Inside a 1920s bar (part six)

We've finally got to actually serving beer. What fun. Though we aren't going to get to drink any.

"Most of the operations, which, in the ordinary way, you would imagine to be simplicity itself, require considerable dexterity and experience — in a rush trade particularly.

For example, in pouring out naturally conditioned bottled beers, which carry a sediment, such as Whitbread's, the bottle must be inverted, so that the liquor, but not the sediment, is poured into the glass, and the operation requires the service of two hands — one for the bottle, the other for the glass.

Again, the right way to serve spirits from a thimble measure, in a rush, is to hold the measure and glass in one hand, so that no liquor is lost; leaving the other free for the turning of the tap.

It is everything to have your paraphernalia to your hand; as far as possible, arranged so that you need not stoop to reach for it, e. g. cork and crown-cork extractors. Beers should carry a "head." Customers like them brilliant and clear. They must never be served dull, sick, tart, or thick. A certain lively cloudiness denotes brilliancy of condition.

In Scotland, beers are almost invariably drawn through the engine, under pressure from below, and this undoubtedly ensures better condition. Some Brewers, however, do not like the use of carbonic acid gas.
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 214.

Whitbread remained true to bottle-conditioning long after most of their rivals had gone over to artificial carbonation. Though it wouldn't last that much longer. When they bought the Forest Hill Brewery in 1924, one of the main reasons was to acquire their bottling plant, which produced artificially-carbonated beers. Long after that brewery had closed Whitbread continued to produce one of their beers: Forest Brown.

Part has some great terms for beer in poor condition: dull, sick, tart, thick.

Tart is pretty obvious. How many pints of vinegar have I been served in London. "It's supposed to taste like that. It's Real Ale." Real Sarsons, more like.

Thick I'm assuming means very cloudy beer. You know, like the stuff resembling orange juice that the kids drink nowadays.

Dull and sick I'm not so sure about. Based on stuff he wrote in the cellar chapter, where he mentions that if the cellar is too cold cask beer will become "sick", I think it means beer which hasn't had a proper secondary fermentation and conditioned properly.

The bit about Scottish pubs using gas ppressure to serve beer is a bit of a surprise. Using air pressure to serve through what looked like keg fonts was common in Scotland when I was young. I would have assumed that was what was being referred to, except that "carbonic acid gas", or CO2, is specifically mentioned.

Beer, scientifically and socially considered (part two)

We’re back again with that very long article about adulteration and how great Lager is.

Before going through adulterants in detail, the author tells us about non-adulterants: the ingredients which beer is supposed to contain. Just to remind you that very little was legally allowed to be used in beer at the time. Just water, malt, hops, yeast and sugar.

“We shall presently have an opportunity to consider scientifically the character of those precious ingredients, grains of paradise, cocculus indicus, and other substances not mentioned by the candid brewer whose remarks I have just quoted, with which the poor man’s beer is drugged ; but, before doing so, I propose to give a short account of the materials which ought to be used in the production of wholesome beer. Those are, or should be, water, malt (barley), hops, and yeast, and these substances possess not only practical value for the brewer, but many special points of interest for the chemist and the student of botany. There has long been, to the uninitiated, a mystery connected with the water of Burton-on-Trent, the prevalent notion being that it is the river water which possesses some special virtue for brewing purposes. The fact is, however, that it is the spring-water of the district which is well adapted for the manufacture of beer ; and although the effect is not yet clearly understood the cause has long been well known chemists. It arises from the presence in the water of “earthy sulphates and carbonates,” and the absence of organic matter which is fatal to the brewing process. Analysis has shown the Burton water to contain nearly 19 grains of sulphate and 15 grains carbonate of lime to the imperial gallon (besides sulphates of potassa and magnesia) ; and the theory is that these alkalies combine with the acid of the malt extract, and, in the form of insoluble salts, are precipitated and carry down with them the nitrogenous substances which it is desirable to get rid of in the brewing process ; so, for the same reason that the presence of salts of lime and potash in the Burton water is advantageous, that of organic matter would be injurious, and the freedom of the water from the latter is therefore very advantageous to the brewer. Should any of readers desire further information on this subject for practical purposes, they may obtain it in the able article "Beer,” in Dr. Muspratt’s "Dictionary of Chemistry,” or in those the same subject in Ure’s "Dictionary of Arts,” and Watt’s "Dictionary of Chemistry" while Mr. Molyneux’s work, already named, also contains an excellent chapter on the "Waters of Burton,” and the effect upon them of the strata through which they percolate. “
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

Give the author his due, he’s as equally enthusiastic about Burton Pale  Ale as he is about Lager.

Is that really what the minerals in Burton water do, help precipitate out nitrogenous substances? It sounds dead scientific the way he explains it. But I still suspect its bollocks.

