Don't grow Goldings

WW II was a funny old time. Shortages of pretty much everything meant people had to use materials as efficiently as possible. From recycling paper to deciding which variety of hops to grow.

With imports pretty much dried up, UK brewers were dependent on hops grown domestically and existing stocks. At the time, the majority of English-grown hops were Fuggles, Goldings or something similar. There was a bit of Brewer's Gold knocking about, but not a huge amount.

Brewers preferred the flavour of Goldings. But it was harder to grow than Fuggles.

"The author refers to the question of quantity and shows how it is still below brewers’ requirements. This shortage is likely to continue, and as it is doubtful whether American or Continental hops will be imported for some years to come, for they are short themselves, he is of opinion that at least another 3,000 acres should be planted. If permission should be given, what hops should be planted ? First of all there is the rivalry between Fuggles and Goldings. The Golding grower wants more money for his product because it is more expensive to grow, but one of the reasons given for this is that it is more liable to disease. It is true that the Golding is of higher flavour quality than the Fuggle, but is it really economical deliberately to grow a hop liable to disease for the sake of this comparatively slight difference in flavour. We say slight difference because we do not believe the general public can distinguish beers brewed with Fuggles from those brewed with Goldings, other things being equal. There are in fact quite a few brewers who, although well able to tell the difference between a Golding and a Fuggle whole hop, cannot tell their difference in the finished beer, especially in a chilled and filtered bottled beer. It is difficult to justify further growth of the Golding from the national economic point of view."
The Brewing Trade Review, March 1943, page 74.

Out with Goldings, in with Fuggles, then. I've no hard evidence that such a switch occurred. Very little evidence of any kind, unfortunately.

Just  snippets from Barclay Perkins brewing records which, unusually, record the hop variety. 1943 - 1945, most of the hops they used were Fuggles, with occasionally Goldings, especially for dry hops. But the same was also the case in 1938, before the outbreak of war.

The economics of growing Farnham hops in the 1850's

The select committee report has some very detailed information on hop growing. Including the economics of the business.

They're still questioning Mr . Harris, a farmer from Hampshire. First, the ask him about cost of growing hops.

"3421. Chairman.] Will you state to the Committee what you consider the expense of cultivating an acre of hop land ? — I never took that into consider ation, being a small grower. I was not aware that I should be called here to-day. In taking that point into calculation, I should think it is something, like £22 or £25 an acre. If I had known that I should have been called upon, I would have looked a little into it.

3422. Mr. Bass.] Is that exclusive of the expenses of the picking and the duty ? —Yes.

3423. Chairman.] What do you set the other expenses at ? — Picking, drying, and duty we generally consider at something like 50s. a cwt. ; from 40s. to 50s. a cwt.

3424. Mr. Bass.] Does not that include the selling ? —Yes.

3425. Chairman.] What do you consider a good crop ? —We grow very little; I was looking back to my previous crops since I received the orders the other day to come here, and I find that my crop for seven years previous to 1855 was 4.5 cwt.; but 1855 was something more. In 1855 it was 18 cwt.; but last year it was a little over half a ton; I never grew more than half a ton on my own land the whole of the time, since I have been a farmer, until 1855.

3426. How do your hops compare in the market with Kent Goldings? —The Kent Goldings are worth considerably more than our hops as we are told; it is a very difficult matter to get at what they are worth.

3427. What do the white bine hops, such as you grow, fetch? —Last year we made from 65s. to 70s. The year before, I calculated that I sold in the early part of August at 1s. a pound, and it was not a bad speculation. They would have been sold at four guineas, or something of the kind, if I had taken them to market.

3428. Mr. Brand.] When white bines are worth 70s., what would the Goldings be worth? —I have seen very little of Goldings. I have seen Mr. Payne's growth of Farnham and at Weyhill."

Report from the Select Committee on Hop Duties, 1857, pages 179 - 180.

Those numbers just don't add up. It looks to me as if Mr. Harris were losing money by growing hops. He had 12 acres under hops, so taking the higher value of £25 an acre, that makes £300. In addition, Picking, drying, and duty amounted to 50s (£2.5) per cwt. Taking a good year, where the yield was 10 cwt. an acre, that comes to an additional £25 an acre, making £600 in total expenses.

Now let's take a look at how much Mr. Harris could sell his hops for. Taking the higher amount of 70s a cwt., his total receipts for 12 acres come to just £420. Leaving him with a loss of £180. Only in 1855, when he had an exceptionally good crop of 18 cwt. per acre, would he appear to have made a profit. That would have netted him £720, a profit of £120.

