Enamel for Casks

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

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

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

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

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

An accident in a Lager brewery

Why am I posting a areport of an industrial accident court case? Because it gives some interesting details about the pitching of lagering vessels.

It sounds like a fairly unpleasant accident. it would have to be to get £60 damages. That's like a year's salary.

"Employers’ Liability.
The case of Hume v. Imperial Lager Beer Company, Limited, which came before the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Mathew on January 29th, was an appeal from the County Court at Edmonton where the plaintiff had obtained a verdict for £60 damages for personal injuries.

Mr. Colam, appearing for the appellants, said the notice of motion was that judgment should be entered for the appellants or in alternative for a new trial, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence to go to the jury, and that the learned judge had misdirected the jury in the summing-up. The defendant company had several large vats in which they stored beer, which had to be cleaned out about every three months. For that purpose hot pitch was poured into them, and it was afterwards heated with red hot irons, and ignited by a kind of torch, and stirred round with the hot irons until the whole of the pitch was liquid, and then the vats were rolled about the yard until the inside was thoroughly coated with pitch.

The Lord Chief Justice asked if that was done to give a flavour to the beer.

Mr. Colam said no; it was to make them thoroughly beer-tight. That practice had been in use for a long tune. The plaintiff spoke to it for five years, and no explosion had ever taken place before, but on the occasion in question an explosion occurred, which drove a piece of wood out of the bottom of the vat. This struck the plaintiff and knocked him down, and some hot pitch which he was carrying fell over him and scalded him. There was no evidence to show how the explosion was caused.

The Lord Chief Justice asked if there was not some evidence that the hoops were loose.

Mr. Colam said that point was expressly abandoned by Mr. Statham, who appeared for the plaintiff. He submitted that there must have been some chemical in the pitch which caused the explosion, but there was no evidence that the pitch ought to be lighted or tested in any way before it was used."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 116.

If they were repitching every three months, that implies a lagering time of that length. Which is the classic lagering time. The process of setting light to hot pitch sounds pretty dodgy. And I certainly wouldn't want to have pitch splash over me, as in the case of the unfortunate Mr. Hume.

I like the judge asking if the pitch lining was for flavour. Though there are plenty of reports of Lager made this was having a garlicy flavour. Sounds lovely.

"The Lord Chief Justice said perhaps the word explosion was hardly the correct term in the ordinary sense, but probably in every case when the light was applied there was something of the same nature in a less egree. There would be a sudden expansion of the gases in the interior. Mr. Colam said the evidence was that there had never before been any explosion, but that there was a sort of humming noise. His complaint was that the learned judge by his summing up led the jury to believe that because a piece of the vat came out w en the explosion took place, that was evidence that the vat was defective. There was no evidence whatever of actual defect.

Mr. Justice Mathew said there was evidence that the vat was an old one.

Mr. Colam said it was only proved to be five years old, and it had gone through this process about every three months.

Mr. Justice Mathew said there was no evidence it was only five years old.

The Lord Chief Justice said a pitcher might go often to the well and yet get broken at last.

Mr. Colam then read the summing up, pointing out passages of which he complained, and again submitted that the learned judge had led the jury to a wrong conclusion, and that there was no evidence of negligence.

The Lord Chief Justice, without calling on Mr. Statham, said the learned judge left the question to the jury whether the injury to the plaintiff arose from the defective state of the vat, and whether such defect might by reasonable care have been discovered and guarded against, and it could not be contested that that was a roper uestion to be left to the jury. But it was contended on the part of the defendants that there was no evidence which ought to have been left to the jury that the injury did arise from the defective state of the vat. After reading the section of the Act, and referring to the operation performed, he said it seemed clear on the evidence that this operation exerted a certain amount of pressure outwards on the vat which was submitted to it. One of the witnesses said that when the light was applied flames came out, and a noise is heard; "hum ming, like a report." He did not doubt, therefore, that there was caused by the lighting of the pitch a kind of modified explosion in every case, or at all events a pressure arising from something of the character of an explosion. On the occasion in question this pressure resulted in a portion of the vat being forced out. He did not find in the evidence that the plaintiff was at any great distance, but he fell to the ground, and the pitch he was carrying went over him. Did not that state of facts raise a prima facie case of negligence within the meaning of the Act, which had to be answered? It could only have arisen from the fact that the vat was not strong enough to bear the operation. It was suggested that this was an exceptional operation, that there were chemicals in the pitch which caused the explosion, but if that was the suggestion it was for the defendants to show that such a thing was possible, and they called no evidence at all. The evidence was that this vat was five years old to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but of its actual age there was no evidence at all: or that any examination had been made of it to see whether it was sound. Under these circumstances he could not say that there was not evidence proper to be considered by the jury, and what they said after giving their verdict showed that they understood and appreciated the matter submitted to them, and had formed an opinion which seemed to him to be a sensible one. They said, “The jury would like to add that if proper means had been adopted to ascertain the strength of the vat before firing, the explosion probably would not have occurred." The summingup must be taken as a whole, not isolated sentences or half sentences by themselves, and taking it as a whole he thought the learned judge had left the proper questions to the jury, and in the proper way. The verdict and judgment would therefore stand.

Mr. Justice Mathew concurred, and the appeal was therefore dismissed with costs."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 116.

I'm glad that Mr. Hume got to keep his sixty quid. Sounds like he deserved it.

