Just like Fullers with Old Burton Extra, Youngs also had a stronger Burton Ale. Something called XXXX Ale. Though it probably wasn’t called that down the pub.
It doesn’t seem to have been brewed very often. And was parti-gyled with XXX. I’m guessing that it was a winter seasonal beer.
Nothing to say about the recipe. This having been parti-gyled with the XXX Ale above.
Now here’s the big question: was this a genuinely Old Ale? Well, the only example I have was brewed in early November. If it was a winter beer, that means it was either consumed withing a couple of months, or aged for a full twelve months.
1932 Youngs XXXX Ale
mild malt
13.00 lb
79.46%
crystal malt 60 L
1.250 lb
7.64%
No. 3 invert
sugar
2.00 lb
12.22%
caramel 1000 SRM
0.11 lb
0.67%
Fuggles 120 min
2.75 oz
Fuggles 30 min
2.75 oz
OG
1079
FG
1029.5
ABV
6.55
Apparent
attenuation
62.66%
IBU
53
SRM
23
Mash at
152º F
Sparge at
170º F
Boil time
120 minutes
pitching temp
59º F
Yeast
WLP002 English Ale
Learn more about brewing at Youngs from former brewer John Hatch.
For years, I drank a few bottles of St Bernardus Abt every day. It sort of defined me.
Not any more.
This year, I've drunk pretty much no beer at home. Why? A change in habits.
These last 12 months have presented a few challenges health-wise. Starting with my broken arm in Salvador.
Feeling a bit fucked, and in quite a bit of pain, I knocked off drinking for a while. Until it became a new habit.
I don't drink beer at home any more. I bought 11 Abts in December 2024 for Christmas. I drank the last one on 5th July 2025. Why the big change?
Habit. I realise much of my drinking over the years has been about habits. Those four or five Abts every night? A habit. Once illness broke that routine. Well, I didn't feel the need to do it any more.
It's probably for the best. Even though I do still love Abt. I just don't want it to take over my life.
As you read this, I should be sipping a beer in a bar in Copacabana. Flash bastard that I am. Far away from the freezing cold of Amsterdam.
More fun from behind the iron curtain. In the form of another decoction scheme.
It's been a while since I went on a decoction mash binge. Such a fascinating subject. Who would have guessed that there were so many different methods? And this is another new one to me.
The source is a brewing record image for a Pilsator. I can't remember where I got it, nor which brewery it is. Dead interesting, thougfh. It's a type of single deoction. But with a twist.
It's mashed in at 50º C, then has rests at 64º C and 74º C. Weirdly, it's cooled back down to 64º C. Thn warmed back up to 76º C. Only then was the wort boiled. But only for ten minutes. Which seems pretty short. It can't have been very much wort that was boiled, as it only raised the temperature of the mash by 2º C.
What's odd about this method? Usually any boils are earlier in the process. And are used to raise the temperature of the mash considerably. For example, from 50º C to 64º C.
Strongest of the Pale Ales, simply called “Exp” in the brewhouse, was sold as Special London Ale. Which was a bottle-conditioned beer.
Despite being parti-gyled with PA, the recipe was a bit different from the other Pale Ales. Specifically, this grist lacked torrefied barley. Not sure why that might be. It’s an ingredient that was usually included to improve head retention. Maybe they thought a bottled beer didn’t need that help.
Otherwise, the recipe is much thew same. Other than that, there are only two types of English hops, rather than three. Not sure what the reasoning behind that was, either.
I think this is one of the beers that is still brewed. I rather liked myself on the half dozen or so times I’ve drunk it. I particularly appreciated the high ABV, pisshead that I am.
1990 Youngs Special London Ale
pale malt
14.25 lb
93.94%
crystal malt 120 L
0.25 lb
1.65%
No. 3 invert
sugar
0.67 lb
4.42%
Fuggles 60 min
4.25 oz
Goldings 10 min
0.75 oz
OG
1067
FG
1016.5
ABV
6.68
Apparent
attenuation
75.37%
IBU
48
SRM
10.5
Mash at
148º F
Sparge at
165º F
Boil time
60 minutes
pitching temp
57º F
Yeast
WLP002 English Ale
Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.
