Glasgow

I made a flying visit to Glasgow this week. Obviously, to drop by the Scottish Brewing Archive. But also for frequent flyer reasons. As it looked like I was going to end 12 months just short of retaining my gold status with KLM. To make sure of qualifying, I've arranged a couple of trips to the UK to visit archives.

I'd already photographed a lot of the brewing records. But there was still plenty to keep me occupied for a day. Some of it was just filling in some gaps in William Younger and Thomas Usher records. There was some totally new stuff, though. Like Meiklejohn, Belhaven and Binnie. And sort of Lorimer & Clark. Because I'd never looked at their records in the archive before. But had photographed one of their books in the Caledonian brewery a few years back. Just as well I did, because they couldn't find it in the archive.

I was particularly interested in looking at the records of Belhaven. As there are some brewing books from the late 19th century. The topic of the book I'm currently working on. Unfortunately, the relevant book is in poor condition. Too poor for me to look at it.

However, there was a folder of loose sheets. Which seem to be a transcript of at least part of that book. But which had been weirdly miscatalogued. The dates as in the format dd.mm.yy. And they's assumed that the years were 1971 and 1983. While it's actually 1871 and 1883.

The transcripts are dead handy. Containing most of the information I need. There are a couple of things missing. I can live with that.

Here's an example:

 

 

Anyone living in Glasgow?

Who fancies doing me a favour?

There are a couple of brewing records in the Scottish Brewing Archive that I could really do with getting photos of. But I can't really justify the expense of going to Glasgow myaelf.

So, anyone fancy a little light photography? There are a couple of my self-published books in it for you.

Scotland vs England, second division results

After yesterday's shocking revelations, you must be eager for more results. Of my mega comparison of English and Scottish beers. Who am I to disappoint you?

It's the turn of Mild Ale. In the period we're looking at today, Mild was the most popular type of beer, outselling Bitter by 3 to 1 or more. So not a bad choice for making general comparisons.

The sample sizes were 34 Scottish Milds and 101 English. Once again, I removed some of the weaker Scottish beers without English equivalents (strength-wise). The average gravity of the two sets is almost identical so I believe the comparison to be a fair one. Shall we take a look?


And what fascinating reading it makes. The hopping rates are as good as identical, Scotland 1.91 lbs per barrel, England 1.9 lbs. There are no significant differences in boil times or pitching temperature, either. The only difference is in attenuation.

Intrguing stuff, you have to admit. As I expected, it's turning out to be much more complicated than just "English beer was hoppier than Scottish beer". Strong Ale tomorrow.

Younger's competition

I bet you can't guess what I'm doing at the moment. That's right. How on earth did you know? I'm working my way through William Younger's logs.

Rather than keep telling you stuff (lectures are so boring) I'm going to set you a little test. To see if you can work it out.

OK, let's go. This was at the back of Younger's log for 1880 - 1881:


I'm pretty sure I know what was going on. But only because I read about the practice a couple of weeks ago. I probably wouldn't have had a clue if I hadn't.

As I'm about to publish the next volume in my Mini Book Series it seems like a good time for a competition. The first correct answer will win a copy of "War!".

Scotland vs England - the kick off

I've just had my first quick glance. Of how Scottish beers stack up against the English. Fascinating.

I've got a table of 500 beers brewed between 1880 and 1914. Three Scottish breweries: William Younger, Maclay, Thomas Usher. Three English breweries: Barclay Perkins, Whitbread and Truman (Burton). I did the stupidest possible sort: pounds of hops per barrel. Bet you're wondering what the result was, aren't you? Be patient.

One thing I didn't need a sort to see. Who had the longest boil times. There was a very clear winner: Truman. There's no great difference in pitching temperatures. All are 57º - 61º F. In general, the stronger the beer, the lower the pitching heat.

William Younger brewed beers with the largest range of gravities: 1030 to 1110. The English breweries didn't brew hardly anything below 1050. Younger brewed several very sweet Stouts that were unlike anything brewed in England. And were still brewing Table Beer a couple of decades after London brewers had dropped it.

Younger brewed a bit of everything. Shilling Ales, X Ales, Pale Ales, Sweet Stout, Stout, Dinner Ale. And loads of other things I can only guess at. SLE, SE, MM, LDE. They also had a range of numbered Ales:, 1, 2 and 3. Very like Burton Ales brewed by Bass or Truman.