The Imperial Lager Brewery was in Tottenham. It opened in 1882 as the Anglo-Bavarian Lager Beer Brewery & Crystal Ice Factory. It changed its name to the Tottenham Lager Beer & Ice Factory 1886. That went into liquidation in 1895and a new company called the Imperial Lager Brewery was created. It stopped brewing in 1903.

The condition of Burton Ale in the 1920's

What sort of condition was Burton Ale in down the pub in the 1920's? It's the sort of answer I wouldn't expect to get an answer to. Yet, courtesy of the Whitbread Gravity Book, some evidence does exist.

Because in the early years it also included information about the appearance and flavour of the beer being analysed.

Let's begin with Watney's Burton:

Watney's Strong Ale condition 1922 - 1924
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour
1922	KK	1012.5	1058.5	6.00	78.63%	cloudy	v fair
1922	KK	1012.2	1057.2	5.87	78.67%	bright	fairly full
1922	KK	1013.9	1055.9	5.46	75.13%	v bright	good
1922	KK	1010.8	1056.3	5.94	80.82%	bright	unpleasantly bitter
1923	KK	1012.9	1059.4	6.06	78.28%	fairly bright	good
1923	KK	1013.6	1056.6	5.60	75.97%	bright	poor
1923	KK	1015	1059.5	5.79	74.79%	hazy	only fair
1923	KK	1015	1059	5.72	74.58%	bright	good
1923	KK	1014.2	1058.2	5.73	75.60%	bright	going off
1923	KK	1014.8	1061.8	6.12	76.05%	bright	fair
1923	KK	1010.6	1061.6	6.67	82.79%	not bright	fair
1924	KK	1014.1	1059.5	5.91	76.30%	bright	fair
1924	KK	1015.1	1060	5.84	74.83%	bright	v good
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Only three of the 13 examples weren't bright. Not too bad at all. Perhaps the other three pubs were marketing it as "unfined" beer. The beers came out a little worse in terms of flavour, with 4 examples not up to snuff.

The Burtons from other London brewers were much more of a mixed bunch:

London Strong Ale condition in 1922
Brewer	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour
Barclay Perkins	KK	1011.7	1056.2	5.80	79.18%	cloudy	fair
Beasley	KK	1014.4	1056.6	5.49	74.56%
Cannon Brewery	KK	1015.4	1054.4	5.06	71.69%	not bright no head	v poor
Charrington	KK	1015.6	1055.9	5.23	72.09%	bright	American cask
City of London	KK	1008.5	1056.7	6.30	85.01%	cloudy	fair
Courage	KK	1013.2	1053.7	5.27	75.42%	bright	v good
Hoare	KK	1015.5	1056.5	5.33	72.57%	cloudy	fair
Huggins	KK	1012.6	1056.1	5.67	77.54%	bright	good
Lion Brewery	KK	1010.7	1056.7	6.00	81.13%	cloudy	fair
Mann	KK	1013	1057	5.73	77.19%	bright	not good too sweet
Meux	KK	1007.4	1058.4	6.68	87.33%	cloudy	good
Truman	KK	1013.8	1052.8	5.07	73.86%		rather bitter
Wenlock	KK	1010	1054	5.74	81.48%	cloudy	poor
Whitbread	KK	1016.3	1054	4.89	69.81%	almost bright	fair
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Only four out of 14 were properly bright, though for a couple of examples the clarity isn't noted. On the upside, 8 of 14 didn't taste bad. But what really struck me was what is said about Charrington KK: "American cask".

I know exactly what that refers to. It means that the cask was made of American oak and its tainted the beer. Although they usually used unlined casks, the last thing British brewers wanted was any wood flavour in their beer. That was seen as a fault.

Overall, the condition of Burton Ales wasn't that bad. If you entered a random set of London pubs today, what percentage of their cask beers would be in good condition? Probably lower than the percentage of well-kept Watney's Burton in the table above.

Draught beer in the 1930's

Good old Sydney Nevile. He also wrote about draught beer in the 1930's. You may find some of what he has to say quite surprising.

The biggest shock is that brewers were already trying to move away from cask conditioning.

"So far as draught beer is concerned, filtration has been adopted to a considerable extent, but is not practised so widely as in the case of bottled beer. Many brewers chill and filter their draught beers and send them out ready for consumption in the licensed house, but probably the greater proportion of brewers find that by paying great attention to the whole of the brewing and the fining and treatment of the beer in the publican's cellar, an article is produced which satisfies the public equally well or better than the filtered article."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 522.

At least Nevile does admit that, if well handled, cask beer could be superior to filtered beer. What's described doesn't sound like it goes as far as being full keg beer, but more like bright beer. I drank a fair bit of bright beer served by electric dispense in the 1970's and it was a good second best to cask. And definitely way superior to keg.

Wooden casks weren't hugely popular with brewers. They were heavy, expensive to maintain and, if improperly cleaned, could taint beer. But in the 1930's there wasn't an obvious replacement to hand. The ultimate solution was to replace wooden casks with metal ones, but that process didn't start until after WW II. In the early 1970's, when I started drinking, there were still plenty of wooden barrels knocking around. Even national brewers sometimes still used them.

"Whilst much progress has been made in many directions, there are still serious problems connected with the distribution of beer through licensed houses to the public which await solution. Nothing has yet been found to take the place of the wooden cask. Deficiencies have been to some extent ameliorated by various methods of lining and by improved methods of cask washing; but there are few brewers who would not gladly adopt another package if a satisfactory one could be found.

