1780 - 1815 Cellarmanship

Well, that's the 1970s finished. Time to look further back. All the way to the 18th century. Which is about as far back as I go.

Just as with cask-conditioned beer today, all the care taken in brewing a good beer was in vain if it was poorly handled in the cellar.

The text below is taken from "A Treatise on the Brewing of Beer" by E. Hughes, Uxbridge, 1796, pages 34-37.

"Beware, lest you forget to pay attention to your beer which is at tap; for, "as the eye of the master maketh his horse fat", so the head of a family, now and then giving a look into his cellar, may be the cause of beer drinking more agreeable to his palate, by taking care that the vent-holes are kept closely stopped, and the cocks secure.

"Do not fail to stoop your cask when the beer is about two parts in three out; this should be done whilst the tap is spending, for then you will not disturb the sediment. By stooping the cask when the beer is about two parts in three out will prevent it from becoming flat and sour; when, on the other hand, it is too frequently to be observed when a person is drawing a pot of beer, the stream is impeded; for the beer, being so nearly out, will not run till it is stooped. Now before this, the cock discharging the beer but slowly, the air is admitted into the cask, which causes the beer to drink flat, and, perhaps, turn sour: therefore this will enforce the necessity of stooping your cask before it be so nearly out."

Stooping I take to be tipping up the cask. Which you need to do to get the last of the beer out of a cask. Interesting  that the author recommends that this is done while the tap is open. That sounds rather counterintuitive.

"This is a fault with many publicans, not paying attention to their cellars; even many who brew their own beer are neglectful, notwithstanding their own interest and credit is concerned. Tis not uncommon for the vent-peg, and even the bung, to be left out of those casks which are actually on draught.

"Publicans, who retail common brewer's beer, and neglect their cellars, have this excuse, if their customers find fault with the beer, by saying "tis such beer as my brewer sends me," so it may be; but let a publican be served with beer of the first quality, it entirely depends on the management of the retailer thereof, whether the beer shall be of good or bad quality. This is proved by persons in the same town, each being served with beer from one and the same brew-house; there will be generally a disparity in the quality after it comes into the stock of the respective retailers thereof, which proves it to be the good or bad management in the cellar."

Just as today, there was plenty of room for the publican to fuck up a good beer, either through ignorance or laziness.

"I am convinced I shall not offend the attentive publican by what I have said respecting the cellar; but should this fall into the hands of the inattentive, it may offend; but that I will excuse, if, by the reading of this, he should be convinced of his error, and pay more attention to his cellar; that he may be enabled to draw a pot of beer to please those useful and valuable men, the labourer and the mechanic; and where they used to drink but one pot of beer with him, they may, from finding his ale much better than usual, perhaps, drink two." 

There you have it: if the beer was well looked after, customers would drink more. I don't think I can argue with that.
 

Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part eight)

Still giving this dead animal a protracted beating. As you do. I need to fill up each day with something.

Here are some handy hints on how to keep your beer engine in good order.

"The beer engine (we refer to it here because it is so closely connected with the cellar) should be thoroughly cleaned, with all taps and pipes, at least once a week. To clean :— Disconnect the pipe from the cask, and drain off the beer (this beer should afterwards be used for rinsing the pipes).

Dissolve half a pound of soda in a bucket of hot water, and draw this liquor through the pipes, and leave them full all night. In the morning, draw off and thoroughly wash out, by pulling a bucketful of cold water through each pipe, then pull through the beer first drawn out, so that the pipes are rinsed with beer.

Great care should be taken that the pipes are properly connected up, and that all washers are in good condition, for, if the engine is allowed to suck in air, the beer will probably become cloudy."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 202.

I find it interesting that the beer drained from the pipes was used to rinse them out later. I suppose it makes sense and is quite economical. My guess is that far from all publicans followed such a vigourous weekly cleaning regime. This look at London Porter quality in the period shows just how lacks many publicans were.

These lists of equipment for a pub cellar remind me of the deliberately random lists of shit I'd specify for my Christmas Drinkalongathon.

"The Brewers will, almost always, supply corks, spiles, porous spiles, and scotches, and a supply must always be kept.

The following are among the other implements necessary for a well-equipped cellar :

Beer Dip.
Jar Dip.
Spirit Rod.
Spiral Dip.
Double Slide Rule, and book of instructions for use.
Sike's Hydrometer and Table Book.
Tape measure.
Stave gauging for gauging the thickness of wood.
Plumb Line.
Sample Dipper.
Small Sample Dipper.