I visit the Oberpfalz, dropping by Zoiglstube Schwoazhansl in Falkenberg, Zoiglstube beim Käck´n in Neuhaus and Schloßhof Zoigl in Windischeschenbach. With a bonus visit to not-called-Zoigl Kommunbrauer Paul Reindl in Neuhaus an der Pegnitz. From the, sadly, defunct communal brewery there.
More fun stuff from the example brewing record in Technologie Brauer und Mälzer. I hope you find it as interesting as I do.
Wort was generally boiled for around two hours. Which is on the long side compared to what happened in, for example, the UK. Youngs mostly boiled between 60 and 75 minutes. Another difference is that there was only a single wort and single boil in the DDR. While in the UK, other than for particularly small batches, there were usually at least two boils, often three or even four.
There were usually two or three hop additions. With these timings:
15-25%
when kettle
filling
50-60%
start of boil
25%
15-30 min before end
Source:
Technologie Brauer und Mälzer by Wolfgang Kunze, VEB
Fachbuchverlag Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1967, page 258.
Isn't that fascinating?
Now for a specific example. Which is of a brew of Helles Vollbier from sometime in the mid-1960s. This beer was boiled for 110 minutes.
1960s DDR Helles Vollbier hop additions (kg)
hop type
1st addition
2nd addition
3rd addition
timing
230 min
120 min
20 min
Czechoslovakian
10
Hallertau
15
DDR
10
5
hop extract
1:10
0.5
total
15
20
10
%
33.33%
44.44%
22.22%
Source:
Technologie Brauer und Mälzer by Wolfgang Kunze, VEB
Fachbuchverlag Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1967, page 212.
You'll notice that the first hop addition is a bit larger and the second a bit lower than that recommended by Kunze. Though the timings are the same: first addition as the kettle starts to fill, second when the kettle is full, third 20 minutes before the end of the boil.
I spent a couple of days this week writing a talk about beer in the DDR that I'll be giving in Germany next month. It's been a lot of fun.
Much of the material I already had. But there were a couple of areas I had to research a little. One being mashing. Obviously, Kunze's Technologie Brauer und Mälzer was my source. Where I came acorss something I'd previously missed. A brewing record for a Helles Vollbier.
Including just the sort of thing I love. A really detailed mashing record. It's a dual decoction. Though the first is a cereal mash doubling as a decoction. Which is fascinating. As a cereal mash with rice is how Budweiser was made during Mitch Steele's time at Anheuser Busch. You can hear him talk about it here:
Of course, Budweiser didn't get a second decoction, like this Helles did.
It's quite a long process. Six hours in all. Then they spent another four hours running off the wort and sparging. No wonder it never become popular in the UK.
DDR Helles Vollbier decoction mash
action
mash tun
mash kettle
time
hl
º C
time
hl
º C
time taken
mash in
1,000 kg rice and 1,000 kg pilsner malt
0:00 - 0:35
55
50
35
raise to 65º
C in 20 min
0:35 - 0:55
55
65
20
rest 10 min
0:55 - 1:05
55
65
10
raise to 78º
C in 15 min
1:05 - 1:20
55
78
15
rest 20 min
1:20 - 1:40
55
78
20
raise to
boil in 25min (adjunct mash)
1:40 - 2:05
55
100
25
boil 35 min
2:05 - 2:40
55
100
35
mash in 200
kg Munich malt and 1,800 kg pilsner malt at 50º C
1:45 - 2:00
60
50
rest 40 min
2:00 - 2:40
60
50
mix with
adjunct mash
2:40 - 3:00
115
64
20
rest 35 min
3:00 - 3:35
115
64
35
pull
decoction
3:35 - 3:40
50
64
5
raise to 77º
C in 5min
3:40 - 3:45
50
77
5
rest 10 min
3:45 - 3:55
50
77
10
raise to
boil in 15 min
3:55 - 4:10
50
100
15
boil 20 min
4:10 - 4:30
50
100
20
raise to 75º
C mash out
4:30 - 4:40
10
rest 30 min
4:40 - 5:10
30
raise to 78º
C
5:10 - 5:15
5
saccharification
rest
5:15 - 6:00
45
total
360
Source:
Technologie Brauer und Mälzer by Wolfgang Kunze, VEB
Fachbuchverlag Leipzig, 2nd edition, 1967, page 212.
