An exciting new hop?

I'm back with OP21, or Brewer's Favourite, as it was less formally known. A new hop variety which was under development during WW II.

It seems to have been a deliberate attempt to produce a hop with better bittering and preservative characteristics than existing English varieties. Demand for a high-alpha hop was great since imports of US hops had dried up.

Various brewers conducted trials with OP21, including William Younger in Edinburgh.  It was spotting it in one of their brewing records that got me on its trail.

Not every brewer was positive about the trials, where some of the English hops were replaced by OP21. A smaller quantity of OP21 being used than English hops they were substituting. That ones another reason they were keen to try out OP21 hops during the war: you needed fewer of them. Quite an incentive, when supply was so tight.

"Mr. A. Rolph Pope, of Eldridge, Pope & Co., Ltd., Dorchester, reported on 10th November, 1942, as follows:—

“Trials were made of 0P21 in four brews, two of them being bottling beers and two draught beers. The proportion of 0P21 used in each case was one-quarter of the hops used; the quantity of OP21 was two-thirds of the English hops replaced. The English commercial hops used in the controls in place of the OP21 were Famhams. The trials were carried out in March and May, 1942. In each case trials were made of the OP21 as a dry hopper, both alone and mixed with a Worcester. In the copper tests, in the beer with which we were chiefly concerned, the hop rate was 0.6 lb. per barrel. In the Dry Hop.Tests, 0.22 lb. per barrel were used when OP21 was used alone, and when mixed 0.11 lb. of OP21 and 0.16 lb. of Worcesters per barrel.

"The conclusion reached was that when used as a copper hop the OP21 gave an unusual and somewhat unpleasant flavour which was perhaps more noticeable in the filtered bottle beer than in the case of the draught beer. As a dry hopper the same flavour was apparent. When used alone it gave a peculiar bitterness different from the characteristic bitter of an English commercial hop and when used with a Worcester, this flavour was still sufficiently pronounced to mask the flavour of the Worcester.

No laboratory tests were made for stability but the practical trials showed no difference between the beers in which the OP21 hop was used and the controls. This applies both to its use as a copper hop and a dry hopper. It is to be noted that the quantity of OP21 used was only two-thirds of the English commercial hops replaced.

"The trials showed that this particular variety would be quite unsuitable for use in this brewery as a copper hop, and still less suitable as a dry hopper. It must, however, be borne in mind that, as we stated when the suggestion that we should make a trial of these new varieties was first made, previous experience has compelled us to abandon the use of American hops in this brewery owing to the coarse bitterness which is extracted. This may be due to some peculiarity of the water. It is possible that by adjusting the blend used we might have overcome the objectionable flavour, but the quantity we had was not sufficient for further trials. We should be very pleased to make trials of another new variety.""
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Mar - April, 1944, page 85.

I thought the last Farnhams had been rooted up before WW II?

Mr. Pope clearly wasn't a fan of OP21's flavour, even when mixed with other hops. Could he be right that water chemistry was the problem? Fascinating that Eldridge Pope had the same problem with American hops.
 

Brewing materials at the start of WW II

The whole back catalogue of the Journal of the Institute of Brewing has recently been put online. Obviously one of the first topics I researched was wartime brewing. I never get bored of that.

There are two articles dedicated to brewing during the war, nicely bookending it. One is from 1940, the other from 1946. The first talks mostly of expected problems, the second discusses what actually happened. It'll be fun to compare and contrast them, especially as they share the same author, Harold Heron. For the sake of chronological coherence, I'm starting with the 1940 article.

Almost immediately following the outbreak of war, there were restrictions on the raw materials available to brewers.

"At the outbreak of war every brewer realised that he would be forced to make drastic alterations in the composition of his grist, for he was forbidden to use flaked maize, future supplies of barley from Central Europe was cut off, while available supplies of Californian malt were materially reduced and in some cases ceased entirely while there was a possibility that sugar would be rationed.

It is probable that flaked maize has been used more from the view of economy than anything else, and its effect on the composition of the wort is hardly of sufficient importance to present any difficulty in replacing it. Flaked rice in limited amount is still available, however, and can easily replace flaked maize although it is quite possible that it may be restricted in the future."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 46, Issue 4, August 1940, page 274.

I love things like this. Do you know why? Because I can check them up so easily.