All the above are necessary for stock-taking.

The above-mentioned articles are not indispensable in a small house, but the following articles should be in every house:

A Tool-case or Chest.
Scantling.
A Saw.
Mallet.
Beer Taps, various.
Porous Spile.
Hard Spile.
Flannel filter.
Automatic Barrel Tilts.
Lead Piping and Rubber Tubing, several lengths of each. (The latter should be kept off the floor, unless the latter is perfectly dry and smooth.)
Mops.
Pails.
A range of Copper Measures, undented, to hold 5 gallons, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0.5 gallon respectively.
Funnel for Beer.
Funnel for Spirits.
Cellar Candlestick, with long handle.
Strips of Paper for beer taps.
Filter Papers, Finings."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 203.

Some of the items are revealing, as they look like what you'd need for returning slops to a cask. I'm looking at funnel and filter. What else would you be using those for in a cellar? Other. like the lead piping, sound more like potential murder weapons.

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?

Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part six)

Today's installment is mostly concerned with cellar temperature.

Now I always thought that the point of a cellar is that the temperature inside it was pretty constant, no matter what the weather outside. Evidently, this isn't the case. As we learned earlier, 55º F was the perfect temperatue for cask beer.  There's a little moe explanation as to why this was the case.

"A thermometer should be kept in every section of the cellar, and if one side is likely to get warmer than another, then more than one.

In the beer cellar it is useless to hang it anywhere but on the level of the barrels.

Beer which is kept at a higher temperature than 60°, or a little over, goes "off" and comes up warm.

Beer kept at a lower temperature than 50° goes "sick," and is very unpleasant.

Therefore, if you are ever making any alterations to your house that affect hot-water or heating services, have a care that neither affects your cellars, and look carefully at the design with this end in view.

The cellar should be well ventilated and without draughts.

During cold weather, a stove or gas-burner should be used, and, in addition, hop sacking or bags should be used to cover the casks.

During hot weather, sprinkle the floor with cold water, and cover the casks with bags, soaked continually in cold water.

All the instructions regarding the treatment of beer are most important, as upon them depends the condition of what may be the staple commodity you sell.

Your customers will be severely critical of your beer, and are fine judges.

They judge not only by flavour, but by condition, brilliancy, and temperature."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 201.

 Of course, nowadays there are less messy ways of keeping a cellar cool than sprinkling cold water all over the cellar.

The 55º F temperature is clearly connected to the need for the beer to ferment in the cask and condition the beer. Presumably, below 50º F was too cool for a proper secondary fermentation to take plce. While above 60º F there is too high a risk of the beer becoming infected. As well as the rather obvious problem of the beer being too warm in the glass.

Although the condition of the beer was central to a pub's success, I know from the comments in the Whitbread Gravity Book that there was a lot of poor-quality draught beer around in London. Clearly plenty of pubs managed to get away with dodgy draught. Is that a sign that customers weren't always quite as discerning as Part makes out?

Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part five)

This is where things get really exciting. We'll be looking at piping today.

While it may not be that exciting a topic, it is really important for the condition of the beer being sold. I wonder how many publicans actually observed the practices suggested here?

"If beer is kept in the cellar of the house, as it usually is, owing to the necessity of keeping it in a level temperature of about 55°, it is drawn to the bar by means of a suction pipe and flexible tubing, from the tap to what is called the Union, where, generally, all the flexible pipes meet in the ceiling, and are joined to a similar number of lead pipes, or sometimes rubber tubing, to the engine in the bar.

The scantling in the cellar should be, as far as possible, perpendicularly below the engine, to allow of as short a run of piping as possible, both from motives of economy, and because the beer that stands in the pipe is by no means palatable, and should not be given to customers, but drawn off, and replaced, by means of a fllter, into the barrel. The piping quickly gets foul, and it should be cleaned twice a week, preferably by the use of a patent preparation called the Invicta Pipe-cleaning Medium, or some other of a similar kind. Failing that, it is possible to clean the pipes by drawing strong soda-water through them and through the pump: afterwards clear cold water, finally rinsing with beer.

There are various kinds of beer-piping — some is of lead, some rubber-jointed composition, some rubber, some wired rubber, and the best, and most expensive, porcelain lined. That most commonly in favour just now is armoured rubber. The jointed-rubber piping is not now popular, as joints sometimes burst, and this may involve serious loss of the contents of the barrel."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, pages 200 - 201.

Obviously, the lead piping wouldn't be allowed today. It's particularly dangerous when the liquid flowing through it is acidic, as beer is. It'll dissolve some of the lead a treat.