The price of hops, however, was highly variable. As this table shows:

London hop prices
Year.	£ s. d.
1842	4 8 10
1843	6 0 9
1844	7 3 0
1845	6 10 0
1846	5 0 0
1847	3 10 0
1848	2 15 0
1849	7 10 0
1850	3 10 0
1851	6 10 0
1852	4 5 0
1853	11 11 0
1854	20 0 0
Source:
"A Practical Treatise on Malting and Brewing" by William Ford, 1862, page 289.

Farnham hops in the 1850's

Something really about hops this time. Taken again from the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee into the hop duty.

I've learnt a few things from this excerpt of an interview with a Franham hop grower.

"Mr. James Harris, called in ; and Examined.

3399. Chairman.] YOU are a Hop Grower, in Hampshire ?— I am, to a small extent.

3400. To what extent ? — I farm about a dozen acres.

3401. Have you been long a hop grower ? —I have been a grower 21 years; I have always been upon the same land.

3402. In what part of Hampshire is your farm ?—At Sutton ; it is about six miles from Farnham.

3403. Are there any larger hop growers in the neighbourhood ? —Yes ; in Alton, and Farnham, and Binstead, and that district.

3404. How many acres do the farms consist of? —From 15 to 100 acres ; Sir Thomas Miller's is from 50 to 60 acres.

3405. Are the hop growers owners of large farms? —A good many of them are ; some are very large.

3406. You farm yourself about a dozen acres of hops ?— Yes.

3407. How much other land do you farm ? — I farm about 520 acres altogether.

3408. What proportion of hop land to other land do any of those other, farms possess ?— It is different ; near Binstead and Alton there is a larger proportion of hop land to the other farms ; that is in the immediate neighbour hood of Alton.

3409. Have any of them as much as a quarter of their farms in hops ?—No, I do not think so, where they farm to any extent ; but some of them have nearly that.

3410. What sort of hops do you grow ? —White bines principally; I have one acre of green bines, but mine are principally white bines.

3411. What kind of soil is it that you grow your hops upon ? —The soil that I grow my hops on is principally clay, with a chalk sub-soil ; as you get to Binstead you get a marl land, and all that side of Alton.

3412. What depth do you go before you get to the chalk ? —We vary from two to four feet.

3413. Is not the white bine a fine quality of hop ? —Yes.

3414. Is not that what is known as the Farnham hop ? —Yes, principally. There is not quite so much white bine as there used to be, but there is a great deal.

3415. Mr. Brand.] Is it grown in any other district but the one in which you reside ? —I am not acquainted with any other hop district besides my own.

3416. Are there any other kinds of hops besides the white bine grown there ? —The green bines and other hops. I have heard of some few Colegates and Goldings.

3417. Sir John Shelley.] Is the white bine of the same quality as the Golding ? —No; it is a different quality from the Golding.

3418. Mr. Bass.] Is it like the Canterbury white bine? — I do not know; it is, perhaps, the same I have seen, the Kent hops and the Sussex hops.

3419. Are you in the Farnham branch, or in the country branch? —I am in the Farnham country branch."
Report from the Select Committee on Hop Duties, 1857, page 179.

What did I learn from that? For a start, that much of the Farnham hop district wasn't in Surrey, but in neighbouring Hampshire, as was Mr. Harris's farm. Looking on a map, I see that Farnham is right in the southeast corner of  Surrey. In fact it looks like the county boundary bulges so that it includes the town.

I'm surprised that there were so many hop farms in this region. Especially in Binstead, which is on the Isle of Wight. Quite a way from Farnham. I assume by Sutton, Mr. Harris actually means Long Sutton, which is about six miles due East of Farnham.

Though the quantities of hops grown in Surrey and Hampshire were tiny compared to Sussex and Kent:

Hop duty by district 1819
district	duty			lbs hops	% of total
	£	s	d
Canterbury	90,153	1	4	10,818,368	21.19%
Essex	4,088	13	4	490,640	0.96%
Hants	1,083	9	11	130,020	0.25%
Hereford	34,943	14	6	4,193,247	8.21%
Lincoln	8,647	15	8	1,037,734	2.03%
Rochester	127,668	2	2	15,320,173	30.01%
Surrey	107	6	2	12,877	0.03%
Sussex	136,563	13	2	16,387,639	32.10%
Worcester	7,897	17	8	947,746	1.86%
Source:
(Source: "The Spirit, Wine Dealer's and Publican's Guide", by Edward Palmer, London, 1824 page 247-249.)
Note:
Weight of hops calculated assuming duty of 2d per pound

The numbers are a few years earlier, but demonstrate how concentrated hop growing was. I've left out most of the districts where very few hops were grown before you start telling me my numbers don't add up. Lincoln, not exactly a renowned hop-growing district, produced more than 8 times as many hops as Surrey and Hampshire combined.