Usually I'd use Whitbread, as I have their records for just about any year you can name. As luck would have it, Whitbread didn't use adjuncts, just malt and sugar. Which means I'll have to make do with Barclay Perkins. As you can see in the table below, they did indeed replace flaked maize with flaked rice:

Barclay Perkins Ales 1939 - 1940
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	amber malt	crystal malt	MA malt	SA malt	PA malt	no. 3 sugar	caramel	other sugar	flaked maize	flaked rice
19th Jun	1939	A	Mild	1030.8	1007.5	3.08	75.65%	7.00	0.84	18.52%	3.37%	5.05%	31.15%	15.99%		8.98%	0.66%	1.12%	15.15%
19th Jun	1939	X	Mild	1034.8	1010.0	3.28	71.26%	7.00	0.95	18.52%	3.37%	5.05%	31.15%	15.99%		8.98%	0.66%	1.12%	15.15%
19th Jun	1939	XX	Mild	1042.7	1015.0	3.66	64.87%	7.00	1.14	18.52%	3.37%	5.05%	31.15%	15.99%		8.98%	0.66%	1.12%	15.15%
20th Jun	1939	PA	Pale Ale	1052.5	1014.5	5.03	72.38%	7.50	1.54	21.20%					50.02%	17.52%	0.24%		11.02%
20th Jun	1939	XLK (trade)	Pale Ale	1045.7	1017.0	3.80	62.80%	7.50	1.37	21.20%					50.02%	17.52%	0.24%		11.02%
20th Jun	1939	XLK (bottling)	Pale Ale	1035.8	1011.5	3.21	67.88%	7.50	1.15	21.20%					50.02%	17.52%	0.24%		11.02%
29th Jun	1939	IPA (bottling)	IPA	1043.8	1012.5	4.14	71.48%	7.50	1.32	21.48%					49.74%	17.33%	0.14%		11.30%
2nd Aug	1940	A	Mild	1028.8	1007.0	2.88	75.65%	6.50	0.74	7.44%	3.72%	5.21%	36.46%	18.60%			0.78%	14.39%		13.39%
3rd Jun	1940	X	Mild	1031.8	1006.5	3.35	79.59%	7.00	0.91	8.01%	4.01%	5.34%	34.73%	17.36%			0.72%	17.81%		12.02%
3rd Jun	1940	XX	Mild	1038.6	1011.5	3.59	70.24%	7.00	1.10	8.01%	4.01%	5.34%	34.73%	17.36%			0.72%	17.81%		12.02%
11th Jun	1940	PA	Pale Ale	1048.8	1014.0	4.60	71.29%	7.50	1.50	12.26%					68.29%		0.19%	10.51%		8.76%
11th Jun	1940	XLK (trade)	Pale Ale	1042.8	1012.0	4.07	71.96%	7.50	1.27	12.26%					68.29%		0.19%	10.51%		8.76%
11th Jun	1940	XLK (bottling)	Pale Ale	1036.7	1008.5	3.73	76.86%	7.50	1.09	12.26%					68.29%		0.19%	10.51%		8.76%
26th Sep	1940	IPA (bottling)	IPA	1038.7	1011.5	3.60	70.31%	7.00	1.10	7.56%					69.25%		0.10%	14.27%		8.81%
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/01/623

Sure enough, Barclay Perkins changed from flaked maize to flaked rice at the start of the war.  Funnily enough, when Barclay Perkins first experimented with adjuncts in the 1880's, it was rice that they'd chosen. They only moved over to flaked maize at the end of the 1890's.

Rice aside, the recipes are pretty much the same otherwise. I wouldn't read too much into the apparent disappearance of No. 3 invert sugar. I'm pretty sure that the 1940 beers did contain it. They just hadn't bothered noting down No. 3 in the logs, not going into any more detail than "sugar". Whereas on the earlier logs they had.

"The lack of Californian and Central European malts are, however, likely to prove a rather more difficult problem. The view that Californian malt is of value simply because it gives good drainage in the mash tun no longer obtains. It possesses other qualities besides this. Practical experience has shown that the use of Californian malt improves the brilliancy of beers and assists in obtaining polish in bottled beers. It is evident that it must be effective, therefore, in adjusting the balance of the nitrogen constituents in the wort and effecting a stable equilibrium. When Californian barley is malted only about 28 per cent, of the original nitrogen is rendered permanently soluble as compared with 36 to 38 per cent. in English barley, and although no comparison has yet been made between the several types of break down products in English and Californian malts, it is reasonable to surmise that Californian malts contain a smaller proportion of those of a troublesome or unstable type.

The Central European barleys malted in this country have been of a very high grade and have been characterised by a high degree of maturity and ripeness combined with a higher nitrogen content than our English barley. They have produced high quality malts which possessed not only good yeast feeding properties but stable types of nitrogen constituents. These malts have usually been employed during the summer months to improve the stability of the beers."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 46, Issue 4, August 1940, page 274.