I had to look up what scantling means. At fears I thought it might be an OCR error. "A timber beam of small cross section" is evidently what it is. So, in this sense, bits of wood to hold the cask in position. Stillage, I gues is what you'd call it today.

Fair enough not serving beer that had been sitting in the pipes to customers. But tipping it back into the cask was only diluting, not solving, the problem. And it sounds very much the same practice - and using the same equipment - as putting slops back into a cask. Which I'm sure was pretty common. Though finding any hard evidence is well nigh impossible.

Twice a week sound more than reasonable for line cleaning. How often do publicans clean their lines nowadays?

Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part three)

We've got as far as handling cask beer. Which doesn't seem a million miles away from modern practice. Mostly.

Because I'm pretty sure that no-one send out beer unfined any more. In the interwar period brewers increasingly fined beer before it was sent out. For one simple reason: they didn't trust publicans not to cock the procedure up.

"London and Burton beers require finings, which have the effect of clarifying the beer. Finings are sent with each delivery of beer, as a rule, and the amount to be used varies with the beers of different Brewers. Some need half a pint, some a quart, per barrel.

Some beers, especially in the country, are delivered already fined.

All beers delivered in cask require some hours' rest, preferably at least twenty-four (except London beers, which require less than most), and others longer, according to the class of beer, the temperature, length of journey, the ventilation, and peculiarities of the cellar. The time will be gauged by experience, and from specific information given by your Brewers. The casks must be placed on the scantling, and propped with wedges with the bung-hole or vent uppermost, and so that the cask is at rest, and, if anything, tilted slightly forward, not backward, as many publicans do.

During the rest, the sediment and the hops gradually sink to the bottom of the barrels.

They condition and flavour the beer, and some beers improve in quality, for a time."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 199.

Why did specifically London and Burton beers require finings? It's odd that beer from two specific towns should be singled out.

I'd have thought 24 hours to settle after delivery was the bare minimum. A couple of days was probably prefereable. I've another question: why did London beer require less time to settle? I honestly can't think of a good reason.

Interesting that the author seems to assume that all cask beer was dry hopped. While that's true of Bitter, it didn't necessarily apply to all types of beer, such as Mild. Barclay Perkins, for example, dry hopped their Pale Ales, Burton Ales and most Stouts, but not their Mild Ales. Though the bottling version of XLK, their Ordinary Bitter, wasn't dry hopped.

Cellarmanship in the 1920s (part two)

Continuing our look at cellar practices in the early 1920s, here's something that took me by surprise: tank beer.

I was quite shocked that it was enough of a thing in 1922 to even get a mention. Usually the start of brewery conditioned draught beer is attributed to Watney's in the 1930s. While that might have been the first keg beer produced in the UK, it was by no means the first brewery-conditioned draught.

Brewery conditioned beer had been around since the 1890s, but exclusively in bottled form. UK brewers picked up the technique of producing what they called chilled and carbonated beer from their American colleagues. This new type of non-deposit beer was a big hit and was vital to the sudden growth in bottled beer around 1900.

In his autobigraphy, "Seventy Rolling Years" Sydney Nevile mentions Worthington's attempts to introduce brewery-conditioned draught beer before WW I. These ended in failure, due to resistance from drinkers. They weren't keen on the flavour of this new type of beer and Worthington was forced to abandon the experiment.

But that clearly wasn't the end of alternatives to cask-conditioned beer.

"In London and some of the large towns beer is supplied through a tube, or hose, from a tank cart or motor into a receiver. This beer is suitable only for a quick sale, say forty-eight hours,1 and is ready to sell at once, is always bright and clear to the last drop, and has no deposit.

Thus the paraphernalia connected with barrels, and the care requisite in the treatment of beer in barrels, are avoided.

This beer is known as carbonated ale, and no waste ought to occur.

Beer so brewed is as good on the day it is received as it will ever be, and, no doubt, saves a great deal of labour, anxiety, and care, but these chilled and filtered beers, both in cask and bottle, have not the keeping qualities of beer naturally conditioned.

They are, however, so much limited to a few areas, that we must learn also all about the treatment of beers in cask.

1 Forty-eight hours is not to be taken as the limit of time of the keeping of carbonated ale, but it is brewed for quick consumption."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, pages 198 - 199.

Reading between the lines, it's clear that the author wasn't a fan of tank beer.

