Let's Brew - 1886 Barclay Perkins Hhd Porter

It’s a surprise that Barclay Perkins was still brewing a Keeping Porter at this late a date. Most of their London rivals had dropped the type in the 1870s. Not that they were making much of it. This batch was a tiny batch of just 27.5 barrels.

Lots of different malts in the grist: pale, brown black and amber. Not so unusual in London, where Brown Beers always included at least three. Amber being optional, but not unusual. The malts are topped up by just shy of 20% invert sugar.

East Kent hops all the way, half from the 1886 crop, the other half from 1885. Having all top-quality hops is a sign that this was a classy beer.

As a Keeping Porter, Hhd would have been aged in vats for a minimum of 6 months. Possibly a year or more. Where Brettanomyces would have worked its magic, adding complexity. I’m not sure whether it was sold straight or blended with Running Porter. Probably the latter.

1886 Barclay Perkins Hhd Porter
pale malt	4.50 lb	39.13%
brown malt	1.75 lb	15.22%
black malt	1.25 lb	10.87%
amber malt	1.75 lb	15.22%
No. 3 invert sugar	2.25 lb	19.57%
Goldings 150 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 60 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1054
FG	1014
ABV	5.29
Apparent attenuation	74.07%
IBU	59
SRM	43
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	150 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

 

What I learnt at the archives (part 95)

I should get out more. To archives, not anything crazy like the outdoors. Because I always learn stuff from my visits. The unexpected is what keeps it exciting.

My recent trip to the London Metropolitan Archives was my first in 6.5 years. Partly because I still haven't processed all my earlier photographs. I've stacks of them. I think 15,000 or so. And they take a while to churn through.

For example, I took 660 photos at the archives on Monday. I've made a real effort to go through them this week. I've got through 60. In about 10-12 hours. To process the lot, I'm looking at 120 hours.

But I'm not that daft. There's a lot of overlap in the Truman's WW II logs. Each book only covers about four months. Being an obsessive bastard, I wanted, no, had to, photograph every record. But I'm being more practical about what I transcribe. What I need for my current project.

There were a limited number of WW II records left for me to snap. I wasn't going to waste the opportunity. And did a bit of pre-emptive research for my next book. (Yes, I am thinking that far ahead.) And got stuck into some Truman's records from the 1880's.

It's always worth looking in the front and back covers of brewing records. You never know what you'll find. Things like this:

It's a record of Truman's last Keeping Porters, from 1879 and 1880. It's taught me so much. Laet's go through it all.

First, that Keeping Porter lasted longer than I thought. I'd believed in fizzled out in the early 1870s. Clearly it dragged on until at least 1880.

As the "started" (put into a vat) and tapped dates are given, I can see how long it was vatted. Which is between 5 and 10 months. Which is about what I would have guessed, but it's nice to have some confirmation.

Surprising is the size of the vats being used. And just how small they were. The largest batch is 1100 barrels. This tells me that Keeping Porter may have survived the removal of the massive Porter vats. These look of a size which would have been used for Stout.

You can also see which hops were added to the vats. Rather surpringly, "American" and "Alost" (Aalst in Belgium). The cheapest and hops with the least valued aroms around.

Bit of an underestimate on the brewing record photos. Just counted and it's 28,000.

I remain number-obsessed as ever.

Runners and Keepers

Porter chnaged several times during its history. From a 100% brown malt beer to one brewed from a mix of brown and pale malts. With the introduction of black malt in 1817, it was possible to drop brwwon malt altogether. Though most London brewers stuck with it.

It wasn’t just the recipe that was changing. How Porter was aged evolved, too. Rather than age all their Porter for a medium length of time, brewers started to age just s proportion of it for a relatively long period and then blend this with “Mild“ or young Porter. This entailed brewing two types: Keeping Porter and Running Porter.

In the first seven decades of the 19th century London brewers produced two types of Porter for the domestic market:

- Running Porter which was sold young
- Keeping Porter which was aged 6 to 12 months

The recipes for the two beers were essentially the same, except that the Keeping version was much more heavily hopped as it would need to survive longer. The hopping rate was 50-100% greater than in the Running version. There might also be a higher proportion of roasted malts in the Keeper.

Unlike like Pale Ale which was aged in trade casks – usually hogsheads – Keeping Porter was, as in the 18th century aged in enormous vats, holding thousands of barrels. The larger the volume of beer, the less that is in contact with oxygen.

During the ageing process Brettanomyces, which was either part of the pitching yeast or lurking in the oak staves of the vat, would slowly work away at any remaining fermentable material and produce vinous flavours, which were highly valued by drinkers, along with a certain degree of acidity

Keeping Porter wasn’t usually sold straight, but blended with Running Porter in the brewery before being sent out to customers. The usual recommendation was to use no more than one third of Keeping Porter in the blend. This would add the aged flavour that was valued by customers without being too harsh or tart.

Keeping Porter was brewed in large quantities up until 1860, after which it quickly fell out of favour and by the end of the 1870’s had disappeared entirely. The public seems to have lost its love of the aged flavour. Though Porter remained extremely popular in London, it was all sold “mild”.

