Let's Brew - 1884 W.E. & J. Rigden Mild Beer

Now this is an interesting Mild. Not only because of the name. Which is usually Mild Ale. Also, on account of the colour.

Which is semi-dark. I know that for certain it was that dark. Because the colour all comes from No. 3 invert sugar. No arguing with that. Much better than something vague like caramel. Which can vary wildly in tone. This is an early date for a darker Mild

The grist is pretty heavy on sugar and maize. More than average. A lot more. Is the colour an attempt to distract from the low malt content? Or was it just new and trendy?

The gravity is pretty decent and so is the attenuation, leaving it over 5% ABV. Fairly bitter, too. With two types of hops, whose names are little more than squiggles. I can’t make out either. As they’re growers’ names, they must me English. I’ve guessed Fuggles and Goldings.

No ageing, obviously. Seeing as it’s a Mild. 

1884 W.E. & J. Rigden Mild Beer
pale malt	6.50 lb	65.00%
flaked maize	1.50 lb	15.00%
No. 3 invert sugar	2.00 lb	20.00%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.25 oz
Goldings 60 mins	1.25 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.25 oz
OG	1050
FG	1010
ABV	5.29
Apparent attenuation	80.00%
IBU	50
SRM	13
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

 

Election day boozing

At the start of the 20th century there was a flurry of licensing legislation. Mostly concerned with limiting the hours pubs could open, unsurprisingly. Things like Sunday closing for England. Not all of it passed into law, thankfully. Temperance twats happily seized any chance to rob the working man of his beer.

Another unsuccessful bit of legislation would have closed pubs during parliamentary elections. Something which I know does occur in some countries. Columbia, for example. I got caught out by this a couple of years ago when in Cartagena with Mikey. Where it encompassed not just pubs, but offies, too. Luckily, it wasn't particularly strictly enforced. And I had a litre of duty free.

The measure introduced by Mr. C. Roberts to close licensed houses on Parliamentary election days passed its second reading by a majority of the size that is to be expected from the present constitution of the House of Commons. The Government, of course, were bound to support the Bill because it is practically a redrafted clause of their own measure of last year, but Mr. Herbert Samuel had to admit that "he did not consider that the evil of drunkenness at elections was a grave evil,” and that “he did not pretend that the Bill dealt with a really widespread and serious abuse which gravely affected the electoral system.” Moreover, Mr. Charles Roberts was unable to adduce a tittle of evidence that the closing of public-houses on election days was demanded either by excessive drinking on such occasions or by electoral corruption through their medium. On the other hand the restriction would cause much unnecessary annoyance and inconvenience both to the trade and the public, and like all such coercive measures, would more than probably actually tend to increase intemperance, for the proposal is to open the houses after the close of the p»U (when the inducement to' indulge would perhaps stronger than at any other period of the day) while railway refreshment rooms are exempted altogether! It was not denied by the promoters that the days of excessive indulgence during elections are happily past; nevertheless, when faced with the microscopical number of instances of drunkenness that actually occurred during the memorable Peckham by-election Mr. Roberts attempted to throw discredit on the value of authenticated police statistics. Not a shadow of a case, in short, was made out for the Bill, but because it would put another harassing restriction on the trade, the Government supporters were instructed to vote for it. Should it ever reach the House of Lords, however, we confidently look to that assembly to place its emphatic veto on a measure that would create considerable inconvenience and benefit no one. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly necessary that the Licensing-Bill-by-instalments campaign which is being so zealously conducted by certain teetotal faddists in the Lower House should be resolutely and effectually checked.

The Brewers' Journal vol. 45 1909, April 15th 1909, pages 196 - 197.

Thank satan for the House of Lords, eh. Ironic that an unelected house should get involved in legislation concerning elections.
 

Kent hop acreage and yield 1901 - 1909

Yet more statistics. This time on hops. Specifically, hops in Kent. Which was very significant, as the county was home to two-thirds of the area under hops.

