The Beer Trade of Belgium

More fun from Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette about Belgian brewing in the late 19th century.

First a little something about Belgian beer imports. I was surprised to see what the source of the majority of those imports was.

"The Beer Trade of Belgium
From statistics recently published concerning the commerce of Belgium it appears that the importation of beer into that country continues notably to increase. During the first half of the present year, that is to say, from January 1 to June 30, the total amount of beer imported from Germany was 35,983 hect., as against 29,651 hect. in the corresponding period of 1880, and 24,162 hect. in the corresponding period of 1879. The importation in 1880 for the whole year was 71,890 hect.; in 1879, 47,457 hect.; and in 1878, 52,082 hect. The largest quantity of beer imported into Belgium is drawn from Prussia, the imports of such beer having latterly largely increased. Whilst the importation of English beer remains almost stationary, beers of German origin continue to increase in popularity, and their consumption is very large. At the same time it must be mentioned, that in spite of this constant augmentation the importation of foreign beers into Belgium compared with the general consumption of the country, is insignificant, and does not represent anything like a formidable total."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Tuesday 01 November 1881, page 7.

Surprising to see Prussia listed for two reasons. First, because it wasn't a big beer exporter. But more importantly, because Prussia no longer existed as a country.What they probably mean is that the imports came from the Brausteuergebied - basically the North of Germany. I wonder when this trade dried up? Before WW I or as a result of it?

Belgian brewing in 1880
Output (hl)	9,239,000
imports (hl)	71,890
% imports	0.78%
Sources:
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Tuesday 01 November 1881, page 7.
European Statistics 1750-1970 by B. R. Mitchell, 1978, page 283.

I assume that these imports were principally, if not exclusevely, bottom-fermenting beer. While imports of UK beer were definitely 100% top fermenting. The UK's export trade with Belgium was more extensive in the 20th century, espewcially after WW II, peaking at 215,874 barrels in 1965.* Which amounted to over 50% of all UK beer exports.

Next we move on to hops and barley.

"With regard to the importation of hops, statistics show that during the present year a decreased quantity of hops has been imported into Belgium In the first half of 1881, 349,673 kilogs. of hops were imported into that country, while in the corresponding period of 1880 the total was 525,785 kilogs., and in the same period of 1879, 503,675 kilogs. According to official statistics Prussia sends by far the largest quantity of hops into that country although the total this year is, so far, much less than that in the two previous years. The imports of hops from England into Belgium also show a notable falling off this year as compared with the first half of last year. With reference to the exportation of hops from Belgium the figures do not denote any remarkable fluctuations. This exportation in the first half of 1881 amounted to 588,485 kilogs., as against 675,04O in the same period of 1880, and 633,171 kilogs. in the same period of 1879. France receives the largest quantity of hops from Belgium and a considerable quantity are also sent to this country. The imports of barley into Belgium in the first half of this year amounted to 50,317,263 kilogs., as compared with 60,977,203 in the same period of 1880, and 73,270,864 in the same period of 1879, It will thus be noted that for the first half of this year these figures show a diminution. The exports of barley from Belgium have also decreased in the half-year ending June last, the total being 8,437,158 kilogs., as against 18,096,090 in the corresponding period of 1880."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Tuesday 01 November 1881, page 7

Belgian hops were popular in the UK. Not because anyone thought they were any good, but because they were dirt cheap. Overall, Belgium was a small next exporter of hops, by about 100,000 kg.

On the other hand, Belgium was a big net importer of barley, bringing 41 million kg more than it sent out.



* “1971 Brewers' Almanack”, pages 53-54.

Brewing in Belgium

The last set of bosts about 19th-century Belgian brewing went down well. So here's another, rather smaller, article.

Though this one isn't quite as snide, it does point out the ridiculous nature of the Belgian tax system

"Brewing in Belgium.
Brewing is one of the most important branches of Belgian industry, and the average annual quantity of beer manufactured in the country amounts to about 105,668,000 gallons. Notwithstanding such a relatively large production, Belgium exports a very small quantity of beer. The introduction into France of the light and cheap beer produced in Belgium is prevented by the French customs tariff laws, which do not establish any distinction for any particular quality of beer imported, but prescribe a fixed rate of duty of four cents. per gallon. Besides this, the Belgian excise duties hinder the manufacture of strong and well-fermented beer. The Revenue tax being levied according to the size of the mashing tubs employed, the brewers are interested in getting the most they can from the mash, and they neglect the quality in order to obtain the quantity; yet, considering the advantages placed at its disposal, it is believed that Belgium would be able to compete with any other nation, if there was a thorough fiscal reform. From England beer is exported to the amount of two millions sterling. Brewing is an industry which in Belgium contributes a good deal to the advancement of the national fortune and to the physical development of the working community. Throughout the country there are about 2,700 breweries, which produce annually 214,821,687 gallons of beer. "
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Friday 01 April 1881, page 9.

This is something modern drinkers might be surprised by: "Belgian excise duties hinder the manufacture of strong and well-fermented beer". Nowadays Belgium is associated with strong beers, but that wan't the case in the past. Almost all Belgian beer was pretty weak in the 19th century.

The numbers for Belgian beer production don't seem to match up. First it lists 105,668,000 gallons, then later 214,821,687. The later number, which is the ewquivalent of 5,967,269 barrels looks like the correct figure. As a very similar number is confirmed by another source.