Note how small a percentage of the land was used for hops in the Farnham district. In Mr. Harris's case, just 12 out of 520 acres. The largest hop farm in the area was only around 100 acres, according to Mr. Harris. Compare this to the endless vista of hop poles you see in parts of Bavaria.

Finally something I already knew: that Farnham hops were a type of white bine.  Well, most of them were.

Lots more hops-related stuff to come.

The 1952 hop crop

1952 seems to have been a difficult year for the European hop industry. Particularly on the Continent.

As I’ve said many times, hops are a delicate crop, easily damaged by bad weather or disease. Which means that the harvest can vary enormously from one year to the next.

At the time, the price of British hops was set by a committee:

“MARKET INTELLIGENCE
HOPS
The Permanent Joint  Hops Committee states that the new price is a very satisfactory one. The price is founded on a definite relation to the costs of production, which was an agreed method of computation.

The costs this season were somewhat lower than in 1951 but the total crop of hops harvested showed a decrease of 13 per cent compared with last year. Thus, when the figure of increased costs was applied as a divisor to the reduced crop the result was an increase in the average price per cwt.”
"Brewer's Guardian 1953", 1953, February page 11.

See what I mean about the crop being variable? A drop of 13% is considerable. Let’s take a look at the prices for the different types of hops in 1952:

“Grade Prices
Grade prices for the 1952 crop have been fixed as follows, per cwt. :—

	Grade	£	s.
Goldings	1	33	0
	2	31	10
	3	28	0
	4	20	0
Goldings Varieties	1	30	15
	2	29	5
	3	27	5
Fuggles	1	29	15
	2	28	10
	3	26	0
	4	19	0
Brewer's Gold C9A	1	30	0
	2	28	0
	3	22	0
Bullion Q43	1	30	5
	2	29	5
Early Promise X35	1	26	10
	2	21	0
Key worth's Midseason OR55	1	29	0
	2	27	0
	3	17	0

With a maximum of 10s. above Grade 1 of all varieties.”
"Brewer's Guardian 1953", 1953, February page 11.

Unsurprisingly, the top grade of Goldings was the most expensive. Though not that much more expensive. Goldings Varieties were only 6.8% cheaper, Fuggles Brewers’ Gold a little less than 10%. Only Early Promise, at nearly 20% cheaper, showed a significantly lower price.

How do those prices relate to the price of beer? In 1953, Whitbread IPA contained 1.31 lbs of hops per barrel. If they were all grade 1 Goldings, that works out to around  a third of a penny per pint. Given that it retailed for 21d per pint (it as a bottled beer), that isn’t so significant. Their Best Ale, with 0.71 lbs of hops per barrel had, assuming it used lower grade Fuggles, about an eighth of a penny’s worth of hops  per pint. While it sold for 14d a pint.

Next we’ll be looking at continental hops.

Hops yesterday, today and tomorrow

I’ve found some good articles about hops in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing. And I’ve only been looking in the 1950’s.

The one I’m looking at this time has a nice overview of long term trends in English hop cultivation.

“Hops have always been quick to react to demand and supply, and, until recently, to attacks of pests and diseases. This is shown well in Fig. 1, representing acreage and yields from 1870-1958. In the old days, favourable years with a bumper crop would often cause a fall in price with a sharp cut in acreage, e.g. 1886-1888, till a disastrous year would give a hop famine, a recovery in price and a gradual build-up in acreage, e.g. 1890-1894, though the general trend has been steadily down since the peak of 1878. Recently, however, and particularly since 1946, we have had much more stable conditions, thanks on the one hand to the Hops Marketing Scheme and the Board which administer it, and on the other to improvements over the last thirty years in the control of disease and in husbandry generally.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 467.