On display already is the general trend of the 20th century: a decline in the area dedicated to hops. The decline was the greatest in East Kent, where it amounted to 33.72%. In was a bit less in Mid-Kent at 26.14% and the Weald at 7.68%. Over Kent as a whole, acreage fell 23.26%. The rest of the century would see much worse falls.

The decline seems to be accelerating after 1905. Especially in East and Mid-Kent. Though this was offset in 1908 by a particularly high yields, which saw total yield actually increase.

The lack of enthusiasm for growing hops might be explained in the varying yields. For example, in East Kent, the best yield was just over 13 cwts per acre and the worst 4.69 cwts. Which I can imagine was a bit of a nightmare for a farmer. 

Kent hop acreage and yield 1901 - 1909
	Yield per Acre				Acreage under Hops
	East	Mid	Weald	Kent	East	Mid	Weald	Kent	total yield
	Cwts	Cwts	Cwts	Cwts	Acres	Acres	Acres	Acres	Cwts
1901	11.25	13.49	12.84	12.5	11,110	10,696	9,436	31,242	390,525
1902	7.25	7.16	9.45	7.89	10,452	10,172	9,025	29,649	233,931
1903	8.44	11.01	9.57	9.68	10,438	10,462	9,033	29,933	289,751
1904	7.29	8.05	6.37	7.27	10,272	10,283	9,286	29,841	216,944
1905	13.05	14.53	15.91	14.47	10,417	10,464	9,774	30,655	443,578
1906	4.69	5.09	7.33	5.69	9,863	9,849	9,584	29,296	166,694
1907	6.92	6.83	9.84	7.88	9,200	9,443	9,526	28,169	221,972
1908	11.47	14.94	12.49	12.98	7,364	7,900	8,711	23,975	311,196
Average	8.80	10.14	10.48	9.80
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 45 1909, April 15th 1909, page 215.

 

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1893 Tomson & Wotton AK

I can remember how excited I was when I came across my first AK brewing record. (Fullers, if you’re interested.)  Now I have literally dozens of them. That’s how common AK was before WW I.

This is on the strong side for AK, which usually tops out at around 1050º. And indicates that this was the more expensive of the brewery’s two AKs.

Not much to discuss about the recipe. Which is as simple as they come: just a single malt and a single hop. All their Pale Ales were brewed all-malt. Only the Mild Ale contained sugar. And no adjuncts at all were used.

Just one type of Worcester hops from the 1892 harvest. Which, given that this beer was brewed in March, meant that they were pretty fresh. Another type of Worcester hops, also from the 1892 season, were used as dry hops.

1893 Tomson & Wotton AK
pale malt	12.00 lb	100.00%
Fuggles 90 mins	1.25 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	1.25 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	1.25 oz
Fuggles dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1052
FG	1015
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	71.15%
IBU	43
SRM	4.5
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

 

Consumption of wine, beer and spirits in 1899

Got a new cast on my arm this morning. And they told me that I've broken a small bone in my hand, too. No big deal, as the same cast will take care of both. My typing ability is still limited. And I'm feeling a bit of a lazy git. More random statistics, then.

This time it's the consumption of various alcoholic drinks. Looking at the same six countries again. The total consumption figure really doesn't tell us much, as the countries vary massively in population. It's the per head figures that tell a story.

For example, that the French really liked their wine. 112 litres each is a fuck of a lot. That's a third of a litre a day. Or getting on for a half bottle. Such a figure is only possible if most of the population drinks every day. Which is, indeed, what people did in France. Drinking wine with meals, every day.

The UK falls far short of that. For the simple reason that most people didn't drink wine at all. That being the preserve of the better off. I would have expected Germany to score higher, though. Given that parts of the South are wine country. You can see that in the wine production figures. Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg were big producers. But those did make much more combined than number one wine state. Alsace Lorraine, the bit they'd just nicked from France.*

Rather surprisingly, Australians drank more wine than Germans. Well short of French levels, mind. I suppose they did make a lot. And they were a bunch of pissheads. The big question is: why weren't the French-speakers in Canada drinking wine? Because it was all imported?