The only brewery I can think of that was big on tanl beer WW II was the Hull Brewery. WHo were very early in going over to ceramic cellar tanks in its pubs. Their beer caused some fairly heated discussions within CAMRA as to whether it counted as Real Ale or not.

Martyn Cornell identifies Watney as the first brewery in the UK to use cellar tanks, starting in 1913. Followed in the early 1920s by Charrington and the Hull brewery.

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.

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.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – temperatures and stillage

We’re still not quite at the really exciting bit. You’ll have to make do with cellar temperatures and stillaging. Two topics that often keep me awake at night.

We’re beginning with cellar temperatures.

“Temperatures
The influence which temperature has upon the sensitive beers of these days it not realized by many persons, yet more depends upon it than is apparent. In spite of this fact, we have visited many cellars in which no thermometer has been found. In other instances, the thermometer has been broken and not replaced, or it is fixed in an entirely wrong position, and so conveys a false impression of the average temperature of the cellar. A wall is quite the wrong place upon which to fix a thermometer, because the temperature prevailing on the other side of it is bound to strike through and affect the reading. The correct position is as near as possible to the centre of the cellar, from the roof of which it should be suspended so that it hangs at a level in line with the centre of the casks.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

All pretty bleeding obvious stuff. I must look next time I’m in a pub cellar to see if I can spot a thermometer. And if it’s in the correct location, hanging from the ceiling.

But what temperature should we be aiming for:

“As regards the temperature itself, 55º may be taken as a very safe figure for both summer and winter. Some trouble will need to be taken to maintain it during the extremes of outside conditions. During the summer, the heat may be kept within reasonable limits by frequently applying cold water to the floor. The contents of the casks may be kept cool by covering them with sacks soaked in cold water. In winter, if gas is available, a ring burner with a firebrick placed on the top forms a most effective heater. More convenient and cleaner is an electric stove. Failing both, an ordinary oil lamp is better than nothing. Should, however, the cellar be so constructed as to make it impossible to maintain the temperature named, then some other temperature which can be constantly kept should be adopted. This alternative temperature will be far more suitable to beer than attempting to maintain 55 degrees, failing, and constantly changing about. The beer can never become acclimatized before the temperature is again changed. Do not forget that warm beer is not an inviting drink during hot weather, nor is frozen beer on a biting frosty morning.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 251 - 252.

Obviously that’s Fahrenheit. It equates to 12.8º C. Which is what I would guess is about the temperature to cask cellars still. I must ask Jeff what he has his set to.

You should try telling Australian pubs the latter one. In Melbourne it can get pretty chilly in winter – 5º C or so – yet beer is served at 1º C year round. I can sort of put up with freezing beer in the sweltering heat, but when you’re already freezing your grillox off, it’s really unappetising.

But what do you do if you don’t have a cellar? I’m tempted to say, then don’t try to sell cask beer. But there is another answer:

“Air conditioning with thermostatic control is of course the ideal, but is usually considered too expensive to instal in the average cellar. The use of a thermostatically controlled cold cabinet kept at 55º or thereabouts is often the best way of keeping beers for clubs and hotels which have inadequate cellar facilities. The cold cabinet can conveniently be housed under or near the bar and usually has room for four to six barrels. Of course this does not entirely solve the problem of storage of casks not actually in use, but if these can be kept under reasonably good conditions and if the cold cabinet has room for a spare cask of each beer on tap, so that there is time for it to settle down before tapping, then the system works well and the beer as sold should be in good condition. Often it is worth while for the brewery to make frequent deliveries for such customers to relieve them of the problem of storage. The cabinets are usually provided with adjustable cradles for the casks, which simplify the tilting process.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 252.

I can see how it would be a problem if you couldn’t always have a spare cask in the cold cabinet ready to tap. Which means you could only have two or three beers on draught. Which I suppose for a small hotel or club is reasonable enough.

Now for stillage:

“Stillage
By far the most serviceable method of storing casks of beer in a cellar is to place them upon brick stillions at a convenient height upon the floor. The stillion should be so arranged that there is a channel in the centre, running with a suitable fall over the entire length to one end. The stillion must be built of non-absorbent material, so that any beer which may work out of the cask will run away freely otherwise it may collect and go acid. The casks should not be placed directly upon the brickwork, but should be set upon a wooden frame. This frame must be firmly bedded down upon the brick foundation so that the cask cannot vibrate in the slightest degree. Plenty of wooden scotches are therefore necessary in order to make the cask secure. Any movement is likely to interfere with the brightness of the beer. When the cask is first set it should be perfectly level, and not, as is sometimes seen, tilting forwards or backwards, If tilted to any degree, the beer is thrown against the peg vent in the shive, and the CO2 gas generated cannot be emitted. If gas is generated in abnormal quantities by any chance beer will be forced through the vent, and considerable loss occasioned thereby.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 252 - 253.

