Let's Brew - 1904 Tetley K

I’m pretty convinced now that this is a type of Pale Ale. Specifically, a Light Bitter. It does, after all, have the classic 1045º

There have been a couple of changes to K since 1888. For a start, it’s lost 4º of gravity. Which is sort of what you would expect. There was a general downward trend in gravities in this period.

The grist has also changed, moving away all malt by including some No. 2 invert sugar. Though the malts remain a combination of pale and mild malt.

For a Pale ale, the hopping rate was relatively light, at 7.75 lbs per quarter (336 lbs). Which was slightly less than the strongest Mild Ales, X3 and XX.

As for the hops, they were all English. Worcester from the 1902 harvest and Kent from 1902 and 1903. 

1904 Tetley K
pale malt	5.25 lb	55.26%
mild malt	3.00 lb	31.58%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.25 lb	13.16%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1045
FG	1008
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	82.22%
IBU	38
SRM	7
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

UK hop acreage 1900 - 1902

In the four decades running uop to WW I there was a steep decline in the area devoted to growing hops. Falling from 60,594 acres in 1870 to 38,661 acres in 1914. Which is one of the reasons the UK was so dependent on imported hops.

At the start of the 20th century, hops were only grown in nine counties in the UK. Though in three of those - Gloucester, Salop and Suffolk - the area dedicated to hops was tiny. Just as today, most hops were grown in Kent. The county accounted for over 60% of the acreage. Far behind in second place was Herefordshire with just 14%. Followed, rather surprisingly, by Sussex with a tad under 10%. With Worcester in fourth place on almost 8%.

I'm surprised at how many hops were being grown Hampshire. Are there any still grown there today? I'm also shocked by how few were grown in Worcester. As they turn up regularly in brewing records. Yet you never see Hereford hops. I think what was happening was that the two were lumped together and called Worcester. 

UK hop acreage 1900 - 1902
Counties	1900		1901		1902
	Acres	%	Acres	%	Acres	%
Gloucester	47	0.09%	46	0.09%	46	0.10%
Hants	2,231	4.35%	2,133	4.17%	2,003	4.17%
Hereford	7,287	14.20%	7,497	14.66%	6,908	14.38%
Kent	31,514	61.42%	31,242	61.11%	29,649	61.74%
Salop	138	0.27%	144	0.28%	125	0.26%
Suffolk	4	0.01%	4	0.01%	4	0.01%
Surrey	1,300	2.53%	1,232	2.41%	969	2.02%
Sussex	4,823	9.40%	4,800	9.39%	4,541	9.46%
Worcester	3,964	7.73%	4,029	7.88%	3,779	7.87%
Total	51,308	100.00%	51,127	100.00%	48,024	100.00%
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, September 15th 1902, page 519.

UK beer imports in 1902

Well, for the first half of 1902. Long enough to give some idea of the source and quantity of beer imports.

The quantity of beer being imported compared to the quantities of beer being brewed and consumed in the UK. Imports accounted for only about 1.5% of UK beer consumption. And, when we look at the sources of imports, that imported beer seems to have been almost exclusively Lager. Which makes sense. The UK waas perfectly capable of brewing its own Pale Ale and Stout.

I was quite surprised at the biggest source of imports: The Netherlands. It was the origin of more than 50% of the beer coming into the UK. That's not what I would have expected. Which would have been Germany and Austria. Germany does come second, but Austria is nowhere to be seen. Which implies that no Pilsner Urquell was being imported into the UK. The first Lager imported into the UK in the 1860s mostly came from Austria. Which makes it even odder none was coming from there in 1902.

Though beer was coming from some weird places. Such as the USA and Japan. It seems really weird to ship beer all the way from Japan to Europe. No wonder that was some of the most expensive at 60 shillings per barrel. Sweden, Denmark and Norway make more sense, as all were locations for early Lager brewing.

To put the prices into context, standard Mild Ale cost 36 shillings per barrel. There's a large variation in average price, from 38 shillings to 133 shillings. Only the beer from the Channel Islands is around the same price as UK domestically-brewed beer.

