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

And here we are with another AK. You may now be getting an idea of just how common this name once was. I can never get me too many AKs.

The recipe is very similar to Mild Beer. The only real difference being the use of No. 2 rather than No. 3 invert. The hopping is a little heavier, but that is rather cancelled out by a quarter of the hops being spent. Leaving the level of bitterness around the same. Resulting in beers that are pretty much the same, other than the colour.

The hops themselves were two squiggles again and I’ve had to guess what types they were.

No ageing for this baby as it is a classic Light Bitter. And by definition a Running Beer. 

1884 W.E. & J. Rigden AK
pale malt	6.00 lb	61.54%
flaked maize	1.50 lb	15.38%
No. 2 invert sugar	2.25 lb	23.08%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.25 oz
Goldings 60 mins	1.25 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.25 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1050
FG	1013
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	74.00%
IBU	50
SRM	9
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59.5º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

 

 

J.C. Jocobsen writes again

More correspondence from Jacobsen. Because you lot seem to like this stuff. This time two short letters.

The first shows how keen Jacobsen senior was on finding out more details about brewing in Burton.

1869-03-02
Dear Carl!
Since I conclude from your letter to your mother, which came yesterday, that you choose the "Boring" of returning to Younger; perhaps in the very next days, I would not have written until I knew where you were, but since your loving mother cannot rest until she has sent a letter, which she wrote to you today, and has on her own responsibility decided to send it to Burton, I must also add a few lines in case they meet you in Burton. I would simply remind you that by making the acquaintance of the young brewers' sons in Strasbourg, you got into the Erhards'. Don't you think something similar was possible in Burton, if you stayed there for some time? Even if you could not become a formal apprentice in one of the larger breweries, there could be a lot of information to be gained by constantly living with young people who are employed in the breweries and if you could visit them once in a while you could also see a thing or two. But this can also happen in the autumn, if you only get there then. But dear Carl, you must overcome your indifference to the English language, it is high time!

So, if Jacobsen junior couldn't get an apprenticeship in Burton, he could just hang around the town and get to know brewers' sons. Not sure how successful that was likely to be. It seems like a plan mostly based on hope. And he should get on with improving his English.

The second doesn't have an exact date, just the year. It discusses the difference between fermentation at Younger and at Burton.

1869
Among the points I would like you to note, I remember at the moment: To note the difference in the degree of fermentation in the Fermenting Vessels at Edinburgh and Burton.- You will remember that at Burton no yeast is separated in the fermenting vessels, but first in the Union casks, whereas at the Abbey the yeast is obtained from the Fermenting Tubs and only a little from the Cleansing Squares. In Edinburgh the fermentation is thus interrupted during the development of the yeast. Why? Were the method of knocking the foam and yeast down into the fermenting vessels used elsewhere than at Younger? Were the ale fermenting vessels at Younger provided with high walls with a door with shutters to retain the foam, as in the Porter Breweries, or are they entirely open, as in Burton? Have you any records of the City Brewery at Edinburgh and of the City of London Brewery? - I have none. 

Could you not dry a portion of Younger's and send me so that I could make a comparative analysis with my malt?. How concentrated is the solution of double sulphuric lime, with which yeast at Abbey is rinsed? - If it is sold, then take down the address and send me a can or small cask of it. 

Is "Finings" - isinglas - used at Younger's or is it the landlord's business? Do you know the procedure with that? For export beer it is used is it not? Do they use the yeast for the addition as fresh and foamy at Younger's as we saw it at Bass's?

Obviously, they would harvest the yeast from the union sets in Burton. Propagating healthy yeast was one of the main reasons for using unions. Younger, on the other hand, where they were clearly using a dropping system, yeast was harvested earlier, before the beer was dropped to the settling square. Though this didn't apply to most of Younger's Pale Ales, which were brewed in their Holyrood brewery. That was fitted out with union sets.

Interesting question about the finings. I happen to know that in the 1970s, Scottish & Newcastle, i.e. Younger, sent out their cask beer unfined. The dad of one of my brother's school friends ran a pub that sold Younger's IPA. Once it was clearing well and he rang up the brewery. They suggested that he try adding finings.

Quite often in the 19th century fining was left to the publican. Gradually, brewers starting fining at racking time. For the simple reason that they didn't trust landlords to do it properly.
 

More Carlsberg correspondence

Or, more accurately, Jacobsen correspondence. This time, from Jacobsen Senior to Jacobsen junior. Dated 22nd March 1869.

After some time at William Younger, Carl Jacobsen went to Burton to try to get an apprenticeship at one of the large Burton breweries. Without any luck. And then returned to Edinburgh.

