Adjuncts in WW II

Since the 1880 Free Mash Tun Act loosened up the rules to allow unmalted grains, UK brewers had been quite keen on using adjuncts. Not necessarily always for reasons of economy.

In certain styles of beer – Light Pale Ales, for example – a light body and pale colour were desired characteristics. The use of adjuncts and sugar were the only way to achieve the characteristics expected by drinkers.

In the immediate aftermath of the 1880 legislation, brewers experimented with a few different possibilities. Barclay Perkins, for example, at first went for flaked rice. Eventually, however, they settled on flaked maize, as most other brewers did. And, the difficult years of WW I excepted, brewers mostly stuck with maize right up until WW II.

The percentage of adjuncts employed varied according to the style and the brewery, but 10-15% was pretty typical. Some breweries never went down the adjunct route, except when compelled during the war years. Whitbread, for example, who only used malt and sugar.

During the war, the type of adjunct used varied, presumably dependent on the availability of supplies. The first change came pretty early, in spring 1940 when I can see in brewing records that flaked rice replaces flaked maize. Fullers, Tetley, Boddington. It can’t be a coincidence.

The next adjunct to appear is flaked barley, something that was unknown pre-war. It was make practical by a big increase in UK barley production during the war. Despite being of malting quality, some was flaked to save labour and energy.

Early in 1943, brewers were asked to use flaked oats rather than flaked barley, which, owing to the poor supply of grain, was needed for bread.  But that phase was brief and in the final years of the war flaked barley was king.

Fullers X Ale grists are pretty typical in the adjuncts employed at different phases of the war.

Fullers X Ale adjunct usage 1939 - 1946
year	flaked maize	flaked rice	grits	flaked barley	flaked oats
1939	14.78%
1940		9.72%	1.94%
1941				14.28%
1942				13.77%
1943				6.91%	7.54%
1944				14.82%
1945				15.10%
1946				14.55%
Source:
Fullers brewing records held at the brewery

As soon as everything got back to normal in the 1950s, brewers returned to their preferred adjunct, flaked maize.

Adjuncts in WW II

Since the 1880 Free Mash Tun Act loosened up the rules to allow unmalted grains, UK brewers had been quite keen on using adjuncts. Not necessarily always for reasons of economy.

In certain styles of beer – Light Pale Ales, for example – a light body and pale colour were desired characteristics. The use of adjuncts and sugar were the only way to achieve the characteristics expected by drinkers.

In the immediate aftermath of the 1880 legislation, brewers experimented with a few different possibilities. Barclay Perkins, for example, at first went for flaked rice. Eventually, however, they settled on flaked maize, as most other brewers did. And, the difficult years of WW I excepted, brewers mostly stuck with maize right up until WW II.

The percentage of adjuncts employed varied according to the style and the brewery, but 10-15% was pretty typical. Some breweries never went down the adjunct route, except when compelled during the war years. Whitbread, for example, who only used malt and sugar.

During the war, the type of adjunct used varied, presumably dependent on the availability of supplies. The first change came pretty early, in spring 1940 when I can see in brewing records that flaked rice replaces flaked maize. Fullers, Tetley, Boddington. It can’t be a coincidence.

The next adjunct to appear is flaked barley, something that was unknown pre-war. It was make practical by a big increase in UK barley production during the war. Despite being of malting quality, some was flaked to save labour and energy.

Early in 1943, brewers were asked to use flaked oats rather than flaked barley, which, owing to the poor supply of grain, was needed for bread.  But that phase was brief and in the final years of the war flaked barley was king.

As soon as everything got back to normal in the 1950s, brewers returned to their preferred adjunct, flaked maize.

Unexpected consequences

The government, through taxation, licensing, restriction of pub opening hours, has done much to shape the British brewing industry. But its actions haven't always panned out as anticipated.

When travelling to London last week I was reading "Government Interference in the Brewing Industry" by John Spicer, Chris Thurman, John Walters and Simon Ward*. I've not finished it yet, but a clear point it makes is that of unexpected consequences. That the government intervenes with an aim in mind, but the result is something completely different.

It's about the 1986-89 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry which led to the Beer Orders of the 1990's. The idea was to open up the brewing industry to more competition, which the tied house system was seen to be preventing. The monopolistic tied estates of the Big Six were to swept away and all brewers given equal access to retail outlets. Of course, it didn't quite work out like that. Yes, the big brewers lost their enormous tied estates, but they were merely passed on to another set of monopolists, the big pub companies.

The phenomenon of unexpected consequences was nothing new. Something similar had happened at the end of the 19th century. Something which, indirectly, had led to the formation of those huge tied estates in the first place.

"The repeal of the Malt Act in 1880 by Mr. Gladstone, and the transference of the duty from malt to the wort prior to fermentation, was a momentous epoch in British brewing. I understand this change was sought by the barley growers, who thought it would benefit agriculture, but how, I cannot say. There is no doubt, however, that the tax on barley encouraged the buying of the best quality, as tho tax was irrespective of quality, but the result of the change caused by charging duty on wort produced instead of on barley was certainly no advantage to the farmer.

The revenue obtained from this method of taxing wort instead of malt resulted in a great gain to the State, and imposed a heavier charge on both brewer and consumer. The brewer was supposed to have been compensated by the fact that his materials were no longer being limited to malt, hops and sugar; he received the benefit of what was called the "Free Mash Tun," but this was of no real benefit to many brewers, for under the new taxation a brewer was often charged upon a quantity of beer he never obtained from his materials, because he had not the technical knowledge and plant necessary to do so. Further, the smaller brewer had not the requisite scientific and technical knowledge to obtain the standard quantities of extract from his declared quantities of materials used which the Excise authorities said he ought to have obtained. Nevertheless, he was charged duty on these standard quantities, although some extra allowance was given for "waste" against the deficiencies. This payment of tax on a quantity of wort which was not obtained was responsible, in my opinion, for the rapid decrease of home-brewing and the purchase of beer from the larger brewer. The publican-brewer found he was handicapped by a method of taxation which bore more heavily upon him than upon the larger brewer, whose greater technical knowledge of brewing and modern plant placed him in a far better position to pay the new duty."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 481 - 482.

I'd best explain how brewers paid tax on beer they hadn't produced. The 1880 legislation assumed that brewers obtained a certain amount of wort per bushel of malt. This is the relevant clause in the Act:

"13. (1.) Every brewer shall be deemed to have brewed thirty six gallons of worts of the gravity of one thousand and fifty-seven
degrees for every two bushels of malt entered or used by him in brewing."

No matter what the actual yield, the brewer had to pay the tax for at least one standard barrel (36 gallons at a gravity of 1057º) for every two bushels used. That amounts to four standard barrels per quarter of malt. Though the act did allow for 6% wastage during the brewing process.

How easy was it to get the yield the Excise expected? I thought I'd take a look at a big, modern brewery and see how many standard barrels they got per quarter. here are the results:

Whitbread yield per quarter of malt in 1881
Beer	Style	standard barrels	qtr. Malt	standard barrels per quarter	plus 6%
KKK	Stock Ale	450.5	127	3.55	3.76
X	Mild	767.7	197	3.90	4.13
FA	Pale Ale	158.3	44	3.60	3.81
X and XL	Mild	588.8	153	3.85	4.08
X	Mild	774.1	200	3.87	4.10
KK	Stock Ale	475.0	127	3.74	3.96
X and XL	Mild	605.4	150	4.04	4.28
PA	Pale Ale	322.2	89	3.62	3.84
Source:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/01/047

Even allowing for the six per cent wastage, Whitbread only managed to hit the target on four out of eight brews. The yield in a small pub brewery must have been much worse. It increased the advantage large brewers had over their smaller rivals. Because of their greater efficiency, the big boys in London had already been able to brew stronger beer than the smaller ones and sell it at the same price. Now small brewers were paying tax on beer that didn't exist. It must have been tough.

I've figures of the numbers of breweries off various sizes for the right period:

UK Breweries by size 1870 - 1914
	<1,000	publican brewers	1,000 - 10,000	10,000 - 20,000	20,000 - 100,000	100,000 - 500,000
1870	26,506	-	1,809	210	128	23
1875	22,138	-	1,864	260	194	25
1879	17,542	-	1,863	301	217	27
1880	16,770	-	1,768	272	203	23
1881	14,948	14,479	1,677	275	183	24
1885	12,608	-	1,537	270	187	27
1890	9,986	-	1,447	274	255	34
1895	7,213	-	1,162	267	256	34
1900	4,759	-	910	262	308	42
1905	3,787	-	832	232	280	40
1912	2,868	2,663	673	205	266	43
1913	2,700	2,502	615	210	271	42
1914	2,536	2,357	580	197	280	46
Source:
1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 118.

You can see that the number of brewers in the smallest category, mostly pub breweries, fell dramatically between 1870 and 1900, falling from over 26,000 to under 5,000. It's easier to see the trends by looking at the percentage decrease by decade:

Change in number of breweries by size 1870 - 1900
decade	<1,000	1,000 - 10,000	10,000 - 20,000	20,000 - 100,000	100,000 - 500,000
1870-1880	36.73%	2.27%	-29.52%	-58.59%	0.00%
1880-1890	40.45%	18.16%	-0.74%	-25.62%	-47.83%
1890-1900	52.34%	37.11%	4.38%	-20.78%	-23.53%
Source:
Derived from figures in 1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 118.

The rate of closure of small breweries did indeed accelerate after 1880. While the number of breweries in the two largest categories increased. There was a clear swing to a smaller number of larger breweries.

What happened to the pubs whose breweries closed? They bought in beer from larger breweries:

"When the small brewer ceased to brew and purchased his beers instead, there arose keen competition among the bigger brewers to secure permanent outlets for their beer and in consequence excessive prices were paid for "free" houses. When these were made "tied" houses and became so numerous, competition increased to such a degree that the tenants found it hard to get a living, and tho owners had great difficulty in obtaimng remunerative rents. Further, now regulations reducing the hours of trading, with additional limitations on Sundays, and the activities of opponents of licensed houses, together with stricter magisterial administration of the licensing laws, brought about a dearth of persons of sufficient capital who desired to become tenants of properties in which the owners had invested large sums of money. As a consequence, what is known as the "managerial system" of conducting the retail trade was evolved, under which the licensed trader receives a wage and carries on the business on behalf of the owner, whereas under the "tenancy system" the licensee pays a rent, agreeing to obtain his supplies from the brewer-owner of the house and, of course, retains the profits of his trading."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 485.

Ultimately, those pub breweries were sucked into the tied estates of larger breweries.

So changing the taxation from malt to wort caused the closure of thousands of small breweries and helped build the tied estates of larger breweries. Not at all what the change in law had intended.



* Disclosure time: I was sent a free copy of this book.

X Ales in the 1880's

Once I get started, it can be difficult to stop. That's my excuse for continuing with this series looking at X Ales in detail. Far too much detail, really.

We're now in the 1880's, a key period in the development of British beer, when brewers had been unshackled by the 1880 Free Mash Tun Act. Suddenly a whole range of new ingredients were allowed. I'd been hoping/expecting to find maize and rice and other shit like that. I didn't. But more about that in the next part about the grists. Here I'm limiting myself to looking at the beer specifications.

This lot are quite tricky to make sense out of. With gravities all over the shop. Different examples of Barclay Perkins X ranged from 1055º to 1064º. Not sure what that was about. Truman seem to have brewed their X Ale to two slightly different strengths, 1053º and 1059º. The two in the table were parti-gyled together. It's very confusing. Possibly they could be London and Country versions. The "L" in Whitbread's XL almost certainly stands for London.

What is clear, is the disappearance of most of the stronger London X Ales. There are only a couple of XX Ales in the table. The stronger ones - XXX and XXXX Ale - had completely disappeared. The strongest London Mild is Barclay Perkins XX Ale at 1078º. If you can remember back that far, you'll recall that in my table for the 1860's there was a Mild over 1090º. In the 1830's table there were many Milds over 1100º. Stronger Milds continued to disappear right up until WW I, by which time London brewers generally only brewed X Ale.

It's intriguing that outside London breweries continued to brew a range of different-strength Milds. At the same time, it's worth noting that the third Mild up from Tetley and William Younger were only about the same level as The X Ales of Barclay Perkins and Whitbread.

I can't see any pattern in the rate of attenuation. Both the London and provincial examples mostly fall in the range 65% to 75%.

As the sample contains beers with very different gravities, the fairest way to compare hopping rates is to look at pounds per quarter of malt. Ignoring the outliers in each set (Barclay's XX and Tetley's X3), the London beers have between 6.5 and 9 pounds, the provincial ones 4.25 to 9 pounds. The averages are 7.61 for London and 6.44 for the provinces. I think it's fair enough to say that London X Ales were a little more heavily hopped than their provincial cousins.

I love looking at boil times. If only to demonstrate what bollocks all that shit is about Scottish brewers boiling their first runnings down to syrup. Note that the two Scottish brewers, William Younger and Thomas Usher, did not have the longest boils. In fact only Fullers boiled for a shorter time than Usher and the longest boils by far were at Truman's Burton brewery.

This is good. There's a clear pattern in the fermentation temperatures. London brewers pitch slightly cooler and let their worts get warmer. To make it easy, I've put the averages into a table:

	Pitch	max
London	59.3º	71.4º
Provincial	60.6º	68.3º

Note that the two Scottish brewers are close to the provincial average in their fermentation temperatures. Disproving that other load of Scottish bollocks, the one about them fermenting at near lager temperatures. Not even close to being true.

Most of the fermentations, both London and provincial, took 7 or 8 days. Not much else I can say about that.

Next time we'll be looking at the grists of these beers.

London X Ales in the 1880's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermen-tation temp	length of fermen-tation (days)
4th May	1886	Barclay Perkins	X	Mild	1055.0	1010.0	5.96	81.87%	6.42	1.61	1.5	2			60º	72º	3 + 2
24th Jun	1886	Barclay Perkins	X	Mild	1064.0	1015.0	6.49	76.63%	8.00	1.97	2	2.5			60º	72º	3 + 3
3rd May	1887	Barclay Perkins	XX	Mild	1078.0	1024.9	7.02	68.04%	16.00	5.85	2				59º	70º	3 + 4
19th Oct	1886	Whitbread	X	Mild	1061.2	1015.8	6.01	74.21%	9.11	2.38		2			59º	º	8
12th Nov	1885	Whitbread	XL	Mild	1071.2	1020.8	6.67	70.82%	8.13	2.48	1.5	2			60º	º	7
19th May	1886	Truman	X Ale	Mild	1052.6				8.0	1.88	2	2	2.25	2.25	60.5º	º	8
19th May	1886	Truman	X Ale	Mild	1058.7				8.0	2.09	2	2	2.25	2.25	60.5º	º	8
23rd Apr	1887	Fuller	X	Mild	1054.6	1020.5	4.51	62.44%	6.64	1.63	1.5	1.75			58º	71º	12
23rd Apr	1887	Fuller	XX	Mild	1064.8	1023.3	5.50	64.10%	6.64	1.93	1.5	1.75			57º	72º	12
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/051 and LMA/4453/D/01/052.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/1/584.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number B/THB/C/166.

Provincial X Ales in the 1880's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermen-tation temp	length of fermen-tation (days)
11th May	1888	Tetley	X	Mild	1046.0	1016.1	3.96	65.06%	4.31	0.69	2			65º	68º	8
11th May	1888	Tetley	X1	Mild	1053.7	1016.6	4.91	69.07%	5.31	1.02	2			63º	68º	8
14th May	1888	Tetley	X2	Mild	1063.2	1016.6	6.16	73.68%	8.40	2.02	3			65º	68º	9
13th Jun	1888	Tetley	X3	Mild	1071.2	1016.1	7.29	77.43%	12.00	3.57	3			63º	68º	8
22nd May	1885	William Younger	X	Mild	1048	1009	5.16	81.25%	5.29	0.99	2	2.5		60º	67º	6
24th May	1885	William Younger	XX	Mild	1056	1012	5.82	78.57%	6.19	1.53	2	2.5		60º	69º	7
1st June	1885	William Younger	XXX	Mild	1065	1021	5.82	67.69%	6.67	1.86	2	2.5		58º	67.5	6
9th Jan	1885	Thomas Usher	X	Mild	1050	1013	4.89	74.00%	9.00	2.00	1.5	2		58º	69.5º	6
18th Jan	1887	Truman (Burton)	A	Mild	1052.1	1012.2	5.28	76.60%	7.19	1.40	3	3	3	60º	68º	8
18th Jan	1887	Truman (Burton)	8	Mild	1054.0	1013.9	5.31	74.36%	7.19	1.45	3	3	3	60º	69º	8
8th Feb	1887	Truman (Burton)	7	Mild	1061.2	1016.6	5.90	72.85%	5.90	1.46	3	3	3	59º	68º	8
19th Jan	1887	Truman (Burton)	6	Mild	1066.5	1019.9	6.16	70.00%	6.64	1.95	3	3	3	57º	69º	8
8th Jan	1886	Hodgson	XX	Mild	1063.71				5.23	1.32				60º	69.5º
Sources:
Tetley brewing record held at the West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds document number WYL756/44/ACC1903
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive document number WY/6/1/2/31
Thomas Usher brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive document number TU/6/1/1.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number B/THB/BUR/11.
Hodgson brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/08/253.

Cottage brewing

I've come across a couple of bits of information recently about domestic and pub brewing. Funny how that happens.

I've already posted about the uneven distribution of pub breweries in the 19th century. How it had all but disappeared in the Southeast, but was still strong in parts of the Midlands and the North. The peiece below is about cottage brewing. Or the working classes brewing for themselves at home. What immediately struck me was how the area singled out as a hotbed of cottage brewing was also a stronghold of pub brewing. Fascinating, eh?

This is taken from a debate in the House of Commons in 1874 about the abolition of the malt tax. It was a big deal because the malt tax was the source of around a third of the government's tax income. Of course, the tax was abolished six years by the Free Mash Tun Act. Not that beer then became untaxed, just that the tax was moved onto the product itself rather than the raw materials required to make it.

"He should doubtless be met by the remark that the only effect of reducing the malt tax would be to increase the quantity of beer drunk in the country, and that at the present time more beer was drunk than was good for the people. His answer to that statement was that it was not the amount of pure beer drunk that injured the people, but the quantity of adulterated poison sold under the name of beer, which was the cause of the misery and wretchedness they all so much deplored. He was anxious to restore the practice of cottage brewing, which, in consequence of the high price of malt, had fallen into disuse in most agricultural districts, although it still existed to a great extent in the suburbs of manufacturing towns like Halifax, Leeds, Huddersfield and Todmorden. In 1865 he sent a reliable person round to collect information as to the extent of cottage brewing in that part of the country, and the information he obtained was most interesting. He had it put: into a concise form and would read the result:—

TOWNSHIP.	PARISH.	Total Families.	Brew at Home.	Would brew, but can't afford.	Buy Beer.	Do not drink Beer.
Elland	Halifax	1419	1237	51	73	58
Hipper-holme-cum-Brighouse	Ditto	1737	1301	141	157	138
Quarmby-Cum-Linley	Huddersfield	987	784	84	71	48
Idle	Calverly	2231	1643	220	106	262
Lansfield	Halifax	876	610	46	48	172
Middle Third of Stansfield	Ditto	798	591	54	49	104
Todmorden and Walsden	Rochdale	1774	1293	139	93	249
		9822	7459	735	597	1031

§ Given in another form it might be stated as follows:—76 per cent of the inhabitants of these townships brewed at home; 8 per cent would brew, but could not afford to do so; 6 per cent bought beer; 10 per cent did not drink beer. The habit of cottage brewing prevailed at one time to a vast extent all over England, and it was ill consequence of the increased price of malt, owing to the malt tax, that it had fallen into disuse. Cobbett told them in the Political Register, vol. 87, p. 720, that—

"Mr. Ellman stated to a Committee of the House of Commons in 1821, that 15 years before that, when he became a farmer, every labourer in his parish of Glynde where he lived, brewed his own beer, and drank it by his own fireside, forty-five years back from 1821 takes us to 1776. At that time there was no tax on malt if made by persons for their own consumption. In the year 1783 this permission ceased."