To put that Belgin beer production figure into context, here are the numbers for some neighbouring countries:

Beer production in 1880 (barrels)
UK	30,742,649
Belgium	5,635,790
France	5,048,970
Germany	23,638,720
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 109.
European Statistics 1750-1970 by B. R. Mitchell, 1978, page 283.

It's amazing that Belgium, a tiny country, produced more beer than France. And most of that French beer was produced jsut south of the Belgian border.

Belgian beers 1839 - 1898

This is a sort of companion post to my recent series about Belgian beers in the 19th century.

Turns out I have rather more Lambic analyses than I thought. Though, sadly, only three give the level of acidity. Unsurprisingly, it's pretty damn high in all three examples.

What is a shock is the strength of some of the examples of Lambic. Only two of the seven are below 6% ABV. Even all the Faro is above 5% ABV. The strongest Lambics are almost 10% ABV - way, way stronger than any modern version.

Knowing how it was produced, the extremely high level attenuation is to be expected. All the bugs would have eaten through just about anything fermentable. The attenuation is particularly impressive if you know that before 1900 most continental beers were below 70% apparent attenuation.

Gerstenbier, in case you're wondering, is the same as Bière d'Orge. It's just the Dutch-language version of the name.

Belgian beers 1839 - 1898
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Acidity (%)	pH
1839	Unknown	Lambic	1085.1	1011.5	9.72	86.49%
1850	Unknown, Brussels	Lambik	1058.4	1013.2	5.89	76.39%
1850	Unknown, Brussels	Faro	1051.2	1011.2	5.20	77.17%
1850	Unknown, Louvain	Petermann	1069.6	1015.6	7.06	76.47%
1870	Unknown	Faro	1055.1	1013.5	5.41	75.50%
1871	Unknown	Lambic	1070.7	1008.7	5.60	86.95%	1.06	3.37
1872	Unknown	Lambic	1059.7	1003.3	7.42	94.47%
1889	Unknown	Lambic	1088.2	1011.1	9.71	86.46%	1.11	3.36
1889	Unknown	Faro	1055.9	1012.6	5.41	76.47%	0.9	3.4
1890	Unknown	Lambic	1061.4	1003.3	7.43	94.63%
1890	Unknown	Faro	1055.4	1013	5.41	76.54%
1898	Unknown	Lambic	1059.4	1003	7.43	94.95%
1898	Unknown	Faro	1054.5	1012.9	5.41	76.32%
1898	Unknown	Gerstenbier	1048	1002.5	5.96	94.79%
Sources:
"Bericht über die Entwickelung der chemischen Industrie während des letzten Jahrzehends" by August Wilhelm von Hofmann, 1877, page 382
Handwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie by Justus Liebig, Johann Christian Poggendorff, Friedrich Wöhler, 1858, page 1038
"Bericht über die Entwickelung der chemischen Industrie während des letzten Jahrzehends" by August Wilhelm von Hofmann, 1877, page 382
American Handy Book of the Brewing, Malting, and Auxiliary Trades by Robert Wahl and Max Henius, Chicago, pages 823-830
"Handbuch der chemischen technologie" by Otto Dammer, Rudolf Kaiser, 1896, pages 696-697
Brockhaus' konversations-lexikon, Band 2 by F.A. Brockhaus, 1898 http://books.google.de/books?id=oZ5PAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA999&dq=bierdruckapparat+konversationslexikon#PPA1000,M1

A British brewer describes Belgian beers in the 1880s (part five)

The final part today. With some more desriptions of Belgian brewing methods. His contempt for which the aouthor makes no attempt to conceal. While also bigging up British beer. I suppose he couldn't help himself.

We start with a piece of of brewing equipment I've never come across before: Rechauffeur. Which literally means "reheater" in Frenvh.

"The first runnings are conducted into what is termed a Rechauffeur, a vessel heated with steam, so that the wort can be gradually raised to a temperature of about 158° Fahr. When this is attained, and when all the worts have been gathered in this vessel, the temperature is kept constant for about an hour, when the wort is pumped into the copper and boiled for about three hours.

This extraordinary procedure is the rule and not the exception in Belgian breweries and, upon consideration it will not cause suprise that this method of manufacture should fail to produce an article equal in quality to those to which we have, fortunately, become accustomed."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 14.

I guess that's sort of raising the worts to mashout temperature. Though the author is clearly unimpressed.

Some more details of the brewing methods.

"When two mash-tuns are erected it frequently happens that brewers openly evade the law by refusing to convert their first runnings into a return wort, by causing it to pass over the grist in the second tun. By so doing they can effect a very considerable saving in duty. Curiously enough, they seem to make no secret of the evasion. Whether this be attributable to the fact that the Excise officers are susceptible of manipulation, I am not prepared to say; but several brewers with whom I conversed made no secret about the matter, but freely admitted that a large proportion of their profits were made in this manner."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 14.

If you remember my last post, The first wort from mash tun 1 had to be used for mashing the grains in mash tun 2. That's what "return wort" means. A wort - in the UK usually the last runnings with an OG of 1005º or so - used as mash water.

Were Belgian excise officers easily corrupted? Who knows. It does seem odd that the law was so blatantly broken. Not sure why this should have made brewers' operations more profitable.

The next bit is rather vague:

"As a rule the cleansing, not the skimming system is pursued; and the remainder of the process greatly resembles our own. The manufacture is altogether so unique, and so interesting from certain points of view, that it would be a mistake for any visitor to the Antwerp Exhibition to neglect paying inspection to some of these Belgian breweries. It is to be hoped that the above explanations may be of service to them, in forming some conception of the rationale of a very involved and clumsy process."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 14.