The reduction in the bulk output of beer has naturally led to a reduction in the size of the casks employed. The old puncheons (2 barrels) and butts (3 barrels) have disappeared and even hogsheads are far fewer than in pre-war days. The average size of the casks employed throughout the country is probably well under 36 gallons, and the custom has grown up of delivering the beer far more frequently than was the case in old days."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 522.

How much time I've spent researching the tricky question of lining casks. Before WW I it seems to have been very rare to line casks, in contrast to continental Europe where it was standard practice to line casks with pitch. British brewers were reluctant to follow suit because of the taint the pitch gave to the beer inside it. After WW I, some brewers did line their casks, but preferred materials other than pitch, such as paraffin.

If you have ever seen what a beast a wooden hogshead is, you'll be as amazed as me that larger casks were delivered to pubs before WW I. How much must a wooden butt have weighed? How on earth did draymen manoeuvre something so large and heavy into a pub cellar? But I was a little surprised that the average cask size in the 1930's was smaller than a barrel. I would have expected that to be the standard size before WW II. Of course now the majority of cask beer is delivered in 9-gallon firkins. A few breweries - Holt's, for example - continued to use hogsheads throughout the 20th century. They may even still use them.

There was a way of doing away with casks altogether, by using cellar tanks.

"In order to avoid the difficulties inherent in the wooden cask, a substantial number of brewers have adopted for a portion of their trade the principle of delivering filtered beer in tank wagons into tanks in the licensed house. This has met with a considerable amount of success, but for one reason or another does not appear at the present time to be making further progress."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 522

I'm not so sure that a "substantial number of brewers" used cellar tanks in the 1930's. I can think of only one that I know: the Hull Brewery. They used ceramic cellar tanks up until at least the 1970's. There was a big debate in CAMRA as to whether this beer counted as cask or not. Initially (and incorrectly, in my opinion) CAMRA did classify it as cask, but later changed their mind.

"Apart from the filtered beer delivered to licensed houses, the practice of fining the beer in the cellar of the retailer has diminished and though in London the practice still is maintained to a considerable extent, by far the greater part of the beer supplied is fined in the brewery before delivery to the customer. The character of the finings themselves has also been greatly improved, the old form of finings made with acid beer having given way to those prepared under strictly hygienic conditions."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 522.

Brewers switched to fining beer before dispatch around the time of WW I. They found that it was cheaper and more reliable than delivering finings with the beer and leaving it to the publican. Using sour beer to dissolve the isinglass forms a pretty obvious risk for infecting the cask being fined. As with filtered tank beer, this seems to have been a way of making beer more idiot-proof for publicans.

This is a fascinating paragraph on the subject of beer dispense:

"Beer Pumps versus Pressors
During the last 50 years the methods of raising beer from the cellar to the bar have received a great deal of attention. Raising beer by air or carbonic acid gas pressure has been freely advocated, and much attention has been applied to different methods and appliances for adopting the system; but so far for some reason or other over a greater part of England the beer pump is still preferred both by the retailer and his customers. There are certain parts of the country, notably in Scotland, where air pressure may be said to be almost general, but when attempts are made to apply it in other districts, sooner or later the retailer puts in a request to return to the old-fashioned pump, which as a matter of fact during recent years has been vastly improved from the point of view of accessibility for cleaning."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 522.

The first attempt at CO2 pressure dispense in Britain that I know of was Worthington, in the first decade of the 20th century. It was a failure because the punters didn't like how the beer tasted. It seems that in the 1930's drinkers were equally resistant to this new method of serving beer. Why were they more receptive in the 1950's and 1960's? Was it more fashionable to be modern after WW II? Of course, there was resistance in the 1960's, too, and that led to the formation of CAMRA in 1971.

I've evidence for some CO2 dispense in the 1930's and 1940's, but that was for Lager. Barclay Perkins price lists from the period include CO2 cylinders for serving their draught Lager.

Oddly, handpumps almost totally disappeared from Scotland, replaced by "tall font" air pressure pumps. These started to fall out of favour for serving cask beer in the 1980's because they were difficult to tell apart from top-pressure pumps.

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.

Lining British casks

I occasionally have arguments on the interweb with people who claim British casks were regularly lined with pitch of some other sunstance during the 19th century. I've never seen any real evidence to confirm it. And planrty of circumstantial evidence that pointss the other way.

This is another peice of such cicumstantial evidence. It's been plucked from the prospectus of a company specialising in lining wooden casks. The impliactaion of the text is clear: that most brewers weren't using lined casks. Otherwise why would you need to persuade them what a good idea l9ining was?

"THE STERAX COMPANY LIMITED.
ABBIDGED PROSPECTUS.

This Company is formed to acquire the British business of the Patent Sterilised Cask Company Limited, and the British patents and patent rights held in connection with the "Sterax" process, and also the TradeMark in the word "Sterax."

The ADVANTAGES OF THE "STERAX" PBOCESS may be summarised as follows : -

1. It ensures perfect Sterilisation, with absolute immunity from beers becoming affected by varying cask conditions, thus securing uniformity of character in beers.
2. It produces absolute Sealing of the pores of the wood and so prevents escape of Carbonic Acid Gas, thus ensuring maintenance of condition in beers.
3. It prevents acidity or fust by interposing the neutral substance "Sterax" between the wood and the contents of the cask.
4 It effects a great saving of expense by economy at: —(a) Time and Labour; (b) Fuel and water; (c) Cask repairing and storage space ; (d) Loss incurred through returned beer.

