The Doom of the Small Cask

Sounds like the title of a horror story, doesn't it? Really, it concerns the change in packaging of take-home beer.

What they're really talking about is the new type of non-deposit bottled beer. Which, being force-carbonated, was always in sparkling condition. Unlike beer in small casks, which would always tend to be flat when the cask was nearly empty.

The Doom of the Small Cask.
We consider that the small cask is doomed, for since the abandonment of cleansing and the introduction of dropping plant and racking vessels, the over-refined contents of a small trading vessel are generally flat during ullage. The doom of such a vessel, is sealed by the appearance of beer of Lager appearance and natural gaseous condition, that can be distributed in flagons, jars, quart, bottle crates, and other measures in brilliant sparkling fobbing and palatable condition. These beers are sure to become known, and judging from limited experience the demand for them may prove boundless. We note that all over the country energetic firms are making careful preparations for the change, from casks to flagon, jar, and crate. We welcome the innovation in the interests of brewers, the needs of householders, and the demands of educated artizans, so the 4.5-cask or pin will soon be a vessel of the past, and in two or three years we may contemplate tho departure even of the firkin.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, March 15th 1900, page 187.

And they were right. Cask beer for home use was starting to die out. Because it was much more fuss than bottled beer. 

Pubs didn't generally use casks as small as pins or firkins. Beer was mostly delivered to pubs in barrels and hogsheads. Unlike today, when even a kilderkin is considered a large cask.

The change to bottles sometimes also meant a change in the beer. As special versions of beers were sometimes brewed for bottling. Usually weaker than draught versions. That sold in crates of four quarts could be quite a bit weaker than the versions sold in pubs.

There were also special types of beer brewed specifically for bottling, such as Light Dinner Ale and Luncheon Stout. These were low-gravity beers, weaker than those served on draught. 

 

 

 

Oak used in casks

As you may already be aware, UK brewers used almost exclusively Memel oak from the Eastern Baltic to construct their casks.

The discussion which was initiated by Mr. Babington, at the June meeting of the London Institute of Brewing, opened out a very interesting, and, at the same time, a very puzzling question. The timber used in making brewers’ casks is, and has been for countless years, nothing but oak. It is a curious fact, however, that the only kind of oak practically ever used for making casks in which ale is to be stored is that hailing from the Baltic seaports, in other words, the Memel timber.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

There was, however, one UK brewer bucking this trend.

We believe we are correct in stating that the largest firm of stout brewers in the world use nothing but American timber, and they find it in every way satisfactory. But, from long experience, no brewer of ale will be found who can depend on the Quebec oak as a receptacle for his fine produce. At Guinness’s no cooper ever makes an entire cask. The rough hewn Quebec planks are trimmed by one man, passed on to the next for shaping, and so on, until at length they are pieced together and hooped at the other end of the shop.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

Can you guess who that one brewer might be? Largest Stout brewer in the world? It has to be Guinness.

Given that Memel oak was expensive, there was an incentive to use the cheaper North American oak. Prompting brewers to attempt various treatments to remove the woody flavour. All to no avail.

The question, however, that interests us, is why we cannot use the American timber for ale casks? Mr. Babington merely expressed the experience of numerous other ale brewers, when he gave that of his own firm. “We fired our Quebec-timber casks; we steamed them; we boiled them ; we boiled with salt water; we stood them for days; we filled them with sour beer; we bi-sulphited them. They went into the trade, and came back with ‘neat’ beer labelled ‘casky.’ Many experiments have been made with a view to elucidate this mystery of the Quebec timber — all to no purpose, we regret to state. One of Mr. Babington’s friends in the coopering trade tried very drastic treatment. He tried common soda with hot water for varying numbers of hours; soda with alum or salts of tartar; salts of tartar with copperas and boiling water; common salt in varying quantities; lime; solution of pearl ash — all, as we have said, to no purpose." Even coating with paraffin did not eliminate the woody flavour. It is true that this now well-known process will render casks less porous, and should thus tend to remedy the evils attendant upon the use of American oak, or any other variety; but, as it happens, the Quebec timber is by no means of a very porous nature; and, except for this curious property of communicating casky flavours to ale, it appears to be an ideal substance for making brewers’ vessels.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

Not even lining the casks the casks with paraffin helped.

There was scientific research being undertaken into the various types of oak. Though, up unto that point, without any definitive result.

We must confess that some of the methods of treating casks detailed by Mr. Babington do not recommend themselves to us, and, indeed, seem more likely to injure than to cure. For instance, we have never advocated the custom of “pickling” barrels in brine. It is our experience that casks treated with common salt are most difficult to get dry; indeed, they never appear to become thoroughly ary after such treatment, and no doubt the use of pungent chemicals must take some of the “nature” out of the timber, however hard it may be originally. It is very interesting to note that Mr. Matthew J. Cannon is making some experiments on the chemical nature of the various types of oak used in breweries. The tests he has already applied do not afford us any definite information, but his work is, as yet, in its infancy, and he may ere long have some more definite announcement to make. When the nature of these various woods has been established by research, Mr. Cannon will be in a better position to treat his subject scientifically. It is obvious that we must not rob the timber of its valuable resinous constituents, nor of its tannin, for these substances act as powerful preservative agents. We await with deep interest the elucidation of this important problem, as the timber imported from the Baltic is very dear, and it seems rather an odd thing that the good, sound Quebec wood cannot be used in our breweries, on account of practical reasons that, at present, admit of no satisfactory explanation.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

What was the ultimate resolution? Moving from wooden to metal casks.

Dublin porter for town trade

It seems that in Dublin they had their own particular way of handling beer for the pub trade. Specifically, Porter.

"Dublin porter for town trade
This is exampled in the case of Dublin porter, brewed for town trade. With such a beer, of no great stability, and which would not be consumed if flat, it is necessary to force on a cask fermentation to lead to immediate condition; and this is done by merely racking the beer in rooms kept moderately warm by steam pipes, the induced rise of temperature being quite sufficient to set in motion further fermentation, so long as the cask is tightly shived up. At one time there was a dispute as to whether it was advisable to regulate condition in cask or to allow cask fermentation full swing, the upholders of the latter idea asserting that under the great internal cask pressure the secondary fermentation was much more healthy, and was put an end to by pressure itself. I believe that there is a great deal of merit in such a notion, and if the stock beer existed in the cellar from which it was to be drawn, there is no doubt but that the beer fermented under such high-pressure conditions would be remarkably good if it could be tapped and consumed without any disturbance of the bottom deposit."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, page 252.

That sounds very much like the highly-conditioned casks used in the two-cask serving system, which Guinness used or their Porter right up until it was discontinued in the early 1970s. It's interesting to learn exactly how they got the casks into that condition. Simply by racking the beer in a warm room.

This is what I'm talking about:

Faulkner wasn't impressed by this process. Asserting that the beer would only remain bright while the pressure was maintained. Something which wasn't possible when the beer was served and the cask partially emptied.

"As a practical question, the process is a faulty or impossible one; however bright the beer might be the extreme pressure would lead to immediate turbidity directly it was reduced, by diminishing quantity of fluid contents; while if the beer be stored for lengthy periods, the high pressure gradually disappears, much of the gas causing it passing through the pores of the wood, while the remainder is taken into solution, and when the cask is shipped away it is by no means full, and the contents exhibit but slight capacity of again becoming brisk, the violent fermentation that originally led to the pressure ending in excessive reduction of fermentable character, the high pressure very seriously influencing the vital power of the alcoholic cells present.
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 252-253.

Not so sure that I understand the second half of that paragraph.