Cleansing was a process for removing yeast from beer. The best known system being Burton unions. But there were others, such as the dropping system or pontoes.

Overall, this article has convinced me more that tax is one of the biggest driving factors in the development of beer styles.

A British brewer describes Belgian beers in the 1880s (part four)

We now get onto the precise reason why Belgian beer was so bad. It waws all to do with their excise laws.

I did already know a little about this. Partly because the system in The Netherlands was the same, I think dating from when Belgium and Holland were a single country. It was the main reason why Lager-brewing didn't take off until quite late.

A change in the Dutch tax system in 1867 helped Lager-brewing more financially viable. Until then tax was charged on every time the mash tun was filled. For top-fermenting beers which were brewed by the infusion method, the mash tun was only filled once. With a decocted Lager, it was filled two or three times, thereby multiplying the amount of tax due. After 1867 brewers also had the option to pay tax based on the quantity of malt used. By opting for this new method of taxation, it was possible to brew bottom-fermenting beer much more cheaply.

It seems that such a choice wasn't an option in Belgium. Which could explain why so little bottom-fermenting beer was brewed there.

"The principal fault is to be traced to the ridiculous complexity of the fiscal laws, which would seem to have been devised with a view to absolutely prevent the brewer from producing a glass of wholesome ale; and the wonder is that it should have been found at all possible to cultivate a taste for the beer among the community. It is admitted on all hands that the Excise laws are attended with results disastrous to the production of really good ale, and it is further conceded that they do not constitute such a source of profit to the revenue as they might be made to do; but with an amount of red-tapeism, not altogether unknown or unrecognized in this country, they have remained practically unaltered for many years, and I was informed that there is but a slight chance of their speedily receiving any material amendment."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 14.

The author was clearly unimpressed. He explains exactly why the tax system encouraged the brewing of crap beer:

"The radical evil of the whole system is traceable to the fact that the brewer pays duty upon the contents of his mash-tun, not upon the amount of beer he may choose to produce. If he were to produce ten or one hundred barrels of wort from one brewing, he would have to pay just the same amount in duty, provided he use the same mash-tun to produce it. This being the case, it is obviously to his interest to extract as much as possible from the malt, so as to produce the maximum amount of beer from one charge of the tun. This he proceeds to do in the following remarkble manner:— The mash-tun is filled quite to the brim with grist, and in this condition is examined by the Excise officers. Liquor at a temperature of about 104° Fahr., is next introduced from below, and the rakes are started and are kept revolving during the first three hours. The temperature of the liquor is gradually raised to boiling, and once that temperature has been reached it is continued during the remainder of the mashing, which occupies the day. Upon the average no less than twenty sparges are made at the temperature indicated, so that it will readily be conceded that the brewer extracts as much as possible from his goods. It will generally be found that Belgian brew-houses are provided with two mash-tuns, both of which are filled with dry grist at the same time. When this is the case, the first runnings from the first tun are used to wet the grist in the second tun. This arrangement is demanded by law, though what possible advantage can result from it either to the brewer or the government, is a matter which is certainly not apparent upon the first blush."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 14.

Basically, the tax system encouraged brewers to overfill their mash tun with grain and to use too little water. Hence the need for a ridiculous number of sparge.

Not sure why the weird shit with two mash tuns was demanded by the government. Who knows? Belgium has always been a wacky place.

A British brewer describes Belgian beers in the 1880s (part three)

Our British brewer friend is far from done with sticking the boot into Belgian beer. He really doesn't have a good word about anything top-fermented.

He gets the knife to several more classic Belgian styles:

"What most puzzles an outsider is to account for the intellectual twist which must have actuated the brewer who first took so much trouble to produce a beer so horribly nauseating. The majority of the Belgian beer is what is termed "coupee" - or turned, and strange to say, it is preferred by the consumer, when in that condition. This remark applies to the true running ale or Biere d'Orge, which, as a type of high fermentation ale, would undoubtedly lead to the dismissal of any one responsible for its production in an English establishment. Biere Brune is is very mild, and is not "coupee." Saison is a similar mild ale, if possible somewhat more nauseous than all the others, with the exception of lambic. Uytzet is similar to orge, and is equally nasty."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

In this context, I think "coupee" means sour. While some aged British styles had a certain degree of tartness, they weren't out and out sour. Unlike in Belgium. Strange that Biere Brune shouldn't be coupee, as the name automatically makes me think of the sour Brown Beers found in parts of flanders.

British styles already had some degree of popularity, presumably on account of imports. Local brewers also took these types of beer on. Obviously, not to the satisfaction of our author.

"So-called "pale ale" and "stout" are made in Belgium and supplied under those names the various estaminets, but it certainly needs the name to recall the favourite beverages of England, and they would pass unrecognized, as such, by the most expert of our British brewers."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

It doesn't sound like brewing science had advanced very far in Belgium:

"It may be necessary to assert that there is not a trace of exaggeration in any of the above statements. I have tasted the various beers for myself, and I invite your readers to do the same, but venture to warn them that it would be well to do so upon homoeopathic principles. In truth it must be allowed that in Belgium brewers have much to learn, They would seem to have devoted some attention to the perfection of plant, and have in several instances, produced machinery which we should do well to imitate; but they have scarcely recognized the fact that brewing is a science, and that false ferments should be checked in their growth, rather than encouraged. I went over a good many breweries in Belgium, but in no case could I discover that there was a microscope within reach of the brewers, and in every case I was informed, upon inquiry, that they did not possess one."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

 Next we'll see the explanation for why most Belgian beer was dreadful. That'll be fun.