I’d noticed that myself looking at the numbers for hop production and prices. There were crazy fluctuations from year to year. It can’t have made life easy for hop growers. But in the 20th century the trade become controlled and that seemed to have a stabilising effect. Though the graphs show a clear long term downward trend in the amount of hops grown. There’s a simple explanation: British brewing required far fewer hops due to the fall in both beer output and hopping rates.

There’s an interesting point here:

“The main factors at work to-day in influencing the acreage, the varieties grown and the methods of growing and the distribution of acreage are Quota, Verticillium wilt and the development of mechanical picking. If we compare (Fig. 2) the trends in barley and hop yields over the past 70 years, it is noticeable how the yields of barley have increased lately — particularly with the advent of the combine harvester and Proctor—while yields of hops have fallen under the artificial influence of Quota and the effects of wilt and of machine picking.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 467.

I understood that disease had an effect on the varieties of hops grown, but not mechanical picking. Though it makes sense. And there had been a real surge in machine picking after WW II. In the US the move away from hand picking had occurred a few decades earlier.

“Picking machines which tend to lower yields  have increased from about 10 in 1948 to 256 in 1956, and the quantity picked by machine from 2% to 48% of the crop, while the importance of disease is shown by the distribution of acreage and the spread of Verticillium wilt.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, pages 467 - 468.

I’m surprised that mechanical picking had a negative impact on the yield. It’s fascinating to see how quickly the industry was moving to machines. I wonder what was spurring the change. Was it shortages of labour or purely a matter of cost?

I’m not sure that I understand what this is saying:

“In the last 10 years the class of person coming hop picking has improved visibly, and while in 1946 the 3,000 London pickers at the Bodiam Farms of Guinness Hop Farms, Ltd., arrived in 4 or 5 trains, now there is one train and a fleet of lorries and cars.  Opinions vary on the changes in the standard of hand picking today, though the best is good.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 469.

It seems to imply that fewer but better off pickers were coming to Kent.

Here’s something more about the problems with picking machines:

“Picking machines have come on with a rush since 1950: good samples can be obtained but this is usually at the expense of up to 10% to 20% of the crop which is too often replaced by leaf and stem. There is also a substantial loss of soft resin which nothing can replace, and the hops are often so bruised that they tend to ferment and heat before drying, with ill effects on the colour and brightness. On a broader view, machine picking is stimulating a requirement for firm hops with a habit of growth suitable for mechanical picking and for hops of a wide range of ripening times. For hand picking, hops are normally fit for 2-3 weeks, but for machine picking the optimum period is shorter and a range of several varieties is desirable.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 469.

That’s quite a large loss of the crop. Not only that, there was extra rubbish in with the hops and the hops could be damaged and resin lost. With all those disadvantages there must have been some other big incentive to move to machines.

What I really liked about the article was the table of hop varieties grown. I can’t recall ever seeing numbers for the different types before.

“Wilt has also begun to have a real effect on the varieties of hops grown, illustrated (Table I) by the change between 1912 and 1952 and the rapid build-up of tolerant varieties since 1952.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 468.

Here’s the table. You know what this tells me? That I got it right by mostly sticking to Fuggles and Goldings for the recipes in The Home Brewer’s Guide to Vintage Beer.

TABLE I
VARIETIES OF HOPS: CHANGES IN DISTRIBUTION
1912:	1952:		1957:
Varieties	Varieties	% of crop	Varieties	% of crop
Goldings (Canterbury or Old Goldings)	Old Golding	}	Old Golding	}
	Canterbury Goldings	}	Canterbury Goldings	}
Bramlings	Bramlings	}	Bramlings	}
Mathons	Mathons	}	Mathons	}
Hobb's Early Goldings	Early Bird Bramlings	}	Early Bird Bramlings	}
Searle's Early Goldings	Eastwell Goldings	24%	Eastwell Goldings	25%
White's Early Goldings	Rodmersham or Mercer Golding	}	Rodmersham or	}
Buss's Late Goldings	Petham Golding	}	Mercer Golding	}
Late or Wild Goldings	Cobbs	}	Petham Golding	}
Bate's Brewers	Tutshams	}	Cobbs	}
Cooper Whites	Whitebines	}	Tutshams	}
Whitebines			Whitebines	}
Green Bines
Red Bines
Fuggles	Fuggles	72%	Fuggles	67%
Jones	Brewer's Gold	}	Brewer's Gold	}
Grapes	Bullion	}	Bullion	}
Meophams	Northern Brewer	}	NorthFronrdrewer	}
Henhams	John Ford	4%	John	}
Mayfield Grapes	Pride of Kent	}	Pride of Kent	8%
Colegates	Early Promise	}	Early Promise	}
Prolifics			Keyworth's Midscason	}
			Whitbread Golding	}
			Variety	}
			Bramling Cross	}

I’d never have guessed that almost as three quarters of the hops grown in England were Fuggles. Even by 1957 newer varieties were still making up a pretty small percentage of the crop.

