Oak used in casks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not even lining the casks the casks with paraffin helped.

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

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

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

Restrictions lifted

Today we’re going to see a couple of examples of just how much was under government control during the war and its aftermath.

First wood. All import of hardwood had been under government control. Until 1950, a mere 5 years after war’s end.

“15TH DECEMBER
Hardwood (De-control)
MR. H. WILSON (President, Board of Trade) made the following announcement: I am satisfied that the need for continuing to import hardwood on Government account has ended, and all hardwood will therefore revert to private trading on 16th January next. At the same time, price control of imported hardwoods will be removed. Details of the scheme for reversion to private buying have been worked out by my officials with a committee of the hardwood trade and will be announced shortly. It will, moreover, be possible, as part of the additional measures of import relaxation just announced, to permit any private trader to import hardwood freely from a wide range of countries.

There are a few types of speciality hardwoods essential for industrial use, and not available from other parts of the world, which have to be obtained from dollar countries, and will continue to be obtained from dollar countries.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 81.

Why would hardwood be so important to brewers? Because that’s what barrels were made from. WW II had a really bad effect on the supply of oak staves for barrels. Memel oak, from the Eastern Baltic had been the brewer’s choice because it imparted little or no flavour to beer. Unlike French and American oak. Once war broke it was impossible to get Memel oak. American oak, because of its strong flavour wasn’t a very acceptable substitute.

Dollar countries presumably refers to countries that insisted on being paid in dollars. Britain was short of foreign exchange after the war so this was a big deal.

This restriction was of more direct impact to brewers:

“IMPORT RESTRICTIONS LIFTED
Labelling machinery is noted in a further list of commodities which it is proposed to free from the necessity for import licences, and which will take effect from 5th January, 1950. A summary of the original list appeared on page 812 of the November, 1949, Brewing Trade Review, and a list of the countries excepted from the scope of open general licences was given on page 857 of that issue.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 41.

I wonder where they imported labelling machinery from?

Restrictions like these were the reason some breweries required huge investment by the middle of the 1950’s when they may have seen no new equipment for more than a decade. It’s one of the factors that prompted many to sell up.

Brewing in WW II (part ten)

This is turning into another long series. But it's all good stuff, well worth learning.

We'll begin with isinglass. Pretty important for British brewers of the time who delivered a majority of their beer in cask form. Of course, you can make cask beer without finings, if you're patient. Unfortunately time was also in short supply during wartime. I hadn't realised where isinglass came from.

"Isinglass was a matter of some concern during the early days as supplies were short, especially of those types which were most favoured; and while brewers were anxious to increase their reserve, the merchants could not meet all demands as shipments were delayed or did not arrive. When the Ministry of Food took control of imports those interested in the trade were asked to organize, and the Isinglass Trades Association was formed and an amount of isinglass calculated to meet the brewers' needs was allowed to be imported. After Japan entered the war, supplies from Malay and Burma, consisting of Saigon and Penang, were cut off, and the only supplies available since have been from India and Brazil. The isinglass from these sources is the cheaper and less favoured types and mixtures of these must have been used entirely in most breweries during the past few years. Beers appear to have fined well with these so-called inferior grades of finings, although probably the public has not been very critical when supplies of beer have been so short. It is probable, however, that force of circumstances may have induced brewers to alter their views with regard to rulings, and especially to the comparative value of the finer grades of isinglass. This experience with the lower grades during the past years certainly appears to confirm the views J. S. Ford expressed in his Horace Brown Memorial Lecture (ibid., 1941, 342) that, provided the isinglass was free from smell, any of the 26 varieties ranging in price from 1s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. per lb. that he had tested was suitable for fining beer.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 125.

I didn't realise Britain sourced most of its isinglass from the Far East. I can see how Japan's invasion of Burma and Malaya buggered that up. I also hadn't realised there were so many different types of isinglass. It sounds like brewers had overestimated the difference in quality between expensive and cheap isinglass. Basically as long as it didn't smell nasty you were OK.

Barrel staves were always going to be a problem because of where British brewers sourced them. There was little British oak, so that wasn't a realistic option. There was plenty of American oak, but it added a funny flavour to beer. Leaving Memel oak from the Eastern Baltic as the only real possibility. Until war started. Obviously shipping staves across a German-dominated Baltic was never going to happen.