“These are the materials which should be employed in the brewing of good ale. Water, free from organic matter and containing sulphate and carbonate of lime; barley, in the form of malt; hops and yeast; and although the reader will have gathered from the preceding short account of these substances, what leading principles are involved in their use and treatment, I propose briefly to recapitulate the changes which occur in the brewing process, before attempting to describe the practical operation. In the malting or germination of barley the albumen in the grain becomes converted into diastase, the property of which is to change the starch (also constituent in the barley) into soluble dextrin of gum and sugar, and, consequently, the malt possesses a sweet taste which is not present in the grain previous to malting. In the mashing process, this sweet substance is washed out of the malt, and with the water employed for the purpose goes to form the wort, or stock of the beer. This "wort” is subsequently boiled with hops, which contain a bitter principle, lupulite, and an essential oil, of which the effect is to impart a bitter aromatic flavour to the beer, at the same time the chief organic constituents of the wort are removed. And finally through the introduction of yeast, a minute plant, the cells of which multiply with incredible rapidity, fermentation is set up, the chemical effect of which is to convert the sugar contained in the “wort” into carbonic acid and alcohol. The brewer takes care, however, to stop the fermentation at a certain stage, so that a portion of the sugar may remain unconverted ; and the chemical change is then completed in the cask or bottle, the carbonic acid being held in solution until the beer is drawn or otherwise exposed to atmospheric action. This gives good beer its brisk sparkling appearance, and puts a head upon it; in no case is the effect so conspicuous in the bottled German beer, and English and Scotch pale ales, which continue to effervesce and sparkle like champagne, long after the liquid is poured into a tumbler.”
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

I’ve only included this paragraph for one reason. I’m sure you already understand the concept behind the fermentation of beer. It was the last sentence that grabbed me. Because you rarely get many descriptions.

The author tells us that British Pale Ales were as highly carbonated as German bottled beer and continued to fizz in the glass. I assume he means bottled Pale Ales. But that’s still an impressive degree of carbonation. Especially as it was produced by natural carbonation. And the bottles were only sealed with corks.

Next time we’ll see what muck went into beer in Lverpool.

German brewing in the 1970’s – fermentation (part two)

What’s the best fermentation system? Who hasn’t asked themselves that while soaking in the bath or bobbing along to work on the bus, some grey winters day?

You’re in luck, because Kieninger is going to tell us. Or at least give us his opinion. He worked at Weihenstephan, so he must be right, musn’t he?

“Table XII also shows the most simple and effective method for the fermentation and maturation of lager beers of high quality in the light of modern knowledge. Primary fermentation is carried out in closed vessels, so that it is possible to collect the carbon dioxide and any required temperature may be applied. After reduction of diacetyl the green beer is cooled by plate coolers to a temperature of 0°C and after remaining at this temperature for 2-3 weeks for stabilization it is carbonated and filtered. The only analytical controls required are diacetyl and carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide content may be controlled by in-line instrumentation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Lager in just 28 days. I’m not sure he’s convinced me about that. I’m sure it’s a cost-efficient way of brewing. But what about the flavour of the beer? That doesn’t get a look in. Notice that it’s not even taken into consideration.

The best Lagers I’ve had I mostly knew were open-fermented, lagered for months rather than weeks and were naturally carbonated.

I’m going to repeat that table, because it’s a while since the last post in this series:

TABLE XII. Comparison of Fermentation and Maturation Systems.
Method	Primary fermentation	Transfer	Lagering
Classical	7 days at 9°C	Beer with 3-5% residual extract cooled to 4°C	35-50 days with temperature reducing from 3° to 0°C
Using Kräusen	7 days at 9º-10°C	Beer with 2% residual extract cooled to 4°C. 10-12% Krausen with 8% residual extract added	14-28 days with temperature reducing from 4° to 0°C
Under pressure at high temperature (Champagne Wheat Beer)	3 days at 16°C or 4 days at 14°C under pressure	Beer with 2% residual extract 2.0 bar pressure cooled to 0°C	7-14 days stabilization at 0°C
Modern development	7 days at 12-14°C with CO2 collection	Attenuated beer carbonated and cooled to 0°C	14-21 days stabilisation at 0°C and final carbonation

This next bit is interesting, even though it slightly baffles me:

“Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the time necessary to reduce diacetyl content to a value of 0.1 mg/litre and maturation temperature. At a temperature of 30°C, 48 hours are sufficient to reduce the diacetyl content to <0.1 mg/litre without addition of Kräusen but, at 8.5°C, eighteen days are necessary to reduce the diacetyl content to the same value. The addition of Kräusen also allows a reduction of diacetyl at higher temperatures, but additional 2-acetolactate is formed during secondary fermentation, so that a new time-consuming reduction phase is necessary.”

Fig. 2. Behaviour of 2-acetolactate (as diacetyl) during different maturation conditions following primary fermentation at 8.5°C. Curve A = maturation at 8.5°C with kräusen, B = 85°C without kräusen, C = 15°C with kräusen, D = 20°C with kräusen, E = 30°C with kräusen, F = 30°C without kräusen.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Oh, I get it. You can break down diacetyl at a higher temperature if you kräusen, the fermentation of the kräusen creates more diacetyl. And that also needs to be broken down. Sounds like you need to add more kräusen then. Only joking. But what is he recommending ? I’m confused.

“The development of isoamyl alcohol during primary fermentation at different temperatures with and without pressure is shown in Fig. 3. Isoamyl alcohol content increases

Fig. 3. Iso-amyl alcohol content during primary fermentation in relation to temperature and pressure. Curve A = fermentation at 20ºC, B = 20°C with pressure, C = 16°C, D= 16°C with pressure, E = 12°C. F = 12°C with pressure, G = classical fermentation at 8-S°C.

with increasing temperature but the use of pressure results in a decrease of about 5 % at any given temperature.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

This one has totally lost me. Be glad for an explanation by any brewing technicians out there.

Just looked up isoamyl alcohol on this wonderful new thing they have called the internet. A higher alcohol . . . . that tastes like banana. I get why Kieninger is so interested in it, being a brewer of Weissbier.