Given their unsuitability for machine picking, it’s a surprise so many Fuggles were still grown:

“Picking machines have also had an influence in popularizing New Varieties in place of the older varieties—especially Fuggles—which shatter very easily, resulting in loss of crop and a broken sample, always with reduced brewing value, usually with excessive leaf and stem, and frequently overvalued. New Varieties are denser in the cone and so shatter less easily, and can be picked to a cleaner sample with less loss. Picking machines are here to stay and now pick over 50% of the crop, so it is important that growers should be told which New Varieties are most acceptable and learn to grow and pick them properly, while brewers should become more willing to accept them and to learn to brew with them.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, pages 468 - 469.

I’d be really interested to see what the percentages are for the different varieties today. I wonder if the figures are available anywhere? My guess would be that the first group – what could loosely be called Golding varieties – would still account for about a quarter of the crop.

Lots more to come on hops when I can get my arse in gear.

Brewing in the 1950’s - English Hops (part two)

Continuing our look at hops in the 1950’s, we’re going to consider the properties of the different varieties.

The 1950’s was a great time for the British hop industry. Two world wars had removed Britain’s dependency on hop imports. Back in the late 19th century between 20% and 40% of the hops used in Britain had been imported. Many of them from the USA.

A lot of it was to do with the drop in gravity. Weaker beers require fewer hops. And the amount of beer consumed also fell during the 20th century, much reducing the demand for hops. So even though production of hops in the 1950’s was about half that in the 1890’s, there were still plenty to go around.

This is really obvious in brewing logs. In the 1890’s, it’s rare to find a beer with no foreign hops. In the 1950’s, apart from the odd fancy Continental hop like Saaz, everything is British. Before WW II, Whitbread used all English hops in their posher beers, but some North American or New Zealand hops in their Milds. In the 1950’s, they don’t seem to have used any foreign hops at all.

The huge increase in barley production during WW II to replace imports meant that for the first time (other than during the wars) Britain was self-sufficient in brewing materials. In reality, it also reflects a decline in the international importance of British brewing.

These numbers will explain why foreign hops were no longer needed. First the 1890’s:

Hop production, acreage and imports 1890 – 1900 (cwt)
year	acres	UK production	yield per acre	net imports the following year	available for consumption	% imports
1890	53,961	283,629	5.26	185,526	469,155	40%
1891	56,142	436,716	7.78	176,834	613,350	29%
1892	56,259	413,259	7.35	185,716	598,975	31%
1893	57,564	414,929	7.21	168,316	583,245	29%
1894	59,535	636,846	10.70	204,087	840,933	24%
1895	58,940	553,396	9.39	193,738	747,134	26%
1896	54,217	453,188	8.36	148,660	601,848	25%
1897	50,863	411,086	8.08	223,747	634,833	35%
1898	49,735	356,948	7.18	168,130	525,078	32%
1899	51,843	661,426	12.76	180,233	841,659	21%
1900	51,308	473,894	9.24	141,307	489,201	29%
Source:
“100 Years of Brewing” 1903, page 656.

Now the 1950’s:

