Salmon Goodchild, of the Manor Farm, East Bergholt, was charged with brewing beer without having in force a proper licence, and whereby he forfeited the sum of £100.

Mr. S. McLean, supervisor of the Inland Revenue, Colchester, prosecuted, and said defendant resided at East Bergholt in a house assessed at £16 a year, and by reason of this he was not only liable for a licence, but also for duty. He also had a cottage about a quarter of a mile away from the house, of £2 annual value, and in this cottage he had a brewing plant. The beer was brewed and conveyed to the farmhouse.

William Shinn, Officer of the Inland Revenue, Manningtree, said that on April 6th he visited a cottage in the occupation of defendant at East Bergholt, and found him brewing three bushels of malt. He saw two coppers, one about 27 gallons, the other about nine, a barrel of about 36 gallons, and three tubs, each about 27 gallons, one full of wort. Defendant told witness he thought he had a right to brew there because he occupied the house with his brewing utensils, and a solicitor had told him that he might do so. He also said that he would sleep there one night in twelve, and comply with the law with regard to occupation. He added that he knew he was liable if he brewed at the farmhouse, so he bought the cottage and placed the coppers there.

 Continuing, witness said that supposing defendant should prove that his father occupied the farmhouse, he would still be liable for beer duty and licence as a lodger, but he admitted that he was the occupier of the house.

Mr. McLean said that the probable loss of revenue since defendant had been brewing was about £8.

Defendant said Mr. Shinn's evidence was perfectly correct, and he did not wish to cross-examine him. It was a well-known fact that he brewed at the cottage, but it had never been pointed out to him by the authorities that he was liable, and he did not know that he was. After this, of course, he should take out a licence.

The Chairman said that it was the opinion of the Bench that it was defendant’s duty to have found out his liability. There was very little doubt that he had been evading the law for some considerable time, and he would be fined £10, including costs, and in default one month’s imprisonment.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, June 15th 1900, page 362.

I think the reason that they were going on about the rateable value of the premises where ebrewing took place was on account of the exact rules. T relieve agricultural workers of the need tro get a licence to homebrew, there was an exemption from the licence requirement for those residing in property of under a certain rateable value. 

Which is why Mr. Goodchild bough a cottage and brewer there. Except that didn't count, as he really resided at the more valuable farmhouse. 

Thomas Usher brews December 1900 to February 1901

My technique varies when photographing brewing records. Sometimes I'll skip through looking for specific beers. While when they're in Scottish format (multiple beers per page), I'll sometimes do long blocks where I'll photograph every page. Especially if I have time.

Which is what I did with the Thomas Usher records for around 1900. Leaving me with several consecutive months where I have every beer photographed. Giving me a decent picture of what they were brewing and how much of it. Like for the three months December 1900 to February 1901. And, as I'm wont to do, I've stuck the information into a handy table.

It was a fairly wide range. Twelve different beers in all. Five Shilling Ales, an IPA, four Pale Ales, a Stock Ale and A Stout. Though the quantity brewed of each varied widely. A massive 82% of the total brewed was in the form of Pale Ales (including IPA). With just 12% Shilling Ales and a mere 4% Stout.

At Whitbread in London, things looked very different. Their output was about 18% Pale Ale, 46% Mild Ale, 33% Porter and Stout, and only about 2% Burton Ale.

What does this tell us? That at Usher the transition had already been made to being basically a Pale Ale brewer. Something which become complete after WW I, when Pale Ale was all they brewed. Scotland was out of phase with England in terms of beer styles. Mild Ale never dominated, as it did in England for 100 years or more. There was a much earlier switch to Pale Ale. And, in the 20th century, a much earlier change to Lager. 

You could say that Scotland was blazing a trail that England would later follow. And what about Ireland? That's a totally different story. 

Thomas Usher brews December 1900 to February 1901
Beer	Style	No. brews	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	barrels	%
100/-	Ale	12	1065.6	1027.4	5.05	58.17%	5.08	1.82	338.5	2.75%
50/- Br	Ale	9	1032	1009.3	3.00	70.83%	6.22	1.00	233	1.89%
60/-	Ale	10	1040	1015.6	3.23	61.00%	5.1	0.90	246	2.00%
60/- Br	Ale	8	1035.3	1010	3.34	71.62%	6.25	1.13	205.5	1.67%
80/-	Ale	11	1050	1017.1	4.35	65.73%	5.09	1.13	479.5	3.89%
IP	IPA	22	1043.4	1013.3	3.99	69.43%	6.59	1.42	2781.5	22.57%
X	Pale Ale	24	1046	1014.2	4.21	69.17%	6.71	1.54	2564	20.80%
PA	Pale Ale	21	1049	1015	4.49	69.31%	7	1.67	3089	25.06%
X 60/-	Pale Ale	3	1052	1015.7	4.81	69.87%	7	1.83	130	1.05%
PA 60/-	Pale Ale	11	1055	1015.9	5.18	71.16%	7	1.78	1567.5	12.72%
XX	Stock Ale	1	1052	1015	4.89	71.15%	10	2.57	171	1.39%
Stout	Stout	8	1057.9	1026.9	4.10	53.57%	5	1.47	519.5	4.22%
Total		140							12,325
Source:
Thomas Usher brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archives, document number TU/6/1/3.