I see from the lines you sent me from Burton that you have now returned to Edinburgh, which I also assume is most correct, as it appears from your letters that, after leaving Younger, you have felt that you were not quite finished learning what you could learn there, whereby I assume that you are thinking more of the overview that is required to be able to run a manufacturing plant and this you can certainly best acquire in the establishment where you now know all the details and are also so well known to all the functionaries that you can get all the information you want. It is hardly wrong that you also, by looking back on what you have learned, have discovered that there were various little things that you could wish to know better about - and it is on these little things that ultimately it depends whether an undertaking will succeed immediately; for otherwise much time and much money will be lost before one, by "fumbling" (ed.), has found the complete articulation of the system, whereby this first becomes an organic whole that has true vitality. 

This sounds to me like at attempt to justify a possible retrograde step of returning to Younger, where  he had already spent quite some time.

Jacobsen senior was very keen on learning about how Burton Pale Ale was produced. There's a considerable amount of talk about this in the correspondence.

I now look forward to gradually receiving a continuation of your interesting report on the procedure in the Younger brewery and on the brewery's equipment, etc. I also assume that you have learned something in Burton about the fermentation and storage of their export ale, which I am very eager to learn. You may also be able to learn something through your friend through correspondence, which will give you a preliminary idea of ​​how to make the most of your stay in Burton when you return. Tell me if you spoke to Westenholz about whether he had any connection with any of the breweries in Burton. Tell me also whether you spoke to the hotelier, the former brewmaster, whose address Haagensen had given you. I cannot entirely give up hope that you may later get into one of the better breweries.

Jacobsen junior had managed to get to know one Burton brewer - Mr. Evershed. Of the brewery Evershed, one of the smaller operations in Burton. And where Jacobsen junior eventually served an apprenticeship. Clearly nit first choice. But the big boys - Bass, Allsopp and Salt - weren't interested.

In any case, it is good that you have become acquainted with Mr Evershed and, moreover, with his family, but it alarmed me, by the way, to hear that you still speak English as badly as the lady's statements suggest. I cannot urge you enough to now pursue the study of the English language, especially spoken language, journal reading, etc. systematically, that is, to set this as one of your tasks, which must be neglected just as the brewery. Now you must certainly be able to get the necessary time for it, even to take lessons from a teacher, if necessary, but you will get the best practice by constantly seeking association with English people and in this regard I would like you to live in a house where there was no Dane. Your mother and I wrote you some lines on March 2, which your mother would finally send the same day and the letter was then addressed franked to your hotel in Burton, from where I assume it was sent for you. 

For some reason, Jacobsen junior wasn't that keen on English and doesn't seem to have picked up much during his stay. Which didn't please his dad.

Here's one of the more personal bits of the letter.

Tuesday afternoon
At this moment I received your letter from Edinburgh, which pleased us a lot, not least your mother, who is extremely happy about the "happiness" you are having and about your cheerful mood.- I am also pleased about the benefit that your spiritual development will have from a fuller, social life in educated circles and I believe that this, far from harming your activity as a technician, will on the contrary increase your spiritual energy and make you better suited to work among people.

Jacobsen junior's good use of the money he was given seems to have pleased his father.

When I get to town tomorrow, I will order a bill of exchange for £100 and send it to you. It pleases me to see that you understand how to use your money with good economy without petty stinginess. When you are going to show yourself as a gentleman, you can only get out of what you are doing with a sensible and moderate use of your means. That's clear.

Finally, we get to the most interesting part of the letter.

With the next steamer to Leith, I will, according to your request, send you a half-bottle of Carlsberg beer, which I also believe is healthier for you than Ale and Porter. We drank your cup on the evening of March 2nd in all kinds of Ale and Porter that you had sent, among which we (especially Vogelius and I) preferred Bass & Co's Ale, as the noblest drink. (Do you know the % strength of Bass's pale Ale?) I had another rarity to offer my guests, namely a bottle of London Porter that was over 20 years old. I have received a couple of bottles of it from Grocer Clausen at Christianshavn, who has had a small supply lying uncorked for 20 25 years. It has no carbonation of course, but is wine-like, somewhat sour, like all Porter, but is finer and more pleasant than both the Younger and London Porter you sent me. I am keeping the other bottle of the old Porter until you get home so that you can also convince yourself with your own tongue of the possibility of keeping Porter that long. As for the two last-mentioned types of Porter, we liked the Younger best; the other tasted somewhat raw. It was perhaps too cold, however.

Descriptions of beer flavour from the 19th century are frustratingly rare. Making it dead interesting to find one. And especially of such a special, extremely old Porter. What particularly struck me was this "somewhat sour, like all Porter". I assume that he means Keeping Porter. As Running Porter wouldn't have had time to sour. 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1884 W.E. & J. Rigden Porter

Brewers in the immediate of London – such as those in Kent – stuck with Porter longer than those further afield in England. Presumably this was due to the ready availability of beer from the capital.