Handling public-house beer

More about how beer intended for pubs was handled.

Faulkner thought that the temperature pub beer was stored at in the brewery was really important. One clarification: why does he talk about cask beer specifically for the pub trade? Because a lot of casks were sold to private customers, to be served in their homes.

"In coming to the actual treatment of beer in store we have to consider for what purposes it is intended: if for stock it is naturally lowered into the basement, while if mild and for public-house use it remains either in racking-room or in store on ground level, since as the cellars of the publican are not, as a rule, of the best, with temperature restricted by their natural position, it is useless paying particular attention to such beers if at the end of a few hours they are to be moved away to the consumer. It has always seemed to me a point of extreme importance that such beers as are brewed expressly for public-house use should, during the colder months of the year, be kept at a moderately low temperature on the premises of the brewer, so as to escape those constant chills which frequently result in the cellars of the smaller publicans, which are mostly exposed to atmospheric influences. During the warmer months of the year we have to keep such beers as cool as possible so as to ward off a secondary fermentation, which is common to all beers alike, and which comes on sooner or later according to their exact quality, degree of fermentative capacity at the time of racking, and the variation of heat that may take place directly after racking."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 250-251.

It wasn't advised to store casks at too cool a temperature, because the pub cellars were likely to not be that cool. Except in the winter. I guess the idea was to store the casks in the brewery at as close a temperature to pub cellars as possible.

And what about in the summer?

"All beer, as I have said, contains carbonic acid, and in the case of such qualities as necessarily have to undergo fining it is important to prevent the collection of free carbonic acid in cask prior to the fining being carried out. For instance, if we happen to rack beer on a warm day, and the temperature of the racking-room facilitates rise of heat, a certain amount of carbonic acid is set free from the beer in cask, and if the bung or shive be out it readily passes off, while if the cask be tightly bunged or shived, the gas set free by the rise of heat accumulates, creates pressure and a variety of motion that acts very energetically in bringing on secondary change; and it is for this reason that beers of fermentative capacity require carefully venting immediately the casks are filled, when the temperature of the store naturally causes an increase in heat. If this is neglected it will be found that in many cases a determined secondary fermentation will set in at the end of a very few hours."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 251-252.

When it was warm and CO2 was coming out of solution, then you needed to vent the casks immediately after filling. Whichh makes sense.

Containers

At a time when resources of every kind were short, it made sense on many levels to favour cask beer over bottled. 

With both glass and rubber for stoppers in short supply, there were some obvious disadvantages of bottled beer. (In 1943, 80% of the world's rubber supply was under Axis control.)  It also required more energy and manpower to produce and was heavier and bulkier to transport.

But cask beer wasn't without its own problems. Basically, the casks themselves. Though a wooden cask has a long life, it does require regular maintenance. And replacing staves requires a supply of oak. For a long while UK brewers had preferred Memel oak from the Eastern Baltic. Even before Germany invaded the Soviet Union supplies had been cut off.

"Containers
The search for every means by which economy of transport could be furthered naturally led at quite an early stage— two years ago and more—to consideration whether the replacement of bottled beer trade by cask beer was not feasible. Cask beer makes substantially less demand on transport. The immediate answer was the lack of sufficient casks in the country to enable any material expansion in the use of this form of container. Since that time there has been no improvement, but perhaps on the whole there has not been any further serious deterioration. Before the war there were considerable stocks of cask staves — almost entirely of Memel oak — in the country, and these delayed the full effect of the cessation of supplies until the first year or two of the war had passed. The steady drain on cooperage labour through calling-up was already having a serious effect by the time stocks of Memel staves became exhausted. In some few cooperages it had long been customary to use English oak for casks, but efforts to extend the use of this material did not meet with very much, success. It called for considerable skill in working, owing to the hardness and nature of the grain, and skilled labour was short. The Government, realising that the cask shortage would rapidly grow worse and would threaten the maintenance of beer output, made available a steady supply of American oak staves. This material had the serious drawback that the casks must be lined with pitch in order to avoid the beer being affected, but for well over a year now American staves have saved the situation. Supplies have been enough to keep cask stocks substantially up to the level of early last year. Lack of cooperage labour would in any event preclude much improvement over that position. Large stacks of casks still remain which cannot be brought into service again without repair, while the demands of the Services and the public generally and the growing delay which occurs in getting empties back again, particularly when, as they often must for transport economy reasons, casks of beer are sent by rail, are making it more and more difficult to make the available casks go round."
The Brewing Trade Review, August 1943, page 243.

In normal times British brewers would never have used American oak as it imparted too much flavour to the beer it contained. Unlike today, brewers wanted to avoid any trace of oak in their beer. Its presence was seen as a fault. But, with the supply of Memel oak dried up, brewers had little choice.

When supplies of American oak in turn began to evaporate, brewers had to turn to a more local source.

"That is the general position at present. There are, of course, many exceptions. Some brewers are fortunate in the possession of their own cooperage department and sufficient skilled men over military age to handle their work. Others are in much worse case. The fact that the cask position is as good as it is at present is in no small measure due to the co-operation of the cooperage trade, individually and collectively through their Association.

Now the brewing trade is threatened with a serious reduction in the supply of staves in the future. There is a shortage of American oak, and present indications are that early next year American stave supplies will be severely curtailed. It is believed that the seriousness of this is appreciated by the Government Departments concerned, and that efforts are being made to relieve the position. It is hardly likely, however, that supplies can be maintained at the level which has prevailed in the last 12 months, and it will be necessary for an increasing proportion of cask requirements to be carried out in English oak. Here again there is no bountiful supply, but such quantity as can be provided will have to be used in substitution for the American oak. One unfortunate result will be that greater difficulty of working probably means longer time in making up a cask, and consequently still further attenuation of the already severe shortage of skilled labour."
The Brewing Trade Review, August 1943, pages 243.

This is first time I can recall hearing of English oak being used for casks, though I'm sure that was what was used if you go back to the beginning of the 19th century or earlier. Why was it harder to work tha American or Memel oak? Was it harder? 

There was one simple solution to the shortage of casks - rotate them through pubs quicker.

"The position calls for the careful attention of all breweries if serious consequences to the output of beer in the near future are to be avoided. The first consideration which comes to mind is the achievement of the quickest possible turn round of casks. No doubt steps have already been taken by most breweries to get their casks returned more quickly. The Ministries concerned are alive to the urgent necessity of such quick return and we believe they are working to this end so far as railway traffic is concerned—not only with beer casks but with returnable containers of all kinds, for the same difficulties are present in other industries. It remains for the brewery to deal with other sources of delay and to do what is possible to ensure that casks are sent back from licensed premises and other customers as soon as possible after they are empty."
The Brewing Trade Review, August 1943, page 244. 

Zoning - only delivering to pubs close to the brewery would have helped casks get back to the brewery quicker. But other wartime fuel economy measures didn't help. Brewers reduced the number of deliveries and generally only dropped off beer - and collected empties - once a week.

 

Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part seven)

Back again with 1920s cellarmanship. A topic which I find weirdly fascinating.

First, we commence with how to handle casks. A very important topic. Though probably more so for the brewer - whose casks it was that were likely to be ruined - than the publican.

"If it is found necessary to stand casks, either full or empty, in the open, they must always be stood with the tap cork downwards, so as to prevent any water getting into the cask.

This is most important, as carelessness may spoil the cask.

Waste beer must not be left in a cask, or it will be rendered unfit for use, and the proprietor will be charged for it.

Waste is the unconsumable contents left at the bottom of the cask.

Brewers seldom make any allowance for waste nowadays, and when they do, never at the full rate. When claiming for ullages, always measure the quantity in the cask before it is returned.