"The maintenance of cask plant has been another problem which has not proved easy of solution as the usual supplies of oak staves from the Baltic were cut off, while lack of shipping space prevented the importation of anything like an adequate supply of American oak after the United States entered the war. New casks were consequently almost impossible to obtain during most of the war period, and many casks have been kept in use which would otherwise have been considered unfit. The quick consumption probably save a good deal of beer that might have become unsaleable if it had been kept for any length of time in the publicans' cellars, while empties were quickly returned. This quick circulation of casks was also of assistance, in view of the poor quality of labour available for cask washing, especially during the later period. There appears to be very little prospect of obtaining Memel oak staves in the near future, while any improvement in the supply from America is hardly considered likely. English oak can be used, but the supply is quite inadequate to make up the deficiency of casks which now exists.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 125.

Whitbread had wisely bought in a large supply of staves before the war started. Then saw them go up in smoke in one of the early air raids on London in 1940.

I can imagine how difficult it must have been to maintain a sufficient supply of casks when you couldn't get new ones. It sounds like there were many factors that encouraged a quick turnaround of beer, from lack of biological stability to shitty casks, to a thirsty public desperate for any beer they get hold of.

It sounds as if the problems were set to continue for a while after the end of the war as the supply of staves was little improved. With the Eastern Baltic firmly under Soviet control, there was little prospect of finding a supply there. The solution: make casks of something else:

"It will be necessary, therefore, for brewers seriously to consider the adoption of some other type of cask in order to make up the shortage. The use of stainless steel casks was being considered before the war, although the question of proper insulation raised difficulties. Laminated casks have been widely used in America and appear to have proved quite satisfactory for their conditions. These are constructed of plywood staves, the inside and outside layers being of oak while the inner layers are birch, which are bound together with a plastic material, Some of these casks have already been tried in this country with satisfactory results, and their adoption is probably the only course open to make up the present shortage."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 125.

I struggle to believe that plywood casks would work well. Presumably the idea of having the outer sections of oak was to have the beer inside in contact with a material that wasn't going to taint it and a tough surface on the outside of the barrel to take any knocks.

Yeast next time.

Casks in WW II (part two)

We're back with casks in WW II. I had a little too much information for a single post.

Some breweries had the foresight to buy in staves before the outbreak of war. Though, in Whitbread's case at least, they ended up as firewood:

"For many years the policy in Whitbreads cooperage was to do their own repairs, and not to buy now casks from outside. Some 20 years ago machinery was put in for making casks, and since then in addition to doing repairs all new casks have been made, only occasionally an odd 50 or 100 being bought. Considerable quantities of staves were purchased and stored in and about the cooperage-side of the brewery. The threat of war encouraged buying generously and the outbreak of war found the firm stocked with plenty of staves, both Memel and English.

. . .

A large proportion of our stock of stoves went up in flames, and most of the cooperage machinery was ruined as the result of one night's attack by enemy action which caused still greater difficulties."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 48, Issue 2, 1942, page 79.

Here's an example about how moves made to economise elsewhere had an impact on the number of barrels a brewery required:

"In the early days of the war a change over from two deliveries a week to one to each public house was made to economise in petrol. The result was an immediate offset upon the stocks of casks, and instead of having ample casks for all times of the year (excepting possibly the Christmas Bank Holiday), it was found that barely sufficient casks wore available to satisfy racking requirements, and at Bank Holiday time there was an acute shortage."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 48, Issue 2, 1942, page 79.

It makes sense - if you double the size of deliveries you're obviously going to need more casks. 

Casks in WW II

In the days when barrels were still made of wood, a supply of oak for building and maintaining them was essential.

English oak was in short supply and since the 19th century most of the wood used in making casks had been imported:

"While the question of new casks and a supply of timber for repairs may not be a very difficult problem at the moment it is likely to assume large proportions if the trade remains normal and is not subjected to much restriction. The timber found to be most suitable for brewing industry comes from Russia and Poland, being shipped from the Baltic ports, but this source was cut off as soon as war broke out and brewers will be obliged to look elsewhere for their supplies. English oak has proved to be eminently suitable and is considered to be even superior to Russian oak, but unfortunately the available supplies are far too small to satisfy the demand.

During the last war supplies came from the United States and Canada, but although this oak proved quite suitable for cask making trouble was experienced when it was put into use. The principal objection was the rather unpleasant flavour it imparted to the beer, which the usual methods employed in the cooperage for treating now casks before they are put into use, failed to eliminate."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 46, Issue 4, August 1940, page 277.