In the early 20th century British brewers had an obsession with using a proportion of Californian malt in their beers. They were sure that they couldn't get the clarity they wanted in the finished beer without it. It was all to do with the permanently soluble nitrogen content, or so they claimed. I'm not enough of a scientist to be able to judge.

Brewers liked Central European not just because of its nitrogen content. It was also very good quality and attractively priced.

The decline of Stock Ales (part 2)

A short quote highlighting the change in public taste at the end of the 19th century.

"The bottling of beer necessitates a further amount of information being obtained, especially now that the public taste is tending toward a newly-bottled beer rather than to its old friend the fully-matured aged pale ale, more especially associated with the name of Burton. The modern method of bottling comparatively newly-brewed beers, rapidly forcing into condition, and distributing for what is practically immediate consumption, is unfortunately growing far too rapidly, as, I believe, such beers are far less healthy to the consumer than the old-fashioned, fully-matured, naturally-fined, stock bottled ale."
"Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 1, 1895", page 189.

Those bastard brewers, moving from naturally-conditioned bottled beer to force-carbonated junk. Someone should have started a campaign to save the older style.

Sludge

Sludge. Not something I'd ever thought about much. Thankfully someone else has.

The particular type of sludge being discussed here (because there are several different types) is the stuff found in the bottom of fermentation vessels:

"This fermenting-tun sludge not only contains dangerous yeasts but a great deal of amorphous matter and bacteria. Indeed the yeast in a fermenting-vessel may be regarded as a fining agent acting both upwards and downwards. The rising heads take out with them a large amount of amorphous matter and some bacteria, but a good deal of the amorphous matter and the greater part of the bacteria are carried to the bottom with the yeasty deposit. The deposit, indeed, is as compact a compound of brewer's pests as could well be conceived, and the brewer who allows it to pass into his beers when there is not the least occasion to do so, pretty well deserves the punishment that some day or other will follow his negligence.

When settling-vessels are used, a similar sludge settles out at the bottom of these vessels, and the same care should he taken to retain it in these vessels as is so necessary in the case of fermenting-vessels. The beer associated with the sludge, whether in the fermenting- or settling-vessel, need not be wasted. It should be taken to the presses, and the clear beer mixed off in small proportions with that particular beer for which there is the most assured quick consumption, preferably black beer. If there be any difficulty about effecting a separation in the presses, that difficulty will generally be removed by adding finings to the sludge and beer about twelve hours before pressing. If there are no presses, bags answer equally well.

A case which came before me a few years ago bears very closely upon what I have been saying, although applying rather to the sludge which forms in beer storing vessels than to that in fermenting or settling plant, but the principle is the same.

A brewer was in the habit of bottling a light pale ale himself, and the contents of each storing-vessel were, when bottled, stacked and kept separate. In all cases the beer contained in the bottles on the top layers of the stacks showed floating particles (apparently of finings), while the rest was perfectly free from any such defect. It seemed inconceivable that the mere fact of certain bottles lying above the rest should produce a precipitation exclusive to those top-most layers ; but whatever was tried the result was the same.. The beers were then brought to me, and I found that the floating particle in the top layer beer were not finings at all, but agglomerations of wild yeast, and this led me to suppose (as indeed was the case) that these top layer beers representing the bottom strata of beer in the storing vessels had got practically the whole of the wild yeast sediment which had collected in the storage vessels, whilst the lower layers of bottles which were taken from the upper strata of beer in bulk got practically none of it."
"Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 1, 1895", pages 493-494.

A cautionary tale. Watch out for sludge, brewers. You never know what might be in it.

Preparing beer for bottling

We're back with the Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing and their article on carbonated bottled beer.

This time, it's more of a how to.

"Preparing the Beer for Bottling.—
The beer should remain on the stools for at least three weeks before bottling, and should then be fairly bright and sound ; at the time of stooling, the barrels should be fined if required."

The light dinner ale should be dry hopped, with about three-quarters of a pound per barrel.

It is also advisable to add a little finings to the stout at time of stooling.

A beer will sometimes, after being filtered and bottled, turn dull; this is due to the change of temperature in the cellars and storing room for the bottled beer; therefore we find it best to keep the cellars and bottling stores at the same temperature, varying between 55º and 60º Fahr.

As is well known, a carbonated beer can be sent out directly it has been bottled; but it can also be kept without throwing the slightest deposit for two or three months, maintaining its character and flavour as well.

It has been said of carbonated ales that they lose all their character by being carbonated, but we maintain that a beer properly carbonated will taste as full of character as the same beer will do when bottled on the old system. The carbonation of beer by this process does not get agitated, and thereby lose its character, which is, we think, it great distinguishing feature.

