DDR Helles Vollbier decoction mash

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.

 

 

Inconsistent fermentation at Youngs

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.:

FV 20    85 barrels
FV 24    144 barrels
FV 25    376 barrels
FV 29    110 barrels

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 interview part two

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. 

Let's Brew - 1990 Youngs Special

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.  

Continuous fermentation (part two)

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. 

This is an excerpt from my book on 1970s brewing, "Keg!". Get your copy of "Keg!" now!

Listen to George Thompson, who ran the last continuous fermentation system in the northern hemisphere, talk about the process.

Continuous fermentation

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.  

This is an excerpt from my book on 1970s brewing, "Keg!". Get your copy of "Keg!" now!

Listen to George Thompson, who ran the last continuous fermentation system in the northern hemisphere, talk about the process. 

George Thompson interview part one

George Thompson, talks about his time at the Drybrough in Edinburgh, including continuous fermentation and brewing with raw barley.  

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1990 Youngs Ordinary

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.  

UK beer exports to Europe

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.

 

Pub or offie?

Where do UK drinkers buy their beer? 

Historically, it was overwhelmingly in pubs. Before WW II, When the number of standalone off-licences was relatively small, even beer for home consumption was often purchased in pubs. Sometimes in bottled form, but often draught beer filled into jugs. 

Children were often sent to fetch the beer, despite being underage. This was allowed as long as a seal was put on the jug to prevent illicit sipping on the way home. My mother did this as a girl, fetching a pint of Old and Mild for her mum. But I digress.

After 1960, the number of off-licences increase rapidly, doubling by 2000. While, at the same time, the number of pubs has decreased. Which has shifted the balance between on- and off-licences considerably. S you can see in the first table.

As recently as 1980, not far short of 90% of beer sales were in pubs. That's been in decline ever since. But it was only in 2015 that a majority of sales were in offies.

Obviously, there was a big drop in pub sales during the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. Since when pub sales have increased a bit. The latest figure of 42% pub sales is still quite impressive compared to most other countries. Where a far higher percentage of beer is sold in shops rather than bars. 

Pubs and off licences 1905 - 2000
Date	Total Pubs	Off Licences	total	% pubs	% off licences
1905	99,478	25,405	124,883	79.66%	20.34%
1910	92,484	24,438	116,922	79.10%	20.90%
1920	83,432	22,198	105,630	78.99%	21.01%
1930	77,605	22,125	99,730	77.82%	22.18%
1940	73,365	21,884	95,249	77.02%	22.98%
1950	73,483	23,532	97,015	75.74%	24.26%
1960	69,184	23,670	92,854	74.51%	25.49%
1970	64,702	27,910	92,612	69.86%	30.14%
1980	67,091	37,252	104,343	64.30%	35.70%
1991	74,299	47,944	122,243	60.78%	39.22%
2000	77,876	45,450	123,326	63.15%	36.85%
Sources:
1924 – 1972: The Brewers' Society Statistical handbook 1973”, page 50.
1973 - 2010 2011 Statistical Handbook of the BBPA, page 74
"Brewers' Almanack 1971", page 83.

Location of UK beer sales (%)
Year	on sales	off sales
1980	87.7	12.3
1985	83.0	17.0
1986	81.6	18.4
1987	80.7	19.3
1988	80.1	19.9
1989	79.6	20.4
1990	79.6	20.4
1990	78.5	21.5
1991	77.7	22.3
1992	76.7	23.3
1993	75.4	24.6
1994	74.5	25.5
1995	72.6	27.5
1996	72.0	28.0
1999	68.1	31.9
2000	67.6	32.4
2001	65.7	34.3
2002	63.6	36.4
2003	61.7	38.3
2004	60.4	39.6
2005	59.4	40.6
2006	57.9	42.1
2007	56.5	43.5
2008	54.2	45.8
2009	53.8	46.2
2010	51.9	48.1
2011	52.4	47.6
2012	52.4	47.6
2013	50.7	49.3
2014	50.0	50.0
2015	49.1	50.9
2016	48.4	51.6
2017	46.9	53.1
2018	46.0	54.0
2019	45.0	55.0
2020	23.6	76.4
2021	30.7	69.3
2022	41.3	58.7
2023	41.9	58.1
2024	42.1	57.9
Source:
BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025, page 14.