A British brewer describes Belgian beers in the 1880s (part two)

We're back with that very unimpressed British brewer taking a look at Belgian beer.

He lays out his opinion of Belgian brewing very clearly and frankly in the opening sentence:

"THE beer produced in Belgium may be conveniently, and accurately, divided into two classes: that which is fit to drink, and that which is not. The former class is exclusively composed of low fermentation beer, manufactured upon a system, which is practically the same as that in vogue in Germany; and it should at once be stated that the Belgian lager-beer will compare very favourably with that obtainable in other continental countries. Low fermentation beer, however, constitutes but a small fraction of the total quantity of the malted beverage consumed; and the various concoctions, passing as beer, collectively recognized as the national beverage, are to state the case mildly, somewhat peculiar preparations. Lest it should be imagined that the brewer is altogether responsible for the quality and flavour of the many varieties of beer which can be tasted at the Antwerp Exhibition; it is but just to add that he brews to suite the public palate, and if we may judge by the amount of beer consumed, he is successful enough in this respect."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 12.

That's a pretty strong condemnation of the traditional Belgian beer styles. Not really unexpected, though. Belgian styles were too different and weird to be apprciated by someone used to English beers. This quote pretty much sums up his view: "the various concoctions, passing as beer". Ouch.

The author, on the other hand, clearly had a very high opinion of British beers:

"Belgium being one of the very few countries in which the high fermentation system still prevails, it is possible to institute a comparison between the brewing products of that country and our own, and I cannot but think that those gentlemen who recently visited us with the object of inspecting our leading establishments and sampling the best of our beer, must have returned not a little astonished at the superior quality of the article produced in England. It is possible, however, that the English working man has still to be educated up to a standard, which in many cases would certainly be a convenient one, but, to which he, at present, can scarcely be said to aspire; and it may possibly be that beer which is absolutely sour, scarcely ever bright, always devoid of condition, and with a flavour approximating to that of flat zoedone, may, to to those who have been duly initiated into its advantages, be deemed preferable to a glass of sparkling, mild, or bitter beer. However, this may be, it is certain that the Belgian beer corresponding to our ordinary running ale would, in this country, be scornfully returned both by the publican and his customer."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, pages 12 - 13.

If you're wodering, Zoedone was some sort of non-alcoholic drink. The comparison with it I don't think is meant to be a compliment. This is pretty damning: "our, scarcely ever bright, always devoid of condition". He makes it sound lovely, doesn't he?

A British brewer describes Belgian beers in the 1880s

I love those descriptions of British brewers' and drinkers' encounters with Belgian beer. They're unanimous in their views: they taste dreadful.

To be fair, their opinions mirror my own on first encountering Belgian beer. Many years ago at a Great British Beer Festival in the late 1970s. "Is it supposed to taste like this?" was my reaction to Lambic. It just tasted like beer which had gone incredibly off.

While we're on the topic of Lambic, let's see what the authore thought of it:

"A beverage in great demand in the neighbourhood of Brussels, and which is also regarded in a very favourable light in Antwerp, and more especially at the Salon de degustation in the Exhibition is known as Lambic. The chief peculiarity, but certainly not the principal recommendation of this very remarkable ale, is to be found in the fact that not less than three and and sometimes as many as five years are required for its preparation. It is very low in gravity, and in that respect its consumption is possible to be commended; no yeast is added to the wort after it has been boiled, but it is allowed to undergo a spontaneous fermentation by storage iu unbuuged casks, in a cellar probably more remarkable for the number and variety of fortuitous germs floating about it, than for its cleanliness. That some stray yeast-cells find their way into the casks, and alighting upon a favourable medium, multiply with rapidity, is easily conceivable; but it will scarcely be urged, that the fermentation is purely alcoholic. Indeed, the difficulty, from an English brewer's point of view, will probably be to decide as to whether the aroma be attributable to casks winch have grown musty in the service, to butyric acid, to acetic acid, or to genuine putrefactive fermentation. In any case the combination is nasty; and it would be easier to induce an English farmer to cultivate a taste for olives than for lambic."

Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

Not exactly a ringing recommendation. Interesting that he says it's very low gravity. I've only a couple of analyses of 19th-century Lambic and one is 6.5% ABV.

Now he takes his axe to Faro:

"The second runnings of lambic wort are probably designed to develop a liking for this extraordinary article, for they are retained for the preparation of a beer known as Faro, which is practically intermediate between the running ale of the estaminets and lampic. Faro is not entirely fermented spontaneously, but has a small quantity of yeast added to it. When finished, it very much resembles a weak solution of hydrochloric acid. It may be tonic, but is not palatable, at least from our point of view."

Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

Not sure I've ever seen it mentioned before that some yeast was added to Faro. I don't think comparing Faro to hydrochloric acid is meant to be a compliment.

"A still more extraordinary product is that known as Biere Blanche. To the uninitiated it is not unlike workhoouse gruel in appearance, and, if one may judge by reports, there is not such a very great dissimilarity between the flavour of the two articles. If white beer be bright it is considered worth the drinking; but so long as it remains thick, it is consumed with evident relish. Your readers will not be surprised to learn that white beer is not adapted for store purposes, when they are told that it is with scarcely any hops, and that only half the wort is boiled, the remainder being conveyed direct from the mash-tun to the cooler preparatory to fermentation. Before pitching, it is mixed with the half that has been boiled, and to which a few hops have been added. This unique beverage has the colour of ginger beer, but is somewhat thicker in consistency. It is no exaggeration to state that the teetotal party might render good service to their cause by introducing white beer into England."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Wednesday 01 July 1885, page 13.