Always take out the hard peg before drawing any beer, in order to help the engine and prevent the beer clouding. At the end of the day, the hard peg should be tightly replaced.

Another cask of the same quality of beer should always be ready tapped a day before it is required.

Every cask should be pegged and corked as soon as it is empty."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, pages 201 - 202.

I find it surprising that brewers seldom made any allowance for waste. I know that in the 1950s there were some breweries whose beer was total crap because of their insistence on reusing ullage. Were they really not paying publicans anything for it? Because not onlt did brewers reuse ullage, they also got a refund of the duty that they had paid on it.

I assume the spiling advice is correct. Though it makes sense that you wouldn't want the sak sealed when you were drawing beer from it.


Now a little about ordering practices:

"You must look ahead in your orders for beer from the Brewery, and if the Brewery is some distance away, in the country, or the beer has to come by rail, you must allow plenty of time for delay on the railway, and some for ullaged casks, in hot, especially thundery, weather. Most Brewers have specified days for delivering beer in each district, and it is necessary to allow for this. All bottled beer should be put in the cellar immediately on delivery, not left on the stairs, or placed in the yard, and sufficient should be brought up each day for the next day's requirements. Pale ale in bottle requires a few days rest in the cellar before it can be served in ideal condition."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 202.

It sounds quite quaint to mdern ears having beer delivered by rail. I wonder when that last happened?

Enamel for Casks

I'm often asked about the lining of casks. Something which was common on the Continent and which many assume was also practised in the UK. It wasn't. Or at least, not much.

Though, as with everything, it's a bit more complicated than that. UK brewers definitely weren't keen on lining casks with pitch, as was the Central European practice. They reckoned pitch was the source of the onion flavour they detected in Lager. But they did use other materials to line casks. Though much more common was the use of unlined casks.

This is one of the first mentions I've found of lining casks in the UK. In this case with some sort of enamel. It's a bit vague about the composition of the enamel. Perhps it was a trade secret.

"Enamel for Casks.
Some short time ago we detailed the necessary treatment of cask plant, and pointed out that we had tried nearly all the chemical agents advertised for the purpose of restoring musty and stinking casks, but with no result that we could safely recommend to our readers. We are, however, now pleased to say that since the appearance of our previous note, we have conducted experiments upon a footing entirely different from those previously carried out. The experiments we speak of have been in the direction of the application of enamels. Now, from a practical point of view, we know many brewers who have experienced great benefit from the use of this class of material, but it was with reluctance that we ventured to give it a trial, since we were under the impression that the various forms of enamel were, more or less, all of the same character, and knowing that alcohol has a decided effect upon the majority of them, and that acetic acid has a still greater effect, we were sceptical of the result, but we are all liable to mistakes, and it is in this particular that we made one, for the simple reason that we have just analysed one patent enamel, and find that these two powerful solvents, alcohol and acetic acid, have no action whatever upon it. Therefore, from an experimental point of view, we find that it is without a rival, and from information received, we are bound to admit that it is an excellent material, not only for the purpose of curing musty and stinking casks, but for the purpose of preserving casks, which are not in such a bad state, since the enamel in question lengthens the life of cask plant to a somewhat considerable extent. The enamel we speak of is patented and manufactured by Messrs. Crawford & Co., to whom we refer our readers for particulars, and although our having to go to press prevents us discussing this subject further, we will nevertheless, in a future issue, detail the enamel’s practical application, since we are certain that the majority of fretful causes of beer, combined with acidity and turbidity, are due to faulty cask plant, which we have no hesitation in saying, could be readily avoided by the use of such an enamel as the above."
"The Brewers' Guardian 1889", 1889, page 370.

The article reads a bit like an advert for Messrs. Crawford & Co.'s enamel. Was it really as wonderful as made out?

On the management of Beer in private houses

Before WW I it was quite commonto buy in a cask of beer to drink at home. The newspapers were full of brewery adverts for exactly this purpose.

Yet I can't remember ever finding anything before about how casks were handled in this doemstic setting. Until now. It's a delightful insight into what used to be a common practice,

Of course, if you've ever handled a cask of beer you'll know that there's a lot more to serving it than banging in a tap and turning the tap on. It's no surprise, given that plenty of landlords cock up handling cask beer, that it was often mistreated in private homes.

"On the management of Beer in private houses
TO begin with, every consumer of beer must fully realise how many advantages pertain to the system of keeping one’s own cask of beer in the house, rather than sending out to the nearest publichouse every time a draught of beer is required, and for the following reasons. First and foremost the price charged by the publican is 25 per cent. over and above that charged by the family brewer; the inconvenience of making such trips, no matter what the weather; whilst the beer so obtained is seldom a family bitter ale at all, and the quantity must be a standard measure either more or less than is required, causing a slight waste in the former, or an unsatisfied appetite in the latter case.

These arguments may be met with some such replies as, “Oh, the beer does not keep in our house," or, “It is thick, and there is always a waste in the bottom of the cask.” To the first of these I would reply, “There are many good brands now offered to the public as near perfection as beer can possibly be." Notwithstanding all Messrs. Lawson, Quilter & Co. may say to the contrary, such beers are guaranteed, and do keep sound, as proved by the large private trades built up by such beers; whilst how many cases of thick beer and out of condition are caused by want of a little care on the consumer's part, which I will now endeavour to explain. Certainly there is no nation or people who appreciate more fully or better understand what a glass of really good beer is than the English, and yet how small a percentage take the least trouble to have their beer in good condition, the majority imagining that with the drayman placing the cask on the stand all need of any further care is at an end, and that what follows is a matter of chance, good or bad.

A little consideration, however, will prove how fallacious such an idea is; for although any amount of care and trouble bestowed will not make bad beer good, yet, with a modicum of attention and a few common sense practices, good beer may be preserved as such, instead of utterly spoiling same and returning to the brewer what has, through carelessness, become a muddy, sour article, very unsatisfactory to both consumer and brewer alike.

First, to begin with, the consumer usually takes in only a small cask, which small bulk is much more difficult to bring into sparkling (gaseous) condition, owing to the smaller amount of normal fermentable matter contained in so small a bulk (generally four and a half or nine gallons); such a quantity will also be more easily affected by temperature—either extreme heat or cold—both of which act detrimentally on beer, the former to force false ferments if present into active life and so set up putrefaction, whilst the latter produces flatness and general want of condition.

The small casks, too, are of such little weight that the least jarring or shake disturbs the whole, whilst the stands on which the casks are placed consists ofttimes of the most primitive arrangements, such as unsteady and shaking boxes, which are continually vibrating; as an extreme case, the beer cask is occasionally placed on a flat surface, such as a board, with the natural rolling and oscillation due from the introduction of a ball to a plain or flat surface. The cellars are very seldom cellars at all, for this useful store connected with the old-fashioned house has been wofully ignored in these days of jerry-building, and in consequence the beer cask is stowed in the most outrageous places, such as the closest of little cupboards, sometimes only separated from close friendship with the kitchen fire by the flimsiest apology for a wall ; and occasionally even the bedroom is made to serve the double purpose of beer cellar and sleeping apartment, which, if it proved of any advantage to the wakeful and thirsty occupant, is certainly not conducive to good beer; whilst, as an extreme case, I may mention that of a laundress who stored her ale on top of the copper lid, and when washing day came had it removed with regularity and precision worthy a better cause, and as a subsequent fact always had thick beer, in consequence of which she gave vent to the usual abuse of the brewer.