I bet you're still wondering about the winners and losers in the hopping race.

The ten most heavily hopped beers were all brewed by either Barclay Perkins or William Younger. Surprisingly beating Truman (at least for me).

The least heavily-hopped beers were all Scottish. No surprise, as some Scottish beers much weaker than any of the English ones. And those Younger Stouts with second-hand hops.

Younger's No. 1 Ale contained more hops than Truman's No. 1 Ale. They were similar beers, of a similar gravity.

One thing is clear. The blanket statement "Scottish beers were less hoppy than English beers" is not true. At least not 1880 to 1914. But I'm sure it's a lot more complicated. Things always are.

Spent hops

I'd read of hops being re-used. Usually in the older brewing manuals. And usually when a Table Beer or Small Beer was made from the later runnings. Second-hand beer, you could call it. Second-hand malt, second-hand hops.

But the Younger's logs are the first where I've seen evidence of the practice of re-using hops lasting until comparatively modern times. The examples below date from 1898.

Younger's brewed a crazy number of different beers. 25 just at the Abbey brewery. Because their mash tuns were relatively small, their brews were relatively small, just 120-140 barrels. This also meant they brewed multiple times a day. Usually 6 or 7 times, at least. Which is handy when you want to re-use spent hops.

Where was I? Hops. Loads of different beers. That's it. Younger's produced 6 Stouts. Two, MBS and DBS, resemble London Stouts of the day. Then you've got S1, S2, SS1 and SS2. It took me a while to get my head around those. In particular the hopping.

This is a log for SS1 and S1:


20 is the amount of hops in SS1. A whole 20 pounds for 68 barrels. S1 only got 10 pounds for 74 barrels. Hardly worth bothering, you might say. But then there were the second-hand hops. SS1 got all 350 pounds from an earlier brew of No.3 plus 97.5 pounds from a brew of SLE.

Sometimes they didn't bother with any fresh hops at all. This comes from a log of S1 and S2:


It's where the hop entries should be. This particular brew used no fresh hops at all, instead re-using those from a brews of LAE and No. 3 / XXX earlier in the day. Given that they'd already been boiled for 3 hours, I can't imagine they had a great deal of goodness left in them.

These are the details of Younger's Stouts:


It's more evidence of Scottish brewers leading the way. (Like Lager and low-gravity Pale Ales.) These lightly-hopped and poorly-attenuated Stouts are more like those of the 1930's than the 1890's. In London, such sweet Stouts were unknown in the 19th century.

William Younger's unions

The inside covers of brewing logs can be fascinating. You'll find all sorts of notes scribbled there. Like when Whitbread was hit by incendiaries in 1940. Or the reduction in beer tax at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

The one I'm sharing today is more technical. Take a look:


This is what it says:

"The cooled worts from Holyrood was brought to Abbey & used in Union Attemperators for the first time on 19th August 1885 at noon.
No. 18 Set of Unions here was used for the first time on 16th Oct. 85
No. 16 Set of Unions here was used for the first time on 20th Oct. 85
No. 17 Set of Unions here was used for the first time on 22nd Oct. 85"

In 1885 they started using unions at William Younger's Abbey brewery. I find that interesting. It's slightly odd, in a way, because the Holyrood brewery was where they usually brewed their Pale Ales.

Usher's beers in WW I

Time for a table. Or two. How about some stuff from the Scottish Brewing Archive? Yes, go on then.

I've just finished ploughing through the WW I brewing records of Thomas Usher. The Edinburgh brewer. Fascinating. For me. Unsurprisingly, the logs told a similar tale to those of the London brewers I've already looked at. Falling gravities after 1916 and a savage reduction in types of beer brewed during 1918.

Take a look:


I haven't included all their pre-war products. There were a couple of other Milds (44/- and 50/-), a few low-gravity Pale Ales and two more Stouts. After the war their product range was very different. Susprisingly, it was almost all Pale Ale. They brewed four: PA, PA 60/-, PA 70/- and PA 80/-. X disappeared without trace. The Milds were trimmed down from 5 to 1 and the Stouts from 3 to 1. And the Mild and Stout were party-gyled. Something I've never seen before. And there werre the odd few barrels of Strong Ale brewed, party-gyled with PA.