That would explain Rigden’s Porter recipe. Which is very similar to a London one. Almost identical to 1890 Truman Porter. So much so, that when I cloned it in BeerSmith from the Truman recipe, I barely needed to change it.

It means a grist of pale, brown and black malt. The holy trinity of London Porter. Along with some sugar. Of an unspecified type.

The gravity is also very close to those in London. Where it differs from beers from the capital, is in the level of hopping. Which is a bit lower. But, at over 8 lbs per quarter (336 lbs), isn’t exactly low. Two types of hops were used. Both illegible squiggles with no indication of vintage.

I doubt very much this was aged more than a couple of weeks. 

1884 W.E. & J. Rigden Porter
pale malt	8.00 lb	68.09%
brown malt	1.00 lb	8.51%
black malt	0.75 lb	6.38%
raw cane sugar	2.00 lb	17.02%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
OG	1055
FG	1008
ABV	6.22
Apparent attenuation	85.45%
IBU	53
SRM	27
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

 

 

Jacobsen to Jacobsen

The J. C. Jacobsens Arkiv (https://jcjacobsenarkiv.carlsbergfondet.dk/dokumenter) has the correspondence between the elder and younger Jacobsen, when the latter was studying in the UK. Specifically, at William Younger in Edinburgh. Wher Carl Jacobsen was an apprentice. They provide a wonderful insight both into what was happening in Edinburgh brewing and, to a lesser degree, in Copenhagen.

This is a letter for Jacobsen senior to his son.

1868-11-17
Dear Carl! As soon as I received your letter yesterday, I asked Lind to prescribe Poitevin's Lexicon for you. I did not meet him at home and therefore do not know how soon it can be expected, but hopefully it will get here before the shipping from here to Leith stops. I am surprised, by the way, that the booksellers in the intelligent city of Edinburgh are not more clever. As for sending beer from here, I think I will have to limit myself to sending a case of beer in bottles this autumn (in December) as a present to Theilmann. Sales have exceeded the calculated amount in recent months, so much so that my beer is always younger than it should be for home use and is therefore only slightly suitable for shipping. In addition, I fear that it would be less fitting for your position in Younger's Brewery if your father began to act as a competitor in Edinburgh or to announce a competition, which, however small it would be, would hardly be well received by the brewers there. - When you have gone to Burton or London next year, this consideration will certainly fall away and only then will I be able to send beer that I can be honored by, and honor is, as always, more important to me in this case than possible advantage.

A couple of interesting points there. First, that due to high demand, Carlsberg was skimping on lagering time. Making their beer not really suitable for export. Second, Carlsberg was already considering exporting to Scotland. And the only reason they didn't, was out of courtesy to Carl Jacobsen's hosts.

This next bit comes as a surprise. After 20 years of bottom-fermenting at Carlsberg, why were they making experiments with top-fermentation?

The experiments that I have been thinking of and hope to have the opportunity to make this winter should be nothing more than to refresh the experience that I gained many years ago with regard to cold-fermented beer, for which I will use my usual Bavarian wort. It will therefore only be a fermentation experiment to compare the results of top-fermented and bottom-fermented beer from the same wort. If I can manage more, I would be willing to also make some brewing experiments in the small apparatus that previously stood and is to be re-equipped at the end of the Swallow House, but I do not attach much importance to it until you have been to Burton and have gained a more complete insight into English brewing, which can serve as a guide for me. 

The reference to Burton has me wondering whether Jacobsen senior was considering brewing a Pale Ale.

Jacobsen senior seemed somewhat bemused by some of the practices at Younger's Edinburgh brewery.

You have not told me whether you have a place in Edinburgh with Younger or can get him to make you acquainted with the Porter brewery. There is no hurry and you must of course take one thing at a time, but I am very interested to know whether you can get some insight into porter brewing this winter. Your notes on the Abbey Brewery and its method have interested me very much, although there are not a few things that seem to me anything but rational, e.g. the use of copper for mash vats and even for fermentation vats!! Likewise the semi-dry mashing even for thinner beers (how large is the yield in relation to the amount of malt?) and the use of quite fresh malt, etc. Later on, however, you will be able to better understand what is the consequence of a principle or of old habit or of accidental and local circumstances. I have not had time to reduce the analysis sizes to Danish terms, but I see that the water in Edinburgh is in any case not the best for lager beer, whereas the water in Burton is excellent. The latter analysis I have found verbatim in Tizards' work.

Burton water excellent for Lager? With all those minerals? That goes against everything I've learned about water chemistry. I really struggle to understand what the fuck he means.