BREWERS WHO HAVE ADOPTED THE "STERAX" PROCESS.—The following brewers have taken licences from the Patent Sterilised Cask Company Limited to use the "Sterax" process, and plants have already been erected in six of the Breweries. Each firm has agreed to pay an annual royalty in addition to the cost of the plant; the royalties will belong to this Company :—

Messrs. Samuel Allsopp and Sons Ltd., Burton-on-Trent.
Messrs. S. and T. N. Blake and Co. Ltd., Gosport.
Messrs. Fox and Sons, Farnborough. Messrs.
Thomas Salt and Co, Ltd., Burton-on-Trent. Me»srs.
Thomas Usher and Son Ltd.. Edinburgh. Messrs.
Thomas Wethered and Sons Ltd., Marlow. Messrs.
Wm. Whitaker and Co. Ltd., Old Brewery, Bradford.
Messrs. Worthington and Co. Ltd., Burton-on-Trent.

The Anglo-Bavarian Brewery. Ltd., Shepton Mallet; the Lamb Brewery Ltd., Frome: Messrs. A. Gordon and Co., London; Messrs. Crowley and Co., Alton; Messrs. Barlett and Co., Ltd Warminsier; Messrs. W. Cooper and Co., Ltd., Southampton; and Messrs. John Furze and Co., London, have also adopted the Process, having acquired the right to use it from the inventor, who retains the protits therefrom.

The "Sterax" process has been in constant use for about two years at the Anglo-Bavarian Brewery Limited, and for shorter periods in many of the other Breweries mentioned ; its advantages have thus been thoroughly tested and demonstrated in practical working.

In addition, upwards of 100 firms of brewers have had casks treated lor the purposes of practical trial, and negotiations are in prepress with many of them for licenses.

THE STERAX COMPANY LIMITED.

PROFITS.- The royalties payable to this Company by the nine firms of brewers above mentioned will amount to over £2,500 a year and profits are being earned from treating the casks used by smaller brewers, and from treating new casks before they leave the coopers' yards. Owing to undertakings given to the  various brewers the separate amounts of the royalties payable by each cannot be disclosed, as each royalty is based upon confidential information as to the trade done.

According to the latest excise returns the number of brewers in the United Kingdom in 1899 was 6,888, and the beer produced in the year ending 31st December, 1899, was 37,404,383 barrels.

While it is not claimed to be probable that all brewers will adopt the process, yet it should be remembered that it ensures a saving in money to brewers who do adopt it estimated at three times the amount of the royalty charged, and if all brewers adopted the "Sterax" process, royalties calculated on the same basis as those fixed in the licenses already granted would amount to over £75,000 per annum, while if only 50 of the largest brewers actually adopt it, the annual royalties calculated on the same basis would amount to not less than £29,488 per annum, a sum sufficient to pay 20 per cent on the issued capital of this Company, and leave the ample margin of £15,966 for management expenses. reserve, and further dividend.

The "Sterax" process is also believed to be applicable the casks used in the vinegar and cider trades, and practical tests are now proceeding by members of these trades. Inquiries have also been received firms engaged in wine, milk, butter, fish, tallow, oil, fruit and other trades. The extension of the process in these directions would greatly extend the scope of the company's operations and profits.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Tuesday 20 March 1900, page 1.
http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000206/19000320/068/0001

The list of brewers who had licences for the process is an odd mixture of the large and famous and the obscure. Fascinating that it includes three large Burton brewers: Allsopp, Salt and Worthington. I wonder if there's any connection in Allsopp's use of it and the Lager they had just started brewing. An air-tight cask is much more important when you're filling it with Lager.

This has all the hallmarks of a wildly over-optimistic launch, with the plump profits dependent on mass acceptance of the process, at least among large breweries. Something that I'm pretty sure never happened.

The Wrexham Lager Beer Brewery (part two)

Here's the rest of the article about the Wrexham Lager Beer Brewery.

It starts witth a description of one of the most important pieces of equipment in the brewery: the ice machine.

"Descending to the basement an examination was made of the engine which supplies the motive power. It is of 60 horse power, and possesses several arrangements which are the clever productions of the German engineers who constructed it. Running along side is the refrigerating machine, used for the production of ice, which is largely used in the brewery. Having seen the ice house, a move was made to the storage cellars which were reached after the descent of several flights of stairs. There are six ice cellars, each containing 26 large storage casks, and each of these casks is capable of storing 1100 gallons of the lager beer Along one side of the cellars is a huge room which is filled with ice, and the natural result is that the cellars, into which a ray of daylight cannot enter, are kept at a few degrees above freezing all the year round. This is necessary for the preservation of the lager, and few persons who have visited the vast cold cellars will doubt that the company has perfect cellarage. Ascending to the light of day and to a warmer temperature, the warehouse was inspected as well as the department where the casks are "pitched" In order to keep the air from the lager, melted pitch specially prepared for the purpose, is poured in the barrels which are kept revolving so that a thin coating of the substance is left in the vessel. This keeps out the air and gives a slight flavor to the lager which is by no means unpleasant. In the bottling department there was great briskness, large orders having been received for our home and export trade. All the bottles for export are "pasteurized" that is are subject to heat, a process which tends to fit them for their long voyages to India, Australia, and the other places for which they are bound."
Wrexham Advertiser - Saturday 22 September 1888, page 8.