Still one more bit to go. Where fermentation systems are compared.

German brewing in the 1970’s – fermentation

We’re finally getting to the vaguely interesting bits of this article. Though obviously that’s interesting only in a relative sense.

Let’s dive right in with an explanation of the classic German method of fermentation: open, without artificial fermentation

“Technology of Fermentation and Maturation
It has been known for a long time in Germany that raising the carbon dioxide content from, for example, 0.30% (w/w) to 0.50% (w/w) by artificial carbonation causes no problems. Most breweries still use open fermentors and are unable to re-use the fermentor carbon dioxide, but the German beer laws demand that carbonation of beers is effected only with the carbon dioxide evolved during fermentation of the same brew and so-closed fermentors are necessary when beer is produced by non-conventional methods requiring carbonation of beers.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

I’ve mostly been around quite small Bavarian breweries. But every single one still had open fermenters. Even ones with a brand new brewhouse. Which tells me something: that there’s no artificial carbonating going on. Carbonation is achieved by bunging the lagering vessel and allow CO2 to build up naturally through the action of the yeast. As the temperature drops, more CO2 can be dissolved by the beer.

There are some truly weird bits in the Reinheitsgebot. Only allowing artificial carbonation with the CO2 produced during a beer’s own fermentation is one of the weirdest. It sounds like a fudge to me. That brewers wanted to carbonate artificially and this was a way to achieve that without using any extra ingredients.

Here’s a description of that carbonation process:

“Table XII compares various procedures for fermentation and maturation. In the classical method of primary fermentation and lagering, the residual extract of the beer after primary fermentation is about 3-5% (w/w). During lagering about 1-3% of this remaining extract is fermented, so that the finished beer contains about 2-0-2-2% of extract. The carbon dioxide generated during the lagering stage serves to purge the beer, improve the separation of precipitated proteins and tannins and to increase the carbon dioxide content of the final beer from about 0-25% w/w to 0-50% w/w.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Here’s an overview of the four main systems around at the time:

TABLE XII. Comparison of Fermentation and Maturation Systems.
Method	Primary fermentation	Transfer	Lagering
Classical	7 days at 9°C	Beer with 3-5% residual extract cooled to 4°C	35-50 days with temperature reducing from 3° to 0°C
Using Kräusen	7 days at 9º-10°C	Beer with 2% residual extract cooled to 4°C. 10-12% Krausen with 8% residual extract added	14-28 days with temperature reducing from 4° to 0°C
Under pressure at high temperature (Champagne Wheat Beer)	3 days at 16°C or 4 days at 14°C under pressure	Beer with 2% residual extract 2.0 bar pressure cooled to 0°C	7-14 days stabilization at 0°C
Modern development	7 days at 12-14°C with CO2 collection	Attenuated beer carbonated and cooled to 0°C	14-21 days stabilisation at 0°C and final carbonation

This is a method which had been around since the 19th century – adding fermenting wort, or Kräusen, to the maturing beer. It was popular in the USA, and not just amongst bottom-fermenting brewers. Amsdell of Albany kräusened their top-fermenting beers around 1900.

“The Kräusen method is used especially in those breweries where fermentation takes place in cylindro-conical vessels and maturation in classical horizontal lagering tanks. Since it is difficult to estimate the yeast concentration of green beer fermented in a cylindro-conical vessel it has been found advantageous to leave the beer in the vessel until no fermentable extract is left and the dispersed yeast cells are at a minimum. The green beer is then drawn off and Kräusen, which contains a fermentable extract of about 8-9% w/w and about 40 million yeast cells per ml, is added equivalent to 10-12% of the beer volume. This procedure is simpler to control than the classical method of leaving a certain amount of extract and also has the advantage that beers produced in this way may be filtered and bottled after only 21 days. The only problem with this method is that Kräusen with 8 % extract is not available every day and the beer has to remain in the vessels for different times until transfer. As a result, the fermenting cellar has to have a greater capacity than that calculated for the classical method.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Now isn’t that interesting? Kräusening was used because they needed to ferment the beer right the way down in the conicals. The British equivalent of this was to prime beers with a high-gravity sugar solution at racking time. Though Guinness did use high-gravity fermenting wort.

Champagne wheat beer is Kristallweizen. Not something I’ve ever cared for, myself. It always seems thin and rather dull, with the spiciness from the yeast rather subdued.

“We use the pressure fermentation method in Weihenstephan to produce the so-called 'champagne' wheat beer and it is obvious that our classical method using top fermentation can also be used with bottom fermentation. Green beer with a residual extract of about 5 % is pumped into closed fermentors, until a pressure of 2 bar is reached and the fermented beer contains 0.8 % w/w of CO2. This beer is cooled to 0°C and is then transferred to a 'stabilization tank' at a temperature of 0°C. After remaining in this tank for 7-14 days the beer is filtered and bottled. The advantage of this procedure is that the carbon dioxide originating during the fermentation from 5% residual extract to 2% residual extract is saved to carbonate and purge the beer. The disadvantage of the procedure is the necessity to have pressure tanks which can sustain a pressure of 2 bar but the costs of these pressure tanks are naturally not as high as the costs of installing carbon dioxide collection equipment. No modern brewery, however, will demand pressure fermentation but will collect all the carbon dioxide evolved during primary fermentation not only for carbonation but also for pressurizing intermediate tanks or filling evacuated bottles on the filling machine.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

So in this method they conducted the final stages of the fermentation in closed pressurised fermenters, which again allowed the beer to carbonate naturally from the CO2 being produced. No need to collect the CO2 and then add it back in the form of artificial carbonation.