In dealing with wine it is possible to rack or fill it quite bright ; not so with beer, which under such circumstances would remain flat and undrinkable owing to the want of a little fermentable matter to keep up a mild discharge of carbonic acid gas, the same gas as soda water and such other effervescing drinks are charged with, which gives to beer its sparkling fresh ness, and which sedimentary matter will subside to the bottom of the cask if properly treated by being firmly set up and allowed a day or two to rest before drawing from for use."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, page 173.

It's a sign of how little markup pubs made that fetching beer in a jug was only 25% more expensive than buying in a cask.

But I was particularly intrigued by this phrase: "the beer so obtained is seldom a family bitter ale at all". That's implying that what was usually drunk at home was Family Bitter. And what was the classic Family Bitter? AK, of course.

I'm slightly confused by the stuff about it being harder to bring a small cask into condition. Surely the proportion of unfermented sugars would be the same no matter what size the cask? Though it is true that a smaller cask would be more prone to become too cold or to overheat.

I love the complaint about houses being jerry-built. People always seem to moan about the same things, usually harking bacjk to a better past.

There's a part two which I'll post later.

More barrrel-sized fun

I just remembered something. William Younger always recorded what they racked into in their brewing records.

Which means I can see exactly what sized of barrels they used. The last William Younger logs I have are from 1949-1950. What sorts of barrels were they using? You can probably guess. But here they are:

It says something that the pre-printed form includes butts, but nothing smaller than a quarter hogshead (18 barrels) of half barrel (also 18 barrels). You can see that XXP, a Bitter of 1032º, was only filled into hogsgeads and barrels.

The second beer in the image is No. 3 Bottling. That is, the bottling version of their No.3 Strong Ale (or Scotch Ale, depending on which side of the border you were). It's no conicidence that it was mostly racked into hogsheads. Most wouldn't have been bottled by Younger themselves, but by third party bottlers. Beer was usually delivered to these in hogsheads.

XXPS, a stronger Bitter of 1037º, wasn't filled into hogshead, but barrels, kilderkins and half hogsheads (27 barrels). Logical enough. As a draught beer you'd expect less to have been filled into hogsheads.

The last beer in DBS, Younger's Stout, was racked into a wide variation of cask sizes. They didn't brew a huge amount of DBS, so it might seem strange that some went into hogsheads. But this was another bottled beer. I'm more surprised at the small size of some casks. Presumably relatively low demand meant bottlers took smaller casks than with more popular styles.

Guinness’s Park Royal Brewery in 1949 – the Cooperage Shops and Refrigerating Plant

It’s taken a while, this series, but the end is in sight. Almost.

We’ve already visited the most interesting bits of the brewery. Well, the bits most are interested in. Me, I have a fascination for the auxiliary bits of a brewery. Like the cooperage shop. And the cooling system.

Breweries of any size repaired – and often made – all their own wooden casks. It made sense, as casks were one of the biggest capital expenditures a brewery made. A brewery like Bass or Guinness owned millions of casks, which needed to be kept in good order and, when necessary, replaced. Landlords weren’t always as careful with casks as they should have been, resulting in damaged or filthy casks.

Making and repairing casks was a labour-intensive business and the cooperage department was often one of the largest in terms of numbers employed.

“The Cooperage Shops.—The cooperage shops are located adjacent to the cask cleansing shed, the machinery and equipment being of more or less standard type. The shops are laid out to cope with all repairs and new casks required for the Park Royal trade.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 286.

There’s plenty that needs cooling in a brewery. Some of it obvious, like cooling the wort after boiling and before pitching yeast.

“The Refrigerating Plant.—In common with all breweries the demand for cooling facilities at Park Royal is heavy, the maximum demand in summer being of the order of 5,000,000 B.T.U. per hour, occasioned principally by wort and beer cooling.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 288.

I’ve no idea what 5,000,000 B.T.U. means, but it sounds like a lot. Just cooling the 3,000 barrels of wort produced every day must have taken a fair bit of energy.

They had two different types of cold water, at different temperatures.

“There are two sections of the refrigerating plant, one being the chilled water services at 45° F. for wort and beer cooling, and the other a brine service at 25° F. for yeast and gyle cooling. The machines are CO2 compressors of the high-speed single acting vertical totally-enclosed type. The choice of a CO2 system was made on the grounds that in the event of a leakage it would be less harmful than in an ammonia system, although it was appreciated that its higher vapour-pressure characteristic would require a considerably higher operating pressure—1,300 p.s.i.g., in fact; and also that it would be slightly less efficient from the thermo-dynamic point of view than ammonia.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 288.

Brine was used in the wort refrigerators or attemperators. Though if you remember, unusually, Guinness’s fermenters weren’t fitted with attemperators.

“The plant for the chilled water services comprises five machines, two of which are capable of eliminating 2,000,000 B.T.U. per hour each when cooling water from 65 to 45° F. with condensing water at 70° F. which is the summer temperature of the direct water. The remaining three machines are capable of eliminating 1,000,000 B.T.U. each under similar conditions. The condensers are of the submerged type, while the evaporators are of the enclosed type, both of steel casings. There is one condenser and three evaporators to each unit. The compressors are direct-coupled to variable-speed motors, those for the large machines being of 200 h.p. and the small machines 100 h.p.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 288.

I make that a total capacity of 7,000,000 B.T.U., well more than the peak demand of 5,000,000 B.T.U.

Finally, the brine machines.

“The brine machines are similar to the chilled water plant excepting that there are three machines each of 250,000 B.T.U. per hour capacity, direct-coupled to 50 h.p. motors. Each machine, however, has one condenser and one evaporator. Three brine pumps are provided for the circulation of brine to various sections of the brewery. For charging the installation with CO2 gas, a charging station has been erected outside the main engine room which enables six flasks of CO2 to be charged into the plant at the same time. The charging lines are so inter-connected throughout the plant that gas can be drawn from another machine to assist in the charging of another if necessary, so that during overhaul work it is not necessary to lose any gas as it can easily be transferred to one of the other machines.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, pages 288 - 289.

They’ve lost me there. Why do you need to charge the installation with CO2? I really don’t understand that.

There’s not much left. And pretty obscure stuff at that. Anyone interested in pipes and valves?

Cask beer in the 1950’s – the humble bung

Remember my insanely-detailed series of posts about cask beer in the 1950’s? Well I’m back with more, having found an insanely-detailed article about shives and spiles.

They’re pieces of equipment 100% specific to cask beer. The only even vaguely similar beer, Bayerischer Anstich, handles venting differently. Often they use a brass tap in the equivalent of the bung hole, turning it on when they need to let air into the cask.

“THE HUMBLE BUNG
By D. M. Edmonds
A shive, we are inclined I to assume, is just a bung. So it is; but it is also a piece of wood which remains in contact with the beer from racking till the time of tapping. Thin is quite long enough for an undesirable flavour to be imparted to the beer, or for a considerable amount of beer to be lost through leakage. The condition in which draught beer reaches the customer is very largely dependent on the choice and proper use of shives and hard (tight) and soft (porous) spiles.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 117.

It’s a good point about the shive being in contact with the beer all the time it’s in the cask. That in itself limits the materials it can be made from. We learned earlier of the importance of the proper use of spiles.

Here’s something about the physical requirements of a shive:

“What then are the properties which a good shive mast have, and, which will determine the choice of timber for its manufacture? In the first place it must be soft, to avoid undue wear on bushes and bung-staves. It must, for obvious reasons, be tasteless, odourless and non-porous, and there must be no leakage through the side grain. In addition it should break "short," in order to allow of easy knocking away of the centre portion for spiling, but it should not be too brittle.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 117.