 

 

Let's Brew - 1885 Thomas Usher XX Stock

Usher also brewed a slightly stronger Stock Ale, XX. A beer at the same gravity as PA, 1054º.

Not much to say about the recipe, as this was parti-gyled with the X Stock above. What more can I say? 

Both X Stock and XX Stock are a bit on the weak side to be Stock Ales. Usually, beers meant for ageing would be at least 1060º.

How long would this have been aged? Probably six months to a year. I don’t think any longer than that. 

1885 Thomas Usher XX Stock
pale malt	12.50 lb	100.00%
Strisselspalt 90 min	3.25 oz
Hallertau 30 min	3.25 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1054
FG	1015
ABV	5.16
Apparent attenuation	72.22%
IBU	69
SRM	5
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	58.5º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

Brewing in Rhodesia

One of the features of the Brewers' Journal that I really appreciate are the articles on brewing in random parts of the world. Quite often, but not always, parts of the British Empire.

Here it's the turn of Rhodesia, current day Zimbabwe. Where the brewers had a bit of a problem. They'd run out of imported malt. What was the solution? To malt a local grain and use that instead.

Brewing in Rhodesia.
(From the Bulawayo Chronicle').
It goes without saying that a considerable section of the inhabitants of this town — it is not necessary to assert a large section — is aware of the fact that it has for some time past been without its regular quantum of local beer or stout, as the case may be. The reason for this is simply that the supply of malt, which is imported from England, has run out, and in consequence, to quote a distinguished legal luminary, people have been unable to obtain “a liquor which is almost non-intoxicating but, I am advised, most nourishing.”

Owing first to the customs duties, and secondly to the war, the cost of imported beers has appreciated about 150 Per cent., and therefore the failure of the local article has been the more felt. With the idea of meeting this distressing condition of affairs, it occurred to Mr. C. H. Newberry, of the Charter Brewery, who may be remembered as one of the earliest assayers up here, to endeavour to meet the emergency by manufacturing a malt from local products, which should serve as a substitute for the imported article. Accordingly experiments have recently been made, at the Charter Brewery, which seem to have attained a sufficient measure of success to warrant the expectation that the difficulty will be overcome and the town once more supplied with local beer and stout which shall be at once both palatable and pleasant. A quantity of Kaffir corn of the finest quality was first taken in hand. This went through the process of being turned into malt, and from it was manufactured a considerable quantity of both beer and stout. That there were considerable initial difficulties to be overcome will be easily understood, but nevertheless the resultant products, though somewhat different in appearance to what we have been accustomed to, sold out very readily, and.brought orders for more. Encouraged by the success of the first trial, the Charter Brewery are now proceeding with further brews, but this time are utilising white mealies of the finest description procurable to make the malt. Those who are acquainted with the rudiments of the science of brewing will probably admit there is no a priori reason why malt of first-class quality cannot be made from good mealies, and granted this, it follows that with careful vigilance exercised over the subsequent processes, a very palatable product in the shape of both beer and stout can be manufactured. At any rate the company seem to be on the right track to supply the town with a good beverage at a reasonable price, and everyone will wish them success in their efforts. The results of further experiments will be awaited with interest.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, May 15th 1900, page 281.

What is Kaffir corn? According to the internet, it's another name for sorghum. Which I know has been used for brewing elsewhere in Africa. For example, Nigerian Guinness.  So it's no surprise that they were able to use it successfully in Bulawayo.

I only have one question: what were they using for hops? I'm guessing that they must have still had supplies of hops. Or did they use another bittering agent? 

Priming with lactose

This is a rather strange one. Just about the time that Milk Stout was being invented, someone proposed a different use for lactose: in priming.