The storage casks are presumably the lagering vessels. 1100 gallons is a little over 30 barrels. Giving a lagering capacity of  794 barrels per ice cellar, 4,766 barrels for all six cellars. If they lagered for 2 months, that gives an annual capacity of about 29,000 barrels. If they lagered for 3 months, the annual capacity is 19,000 barrels. Personally, I doubt they were brewing that much in the 1880's.

I've occasionally had robust discussions on the internet about whether British casks were lined in the 19th century. I'm pretty sure they weren't. This is a piece of idirect evidence that they weren't. Why mention that the Lager casks were lined if all casks were? I'll take the author's word for it that it added a pleasant flavour.

This must be one of the earliest refeences to pasteurisation of British beer. As we've learned from ther sources, in the early years much of Wrexham's Lager was exported. Did it really get shipped all the way to Australia? There's an easy way to find out: look in the Australian nespaper archive. Guess what?

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 December 1885, page 22.

Brisbane Courier, 12th July 1897, page 3.

I think that's a pretty emphatic yes.

"Having thus made a tour of the building under the personal direction of Mr W. A. Cartwright, the courteous and business-like manager of the company a return was made to the office, where the writer obtained a glimpse at the large business which is being done by the company. During the inspection it was pleasing to note what care is taken to secure grain and hops of the finest quality only. The company is evidently determined to brew only from the finest qualities, and it is no wonder that their lager has obtained so wide a reputation. It is of fine color sparkles well, and posseses refreshing qualities which have placed it in the front rank of beverages. Not only do the hale and hearty find it pleasing, but it is now prescribed by many medical men in lieu of other brewings which are found to be too heavy for medicinal use. This is not to be surprised at when we learn that the Wrexham Lager Beer contains the minimum of alchohol with the maximum of the good qualities of the purest and finest malt and hops. There is a demand for a light ale, and in competent hands there is no reason why the sale of lager should not greatly increase, and supplant the heavy ales now usually consumed by many who have not had the opportunity of testing the famous brewings of the Wrexham Lager Beer Company. We are pleased to learn that the beer has now been introduced into the principal bars, restaurants, and hotels in Glasgow."
Wrexham Advertiser - Saturday 22 September 1888, page 8.

Fine colour, eh? But which fine colour? Not really that helpful, that description. I don't find any beer too heavy for medicinal use. The heavier the better, I say.

It's funny how often early pieces on Lager finish on a similar optimistic note, full of the glorious future awaiting Lager. It wouldn't happen for another 90 years.

How to Manage the Brewing of One Boll (part three)

Time for the final instalment of a thrilling description of Scottish domestic brewing. Today it's the turn of fermentation.

It's fascinating stuff, if only because it's so different to the supposed Scottish way of fermenting. See what you think:

"FERMENTATION.

Procure a gallon of brewers' best strong-ale yeast; and for this brewing you will need three fermenting tuns. It will be best to have two of them capable of containing about 42 gallons each, which will serve the purpose of fermenting a barrel (36 gallons) should it ever be found necessary. A tun capable of containing a half-hogshead will serve for the table-beer, and will afterwards ferment a kilderkin (18 gallons) if needful. As soon as your strong-ale wort is cooled to 85°, take out about a gallon of it, and pour into it three English pints, or 34 pounds 3.5 pounds of the yeast. When it begins to ferment, add a little more wort, and a vigorous fermentation will soon take place. If the weather is cool, or the atmosphere from 40° to 45°, commence fermentation as soon as the wort is cooled to 75°. Pour the yeast-mixture all over the inside of the fermenting tun, as far up as the wort will rise. Turn in the strong-ale wort now, and incorporate it well with the yeast; after which cover up the tun. Follow exactly the same plan with the middle-ale wort, fermenting as before with 3 English pints of the yeast. Ferment the 16 gallons of table-beer wort at the temperature of 80° with one English pint of the yeast. You have one English pint of the yeast remaining, in case the fermentation in any of the tuns becomes languid.

On the morning after the worts have been put into the tuns, if the fermentation has gone on smoothly, the ale-worts should show a slight white cream. Break this down into the mass, stir well up the contents of the tuns, and take out a little for examination. The saccharometer should show a decrease of gravity, and the thermometer a small increase of heat. Examine the tuns again in the evening, and should the fermentation appear rather languid, add a small portion of yeast, and mix it up well with the mass. On the second morning, if fermentation is going on well, a white frothy head, something like a cauliflower, should appear on the contents of the tuns, with perhaps patches of dark-brown yeast on its surface. Be careful to remove these patches, or they will impart a harsh disagreeable flavour to the ale. Take out some of the liquor and examine it. If the saccharometer does not indicate a considerable decrease of gravity, and the thermometer an increase of heat, break down the head once more into the mass, and stir the whole well up. After this the head must remain unbroken till it is skimmed off, but samples may be occasionally taken out to ascertain to what extent attenuation has taken place. When the head assumes a dark-brown appearance, and begins to be depressed in the centre, it must be removed, or it will fall to the bottom and destroy the flavour of the ale. Be especially careful to prevent this. After skimming apply the saccharometer. Should the gravity not be reduced two-fifths,—that is, that which originally stood at 100 be reduced to 60,—and that which was 65 be reduced to 39,—rouse it well up, and skim every two hours, till this degree of attenuation is, if possible, attained. The table-beer should be put into the cask 24 hours after fermentation has commenced in the fermenting tun.