UK beer imports in 1902
Country	Quantity				Value
	Jan. to June		July		Jan. to June.	July
	Barrels	average price	Barrels	average price	£	£
Sweden	96	57.08	15	69.33	274	52
Norway	198	88.38	45	91.11	875	205
Denmark	1,976	69.17	510	71.18	6,834	1,815
Germany	8,566	55.78	2,406	57.56	23,892	6,924
Holland	13,456	53.21	4,666	47.28	35,798	11,030
Belgium	865	43.21	462	47.10	1,869	1,088
Channel Islands	54	38.52	2	40.00	104	4
United States	31	133.55	4	50.00	207	10
Canada	-		10	96.00	-	48
Japan	4	60.00	-		12	-
France	-		2	20.00	-	2
Total	25,256	55.36	8,112	52.10	69,913	21,130
			33,368			91,043
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, August 15th 1902, page 496.

 

UK beer imports 1903 - 1914
year	barrels	year	barrels
1903	55,560	1909	54,374
1904	52,059	1910	50,927
1905	51,944	1911	53,541
1906	54,664	1912	64,706
1907	57,574	1913	64,346
1908	53,395	1914	74,205
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 154.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 115.
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 51.

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1904 Tetley X

At this point, Tetley had two parallel sets of Mild Ales. The standard ones and ones with the suffix “Pale”. This is one of the former.

You might have expected this to be similar to the pale version, just with more caramel. But it isn’t. The grist is, in reality, rather different. For a start, around a third of it consists of grits. Something totally absent from the pale version. It seems to substitute for a good chunk of the mild malt.

The sugar is different, too. “M. Brazilian” rather than the “RC(3)” in the pale. I’ve interpreted it as being a type of raw cane sugar. There’s also rather more caramel in this version.

There’s just a single type of Kent hops. I’ve guessed Fuggles. Which seems fair enough for a Mild. At a lower hopping rate than for Pale: 4.25 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt compared to 5.75 lbs.

1904 Tetley X
pale malt	2.50 lb	31.33%
mild malt	1.50 lb	18.80%
grits	2.67 lb	33.46%
brown sugar	1.25 lb	15.66%
Caramel 1000 SRM	0.06 lb	0.75%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1039
FG	1009
ABV	3.97
Apparent attenuation	76.92%
IBU	19
SRM	12
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

 

Reminding you of my books

 Just a reminder of some of the excellent books I have for sale.

First, there's my latest on UK brewing in the 1970s, which includes over 100 recipes, including such classic keg beers as Watney's Red, Whitbread Trophy, Whitbread Tankard and Drybrough Heavy.

 

Then there's my wonderful monograph tracing the history of London Stout from its 18th-century origins through to the 1970s. It includes 277 historic London Stout recipes.

   

My book "Blitzkrieg!" on brewing in WW II is so detailed that it spreads to two volumes. The second volume containing 553 wartime recipes, including some from Heineken.

 

Then there are two volumes of travel reports. Books so popular they have single-digit sales. 

 

My little book on Berlinet Weisse is easily the best work on the topic in English. And includes 19 historic recipes. 

 

Another of my many beery obsessions is covered in "AK!", a detailed look at the classic style of Light Bitter. As you would expect, it comes with a couple of dozen historic recipes

   

"Strong!" is part of my series on UK beer styles. Volume 2 contains the recipes, of which there are 135. Volumes 1 and 2 contains both the general history text and recipes.

 

And finally, another little monograph about IPA during WW II. Includes 31 historic recipes.

Non-Alcoholic Beer

One of the topics I love banging on about is how rarely anything genuinely new appears in the world of beer. So you can imagine how delighted I was to come across an old reference to alcohol-free beer.

The process being used was to brew an alcoholic beer and then remove most of the alcohol through evaporation.

Non-Alcoholic Beer.
The process of reducing the percentage of alcohol in beer, to the limit of one per cent, of proof spirit, followed by cold storage, filtration and carbonation of beer, is very interesting, the ordinary vacuum pan being of very little service. Alcohol no doubt is sufficiently volatile, but to ensure expulsion the fluid undergoing ebullition in the vacuum pan must be constantly circulated and sprayed at a temperature of 125 deg. F., for under normal circumstances “bready” flavour comes into existence, the period of treatment being altogether excessive. We have found it absolutely necessary to complete evaporation in one hour, and this is alone possible so long as the contents of vacuum pan exist in sheet form, a neat engineering achievement. With this proviso, the process can be carried to a very successful issue, the carbonated beverage being brilliant, sparkling, and non-alcoholic. The opening for genuine, non-alcoholic beer of the kind does not exist in England, but in Mass., U.S.A., the price secured for the article is a gratifying recompense for the trouble taken.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, July 15th 1902, page 434.

