What is 1970s UK Lager?

Continuing my series on UK Lager, I look at the 1970s, the decade Lager really broke through.

 

UK pseudo-Lager in 1978

To accompany my recent video on YouTube about pseudo-Lager, here are details of a few.

It's a bunch of Lagers from regional English brewers. Mostly from the North, with just a couple from the Southwest. The brewers vary in size quite a bit. Greenhall Whitley and Vaux being the largest, Palmer the smallest. 

Given the nature of these breweries, I doubt very much any of them had the plant required to brew a Lager properly. Perhaps a couple of largest. But there's no way brewers like Hydes or Palmer had the necessary equipment.

There's quite a variation in both the price and the strength. Federation, unsurprisingly, being by far the cheapest. I'm surprised how many top 4%. My impression of Lager at the time was that it was pretty watery stuff. Though those ABVs are the result of very high degrees of attenuation. Which would also explain my watery impression.

There's a real dichotomy in their names. Some go for Germanic or Nordic names, while the others are resolutely English. 

UK pseudo-Lager in 1978
Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (p)	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
Cameron	Icegold	33	1038.4	1005	4.35	86.98%
Federation	Ace of Clubs	27	1034.9	1007.2	3.60	79.37%
Hull	Top Score	38	1037.9	1005	4.29	86.81%
Vaux	Norseman	34	1038.7	1005.9	4.27	84.75%
Greenall Whitley	Grunhalle	33	1036.7	1005.4	4.08	85.29%
Hydes	Amboss	35	1034.7	1008.55	3.39	75.36%
Lees	Gold Medal	36	1033.7	1002.7	4.04	91.99%
Matthew Brown	Slalom	30	1037.2	1004.75	4.23	87.23%
Oldham Brewery	Rheingold	30	1035	1007	3.64	80.00%
Robinson	Einhorn	34	1035.9	1004.1	4.14	88.58%
Thwaites	Stein	37	1034.6	1007.8	3.48	77.46%
Hall & Woodhouse	Brock	36	1032.4	1005.5	3.50	83.02%
Palmer	Shilthorn	40	1041.4	1004.7	4.79	88.65%
Average		34.1	1036.3	1005.7	3.98	84.27%
Source:
Sunday Mirror - Sunday 08 October 1978, page 4.

My video on pseudo-Lager: 

Conical fermenters in the DDR

In one of my Brewing in the DDR slides I mentioned the adoption of conical fermenters. I thought that I'd expand on that a little. Based on a section of "Die Brau- und Malzindustrie in Deutschland-Ost zwischen 1945 und 1989".

I may have banged on about DDR brewing retaining much pre-war equipment. But it wasn't totally immune to modern brewing technology. As is demonstrated by the development of conical fermenters locally. Despite there being no manufacturers of brewing equipment when the DDR was founded. The industry having been all located in West Germany.

Two prototype tanks, based on the Asahi design were built in 1970. The first production version was installed at the Sternburg Brewery in Lützschena early in 1971. It had a capacity of 2,500 hl and had external cooling. Later, two identical tanks were installed at Kindl in Berlin.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, 379 conical fermenters were installed at 29 of the 161 breweries in the DDR. Obviously, these were at the larger and more important breweries. For example, export breweries such as Wernesgrüner and Radeberger, and the large Berlin breweries Kindl-Weißensee, Bürgerbräu, Schultheiss Leninallee and Bärenquell.

The part of Thüringen I knew best, what was then the Bezirk of Erfurt had only one brewery with conical fermenters: Gotha. Is it a coincidence that it was the one brewery in the region whose beers I really didn't care for?

There were three sizes of tank: 1000/1300 hl, 2500 hl and 5500 hl. Most were 25000 hl, with only a handful of 5500 hl tanks. Doubtless more breweries would have installed conical fermenters, had the DDR not ceased to exist.

Brewing technology is a good example of the disadvantages the DDR faced.It was locked out of German suppliers by the division of the country and of international ones by being in the socialist block. Leaving them little option but to try to develop their own brewing equipment industry.

This information comes from "Die Brau- und Malzindustrie in Deutschland-Ost zwischen 1945 und 1989" pages 100 and 101. 

1970s Pilsator decoction mash

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.