See that the casks are perfectly clean and dry. Place them on a gawntree with the bunghole a little inclined to one side, that the yeast may discharge itself freely from the ale. Fill the casks, and as for some time a considerable discharge will take place from the bunghole, be careful to supply the deficiency every two hours from the pitchers containing the over-contents of the casks. If this be not attended to the yeast will fall to the bottom, and make the ale harsh, besides rendering it liable to new fermentation on every change of weather.

When the fermentation has subsided the casks should be firmly bunged down with wooden bungs, called by the brewers shives, and a spile-hole made in them, into which a vent-peg is put loosely for a day or two, and then firmly fixed. When ale is made in March and intended to be kept over the summer, it may be advisable to put 4 or 6 ounces of the finest hops into every half-hogshead ; or the half of this quantity if the ale is racked off into quarter-hogsheads or kilderkins, which are perhaps more convenient for domestic use.

If notwithstanding all your care the ale should be cloudy, it will be necessary to fine it by artificial means. To do this yon must dissolve an ounce of isinglass in a quart of cider or stale beer, allowing it to stand for several days, when another quart of cider or beer may be added. Strain this through a sieve, and put nearly the half of an English pint of it to each quarter-hogshead or kilderkin, mixing it thoroughly with the ale. Ale should not be fined in this manner unless absolutely necessary ; for is has a strong tendency to flatten it and promote acidity.

In this brewing the strong-ale wort may have a gravity of from 112 to 115; the middle-ale wort, a gravity of 74; and the table beer wort, a gravity of from 48 to 50."
"The cook and housewife's manual" by Margaret Dods, 1847, pages 648 - 650.

It begins normally enough, with making a yeast starter. Nothing odd about that. But look at that pitching temperature: 75º F. Admittedly, it does say this is when the ambient temperature is cool. Even so, it seems very high.  Though not as bad as for the Table Beer, which is pitched at 80º F. Oddly enough, there's no mention of the pitching heat in warm weather. Presumably that was lower.

The temperatures quoted are totally at odds with what Roberts suggests in "Scottish Ale Brewer": around 50º F. And not much like what William Younger did, either. They pitched their 120/- Ale at 55º F and their Table Beer at 58º C.

It seems that the practice of mixing yeast with a small amount of incompletely-cooled wort used to be employed by commercial brewers:

"The mode which the Scottish brewers adopt in pitching their tuns is very similar to that in England; though, generally speaking, they do not now, as formerly, let down a small portion of the worts into the gyle-tun at a higher temperature, along with some of the store. That former practice, which appears to me very judicious, as it gives the brewer some idea of the strength of the store before he mingles it with the whole of his worts, is still employed by a few."
"The Scottish ale-brewer and practical maltster" by William Henry Roberts, 1847, pages 114 - 115.

Note the beating down of the yeast at the start of fermentation. Commercial brewers did that, too. Except they continued doing so most of the way through the fermentation.

It's a bit confusing about when cleansing should start. Except in the case of the Table Beer, which is after just 24 hours. What I think it says is that cleansing should begin when the attenuation hits 40%. The system described - where the casks are placed on their sides and excess yeast allowed to exit via the shive hole - is cleansing at its simplest. And messiest, as the yeast/wort mixture runs down the side of the cask. I wouldn't want to be the cleaner. Or the poor bastard topping up the casks by hand.

A demonstration of how commercial and domestic brewing was diverging as the professionals changed their equipment and techniques to reduce the amount of labour required.

That's a fair amount of dry hops being added. Remember that they're using a half-hogshead and not a barrel. The rate is 5.33 to 8 oz. per 36-gallon barrel. Rather later - 1868 - William Younger added about 4 oz of dry hops per barrel to their 120/- Ale.

Old brewing instructions often mention that beer should clear itself spontaneously, if stored and matured correctly. The alternative, then as now, was to fine with isinglass. I'm not surprised finings tended to make beer go sour if they used stale beer or cider to dissolve the isinglass with. Sounds like asking for an infection.

And there we have it. Full instructions on how to brew at home in mid-19th-century Scotland. Very handy.

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.

Memel oak vs. American oak

Like zooming in on a fractal picture, I keep finding ever more levels of detail. This is about the wood used to contract casks.

Pale Ale casks were usually made from Memel oak. (Memel used to be part of East Prussia, but is now in Lithuania.):

"Crown Memel timber grown in and around Memel, shipped at that port, has been handed down from age to age, in the brewing world, as the oak from which casks for pale ale should be made. In the trade we have Quebec or American oak, and Memel or Baltic oak. Let me deal with the Quebec or American class first."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 12", 1906, page 689.

For some purposed, American oak was considered more suitable:

"American staves, while they will not do for pale ale casks, are universally used by Irish porter brewers, and by the leading firms in the porter trade only American staves are used. 'Tis said that the tannin in the American staves lends to the Dublin porter a flavour that nothing else will. Be that as it may, American staves possess a tannin which makes them in every sense adapted for porter; yet, that very tannin debars their use for pale ale. Many brewers, particularly so country brewers, know this to their loss. One of the largest firms in the trade, a firm whom you all know, recently experimented with Memel or pale ale casks for stout, and that on a very elaborate scale; some thousands of casks were made from Memel staves, put into the trade, and examined periodically and systematically. The objects it was desired to ascertain were :— First, how Memel compared with American white oak as regards durability; second, whether the Memel heads of casks would be freer of shivers than American oak heads; third, whether the porter was affected in flavour. The initial cost, of course, was known to be much greater in Memel than American casks.