Though note that this technique was being used in the USA, not in the UK. From the last sentence it sounds like back then, just as today, non-alcoholic beer was being sold for a similar price to the full-strength version.

Brewery Profits

Look, it's Sunday, I'm a bit drowsy from a big roast dinner and there's footy on the telly. A short post today. Mostly just a quote, too. Just like the glory days of this blog.

The figures below cover 1907 to 1913. A time when increased taxation - in particular pub licences - had put many brewers into financial difficulties. But that isn't reflected in these figures.

"The Statist" and Brewery Profits.
The Statist (Sept. 26, Oct. 3, 10, 1914) deals with the results for 1913 and the prospects of brewery companies, in continuation of previous years' statements. The prospects are put in a somewhat rosy light, but they were looked at before the beer duty was trebled in November. The Statist shows that for 1913 the average dividend earned by the companies it enumerates, on their ordinary shares, amounting to a nominal value of £29,518,000, was 9.10 per cent., while the average rate of dividend paid was 6.68 per cent. Putting these figures side by side with similar calculations made in previous years the following comparison is reached:

Brewery company dividends 1907 - 1913
	1907	1908	1911	1912	1913
Average dividend earned-per cent.	11.9	9.81	8.72	8.65	9.1
paid	6.71	6.25	-	6.17	6.68

The averages for 1913 are still well below those for 1907, although the aggregate consumption of beer in 1913 was considerably more. The reason of course  is not far to seek; it is to be found in the large increase of taxation since 1907 and latterly the higher cost of all brewing materials.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 215.

I wouldn't say that the 1913 averages were much lower than those of 1907. The percentage paid after tax is only smaller by a tiny amount.

A comparison of brewing adjuncts

I'm having so much fun researching the book I'm currently working on, "Free!". I'm at the happy phase where some sections are pretty much complete and I'm filling in blanks. Currently, it's the part on adjuncts that I'm polishing off. Hence this post.

Though I'm not going to post the book text. As I've said a few times recently I'm returning this blog to its roots. Of serving up bits of raw data before I cook them into finished book text.

We're going to compare three popular adjuncts: maize, rice and oats. And see which makes the most useful adjunct.

Of greatest importance is the starch content. Because that's what is converted into extract. You can see that is considerably higher in rice. Which is probably why, initially after 1880, rice was the most popular adjunct. Though, by 1900, most brewers had switched to cheaper maize.

Though maize also had a problem: the high oil content. Because of its horrible flavour, it needed to be removed before brewing.

"By the removal of the germ and husk the oil is almost taken away from the com. This oil is of a yellow colour, and on exposure to the atmosphere is liable to turn rancid; it has an unpleasant flavour, gives off a disagreeable odour, and is removed by special degenerating machines by means of revolving knives acting upon the germs and husks."
Thatcher, Frank, A Treatise of Practical Brewing and Malting (The Country Brewers' Gazette, London, 1907), page 257.

I'm surprised at how high the starch content of oats. Even higher than that of maize. Though the yield in extract was rather poor. Oats could be used to boost body due to their high content of albuminous matter. Around 10% oats in the grist filled out the body of Stouts nicely. 

A comparison of brewing adjuncts
	rice	maize	oats
Starch	79	55.1	56.1
Water	10.6	12.0	13.6
Oil	0.1	5.5	4.0
Cellulose..	0.2	13.2	1.0
Albuminoids	7.5	8.0	16.5
Carbohydrates ..	1.4	3.0	6.0
Ash	1.0	1.8	2.4
Loss	0.2	1.4	0.4
total	100	100	100
Source:
Thatcher, Frank, A Treatise of Practical Brewing and Malting (The Country Brewers' Gazette, London, 1907), pages 256 - 259.

Let's Brew - 1887 Truman (Burton) Light Bitter

Sometime between 1883 and 1887, Truman introduced a new type of Pale Ale, called LB. One which was quite different from their existing beers. I’m assuming it stood for Light Bitter. What else could it be?