The UK proudly heads the beer consumption table. 22 litres ahead of the Germans. And way head of the USA in third place. Pretty disappointing showing from the Aussies in fourth place. You'd expect all that sun to give them a thirst.**

The French are out in front again when it comes to spirits. Closely followed by the Germans. Particularly those in the North. Production of spirits was even more skewed than for wine. 82% was distilled in Prussia.*** It was a big state, but that's still a huge percentage.

I wouldn't have bet on the UK out-drinking the USA in the case of spirits. And what was it with Canada? They're bottom in every single category.

All I can add is: well done France. Do try to drink a little more beer, though.

Consumption of wine, beer and spirits in 1899
	Wine		Beer		Spirits
	Consumption	Per head	Consumption	Per head	Consumption	Per head
Country	hl	litres	hl	litres	hl	litres
United Kingdom	752,045	1.86	58,301,086	145.02	1,870,634	4.68
France	42,750,129	112.01	9,607,153	25.00	3,598,432	9.41
Germany	1,887,226	3.50	66,313,957	123.20	4,590,551	8.41
United States	778,821	1.05	44,106,974	59.10	3,085,825	4.18
Australian Colonies	205,525	4.77	2,082,113	48.19	148,609	3.45
Canada	20,230	0.36	858,876	16.37	152,746	2.95
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, February 15th 1900, page 205.

The original figures were in gallons. I thought hectolitres and litres are a bit more useful for most people.



* The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, February 15th 1900, page 206.
** It rained every one of the twenty days I was in Australia this summer.
*** The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, February 15th 1900, page 206. 

Home production vs imports of wine, beer and spirits in 1899

My arm is still broken and in plaster. Hence some more random statistics. Still have to post every day, no matter what the state of my limbs.

Let's start with wine. Two countries in the table imported all of their wine: the UK and Canada. A situation that I know is no longer true. Especially in the case of Canada. Honestly, I'm shocked that it produced no wine in the 19th century. Especially with all the French speakers.

Canada's lack of wine production is particularly surprising given how high domestic production was in the USA. Higher even than in France. Not such a shock is how few imports there were in Australia. Which has a good climate for viticulture. And is a fuck of a long way from most other wine-producing regions.

Moving on to beer, where imports were fairly insignificant in every one of the countries listed. Just 0.1% in the case of the UK. Only Canada and Australia imported significant quantities. Beer being a pretty bulky commodity, it does make sense that it wouldn't be moved around that much. Though those imports into Australia had come quite a distance. As the vast majority came from the UK.

Finally, spirits. Where Germany, France and the USA imported bugger all. I'm slightly surprised at the low level of imports in the last of those. I thought the USA imported quite a lot of Irish whiskey and Scotch.

Spirit imports were highest in Australia. I'm guessing that most were coming from the UK. What was made in Australia? Rum? Canada, number 2 importer, I assume was bringing in whisky from the UK and whiskey from Ireland and the USA. 

Home production vs imports of wine, beer and spirits in 1899
	Percentage of Wine		Percentage of Beer		Percentage of Spirits
Country	Imported	Home-Made	Imported	Home-Made	Imported	Home-Made
United Kingdom	100	-	0.1	99.9	20	80
France	20	80	1.2	98.8	7.5	92.5
Germany	37.8	62.2	0.8	99.2	2.1	97.9
United States	15	85	0.2	99.8	1.2	98.8
Australian Colonies	6	94	8	92	79	21
Canada	100	-	8	92	38.6	61.4
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, February 15th 1900, page 205.

 

 

Revenue from Alcoholic Beverages 1898-99

With my freshly-broken arm, I'm keeping thins simple. Not too much typing or computer work. Because, er, it fucking hurts.

Today, we've a quick look at how important taxation on alcohol was in various countries. It comes as absolutely no surprise that the UK was the most dependent on alcohol taxation. Which accounted for more than a third of tax revenue. That was a typical number for most of the 19th century.

In France and Germany, it was only around half of that. I wonder where they were getting all their tax from?