Fair to say that he wasn't impressed with Witbier. Workhouse gruel: what a lovely description.

Amazing to think that some of these beers are so highly regarded nowadays.

Bottled beer in Egypt

More random stuff from by blind sweep through the newspaper archives.

This is a excerpt from an article about trade in Egypt.

"Bottled Beer.
Outside the Army of Occupation and the British community there is very little demand for the ordinary English beer, which, as has been stated in previous reports, is too heavy to suit the local taste, but a light kind of beer would be likely to find purchasers. The Acting Consul-General quotes the following passage from a report of the British Chamber of Commerce, which seems deserving of the attention of British brewers: "Continental brewers push the consumption of their article in Egypt by financing the owners of the 'brasseries' (bars), thus enabling them to establish these in good localities and in an attractive manner, thereby obtaining a large turn-over." A large brewery, fitted with the latest machinery, has been established on the outskirts of Alexandria by a Belgian Company. Light Pilsener beer is now being actively brewed, and it is probable that the Company will place tbeir beer on the market in two or three months. This will probably compete seriously with European beer.
Morning Post - Friday 30 December 1898, page 2.

First let's look at British beer exports to Egypt. They really weren't that big:

British beer exports to Egypt 1890 - 1930
1890	1900	1910	1913	1919	1920
6,591	18,597	20,600	20,530	10,408	9,796
1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926
11,619	11,305	8,592	8,971	9,840	10,760
1926	1927	1927	1928	1929	1930
10,760	10,510	10,510	10,659	12,571	14,603
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 115.
Brewers' Journal 1921, page 24
Brewers' Journal 1923, page 26
Brewers' Journal 1925, page 27
Brewers' Journal 1927, page 28
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 115.
Brewers' Journal 1929, page 30
Brewers' Journal 1931, page 34

To put those numbers into context, in the same period around 20,000 barrels were exported to Malta. I don't need to tell you that Egypt's population is many times that of Malta. The amount is so small that it probably was mostly being drunk by British expats.

That British beer was too heavy for hotter countries is a complaint you often see towards the end of the 19th century when continental Lager brewers started to export their beers outside Europe. The growing popularity of Lager in the tropiocs had a serious impact on sales of British beer. That's one of the reasons Allsopp decided to install a Lager brewery in Burton: to be able to compete with European brewers in tropical markets.

The author clearly wasn't keen on the continental breweries buying their way into the Egyptian market. Even more surprising is a Belgian company building a brewery in Egypt. Especially as it would be brewing Pilsener. I'm not sure if anyone was brewing Pilsener in Belgium itself at the time. The style only really took off after WW I.

Lambic in the 1930's again

Remember me saying I wished I had more old description of Lambic brewing? It turns out I did. And in a really obvious place.

What could be a more obvious place to look than "Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces"? (Investigation into the yeast type Brettanomyces') The Dutch author, knowing Brettanomyces played a role in Lambic brewing, clearly made a little trip down to Brussels to find out more. He picked a brewery you may have heard of.

"Thanks to the kind cooperation of Mr. A. Vossen, Director of Brasserie "Mort subite" in Brussels, I have been able to acquaint myself with the method of preparing "lambic". Essentially this is done as follows.

The grist for "Gueuze-Lambic" is a mixture of barley malt and unmalted wheat, in which the quantity of the latter raw material makes up 40 to 50% of the total deposit. After this mash has passed the usual temperatures for the protein degradation and saccharification, it is filtered, hops are added and the hopped wort boiled for about 5 hours. The amount of added hop is 800-900 grams per hl of wort.

To demonstrate better the significance of this number, it is important to note that for beer brewed in this country and also for the normal types of beer brewed in Germany, up to 250 grams of hops is added per hl of wort."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 24.

You can see that a large amount of hops is confirmed. Though this is much less - 2.8 to 3.2 lbs per barrel - than the 8 to 12 lbs specified in the 1932 Brewers' Journal article. Which source to trust? Not sure. It could just be different hopping rates at different breweries.

"The product thus obtained, after filtration, is put into flat coolers where it remains ± 24 hours; there is no artificial cooling.

During cooling, the wort takes numerous organisms from the air. After cooling the wort is put into wooden barrels of about 2 hl size and these vessels in a room with a temperature of 15 ° - 18 ° C.. Yeast is not added; A slow fermentation occurs spontaneously. A closing piece is placed on the barrels, in which a small opening is located; this opening closes iself automatically with exudates, which will float up through the action of the fermentation.

The beer remains 2 to 3 years in the casks and then after clearing it is filled into bottles where the fermentation and lagering continue at the same temperature for about 2 years. The product thus obtained is the so-called "Gueuze-lambic "; it has an original gravity of 13-14° Balling.

The resulting product of two to three years fermentation and lagering in the casks is already suitable for consumption itself. It is also sold on draught under the name of "gueuze".

"krieken-lambic" is "lambic", where an appropriate amount of cherries is added in the barrels.

In passing it should be mentioned here that "faro" and "mars" which are also Brussels special beers are prepared in a similar way to "lambic ", but these beers have a lower original gravity than "lambic "."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, pages 24 - 25.