This use was proposed by a Mr. J. Melhuish.\

Priming for Malt Liquors.
The object of the inventor is to produce a priming for malt liquors which will not lose its characteristic flavour in course of such time as the beer is proposed to be kept in stock. In ordinary practice the cane or invert sugar, or glucose employed, speedily loses its sweetening power and becomes changed into other products, thus rendering it impossible to say exactly what degree of sweetness may remain at any given time after brewing is completed, say for instance three months. To obviate this uncertainty the inventor, Mr. J. Melhuish, lecturer on dietetics. Glasgow, instead of using sugar or glucose, employs as priming agent, lactose, or milk sugar, the quantity recommended being eight pounds dissolved in its own weight of boiling water, to each barrel. It is stated to be permanent in character, and not to deteriorate in regard to flavour except by the agency of lactic ferments, which have already been destroyed during the fermentation of the beer.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 45 1909, March 15th 1909, page 185.

To me, it makes absolutely no sense. Anf implies that Mr. Melhuish didn't really understand the purpose of priming. He seems to have assumed that it was intended to add a permanent degree of sweetness. Which, obviously, would work better with unfermentable lactose than with derivations of sucrose. Whereas, in reality, the principal function of primings was to add fermentable material to bring the beer into condition in the cask.

Mr. Melhuish also made the assumption that no yeast could ferment lactose. But that's not true. Some types of Brettanomyces can. If you left a beerr for several months, then a Brettanomyces could kick in and alter the flavour profile, anyway.

Overall, it sounds like a crap idea. Which is probably why it never became popular. Though I can think of an example of its use: at Whitbread. In the 1930s, when they brewed Mackeson Milk Stout, they didn't add the lactose in the boil but at racking time as prinings.
 

Let's Brew Wednesday -'1885 Thomas Usher X

Usually, when you see a beer called X, you can be pretty sure that it’s a Mild Ale. But that’s not the case here. For a variety of reasons. The main one being that it was parti-gyled with a Pale Ale.

True, in terms of gravity, it is very similar to a provincial English X Ale of the time. But the bitterness level is much higher. So I’m really unsure as to what this beer was sold as. Especially as their Shillings Ales seem to be filling the Mild Ale slots. Though Mild Ales never seems to have had the same foothold in Scotland as it did in England. And would pretty much disappear after WW I.

My conclusion is that X was a Pale Ale, slotting into the range between IPA and PA.

There’s not a great deal to the recipe. Just a single type of Scottish pale malt. The hops are a guess, based on what was used in other brews on the same page. Which were equal amounts of Californian and Alsace hops. 

1885 Thomas Usher X
pale malt	11.50 lb	100.00%
Cluster 90 min	2.00 oz
Strisselspalt 30 min	2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1050
FG	1017
ABV	4.37
Apparent attenuation	66.00%
IBU	58
SRM	4.5
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

Thomas Usher beers in 1914

As promised, here's a over-detailed look at Thomas Usher's beers on the eve of WW I. And see how much, if at all, they have changed since 1894.

The most obvious change is the number of beers. Seventeen compared with just 12 back in 1894. A lot of this is accounted for by the range of Shilling Mild Ales. Which are five in total, ranging in gravity from 1029º to 1065º. Though the 60/-, 80/- and 100/- probably did exist in 1894, just without the MA suffix. 

The two weakest – 40/- MA and 50/- MA – do seem to be new beers. With gravities, 1032º and 1035º, which were pathetically weak for pre-WW I beers.

I’ve still no idea what the “Br” suffix means. There’s been a new, extremely weak beer added to the set: 40/- Br.  Its gravity of just 1029º is at a level only really seen in Table Beer.

There’s also a new 40/- PA with the extremely low gravity of 1029º. Which is truly ridiculous for a pre-WW I Pale Ale.

All the beers have lost 1º or 2º in gravity in the intervening two decades. Which is pretty standard across all breweries. And a reaction to the increase in taxation after 1900.

There are still two Stouts, though one is now a good bit weaker at 1046º. Which is pretty low for a Stout. Weaker even than most Porter.

They’re up to five Pale Ales and an IPA. Which is an indication of how the market was going in Scotland. I’m sure it’s no coincidence that there was a difference in 3º between each of them: 1042º, 1045º, 1048º, 1051º and 1054º. Other than the feeble 40/- PA. I can’t imagine that there was any pub that sold the whole set. More likely just a couple of them.

XP is a weird one. I’ve only one example of it, from 1913. XP was used by other brewers, such as William Younger. But there it was an IPA of about 1055º. Whereas here it’s clearly some sort of Strong Ale. Though it was parti-gyled with a couple of Pale Ales. 

