Fremlin beer output in October 1897

My trip to Maidstone provided me with so much material. As I'm sure you're starting to realise. Here's a reminder that it's useful to photograph pretty much anything you find in a brewing record. Even if it looks like a bookmark.

There’s a sheet of paper in the last page for October in the brewing log, listing all sorts of monthly totals. Including how much of each beer was brewed. This makes it clear how much of a Pale Ale brewery Fremlin was.

The two weakest Pale Ales, H and BB, accounted for over 50% of their output. And the eight Pale Ales and one IPA were 93% of production. The biggest seller of the other beers, Porter, amounted to only 3% of the beer Fremlin brewed. 

Most of the beers produced were blended at racking time. Not just with primings to condition the beer in the cask, but also a small quantity of vatted Stock Ale. I assume that this was to add some aged character. It’s interesting that even X, the Mild Ale, had some of this aged beer blended in.

The proportion of vatted beer added was between 1% and 2%. Over all beers, averaging 1.76%.

There could have been few breweries in the country where Pale Ale so dominated output. Even specialist brewers in Burton produced a higher proportion of other styles. I wonder why Fremlin ended up concentrating so much on Pale Ales?
 

Fremlin beer output in October 1897
	beer	primings	vat	Total	%
H	3,049.5	85.25	57	3,185.75	30.94%
BB	2,329	79.75	43	2,451.75	23.81%
BA C	1,325	46.25	36	1,407.25	13.67%
BA	655	20.25	8.5	683.75	6.64%
PA C	1,165.5	39.75	17	1,222.25	11.87%
IPA	43.5			43.5	0.42%
X	169.5	7	9	185.5	1.80%
P	301	-		301	2.92%
Cooper	73.5			73.5	0.71%
DS	83.5	3.25	19	105.75	1.03%
BB L	371.75	3		374.75	3.64%
BA L	73			73	0.71%
PA L	137.25			137.25	1.33%
Pilsener	46.5			46.5	0.45%
Victoria		5		5	0.05%
total	9,823.5	289.5	183.5	10,296.5
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/F/Bx2/1/22.

 

 

Priming with lactose

This is a rather strange one. Just about the time that Milk Stout was being invented, someone proposed a different use for lactose: in priming.

This use was proposed by a Mr. J. Melhuish.\

Priming for Malt Liquors.
The object of the inventor is to produce a priming for malt liquors which will not lose its characteristic flavour in course of such time as the beer is proposed to be kept in stock. In ordinary practice the cane or invert sugar, or glucose employed, speedily loses its sweetening power and becomes changed into other products, thus rendering it impossible to say exactly what degree of sweetness may remain at any given time after brewing is completed, say for instance three months. To obviate this uncertainty the inventor, Mr. J. Melhuish, lecturer on dietetics. Glasgow, instead of using sugar or glucose, employs as priming agent, lactose, or milk sugar, the quantity recommended being eight pounds dissolved in its own weight of boiling water, to each barrel. It is stated to be permanent in character, and not to deteriorate in regard to flavour except by the agency of lactic ferments, which have already been destroyed during the fermentation of the beer.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 45 1909, March 15th 1909, page 185.

To me, it makes absolutely no sense. Anf implies that Mr. Melhuish didn't really understand the purpose of priming. He seems to have assumed that it was intended to add a permanent degree of sweetness. Which, obviously, would work better with unfermentable lactose than with derivations of sucrose. Whereas, in reality, the principal function of primings was to add fermentable material to bring the beer into condition in the cask.

Mr. Melhuish also made the assumption that no yeast could ferment lactose. But that's not true. Some types of Brettanomyces can. If you left a beerr for several months, then a Brettanomyces could kick in and alter the flavour profile, anyway.

Overall, it sounds like a crap idea. Which is probably why it never became popular. Though I can think of an example of its use: at Whitbread. In the 1930s, when they brewed Mackeson Milk Stout, they didn't add the lactose in the boil but at racking time as prinings.
 

Primings (part two)

More fun stuff on 19th-century primings. A topic I'm sure you find just as fascinating as I do.

The problem with using lour, was that the slow fermentation it provoked, didn't heavily carbonate the beer quickly enough. for that you needed sugar.