I'm currently processing the Youngs records from 1990. They're fun, because they are so complete. Loads and loads of information crammed into them.
What's particularly good is that the results of laboratory analysis are included. With handy things like pH, colour and bitterness. Which is where a surprise came. The inconsistency of the bitterness levels.
John Hatch, former brewer at Youngs, mentioned that the FG of one batch could vary a lot acroos different fermenting vessels. The main cause being the difference in size and form of the vessels they had installed. This was why they would blend post-fermentation, to even out the differences.
I hadn't expected to see even bigger differences in bitterness levels across the different types of fermenters. Which, I suppose, was another good reason to blend.
I'm using as an example a single-gyle brew of Special Bitter on 3rd April 1990. The batch was split across four fermenters: numbers 20, 24, 25 and 29. The volume of beer in each varied considerably.:
I'm pretty certain that the three smaller vessels are all older rounds. Whereas the large vessel is clearly one of the 400 barrel cylindro-conicals.
This is the fermentation record:
The conical fermenter was pitched a couple of degrees warmer. Though it was one of the rounds that hit the highest temperature. The conical had the lowest FG of 1009.5º. While two of the rounds only got down to 1011.5º.
The lab results are even more diverse:
The bitterness levels vary from 33.5 to 39.5 EBU. That's quite a range. With the most bitter beer from the largest volumes. The biggest difference is in the yeast count, however. Which is way higher in the conical. Interesting, that.
I can't help wondering if these beers tasted noticeably different. With their varying FGs and bitterness levels, they surely must have.
Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.
George Thompson continues to talk about continuous fermentation, including details of cleaning and maintenance. With a couple of disturbing accounts of industrial accidents. And a discussion of Watney's yeast and yeast harvesting.
Another beer brewed in large quantities was Special. This batch, for example, was 715 barrels. A bit less than Ordinary, but still quite a lot of beer.
Though it doesn’t seem to have been parti-gyled with Ordinary, the recipe was pretty much the same. Base malt, crystal, torrefied barley and No. 3 invert sugar.
I should, perhaps, make some mention of the hops. There were three types, all English, with no vintage listed. I know from brewer John Hatch that the hops they used were Fuggles and Goldings. Which seems right for a traditional cask brewer.
I have, again, upped the hop quantities to hit the bitterness level indicated in the brewing record.
1990 Youngs Special
pale malt
9.50 lb
89.41%
crystal malt 120 L
0.125 lb
1.18%
torrefied barley
0.67 lb
6.31%
No. 3 invert
sugar
0.33 lb
3.11%
Fuggles 70 min
2.75 oz
Goldings 10 min
0.67 oz
OG
1047
FG
1010.5
ABV
4.83
Apparent
attenuation
77.66%
IBU
39
SRM
7
Mash at
148º F
Sparge at
165º F
Boil time
70 minutes
pitching temp
61º F
Yeast
WLP002 English Ale
Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.
I’d always laboured under the assumption that the main reason for dropping continuous fermentation was that it produced beer that tasted shit. I’m now beginning to doubt this. At least as the main cause of the system being ditched.
According to taste tests carried out by Bishop, continuously fermented beer only scored marginally worse than that produced by batch fermentation. Though with just six tests, the sample size was pretty small. As further proof, Bishop comments that continuous fermentation beer wasn’t blended with batch fermented, as would have been the case if there were significant flavour differences. And none of the customers complained. (The least ringing endorsement that you can imagine – no-one complained.)