For comparison purposes, here are Barclay Perkins AlesI:


And Whitbread's:


Not sure what all that tells us. Maybe you can tell me.

Confusing Youngers (part two)

I told you it got worse with Younger's logs. See what fun I have for you today.

The Younger's Stouts tend to be a bit weird. Before WW I they had a couple with the imaginative names of S1 and S2. What was so unusual about them? The hopping. They used few fresh hops. Occasionally none at all. The majority were spent hops from other brews that were boiled for three hours plus. I've absolutely no idea how to record that sort of hopping. What would have been the hopping rate with unused hops?

But after WW I it gets even worse. DBS and XXS were party-gyled. Nothing so odd about that. For one thing, these are the only Younger's beers which weren't dry hopped. But that's not what's confusing me. See what they did after fermentation:


The beers were cocktails, with odds and ends of a several other beers mixed in. There are examples where it looks as if ullage is getting thrown in, too.

It reminds me of what John Keeling told me about the Watney's Cream Stout brewed at Wilson's. I use "brewed" here very loosely. Because most of it was returned beer with loads of caramel and sugar added. He reckoned less than 50% of it was ever freshly-brewed beer.

Mild used to have a bad reputation because of the tale that slops were mixed back into it. The dark colour hiding a multitude of sins. In which case, how much easier must it have been to pull similar tricks with Stout? Clearly, not just at the pub, but in the brewery as well.

Confusing Youngers

Slow. I am. Bit. We've been there before. Finally spotted what Younger were up to.

Younger's logs span two pages. Two to four lines per brew. To help people like me who take separate photos of each page, the beer name is recorded on both pages. Except often it's crossed out and another name substituted. XX became XXX. 3 became XXPS. Then I noticed what they were up to.

Take a look:


Do you see? It makes my life bloody difficult. But it gets worse. Much worse.

I'll tell you about that tomorrow.



Did I mention I'd finished Volume IX of my Mini Book Series? "Trips! (South)" Pages (exactly how many I can't recall) of South German fun. There's a copy for whoever best explains what Younger were doing. Based on that image. Above. Obviously.

Scottish hopping, 1868

By the time I've finished you'll never want to hear about hopping rates again. I've moved forward a couple of decades, to the late 1860's.

There's one big change from 1851. The X Ales have dropped considerably in gravity. Younger's more so than the London ones. Younger's X and XX were 1071 and 1082 in 1851. It's a trend that continued for much of the late 19th century. I wonder why that was?


The strength differences between Younger's and the London beers makes comparisons a little trickier. But, pitting Younger's XX against the similar strength London X Ales, it's the second hoppiest after Truman's.

Thomas Usher's beers 1885 - 1889

Just some random details I've harvested from the Scottish Brewing Archive logs. I'm not trying to make any particular point with these. Well, maybe a couple of small ones.

For purposes of comparison, I've included some details of Whitbread beers from around the same period.



Usher's beers don't really show any of the characteristics associated with Scottish beers in the 19th century - low hopping rate, cool fermentation, long boil. None of these differ significantly from Whitbread. Apart from the shilling Ales. They were less heavily hopped than the other Usher's beers and Whitbread's beers.

It's beginning to look as if English and Scottish brewing practices converged in the second half of the 19th century.

William Younger fermentation temperatures.

Scotch Ales were fermented cold. At least that's what all the brewing manuals say, including "Scottish Ale Brewer" by Roberts. But what do the logs say? Funnily enough, the fermentation is recorded particularly well in Younger's records.

Here's an excerpt from their 1851 records:


The pitching temperature is in the leftmost column. It varies between 55º F and 58º F. The following columns give the temperature throughout the fermentation, where it rose to the high 60's F.

In 1831 pitching temperatures (column 5) were a little lower, but also less consistent:


The coolest is 50º F and the warmest 59º F. The final column is the cleansing temperature (ie end of primary fermentation). This is 70º F in all cases.

In 1885, pitching heats varied from 55.5º F to 61º F, the stronger the beer the lower the temperature.