More fermentation next time.

Ale brewing in the USA and Canada in 1907 (part four)

As promised, this time we're going to look at the Wittemann process in detail.

It was named after the firm which produced the equipment, the Wittemann Company. I was surprised to discover that they're still making CO2 recovery systems. Though they are no longer an independent company, having been bought by the Danish firm Union Engineering A/S on 1st April 2013. Oddly, their website states the process was first developed in 1912, five years after this article was written.

This is a brief description of how the system worked:

"No doubt, most of the gentlemen here are familiar with what is known as the Wittemann process. There is nothing particularly novel in the process itself, but it is for the special plant and appliances for carrying out the system of gas collection and reabsorption by the beer that the firm lay claim to, and I believe they are perfectly justified in their contention, from what I have seen of the plant.

When in New York I called on Mr. Wittemann, who gave me an introduction to the proprietors of a large ale brewery where their plant could be seen in full work.

As Mr. Wittemann explained, there are numerous ways of adapting or using their plant to suit the requirements of the respective users. Therefore, I shall just explain the working of this plant as I saw it in this particular brewery."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 13, Issue 4, July-August 1907, page 363.

And here's the detail of what they did at this particular Ale brewery:

"They pitched their worts in open vats, just in the same way as we do. In about 36-48 hours after pitching, or when the fermentation has got a good hold and is giving off gas freely, a portion of the wort is run off to a closed-in vat (of which they had several). They only ran enough into these closed-in vats that was required to give them enough CO2 for carbonating purposes.

These vats were filled almost full, and were fitted with a 0.75-inch vent pipe on the top, through which the remaining air was expelled as the gas collected in the space at the top of the vat. The vent pipe was left open until the brewer considered what was the right time to start pumping the gas off. This he determined by the aroma or smell of the escaping gas.

The brewer assured me that the time when the gas was collected from the fermentations was the all-important part of the whole business.

When the right moment had arrived the vent pipe was closed and pumping commenced, and continued for 12-18 hours as the ease may be, when they would go on with another vat, and so on, until they had as much as required, or that the steel storage tanks were full.

It is at this pumping stage that the special plant manufactured by the Wittemann Company plays an important part.

The gas during pumping and compression is kept as cool as possible, so as not to destroy any of the natural aroma or ethers contained in the CO2, and to facilitate that the storage cylinders are large, and the pressure not allowed to exceed 200 lb. to the square inch.

The beer, after having the gas collected from it, is run along with the other fermenting beer to dropping vessels to finish."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 13, Issue 4, July-August 1907, pages 363 - 364.

Is that clear? Most of the beer still underwent an open fermentation and only a small amount went into the special Wittemann vessels. It's interesting that they wanted to retain more than just the pure CO2. Did they really retain the natural aroma?

Even more fascinating is that this brewery was using the dropping system. It seems to have been reasonably common in North America. I'm quite surprised by that. I wonder if any breweries had union sets?

The advantage of the system was the time it took to ferment beer was much shorter:

"The fermentations at this brewery were far quicker than the others, for in six days from pitching the beer was run direct from the fermenting vats to a quick chilling machine, and afterwards through the special type of saturator or carbonator, when it was saturated with its own natural CO2 and finally filtered brilliant and racked or bottled as required.

Broadly speaking, in eight days from pitching, the beer was on the market.

There was no storage in cold cellars. This fact alone means a great saving in the locking up of capital, also in capital outlay for the building and equipment and the maintaining of large cold storage cellars. But still, in my opinion, that was at the expense of the quality of the product."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 13, Issue 4, July-August 1907, page 364.

Being able to sell beer just eight days after pitching is impressive. That's about the same time as it takes to produce Mild. But here's the most important question: how did the beer taste?

"The process is very quick, and moderate storage would probably have given a better beer.

The beer did not impress me. When sampled it had a very new, soft, soapy taste, but a very nice and pleasant aroma, the latter due, no doubt, to the fact that it had been carbonated with natural CO2. There was a marked difference between the draught and the bottled beer. Although it was the same beer in cask and bottle, the draught ale was by far the better of the two. The inferior flavour of the bottled beer I put down to the effects of pasteurising, although I had not noticed such a marked difference in the other brewers' bottled beer which had gone through the process of pasteurising.

I may say here that it is the rule to pasteurise the bottle goods at all the breweries, either ale or lager, both in Canada and the States. Although it enhances the keeping properties, it certainly deteriorates the flavour."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 13, Issue 4, July-August 1907, page 364.

The answer: not that great. Especially after being pasteurised. You can tell the author wasn't a fan of pasteurisation. I think the methods they used in the early days of the process "cooked" the beer more and were more injurious to its flavour than those of today. Still not a huge fan of it myself.

That difference between bottled and draught beer - the former pasteurised, the latter not - was true all through the 20th century, and is still the case with American industrial breweries. Though there have been odd examples of unpasteurised bottled beer, such as Miller Genuine Draft.

Natural vs. artificial CO2

Just because I've finally laboured my way through Hartley's piece on bottling, it doesn't mean you're off the hook. Far from it. I've just moved on to the next article.

It's from a particular favourite of mine H. Lloyd Hind and was written in 1922. I'm going to give the descriptions of the soaking and scrubbing machines a miss, at least for now. Because I want to look at CO2. And the difference between the stuff was given off during fermentation and that created artificially.