Some stronger Stouts were still aged, but as the quantities involved were much smaller, more modestly-sized vats were employed. London Porter brewers ripped out their large vats, vats which had once been a source of great pride.

Runners and Keepers in the 1850s
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	black malt
1856	Whitbread	P	1054.8	1013.0	5.53	76.26%	10.99	2.95	76.64%	19.46%	3.89%
1856	Whitbread	K	1057.1	1014.4	5.64	74.76%	15.42	3.85	75.83%	20.49%	3.69%
1855	Barclay Perkins	TT	1058.2	1018.0	5.31	69.06%	10.71	2.56	85.05%	11.63%	3.32%
1855	Barclay Perkins	Hhd	1057.6	1016.0	5.51	72.23%	15.17	3.70	83.30%	13.36%	3.34%
1855	Truman	Runner	1059.3	1017.2	5.57	71.03%	10.6	2.60	87.02%	9.87%	3.10%
1855	Truman	Keeper	1051.2	1016.1	4.65	68.65%	16.9	3.70	84.00%	12.80%	3.20%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/050.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document numberACC/2305/1/542.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document numberB/THB/C/057.

You'll find more information that you'll ever need to know about Porter in my excellent book on the subject:

Trouble at Whitbread

1866 was an eventful year at Whitbread. Two incidents at the Chiswell Street brewery hit the papers within a few months.

The first wasn't that unusual. Breweries were always catching fire. There probably wasn't a brewery which didn't have a fire at some point in their history. That's why so many of them had their own fire engines. Maybe this is what prompted Whitbread to get theirs:

"DESTRUCTIVE FIRE WHITBREAD'S BREWERY.
On Thursday morning, between three and four o'clock, a fire was discovered to have broken out in Chiswell-street, Finsbury, in the premises belonging to Messrs. Whitbread, the brewers. The discovery was made by a watchman, who noticed smoke issuing from the ale tun room and the boiling back room, a building about 45 by 30 teet, in the highest part of the brewery. Underneath were the stables, and at one time it was feared that the fire would extend to them. The escape conductors and others got about 30 horses out, and by the time this was accomplished, the flames shot through the roof and illuminated the whole district. Nine land steam fire-engines and one manual power machine attended, and the mains of the New River Company affording a bountiful supply of water, three land steamers and one manual power were set to work. Some thousands of gallons of water were thrown upon and into the burning premises, and in about hour and half the fire was extinguished, but not until the ale tun room, the boiling back room, and the roof were nearly destroyed, and a considerable quantity of ale the coolers seriously damaged by water. The misfortune will not interfere with tbe business of the firm."
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal - Saturday 28 July 1866, page 3.

This image shows why having your own fire engine was a good idea:

Whitbread's Chiswell Street brewery in 1953
http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/EAW049464

The brewery is in the centre forground with steam coming out of it. Note the total destruction around it. Because they had their own fire engine, Whitbread could protect their brewery from the icendiaries that caused most of the damage.

The next is much odder. Though it does involve a regular killer in breweries: CO2. Usually the deaths were accidents. But not this time.

"EXTRAORDINARY SUICIDE AT WHITBREAD'S BREWERY.
On Thursday forenoon inquiry was held by Mr Richards, deputy coroner, at the Green Gate Tavern, City Road, London, relative to the death of Wm. Ward, aged 30 years, who committed suicide. The deceased was employed as a labourer at Whitbread's brewery, in Chiswell Street, St Luke's. He was of a gloomy and morose temper. Within the last few days he was suspended for using violent language to a foreman — but on his promising better behaviour he was placed on again. He appeared to converse with his brother, with whom he lived at 20 Rose Street, St Luke's, principally upon the best way of getting rid of oneself. He frequently said to him that he would like to know the best way to get rid of himself, for he was tired of life — but he did not know what to do. His brother and his landlady tried to joke him out of his state of mind. The manner of his suicide was deposed to by Daniel Freeman, a 'leather holder,' a person whose duty it was fill casks with beer from the vats by means of leather pipes. On Tuesday morning at nine o'clock he was underneath vat No. 19, which was empty of beer, but was filled with carbonic acid gas. He heard a lucifer match struck at the top of the vat, which was 27 feet high, and called out twice, but received no answer. He ran up to the top of the vat, and there he found a light burning, and the name 'W. Ward' chalked on the beam over the vat in large letters. He raised alarm, and the deceased was seen lying the bottom of the vat quite dead. No one dared enter the vat, and drags had to be employed to get deceased out. Dr Yarrow said that was called in to the deceased, and found him quite dead. His face was distorted and the body swollen. He had been killed by carbonic acid gas, and death must have been instantaneous. A light was instantly extinguished when lowered into the vat, which was 27 feet deep, and was filled with the deadly gas to within foot or two of the top. It was stated that the deceased, who had been long employed at the brewery, was perfectly acquainted with the nature of the gas, and that, without doubt, he knew well what he was doing when he jumped into the vat. Latterly he had complained of not feeling as he ought, and said he wished to end his life. The coroner having summed up, the jury returned a verdict 'That deceased committed suicide by leaping into vat filled with carbonic acid gas at Whitbread's Brewery, whilst in state of unsound mind.'
Paisley Herald and Renfrewshire Advertiser - Saturday 03 November 1866, page 3.