It looks to me that the temperatures increased as the 19th century progressed and, by the end of it, were about the same as in England. I'll post at greater length on this topic later, when I've extracted more from the logs.

Younger's shilling Ales 1831 - 1899

I'm sure one of you asked for more tables. You're in luck.Today's post is little more than one big table. As you've probably already guessed, it's a table of Younger's shilling Ales. Or Scotch Ales.


Given the low attenuation and modest hopping, these must have been pretty malty beers. Syrupy even.

Should I ask Kristen to bash up a recipe? I know I'd love to try one of these devils. The 1851 140/- looks a good candidate. A light session beer.

Scottish hopping, 1851 (part three)

William Younger produced a baffling array of Ales in 1851. You had X Ales and Stock Ales, which were much like beers brewed in England. There were Porters and Pale Ales, too. Again very much along the lines of their English counterparts. Then you have the shilling Ales.

These Ales appear particularly Scottish. In the Younger's records of the 1830's, they are the only beers to be found. They seem to have only started brewing "English" style beers around the middle of the 19th century. Remember how in an earlier post I made clear the distinction between Scotch Ale and Scottish Ale? Well the shilling Ales are Scotch Ales. And they're hopped rather differently.

Here's a comparison between the hopping rates of Younger's shilling Ales and English X Ales:


Scotch Ales being rather on the strong side, I couldn't find any English equivalent of two. 60/- Ale, roughly equivalent in strength to an X Ale, was hopped at just 5 pounds per quarter as opposed to 8 pounds. 80/- Ale was, at 7 pounds per quarter, a little closer to the 9 to 10 pounds perquarteer of an XX Ale. 100/- was hopped at only half the rate of Truman's XXX Ale.

My conclusion? Shilling (or Scotch) Ales were significantly more lightly hopped than other Ales of similar strength. But those other Ales included many, such as Younger's X Ales, that were also brewed north of the border. Scotch Ales were lightly hopped, but Scottish Ales in general were not. Is that clear enough?

Burton numbers

Remember when we discussed beer codes. Those cryptic letters so beloved of Victorian brewers. I'm sure I said something about Burton, where they did things differently. Bass used numbers.

How to get a look at some Burton brewing logs has been occupying my mind for a while. With the former Bass Museum closed, it seems problematic. So imagine my surprise when, at the Scottish Brewing Archive I discovered records from Evershed's brewery. Of Marston, Thompson & Evershed fame. What a piece of luck.

At least that's what I thought until I opened them up. Aaaagh. It was the personal notebook of one of the Younger's, who must have been there getting work experience, or whatever they called it in the 19th century. It was in the horrible Younger's format. Nothing like as useful as I'd hoped.

But it wasn't a total loss. I managed to scrape a few beer details out of it. And they used a numbering system similar to Bass. Take a look:


I've not had time to look at it properly yet. Wonder what it will tell me?

Scottish hopping, 1851 (part two)

No, I hadn't forgotten. I'm not that bad yet, am I? Here's the next enthralling installment of William Younger's hopping in 1851.

Let's kick off with Porter and Stout, because I've a reasonable number of examples to work with. I've not found a single Porter in the Younger's logs. But what they called BS (Brown Stout) was similar in strength to a London Porter.


Younger's BS, much like the three London Porters, was hopped at around 3 pound per barrel. Amongst the Stouts, Younger's has the second heaviest hopping, just behind Barclay Perkins. Can we agree Younger's did not hop their Porters/Stouts more lightly than London brewers?

Now on to Pale Ale. I'm afraid that I don't have many London examples. In 1851 neither Barclay Perkins nor Whitbread brewed a Pale Ale of any description.


Not enough data to be conclusive, but it certainly doesn't look as if Younger were going easy on the hops.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1909 Maclays 54/- PI

What a treat we have in store today. The first Scottish recipe, fresh from my archive harvest.

I suppose I'd best explain about all the shilling stuff, hadn't I? Back in the mists of time (the beginning of the 19th century) it wasn't uncommon for breweries in both England and Scotland to denote the strength of a particular beer by its wholesale price. Per hogshead (54 imperial gallons).

By 1850, most English breweries had swapped to the X-system, where the relative strength was indicated by the number of X's. But in Scotland the system persists, to some extent, to the present day. Of themselves, names like 60/- and 70/- tell you nothing about the type of beer, just its relative strength. What I'm saying is: don't assume a 60/- Ale is automatically a Mild and a 70/- Ale a Bitter.