See? It needs to be soft so you can bang it in without damaging other bits of the barrel and forms a good seal. Also you don’t want it adding any flavour to the beer.

And which wood makes the perfect shive?

“The material which most nearly fulfils all the above conditions is the heart- wood of the Appalachian poplar, known in the trade as canary-wood, or American bung-poplar. Unfortunately this has been unobtainable in this country in recent years, though a little is now being allocated for the use of the brewing trade. The best substitute for bung-poplar is Finnish birch, and this is the wood of which most good quality shives are being made here to-day. It is slightly harder and more brittle than canary-wood, but imparts no flavour to the beer, and is perfectly; satisfactory in all other ways.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 117.

Unlike with barrels, an American wood was perfect. But obviously the war would have messed up the supply of that. And I can’t imagine wood from Finland was available in the war years, either. Especially as Finland was on the wrong side for much of it.

What about British wood? Was any of that suitable? Sort of.

“Home-grown hard-woods, such as sycamore or beech, are sometimes used. The former is satisfactory, though inclined to be knotty and slightly porous. It is, however, very difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities. Beech is too hard, and is subject, to "dote." This is a fungus, causing decay, which is recognisable by black and cream-coloured vein-like markings in the timber affected. It causes porousness, but is not otherwise a serious defect, as any harmful bacteria associated with it will be destroyed in the kilning process described below.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", pages 117 - 118.

Sycamore was knotty, porous and there wasn’t enough of it. Far from perfect, then. Beech was likely to be infected and was so hard it would eventually damage your barrels. That sound even less suitable.

Next time we’ll look at how shives were made.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – empty casks and cleaning glasses

We’re finally there. At the end of my marathon examination of cask beer handling in the 1950’s. I’m going to have to find something else to write about.

Jeffery has had plenty of veiled (and not so veiled) anger towards publicans and their wastefulness and incompetence. I can understand why. A careless or untrained landlord can ruin the brewer’s work in an instant. It must have been frustrating to confide your lovely, sound beer to someone who would transform it into undrinkable muck. And ruin the casks it came in to boot.

“Empty Casks.
If the value of beer casks was sufficiently appreciated more care would be taken of them when empty than is now unhappily the case. The life of a well-made cask with proper usage is anything from 20 to 30 years, but we have on many occasions seen this life reduced to a year or so. The reason was that someone omitted to seal the cask up when it was empty and make it air-tight. Over and over again we have found empty casks thrown into any convenient comer of the yard, without shive, peg, or cork. Blue mould round the tap hole has indicated a similar state, and more often than not rain water, inside. Rain water means irretrievable destruction, because once it attains access to the inside of a cask, the cask becomes what is known as a 'stinker'. Excessive and long infection by mould spores also have a similar effect. So it is urgently necessary to see that every cask is made both air- and water-tight as soon as the tap has been removed, even if the cask is still to be kept in the cellar. If it is necessary to put it outside in the open, let it be stored, if possible, in a shady place.”
Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 260 - 261.

This makes me realise that I had no idea how to handle the casks me and my brother owned. I didn’t realise that you had seal a cask after emptying it. The firkins are well a truly buggered now as they’ve been in my brother’s garden for years

Rain water seems particularly dangerous. Brewers hated stinkers. You read about them in brewing texts all the way back to the 18th century. They could, sometimes, be saved by extensive cleaning and treatment, which usually involved shaving wood from the inside and the application of chemicals.

Casks were a big investment for a brewery, tying up large amounts of capital. They were expensive because they were hand-made by skilled craftsmen. It must have been heartbreaking to see them ruined early in their potential life by an idiot landlord.

I’m starting to see the crap behind the romance of wooden casks. I assume much of this doesn’t apply quite the same way to metal casks. The big difference being that you can easily sterilise them, unlike the porous surface of a wooden cask.

And finally . . . . cleaning glasses.

“Cleaning and Sterilization of Beer Glasses.
Although not coming within the category of cellar management, a comment may be appropriately inserted here concerning the treatment of beer glasses. With the increasing public interest in hygiene the question of sterilization of beer glasses becomes important. This is not the place to go into the question of adequate washing and rinsing facilities, but a notable contribution to the problem of removing any danger of spreading infection by glasses is provided by the new class of quaternary ammonium antiseptics to which reference has already been made. By dipping the glass into a weak solution of one of these useful compounds, sterility is rapidly attained. This, if followed by a rinse in warm water, results in a glass which is both clean in appearance and sterile. Some of these compounds have been found to affect the head retention of the beer, but there are special ones on the market which if used according to the maker's instructions are entirely free from this disadvantage. A small automatic dispenser can be supplied by which a suitable dose is added each time the sink bowl is filled.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 261.

I guess the glass is the final link in the chain leading form hops and grains to the beer in the drinker’s mouth. And yet another place where all the good work that has gone before can be messed up. When you look at all the places things can go wrong it’s incredible cask beer has survived. And that it’s ever in good condition.

If you were putting leftover beer back into the cask you’d want to be sure your glasses were clean. Then again, if you were pulling crap like that you probably weren’t that fussed about hygiene.

If you’re lucky, I might pull some other stuff from Jeffery’s book. The stuff about a brewery’s location is especially fascinating.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – hard spiles, soft spiles and ullage

Can you believe it? We’re just about done with this look at the handling to cask beer.

The correct use of spiles is essential to produce cask beer in good condition. Though it seems brewers didn’t 100% agree on what that correct usage was:

“Use of Hard and Porous Pegs. The injudicious use of both hard and porous pegs will soon spoil beer, however well it has been brewed. Although their careful and systematic use may need time, it is well worth it. A hard and fast rule is impossible, and common sense must be the guide. Each brewery even appears to have its own ideas, and to give its own instructions as regards the use of pegs. These instructions may be justified by the peculiar conditions attached to the brewing and storage of its beers.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 259.

Though I case the state the beer arrived in at the pub had an influence on how the spiles were used. A beer that was actively fermenting would need different treatment from one that wasn’t.

Here are some more detailed instructions:

“For our part, we prefer to bore or punch through the half-bored shive of each cask as soon as it is placed on the stillion, and to leave it for a couple of hours without a peg, provided the condition is not violent. If condition is violent, then a porous peg must be inserted at once. If, however, there should only be a slight blow of gas from the peg hole, it will assist the fining to some extent if the peg is left right out for a time. Some slight emission of sludge may take place, and as soon as this has ceased the peg must be inserted further. It is a safe plan to case a hard peg every four or five hours, especially during hot weather, when internal cask conditions change rapidly. If there is only a slight blow of gas, and no emission of beer follows, it may be assumed that the contents of the cask are in good order, and the peg should be replaced at once. A porous peg should be used at the first sign of any fermentation, and not delayed until the beer is moving violently. The porous peg must not be inserted too tightly, otherwise the pores will be compressed and the peg fail to act as desired. This misfortune is often found to have taken place, resulting in the cask movement being unduly prolonged. Portions of hops and yeast, too, will frequently choke the pores, in which case a new peg should be substituted at once. A porous peg must not be allowed to remain in a cask of beer any longer than is necessary, or the contents will be flattened beyond recovery. A peg should be removed from the cask before any beer is drawn by means of a pump, or a vacuum may result which will upset the clarity. The peg must be replaced as soon as the period for trading has expired. There are several patent pegs on the market for use when the beer is being drawn, the idea of many being quite good. Unfortunately, some of them are very difficult to keep clean.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 259.

That all makes sense: while the beer is fermenting you need a soft spile to stop too much pressure building up in the cask. Once the beer has calmed down, you need to seal it with a hard spile to build carbonation. And obviously you need the peg out when serving so there’s pressure on the top of the beer. If air goes back through the tap into the barrel it’s likely to displace sediment at the bottom of the cask.