How many times have I seen the argument CO2 is CO2? Usually when someone was poopooing the idea of the CO2 in bottle-conditioned beer behaving differently from that in artificially carbonated beers.

"Of almost equal importance with brilliance is condition, and there are several points which must be considered both for naturally conditioned and carbonated beer. Two may be referred to, viz., natural versus artificial gas and temperature at filling, for both have been neglected in many directions in which their study would be well worth while. Purity of the gas and freedom from air is on essential, whether it is made from coke, chalk and acid, or collected from the square. In either case it can readily be obtained of 99.8 per cent, purity, and the bottler should always assure himself by test or otherwise that it is so. Air in the gas leads to troubles, greyness, development of organisms in the beer or poor condition.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, pages 121 - 122.

Contamination of your CO2 with air has the obvious downside of giving nasties something breather. Not a good idea if you preferred your beer uninfected.

There was one clear advantage of collecting CO2 from your fermenting vessels: you got it for free. Well, free other than the cost of collecting and storing it. And fermentation provided a superfluity: one barrel of beer produced enough CO2 during fermentation to carbonate several barrels.

"The production of the gas is a matter for the brewer and need not be discussed now, but the bottler is very much concerned in its quality and cost. It can be supplied to him at a price lower than that of artificial gas and at the same time give a good return to the brewer for outlay and upkeep. It is not only useful for carbonation, but much to be preferred to pumps or compressed air for moving beer from tank to tank, for the pressure required for the filter and other purposes. For all these there should be ample from the brewery as enough gas can be collected from one barrel of beer to carbonate eight barrels. With such a supply and so often going to waste its utilisation should be worth the closest attention from both brewer and bottler, and the more so when the superiority of the natural fermentation gas over the artificial is realised."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 122.

I hadn't realised that they were using CO2 to move beer around the brewery this early. Obviously a good idea, gven the unpleasantness that could be communicated to beer through air.

The following passage brings up a point I had never considered. And the main reason I bothered to use this article. The flavour of COs, or rather the flavour of the impurities mixed with it.

"Carbonic acid from whatever source when perfectly pure is neutral in flavour, and this applies to fermentation gas just as muoh as to artificial gas, with this very important difference. The impurities in artificial gas, other than air which may occur in both kinds of gas, are definitely harmful and objectionable and have to be completely removed before the gas can be used. On the other hand, the impurities in fermentation gas, apart from tho air which must be removed, are not only harm less but the very substances which the beer requires to give it the snap and flavour of naturally conditioned beer. It is sufficient to smell the gas coming from the fermentation of a fairly strong beer to realise how very much superior it is to artificial gas for carbonation. The volatile constituents from the wort and the essential matters from the hops are very pronounced and impart their flavour to the beer into which the gas carrying them is injected. This in itself would be enough to stamp the fermentation gas as superior to the artificial, but when to this is added the experience that in practice it gives a beer with a more lasting and solid head and a beer which drinks fuller, the choice of fermentation gas is more than ever confirmed. Tasteless gas can be much improved by passing through a large cylinder packed with hops.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 122.

Now there's a turnup - the impurities in natural CO2 actually enhanced the flavour of the beer. Not just that, Lloyd Hind asserts that naturally-produced gas formed a better head and a fuller palate. Was that just when formed during bottle-conditioning or whenever naturally-produced gas was used? I think he means the latter. And what about passing the gas through hops - what would you call that? Gas hopping??

Remember that bit in the last article about CO2 getting "burned"? Lloyd Hind seems to agree that excessive pressure and heat damaged the flavour of CO2. Though he doewsn't explain why that might be the case.

"The bottler being in the position to command a supply of gas direct from the brewery he must assure himself that it is always of the desired character. It is quite simple to make sure that it contains no more than 0.2 par cent, of air and that it has no undesirabloe flavour or smell such as might arise through unsatisfactory conditions of fermentation which are quite outside of his control. Pure gas will keep indefinitely but to conserve the very desirable and delicate aromas of fermentation gas and make sure that no undesirable changes occur in them the gas must be used fresh, a week's stock at the most should be ample. There is no object in having the gas liquefied when the brewery is near at hand and the gas can be delivered down a pipe to a storage tank. Indeed, the liquefaction of the gas is more or less harmful, no pressures above 250 lb. to the square inch should be used in the storage tanks. Compression of gas means heating it, and however good the cooling arrangements on the compressor may be higher pressure than 250 lb. is to be avoided. Heat entirely ruins the flavour of the gas, and the user must assure himself that it has not taken place. The presence of oil and impurities of that sort must also be avoided, and if the supply pipe is under the bottler's control he should see that it is kept clean."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 122.

Wow. I never knew there was so much to CO2. Especially not that there were different types.

Next time we'll be looking at naturally-conditioned bottled beer. Something the brewing professionals keep insisting is superior in flavour to force carbonated beer.

Bottling in 1914 - women workers and collecting CO2

I never realised just how much there was to bottling before I embarked on this series.  It's probably the most mechanically complicated activity in a brewery. Racking draught beer barrels is a piece of piss in comparison.

Whenever topics like women in the workplace come up in old texts, it's clear that attitudes have changed a fair bit. You can't fault the next section for honesty, even though it might make us moderns squirm a little.