The only country in the table that comes anywhere close to the UK is the USA. Which makes Prohibition, which came along a couple of decades later, seem quite problematic. I'm sure any country would struggle with more than a quarter of tax revenue suddenly disappearing. That's one of the reasons banning alcohol was never really on the cards in the UK. Where would the tax have come from?

I was a bit surprised that France's total revenue was higher than the UK's. Was that simply down to a larger population? 

Revenue from Alcoholic Beverages 1898-99
Country	Year	Total Revenue	Alcohol Revenue	% from alcohol
United Kingdom	1898-9	£94,301,000	£34,400,000	36%
France	1898	£116,448,000	£22,051,000	19%
Germany	1897-8	£72,171,000	£12,884,000	18%
United States	1897-8	£102,986,000	£28,710,000	28%
Australian Colonies	1898	£29,142,000	£2,965,000	10.20%
Canada	1898	$40,555,000	$6,940,000	17.10%
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, February 15th 1900, page 205.

 

 

Let's Brew - 1903 Binnie XXX Porter

Showing wonderful inconsistency, in most of the brewing records this beer was named DBS – presumably Double Brown Stout. But I’m pretty sure that they are the same beer.

The gravity certainly looks like a Stout rather than a Porter. A Double Stout is particular. Nothing unusual there.

What about the recipe? Well, it’s a bit interesting. In that, additionally to pale and black malt, there’s also some amber malt. Which pops up sometimes in London Stouts, but not much elsewhere. Notably, there’s no sugar and no adjuncts.

Three types of hops: Bavarian, Kent and “Betd.”, all from the 1903 crop. No idea what that last one was. So I’ve just gone with the first two.

Here’s the big question: was this aged? Hard to say, as the hopping rate isn’t that high. My guess would be no more than a couple of months.

1903 Binnie XXX Porter
pale malt	14.25 lb	78.62%
amber malt	2.125 lb	11.72%
black malt	1.75 lb	9.66%
Hallertau 90 min	1.50 oz
Fuggles 30 min	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1075
FG	1029
ABV	6.09
Apparent attenuation	61.33%
IBU	28
SRM	44
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

 

Bottled Indonesian beer after WW II

Another extract from my monster gravity table. Courtesy of the Heineken gravity book. Who, with their brewery in Soerabaja, had a commercial interest in what was then the Dutch East Indies.

You'll have to excuse me for this type of post. In my current impaired state, I can't really perform at 100%. And I still need to churn out posts daily. I know, it's a rod I've created for my own back. But I just can't give it up. If I drop dead on a trip, you probably won't realise for a week as my preloaded posts continue to appear.

You can see the effect of WW II in the relatively low strength of all the beers. With all the examples under 4% ABV and the weakest under 3% ABV. While pre-war there had been 5% ABV beers.

Do I have any other interesting observations on these beers? Not really. Look at the table your fucking selves. I'm not going to do everything for you.

Batavia, in case you're wondering, was the colonial name for Jakarta.

Bottled Indonesian beer after WW II
Year	Brewer	Town	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Colour
1948	ABC	Batavia	Pilsener	Pils	1033.2	1010.0	2.97	69.88%	0.22
1948	ABC	Banging	Pilsener	Pils	1033.9	1009.6	3.09	71.69%	0.22
1948	Heineken	Soerabaja	Javabier	Pils	1032.1	1005.9	3.39	81.63%	0.22
1948	Heineken	Soerabaja	Licht Javabier	Pils	1032.0	1009.5	2.88	70.31%	0.25
1949	Heineken	Soerabaja	Licht Javabier	Pils	1031.8	1008.0	3.09	74.95%	0.22
1950	Heineken	Soerabaja	Licht Javabier	Pils	1032.8	1006.7	3.37	79.56%	0.28
1948	Heineken	Soerabaja	Licht Pilsener	Pils	1034.3	1009.9	3.15	71.23%	0.35
1949	Heineken	Soerabaja	Licht Pilsener	Pils	1036.0	1007.0	3.74	80.51%	0.24
1950	Heineken	Soerabaja	Licht Pilsener	Pils	1036.4	1008.8	3.57	75.81%	0.28
1950	Oranje	Batavia	Anker	Pils	1034.0	1012.8	2.76	62.30%	0.35
1950	Oranje	Batavia	Diamant	Pils	1035.7	1011.8	2.98	67.02%	0.35
Source:
Rapporten van laboratoriumonderzoeken naar producten van Heinekenbrouwerijen in binnen- en buitenland en naar producten van andere brouwerijen held at the Amsterdamse Stadsarchief, document number 834 - 1794.