I assume that a patent peg was one that let in air as required to maintain pressure inside the cask. Like a non-evil version of a cask breather.

Now ullage. The topic we’ve been leading up to.

“Ullage.
It is difficult to describe what actually and exactly constitutes ullage. Some people regard it as the first pint or two drawn off to clear the tap, together with the sludge at the bottom of the cask. Others would include beer drawn out of the pipes which has remained in them between each interval of trading, also any waste from overflow when filling tankards and glasses. Whatever the rule about the allowance for ullage may be, we have very strong opinions about the practice of draining sludge, hops and finings from a cask and putting them into one so-called ullage cask. Sooner or later, this cask becomes a receptacle for other undesirable matter. The system is a wrong one which has ill effects winch may not at first sight be apparent. A beer cask is not a cheap article, and its value is much impaired if every drop of moisture is drained from it. The situation is worse if the cask is then turned out into a yard in the hot sun, when the timber will dry out. This misfortune would not take place if the bottoms and sludge were left inside, and it would also be less difficult to clean than a bone-dry cask. For this reason alone we think it would pay any brewery to make a monetary allowance for such ullage. Included in this allowance should be consideration for loss of beer occasioned when beer is used to remove any traces of soda from the pipes. This beer should be put down the drain and not into any cask.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 259 - 260.

I thought ullage was beer that for one reason or other was unsaleable and which was returned to the brewery for landlord to be reimbursed.

“overflow when filling tankards and glasses” will be the contents of drip trays which, as we learned earlier, some returned to the cask.

There wouldn’t be the same problem today in draining all the liquid from as cask, seeing as they are usually metal. Once again you can sense Jeffery’s exasperation with pub landlords who mistreated casks. Better for the brewery to pay the landlord for the gunk left in the cask than have their casks ruined.

I’ve never heard of this practice before, putting slops into its own special barrel:

“Beer which is drained from pipes between each period of service, together with the overflow from tankards and glasses, also any drawn off to ease heavy cask condition, need not be regarded as ullage, but can either be put into a small cask which the brewery will usually supply, fined down and used when bright, or it may be filtered through an efficient filter, and returned to a cask very slowly through a proper spile-hole pipe. In either case, the beer should be used up while it is fresh and sound, and no attempt must be made to sell any which shows the slightest trace of acidity.

Beer which has been allowed to stand in buckets and exposed to the air, so that a white film of mycoderma yeast has formed upon it, must on no account be treated as ullage or put into casks. The drain is the only suitable place for it.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 260.

My guess is that most publicans put such beer back into the cask it came from. Leaving beer standing around in buckets sounds lovely. I’m sure this did go on. And probably still does in less reputable pubs.

We’ve just a little further to go – handling empty casks and cleaning glasses next.

Cask beer in the 1950’s –Secondary Fermentation

Whoever knew handling cask beer was such a complicated process? Anyone with half a brain should realise. That not everyone does is the cause of crap cask.

The following stuff about secondary fermentation – the good and the bad kind – is revealing:

“Secondary Cask Fermentation. In dealing with this subject, we wish our readers to separate in their minds a perfectly usual secondary fermentation from a violent fret which may be the outcome of wild yeast; or may be due to the beer having been insufficiently fermented before racking, to the presence of too much yeast in the beer as racked, or to the use of too fermentable a priming in warm weather. So far as is possible, the brewer arranges for a secondary movement, which is necessary for the development of condition in the cask, to take place in the brewery. There may be occasions when, owing to an unusual rush in the trade, this secondary fermentation may not have taken place in the brewery. It will then take place in the cellar of the licensed house. Indeed, we, personally, prefer to see some movement after the beer has been delivered. If properly regulated and controlled, this movement need give no cause for alarm. In the warmer months of  the year it is unusual to find beer without a certain amount of kick in it, after a journey entailing a deal of knocking about.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 257.

So conditioning of the beer – carbonating it through fermentation – was supposed to happen in the brewery? Though I see Jeffery prefers some fermentation – or “movement”, as he call it – to continues in the pub. I can understand that you wouldn’t want too violent a fermentation in the cask.

I have to smile about wild yeast being a possible cause of a faulty secondary fermentation. A 19th-century brewer’s idea of a secondary fermentation would necessarily been the result of something other than Saccharomyces. Though they didn’t actually understand the mechanics of the process until Brettanomyces was discovered.

Here’s how to handle a secondary fermentation in the pub:

“When a secondary fermentation develops, much C02 gas will be generated. Unless it is allowed to escape by the judicious use of porous pegs, the beer will become super-saturated, and difficult to control. The situation can be eased by drawing off a pint or two, a procedure which will save loss, as the beer may be placed in another cask and used. A normal secondary fermentation can last about 24 to 36 hours, after which time the cask should be pegged up tight. The beer should be allowed to settle and regain its condition. If served before condition has been regained, and the beer is still thick, the flavour will be much impaired.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 257.

Soft spiles – what a wonderful invention. I wonder when they were first introduced? A hard spile is pretty obvious, but a soft spile is a more subtle device. This is quite good advice about the use of the two types of spile.

“Should fermentation persist, and become even more violent, in spite of efforts to reduce that condition, it is advisable to consult the brewer. It may possibly be that a fret has occurred due to the presence of wild yeast.

Violent Cask Frets. Violent frets are usually due to the presence of wild yeast, and may be distinguished from the ordinary secondary fermentation by the persistence and violence of the movement. We have known them to last for a week or even longer, during which time an immense amount of gas will be generated. This gas can and must be released by the careful use of porous pegs, which should be replaced from time to time. Pores are liable to get clogged with yeast, when the peg will cease to function. There will also be a tendency for beer to flow from the peg, causing loss, so that it is advisable to draw off a pint or two to prevent this occurring.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 257 - 258.

Surely the correct procedure would be to return the cask to the brewery as ullage? If the beer is infected with wild yeast, it’s going to taste like shit. What’s the point in messing around trying to rescue it?

This is what you wouldn’t want as a brewer – wild yeast rampaging through your brewhouse:

“Infection with wild yeast is most likely to have been present in the beer when it left the brewery, although carelessness in handling in the house may be responsible. If infection is fairly widespread throughout a particular gyle, the cause should be sought in the brewery itself. The detection and avoidance of this infection is dealt with in the next chapter. If only occasional casks show the trouble, then it is probably due to infection from the cask and the remedy is to be found in more stringent cask treatment. Casks which have been returned with serious wild yeast infection should be specially treated before being put into service again.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 258.

Wooden casks must have been more prone to infection than modern metal ones. Wood is pretty porous and offers plenty of hiding places for something as determined as Brettanomyces. Personally, I’d burn an infected cask rather than try to rescue it through special cleaning.

Here’s a glimpse of what this whole series has been leading up to:

“One possible source of trouble which may arise in the house itself is caused by the return to cask of overflow from the pumps and drainage from pipes. It is quite a usual practice for this to be filtered and returned to cask. In many cases the beer is strained through a cloth in the funnel and the cloth receives merely a perfunctory wash out afterwards. This is asking for trouble. The beer should be filtered through a clean filter paper taken from a pack which is kept in a clean, closed box and of course only used once. The beer should be quickly dealt with and not left lying about in open buckets. Any receptacles and funnels used should be kept scrupulously clean and preferably sterilized by a suitable antiseptic. It would be preferable if such beer could be returned to a special cask and returned to the brewery as ullage, but most breweries consider this to entail unnecessary waste.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 258.