Would you like to see details of Maclay's full range in 1909? Of course you do. It might help explain the shilling business. Note that there is both a Stout and a Mild called 54/-.

The gravities are also intriguing. Many of the beers are very watery for the period. There appears to have been quite a bit of regional variation in strengths. In England and Wales, the average OG in 1910 was 1052.30. In Scotland, it was just 1048.48. Whereas in Ireland it was a whopping 1064.78 (remember, Guinness was over 1070 at the time). I've not come across any London beer that was below 1040. Yet a good proportion of Maclay's output was. The 42/- Mild and 42/- PI look more like post-WW II beers than Edwardian ones.


Hope that's enough background. I contemplated mentioning the history of Maclay. But we don't want this post getting too long, do we? I'll save that for another day.


1909 Maclays 54/- PI

Lets move a little north of our past exploits and head to Scotland. Where beer counts as beer and whiskey counts as beer. Things that are low in gravity, high in taste and can be drank in massive quantities . . . unless the Scotch comes out . . . which is always does. Personally I think the Scottish ales are some of the beers that people talk the most about but know jack crap about. After spending a good amount of time in Scotland their lighter beers are some of my very favorite session beers of all. Most don't tastes like these experts say they are supposed to. So here is your first 'traditional' Scottish ale. Its low in alcohol but quite high in hops.

Grist and such
The first thing you'll notices is how little home grown malt they actually use. They mash tun is filled with grain from around the globe. Oregon, Tunisia and India to name a few. They use the traditional grits . . . yes, I'm saying these are traditional and equating them to flaked maize . . . also traditional. Its not really the fact to me that they use grits its that they treat them very much like the Americans of the same time with the side cereal mash. To boot they are nearly 21% of the grist! The amount of sugar they use is 12% which makes nearly 1/3 of this beers fermentables non-malt based. Amber malt. That's right. 2% amber malt. Seems to be the exact proportions that the experts deem that roasted barley was used. In all seriousness, there are VERY few Scottish ales I've seen brewed with roasted barley over ANY range of years. This amber, even at 2%, would definitely lend a toasty dryness.

So here is the kicker. The color. 12 EBC (5SRM). That is very light for anything especially a 'traditional' Scottish ale. I poured over the logs to see if there was any indication of anything 'dark' added. Crystal, dark sugar, etc. They actually have a place in the logs for 'colouring' with a big strike through it. So it is what it is I guess. This sucker was a lot more pale than I would have imagined . . . but data doesn't lie, right?

Mash
Nothing really fancy here. A straightforward high temp mash to get all those big dextrins into your beer . . . gonna need that with the amount of non-malt adjuncts. Also, its pretty wet for a single beer mash at 1.3qt/lb (2.7L/kg).

Hops
The log actually has 6 different entries for hops. Some the same but different years. It basically boils down to two different types, UK Kentish and the Oregon Cluster. The 24bu are a decent amount so you definitely will be able to taste the hops in this one.

Liquor treatment
Hmm . . . the more and more I look at this trucker the more and more it seems to be a traditional bitter! Tons of gypsum add along with a fair shake of Calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate.





Tasting notes
No notes yet. However I can tell you that there will be a lot of corny character but not to dry as it only ferments down to 1.013. I'm telling you this seems more like Fullers 1910 AK than what would thought to be a Scottish ale.

Scottish Brewing Archive

Very friendly and very helpful. The staff at the Scottish Brewing Archive. Made my visit a pleasure.

A quick update for those desperate to know more about Scottish brewing practices. I took 1,140 photos in the archive. Not bragging, just explaining why I haven't looked at most properly. A couple of things I happened to notice:

1. Some Scottish measures were still in use in the early 1800's.
2. Brews were logged a in completely different way.
3. There were some crazy strong beers.
4. Hopping . . . . . Just started looking at that. No conclusions so far. But . . . . . there were some heavily-hopped beers. 1858 Younger's XXPS had more than four pounds a barrel.
5. Some pre-WW I beers were surprisingly weak.

I''ll keep you updated. Those that are still awake.