Very important, stillage. It’s a piece of kit only needed for cask beer. Kegs you just stand on end. And there’s no particular need to keep them 100% immobile. A scotch is a wedge, I believe.

Metal racks seem to be the way to go nowadays, based on what I can see here:


Now the tricky question of correct tilting:

“If the cask is tilted forward, the hopping-down hops and sludge are deposited close against the tap. Either the tap will be fouled and fail to work properly, or, for a time at all events, the beer will be charged with floaters and sediment as they are drawn off.

The correct time to tilt a cask is when it is down to one-third or quarter full. If tilting is further delayed, there is a great risk of permanently disturbing the contents. If this occurs it is impossible to draw off any more bright beer from the cask. Tilting is a process which must be carried out with care, and must certainly not be hurried. When correctly done, it enables the beer to be drawn off to the last drop. It is of vital importance to make sure that the cask is firmly and securely propped up after it has been tilted, and for this reason we are well disposed towards the various proprietary stillages in which the cask rests securely upon a cradle and the whole cradle can be tilted bodily to any desired extent.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 253.

Don’t tilt too quickly seems to be the main advice.

The posh modern version of stillage I showed above is fitted with titling cradles. Much better than messing around with wedges. And fairly less likely you’ll accidentally disturb the cask.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Treatment of beer in cellars of public houses

This is the chapter I’ve been leading up to. A very detailed account of how to – and how not to – handle cask beer in the pub.

It’s one of the most useful, and fascinating, chapters I’ve ever come across. I’m not joking. It’s answered one question that’s been knocking around in my head for several decades. But that bit will come in a later post.

This is the curse of the cask brewer:

“Every brewer should realise that his duties do not end within the walls of the brewery. A brewer should take every opportunity of visiting his firm's licensed houses, in order to be fully acquainted with the conditions under which his beers are managed in the cellars. By so doing, Providing he keeps careful record of the details applying to each place, he will be able to arrange his own cellar temperatures to better advantage. He will have obtained a fair idea of the temperatures to which beers will be subjected after they have left the brewery. It is quite possible, too, with his more expert and intimate knowledge of beer, that he may be able to give the tenant or manager some beneficial advice. At the same time, he can point out any defects in the cellar which require attention. He will undoubtedly find some tenants rather averse from any change in their usual methods of cellar management. The fact that a certain routine has given good results for a long period is no reason for not pointing out the possible ill results of certain actions which entail risks. With the knowledge thus acquired from various cellars, a brewer should be able to deal with any trouble which might develop with his beers in cellar.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 249.

The brewer of bottled or keg beer has far less to worry about when he waves the fruit of his labour goodbye. Broken packaging or roasting in the sun for a few days aside, there’s not a huge amount of harm that can befall such beer. It should survive even sloppy handling in drinkable condition. MNo such luck with cask.

Which means a cask brewer has to take an interest in – and possibly worry about – what goes on in a pub cellar. And in the days when most pubs were tied, breweries did have a say in cellar design. Especially with new pubs.

And cellars and their design are where we start.

“Cellars
In chapter 2 we mentioned that it was necessary for architects who designed breweries to have considerable knowledge of brewing. We are now going to express the opinion that it is of equal importance that those who plan out licensed houses should have sufficient knowledge of the management of beer to enable them fully to appreciate the importance of the cellar. The cellar is really the heart of any place where the trade depends upon the sale of beer. It is throwing away money to construct a palatial building in order to attract trade, if the cellar is so ill designed that it is impossible to sell beer in anything approaching a satisfactory condition. The house will inevitably become a ‘white elephant' on account of its bad reputation so far as beer is concerned. Unfortunately, the brewer is too often blamed for trouble with the beers, when all the time it is due to circumstances over which he has little or no control. We do not say that these poor conditions apply so much to cellars in town houses as to those in the country. Nevertheless, possibly owing to space being valuable in towns, we have often found cellars in town houses ridiculously small in proportion to the trade which the house should do. This defect is a serious one, because it entails frequent opening of the cellar doors, with destruction of its normal temperature. These changes in temperature, especially during extreme summer heat or winter cold, are liable to have serious effects upon the beers. Besides, lack of space never gives the beers a chance to settle down. Thick and unpalatable drinks become the rule and not the exception. With good reason, therefore, we demand a cellar which is large enough. If the cellar is found to be too spacious, part of it can always be screened off. But if it is too small, it is difficult to enlarge.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 249 - 250.