I think we all already knew that Lambic was left in a cooler. 24 hours is a long time to be in a cooler. Longer than you would need to cool the wort. Clearly cooling isn't the only consideration at play here.

I'll admit to not quite understanding the bit about the closing. Oh, the original book is in Dutch, by the way. It's my translation here. Exudates is what Google translate comes up with for the Dutch word "afscheidingsstoffen". If anyone has a better translation, let me know.

A gravity of 13-14° Balling, with the 90% attenuation you would expect from Lambic, leaves a beer of 6 to 6.5% ABV. Which is a bit higher than today. Two or three years in cask on the other hand is much like today. Though it confuses me that Gueuze-lambic is used for the version refermented in bottles and just Gueuze for the younger draught stuff. That's definitely different from current practice, where the names would be Gueuze and Lambic respectively.

Faro and Mars are once again said to be lower-gravity versions. No mention of sweetening, which I though was an essential feature of Faro.

""Lambic" is only be brewed in the cold seasons, viz. from October to April. In the last twenty years it has been attempted, through the use of pure cultures of the yeast and bacteria species generally found in "lambic", to shorten fermentation and lagering to 5 to 6 months and also to brew in the summer. However, this process has not made much progress.

For the fermentation of lambic Brettanomyces yeast is now considered essential; these probably also tend to get into  the wort during cooling. This is not so surprising, since the air and the coolers are undoubtedly sufficiently contaminated with these yeasts."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 25.

I wonder if any of the commercial Lambic breweries currently use pure cultures? It wouldn't surprise me. But, unlike the Brewers' Journal text, this does state that Lambic was usually spontaneously fermented, with the infection starting in the cooler.

That was informative, wasn't it? Maybe I should look to see if I have more stuff like this about Lambic.

Lambic in 1932 (part two)

We're back with that 1930's article on Lambic. With more surprising stuff about blending.

I wish I had more material like this on Belgian brewing. Then again, maybe it's better I'm not distracted any more than I already am from my primary aims. But every time I read something modern about Belgian beer history I get uneasy. The same assumptions that have plagued histories of British beer seem at play. Projecting the present into the past being the most dangerous.

First some more about the beer itself.

"The spontaneously fermented beers of the Brussels district are usually brewed from equal parts of malt and ungerminated wheat. Several types are frequently obtained from the same brew. For example, the first wort gives Lambic, the later runnings give March or small beer. Faro is obtained by blending the two. The Lambic is often kept two or even three years before use. Gueuse-lambic is natural Lambic to which no additions have been made. The customer may add sugar if he so desires. It is often kept several years in bottle."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

I've read about the three types of lambic brewed from a single mash in 19th-century texts. I can't imagine that they currently make anything weaker than Faro. I wonder if that's brewed as is or made from diluting Lambic? It's interesting how the term Gueuse-Lambic is used differently from today. Now it means a blend of aged Lambic blende and bottled. Back in the 1930's, it seems to have meant uncut Lambic. I wonder when the meaning changed?

The grist sounds much like today: a mix of malted barley and unmalted wheat.

"One is frequently asked what is the origin of the name Gueuse-lambic. It may simply be the Lambic of the poor. It is known that the latter adopt as a title of honour the name which was given to them in contempt. The poor woodmen and sailors reserve for themselves the best drinks and foods they produce."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

It's all very well coming up with an explanation about the Gueuse bit, but what about Lambic?

Now some more about blending.

"Tasting is a very important ceremony in the preparation of special beers. As with all luxury drinks, the aim is always to please customers. Each brewery consequently has a taster who has to determine the quantity of candy syrup or old beer which must be added. He has to regulate the blends and must know the taste of every customer. Each brewery thus tends to produce a beer of special flavour and the fermentations differ from one brewery to another. Details of brewing also influence the flavour. Thus blending in cask or fermenting vessel have different effects. It has been noticed that the flavours marry better in the latter case, as some of the constituents of the old beer may be modified during fermentation. The Lambic may contain all sorts of disease organisms and may have suffered from ropiness or haze. The yeast must consequently progressively become more infected, and the bad effects show themselves in the beer after quite lengthy periods of storage, sometimes months or even a year. Wort to which additions are to be made is comparatively strong, and in it 25 to 50 per cent, of wheat or other grain is used, with 8 to 12 lb. per barrel of hops. The beer is fermented in large storage casks and clarifies spontaneously. After the secondary fermentation it is kept long enough to become definitely acid."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

You can what they mean by blending is quite different from today. We'd now proably call mixing with syrup or vinegar cutting rather than blending. And note again that they mention blending in old beer with wort before fermentation. Having a skilled blender is still important in Lambic breweries. I can remeber being told that was one of the problems at Belle Vue. That produced some of the best Lambic, but not having good blenders couldn't get the most out of it. Or maybe it was just the sugar and other shit they were putting into it.

Yeast getting infected? Isn't that the whole point of Lambic brewing? That's rather a lot of hops for beer of this strength. Sadly, there's no mention of their age. I'd be shocked if they used that quantity of fresh hops, as it's a 19th-century IPA type level of hopping.

I'm intrigued by it souring "after the secondary fermentation". What's going on then? Is there a tertiary fermentation? Having seen a breakdown of a Lambic fermentation, it seems to go through multiple fermentations, with different organisms taking the lead, after finishing primary.