According to George Thompson, who ran the system at Drybrough, even the quality control people in London couldn’t tell the difference between batch and continuously fermented Heavy.
Yet, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, UK brewers abandoned the system. If the beer quality was acceptable, why was this the case? You can probably guess: economics.
Continuous fermentation systems were good at producing large volumes of a single beer, but rather inflexible. Switching from one beer to another could be a complicated and lengthy process. Running the systems proved more difficult than expected, requiring constant monitoring by highly skilled personnel. Making them more expensive to run than batch systems.
In addition, there were big advances in cylindroconical technology, speeding up batch fermentation and providing a more flexible method of fermentation.
At Drybrough, it was probably the need to monitor the system 24/7 and the cost of employing shifts of workers for the task, which the conical fermenters didn’t require.
I was most intrigued by the impact of the system on yeast. In the early days, Drybrough’s system was run for very long periods – more than six months. But it was found that the yeast began to change at certain point, leading to a different flavour profile in the beer. To prevent this, the system was brought down twice a year: midsummer and midwinter.
Yeast harvested from the continuous fermenter was more vigorous than that from conicals and at Drybrough was used to ferment stronger beers.
A dream of some large brewers was continuous fermentation. Where fresh wort was continuously added to fermenters as finished beer was taken out. A process way more efficient that traditional fermentation.
Briggs described the potential benefits:
there was real hope for the commercial success of continuous systems with the advantages comprising:
• lower capital cost • lower working capital because of less beer in process, as a result of faster throughput • lower product cost as a result of lower beer losses, more ethanol and less yeast • lower fixed costs because of less manpower as a result of less cleaning and automatic • fermenter control.
The first attempts were made in the late 19th century and several different systems were tried in the years leading up to WW I. None proved successful in practice. One system involving beer moving from one open tank to another was revived in the 1950s, with experiments in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. It was in the latter two that these trials were put into practice in the 1960s.
In the UK, the process was championed by L.R. Bishop, who worked at the Watney brewery in Mortlake. He seems to have dedicated a good chunk of his career to developing the process, starting in 1925 when he was a post-graduate student. But it was only after WW II that his interest was able to take practical form, in the shape of a 1,000-gallon pilot plant. When this proved a success, a 1,000-barrel plant was constructed.
By the early 1970s, Watney had the system installed in four of their breweries: Mortlake, Mile End, Drybrough and Murphy. Between them, they were capable of producing 20,000 barrels a week. Or around a million barrels a year. Which was around 22% of their total output. The bulk of this capacity – 13,000 barrels per week - was at Mortlake.
At its peak in the early 1970s, around 4% of UK beer was brewed using one of the continuous fermentation systems. Though much of that seems to have been at Watney. With their capacity equivalent to 2.7% of UK production.
Bucketloads of PA, as Ordinary was called in the brewhouse, were brewed. Sometimes in batches of over 1,000 barrels. Obviously, a popular beer. It’s what I usually drank in Youngs pubs. I preferred it to the Special.
Not much to say about the recipe. It being parti-gyled with the Light Ale we’ve already seen. Other than that No. 3 invert is an interesting sugar choice for a Pale Ale. No. 1 or No. 2 is more usual.
While most Ordinary Bitter was sold in cask form, it was kegged for outlets like clubs which sold small amounts of beer.
Once again, I’ve bumped up the hopping level to hit the correct bitterness level (as recorded in the brewing record).
1990 Youngs Ordinary
pale malt
7.50 lb
88.70%
crystal malt 120 L
0.125 lb
1.48%
torrefied barley
0.50 lb
5.91%
No. 3 invert
sugar
0.33 lb
3.90%
Fuggles 70 min
2.25 oz
Goldings 10 min
0.50 oz
OG
1037
FG
1007.5
ABV
3.90
Apparent
attenuation
79.73%
IBU
34
SRM
6.5
Mash at
148º F
Sparge at
167º F
Boil time
70 minutes
pitching temp
60.5º F
Yeast
WLP002 English Ale
Listen to brewer John Hatch explain how they brewed at Youngs in the 1990s.