This is another piece of evidence that suggests British casks were still unlined, unlike casks on the Continent, as beer came into direct contact with the wood. From evidence such as this, I've come to the conclusion that British casks were never regularly lined.

English oak was also too expensive:

"He [Mr. L. C. Thompson] had had a few excellent casks made recently of English oak, but the cost was about double the present cost of Memel."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 46, Issue 4, August 1940, page 279.

What was it that caused American oak to taint beer? I'll leave that to Prof Groom:

"Prof. Groom found that the tainting of beer was not due to fungi or bacteria acting in the wood or gaining access to the beer through the wood, but was caused by the entry into the beer of some natural constituent extracted from the wood. The conclusions drawn from the examination of a number of samples was that wood may be unsatisfactory because it is an inappropriate species, was felled at the wrong season, or that it consisted of heart wood that was too young.

. . .

The best quality of American white oak was found to give the most satisfactory results, and while very little difficulty appears to have been experienced where the casks were used for quick trade, the flavour invariably made its appearance if the beer remained in the casks for more than 10 days. These researches must have drawn attention to the variability of American oak for cask-making, and it is probable that future supplies may show an improvement in consequence." Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 46, Issue 4, August 1940, pages 277 - 278.

So it was the wood itself, rather than anything nasty lurking in it. If beer would pick up a taint from the best American oak in as little as ten days, how on earth could the cask have had any internal lining? The life of British brewers would have been much simpler had they lined their casks. Then they could have used any old oak, as long as it was strong enough.

Oak and WW II (part two)

I've been meaning to post the second part of the Brewers' Journal article on American oak for some time. But, as you know, I'm easily distracted. I think it's worth the wait. Because it's another piece in a jigsaw I've been trying to finish for a couple of years.

BREWING NOTES.

American Oak (continued).

In last month's notes an account was given of the work carried out by the Institute of Brewing after the last war in connection with the use of American oak for beer casks in this country, and a brief summary of the conclusions then reached was included. This month a more difficult point is under discussion — viz., how to treat American oak so as to prevent, or minimise, the objectionable flavour which it notoriously tends to impart to British beers.

Opinions in the brewing industry vary enormously on the suitability or otherwise of American oak for British beers, some asserting that if properly treated it provides quite a suitable cask material, whilst others are equally vehement in its condemnation.

This divergence of opinion suggests that the extractiveness of different beers may vary, and that whereas one beer may suffer little from contact with this type of timber, others extract therefrom undesirable flavouring substances which give rise to "tainted" or "woody " complaints.

A more feasible hypothesis is, perhaps, that different types of "white oak" have been used in the different cases, or that the treatments employed have been different. A cask made from newly felled, unseasoned "white oak" of an unsuitable species is sure to give violently disagreeable flavours when it is filled with beer, no matter what preliminary treatment may have been employed to minimise this. We have had personal experience  of casks of this type, and we can testify that even when lined, "pickled" and treated by every - known trick, they will continue to contaminate every lot of beer with which they are filled, until they are eventually broken down and thrown away. Even one stave of timber of this kind is enough to taint the whole contents of the cask.

Careful selection of timber by an experienced buyer is essential at the very start if any success is to be obtained with American oak casks. The timber must be carefully stacked and seasoned, and should not be used as long as there is any sign of wetness. Even with well-chosen, well-seasoned timber, lining is probably advisable, and even essential in many cases. The ideal lining from the flavour point of view is something completely insulating the beer from contact with the timber. Pitch probably fulfils this condition best, but few British breweries are equipped with the plant necessary for this process, so one of the proprietary enamels will probably be the best choice for lining purposes. These enamels, which consist of plastic material dissolved in a volatile organic solvent, act partly by penetrating the pores of the timber rather than as impervious linings, and there is no doubt that they minimise "taint" due to the use of American oak in a large number of casts. Miracles should not be expected, however, and every care should be taken in the original selection and treatment of the timber so that violent taint is avoided in the first place.

Heavy firing of the cask is another expedient which may be found successful in combating timber taint in some cases.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 571. (Published July 17th, 1940.)

It's not so much the fact that some American oak made beer pong that interests me. Though, given that a single stave of the wrong oak was enough to bugger any beer put into the barrel, it was a pretty serious problem. No, it's not that. It's the suggested remedy. Lining.

I've been looking for hard evidence on the lining of wooden barrels in Britain for some time. It's frustratingly difficult to track down. But this article provides some vital clues.