"Some firms do not like female labour, preferring boys. In my experience both have their uses — girls for labelling are far better than boys, whilst for bottle washing I find boys preferable. In my part of the country it was possible to obtain boys some few years ago who were only too willing to commence at 5s. per week and advance, now it is impossible to get a boy at all for less than 9s., and that for a weakling just left school. Girls of 18 will willingly start at 8s., and are far stronger. I have never found any trouble from working with the sexes mixed. It is well to have a good foreman (a retired army sergeant by preference), but it is unwise to harass the workers as many foremen are apt to do, and it certainly pays to treat the workers with some consideration, but on the other hand not to let them get discouraged from lack of supervision.

Women always rise to the occasion when there is a rush of trade preceding a holiday, and I have found a cup of tea and a cake given about four o'clock when they are working at high pressure very materially stimulates their efforts. Further, I have never known them take advantage of a little latitude given when things are quiet. It has been really remarkable the improvement in the appearance of the girls after a few weeks' work in an airy bottlery."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 518 - 519.

Some odd stuff in there. Would male workers have reacted differently to a cup of tea and a piece of cake? Would they have ever drunk tea at work? A hundred years ago pretty much every brewery was "wet", with workers getting free beer. When I worked in a "wet" brewery, I don't remember ever having drunk a cup of tea. Why drink tea when there was free beer on offer?


Who wouldn't prefer an 18-year-old girl to weakling 14-year-old boy?

Presumably the women looked better after a few weeks because of the crap working conditions they'd enjoyed in their previous employment. I suppose breweries aren't that unhealthy places to work, as long as you keep your hands out of the machinery and don't get overcome by CO2

Which segues nicely into our next topic, collecting CO2. If you were artificially carbonating your beer, it made sense to collect the gas given off during primary fermentation.

"Collection of Carbonic Acid Gas.
The collection of CO2 in the brewery for use in the bottlery is a point of great importance. Considerable economy can be effected in the majority of bottling stores by the introduction of a gas collecting plant.

The matter of compressors is one of the most important things in this type of plant, as there is no question that gas compressed at from 150 to 250 lb. is likely to be burnt, even if the compressor in cooled by water. Hence there is always more or less danger of the beer getting that rank taste and flavour frequently noticed in carbonated beers. I should recommend that a low-pressure compressor be adopted, compressing the gas say at 100 lb. to the square inch or even lower, instead of the high-pressure machines installed; I am quite aware that storage vessels for low-pressure gas have to be made larger; at the same time, provided a sufficient number of fermenting vessels be connected up, very little storage capacity is required. This, in my opinion, is far preferable, as stored gas is likely to deteriorate when stored even for a short period."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 519 - 520.

I'm not sure I follow that. How on earth can you burn CO2? Why would the pressure it was stored at affect it? And why would stored CO2 deteriorate? Just about the whole of that paragraph has me scratching my head.

This is a bit easier to understand:

"The following are the data of the average quantity of gas obtained from "English top-fermentation beers":—

A wort usually gives off 1 lb. of carbonic acid gas per barrel for every 1 lb. fermented, therefore the average beers usually produce 0.12 lb. per barrel per hour, and the amount of gas produced from a 100-barrel fermenting tun would therefore be about 12 lb. per hour. For practical purposes, however, we may reckon about one-tenth of a pound per hour per barrel of fermenting wort, or, say, 10 lb. of gas per hour on a 100-barrel vessel.

It is advisable to collect the gas about 15 hours after pitching, when the richest and purest gas commences to be given off. Collection usually continues for about 24—30 hours after this, so that the quantity of gas given off from a 100-barrel vessel in 24 hours would average about 240 lb. weight. A barrel of beer usually requires about 0.5 lb. of gas for carbonating, therefore the quantity of gas collected from a 100-barrel vessel should be sufficient to carbonate about 400 barrels of beer after allowing some margin for leakage, etc. Of course, if CO2 be used for top pressure this quantity will be materially reduced."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 520.

10 lbs of CO2 and hour sounds like quite a lot. It's a fascinating fact that in 24 hours you could collect enough CO2 from 100 barrels of fermenting wort to carbonate 400 barrels of beer. A brewery could easily have been self-sufficient in CO2, even if they bottled a large percentage of their output.

I've been promising you some exciting stuff about dry hopping for a while. We will get to it eventually. Probably this year sometime.

Bottling in 1901 - other factors affecting flavour (continued)

Still no end in sight to my look - with the help of the Journal of the Institute of Brewing - at bottling at the start of the 20th century.

We're now longer at substances added to beer after the completion of primary fermentation.

"G. Priming, finings, antiseptics.

Each of these may have a more or less marked influence on the flavour of the ale, and I know that they are occasionally accountable for unpleasant flavoured ales.

The distinct flavour of many of the sugars specially recommended for priming is, more especially in the case of stout, a feature of considerable importance.

Finings made in the old-fashioned way with sour beer may and do seriously affect the flavour of ale in which they are used. The various sulphites used as antiseptics may almost invariably be detected by a skilled palate for some days after they are first added, but fortunately their action is only transient in this respect, and it is quite the exception to find a beer properly matured having any appreciable flavour of sulphites.

More powerful antiseptics, such as salicylic acid, are, I am glad to say, condemned by the county authorities, so are but rarely used, for although there is no evidence that such a small amount as two or three grains per gallon has any harmful effect when taken into the system— in fact, in cases of rheumatism it might be distinctly beneficial—there is always the risk of larger amounts being introduced, and if a man must take drugs he prefers to have them administered by a doctor. I may say that I have seen salicylic acid tried in the full dose of half an ounce to the barrel in badly brewed ales, and these beers have not kept any the better, and have developed a flavour infinitely more
objectionable than when not so treated.