"The alcohol content of Lambic varies from 4 to over 6 per cent., with solid matter between 6 and 3 per cent. The beers are better fermented in open casks than in fermenting vessels as the attenuation is too rapid in the latter. The lactic acid develops first followed by the acetic. The fermentation is slow and the characteristic flavour is not developed in less than a year. The beers are very dextrinous.— Petite Gazette du Brasseur."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

Now there's a thing. While many Belgian styles have become stronger Lambic hasn't. If anything, it's got weaker. Nowadays they're always around 5% ABV. I know that there were stronger versions because I've an analysis of a 19th-century Lambic that was 6% ABV.

That's it for this article. Must pan the Brewers' Journal for some more nuggets.

Lambic in 1932

One of my big problems is harvesting information then forgetting about it before I have time to use it. Like this article about Lambic in the Brewers' Journal.

It seems to be a translation of an article from the French-language brewing periodical, "Petite Gazette du Brasseur". It provides a tantalising glimpse into pre-war Lambic brewing.

"LAMBIC

Visitors to Belgium usually wish to taste some of the beers typical of that country, such as Lambic or Faro, though they afterwards admit, not infrequently, that their palates would require a certain amount of education before they could fully appreciate the special qualities of these beverages. One of the characteristics of these beers consists in the use of grain other than barley. Wheat is generally used in the form of raw grain mixed with malt. The quantity employed may be even equal to that of the malt, it is usually said that wheat beers froth a great deal, but it would be more correct to say that they hold their head better than all-malt beer. Lactic and acetic acid are very quickly produced in them, and this is one of the characteristics of the Special Brussels beers. The high percentage of acids produced esterifies the alcohol during storage and gives the typical aromas to these beers. Use of different kinds of wheat gives special characteristics to the beers, while rye, oats and buckwheat are also occasionally used in addition."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

"their palates would require a certain amount of education" what a polite way of saying they spat out Lambic in disgust. because that's probably what happened when it was first sampled by the unwary or unwarned.

I'm not an expert in Belgian styles and their history. So the fact that I hadn't heard of grains other than barley or wheat in Lambic doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't surprise me. In the Middle Ages and early modern periods beer in the Low Countries and Northwest Germany was often brewed from multiple grains. Using a combination of barley, wheat, oats and rye wasn't unusual.

The high acid content shouldn't surprise you. I thought it was mostly lactic acid in Lambic, but don't quote me on that. In general, pleasant acidity in beer usually comes mostly from lactic acid.

Now something about fermentation:

"The fermentation methods adopted in the breweries may resemble either bottom or top fermentation. In the first case the temperature is kept below 50 deg. Fahr. and the yeast settles on the bottom of the fermenting vessel. The top fermentations are carried out at the temperature of the air and the yeast comes up. In certain cases the fermentation is spontaneous and started by organisms from the air or in the casks. This fermentation is very slow, and is not now used in the breweries devoted to making these beers."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

What an odd thing to say: "may resemble". It implies that while they may look on the surface like top- or bottom-fermentation, something else is really happening. But the last part I find most surprising. That Lambic brewers no longer spontaneously fermented. Is he only talking about larger commercial Lambic brewers? He must be, because the little ones around today I think have always stuck with spontaneous fermentation.

The way they blended also has some surprises:

"Additions of wort or very acid old beer play a very important part in the brewing. These are made in variable proportions to suit the taste of customers, and sometimes even vinegar or acetic acid are added. The old beer is acid and has passed through a sequence of diseases. If it is added to the casks, it is advisable to pasteurise it by heating it for a short time at 158 deg. Fahr. If the old beer is added before fermentation, it may be boiled for a few minutes in the copper and afterwards passed over the refrigerator before mixing with the wort in the starting vessel."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

Remember recently in a piece about brewing during WW II in Belgium it was mentioned that vinegar was used to sour blends in place of Lambic? It's clear that the practice pre-dated the war. Surely just adding vinegar to make it sour is cheating?

I can't imagine that old Lambic is pasteurised today before blending. And I'm certain no-one blends in old beer before fermentation starts. I t makes you realise that blending Lambic hasn't necessarily always been performed ass it is today.

I think that's enough for today. Next time we'll be learning more about the people who drank it.

Belgian Brewing in WW II

I can't believe I've never used this article. It ticks so many boxes. More proof that I've more material than I can cope with.

It was written by De Clerq, a distinguished Belgian brewer and writer. First he describes the situation in the early part of the 20th century.

"Before the first world war, there were many breweries in Belgium, more than 3,000. Beer consumption was very heavy, more than 200 litres per inhabitant per year (44 gallons). Almost exclusively top fermentation beer was brewed and sold in barrels. A few breweries started making lager beer; their products were more regular; they gained in the favour of the public and soon these breweries grew to become very large ones. In between the two world wars, two-thirds of the breweries disappeared and it was chiefly the bottom fermentation breweries that extended. The consumers lost their taste for the flat draught beer and the top fermentation brewers readjusted their methods by conditioning their ales; so doing they succeeded in competing successfully with the lager type. The flat draught beers disappeared completely."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 291.

Belgium had crazy numbers of breweries before WW I. As did the bit of France bordering it. Exactly where most of the fighting on the Western Front took place. War damage and German looting of copper put lots of breweries out of action. Many never reopened.

What does he mean by "conditioning their ales"? Some sort of lagering? Were Belgian brewers doing something similar to their American counterparts? It sounds like they were replacing cask-conditioned beers with filtered and carbonated ones. Depressing the way De Clerq nmakes that sound like progress. You can see that Belgium came to bottom fermentation quite late - only between the wars.