1973 DDR Pilsator mashing scheme
operation	time
	start	end	temp. º C	hl
3,500 kg pilsner malt mashed in	06:20	06:40	56	120
drain 1st mash	06:55	07:05		110
raise to 64º C	07:00	07:15
saccharification rest	07:15	07:45	64
raise to 74º C	07:45	07:55
rest 20 min	07:55	08:15	74
move to mash tun	08:15	08:25
cool to 64º C	08:25	08:35	64	140
drain 2nd mash	08:35	08:40		60
saccharification rest	08:40	08:55	76
raise to boil	08:55	09:25
boil	09:25	09:35
move to mash tun	09:35	09:45
saccharification rest	09:45	10:00	76
mash out in lauter tun	10:00	10:25
Source:
a random DDR brewing record I have

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. 

UK draught beer by type and strength 1971 - 2024

A slightly different table today. Covering a longer period than the last period, but only for draught beer.

Between the mid-1970s and 2024, the proportion of draught beer fell by 50%. That's a pretty big change. And obviously bad news for cask beer, which is only available in draught form.

I quick word about the classes. These are:

Class I <= 1034º
Class II 1035º - 1039º
Class III >= 1040º

Ordinary Bitter - that under 1040º - saw the biggest drop. From 26% of beer sales in 1990 to just 5.5% in 2024. In contrast, Bitter of 1040º and above saw its share slightly increase between 2000 and 2024. Despite falling during the early 2000s. Indicating a clear move in Bitter drinkers from Ordinary to Best Bitter.

There was a similar upgrading in Lager, though it took place somewhat later, after 2012. And after the pandemic, the switch was even more dramatic, with stronger Lager outstripping Cooking Lager. Though, with the recent changes in the tax rate for weaker beers which has seen the strength of several big Lager brands reduced that may well have changed in 2025.

The second table just looks at percentages of draught sales. Which shows better how the different styles have been faring.

I was surprised to see that, in 2000, bottom-fermenting beer barely outsold top-fermenting: 53% to 47%. By 2024, that was 64% to 34%. But that's a fall since Lager's peak in 2021, when it was 66%. Interestingly, it wasn't a revival of Bitter that ate into Lager's slice, but Stout.

After 2000, Stout's share of the draught market was very stable at around 7%. Then rose sharply from 2022, hitting 12% in 2024. Which is a pretty dramatic change. With Bitter's share continuing to fall, Stout is starting to breathe down its neck. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Especially if Stout will continue to chew away at both Bitter and Lager. If the trends of the last couple of years continue, Stout might outstrip Bitter by 2030. Wouldn't that be weird?