The use of sanitas, formalin, and silico-fluorides is I consider subject to serious objections, the first two having decidedly objectionable flavours, and the latter have recently been proved to be poisonous.
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, pages 201 - 202.

Primings - a high gravity sugar solution added at racking time to promote fermentation in the cask - were gaining popularity at the end of the 19th century. They helped to bring cask Running Beers into condition quickly.

Letting the primary fermentation run its course then adding more fermentable material was an easier and more reliable way of quickly producing well-conditioned cask beer. Ttrying to guess when there was just enough fermentable material left for secondary conditioning was much trickier and could lead to beer that either wasn't properly carbonated or too lively. The same was also true of bottled beer, if it were left unpasteurisaed and so still contained active yeast.

I'm intrigued  that Stout is specifically singled oput as a type of beer where primings were particularly necessary. If you've been reading this blog for long, you'll know that Guinness had their own particular way of fining. They used high-gravity wort called "heading" instead of a sugar solution. A sort of Reinheitsgebot version of priming. Or an Irish take on kräusening.

Which reminds me that I've some good stuff lined up about American Ale brewing from around this period and the use of kräusening. I should be getting around to it in a few days.

I've always read with horror the descriptions in old brewing textxs of how to dissolve isinglass in sour beer to make finings. Sounds like a great way to infect your beer.

I'm pretty sure salicylic acid was quite commonly used as a preservative. It was one of the things American health authorities looked for when they analysed beer. And they regurlarly detected it. It sounds a pretty useless additive: it could be dangerous to health, adversely affected the flavour of the beer and didn't really help preserve beer. The other preseervatives mentioned sound even scarier.

"H. Alcohol and carbonic acid.

The characteristic effect on the palate produced by these two normal ingredients of all beers is not perhaps what people usually mean by flavour, but they are so closely associated with it, and so markedly influence the power of distinguishing the true flavour, that I think they must be included here; more especially carbonic acid, as it is really the most important factor in producing the difference in flavour of bottled and draught ales.

I would in this connection draw your attention to the difference between the effect on the palate of carbonic acid gas held in true solution in a liquid, as compared with the same amount of gas merely mixed with the liquid, as it is this difference which very materially causes old bottled beer to taste so much nicer than newly bottled ales, even when the latter are highly charged with carbonic acid gas."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, page 202.

The amount of carbonic acid gas - or CO2 as we call it - is certainly the one of the biggest differences between bottled and draught beer. Or perhaps I should say cask beer, as artificially-carbonated keg beer can have CO2 levels similar to bottled beer.

The second paragraph brings up a topic that has puzzled me for a long while: can CO2 be held by beer in different ways. I've often seen it claimed that in a naturally-conditioned beer smaller CO2 bubbles form than in a force-carbonated beer. The counter-argument is that CO2 is just CO2 and there's no difference between that formed naturally in the beer by fermentation and that added externally.

I've been reluctant to take a position on this, because I've heard such conflicting opinions and I don't understand the science personally. But experienced brewers have assured me that there is a difference. Is it possible to mix beer and CO2 without the latter fully dissolving? I've no idea. I'll welcome comments from the more scietifically educated amongst you.

This article is really jam-packed with good information. And we're not finished yet. Next we'll be looking at the effect of kilning temperatures and mash heats on the fermentability of wort.

Priming in the 1890's

Parliamentary committees. Don't you just love them? I certainly do. Because of the detailed records they left behind them.

In the 1890's there was a lot of debate about the freedom given to brewers by the Free Mash Tun Act of 1880. And whether or not it should be withdrawn again. So much so that a parliamentary committee was set up to investigate the matter. The evidence given by various industry professionals is fascinating. And a rare opportunity to hear brewers of the period speak frankly about their trade.

The excerpt below is from the evidence given by Mr. R. Bannister, Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry and of the Chemical and Microscopical Societies who had worked for more than 33 years in the Inland Revenue Laboratory.

"6595. A word or two in regard to priming ; the majority of the brewers resort to priming? —Yes, they do.

6596. Of course they find it advantageous? —Yes, it gets the beer into condition just before it is put into consumption.

6597. There is a certain amount of yeast left in the beer, which acts upon the sugar or saccharine matter?  —Always, and then it goes into fermentation, and makes the beer lively and sparkling, and that is necessary in another way too, in a great number of instances; because when the beer is removed from the brewery there is a certain quantity of sediment in the cask, and the beer is not clear; and if the publican had to wait till the beer cleared itself, he would have to wait a considerable time; so that they generally make the beer clear with finings; and the use of finings always flattens the beer. It is therefore very necessary that there should be a little sugar present so as to allow the yeast to ferment it as soon as ever the finings have been added.

6598. It being an advantage to have recourse to priming, is there any reason why brewers should not resort to sugar or saccharine matters for priming, and be forced instead to go to a cold infusion of malt ?—A cold infusion of malt would not answer the purpose equally as well, because it is not bright.

6599. But whether the priming were done with sugar or whether the priming were done with malt extract, it would create difficulty in determining whether the beer had been brewed from malt only or from malt and substitutes ? —Yes ; but, of course, the greatest difficulty would arise from the use of the sugar.