What makes it different? Once again, it’s the hopping. Which is far lower than in the other Pale Ales. Just 5.25 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt. Compared to between 14.5 lbs and 20 lbs. Quite a big difference, then. Though its gravity is a little higher than that of P2.

The grist isn’t the same, either. As there’s some sugar as well as the pale malt. Not sure exactly what sort of sugar, as there’s no description in the brewing record. I’ve guessed No. 1 invert. Not exactly a daring guess.

Three types of hops: Californian and Kent from the 1885 harvest and Worcester from 1886. Just not all that many of them. Though it still comes out 42 (Calculated) IBU.

As a Light Bitter, this would have had no ageing. It would have been drunk within a couple of weeks of racking.

1887 Truman (Burton) Light Bitter
pale malt	12.75 lb	91.07%
No. 1 invert sugar	1.25 lb	8.93%
Cluster 180 mins	1.00 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1064
FG	1019
ABV	5.95
Apparent attenuation	70.31%
IBU	42
SRM	6.5
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	180 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	WLP013 London Ale (Worthington White Shield)

 

A weird parti-gyle

Keeping my blog true to its original purpose, here's another half-digested morsel from my research. Some of the really dull, monotonous research that I need to do. To be able to assemble all those really dull tables in my books.

That research was going through brewing records and extracting the information from it into a spreadsheet. Ingredients, gravities, fermentation temperatures. All the useful stuff. The result is as handy as the process obtaining it is tedious. Too tedious for me to recount here.

While I was doing that boring research, I did come across something unusual. A rather odd parti-gyle. Of a Pilsner and a Mild Ale.

Oh, it's William Younger we're talking about. Their Holyrood brewery, 1883. They were very early in the Lager game. Possibly because of the link with Carl Jacobsen, founder of Ny Carlsberg. He served an apprenticeship at Younger in the 1860s.

It's also odd that they should choose to parti-gyle this pair when almost everything else was being brewed single-gyle. There's nothing odd about the brew. It was mashed and boiled just like all their other beers. The only difference lay in the hops. Which were all Württemberg. While the other beers had a combination of Eat Kent, Hallertau, American and Californian.

The Pils and XXX are pretty much identical. Except the former wasn't dry hopped and was fermented much cooler: 41º F yo 52º F. Compared to 60º F to 70º F for XXX. And the fermentation took longer, 17 days compared to 10 for XXX. Was it fermented with Lager yeast? Yes. But only the Pils, not the XXX.

Interesting, eh?

Gallon Jars (with tap)

Now all that travel stuff is out of the way, I can get back to the roots of this blog. Regurgitating tidbits of my research. Rather that previewing bits of a new book based on that research. There's a big difference.

I'm currently trying to research Brown Ale.Which is a slippery eel of a beer style. Despite its relatively recent origins, I know frustratingly little about Brown Ale before WW I. Other than that it existed and wasn't very common.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the rest of this post. Which is about take-home formats. What are the options nowadays? Bottle, can, minikeg, polypin, growler.

It was pretty much the same in 1900. You buy bottled beer. Or send your kids with a jug to fetch draught beer from a pub (growler equivalent). Splash out on a cask (polypin). But what was the minikeg equivalent?  A gallon jar (with tap).

In 1901, this grocer's in Newmarket was selling beer for the home market in three formats:screwtop pint bottles, gallon jars with taps and casks up to 36 gallons.

An advert for G. F. Layng's in Newmarket Journal of Saturday 28 September 1901, page 1.

 The advert suggests "Try a Gallon Jar and test the Quality." Which, given it was the same price per gallon as in the larger casks, seems like a bargain.

The puzzle now is: what exactly was the beer inside the jar? Was is sparkling like bottled beer? Or was it cask beer run off bright? I suppose I'll never know.

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1883 Truman (Burton) P1 Export

Am I Done yet with Truman Pale Ales? We'll see. Top of the range coming up..

Here, we have a top-class Burton Pale Ale, which was directly competing with the Likes of Bass Pale Ale and Allsopp IPA. Though Truman, as Bass, didn’t specifically call it a Pale Ale. Don’t blame me for past brewers’ inconsistencies.