There are worse ways to top yourself. You'd be unconscious pretty quickly.

That aside, the article does tell us something of the workings of the brewery. Like that a "leather holder" racked beer from vats to casks. I knew leather pipes were used - bet they were fun to keep hygienic - but was unaware of that particular trade. Sounds awfyully specialised.

A 27 foot high vat - that's almost 9 metres - was in all probability used for maturing Porter. That's a pretty large size. Just as well Ward did himself in in the 1860's. If hed waited a few more years the vats would have been gone. Whitbread, like most London brewers, dropped Keeping Porter in the eaarly 1870's and ripped out all their large vats.

The death of Keeping Porter

Porter. It went mild in the second half of the 19th century. Aged, or Keeping, Porter and the vats needed to make it disappeared. But how quickly? It just so happens I've unearthed a few relevant numbers.

Did I mention my Whitbread project? I must have. I'm trying to collect the set of their brewing records.  The London Metropolitan Archives has every year from 1805 to 1975. I've only about 10 years missing for the Porter ones, mostly post-WW II. So I'm getting a unique insight into how Porter brewing mutated. Including the move away from aged Porter.

Let's quickly run through the development of Porter. Early Porters were the first beers (and they were Beers, not Ales) that London brewers had aged themselves. Before publicans or third parties had bought mild malt liquors and aged them in their own cellars. Spotting the public's liking for a bit of age, some brewers began ageing their Brown Beer. Not for immensely long periods, just six months or so. Enough to acquire the desired flavour. And Porter was born.

Initially, all Porter was aged. Until someone noticed that you could get the same aged effect by mixing a small quantity of beer that had been aged 12 months or more with fresh mild Porter. Two distinct types of Porter were brewed: Running Porter and Keeping Porter. What was the difference? Well, apart from being aged in enormous vats, Keeping Porter contained more hops. But the grists and gravity were identical.

In the 1840's, 25-30% of the Porter Whitbread brewed was K, or Keeping Porter. Which tallies pretty well with the recommendation of brewing manuals to mix around a third aged beer with fresh beer. As you'll see in the table below, there was a slight downward trend in the 1850's, and occasional years where far less Keeoping Porter was brewed, less than 10% or total Porter output.

The decline of Whitbread's Keeping Porter
Year	no. brews K	brewsize K	K total barrels	% K	KK	% KK	Total running Porter	% running Porter	total all Porter
1840	42	803.6667	33,754	21.78%			121,244	78.22%	154,998
1845	56	809.0179	45,305	30.09%			105,284	69.91%	150,589
1847	45
1848	58
1849	54	800	43,200	29.04%			105,567	70.96%	148,767
1850	48	817.0833	39,220	28.25%			88,562	63.80%	138,819
1851	53	781.7925	41,435	30.00%			91,312	66.11%	138,114
1853	44	789.9773	34,759	22.41%			106,323	68.54%	155,125
1854	43	780	33,540
1855	13	862	11,206	8.54%			85,239	64.99%	131,160
1856	29	811.6897	23,539	18.36%			104,693	81.64%	128,232
1857	30	827.9	24,837	18.80%			107,296	81.20%	132,133
1858	38	803.5263	30,534	20.14%	7,002	4.62%	100,924	66.56%	151,618
1859	13	759.3077	9,871	5.97%			119,794	72.48%	165,284
1860	22	719	15,818	9.04%			108,681	62.13%	174,929
1861	11	757.0909	8,328	6.89%	7,767	6.43%	104,691	86.67%	120,786
1862	29	770	22,330		1,400
1863	15	796.5333	11,948	7.42%			118,552	73.64%	160,993
1864	32	815.0625	26,082	18.70%	800	0.57%	102,198	73.27%	139,472
1865	21	813.9048	17,092	10.83%			111,381	70.58%	157,810
1866	7	782.5714	5,478	4.11%	1,666	1.25%	126,037	94.64%	133,181
1867	3	755	2,265	1.64%	745	0.54%	118,923	86.15%	138,047
1868	6	752.1667	4,513	3.61%			120,439	96.39%	124,952
1869	4	723.75	2,895	2.43%			116,348	97.57%	119,243
1870	4	796	3,184	2.74%			112,868	97.26%	116,052
1871	0		0	0.00%			103,543	100.00%	103,543
Source: Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives Notes: 1839, 1854 and 1862 quantities estimated from the number of brews

In the middle of the 1860's, there was a sudden and dramatic collapse in Whitbread's production of Keeping Porter, dropping from 17,000 barrels in 1865 to 5,500 in 1866. For the remaining years of the decade, there were a handful of brews. Until 1870, when the final four brews occurred and Whitbread's K disappeared forever.

How did Keeping Porter disappear? Remarkably quickly