Hops: home production and imports
Year ended 31st Dec.	Acreage	Estimated Produce	Yield per acre	Imports: Less Re-Exports	Exports: British Hops	Consumption Years ended 30th Sept. following	surplus British hops
		Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.
1935	18,251	248,300	13.6	35,186	16,223	258,300	-10,000
1936	18,317	252,000	13.7	31,953	19,987	270,692	-18,692
1937	18,093	235,000	13	40,406	16,130	277,846	-42,846
1938	18,460	257,000	13.9	45,287	12,580	286,716	-29,716
1939	18,812	288,000	15.3	7,840	16,050	265,512	22,488
1940	18,592	270,500	14.5	14,675	26,830	251,354	19,146
1941	18,158	262,800	14.5	31	17,209	223,007	39,793
1942	18,420	261,900	14.2	2,963	30,673	231,689	30,211
1943	19,131	285,200	14.9	198	24,941	243,900	41,300
1944	19,603	253,900	13	--	26,525	244,822	9,078
1945	19,957	282,900	14.1	574	32,337	226,197	56,703
1946	21,163	257,451	13.4	29,243	35,056	217,759	39,692
1947	22,142	289,908	13.2	7,716	31,661	231,470	58,438
1948	22,787	273,584	12	4,561	29,135	233,168	40,416
1949	22,196	250,406	11.3	900	42,301	232,979	17,427
1950	22,198	368,313	16.6	269	84,027	229,106	139,207
1951	22,460	321,824	14.3	626	107,738	228,512	93,312
1952	22,279	282,349	12.7	502	76,620	225,569	56,780
1953	21,932	272,593	12.3	1,015	64,762	216,841	55,752
1954	20,760	246,748	11.9	3,075	51,323	217,716	29,032
1955	20,453	256,821	12.1	5,836	49,049	218,820	38,001
1956	19,982	184,170	9.2	6,416	40,746	215,114	-30,944
1957	20,415	267,677	13.1	8,848	38,635	208,870	58,807
1958	21,130	302,640	14.9	5,441	42,352	226,371	76,269
1959	20,350	222,768	10.9	6,007	34,291	234,611	-11,843
1960	20,098	248,195	12.4	8,172	12,220	234,611	13,584
Sources:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 63.
1971 Brewers'Almanack, page 54

That’s quite a turnaround.

Back to hop varieties. We’ll start with the classic English hop, the Golding.

“English Goldings. The genuine Golding is of very delicate aroma and flavour. It is usually a small and compact hop, of what might be called buttony appearance. When ripe and well managed the cones are unbroken. As a result, when a sample is cut from a pocket the formation of each cone is clearly outlined, with its resins in clusters of gold. The strig is short and angular, with the joints close together. The bracts have the ends rounded off and lie closely packed to the strig. If ripe and in good condition, Goldings should break up in an even and regular texture when rubbed down between the hands. They should not feel stringy, and the deposit on the hands reveals a wealth of resin. As a rule there is not a large amount of seed. For that reason the hop is most suitable for dry hopping, especially as it retains its wholeness in the cask and obviates floaters.

The Golding is an ideal hop for stock pale ales, as the preservative properties are high. It is at all times suitable for any pale ale, especially bottling beers.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 173.

This confirms what I thought about Goldings: good flavour, perfect for Pale Ales, an excellent dry hop. It’s no wonder that it’s hung around for so long. Despite its lower yield per acre, it had many qualities brewers desired.

Now for related varieties:

“Golding Types. Under this heading we can include Bramlings, Worcester Mathons, Cobbs, and Tutshams, all of which vary from Goldings, perhaps in some cases only a little. The difference, however, is just enough to be noticeable.

Bramlings, for instance, ripen earlier than Goldings, and have neither the delicate flavour nor the amount of resin. They are not quite so compact in formation. At the same time, they are very useful pale ale hops. Mathons are claimed to be every bit the equal of Kent Goldings, and with the vast improvement effected in the production of hops in the Worcester district in recent years we are almost inclined to agree. Some, produced by a well-known grower whose name it is inadvisable to mention, are certainly equal to any Goldings ever produced, and they only differ in so far as they are a little brighter and yellower in appearance. This difference in colour is rather a characteristic of the Worcester growth. Cobbs have slightly larger cones, and the bracts do not lie so closely together as is the case with Goldings proper. The flavour is a little coarser. We have seen some with a large amount of resins, but others are rather deficient in this respect. It appears therefore that they vary according to management. They, too, are useful hops for pale ales if blended with some other hop which is rather more delicate in flavour. Tutshams are larger hops, and of still heavier flavour. We advise them for use as a blend with coarse Fuggles in order to tone down the latter for mild ales. The strig of all hops of this type is short, and with joints set closely together at angles.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 173 - 174.

Strange that Mathons – really the Farnham variety – were grown in Worcester, but not in Surrey. I’d noticed that Worcester hops were sometimes used in quite classy beers. I assume these hops would have been Mathons.

What’s left of Worcester hop growing today? I suspect very little.