Slimmed down well describes the grist, which is nothing more than a single type of pale malt. I can’t tell you anything more about it as the description is a mere scribble. The handwriting of the brewers in Trumans Burton brewery was appalling. At least they wrote the numbers fairly clearly.

Thankfully, the Burton brewery didn’t use any weird codes when recording mashing details. Unlike at the London plant. Two mashes 153º and 158º F, followed by a sparge. For which they couldn’t be arsed to record the temperature of the water.

I’m a bit surprised that the (calculated) bitterness didn’t work out higher. It’s still a hefty amount of four different types of hops: Bavarian, American, Bohemian and something that looks like Vacha. It’s hard to tell with the terrible wring. I’m just glad the other three are legible. I guessed it was another Bohemian hop.

The bitterness would have had plenty of time to fade, with 12 months or so in trade casks before setting off for distant shores. As a Stock Pale Ale, Brettanomyces would have been its maturation chum.

1883 Truman (Burton) P1 Export
pale malt	16.00 lb	100.00%
Cluster 180 mins	2.50 oz
Hallertau 90 mins	2.50 oz
Saaz 60 mins	2.50 oz
Saaz 30 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.50 oz
OG	1069
FG	1008
ABV	8.07
Apparent attenuation	88.41%
IBU	123
SRM	5.5
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	180 minutes
pitching temp	54º F
Yeast	WLP013 London Ale (Worthington White Shield)

 

 

 

Brown Ale

Now I'm back from my travels, I've been getting stuck into some research. Specifically, research for my book "Free!" Aiming to fill a Brown-Ale-sized hole in my knowledge. 

Trawling through the newspaper archive, I immediately got a couple of promising hits. Bottled beers clearly called Brown Ale from the early 1900s. What's even better, one of them is an advert from Fullers. From 1909.

Why is that such a good thing? Because I have their brewing records from 1910. Meaning I can match up the beers on the advert with the relevant brewing records. And, hey presto, I have my earliest Brown Ale brewing record. My only one from before WW I.

Let's start with the Fullers ad.

Fullers advert in the Acton Gazette - Friday 16 July 1909, page 4.

 Brown Ale appears as both a draught beer and one sold in crates of four bottles. The former is unusual. Usually Brown Ale was exclusively a bottled beer.

Here's that advert in handy table form:

Fullers Advertisement from 1909
beer	price per barrel	price (per gallon)	price (per doz) pint	size
XK Bitter Pale Ale	48	16
AK Light Bitter Ale	38	12.67
X Amber Mild Ale	38	12.67
H Brown Ale	38	12.67
Double Stout	56	18.67
Single Stout	46	15.33
Porter	38	12.67
Pale Ale			2s 9d
India Pale Ale			3s 9d
Nourishing Stout			2s 9d
Oatmeal Stout			2s 9d
Extra Stout			3s 9d
Pale Ale			1s 4d	crate of 4 quarts
Brown Ale			1s 4d	crate of 4 quarts
Stout			1s 4d	crate of 4 quarts
India Pale Ale			1s 10d	crate of 4 quarts
Extra Stout			1s 10d	crate of 4 quarts
Source:
Acton Gazette - Friday 16 July 1909, page 4.

And here are the beers from the brewing record.

Fullers beers in 1910
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
X	Mild	1052.6	1014.7	5.01	72.08%	5.17	1.21
AK	Pale Ale	1044.9	1008.3	4.84	81.48%	7.29	1.43
PA	Pale Ale	1054.2	1012.2	5.55	77.49%	8.92	2.15
P	Porter	1048.6	1011.9	4.85	75.47%	6.64	1.28
BS	Stout	1069.5	1019.9	6.56	71.30%	6.64	1.84
BO	Strong Ale	1074.9	1024.4	6.68	67.44%	9.84	3.05
Source:
Fullers brewing record held at the brewery.

A couple of notes on the draught beers. XK from the advert is obviously PA in the brewing record. And both X and H must be derived from X in the brewing record. With H just being X coloured up darker at racking time.

And where does Single Stout come from? There's just Porter and one Stout in the brewing record. It has to be a blend of Porter and Stout. Based on the price, a 50-50 blend.

In the crate beers, Pale Ale must be AK, Brown Ale must be X and Stout must be Porter.

What does this tell us? That Brown Ale, even in its earliest days, could already just be a tweaked version of Mild Ale.