I love the Statistical Handbook so much. Even more so as I get a free copy every year via the British Guild of Beer Writers. More from it today.
It's the turn of UK beer exports this time. Specifically, exports to Europe.
Before 1990, the only European country importing significant quantities of UK was Belgium. No real surprise there. Before WW II it was the main destination for UK exports to Europe. Though this really dropped off in the 2000s. Partly, I think, because some beers which had been brewed in the UK had production moved to Belgium. For example, John Martin Pale Ale.
France is a weird one. Going From fuck all in 1970 to almost half European exports in 2010. Before falling quite a long way back again. I wonder which beers were being sent to France? I can't imagine it was Lager.
Ireland followed a similar trajectory, with tiny amounts before 1990, then surging after 2000. Accounting, in the most recent years, for a bout half UK exports to Europe. In this case, it probably was Lager. Stuff like Tennents would be my guess.
Italy, too, saw a big increase in 1990, followed by a fall and the then recovery. Overall, pretty up and down. I can't help but think that Brexit had something to do with the big fall in exports between 2010 and 2020.
I'm quite surprised at how much was being exported to Holland from 2010 onwards. I can't for the life of me think what beers that might be. I don't exactly see a lot of British beer over here.
Spain is the only destination where exports increased substantially between 2010 and 2024. Probably lots of lovely Carling and John Smiths Smooth.
UK beer exports (1,000 hl) to Europe
Destination
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2023
2024
European
Union
Austria
-
-
-
-
0.7
5.8
5.6
8.7
10.9
6.3
Belgium
& Luxembourg
54.6
164
236.8
272.3
101.5
57.2
65.2
11.1
126.6
27.4
Cyprus
4.2
15.1
17.8
1.6
4.4
5.2
111.2
4.9
14.8
19.6
Denmark
-
-
1.0
5.6
0.8
15.8
26.1
20.8
34.3
32.8
Finland
-
-
-
-
6.7
8.3
19.6
15.3
11.4
14
France
1.1
1.3
4.3
23.9
25.5
699.8
2,273.3
245.3
346.9
316.3
Germany
5.1
8.7
48.6
31.4
47.6
23.8
131.3
79.3
35.1
73.7
Greece
0.2
0.04
0.2
0.2
23.7
13.7
8.9
4.8
6.4
12.6
Ireland
6.9
10.8
17.0
32.1
383.5
277.1
1,372.3
1,531.3
1,264.5
1,285.9
Italy
0.1
0.9
1.8
26.7
77.3
273.2
159.5
59.8
80.0
135.9
Malta
-
-
-
0.5
0.5
1.6
8.1
2.1
4.6
6.1
Netherlands
-
-
11.5
40.1
69.0
79.0
470.7
197.8
379.9
290.3
Poland
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.1
13.1
15.6
17
Spain
-
-
2.0
4.1
76.2
97.9
87.3
143.1
161.3
237.5
Sweden
-
-
25.2
3.3
11.1
42.8
120.9
58.9
53.2
51.7
Other EU
Countries
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.2
53.5
64.5
57.6
Total
-
-
-
-
829.3
1,597.2
4,882.4
2,449.7
2,610.0
2,584.9
The Rest of
Europe
Norway
-
0.05
-
0.5
0.3
7.7
13.7
14.4
12.1
12.7
Russia
-
-
-
-
2.1
19.5
24.1
140.6
0.2
0.1
Switzerland
-
-
3.3
2
3.9
37.1
7.7
20.9
17.2
22.9
Other
countries
-
-
-
-
8.7
22.6
6.5
25.2
54.7
45.3
Total
-
-
-
-
34.7
103.1
52.1
201.2
84.2
81
All Europe
-
-
397.9
458.4
864.0
1,700.2
4,934.5
2,650.9
2,694.2
2,665.9
Sources:
“1955 Brewers' Almanack”, pages 58-59.
“1962 Brewers' Almanack”, pages 56-57.
The Brewers' Society Statistical Handbook 2025, page 18.