From the results it was incontestably shown that Memel oak casks were much more liable to injury than American oak. The heads shivered much more, and both sides and heads were frequently cracked across with any rough usage, such as is often unfortunately administered to casks in Ireland. The cost of repairs, consequently, was greatly in excess of the cost of repairing American oak casks.

Finally, no difference whatever could be discovered in the flavour of the contents of the cask between Memel and American oak. This latter was one of the most important things they wished to discover, and if it had been established that porter stored sweeter in Memel than in American oak, the firm to which I refer would have at once adopted Memel, more particularly in their firkin trade, as for family trade purposes this size of cask is largely used, and accordingly the porter is stored longer than in hogsheads and barrels. As, however, no difference could be found, and as all the other advantages were distinctly with American oak, the experiments ended in satisfying them that Memel was much less suitable for their trade, apart altogether from the expense, and I understand, if they were faced with the alternative, they would pay a higher price for American oak than Memel.

What surprises me, is that Scotch and English brewers who have a fair trade in stout, do not follow the example of the famed Irish porter brewers and use American white oak, or, as they are called, Quebec casks for porter. Till very recently they were considerably cheaper, and I understand are still soma what so, and it is surprising that any brewer exports stout in anything else but Quebec casks, although the fact is that the largest exporters of stout do so. I have met the objection repeatedly to the use of Memel casks for ale and Quebec casks for porter, the difficulty of distinguishing the one from the other, but that can be overcome by simply having the ale casks painted white and the porter red."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 12", 1906, pages 691-692.

Interesting that. How Dublin brewers used American oak. And that it supposedly contributed to the Dublin Porter flavour. I think it's safe to assume that they're talking about Guinness. At that time not only the largest brewery in Ireland, nor even the largest brewery in the United Kingdom, but the largest brewery in the world.

Though the author then goes on to point out that there was no appreciable difference in the flavour of Porter stored in American as opposed to Memel oak. But that American oak was less prone to damage.

I've included a final quote, because of what it reveals about lining barrels with pitch:

"Two classes of oak have recently been tried and are, I understand, used on the Continent to-day, even varied lots of casks so made have been imported to London. I refer to Hungarian and St. Petersburg oak. To those who pitch or resin their casks no objection may be taken to timber of that class, but for ordinary use as pale ale casks they will never do. In the manufacture of these casks the steaming process brings out simply "stink," which, if any brewer ever felt he would not allow within any reasonable distance of his brewery. It behoves you, therefore, to see that in ordering casks you insist upon having them made from Crown Memel Oak. It is only fair to add that the coopers in Scotland have not gone into this class of oak. I would feign express the hope they never will.
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 12", 1906, page 695.

It seems clear that the reason casks made of Hungarian or St.Petersburg oak are unsuitable for Pale Ale is the flavour it imparts to the beer, if you don't pitch-line your casks. Ergo Pale Ale casks weren't usually lined with pitch. And nor were those at Guinness.

I've been looking for information about whether British casks were lined in the 19th century for a while. It's been surprisingly difficult. And much of the evidence, like that in this article, is a matter of inference. But it all points in one direction. That British casks weren't lined.

Lining casks with pitch

Pitch. And the age-old question: were British beer casks lined with pitch? Some swear blind that they were. What do I think? I'll tell you in a minute. After we've looked at some old texts.

First, one from the early in the 19th century. It's part of a discussion on the methods employed in German brewing:

"Great care is requisite in having the store-casks very clean and sweet before filling them, lest they should communicate a disagreeable flavour to the beer. In two towns, this is effected, after they are well washed, by smoking them with burning sulphur; but in the rest of Bavaria it is done by lining them with pitch. The following is the manner by which this is effected at Munich. The store-casks, in which the beer is cleansed, are previously pitched every time for summer beer, and once a year for winter beer. Pitching is practised in this way:—One end of the cask is taken out, and two English pounds of pitch for every barrel of its contents, if the pitching has only to be renewed (but double that quantity if for the first time), is set fire to on the bottom of the cask, and made to burn until the whole has become perfectly fluid. This being done, the fire is extinguished, by putting in the, head of the cask and driving the hoops close ; and then the cask is rolled about and turned in every direction, so that the pitch may be spread over every part of the inner surface, which it will thereby cover with a crust of one-eighth of an inch thick. This crust is apt to crack and blister, which causes the necessity of re-pitching every season. The professed object of this manipulation is cleanliness; but it doubtless communicates a peculiar flavour to the beer, which, however, is liked, and consequently required, by the customers of those brewers."
"The Art of Brewing" by David Booth, 1834, page 29.

Nothing directly about pitching barrels in British breweries, but the implication is that this is a pratice not known in Britain. There's no mention of "this is how we do pitching in Britain". And the impact of pitch on beer flavour is remarked upon. Not the most convincing piece of evidence, I will admit.

Let's look at another text from a couple of decades later:

"The German brewers, who have the repute of being far our superiors, have doubtlessly seen the inconvenience arising from the casks absorbing the beer, and inflicting injury by admitting the atmospheric air through their pores, both casks and contents suffering upon the decomposition of the imbibed fluids, and the consequent acidity of the wood. Hence their precaution of lining their casks with pitch. No such protection is taken by other brewers; but notwithstanding that such or any similar "new-fangled notion" may be jeered at by the anti-innovators of the British brewery, the subject assuredly deserves a little thought; and the author suggests that brewers' casks may be rendered more durable, and their pores may be effectually stopped, by subjecting all casks, whether old or new, to the following process."
"The theory and practice of brewing illustrated", by William Tizard, 1850, page 489.