UK draught beer by type and strength 1971 - 2024
Year	Mild	Bitter standard	Bitter premium +stout		Lager standard	Lager premium	Bitter total	Lager total	Total draught
1971	17.7	31.3	17.4		7.1			7.1	73.5
1972	15.9	31.1	17.8		8.6			8.6	73.4
1973	14.2	30.6	17.0		11.3			11.3	73.1
1974	13.8	30.6	16.8		12.1	0.5		12.6	73.8
1975	13.3	31.0	15.9		14.9	0.7		15.6	75.8
1976	12.6	30.7	15.2		17.3	1.2		18.5	77.0
1977	12.7	32.0	14.8		17.4	1.6		19.0	78.5
1978	11.9	31.8	13.8		18.8	1.8		20.6	78.1
1979	11.4	31.5	13.2		20.2	1.9		22.1	78.2
1980	8.6	34.9	12.3		21.0	2.0		23.0	78.8
Year	Mild	Bitter I + II	Bitter premium +stout		Lager I + II	Lager III	Bitter total	Lager total	Total draught
1982	8.0	38.0	9.1		22.0	2.3		24.3	79.4
1983	7.3	36.5	8.7		23.5	2.5		26.0	78.5
1984	6.9	34.8	8.6		25.1	2.8		27.9	78.2
1985	6.4	33.2	8.6		25.7	3.3		29.0	77.2
1986	5.9	31.2	8.6		26.2	3.9		30.1	75.8
1987	5.3	29.0	8.7		26.7	4.6		31.3	74.3
1988	4.9	27.6	8.6		27.0	4.9		31.9	73.0
Year	Mild	Bitter I + II	Bitter III	Stout	Lager I + II	Lager III	Bitter total	Lager total	Total draught
1990	4.1	25.8	8.9		27.2	5.3		32.5	71.6
2000	1.7	19.6	3.6	4.4	24.9	8.2	23.2	33.1	62.3
2001	1.5	18.3	3.3	4.3	24.6	8.4	21.6	33.0	60.6
2002	1.4	17.1	3.2	4.2	24.4	8.3	20.3	32.7	58.6
2003	1.2	15.9	3.0	3.9	24.7	8.5	18.9	33.2	57.1
2004	1.1	15.0	2.9	3.8	24.9	8.3	17.9	33.2	56.0
2005	1.0	14.2	2.9	3.8	25.2	8.2	17.1	33.4	55.2
2006	0.9	13.3	2.8	3.7	25.3	7.8	16.1	33.1	53.7
2007	0.8	12.9	3.0	3.7	24.8	7.3	15.9	32.1	52.4
2008	0.7	12.3	3.0	3.7	23.7	6.8	15.3	30.5	50.2
2009	0.6	12.2	3.2	3.6	23.7	6.6	15.4	30.3	49.9
2010	0.5	11.4	3.2	3.5	23.1	6.5	14.6	29.6	48.2
2011	0.5	11.6	3.1	3.3	22.8	6.6	14.7	29.4	47.8
2012	0.3	11.6	3.2	3.2	22.5	6.9	14.8	29.4	47.7
2013	0.3	11.1	3.3	3.1	21.7	6.9	14.4	28.6	46.4
2014	0.3	10.6	3.4	3.1	20.8	7.7	14.0	28.5	45.8
2015	0.3	10.3	3.7	3.0	19.7	8.2	14.0	27.9	45.1
2016	0.3	9.8	3.7	3.0	19.0	8.9	13.5	27.9	44.7
2017	0.3	9.1	3.8	3.0	18.0	9.2	12.9	27.2	43.4
2018	0.3	8.4	3.7	2.9	17.4	9.3	12.1	26.7	41.9
2019	0.2	7.9	3.6	3.0	16.7	9.7	11.5	26.4	41.1
2020	0.1	3.8	1.8	1.4	8.0	5.4	5.6	13.4	20.4
2021	0.1	4.5	2.7	2.0	10.1	8.3	7.2	18.4	27.7
2022	0.04	5.8	3.9	3.2	13.0	12.0	9.7	25.0	38.0
2023	0.04	5.7	3.9	3.8	12.0	13.0	9.6	25.0	38.5
2024	0.05	5.5	3.7	4.6	11.1	13.6	9.2	24.7	38.6
Source:
BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025, page 15.
The Brewers' Society Statistical Handbook 1980, page 10.
The Brewers' Society Statistical Handbook 1988, page 16.

UK % of draught beer by style
Year	Mild	Stout	Bitter	Lager
2000	2.73%	7.06%	37.24%	53.13%
2001	2.48%	7.10%	35.64%	54.46%
2002	2.39%	7.17%	34.64%	55.80%
2003	2.10%	6.83%	33.10%	58.14%
2004	1.96%	6.79%	31.96%	59.29%
2005	1.81%	6.88%	30.98%	60.51%
2006	1.68%	6.89%	29.98%	61.64%
2007	1.53%	7.06%	30.34%	61.26%
2008	1.39%	7.37%	30.48%	60.76%
2009	1.20%	7.21%	30.86%	60.72%
2010	1.04%	7.26%	30.29%	61.41%
2011	1.05%	6.90%	30.75%	61.51%
2012	0.63%	6.71%	31.03%	61.64%
2013	0.65%	6.68%	31.03%	61.64%
2014	0.66%	6.77%	30.57%	62.23%
2015	0.67%	6.65%	31.04%	61.86%
2016	0.67%	6.71%	30.20%	62.42%
2017	0.69%	6.91%	29.72%	62.67%
2018	0.72%	6.92%	28.88%	63.72%
2019	0.49%	7.30%	27.98%	64.23%
2020	0.49%	6.86%	27.45%	65.69%
2021	0.36%	7.22%	25.99%	66.43%
2022	0.11%	8.42%	25.53%	65.79%
2023	0.10%	9.87%	24.94%	64.94%
2024	0.13%	11.92%	23.83%	63.99%
Source:
BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025, page 15.