6600. Of course the priming adds to a certain extent to the sweetness of the beer ?—It does, because the sugar is added at that particular stage and it is not fully fermented when the beer is drunk.
6601. And of course if cold infusion of malt extract were used, that would also add in the same way to the sweetness of the beer?—Only to a very small degree.

6602. So far as it was effective for the purpose it would ? —Yes.

6603. As regards beer which has not been subject to priming, its sweetness has very little relation to the materials from which it was made, but to the degree of attenuation ? Entirely so.

6604. So that you might get a very sweet beer, if you wanted it, from all-malt; and you might get a beer which was not sweet at all from a mixture of malt and sugar?— That is so as a matter of course; it depends entirely upon the extent of the fermentation — and almost every brewer has his own plan of fermentation — and the degree to which he takes the fermentation in his finished beer.

6605. In the wort, after you add the yeast to it, which ferments most rapidly, the maltose or the glucose ? —The glucose goes first.

6606. Therefore what sugar would be left behind would be sugar derived from the malt, and not derived from the added glucose ? — There is a gradation ; the glucose goes more rapidly than the maltose, the maltose more rapidly than the malto-dextrine, and the maito-dextrine goes more rapidly than the dextrine."

There you have it. Primings were needed to restore the condition removed by fining. Basically helping beer to quickly drop bright and come into condition. Sounds fair enough to me.

I was going to end there. Until I read the next section. It's an interesting take on German beer purity:

"6607. I believe priming is not very much used in the German case of the German beer? — It is not, because it is not beer is required.

6608. Do we understand that their beer is filtered and then charged artificially with carbonic acid ? — To a large extent.

6609. They add carbonic acid specially, instead of allowing the carbonic acid to develop in the beer ? — Yes, it can be consumed more quickly.

6610. And that is the reason why the German beer is commonly delivered under pressure? — Exactly; and the German beer must be quite bright, and therefore there must be practically no sediment in the beer, because if there is the slightest sediment the pressure would force that sediment to the top ; it would cause it, not to ferment, but it would agitate it, and the beer would not look bright in the glass ; so that you must have the German beer quite bright throughout.

6611. And I suppose the added carbonic acid might be equally regarded as an impurity ? — That is the inference.

6612. It is something added to the beer after it is made? —Yes.

6613. And that is really the reason, is it not, why German beer is sent out in such small casks, made so strong ? — That is so, and if the beer is to be tested, as I have seen it tested over and over again at exhibitions, they are particularly careful to charge it with carbonic acid before it goes to the jury.

6614. It is something in the same nature as soda water in a less degree ?—Yes.

6615. With the result, that if a cask has been opened in the morning, the beer gets very vapid before the evening ? — Yes, it does, and of course the addition of carbonic acid gas is for the purpose of overcoming the difficulty of not keeping it a sufficient length of time in the cellar, because if it were left for a longer time it would have more carbonic acid gas in it. They get it into consumption more quickly by the addition of the gas."
"Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental committee on beer materials", 1899, page 247.

I've never seen CO2 called an impurity before. It seems Mr. Richardson was quite in tune with CAMRA and me.

The difference between Lager and British beer in 1882

What a snappy title. But descriptive, you have to admit that. It's sort of a continuation of yesterday's post, if you can remember back that far.

You've already seen that Lagers contained loads more dextrine than English Bitters and Milds. Well there was something else they had more of. CO2.

"The Bavarian beer, if of the same original gravity as the English, has greater fulness on the palate, because with less attenuation, and, therefore, less alcohol, and also more albuminoids.

These various differences show why a beer of 1040 original gravity, if brewed on the German method, tastes very different from English harvest ale of the same gravity. There remains, however, a still more important factor in giving fulness to beers of medium original gravity, and that is the carbonic acid. Beer cooled to a few degrees above the melting point of ice must necessarily contain more carbonic acid than at 60° F., which may be taken as the average temperature of English beer as consumed. We all know that draught or bottled ales, if allowed to stand some hours, become insipid and flat, and taste as if several pounds per barrel less in the original gravity. The important influence of carbonic acid in making beers taste fuller and rounder has long been carefully attended to by the German brewer, whose great aim has been to secure as large an amount as possible. Hence an important part of the duty of a German brewer is to have his beers in perfect condition in the cellar, so that with a fortnight's closing of the bunghole, a sufficient amount of carbonic acid shall be formed and retained. For the same object one often finds in restaurants and beer kellers, air or carbonic acid forcing pumps to increase the amount of gas when the beer becomes too flat. The greater amount of carbonic acid in German beer is partly due to the greater amount of saccharine and albuminoid matters, but chiefly to the low temperature. The influence of temperature in the lager cellar upon the amount of carbonic acid has been the subject of some experiments by Professor Langer and Dr. Schultze. The beer they experimented on was made from a wort showing 10 degrees Balling, and had been attenuated 60 per cent. The carbonic acid found in 100 volumes of beer was at—

0.4° C. . .. 0.332 by weight 100 volumes by volume
1.6° C. . .. 0.320 by weight 96.4 volumes by volume
2.8° C. . .. 0.311 by weight 93.7 volumes by volume
4.0° C. . .. 0.297 by weight 89.5 volumes by volume
4.7° C. . .. 0.285 by weight 85.8 volumes by volume"

"Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, Volume 1, 1882" page 23.

Did you see the temperature British beer was usually consumed at? 60° F, according to this article.Seems a little on the warm side, even for cask beer.