It’s that one little phrase “It is quite a usual practice” that caught my attention. Tales of slops being returned to casks have been kicking around as long as I’ve been drinking. But trying to find out how true they were was difficult. Unsurprisingly, landlords weren’t that keen on revealing the truth. This implies that it was pretty standard practice.

Isn’t this what I just said?

“A fermentation due to wild yeast is generally succeeded by a period of extreme flatness. The cask should be kept under a hard peg. After a time, the addition of a small amount of extra finings will generally result in the beer clearing satisfactorily. Flavour can never be as originally intended, however, and it will always drink very thin. It is far better to return such a cask to the brewery than to attempt to use it.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 258.

Too right – send infected beer back to the brewery. Drinks thin, eh, infected beer? I wonder if that was the reason many beers in 1920’s London (at least according to Whitbread) drank thin? Were these beers infected? I can see why an infected beer would drink thinner. The wild yeast would have chewed its way through material which wasn’t meant to be fermented.

Ullage next. It’s going to be great fun.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Fining

The fun really never ends, does it? Or does it never start?

This time we’re revisiting fining. Another topic that gets Jeffery all hot under the collar. Especially over-enthusiastic fining.

“Fining
Most breweries prefer to send their beers out already fined, although a few brewers still consider that better and more regular results can be obtained if the beers are fined down about 24 hours after delivery into the cellar. Both beer and finings will then have become acclimatized to the temperature of the cellar. First, however, let it be stated that no attempt should be made to fine down beers which show any degree of fermentation. Not only will such a procedure mean useless loss of finings, but it will probably intensify the trouble. If the beer is reasonably quiet, it will be necessary first to remove some of the contents of the cask and make room for the finings. With part of this surplus, thoroughly mix the required quantity of finings (usually one pint per barrel of 36 gallons for running mild beers, and one and a half pints for pale ale) before adding to the cask. If it is then possible, give the cask a good rolling. This process is particularly necessary with dry hopped pale ales, as the hops will assist the action of the finings. If rolling is impossible for want of room, then the contents of the cask must be well roused right from the bottom. It is hopeless and useless to add to beer finings which have not been well mixed with a proportion of beer before adding. In their heavy and undiluted state they will immediately drop to the bottom without fulfilling their purpose. Should it be necessary at any time to re-fine beer, it can often be achieved by adding diluted finings to the extent of half a pint per barrel, and rousing in at the top of the cask only. If this procedure is found to be ineffective, the only remedy is to add the additional finings and roll the cask completely over again several times.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 256 - 257.

I wonder why Bitter required more finings than Mild? Especially if the dry hops it contained helped the process. If you fined in the brewery, there’d be no real need to roll the casks specifically around. That would happen automatically during the delivery process.

Do any breweries let their beer be fined in the pub today? I doubt it. Let’s check to see what Briggs recommends:

"Settling controls yeast count but to aid this process, finings are used (Chapter 15). Isinglass finings are added at the rate of 1 to 4 pints/imp. brl (0.36±1.44 l/hl). These finings can be added in the racking tank or at any point up to when the beer is dispensed. The usual point of addition is at rack with perhaps a prior addition in the racking tank. In any event the beer will require from 12-48 h and possibly up to 72 h to fine and settle before it is sold. The fining of cask beer is one of the most difficult of all brewery operations to control consistently. Often brewers experience periods of poor fining which are difficult to explain. Isinglass finings bear a positive charge because of the rich collagen content and interact with the negative charge on the yeast cell wall. In most circumstances this interaction is sufficient to achieve effective clarity.”
"Brewing Science and Practice" by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2000, page 807.

Sounds like Briggs prefers fining in the racking back or to the barrel at filling time. Though he does admit that fining could take place later. Intriguing that he recommends significantly more finings, up to four pints per imperial barrel, as opposed to Jeffery’s one to one and a half pints.

Isinglass finings alone aren’t always enough:

“Some beers, sometimes will not fine with isinglass alone. The yeast may have a too low negative charge or the concentration may be too high (say >2 million cells/ml), or there may be too high a concentration of positively charged colloids in the beer. In this situation auxiliary finings derived from alginates, carrageenan or silicic acid, and having a negative charge, can be added to the beer before isinglass finings to precipitate the positively charged colloids (Vickers and Ballard, 1974). An effective method is often to add the auxiliary finings in the racking tank and separate the flocs thus formed in this vessel and then to add the isinglass at the rack of the beer. Priming sugars are also added to some beers at this stage. These are normally solutions at 1150º Sacch (37º) and are added at rates of 1 to 5 pints/barrel (0.35±1.75 l/hl). The priming sugar provides a small quantity of fermentable carbohydrate (often sucrose) to assist the yeast to achieve effective secondary fermentation in the cask."
"Brewing Science and Practice" by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2000, pages 807 - 808.

Sounds to me as if something isn’t right in the brewing process if isinglass won’t work by itself. Most of the sludge should be gone before the beer hits the racking tank.

I thought I’d leave in the bit about primings. Those rates seem to tally with the practice at Barclay Perkins.

Just in case you weren’t listening the first time, Jeffery repeats his warnings about fining fermenting beer and using too many finings:

“We must once again impress upon our readers a rule which should always be observed. Never add finings to a cask of beer which shows the slightest degree of fermentation. Such a procedure is a waste of finings.

Before leaving the subject of fining, we should also like to stress the fallacy of using more finings than are really needed. Any excess deprives the beer both of character and condition.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 257.

Have you got that yet? Don’t fine fermenting beer and don’t fine too much.

Secondary fermentation next. But I bet you’re really waiting for ullage. Lovely word that, ullage.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Pipes, Taps and Pumps (part two)

This has been the year for interminable series. Though I doubt I’ll ever match the series on draught beer quality in the 1920’s That lasted almost a year. I’m amazed I saw it through.

As for now, we’re back down in the cellar, rubber mallet in hand about to tap a cask.

“As regards taps, we wish to impress upon our readers the necessity for having sufficient of them to tap every cask as soon as it is placed on the stillion. It is then possible to sample the contents from time to time in order to see how they are behaving, without the necessity for boring a hole in the head. This often-indulged practice ruins a head very quickly. When every cask is tapped, the next one due for consumption can be examined in plenty of time, in order to ascertain if it is in good condition. In this way, an awkward situation which often crops up is avoided, when a cask is tapped immediately before being required and unfortunately proves to be thick. To work thus from hand to mouth is only inviting trouble.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 255.

Again, this sounds like very good advice. If you wait to tap a barrel there’s always a chance you’ll disturb it. Drilling through the head sounds just crazy. You can feel the brewer’s exasperation of landlords ruining his casks through stupid practices. It’s clear he wasn’t very impressed with publicans in general.

Now the taps themselves:

“It is satisfactory to note that it has at last been realized that the construction of a beer tap is not only of importance, but that there is room for much improvement in its design. For a long time, the brass tap with the angular neck, and rough internal passage left just as it came out of the casting mould, was in general use. Only the outside was polished up a little in order to make the tap look more attractive. A dirtier and more difficult utensil to clean was never made. Some of these taps are still to be found, but they should be immediately discarded and more modern and cleaner ones substituted. The angular outlet has been dispensed with, and the tap is more like a straight piece of pipe. It is tapered, turned, and perforated at one end. A plug valve as before is situated in the middle, and the remaining open end screwed for the union coupling. A screwed blank cap to fit the open end is provided, and this cap is adjusted for tapping purposes. Were it not for this provision the threads on the screwed ends of the cap might get knocked up by the hammering.