[Crossed out] Is there any developed brewing literature in England? 

Does not Mr. Smith or his son speak of what they have seen in Germany. Do they show any inclination to introduce improvements? How long has the now useful mash apparatus been used and do you know whether it is common in the breweries in England? Are deep, cold cellars used anywhere for storage or ice for cooling? For how many months of the year is porter brewed for export in London? Is that kind of porter brewed in Burton. With this I must conclude for today. 

With regards from your Mother 

your

Jacobsen.

The answer to that question about deep cellars and ice is: no. That practice only starts when Lager brewing kicks off in the UK, which was a few years later, in the 1870s.

I'm guessing that export Porter was usually brewed between October and March. I could be wrong, though, as Porter brewers brewed the year round. The Porter brewed in Burton was different to that from London. And had been called "black Pale Ale".

If you like this, let me know. There's loads more of this. 

Pub closures

Nowadays, pub closures are much lamented. And there are groups on bot a national and local level doing their best to keep them open. At the end of the 19th century, things were very different. The reverse, in fact. With temperance groups and some politicians actively trying to close as many as possible.

Why was that? Because temperance twats saw pubs as a terrible temptation to the poor wee lambs of the working class. Who didn't have the moral fibre to resist. Remove the temptation and sobriety would follow. At least, that was the theory. A condescending view of the labouring classes and totally ignoring the vital social function that pubs played. 

None of this applied to where the upper classes gathered to drink: posh gentleman's clubs. Which is why for so long working men's clubs remained unaffected by licensing legislation. As the authorities struggled to find a way of imposing the control on workers' clubs while allowing their own to operate unhindered.

Key pieces of legislation regarding pubs were the 1869 and 1872 Licensing Acts, which not only made it very difficult to obtain new licences, but also made it easier for magistrates to revoke existing licences. An unexpected consequence was a big increase in the value of existing licences. Which in turn boosted the tied house system, as brewers rushed to guarantee outlets. 

With pub licences a valued asset, brewers were reluctant to close pubs. Instead, they would trade in two or three licences of smaller, inner city pubs, where there was lots of competition, to gain one new licence in a new suburb. Today, with few pubs owned by brewers and new licences easy to obtain, there's no need for owners to hang onto unprofitable pubs. No need to trade licences with licensing magistrates.

You may think a lot of pubs are currently closing. In the first couple of decades of the 20th century it was between 3 and 5 pubs a day that disappeared forever. A fall so great it must have impacted every community in the country. 

Reduction in licences in England and Wales 1905 - 1920
Year ended Dec 31	Refused with compensation	Refused without compensation	Licences lapsed	New licences granted	Net decrease
1905	194	80	363	53	584
1906	892	69	435	56	1,340
1907	1,735	48	322	68	2,037
1908	1,236	30	253	47	1,472
1909	1,290	35	286	50	1,561
1910	993	27	250	33	1,237
1911	978	20	444	44	1,398
1912	849	18	296	53	1,110
1913	842	24	265	52	1,079
1914	844	13	225	48	1,034
Totals	9,853	364	3,139	504	12,852
Average 1894 - 1902					296
Average 1903 - 1904					614
Average 1905 - 1914	985	36	314	50	1,285
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1922, page 91.

 

 

South America here I come

Just starting to get my travel plans for next year sorted out. Well, trips in the early part of the year, at least.

In February/March I'll be judging the Concorso Brazileiro de Cervejas. As usual. I've judged there since 2020. It's always good fun. I's no longer in Blumenau. This year's location is Uberländia in the state of Minas Gerais. Which will be interesting as I've never been to that part of Brazil. And I should get to meet all my Brazilian chums again. Only downside: it's a long way from a beach.

As usual, I'll have a couple of days in Rio on the way in. I do love Rio. And I won't be there during carnival this year. What's more relaxing than chilling out in Ipanema for a while? Sipping a 75cl caipirinha on the beach.

In April it's the turn of the Copa ACI in Santiago, Chile. Organised by my good mate Chris Flaskamp. Santiago is a pretty cool city. And, of course, there's the Républica Independiente del Pisco. One of my favourite bars anywhere in the world.

I've also a couple of Spring gigs in Germany. In March I'll be giving a couple of talks at the Heimbrau Convention in Romrod. Where I'll be staying in an amazing gothic castle.

At the Frohnhauser Sudwerkstatt in Essen, I'll be giving a talk on the history of IPA in April. Where there will be several historic IPAs to lubricate my dusty lecture.

I'm always up for a bit of judging and or talking. Especially outside Europe. Feel free to shower me with invitations. Unless you're in the USA. I think I'll be giving that a miss for the next couple of years. 

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.