The special features of carbonation of beers by this process are :—

(1.) That the beer is thoroughly impregnated and in the proper proportions with carbonic acid gas.

(2.) The process is an automatic and continuous one, and consequently the beer after carbonation does not get agitated in any way, so preventing the access of air to the bottle, points which we think cannot be claimed for any other carbonating process. "
"Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, vol VIII, 1902", pages 305-306.

Carbonated beer made the right way tastes just like naturally-conditioned beer? Yeah, right. I believe you mate. I'm sure that statement's totally unconnected with you pushing this process.

Natural vs. force carbonation

The Journal of the Institute of Brewers. What handy books they are. I'm delighted to have a few in my digital library.

Given all the enthusiasm for keg at the moment, it's time to hear the views of brewing experts on the topic of forced carbonation. Experts from about 100 tears ago. Long dead all of them, so no chance of them arguing back.

Whitbread Family Ale: you remember me mentioning that recently. That was one of the bottled Light Bitters discussed in this article.It's a type of beer which, in the form of Light Ale, live on today.

"During the last decade, a steadily increasing demand for light gravity, brilliant, sparkling beer in bottle has sprung up, and various methods of treating beer, both in cask and bottle, have been practised to meet such a demand. We propose to bring before you the details of a system of bottling which has been most successful in practice, and which we hold to be superior to all other systems at present in use.

. . . . . . . .

The ordinary process of bottling is so well known to every one here, that it is hardly necessary for us to state that all beer intended for bottling should be made from first-class materials, should be preferably brewed during the winter months, be well matured in cask, and only bottled when brilliant, and after the ordinary secondary cask-fermentation has taken place.

There can be no doubt but that such beers, brewed and bottled under most favourable conditions, present to the palate a peculiar pungent flavour and an invigorating freshness which is greatly esteemed amongst connoisseurs; but there is one drawback to all such beer, they must inevitably be accompanied by a deposit, and which in many bottled beers is more or less heavy. It was to obviate this effect that the carbonating system was first introduced, and although such a system was much decried at first, and described by one writer as " an aerated draught beer in bottle," the bulk of the carbonic acid gas being merely dissolved in the liquid, which on reducing the pressure
immediately came out of solution; and the writer goes on to explain why a glass of "natural" bottled beer will, as a rule, retain its gas and remain drinkable when exposed to the air for a much longer time than a glass of carbonated beer.

In all probability there was a good deal of truth in these remarks when the carbonating system was first introduced and for some years afterwards; but we think when you have tasted the various samples of beer which are before you, bottled on the carbonating system that we are now about to explain in detail, you will find that it is now possible to produce a carbonated beer in bottle in every respect equal to that produced on the old plan.

In order to successfully produce a first-class carbonated beer in bottle several points have to be observed. Amongst others, the beer must be specially brewed for this purpose, the object being to obtain a finished beer possessing as little fermentable matter as possible and a very low attenuation. The following analyses will perhaps show the differences, to a certain extent, between a carbonated beer on the system we suggest and light bitter beers bottled in the ordinary way where condition is brought about by after-fermentation in bottle.

Analyses of Bottled Beers.
Column I. Carbonated Light Bitter Beer.
Columns II and III. Two well-known brands of Non-carbonated Light Bitter Beer.

	I.	II.	III.
Original gravity	1044	1048.7	1045.3
Specific attenuation	1006.4	1009.8	1011.4
Absolute alcohol per cent, by weight	4.15	4.15	3.75
Proof spirit per cent, by -volume	9.1	9.1	8.2
Polarisation (200 mm.) tube	7	7.6	9
Matter fermented per cent	71.17	65.74	61.97
Maltose unfermented per cent	7.16	7.98	9.17
Dextrin unfermented per cent	11.1	10.86	13.72
Passive matter	10.57	15.42	15.14

"Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, vol VIII, 1902", pages 297-299

So there you have it. The carbonation in a naturally-conditioned beer is different to that of a force-carbonated one. I'll be happy to discuss the topic, as long as you don't use the argument CO2 is CO2.

What do you fancy?

I've always been a democrat at heart. Now's your chance to take advantage.

Hanging around in Paris waiting for my train - and the journey back itself - gave me plenty of reading time on Thursday. Enough to rattle through a whole stack or articles from the Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Ones from about 1900.

There was so much fascinating stuff that I can't decide what to post about first. This is where you come in. You decide for me. I suppose not so much democracy as indecision in action.

Here's a list of topics, tell me which you'd most like to hear about:

• a history of beer duty
• non-deposit bottled and cask beers
• modern mashing operations
• colour measurement
• coloured malts
• the use of flaked malts
• arsenic in beer

Go on. You decide. I can't be arsed.