“Thick and unpalatable drinks” – sounds like Craft Keg or that unfined nonsense. Then again, isn’t the whole point of these things that they look different? So fashion victims can easily spot them. Who would be interested in unfined beer if it looked just as clear in the glass as fined beer?

I’d never thought about the bad effects of too small a cellar. I guess for deliveries cellar doors are open a fair time. But does it really have such an impact on the temperature inside?

It seems out in the countryside cellars were even worse than the town:

“As regards cellars in country houses, the less said about some of them the better. We have come across many which are quite unfit for the storage of beer. In some instances, they are simply a draughty passage between two compartments in the house; in others, a lean-to shed on one side of the building—even on the south side of it, so that at midday during the summer it resembles an oven. In many cases no attempt has been made to sink the cellar below ordinary floor level. Such sinking is essential if any degree of uniformity in temperature is to be obtained. Very often, when the licensed house is some distance from the brewery, deliveries of beer are only made fortnightly. In such cases, part only of the consignment can be cellared. The remainder finds its way into any vacant shed or stable, where it is left to take its chance, and is lost sight of until required. It is then transferred to the cellar, almost at the last moment before it has to be drawn on. During the winter, the beer becomes thoroughly chilled and takes a considerable time to recover. On the other hand, the authors have been urgently summoned during the heat of summer for assistance, to find the cask standing on end in some terribly hot outhouse, the heads bulging and straining under heavy internal pressure of gases, and threatening at any moment to burst. With room available for a larger cellar, as is generally the case in the country, there can be no excuse for such conditions. If the cellar is too small and cannot be enlarged, however, more frequent delivery of beer should be insisted upon.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 250.

They all sound like pretty dreadful places to store beer. Let alone cask beer. 19h-century Bass, of course, could handle being exposed to the elements. Lesser beers, I guess not. That paragraph certainly makes me look at the quaint country pubs of old in a slightly different light. The beer must have often been dreadful, especially in the summer. Sounds like a recipe for vinegar.

This all much more complicated than you might imagine. You had to use the right materials when building a cellar.

“Apart from the position and the size of a cellar, planning and construction are of the utmost importance. Adequate ventilation is essential, but it must not involve draughts. Draughts are very detrimental to the condition and often the fining of beers. On that account, we do not favour open cellar flaps made of iron grating, but prefer wooden ones, even if it means curtailment of a certain amount of light. But as underground cellars generally need artificial light in any case, the defect is a minor one. For cleanliness, we strongly advise a floor covered with asphalt, with adequate fall to a drain or sump. The fall ensures that any beer which may be spilled runs away immediately, thus obviating an accumulation of beer which rapidly turns acid.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

What’s the difference between ventilation but not draught? Whether you’re sitting in its direct path, would be my personal definition. Why was a draught bad for fining?

Café Belgique in Amsterdam has an earth floor, I seem to recall. Probably the worst possible option for cask.

Oh right, I see Jeffery agrees with me:

“Where a sump is necessary in the absence of a drain, it should be cleaned out every day without fail. From the point of view of an even temperature an earth floor seems more suitable for beers than any type of more up-to-date construction, but has the disadvantage of getting foul and acid, especially during the summer, and on that account is undesirable.

Walls and roof faced with white glazed tiles form the ideal so far as cleanliness is concerned. If tiles are found too expensive, bricks may be substituted provided they have a hard smooth surface which will not form a receptacle for mould spores. The bricks can be limewashed periodically, and the cellar so kept sweet and clean.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

Tiles are always the best option, hygiene-wise. I’d have our whole house tiled, walls, floors, ceilings, if Dolores would let me. We’d never have to decorate again. Not that I do much. Usually it’s Dolores who gets out the paintbrush when I’ve gadded off somewhere.

One final word of warning:

“A great mistake is sometimes made in providing a roof which is too low. Every man needs sufficient height in which to move if he is to do his work properly. A manager or tenant will not be encouraged to visit his cellar more often than he is absolutely obliged to, if he finds he has limited space in any direction.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

The author should see the one in Café Belgique. The deepest parts aren’t tall enough to stand up in. And the shallow bits aren’t much more than a metre. And it’s only about 15 square metres in area.

Temperatures and stillage next. You’ll have to wait a while for the really fun bits.