Now the other classic English hop:

“Fuggles. Fuggles proper are unfortunately placed upon the market in varying stages of growth. We have seen some samples in which the cones were so small and under-developed as might easily deceive an unpractised eye into thinking the hops were Golding type. There is no mistaking fully grown Fuggles, which sometimes attain a very large size. In colour they are much greener than hops of the Golding type, and this feature is particularly noticeable at the junction of the stalk and strig. So much so that some growers resort to the undesirable practice of bleaching by the use of undue amounts of sulphur in the curing kilns. This bleaching can only be detected by an experienced eye. The strigs are long and fairly thick, and of a greenish hue. The bract joints are some distance apart, and the angles at which they are set are wider. The bracts are long and taper to a point. They are more open, and in fact the whole hop might almost be called 'untidy'. As regards flavour, Fuggles vary very much according to the district where they are grown. Those grown on the rich soil of the Weald of Kent give very heavy crops of coarse flavour. We have met with Fuggles produced from gardens in East and Mid Kent and also Worcester which are of sufficiently delicate flavour to warrant their use in running pale ales. Generally speaking, however, Fuggles are best reserved for mild ales and stout. The amount of resins present varies considerably. In some cases, when a sample is cut cleanly through, the side looks quite golden. In other cases the hops look like useless straw and nothing else.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 174 - 175.

Sounds as if Fuggles varied greatly in quality and flavour. Classiness in hops could be described as their suitability for use in Pale Ales. Note, though, that Jeffery only considers the best Fuggle’s as good for running Pale Ales, the lowest order of the style. Mostly he recommends it for Mild and Stout, beers with either little hop character or where other strong flavours were present.

Here’s another venerable type of hop. Sort of.

“Farnham and Country Farnhams. Grown in Surrey and Hampshire, these hops are mostly of the Golding type. The first named especially is small and compact, but is a little more pointed in formation. They are very delicate in flavour, and it would be almost wasteful to use these hops in anything but pale ales. The colour is a very pale primrose. Samples of these hops are easily distinguishable from those grown in Kent and Worcester districts, as they weigh nearly half as much again, although of similar size. This feature is due to very close packing and pressing in pockets of much stronger texture. In consequence the pockets are much heavier in weight than the average pocket of just over 1.5 cwt.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 175.

Back in the 1800’s Farnham hops were the most valued by brewers, being considered superior even to East Kent Goldings. Though these aren’t the real Farnham type. The last of those was grubbed up before WW II. Though the region was still producing top-quality hops.

A rare piece of good news for British hops was the announcement in 2014 by the Hogs Back brewery that they were planting a hop garden. And even better, some of the hops were the renowned variety from nearby Farnham, the Farnham White Bine. For the first time in almost 100 years genuine Farnham variety hops are being grown in the region. I wonder what they’re going to do with them?

“Sussex Fuggles. These hops are mentioned separately as they are now sold as a distinct growth. The cones are fairly large and rather open in texture, and, if picked when over-ripe, have a tendency to break up and look ragged. Formerly of decidedly coarse flavour, a definite improvement has been noticed in this respect recently. In fact, better management all round has made Sussex Fuggles quite suitable for mild ales and stout. In colour they are yellower when ripe than the Fuggles from the adjoining county.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 175.

So Sussex Fuggle’s weren’t good enough for Pale Ale, only Mild and Stout. Given that the former was the most popular style back then, it means there was a considerable market for this type of hop.

I’ll finish with a review of the English hop growing districts and their varieties. First before the war:

Hop varieties by region in the 1930’s
Region	main varieties
East Kent (Canterbury, Faversham)	Goldings, Bramling, Cobb and Tutsham
Mid Kent (Medway valley, Maidstone to Tonbridge)	Fuggle's, Bramling, Tutsham, Cobb, Goldings, Tolhurst
Weald of Kent (Tonbridge to Sussex)	Fuggle's
Sussex	Fuggle's
Hampshire, Surrey	Fuggle's, Farnham Whitebine.
Hereford and Worcester	Mathon, Bramling, Fuggle's
Berkshire and Shropshire	Fuggle's, Goldings
Source:
"Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, page 391

Then after it:

Hop varieties by region in the 1950’s
Region	main varieties
East Kent (Canterbury, Faversham)	Goldings
Mid Kent (Medway valley, Maidstone to Tonbridge)	Fuggle's, Goldings
Weald of Kent (Tonbridge to Sussex)	Fuggle's, Colegate
Sussex	Fuggle's, Colegate
Hampshire, Surrey	Fuggle's, Farnhams
Hereford and Worcester	Mathon, Cobb, Mayfield Grape, Fuggle's
Source:
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 172 - 175.

Foreign hops next.