For the wood to taint beer, they need to come into direct contact. So the implication of this article is that barrels weren't usually lined. If they were, you wouldn't need to worry about a funny taste from the oak. The assertion "few British breweries are equipped with the plant necessary for this process" about pitch-lining makes it clear that this practice wasn't common.

I now feel confident in saying that most British barrels were unlined until at least 1940. Good to know.

Oak and WW II

Britain's brewing industry ceased self-sufficiency long before the 20th century. I've already catalogued the dependence on imported hops and barley. But the raw materials for brewing weren't the only vital imports. Large quantities of oak were needed for barrels. And where did that come from?

Before I answer that question, I want to bang one of my favourite drums again. The one about whether British barrels were lined or not. It's a funny one, because finding definitive evidence has been remarkably difficult. If you think about it, it's not surprising that brewing texts make no mention of lining barrels. Why discuss something you don't do? The rare times the topic does crop up, it's in relation to continental practices. The evidence against lining is mostly indirect. Like how to treat new barrels to stop them adding a woody taste to the beer inside them. I've more such evidence below.

Britain's own native oak, while eminently suitable for barrels, had been used up long before WW II. If you've been paying attention to the discussion of the Burton brewers Baltic trade, you'll remember that it was often on a barter basis. In return for beer they took barrel staves. Memel oak it was usually called. Which, as the region in question has changed nationality a few times in the last couple of hundred years, is a more accurate designation than Poland or Russia. (I mentioned Memel to my son Andrew this morning while waiting for the bus. "That's the north of East Prussia isn't it?" Clever boy.)

In 1940, I can't imagine any oak was being shipped across the Baltic to Britain. It wasn't a new problem. The same difficulty arose during WW I. And during the Napoleonic Wars, in the period when Russia was allied with France.

American Oak.

One of the biggest problems facing brewers at the present time is that concerning cask timber. After Russian and Polish oak American oak is the material to which one's attention naturally turns in these times, and many brewers must be much concerned at the prospect of having to use a material so well known to communicate undesirable woody and other flavours to British ales, particularly those of pale ale type. English oak is stated to be devoid of these defects, but it is doubtful if sufficient of this material is likely to be available to alleviate the cask timber problem to any marked extent. It is to American oak, therefore, that one must look for relief, and the question immediately arises: How can this timber be treated in order to make it suitable for use with British top fermentation beers ?

It may as well be stated at once that there is no simple answer to this all-important question. The whole matter was gone into very thoroughly after the last war, and no very satisfactory conclusions were reached as to the cause and cure of the strong flavour communicated to beer by the use of casks of American oak. The problem turned out to be much more difficult and complex than was expected, so it is felt that a brief summary of the work carried out by Professors Groom and Schryoer may assist brewers to understand the nature of the problem.

The objectionable "woody" taint may be due to—

1. The use of the wrong species of oak ("American white oak" is a very broad term and many different species or types of oak may find inclusion in this collective name).

2. The felling of the right species of oak at the wrong season of the year.

3. The use of heartwood of an appropriate species which is either too old, or (what is more likely) too young.

The differences between the suitability of the various species included in the term "American white oak" for beer-cask making appear to be due, "not to any specific extractive which imparts a deleterious flavour to the beer, but rather to fundamental differences in the chemical and physical properties of the timbers themselves."

It was further found that the ability to impart the objectionable flavour was not produced by the method of cutting the staves, nor by the presence of sapwood, or by the presence of micro-organisms in the wood. The last point was gone into with special care, for the heartwood  of which the staves were made was found to contain large quantities of starch, which might have been expected to promote growth of moulds and bacteria. This was a feasible hypothesis, particularly since micro-organisms of these types are capable of producing curious "mouldy" or "musty" odours and flavours, not greatly dissimilar from the "taint" of American oak. It was found, however, that this hypothesis was incorrect, the "taint" being inherent in the timber itself and not due to microbiological action.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 496. (Published June 19th, 1940.)

I think it's pretty clear that beer was coming into direct contact with the wood of the barrel. Otherwise how could the oak "communicate undesirable woody and other flavours"? What I don't quite grasp is why this problem should be so particularly acute with British type top-fermenting beers. Unless, of course, it's just because everyone else did line their barrels.

How did they overcome these problems with American oak? You'll have to wait for part two of the article. Or rather for me to transcribe part two. It was published almost three-quarters of a century ago.