Of still greater importance, the perforated end of the tap can also be unscrewed, thus giving a clear passage through from end to end and making the tap easy to clean. The internal surface of the tap is also made as smooth as glass, so that there is no excuse for any tap being unclean.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 255.

Back in the 1970’s when me and my brother Dave had half a dozen wooden firkins, we used a wooden tap. My guess is that it was never 100% clean after the first time it was used. A brass tap, as described above, would have been much better. But they were too damn expensive.

The old-style brass taps, with an unfinished interior sound almost as bad as our wooden one in terms of hygiene. The perforated end is the bit that goes inside the barrel, the perforations being what the beer gets into the tap through. While holding back and hops in the cask.

Now it’s the turn of beer engines:

“We have often heard beer pumps alluded to as 'devils in disguise'. From the brewer's point of view this description may have been warranted, because, with so many hidden corners in which dirt could accumulate, and with bucket leathers to go soft and slimy, trouble with beer was often traceable to the pumps. It is impossible to imagine how trade in some houses could possibly have been carried on without them, with the cellar some distance away: from the beer-drawer's point of view, a notice to the effect that all beers are drawn direct from the wood is a great selling point."
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 255 - 256.

Note how cleanliness is a recurring theme. Soft and slimy bucket leathers sound pretty vile. Yet another way for beer to get infected. It took me a while to work out what the last sentence meant. By “drawn direct from the wood” he means as opposed to being first filled into a jug in the cellar, then into the glass.

This doesn’t sound good:

“The trouble involved in replacing bucket leathers has been responsible for much evil with pumps. "When the pumps get worn, beer passes back into the casks and disturbs the sediment. We are therefore more than delighted to note that it is now possible to obtain pumps in which no leather or any similar soft material is used in connection with the plungers. In fact, an all-metal plunger is fitted. The improvement is a great one, and should in itself advertise the use of such a type of beer pump.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 256.

I’m not sure I see how beer can get from the pump back into the cask, but it’s obviously not a good idea. Not just from the point of view of sediment. It could also get dirt into the cask.

Finally, more good advice about cleanliness:

“Before leaving the subject of beer pipes, taps and pumps, we would impress upon the users of them the absolute necessity for cleaning the whole system with hot water and soda or better still one of the newer detergents at least once a week in winter, and twice a week in summer. A clean pipe is easy to keep clean if systematic attention is given to it, but once allowed to get fouled, it is extremely difficult to sterilize. Incalculable harm and loss of trade will result from dirty pipes.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 256.

How true is that last sentence. When I was in Brooklyn last year I ate in a Polish restaurant with Dann and Martha of Pretty Things. Despite there being a couple of draught Lager on the menu, Dann chose something bottled, unlike me. It tasted a bit weird. I gave Dann a taste and he said: “Dirty pipes. That’s why I went for a bottle.”

Fining and secondary fermentation next. Before we get to the fascinating topic of ullage.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Pipes, Taps and Pumps

We’re still in the pub cellar, but the beer is inching its way towards the glass. Only a few more weeks to go.

This time we’re looking at how the beer got from the cellar to the bar.

“Pipes, Taps and Pumps
There is a right and a wrong way of doing everything, and this remark applies in no uncertain manner to the fixing of beer pipes in a cellar. To begin with, no more piping should be used than is absolutely necessary, because piping at all times is difficult to keep sweet and clean. It is advisable to connect up by the shortest possible way, but on no account must the piping run for any distance along the crown of the roof of the cellar, as is very often seen. It is here that the warm air in the cellar accumulates, and this air heats the pipes to such an extent that we have known beer which has stood in them for any length of time to be served up really unpleasantly hot. In our opinion, the correct place to fix the pipe is along the vertical front of the stillion to a point immediately below the outlet in the roof which leads to the beer pumps. Then, with unions inserted at convenient intervals, only a short length of pipe is needed to connect up with the cask. Very different is such an arrangement from the maze of twisted lead pipes sometimes seen in cellars. Such arrangements render abortive any attempt at cleanliness. It is not altogether realized that bends and twists in lead pipes decrease the internal passage and impede the free working of beer pumps. This trouble is sometimes so great as to upset the contents of the cask by creating a sudden back suction.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 253 - 254.

All very sensible advice. But I’m sure it’s not always heeded. I’m sure I can recall being in cellars with pipes all over the place. Not lead ones, obviously. Those are long gone from pub cellars. Though I believe there might still be some in our flat, which was built in the 1920’s.

“really unpleasantly hot” – sounds lovely. But you’d think a landlord would notice and do something about it, even if it is only the first few pints in a session.

Here’ more about lead pipes:

“Several improvements and substitutes for lead pipes have been introduced. First of all it was found desirable to line them with tin, a measure which health authorities now insist upon. Then lengths of glass piping connected by rubber joints were brought into use. It was very nice to see the bright beer passing through the glass tubes, but the joints proved to be harbourers of dirt and slime which was difficult to get at. Stainless steel and metal alloy pipes are now available with inside surfaces as smooth as glass, and it is hoped that these, in conjunction with ingenious  telescopic fittings, will meet all requirements.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 254.

I’d definitely prefer my lead pipes tin lined. Rather less chance of dropping dead from lead poisoning.

Glass pipes sound a bit weird. Isn’t glass too rigid and brittle to be suitable?

Now we get on to a more modern solution.

“Finally there are the various kinds of plastic beer pipe. These are mainly made of two types of plastic. Polyvinyl chloride, or P.V.C., piping is flexible and semi-transparent; unfortunately it sometimes has a rather distinctive smell and can impart a definite smell and flavour to beer which has been standing in it for some time. It is sold under a variety of trade names and some kinds are much better than others in this respect. It tends to improve with use, but it is well to test samples before use by allowing beer to stand in them for some hours and then tasting the beer. It is usually only after the beer has stood for some time in the pipe that the smell and flavour are noticeable, so that provided the length of pipe is not too great, the trouble can usually be obviated either by draining the pipe after use, or by not using the first pint or so drawn after the beer has stood in the pipe. There is no reason to suppose that the beer is in any way injurious to health. Pipe made from polythene is preferable from the point of view of any flavour being imparted, since it is practically odourless and beer can be allowed to stand in it for long periods without having any flavour or smell imparted to it. Polythene is, however, not very flexible and is therefore not very suitable for the end pipes which have to be connected to casks. Possibly the best solution is to use polythene for long pipes which do not need to be moved and to use a flexible length of P.V.C. tubing at the end.

Both types of plastic are softened by heat and should not be steamed. For cleaning, a caustic detergent, followed by a soak in a quaternary ammonium antiseptic where necessary is the most suitable means of keeping them clean and free from infection, with of course very thorough rinsing. P.V.C. tubing has the advantage over other materials (except glass) in being fairly transparent. Polythene is opaque. With the advent of stainless steel and plastic piping it is hoped that lead beer piping, whether internally tinned or not, will soon be a thing of the past. Samples of the first drawn off beer from such pipes have been found to contain dangerous amounts of lead.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 254 - 255.

What are modern pipes made out of? I’d have thought PVC. Not sure I’d want a plastic flavour in my pint. A quick web search has confirmed that PVC pipes are in use today.

Lead – I wonder if that adds a flavour in high concentrations? Though obviously the killing you effect is a slightly larger drawback of the material.

Speaking of which I can remember one of my teachers – probably the bullshitting Maths teacher who’d spend most of the lesson talking about himself – telling a tale of lead beer pipes. Weird the stuff you remember, isn’t it? The gist was that a bloke used to turn up at opening time every day and always got the first pint. Eventually the lead it contained killed him. Charming story, eh?

Taps and pumps next time.