Now something about WW II:

"Beer prices going up steadily because of continuous rise in taxation, the consumption per capita fell to 175 litres (about a barrel). The sale of bottled beer grew continuously. During the last war beer became necessarily very weak as the shortage of malt was severe, gravities ranging from 2.4 to 4.7 per cent. extract (sp. gr. 1.009-1.019). The small quantities of malt brewers had at their disposal were not sufficient to provide these gravities and it was necessary to look for other materials. At first, sugar was used, but these supplies soon ran out and finally beetroot was the only material available. The beet was cut in strips, dried on a kiln and then ground, so as to get grits or flour. For those light beers, beetroot gave reasonable results. A simple extraction was sufficient and very often beers were brewed with 50 per cent, malt and 50 per cent, beetroot. Fermentations were good and the foam on the beer was firm and persistent. Even today, certain breweries still use beetroots, because this material gives a good head, perhaps through the pectin it contains. This pectin often produced a persistent turbidity in the tanks, but the flavour of the beetroot was not noticeable, because the beers were so light that they did not, in fact, contain much of this material.

In order to give a pleasant flavour to these war beers, the brewers used chiefly sweetening products, colour and hops, which were still plentiful, but the latter could easily produce an astringent taste in the light beers. Vinegar was also used. In Belgium the sour beers, like Lambic, still meet with a certain favour and blendings were made of Lambic with ordinary beer. As there was no Lambic left during the war, beer-vinegar was manufactured to take its place. Notwithstanding all these efforts to keep one flavour, if nothing else, in the beer, the consumption dropped to one half of the pre-war figure."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, pages 291 - 292.

1009 to 1019 even weaker than British beer got during WW I. Isn't that fascinating about the use of beetroot? No reason why you shouldn't, I suppose. It's as good a source of starch as anything else. But I would have thought the colour might have been a problem. Beetroot stains like buggery, as i'm sure you know. I wonder if there's still anyone using beetroot for head retention? I doubt it. Making a beetroot war beer might be fun. Though I suspect professional brewers might take some persuading.

There are those who would argue that Lambic is beer vinegar. Why did Lambic run out? Maybe they didn't make any after 1940. A low-gravity beetroot Lambic probably wouldn't work.

It may sound odd ending up with a surplus of hops, but that happened in Britain in WW I. As beers weakened, fewer hops were required.

Now what happened after war's end.

"After these innumerable difficulties with which the brewers had to cope, all their hopes lay in the return of peace; but it turned out to be a deception. When beer came back to its normal gravity in the beginning of 1946, consumption went up, but the beer was too expensive, because the State had naturally raised the taxes and cereals remained very dear. The total of brewing materials used dropped to 70 per cent, of the quantities of 1938. Since, in Belgium, the excise duties are calculated on the weight of materials used, they are the only correct basis to appreciate the beer consumption. The beers remained, however, slightly lighter than before the war, so that it must be said that the consumption fell by 25 per cent. The reasons for this setback are naturally much discussed among brewers. The opinion is often expressed that the habits of the population have changed. In fact, more coffee, fruits and chocolate are imported into Belgium than before the war. Nevertheless, the principal cause must be the price of the beer, which is too high; indeed, considering the purchasing value, in glasses of beer, of the workman's salary, it will be found that it lost exactly one-quarter since before the war. This fall in consumption is the cause of a grave economic crisis in the Belgian brewing industry. The means of production being so important, and competition so strong, each brewer tries to keep his customers, selling the best possible quality at the lowest price. It is this crisis which stimulates the technical developments in the breweries; they are dominated by the necessity to manufacture at a lower cost without impairing the quality. Some of the innovations designed to achieve this will now be examined."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 292.

Brewers the world over love a good moan. Especially about being over-taxed. They were lucky to be able to brew full-strength beer again in 1946. In the UK gravity continued to fall. As this table shows:

UK average OG 1939 - 1952
Year	OG
1939	1040.93
1940	1040.62
1941	1038.51
1942	1035.53
1943	1034.34
1944	1034.63
1945	1034.54
1946	1034.72
1947	1032.59
1948	1032.66
1949	1033.43
1950	1033.88
1951	1036.99
1952	1037.07
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 50

Gravity never returned to its 1939 level.

It's true that Belgian beer consumption was lower after the war. But it had been insanely high. The only other place I can recall averaging over 200 litres a head is Bavaria. You can see in the table below that between 1930 and 1950 consumption per head almost halved. I can see why that would worry a brewer.

Belgian brewing 1900 - 1960
	1900	1910	1920	1930	1939	1950	1960
No. breweries	3,223	3,349	2,013	1,546	1,120	663	414
Production (hl)	14,617,000	16,019,000	10,408,000	16,099,000	12,488,000	10,140,000	10,110,000
Imports (hl)	149,000	272,000	201,000	228,000	65,000	97,000	378,000
Exports (hl)	5,000	9,000	47,000	10,000	7,000	5,000	205,000
Consumption (hl)	14,761,000	16,282,000	10,562,000	16,317,000	12,546,000	10,232,000	10,283,000
Consumption (per head)	221	219	143	202	149	118	112
Source:
"Het Brouwersblad" June 2004, p.6, p.7

Note, too, how WW I and the Depression whittled down the number of breweries. By the start of WW II two-thirds of them had disappeared.

There's plenty more of this to come. Unless I hear the siren call of Lager again.