Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part one)

I can't remember who pointed me at "The Art and Practice of Innkeeping". I suspect it was Boak and Bailey. I'm grateful, whoever it was. And it's going to come in dead handy when I revise Peace!. (I currently have that pencilled in for 2021, after I've finished Free!.)

I'm particularly interested in the section on cellarmanship. Partly because I know how much trouble there was keeping cask beer in good condition in the early 1920s.

Before WW I, pretty much all draught beer in London was over 5% ABV. Meaning it wasn't going to sour all that quickly, even if not particularly well handled in the pub. After the big fall in strength during WW I, most draught beer was 4% ABV, or even less. And was consequently much more prone to spoiling. Making good cellarmanship vital.

Let's kick off with something about cask sizes:

"Casks of beer are usually in four sizes: hogsheads, containing fifty-four gallons; barrels, containing thirty-six gallons; kilderkins, containing eighteen gallons; and firkms, containing nine gallons.

In some places, and in home-brewing houses, a Tierce is used containing forty-two gallons.

In houses where the trade is large and quick, beer is generally supplied in hogsheads; where it is normal, in barrels; where small, in kilderkins; firkins are more often used for "off" or family trade. Butts, holding one hundred and eight gallons, and puncheons, holding seventy-two, are rarely if ever used nowadays, even for porter."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 198.

The four basic sizes of casks remain the same, though hogsheads are pretty much extinct today and barrels are rare. Large pubs now get their beer in firkins, normal ones in firkins and small ones even in pins. That's quite a downgrading.

When I started drinking ion the early 1970s, some of the larger regional breweries in the North and the Midlands still delivered in hogsheads and the bulk of their beer was in barrels. Does anyone still deliver in barrels today?

The "off" trade is referring to off-licences selling draught beer. Back in the 1970s, there were still offies in Leeds selling Tetley Bitter and Mild this way. The family trade means people buying casks for at home. Though by the time this book waswritten, that practice was dying out as drinkers switched to bottled beer which was less fuss.

I've never come across a tierce in any brewing records. I suspect they weren't very common. But Part does exclude one cask size I've seen very regularly: a half hogshead. These were commonly used in Scotland for beer that was sent out to independent bottlers for bottling.

A Modern Phase of Brewing

The following passage is taken from what looks like an informercial from the Brewers' Society to coincide with the Brewers' Exhibition of 1908.

I was drawn to it because it covers a topic of great interest to me: the move from drinking draught beer to bottled beer at home. Switching to bottled beer only really became an option around 1900 when chilled and carbonated beer began to be produced in quantity.

The public had never been that impressed by naturally-conditioned bottled beers, which was all that had originally been available. They didn't like the sediment it contained, which either meant drinking cloudy beer or wasting the the last bit of each bottle. It was also time-consuming and expensive to make.

The new type of relatively light, sparkling bottled beer quickly found its fans. And, while bottled beer might have been more expensive than buying a cask, it was also much less trouble. Neither did it need to be consumed quickly to avoid at turning sour. Its little surprise that bottled beer quickly began to replace draught as the preferred form for home consumption.

But it should be pointed out that the practice of fetching draught beer in jugs from the pub continued for another few decades. Meaning there was still some draught beer consumed domestically.

"A Modern Phase of Brewing.
A remarkable feature of the brewing industry to-day is the great expansion of the bottle trade. Enormous business of this kind is done by some the prominent firms. This bottle trade, though has met the conditions which prevail to-day, and is a convenience to section of the public, can hardly be so profitable as the old cask trade, which has practically died out. Time was when nine-gallon casks of beer were delivered regularly to thousands private households. All that has changed; beer in bottle is taken instead. Obviously it must have been far more profitable to run nine gallons beer into a cask, which could be used again and again and never broke, than it is to rack the same quantity into bottles, which have be stoppered and labelled, and of which many get broken. The item of breakages is an expense represented by thousands of pounds a year in the case one firm that does immense bottle trade. The brewer of to-day cannot be making so good a thing out of beer as a certain section the public would have us believe, while the victualler, on his side, has to suffer severe competition from the holders grocers’ licences, who are free from many restrictions placed on the publican.

Economy of Beer in Bottle.
These facts are worth bearing mind in connection with the proposed licensing legislation. The consumer, however, has nothing to complain of. Beer in bottle not only meets the prevalent liking for a bright beverage, but it is furthermore, very economical in use. It is free from sediment, so that the entire contents of the bottle can be drunk, a matter of considerable importance where there is a large family beer drinkers."
London Evening Standard - Monday 19 October 1908, page 12.

Oddly enough, Whitbread, one of the brewers with the largest trade in bottled beer, resisted moving over to the new type and continued to naturally condition all their bottled beers until after WW I.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part seven)

As promised, we’ll be looking at carbonation. Though obviously, as a lifelong CAMRA member, I consider artificial carbonation to be the work of the devil.

You’ll note that the beer still hasn’t quite finished with its time in a tank. Once it was done with the warm tank, it went to the cold tank.

“On its way to the cold conditioning tank the beer is usually chilled by a counter-current chiller which reduces the temperature to 33-34º. This may consist either of a series of concentric pipes; through the inner one flows the beer and through the annular space between the inner and outer tube cooled brine is passed in the reverse direction; or of a machine similar in construction to an enclosed wort refrigerator. The beer passes on one side of the grooved plates and the cooled brine through the other. This plant, like its counterpart the wort refrigerator, gives very efficient heat transfer; it is easily adaptable for changed loads, as further plates can usually be fitted if an increased output is required; and it is easy to dismantle and clean. Alternatively in some installations the beer is blown without chilling into the cold tank, where it slowly attains the temperature of the cold room. In some breweries where it is desired to prime the bottled beers for sweetness only the practice is to put no priming in the conditioning tanks, but to inject it into the beer as it passes through the chiller into the cold storage.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 338 - 339.

I’ve already explained a little about wort refrigerators. They were an important development in the late 19th century, allowing wort to be cooled much more quickly. Especially in summer, when during warm weather cooling in an open cooler could take many hours, during which time the wort was vulnerable to infection.

I guess leaving it to cool down in the tank used less energy, but took longer.

Now the exciting act of carbonation itself:

“It is at this stage that carbonation takes place. The carbonation may be effected as the beer passes from chiller to cold tank or by carbon dioxide top pressure in the cold tank. In this case assimilation of the gas is slow unless some form of rousing is installed. Finings, if used, would be added to cold tank before running in the beer. A rouser is sometimes installed to assist in mixing-in the finings, but usually the motion of the beer as it enters will give adequate mixing. Without rousing, absorption of carbon dioxide may take two or three days, whereas with efficient mixing it may be complete in about an hour. There is one system which uses the same tank for conditioning and cold storage (sometimes these periods are referred to as warm and cold conditioning respectively) and the tank has a propeller for rousing, so that absorption of the gas in the second (cold) stage is accelerated. When, as is more usual, separate cold tanks are used they are not generally fitted with mixing devices. ”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 339.

It’s striking to me that at this point the beer still hasn’t been filtered and could be fined at the same time as it was being carbonated. Filtering only occurred later in the process. But we’ll be getting to that later.

I would have thought that swirling the beer about with a rouser would have knocked CO2 out of solution rather than help it be absorbed. But what do I know?

Carbonation has changed a little over the years. It does still sometimes take place as the beer is being chilled:

"This addition of carbon dioxide can occur whilst chilling beer through a plate heat exchanger  and so can take advantage of the turbulence of the beer in creating good conditions for gaseous exchange. A purpose-designed carbonation unit can also be used. This consists of a long pipe usually in the form of U-tube bends through which the beer flows. Carbon dioxide is injected as fine bubbles and the uptake, even in this form, can take a considerable time. The carbon dioxide must be the purest form available and no oxygen must be introduced. The injection unit must be easy to clean and must be cleaned regularly. Carbon dioxide can also be added `in-vessel' but this is frequently less efficient and more difficult to control. A `carbonation stone' is sometimes used to ensure production of fine bubbles of carbon dioxide to aid dissolution in the beer. This technique is sometimes described as `gas washing' and provides an opportunity for the removal of oxygen and unwanted flavour volatiles as well as carbonation. After `washing' the vessel must be sealed to allow pressure build-up and the dissolution of carbon dioxide. There are a number of problems associated with externally added carbon dioxide and it is good practice to avoid this technique as far as possible."
"Brewing Science and Practice" by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2000, page 564.

But note that “externally added carbon dioxide”, i.e. CO2 added by top pressure in the tank, is no longer recommended.

Finally this is how much gas to add:

“Carbonation is usually effected so as to give a carbon dioxide contact after bottling of about two volumes of the gas per volume of beer or 0.4% by weight of carbon dioxide. To allow for inevitable losses during bottling it is advisable to carbonate to the extent of 0.5% by weight, which requires a pressure of 2.6 lb. per square inch at 33° F.; 3.3 lb. at 34º F. and 4 lb. at 35º F.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 339.

The pressure needs to be higher if the beer is warmer because CO2 is more soluble at lower temperatures.

Next it’s how to store your chilled beer.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part four)

This is so exciting. We’re actually getting to fill the conditioning tank.

This first bit seems pretty obvious:

“When a conditioning tank is filled with beer it is important to see that it is filled to the top. It is essential that no air remains, and in order to make sure that such is the case some of the top pressure should be blown off as soon as it reaches about 2 lb. Hopping-down hops, priming, or any other additional ingredients must, of course, be added to the tank before it is filled.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 334.

Having CO2 in any headspace would cut the risk of infection during maturation. As would the dry hops. Which is what they mean by “hopping-down hops”. Adding dry hops and primings is exactly what would have happened when beer was racked into casks. So up to this point bottled beer was being handled much the same as cask beer. Except rather than in a trade cask, the conditioning was occurring in bulk.

Here’s a little more detail on dry hopping:

“Dry hop rates vary according to the original gravity of the beer. For the lighter pale ales of O.G. 1030-1035 from 2 to 3 ounces per barrel are used and up to about half a pound per barrel for a strong ale. Only the most delicately flavoured hops are used for this purpose; Goldings are the most flavoured. Hop oil can be used as an alternative, being prepared as explained in Chapter 4. It is of particular importance to insure that if hop oil is used it is very thoroughly roused in so that there is no danger of uneven distribution.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 334.

Great. Some numbers that I can check. At least in some cases. Not all brewers could be arsed to note the dry hops in their brewing records. Let’s take a look at low-gravity Pale Ales first:

Dry hopping of low-gravity Pale Ales 1946 - 1959
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	dry hops (oz / barrel)
25th Jan	1946	Barclay Perkins	IPA	1031.5	1009.0	2.98	71.43%	4.00
25th Jan	1946	Barclay Perkins	XLK	1035.3	1010.0	3.35	71.67%	4.00
20th May	1952	Strong	GA	1033.5	1007.5	3.44	77.69%	8
1st Sep	1959	Ushers Trowbridge	KK	1036.8	1010.8	3.44	70.68%	0.66
1st Sep	1959	Ushers Trowbridge	BPA	1031.9	1008.6	3.08	73.04%	1.50
1st Sep	1959	Ushers Trowbridge	LB	1030.7	1009.4	2.82	69.37%	1.54
7th Jun	1949	Wm. Younger	Pale XXPS	1037.0	1011.0	3.44	70.27%	2.03
7th Jun	1949	Wm. Younger	XXP	1031.5	1011.0	2.71	65.08%	0.99
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/626.
Strong brewing record, document number 79A01-A3-3-27.
Ushers brewing record held at the Wiltshire archives at Chippenham, document number 1075-275-6.
William Younger brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number WY/6/1/2/88.

It’s not the most enormous sample, but you can see that there’s considerable variation between breweries. Barclay Perkins and Strong used more than Jeffery suggests, while Ushers and William Younger used less. Not all of these were necessarily bottled beers, though Barclay Perkins IPA definitely was.

When the type of dry hops is recorded, it’s mostly EK Goldings. Though occasionally Saaz were used. Along with Hallertau they were the only foreign hops to be routinely used for dry hopping.

As promised, more about the rousing process:

“As soon as the tank has been filled it should be subjected to a vigorous rousing for at least an hour. The beer may then be left for 24 hours,  during which time internal pressure should steadily develop. At this stage it becomes necessary to map out a programme of rousing times followed by intervals of rest. This programme will depend mainly for its arrangement upon the aptitude of the beer for developing condition. Other governing factors will be the gravity of the beer and its age.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 334 - 335.

Rousing, i.e. agitating the beer, seems to have been an essential part of the process for getting beer into condition. We’ll see later just how minutely planned conditioning was, especially rousing.

This details how frequent rousing was:

“It will generally be found sufficient for rousing to take place for one hour in every three hours. This procedure should continue until the maximum pressure desired has been attained. If pressure is slow in developing it may be necessary, on the other hand, to rouse the beer every alternate hour. In cases of extreme stubbornness it may be necessary to resort to krausening as well. (Krausening is the addition of a small quantity (not more than 5%) of briskly fermenting wort taken from a fermenting vessel about 24 hours after pitching. This practice is common in lager beer fermentations, but is not much used in top fermentation brewing.) Sometimes the beer proves to be exceptionally lively, and pressure develops rapidly to its full amount. In that case some gas should be blown off and the figure reduced by 5 lb. This release may have to be repeated, because the final maximum of 22 or 23 lb. is sufficiently high for beers of ordinary gravity (16 to 20 lb.). Strong ales may be allowed to run up to 28 lb. We have mentioned that conditioning takes place as a rule in metal tanks. In spite of efforts made to preserve a normal average outside temperature, extremes of temperature in summer and winter are bound to have some effect upon the contents. Constant attention is therefore necessary.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 335.

One hour in three sounds like a lot to me.

Fascinating that kräusening was only employed when all else had failed. It doesn’t ever seem to have been very popular amongst British brewers other than Guinness. In the 19th century and early 20th century all their beers contained three elements: young beer, aged beer and “heading”. The latter being a sort of Kräusen.

This is a point of difference with American Ale-brewing practice. What most intrigued me about the records of Amsdell (of Albany, New York) from around 1900 is how almost all their Ales were kräusened. To me it’s a sure sign of the influence of German brewers.

Next we’ll be looking at a detailed record of tank-conditioning.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part two)

Conditioning tanks – a topic to truly make the spirits and the heart sing.

How many nights have I lain awake wondering about the construction of conditioning tanks in the 1950s? This should save you from a similar torment.

“The conditioning tanks are usually of glass-lined steel, or more recently of stainless steel. Copper was used at one time and such tanks are still in use, but it is unlikely that copper would be used for constructing new tanks; copper tanks should not be tinned, as this metal can be responsible for haze. Considerable pressures develop and for this reason steel tanks are preferable. They are usually of about 20-50 barrels in capacity. Glass-lined tanks need special care in cleaning. The glass is easily scratched or chipped, and in this condition it is difficult to keep clean and free from deposit. Only bristle brushes should be used for cleaning, on no account should wire brushes be used. Workmen entering the tank should have rubber overshoes and no one should be allowed to enter with nailed boots; they should be cautioned against letting spanners or other tools drop into the tank.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 332 - 333.

Presumably this where the march to all stainless steel breweries began. Obviously, tanks of unlined ordinary steel wouldn’t work. And glass seems a rather fragile lining. Especially as any imperfections in the surface were likely to harbour sources of infection. Sounds like they were a pain the the arse to keep clean and undamaged.

I can see one big problem with copper tanks: the expense. And, of course, during wartime copper was urgently required by the munitions industry.

As with all brewing equipment cleanliness was vital. And there were plenty of spots that were tricky to keep clean.

“Conditioning tanks of whatever material should be thoroughly cleaned out with a stiff brush followed by liberal swilling with hot water as soon as they are empty. No deposit must be allowed to dry on. Particular care must be given to the fittings and washers connected with beer mains, sampling cocks, gauge glasses, thermometer pockets and so on, as deposits which harbour infection collect very readily at these spots. We have mentioned that wire brushes should not be used in glass-lined tanks, and even with copper tanks it is inadvisable to use them or to employ abrasives such as pumice. Small abraded particles of copper can be readily trapped in the crevices of the fittings and may oxidize and dissolve in the beer. A slight staining of the copper surface is of no account provided no scale is formed. Conditioning vessels must be provided internally with an efficient rouser, usually in the shape of a propeller fitted near the bottom of the tank, its shaft passing out through the side, top or bottom as most convenient, through a packing gland and driven from a pulley or by a separate electric motor. Special attention must be paid to the packing gland as a possible source of infection. The vessels may be cither vertical or horizontal.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 333.

Simple things like the fittings connecting pipes and other equipment could cause havoc in a brewery, if they became a source of infection. Brewers have been driven crazy by infections they couldn’t track down. One weak spot in all the miles of piping contained in a brewery was all it needed to big a brewery to its knees. The cases where the source couldn’t be found, usually ultimately led to a brewery’s closure. As in the sad case of Home Ales.

We’ll learn later of the essential role played by the rouser. There’s a lovely table I’ll be sharing that documents the process of conditioning a beer in a tank. It was all news to me. And more complicated than I’d anticipated.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – what type to make?

There was no doubt that a brewery of any size needed to produce bottled beer. But How? There were several options open to the 1950’s brewer.

Really, it was the brewer’s customers who would decide what was made.

“To-day practically every pleasure party goes out with a supply of bottled beer. All these considerations contribute to a greatly increased demand for bottled beers. Having definitely established the fact that a trade in bottled beer is to be commended, it becomes necessary to decide the system and conditions under which bottling is to be carried out. If character and fullness of palate are to be the governing factors then no further discussion is necessary. In spite of every endeavour, it cannot be denied that chilling, filtering and carbonating do reduce those characteristics. It is not to be wondered that, for a long time, well-known firms stipulated that their beers were bottled under normal conditions only, that is to say, without being chilled, filtered or carbonated.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 331.

Interesting that “normal conditions” once meant bottle conditioned. By the 1950’s artificially carbonated were the norm, but by no means universal. In particular, some of the most famous brands of bottled beer – Bass, Guinness and Worthington – continued to be bottle conditioned, not just in the 1950’s but to the 1970’s and beyond.

Brewers were in no doubt that bottle conditioning, if performed correctly, resulted in a superior-tasting product. But that wasn’t necessarily the drinker’s main concern. They were more interested in a nice clear beer and no wasteful sediment.

“If, on the other hand, it is found that the customers care little for these attributes, and prefer bottled beers which have been subjected to artificial processes, then it is useless to endeavour to force upon them anything else. In fact there is no doubt that the overwhelming demand is for bright bottled beer. It has been said that nowadays 'the public drink with their eyes', and demand brilliance. This may be illogical, for a hazy beer can be as wholesome as a bright one and a naturally conditioned beer will certainly have a fullness of palate to which a carbonated, filtered beer cannot attain. Again, of course, naturally conditioned beer requires careful storage, handling and pouring if the sediment is not to be disturbed and it is to be drunk at its best. These points have reacted in favour of bright filtered beers. As a result the number of brewers who brew their own naturally conditioned beer has decreased and most breweries produce filtered beers of their own brewing, and are content to bottle a few well known brands of naturally conditioned beers.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 331.

Some of that sounds like modern hipster barman talk: “a hazy beer can be as wholesome as a bright one“. Though I’m sure Jeffery would be appalled by the orange juice masquerading as beer nowadays.

To sum up: the public didn’t really appreciate naturally conditioned bottled beer, it was more trouble to make, harder to store and needed to be poured carefully. That’s why everyone brewed carbonated beer.

The last phrase refers to the beers mentioned above, Bass, Guinness and Worthington. As I’ve repeated many times, the way they got other brewers to sell their beer in their tied houses was to let them bottle themselves, so getting the profit from bottling.

These figures from before the war show that this beer from other brewers could add up to a considerable amount:

Whitbread sales of Porter & Stout 1929 – 1938 (barrels)
	total Whitbread production	Guinness & Bass	total	% Guinness & Bass
1929	481,663	45,595	527,258	8.65%
1930	492,605	50,064	542,669	9.23%
1931	466,218	45,245	511,463	8.85%
1932	416,623	37,977	454,600	8.35%
1933	437,102	39,192	476,294	8.23%
1934	476,205	41,528	517,733	8.02%
1935	494,715	41,773	536,488	7.79%
1936	510,260	41,344	551,604	7.50%
1937	528,725	41,353	570,078	7.25%
1938	538,914	39,077	577,991	6.76%
Sources:
Whitbread archive document number LMA/4453/D/02/16
Whitbread brewing records

More details about the different types of bottled beer next. 

American Chilled and carbonated draught beer

I'm continuing with more from Horace Brown's article on American brewing in the 1890's.

It's a fascinating period, the beginning of highly processed, artificially-conditioned beer. The stuff that now makes up the vast majority of beer worldwide. And it was in the USA that such beer was first developed. Basically what's being described is the classic keg beer, albeit at this time still filled into wooden barrels.

"The ale which, is intended for the cold storage and carbonating process is, in the first place, brewed very much on the same lines as the ordinary "still ale," the processes of mashing and fermentation resembling those of our own country so closely as to require no special attention.

From the racking vessels the ale is run through a refrigerating apparatus of a very simple character, known as the "cooling tub." This consists of a cedar vat, of a capacity in some cases of about 300 barrels, filled with brine, and furnished inside with two copper coils of about 2 in. diameter. Through one of the coils ammonia, from an ice machine, is expanded, so as to keep the brine in the tub at about 24° F., and the ale from the racking vessel runs through the other coil at such a rate as to pass out, on its way to the store vats, at a temperature of about 32° F. The store vats are placed in a cellar kept at 32—35° F., and are provided with air-pipes at the top, connected with a condensing air-pump, by means of which a small pressure can be put on the ale in the vats for the purpose of forcing it through the filters, &c.

The wooden store vats are now being replaced, in some of the breweries I saw, with large steel cylinders, glazed inside with a special glass enamel, which does not show any tendency to strip off the steel plates by alternations of temperature, or even under the action of heavy blows from a hammer.

The ale remains in the store vessels at about the freezing temperature for from two to three weeks, sometimes for a shorter period, and during this time a settlement of the greater part of the remaining yeast takes place, and a great deal of the resinous matters, &c, which would remain in solution in the beer at ordinary temperatures, are also deposited. No fermentation can of course take place, and the yeast becomes to a great extent killed by the low temperature.
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 3, Issue 6, November-December 1897, pages 470 - 471.

This sounds rather like lagering, although, of course, the purpose was quite different. For a start, bottom-fermenting yeast would still be active during some of the chilling process. In this case the purpose of the chilling, rather than knocking the rough edges off the beer, was intended to precipitate out the material which would normally cause a chill haze.

You have to wonder why anyone would be hitting their storage vessels with a hammer. Maybe they were just trying to prove a point.

"When ready the ale is forced, by means of air pressure of 10 or 15 lbs. to the square inch, through the "carbonator " and filter. In some breweries it is customary to filter before carbonation, and in others after. I certainly think, as far as my own observations go, that the best result is obtained by filtration after charging with the gas.

The machines used for charging the beer with carbonic acid do not require any special description, as they are very similar in principle to those used in the preparation of aerated waters all the world over. The gas is supplied from steel cylinders charged with liquid carbon dioxide, and the pressure is so regulated as to charge the ale with about 12 to 14 oz. of the gas per American barrel."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 3, Issue 6, November-December 1897, page 471.

Great. Using a technique for making soft drinks to carbonate beer.

Of course, there was no point precipitating out that gunk if you weren't going to filter it out if the beer. So a good filter was essential.

"The beer filter, through which the ale is now passed after carbonation, is a very important piece of apparatus, and it must be so arranged as to take out the very last traces of sedimentary matters, and to deliver the ale to the racking apparatus without loss of gas, and in a perfectly brilliant condition. The filter now most generally used is the "Enzinger," which has the general appearance of a small filter-press. The plates or "rosts" are of gun-metal, and between these are discs of the filtering medium contained in "stuff-frames," the various members of the press being screwed tightly together, just as in an ordinary filter-press. The filtering medium in the stuff-frames is a specially prepared paper-pulp, and when this has become clogged with the fine sediment it is taken out, thoroughly washed and sterilised in a special washing machine, and again cast in the disc form in the stuff-frames, under an ingeniously contrived screw-press.

The apparatus is supplied at either end with a glass "lantern," which enables the operator to see the exact state of brilliancy of the ingoing and out-going stream of ale.

The amount which can be passed through one of these filters without it becoming necessary to re-wash the paper pulp of course depends on the original state of the ale us it comes from the cold-storage vats ; as a rule it only requires attention after several hundred barrels hare passed through.

The ale leaves the filter at a temperature of 35° to 36º F., in an absolutely brilliant state, and highly charged with carbonic acid, and it has now to be racked into casks whilst still under pressure, and in such a manner as to allow of these being completely filled and bunged down, without any "fobbing," or loss of ale or gas.
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 3, Issue 6, November-December 1897, pages 471 - 472.

All very fascinating, I'm sure you'll agree. One of the things I never imagined doing, in my young days as an idealistic CAMRA member, was to write at length about how to brew keg beer. One of the important things I've learned since I dived head first into the history pool, is not to make judgements about brewing techniques and ingredients. My job is to explore and explain, not condemn or praise.

Here as a bonus are a few American Ales from around this period. I know, it's a pathetically small list compared to the ones I have for British beers. But The USA isn't the main focus of my research, that's my excuse. You'll note that they are indeed, as stated in the first post of this series, a little stronger than English X Ales.

American Ales 1887 - 1901
Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	Acidity	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1887	Unknown	American Ale	Ale	1067.55	1017.55	0.094	6.56	72.76%
1887	Unknown	American Ale	Ale	1080.15	1012.22	0.382	8.65	83.75%
1887	Unknown, Philadelphia	Ale	Ale	1065.2	1005.9	0.23	7.80	90.95%
1887	Unknown, Philadelphia	Ale	Ale	1067.5	1017.1	0.09	6.57	74.67%
1887	Unknown, Reading PA	Ale	Ale	1078.3	1012.5	0.38	8.65	84.04%
1892	N. Klinger, Whitewater	Ale	Ale	1058.7	1007		6.78	88.07%
1896	N/a	Average of 9 samples	Stock Ale	1068.46	1012.45	0.256	6.94	80.81%
1900	Unknown	American Pale Ale	Pale Ale	1052.65	1013.83		5.01	72.72%
1901	Unknown	American Cream Ale	Cream Ale	1054.98	1008.69	0.144	5.94	83.46%
1901	Unknown	American Sparkling Ale	Sparkling Ale	1055.83	1008.31	0.135	6.13	84.42%
Sources:
"Chemie der menschlichen Nahrungs- und Genussmittel" by Joseph König, 1889, page 836
Wisconsin Dairy and Food Commission
Wahl & Henius, pages 823-830

Next time we'll be going into how to get this icy, fizzed-up beer safely into casks.

Naturally-conditioned bottled beer

This time I'm not letting you wait as long before I live up to my promise. I'm already diving into naturally-conditioned bottled beer. I don't know what's come over me.

This is again from an article by H. Lloyd Hind in 1923. It's made me realise that the victory of chilled and carbonated beer may not have been as swift as I had believed. Simply because there are so many mentions of naturally-conditioned beer.

Here's the first, discussing the shelf-life and susceptibility to infection of both types of bottled beer.

"Experiments with forced beers give the necessary evidence that the increased infection does lead to decreased stability, and that the in creased cleanliness brought about by rinsing does increase the stability. These experiments were no doubt made on lager beer which is more delicate than naturally conditioned beer with its own sediment in the bottle. But the effect of dirty bottles on the latter is too well known to need much insistence on the statement that what is bad for one is bad for the other, perhaps in a less degree, but the naturally conditioned beer has to stand up generally against the infection for a longer period than the lager, and in this way the danger is levelled up."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 117.

It makes sense that naturally-conditioned beer with yeast still active would be less susceptible to infection. Yeast is very well adapted to living in and feeding off beer. It will out-compete most other organisms.

This is an interesting point:

"The brilliance of the beer is of the first importance and here the bottler, as apart from the brewer, must see that naturally conditioned beers are brilliant when he bottles them, and that for chilled and filtered beers his filters are working efficiently. This brings the pulp into consideration, and the treatment of the beer before it goes to the filter."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 120.

If you remember the older bottling texts I published a few years back, they stressed that beer for this type of bottling should spontaneously drop bright during its maturation in cask. Though, of course, it would still contain some yeast in suspension. It wouldn't have carbonated otherwise, as back then they didn't reseed with yeast at bottling time like they do today.

Here's another advantage of naturally-conditioned beer: you could analyse the sediment.

"It is very difficult to judge by appearance whether the greyness of a beer is due to the deposition of a protein haze or to the development of bacteria or other organisms in the bottle. By means of a microscope and certain chemical tests these questions can be readily decided and the cause of the trouble be traced to the beer or the pulp, the brewer or the bottler, defective beer or bad filtration. By means of a microscopical examination of the sediment of a naturally conditioned beer it is often possible to trace the cause of any defect and to apportion the blame as between brewer and bottler."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 121.

It was more important in the 1920's to pin down the problem to either the brewing or the bottling operation as they were not necessarily performed by the same company.

This confirms my suspicion that natural conditioning was nothing like all but dead:

"The great extension of the sales of beer in bottle has been universal during recent years. We know it in England; in America before prohibition it was enormous, and on the Continent the same thing is found. The greater proportion of the output of the great Copenhagen breweries is now in bottle and it is even notable in Northern France where brewing is still in many places rather primitive. In England we still adhere to the naturally conditioned beer and are content to put up with the sediment and very often defective head and brilliance on account of what is generally recognised as superiority in flavour and body. Abroad, on the other hand, the public demand is muoh more exigent, defects in appearance are not tolerated and various methods are adopted to ensure deglutination, so that haze shall not develop in the bottle within a reasonable time. The whole process of lager beer manufacture tends in this direction. Some of these methods are not adapted to chilled and filtered beers, but there is room for very considerable extension in that direction to render such beers fit for long storage and export.

A naturally conditioned beer can indeed be made without any preliminary or after treatment to satisfy the keenest demand, and such are the vintage beers. Special selection of materials, skilful brewing, very lengthy storage and careful bottling are essential. Given these any Englishman will say the beers are unsurpassed, but English taste is, however, not universal. Something less hoppy is required by what is after all the majority of beer drinkers, and it is necessary to brew a beer which will keep well without the preservative action of the hops. New methods have in consequence to be found to produce such a beer and keep it brilliant in bottle."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, pages 123 - 124.

Once again the brewer's preference for bottle conditioning is clear. Just a pity those foreigners didn't care for our bitter beer.

So much for Lloyd Hind. Let's see what the audience had to say. This is the chairman, Mr. R. Whitaker:

"The points that had been raised about cleanliness were highly important, and the different courses that the beer went through before it was finally bottled were very interesting, especially at the present time when, in Manchester, chilled and filtered beer commanded such attention. Personally, he thought this was a mistake, and they brought some trouble on their heads when they adopted these chilled and filtered beers. The process took the character out of the beer, and they got an article quite different to the naturally-conditioned."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 127.

This highlights a point that I've already made: brewers thought naturally-conditioned beer superior in flavour, the public just wanted something brilliant.

The next speaker says just about exactly that:

"Mr. H. Hobson said, although not a strong supporter of chilling, he understood that by this process they eliminated constituents which, if allowed to remain in solution, subsequently went to form body or to assist in head retention. It was surprising how the chilling process had appealed to a large number of brewers. A chilled beer certainly looked nice and brilliant, but he considered it was robbed of a large amount of character. He supposed the public demand for as bright a beer as could be produced was the reason for so much chilling. He would ask Mr. Hind if there was any fresh evidence of other constituents which might be precipitated by the chilling process other than the theory that precipitation was chiefly due to the albumoses ?
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 129.

And Lloyd Hind concurred:

"In reply to Mr. H. Hobson, chilling and filtering no doubt took away some of the character and head-retaining properties and he was not one of those who considered that chilling produced the best beer. On the other hand it was the easiest way to get the best appearance and nothing was more unattractive then turbid beer. In regard to precipitation during chilling he was not sure that it was albumoses which came down, it might be a combination of proteins with some bodies from the hops."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 130.

Nothing more unattractive than turbid beer? I think drinkers of Hefeweizen might disagree. Just shows you that it's all about expectations. I remember reading the label stuck on a keg of Hoegaarden advising the publican to turn it upside down before tapping to make sure it was nice and cloudy.

Pasteurising next time.

The UK and the USA

I meant to post a link to this earlier. A post that tells a little of the relationship between British and American brewing. Go and read it, then you'll understand what I'm on about.

I've been considering the topic for a while. (The kids complained about the clunking sounds, I was thinking so hard) How long it's been going. And how it swings from one direction to another. One type of connection to another.

Ignoring the obvious colonial links, you've got ingredients. Hops and barley from the USA flowed into Britain from 1850 onwards. English farmers couldn't keep up with the population growth and ceased to be able to grow enough ingredients for the demands of the brewing industry.

Then there are the techniques. The method of making "chilled and carbonated" bottled beers in the late 19th century was developed in the USA then adopted in Britain.

Equipment, too. In the 1890's Allsopp bought a shiny new Lager brewery from the USA. It was a big deal. They compared at Continental and Amercan brewhouses and chose the latter. I've been meaning to post about the Western Brewery article about it.

OK. It's really an enamelly brewery, but you get the idea. Ultra-modern. Love the poses those blokes are striking. Why's the one on the right all by himself? And why is the chav in the middle staring at him? The longer you look at it, the more disturbing it becomes.

Almost forgot a really basic piece of beer equipment. The crown cork. First produced in the USA.

And there's been plenty of traffic in the other direction. But that's not for me to write about.

Remeber I said the Lager brewery was a big deal. This is how they celebrated its arrival:

Special train. That's what I call making a fuss. It's the private jet of the steam age.

I remember now why I hadn't written yet about that fascinating Lager brewery. Page 504 of the Western Brewer article is missing in the scans I have. Did I lose it?

Bottling at George Younger in the early 20th century

I'm back pillaging the history of George Younger published in 1925. Despite being true to the adjective "short" in its title, the book still has plenty of silver hidden under the bed.

Bottling is a funny subject. There was an explosion in bottled beer at the very end of the 19th century, Spurred on by the development of chilled and carbonated products which had no deposit of yeast to mess up clarity. New technology, in the form of better stoppers and bottling machines also helped.  And at the same time export beer was more frequently sent out in bottles rather than casks.

It's fascinating to see how quickly a small company like Younger's reacted to the changing demand.

"KELLIEBANK BOTTLING DEPARTMENT

The beer bottling department had for many years been situated in the Candleriggs Brewery. This branch of trade, more particularly in the export bottling, began to increase rapidly from about 1885. New and larger accommodation had therefore to be obtained, and in 1889 buildings known as Mackie's Foundry were purchased. Those premises were immediately enlarged and by 1893 the whole of the beer bottling department had been moved from the Candleriggs Brewery to these now quarters. Those buildings wore enlarged on two subsequent occasions, in 1895 and 1900, to provide additional cellar accommodation in which to mature the export stout and ale. In 1903 a chilling and carbonating bottling plant was installed for the home beers.

The continued expansion of trade in both home and export bottled beers, more particularly of home bottled beer, brought about by the popularity of the new carbonated beer, made the Kelliebank Bottling Stores too small for their purpose. It was therefore decided to separate the two branches. In 1912 the Home Bottling Department was moved to its new home at the Eglinton Dye Works. Kelliebank now became the Export Bottling Department. Consequent on the heavy increase in beer duty, in January 1916 authority was obtained to make Kelliebank a Duty Free Warehouse."
"A Short History of George Younger & Son Limited, Alloa, (1762 - 1925)", 1925, pages 3 - 4.

I'm not surprised that they ran out of space for bottling at the Candleriggs Brewery. As we've seen, even after expansion, it was still a pretty cramped site. And bottling takes up a lot of space. As anyone who's been around a brewery will understand. Kelliebank is on the western edge of Alloa, close to the river. It's an area that housed many industries.

We've learned the exact date Younger went from naturally conditioning their bottled beer to chilling and carbonating it: 1903. That's pretty early. Once again, it seems Scottish brewers were at the forefront of technical change. Perhaps it was a result of the different nature of most of their trade compared to English brewers. Companies like George Younger depended to a great deal not on captive tied houses, but on the free and export trade. They had to react quickly to changing customer demands or lose business.


I'm surprised that their export trade in bottled beer was expanding after 1900. Probably at the expense of bulk exports rather than being totally new business.

"EGLINTON BOTTLING DEPARTMENT

As has already been stated, it became necessary to provide larger accommodation for the Home Bottling Department. The Eglinton Dye Works were accordingly purchased in 1912. These buildings, which at first sight appeared to be far larger in area than could ever be required, are now in the busy periods of the year taxed to their utmost. Up-to-date bottle washing, carbonating and filling plant has been installed, and the Department can now turn out bottled beer at the rate of about 1000 dozen an hour."
"A Short History of George Younger & Son Limited, Alloa, (1762 - 1925)", 1925, page 4.

1,000 dozen an hour sounds very impressive. But, if those are half-pints, it only amounts to about 21 barrels and hour. Working 12 hours a day, 300 days a year, that's around 75,000 barrels. Still not an enormous amount of beer.

This last, slightly unconnected paragraph about the cooperage I've included for a specific reason:

"COOPERAGE

The accommodation in the Candleriggs Brewery for coopering had been for a long period of years very cramped in space. The opportunity was taken in 1913 of purchasing a thoroughly up-to-date cooperage in Alloa, previously owned by Mr. Charles Pearson. After some few alterations had been made, the Coopering and Cask Washing Department was moved down to its new premises in 1919. The purchase of this Cooperage was singularly opportune. Since 1918, owing to the greatly increased price of export hogsheads, it had become advisable to bring these hogsheads back to this country for re-making up. Without the additional accommodation thus provided, it would have been impossible to overtake this new work."
"A Short History of George Younger & Son Limited, Alloa, (1762 - 1925)", 1925, page 4.

Because of what it tells us about the export trade. That after 1918 the casks were so expensive that they were returned from foreign markets. In the 19th century casks only went one way, presumably being reused at their destination. How times have changed. Are there any independent cooperages in Britain now? I doubt it.

I've more plunder from this hoard to share with you. Soon. Very soon.

Bottled vs draught vs keg

No, I haven't suddenly stumbled into the 21st century. I'm still resolutely stuck in the past. But, as I'm sure you're tired of hearing, there's nothing new in the world of beer.

Take a look at this little treatise on carbonation:

"Spring water, the drink provided for man and animals by nature, is always found impregnated with carbonic acid, and it is to this gas it owes its freshness, briskness, agreeable taste, and doubtless an increased suitability for aiding the process of digestion. The precise nature of the assistance contributed by carbonic acid towards this function we are unable to define; but the instinct which finds it grateful vouches for its utility, and its refreshing and invigorating properties in the case of a jaded stomach are so palpable, as to leave no doubt of its power of influencing the functions of this organ beneficially. Beer or ale, then, which has become stale and flat from the loss of its carbonic acid, is deteriorated no less in its dietetic than in its palatable qualities, — a fact confirmed by the circumstance that many who drink bottled ale with a relish, and find it agree with them, can scarcely venture to take draught ale without suffering from headache. In cases of renal disease, also, the condemnation of malt liquor as a beverage applies with twofold force to its consumption in draught, its injurious tendency in such cases being greatly mitigated, if not removed, by taking it only when charged with carbonic acid so as to be in an effervescing state. The palate, however, pronounces so decidedly in favor of ale that is fresh and brisk with carbonic acid, compared with that which, is vapid and flat from the absence of this gas, that no better guide than taste need be desired, a fact sufficiently evinced by the large consumption of bottled ale and beer by the public, at a cost of more than double that of the same liquors in draught.

The present price of Bass's or Allsopp's pale ale in wood is 33s. per kilderkin (18 gallons), being 1s. 10d. per gallon; the same quantity of ale in bottle (reputed pints, at 4s. 3d.) costs 76s. 6d., being 4s. 3d. per gallon, or 2.5 the price in wood. Those, then, who desire to drink their ale aerated with caibonic acid or effervescing, must add to 1s. 10d. per gallon, the cost in wood, an additional 2s. 5d.; and hence it happens that, in spite of the unequivocal verdict of taste, bottled ale is only habitually consumed by the wealthier classes, the great bulk of the people being debarred by motives of economy from taking it, except as an occasional luxury. The public at large not being able to afford to drink the kind they would prefer, fluctuate as an alternative between two evils ; — either, on the one hand, they have a small cask of beer, with the result of drinking it fresh and good the first week (or fortnight, according to its quality and the weather), passable, the second, and flat and hard the third, with a residue of five per cent so sour as to be obliged to be thrown away; or, tired or sour beer, they have recourse to the notoriously adulterated mixture of the retailer, and knowingly barter the purity of their liquor for the higher average of freshness and palatability obtained by his more rapid consumption.

Such is the present position of the British public with regard to their national beverage, but such it will remain no longer. An exceedingly simple apparatus has just been invented, by means of which ale on draught may be impregnated with any desired amount of carbonic acid, thus acquiring the sparkling character and valuable dietetic properties of bottled ale, with a decidedly superior flavor, for the carbonic acid, not being produced at the expense of the saccharine matter of the liquor, as in the case of bottled ale, the drink does not undergo that impoverishment or attenuation which, to the palate of many, forms a great drawback to the use of bottled malt liquor. If, as we are assured, draught ale can be aerated in the manner described, and a beverage produced which is universally preferred to bottled ale, at one tenth the additional cost of the latter, we hope to see the benefit conferred by the invention brought within the reach of all members of the community, and the poorest classes enabled to drink whatever malt liquor they can afford sparkling and effervescing with carbonic acid in its highest state of perfection."
"Every Saturday 1866, vol. 1", 1866, page 410.

There are some pretty bold claims there. For example, that bottled beer is easier on the stomach. I'd go as far as to say that's total bollocks. As the owner of a sensitive stomach I can assure you that highly-carbonated beer is the last thing you need. Draught beer gives you a headache? I can't imagine how that could possibly be true.

Onto paragraph two. My favourte paragraph. Because of the details about draught beer at home. Bottled beer is still more expensive than draught. Usually. But the difference is much smaller than back in the 1860's. It makes sense that it would have cost a lot more. The production process was much more labour-intensive with the filling and corking of bottles. Bottles were also more likely to break and awkward to transport than casks.

I'd always wondered about the practice of having a cask in the house. Especially when you see them advertising ones as large as full barrels. My first thought was: "How long did it take them to finish off a cask?" Because I know well the limited shelf-life of a broached cask. If, as stated above, it took three weeks, you'd expect the beer to have been pretty bad by the end. I'm not sure I'd give anything over a week old the time of day. Admittedly, in the 1860's the beer would have been at least 5% ABV and possibly quite a bit more. So I guess it would have lasted a little longer than a 3% Mild.

Why does the author specifically mention Allsopp and Bass Pale Ale? Because Pale Ale was the type of beer most often bottled. That and Stout. I've an enamel sign in my stairwell advertising Whitaker's (of Bradford) bottled beers. It must be from the late 19th century. There are only two types of beer illustrated: Pale Ale and Stout.

Finally, here's paragraph three. Where it gets really fascinating.  This must be one of the earliest references I've see to the artificial carbonation of draught beer. As a committed CAMRA member, I'm horrified by his unqualified praise for keg beer. Though, in his defence, he hadn't actually drunk any. In his expectation of carbonated draught beer's dominance, was he being eerily prescient or just naively optimistic. I'll leave that for you decide.

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.

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.