Thomas Usher beers in 1914
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
24th Dec	40/- Br	Ale	1029	1010	2.51	65.52%	6.00	0.72
24th Dec	50/- Br	Ale	1032	1010	2.91	68.75%	6.00	0.80
17th Dec	60/- Br	Ale	1033	1010	3.04	69.70%	6.00	0.82
26th Aug	44/- MA	Mild	1032	1012.5	2.58	60.94%	5.00	0.69
26th Aug	50/- MA	Mild	1035	1013	2.91	62.86%	5.00	0.75
24th Dec	60/- MA	Mild	1039	1016	3.04	58.97%	5.00	0.84
24th Dec	80/- MA	Mild	1047	1018	3.84	61.70%	5.00	1.01
26th Aug	100/- MA	Mild	1065	1027	5.03	58.46%	5.00	1.40
24th Aug	X	Pale Ale	1045	1013	4.23	71.11%	7.25	1.35
20th Aug	X 60/-	Pale Ale	1051	1013.5	4.96	73.53%	7.25	1.52
26th Aug	IP	IPA	1042	1013	3.84	69.05%	6.00	1.04
24th Aug	40/- PA	Pale Ale	1029	1009	2.65	68.97%	7.25	0.87
24th Aug	PA	Pale Ale	1048	1014	4.50	70.83%	7.25	1.44
21st Dec	PA 60/-	Pale Ale	1054	1016	5.03	70.37%	6.00	1.28
25th Aug	48/-	Stout	1046	1021	3.31	54.35%	5.00	1.04
25th Aug	54/-	Stout	1056	1025	4.10	55.36%	5.00	1.27
25th Sep	XP	Strong Ale	1085	1027	7.67	68.24%	7.00	2.46
Source:
Thomas Usher brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archives, document number TU/6/1/5.

 

Binnie hops 1903 - 1905

I'm almost done with Binnie's beers. Well, until I start writing recipes. I hope you've enjoyed this series. I certainly have. Mostly as I need to build up some posts to cover my next overseas jaunt. Maybe I'll pull the same trick with Thomas Usher. That would get me through until October. By which time I'm sure I'll have lots of new material.

For example, the fascinating material in the letters between J. C. Jacobsen and his son Carl. In particular, the details about Younger and Bass IPA. And the rather condescending way they wrote about William Younger, where Carl was an apprentice.

Finally, let’s consider the hops. Most beers contained at least two types. And many three types.

Most common types were Kent, Bavarian and Californian.  With a single example each of Sussex and Betd. Not sure what the latter one was. Those first three types seem to have been pretty common amongst Scottish brewers. For example, at Thomas Usher.

Note the heavy use of spent hops. Mostly in conjunction with fresh hops. Other than in the Table Beer, which was exclusively spent hops. It’s not unusual to see spent hops in certain types of beer. But not in Pale Ales. Where normally only the best hops were used.

Binnie hops 1903 - 1905
Beer	Style	hop 1	hop 2	hop 3	hop 4
TB	Table Beer	spent
80/-	Ale	Kent	Bavarian	California	spent
100/-	Ale	Kent	Bavarian	spent
140/- Ale	Ale	Kent	Bavarian	California
BB	Pale Ale	Kent	American	Bavarian
Ex B	Pale Ale	Kent	California	spent
54/- IPA	IPA	Sussex	Bavarian	California	spent
60/- IPA	IPA	Kent	Bavarian	California
XXX Porter	Porter	Bavarian	Kent	Betd.
DBS	Stout	Kent	Bavarian	California	spent
Source:
Binnie brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archives, document number BH/6/1/1/1.

 

Let's Brew - 1885 Thomas Usher 100/-

The strongest of Usher’s range of Shilling Ales was 100/-. A beer which very much looks like a strong Scotch Ale.

This particular example was a member of the parti-gyle which included the 80/- above. Not much to discuss about the recipe, them. Other than to remark that the black malt was added in the copper rather than the mash tun. Which is interesting. Barclay Perkins would add some of the black malt used in their Stouts to the copper, but not all of it.

Despite the strength, I don’t think that this was aged at all. Mostly based on the low level of hopping, which isn’t enough to form protection during ageing. 

1885 Thomas Usher 100/-
pale malt	15.25 lb	89.44%
black malt	0.30 lb	1.76%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.50 lb	8.80%
Cluster 120 min	1.50 oz
Strisselspalt 30 min	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1078
FG	1032
ABV	6.09
Apparent attenuation	58.97%
IBU	25
SRM	17
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale