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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More details about the different types of bottled beer next. 

Brettanomyces – hero or villain?

I thought this article about Brettanomyces would interest you. It contains some great stuff.

First, an overview of Brettanomyces and its role in brewing:

“Brettanomyces spp. have long been known as important factors in the production of condition and flavour in certain high-gravity beers and in lambic beer. They have also been mentioned as possible spoilage organisms in beer but have generally been considered as of little importance in this connection. Thus Wiles stated that Brettanomyces had only once been reported as a spoilage organism of beer, and that although Brett. bruxellensis was sometimes detected it was not of common occurrence and was unlikely to be a cause of spoilage. On the other hand, Shimwel1 found a Brettanomyces to be the cause of a fret in beer and suggested that it might be widely encountered as a spoilage organism. It has been stated that Brettanomyces can cause a mawkish "nose" and turbidity in beers of original gravity less than 1060.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 257.

Now isn’t that fascinating? That Brettanomyces produces a funny flavour in beer under 1060º. Why would that be? They seem undecided on whether Brettanomyces was a common spoilage agent. By ‘fret” they mean a too vigorous secondary fermentation in the cask.

I’ve mentioned this before. Although Claussen (of Carlsberg) was the first to publish about Brettanomyces, it had been discovered earlier:

“Occurrence of Brettanomyces.—The earliest reference to Brettanomyces, or secondary yeasts, was in a patent for the use of these organisms for the preparation of English beers which was taken out by Claussen in 1903. In a paper to the Institute of Brewing in 1904, Claussen described the importance of Brettanomyces for secondary fermentation and the production of the characteristic flavour of English stock beers. Claussen did not give a detailed description of these organisms, which he included in the genus Torula. Shortly after this, Seyffert of the Kalinkin Brewery in St. Petersberg announced that he had isolated a "Torula" in 1889 from English beer which produced the typical "English" taste in lager beer, and which was similar in other respects to Claussen's Brettanomyces. In 1899 J. W. Tullo, in the Chemist's Laboratory, Arthur Guinness Son & Co. Ltd., Dublin, had already isolated two types of "secondary yeast" from Irish stout, and in an unpublished report described the characteristics of these yeasts and their importance in secondary fermentation.  At this time the "secondary yeasts" were important constituents of the flora of all stock beers, and in particular of those beers, designed for the export trade, which under-went long maturation in the brewery. These export  beers  depended indeed on  the "secondary yeasts," not only for their characteristic flavour but also for the production of condition in bottle by means of their ability to ferment higher polysaccharides which the "primary yeast" could not ferment.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 257.

If I tell you that secondary fermentation  was very important at Guinness because they still vatted Stout, particularly their export version. Meaning that information about the process had commercial value. The same was probably true of the brewery in St. Petersburg.

Here’s something about the nature of Brettanomyces.

“Properties of Brettanomyces.—The cells of Brettanomyces are small, oval or round, frequently with a pointed end (ogive).  In some strains elongated cells and branched chains ("trees") are frequently seen.  On suitable media most strains show a tendency to form pseudomycelium.  In malt extract Brettanomyces spp. grow slowly but give a high final attenuation' and a characteristic aroma.

Under aerobic conditions they produce considerable acid; this may be the reason why malt-agar cultures have a short life. In agar-streak cultures they give yellow or brown raised growth. The genus has always been considered anascosporogenous, but van der Walt & van Kirken have recently reported sporulation in a number of species which would necessitate the placing of the genus in another family. The fermentative abilities of the various strains in the species as described by Lodder & Kreger-van Rijn and by van der Walt & van Kirken are given in Table I. One of the most interesting characteristics of the metabolism of Brettanomyces is that young aerobic cultures exhibit a negative Pasteur effect.  That is, they have a very much stronger fermentative ability under aerobic conditions than under anaerobic conditions, in contrast to other yeasts. Another important characteristic of the genus is that secondary products of fermentation accumulate to a much greater extent than is the case with Saccharomyces. Ethyl acetate, glycerol, acetic acid, succinic acid and 2,3-butane-diol have been estimated by Peynaud & Domerce in the completed fermentations with Brettanomyces.  These authors consider that ethyl acetate and acetamide are the two main organoleptic products of Brettanomyces fermentations, but that some strains may also produce a butyric smell.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 258.

Reverse Pasteur effect? That’s a new one to me. Maybe that’s why Brettanomyces scavenges oxygen so well in bottle-conditioned beer.

Here’s an overview of the properties of various types of Brettanomyces isolated from bottle-conditioned beers:

“Group 1. -21 strains fermented glucose, sucrose and maltose only.  These strains agreed with the published descriptions of Brett. bruxellensis Kufferath et van Laer and were similar to authentic strains of this species. Brett. bruxellensis has been isolated from Iambic beer, from Cork porter, from French grape must and from Brazilian wine fermentations."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 259.

Now the second group:

“Group 2. -11 strains fermented glucose and galactose only.  These strains agreed with  Peynaud & Domercq and were similar to an authentic strain of this species. Brett. schanderlii has been found in French and South African wine fermentations. It has not previously been reported as occurring in beer. "
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 259 - 260.

Interesting that this had previously only been found in wine, not beer.

This sounds like a weird one:

“Group 3. -12 strains fermented glucose, galactose, sucrose and lactose. This combination of fermentative abilities does not correspond with any established species. These strains are most like Brett. anomalus but differ from this species in that they ferment sucrose rapidly. A further study is being made of these strains and, if the differences are sufficient to establish the strains in this group as a separate species, this will be reported in a further communication. For the present these strains will be described as Brettanomyces sp. 1. It seems strange that so many strains unable to ferment maltose (Groups 2 and 3) should be found in beer, but Custers isolated Brett. anomalus, which also is unable to ferment maltose, from English beer. It was because of this peculiar circumstance that Custers gave this species the name "anomalus."”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

You wouldn’t want that getting into your Milk Stout. Bottle bombs would be the inevitable result of the Brettanomyces chewing its way through the lactose.

But its odder that so many of the strains were unable to ferment maltose. Though, thinking about it, that’s probably preferable fore brewery use. It means that the Brettanomyces can’t take any part in primary fermentation. Just what you’d want in the case of running beers.

Here’s a table of what the different types of Brettanomyces can ferment:

TABLE I
FERMENTATION REACTIONS OF THE SPECIES IN THE GENUS Brettanomyces
	Fermentation of
Species	Glucose	Galactose	Sucrose	Maltose	Lactose	Raffinose	Trehalose	Melibiose	Melezitose	Cellobiose
1. Brett. Bruxellensis* Kufferath & van Laer  ..	+	—	+	+	—	—	+	—	+	—
2. Brett. Anamalus Custers	+	+	—	—	+	—	+	—	+	+
3. Brett. Claussenii Custers	+	+	+	+	+	1/3	+	—	+	+
4. Brett. Intermedius ** Peynaud and Domercq, van der Walt	+	+	+	+	—	—	+	—	+	+
5. Brett. Schanderlii Paynaud & Domercq	+	+	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	+
* The strains known as Brett. bruxellensis var. not -membranaefaciens Custers, Brett. bruxellensis var. lentis Custers, and Brett. lambicus Kufferath & van Leer, are included in the species Brett. bruxelensis as suggested by van der Walt & van Kirken.
** This strain was named Brett. vini by Paynaud & Domercq. It was found to be identical with Mycotorula intermedia isolated by Krumbholz & Tauschanoff and was re-named Brett. intermedius by van der Walt & van Kirken.
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 259.

I’m a little shocked that they were able to find 11 naturally-conditioned bottled beers in 1961. I though the technique was pretty much dead by then. Or maybe they weren’t 11 different beers.

Many of the bottles from which the yeast was isolated contained multiple strains of Brettanomyces:

“The distribution of the individual strains from the 11 bottles is given in Table II, from which it will be seen that from 5 of the bottles only one species of Brettanomyces was recovered; in all the other bottles two or more species were found. The infection therefore regularly occurs as a mixture of species of Brettanomyces.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

Here’s a summary of the strains of Brettanomyces found per bottle:

TABLE II
OCCURRENCE OF Brettanomyces SPECIES IN NATURALLY-CONDITIONED BEER
Bottle No.	No. of strains studied	No. of strains of Brett. bruxellensis	No. of strains of Brett. schanderlii	No. of strains in Brettanomyces sp. 1 group
1	4	0	4	0
2	4	2	1	1
3	4	1	3	0
4	4	0	1	3
5	4	2	2	0
6	4	4	0	0
7	4	2	0	2
8	4	4	0	0
9	4	4	0	0
10	4	2	0	2
11	4	0	0	4
Total	44	21	11	12
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

I like the fact that they carried out taste tests based on bottle-conditioned beers inoculated deliberately with their strains of Brettanomyces.

“Tasting experiments were carried out with 36 of the pure cultures of Brettanomyces isolated from beer. In these tests the culture of Brettanomyces was added to beer at bottling at the rate of about 5 cells of Brettanomyces per 100 cells of culture yeast present in the beer. The beers were naturally conditioned at 18° C. and, after 2-5 weeks, they were tasted against a control of the same beer which had been bottled at the same time but which contained no added infection. The results are summarized in Table III for each of the three species. The taste of the infected beers became more objectionable as the beers became older but, for simplicity, the results of the tastings at different periods have been combined. It is clear that Brett. bruxellensis has much the worst effect on flavour of beer, although the other groups have an appreciable deleterious effect. The flavours most complained of in the infected beers were "harsh," "strong after-bitter," "mawkish" and "old beer flavour."”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

Here’s the table of those results:

TABLE III
COMPARISON OF TASTE OF Brettanomyces-INFECTED BEERS WITH UNINFECTED CONTROL BEER AFTER 2-5 WEEKS' STORAGE AT 18° C.
Species	Strains	Times tasted	Better than control	Equal to control	Worse than control	Much worse than control
Brett. Bruxellensis	19	133	0	15	39	46
Brett. schanderlii	8	58	2	53	41	4
Brettanomyces sp. 1	9	46	0	37	61	2
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

It doesn’t look like the Brettanomyces character was much admired by the tasters. The infected samples were almost always judged as no improvement – in some cases much worse – than the non-infected ones.

Of course, it could just be that the tasters weren’t accustomed to Brettanomyces character in beer. It would be fascinating to know what tasters would have thought of the infected beers 100 years earlier. They might actually have liked them.

Naturally-conditioned bottled beer

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

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

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

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

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

This is an interesting point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next speaker says just about exactly that:

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

And Lloyd Hind concurred:

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

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

Pasteurising next time.