In the districts where the practice of cottage brewing was in force, the husband and sons of the woman who brewed the beer were among the most sober and respectable of the population, remaining at home in the evening with their families instead of going to the public-house. Where cottage brewing had disappeared, men were forced into public-houses, and were there led into temptations which attendance at such places gave rise to. Beer was increased in price about 100 per cent by this tax, and this increase in the price was a great inducement to adulterate it. China clay was first used in the cotton manufactures because of the high price of the raw material, owing to the American War, and so adulteration in beer was encouraged by the high price of malt. The high price of beer undoubtedly encouraged the drinking of spirits—a fearful source of evil. The man who got his glass of beer at home was not the man who would get drunk on spirits—or what were called spirits—sold at public-houses. Therefore it was in the interests of temperance and of the public health that he sought for the reduction of this tax, which would enable cottagers to brew a pure and unadulterated drink. He had been looked upon almost as a visionary for supposing that the country would ever go back to cottage brewing.

The Times had done him the honour of ridiculing him in a leading article for some remarks that had fallen from him relative to cottage brewing when he introduced a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day in reference to this question. That article was doubtless written by a man who had lived in London all his life, and who knew nothing about the habits of labouring people in the country. The correspondent of that journal, who was engaged in collecting facts in connection with the lock-out of agricultural labourers, alluded in more than one of his letters to the fact that malt was given out in harvest time to the farm labourers, which they brewed themselves. Therefore the statement in The Times article was contradicted by The Times correspondent. Evidence was given before the Malt Tax Committee in 1868 to show that the farm labourers preferred beer to tea, and that they could work better on the former than on the latter beverage. A labourer from Playford, of the name of Elias Amos, gave the following evidence—

"(Q. 4768.) "You think the people would prefer beer to tea?—I do."
"(Q. 4769.) "Could they work better upon the beer?—Yes."
"(Q. 4770.) "Is there no other reason why you think they would drink beer instead of tea? Would it not cost more to have a fire, night and morning, to make your tea?—Beer does you more good than tea."
"(Q. 4799.) "I make good beer when I brew it for the harvest. I brew 2 bushels instead of 1½ bushels, and make the same quantity of beer in harvest. I want better beer when I work hard."

If our labourers did not drink beer, what were they to drink? He should be told tea. Our physicians were arriving at a very different opinion with respect to the wholesomeness of tea from what was entertained a few years ago and they found that it was impossible for a man to undergo laborious exercise as well upon tea as upon beer. Thus Dr. Smith, the physician appointed by the Privy Council to inquire into the dietary of the poor, had reported that the continuous use of either tea or coffee was calculated to have an injurious action upon the brain. These were his words—

"The action of both tea and coffee, but particularly the former, upon the brain is well known. The importance of this action is not So well appreciated as it ought to be; but I am fully persuaded that it has a most injurious influence upon health and even upon sanity. Tea is hurtful in the absence of food after a long fast (as at breakfast), to the poor and ill-fed. It is not adapted to sustain exertion."
—practical Dietaries, by Edward Smith, M.D., one of the Physicians employed by the Privy Council to inquire into the Dietary of the Poor; and dedicated, by permission, to Mrs. Gladstone.""

MALT TAX.—RESOLUTION, HC Deb 23 April 1874 vol 218 cc1021-41,
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1874/apr/23/malt-tax-resolution

That's an impressive percentage of the locals who brewed their own beer in those bits of West Yorkshire - about three quarters. What town could match that today?

The tea or beer debate raged for quite a while in the 19th century. There were many who maintained it was a poor, non-nutritious drink unsuitable for those performing hard pohysical labour. it's funny, given the place tea later acquired in British culture, to see the vehemence of the opposition to its spread.