 

 

As Christmas is approaching

it's time to remind you that my books make great presents. For family, friends or yourself. 

First, my look at the Golden Age of UK brewing: the 1970s. With over 100 recipes, including such classic keg beers as Watney's Red, Whitbread Trophy, Whitbread Tankard and Drybrough Heavy. Yum!

 

My history of London Stout from its 18th-century origins through to the 1970s has even more recipes: 277, to be precise.

   

It took me two volumes to properly cover WW II in "Blitzkrieg!". It contains a crazy number of wartime recipes, over 500. Wit, as a bonus, some very watery recipes from Heineken.

 

My travel books are so popular, I've sold almost two copies of each. 

 

"Weisse!" is easily Berlinet Weisse is easily the best book on Berliner Weisse in English. With 19 historic recipes. 

 

"AK!", covering a deep obsession of mine,details the history of the classic style of Light Bitter. Along 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.

 

"IPA!" is a very tightly-focused monograph, looking at IPA during WW II. 31 historic recipes this time.

 

Folkestone breakfasts

I know you love to see my travel breakfasts. So here you go.

I would write more about the trip, Sadly, a couple of factors make that tricky.

For one thing, it was a pure holiday trip with Mikey. Nothing much happened. Other than eating cooked breakfasts, hanging around in pubs and buying contraband (cheese, crumpets, bacon, et.) to take back home. Not sure you'd find it that interesting.

OK, I had a few decent pints. Nothing that fancy or special. Nothing to tickle a geek's fancy. Abbott in 'Spoons. Shepherd Neame Masterbrew in an estate pub. All very mundane. Because this wasn't a trip for beer. It was a trip with beer. Vital difference, that. It's important to keep a degree of perspective. Not to see everything through a beery lens.

What's my other reason for not writing a detailed report? There's a clue in the final breakfast photograph. Why so little food?

I wasn't feeling that great on the last day. Having fallen in the bathroom the night before. And broken my arm. Pretty much identical to last year's break.

Typing is just a pain in the arse with only my left hand. 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1904 Binnie 60/- IPA

True to style, Binnie also sometimes called this 60/- Bitter. What was this, then? I’m going for IPA. Just because it might annoy some style Nazis.

Speaking of styles, in BeerSmith, this comes out quite close to English IPA. Only the bitterness and colour are a little too light. Justification – yes – for calling this an IPA. Take that BJCP .*

Unlike its brother 54/-, there’s some sugar in the mix. With the wonderfully specific and helpful description “S’ in the brewing record. I’ve gone for raw cane sugar. Pure 100% arse-out guess that. Feel free to interpret the evidence differently.

They didn’t really vary the hops between the different types of beer at Binnie. It’s the usual even split between Kent, Bavarian and Californian.

Was this aged? Good question. Possibly. Maybe a few months. Doesn’t look like a long-ager to me.

1904 Binnie 60/- IPA
pale malt	10.00 lb	80.00%
flaked maize	1.50 lb	12.00%
raw cane sugar	1.00 lb	8.00%
Cluster 90 min	0.875 oz
Hallertau 60 min	0.875 oz
Fuggles 30 min	0.875 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1057
FG	1020
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	64.91%
IBU	36
SRM	4.5
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

* Some of my best friends are BJCPs. And I did contribute to their style guidelines. Making me as guilty as anyone of, at least, being style-Nazi adjacent.