This is much clearer. The Germans, clever devils that they are, did pitch their barrels. Britain's brewers, being a conservative bunch, didn't. I think this is very clear evidence against pitching in Britain.



Now a text from the early 20th century:

"The wooden casks used for the transport and storage of wine, beer, etc., are liable to become infested with mould fungi and other bacteria when lying empty, and must therefore be carefully cleansed, before use again, with boiling water and some disinfectant, such as lime, etc., and then dried. Even then, no security exists against the contamination of the liquid contents, or at any rate against their acquiring a flavour due to the cask. In the case of beer barrels, it has long been the practice (in some parts of the Continent) to line them with pitch, which, however, is liable to crack and peel off, so that not only is the beer contaminated with fragments of pitch, but the cracks in the coating afford an excellent harbouring place for the development of bacteria. It is true that shellac dissolved in spirit has also been used for varnishing the interior of these casks ; but that process in turn has drawbacks which preclude its employment in many cases."
"Casein, its preparation and technical utilisation" by Robert Scherer, 1911, pages 149-150.

That's pretty clear: pitching is something performed in parts of the Continent. So not in Britain.

To round off today's post, two fairly random passages about pitching barrels:

"Turbidity of beer due to resins is a very rare occurrence ; it is generally attributed to the separation of resins extracted from the hops. The author, however, cannot admit that hop resins are present in the beer in such quantities as to cause a visible turbidity. The small quantity which fails to settle out with the yeast is found in the sediments from the lager casks. The author has recently examined a number of samples of beer, more or less turbid, and possessing a distinct flavour of pitch. The microscopic examination of these turbid samples showed that the turbidity was caused solely by the presence of globules of resin. On applying pressure to the cover-glass it was found that these globules varied in consistency, as if the resin were dissolved in some solvent in varying proportions. The globules were separated by centrifugalising some of the beer; they were then placed on to gypsum plate to remove most of the water, and moistened with a reagent composed of a mixture of 5 c.c. of acetic anhydride and one or two drops of concentrated sulphuric acid. A violet coloration was thus developed—a conclusive proof that tho turbidity was caused, not by hop resins, but by rosin derived from the pitch lining of the casks. It is not yet clear how this pitch is absorbed by the beer, but it is very probably due to overheating when coating the casks, and the consequent formation of rosin oil, which appears as a bluish iridescent layer over the surface of the pitch after cooling. The microscopic appearance of the cuntrifugalised centrifugalised rosin particles may vary from characteristic globules, through intermediate forms, to roundish, indefinitely shaped particles, which tend to adhere in masses, and have a shrunken, honeycombed appearance, ranging from colourless to yellowish-brown."
"Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, Volume 23", 1904, page 126.

So there were problems associated with lining barrels. I'm not sure I'd be happy if I found lumps of pitch in my pint.

And finally a positively scary property of lined barrels:

"A Cause of Explosions in Lining Casks with Pitch. By J. Brand (Zeits. ges. Brauw., 1901, 24, 481—483).

Several explosions have been recently recorded in the course of lining casks with pitch by means of the Theurer apparatus, some of which cases could not be due to the vapours lighting back from a fire since they were not conducted into a fire at all. In considering the question, the author recalled to mind the explosions produced by statical electricity generated by friction in the benzine (petroleum spirit) " dry cleaning " process ; and, in view of the probability of a similar generation of electricity through the friction of the hot pitch sprayed into the casks, conducted several experiments with a small Theurer apparatus and a number of 6-12 gallon casks. These casks were pitched, and then tested as quickly as possible by inserting through the bunghole, to the depth of about a foot, a very sensitive electroscope with aluminium leaves. In the case of casks which had come direct to the pitching apparatus, from being steamed out and therefore contained water vapour, only two out of ten gave any positive results ; but when dry casks were tried a decided movement of the electroscope leaves was noticed in six out of ten, the divergence of the leaves in some instances being found to correspond to a tension of 300 volts, capable of producing a 0.1 mm. spark. Whether the risk of similar explosions could be diminished by the introduction of water vapour into the casks the author leaves an open question, but, at any rate, he considers that pitch containing the minimum amount of turpentine and similar volatile constituents is safer to use than such samples as give off a large quantity of volatile matter at the temperature of the pitching operation (about 200° C.)."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 7", 1901, pages 516 - 517.

What do I think? Did British breweries pitch line their casks? No. At least not before WW I.

Pitch lined casks

Here's a question I've never found a deefinitive answer to: were British casks lined with pitch?

The only mentions of lining casks I've seen before 1900 imply that it's a continenatal practice not followed in Britain. Come the 20th century, brewing manuals do mention lining casks, but the implication is that the practice wasn't universal. And that most of the time a material other than pitch was used, something that didn't flavour the beer.

Today I found the first mention of lining casks in an archive document. It's the notebook of one of Barclay Perkins' brewers and has all sorts of  little tables. This one is about BS Ex, the export version of their Brown Stout. Half way down the table, there are notes in red saying "Casks lined with pitch". The first such entry is dated 18th October 1922.

What does this tell us? That it's written in red implies that it's out of the ordinary. At least if they're using the same system as on brewing records. Also we can deduce that before 1922 the casks weren't pitch-lined.

Did Barclay Perkins line their casks with pitch? Sometimes. Probably only starting in the 1920's and only for export beer. Not a comprehensive answer, but better than nothing.