"The use of flour does not, however, commend itself to many, since it is apt to lead to the slow generation of gas in place of that high condition that is considered so essential, so the popular plan at the present time is to introduce a prepared solution of sugar, either perfectly quiescent or brought into a state of incipient fermentation a few hours previous to the shipment of the beer. This operation would be costly if the sugar so used was not taken into account when calculating original gravity; it is customary therefore to fix upon a certain quantity of sugar solution to be added per barrel, and then reducing the brewing gravity of the beer so that the final addition of sugar brings it up to standard."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, page 269.

Of course, the canny brewer would lower the OG of his beer to take into account the primings added later. And, naturally, duty would be paid on the primings.

"The best variety of sugar to use seems to be either dextrin-maltose or some pure saccharine. A boiling-hot solution is made, cooled, and added to each cask, the ordinary quantity being some three gallons per barrel of a gravity corresponding to 1,150, those desiring very rapid condition inducing a quiet fermentation in the strong sugar solution by adding a small weight of yeast. It will be evident that such a solution requires constantly making afresh, and it is well even then to treat it with salicylic acid to prevent any deterioration. To admit of its use it is necessary to keep the black beer in stock more or less quiet, since it is not customary to add this form of dressing before the beer is required for use, very rapid fermentation immediately following its addition.

I need hardly say that if this heading has been treated with a little yeast, or if a little malt flour be added with it, it puts an end at once to all possibility of flatness, while the degree of condition that results may be increased or diminished at will by varying the quantity of sugar heading employed, or the proportion of flour or yeast that is added with it."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 269-270.

By "pure saccharine" I assume Faulkner means pure sucrose. Which is a bit of a surprise. I suppose it's just easily, and fully, fermentable. Dextrin-maltose is an odd one if you wanted to get beer into condition quickly, as it's not that easily fermentable. It's more like what you'd expect to be added to a beer undergoing a long, slow secondary conditioning.

1145-1150º was the gravity of the primings Barclay Perkins used in the interwar years.

Primings (part one)

By the end of the 19th century, there were clear regional variations in Porter and Stout. While, in London, brewers stubbornly clung to the use of brown malt, those outside the capital opted or simpler grists, often just pale and black malt.

Without the same mass-market or Black Beers which existed in London, provincial brewers needed to turn them around quickly. And that meant using "heading" to bring them into condition quickly. This heading could either be in the form of flour or a sugar solution. The latter being what we would now call primings.

"Country black beers.
I now come to the country as a whole, for outside London and Dublin the production of black beer is carried on in no very distinct manner; some brewers softening water, some using sugar, others employing malt-flour, and sugar solutions for heading purposes, and most falling back upon some definite preservative agent to prevent early deterioration. As a rule, country brewers have no very heavy demand for their black beers, and they have to brew them accordingly— i.e., if for immediate sale, and if prompt draught can be relied upon, country brewers imitate, to a certain extent, the example set them by Londoners, using sugar as a portion of the extract, raw sugar solution as the heading.

On the other hand, the majority, bound to produce an article of some stability, and one that will only come into condition after considerable storage, strictly adhere to entire malt brewings with low initial temperatures of mash, comparatively brief standing periods, fermentations progressing with free range of heat, racking their beer sometimes as high as third of original gravity. Finally, they employ some definite kind of heading, either introducing it at the racking stage, or at period of shipment. Many different varieties of heading have found favour, some of them being substances easily fermentable, others practically wort in a state of fermentation, or when in the state of dry flour forming, as we may suppose, the food of ferments.

Quite recently it has been suggested that flour only acts in the sense of being the store-house of so much air; but this view seems hardly correct in face of the act that the addition of flour to black beer undoubtedly leads to secondary fermentation, more or less prolonged in character, and I think there is no doubt that the crude albuminous matters of raw or malted grain become slowly modified into yeast-forming material when placed in a fluid undergoing fermentation.
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 268-269.

Faulkner also mention a couple of other methods. First, the old-fashioned method. Which was to rack the beer with plenty of remaining fermentable materials and rely on a long, slow secondary fermentation to produce the required level of condition.

Or you could add fermenting wort. Which the Gerrmans would call "kraeusening". This was a process favoured by many Irish brewers.

Racking during WW II

During the war draught beer was almost all in cask form. As it had been for centuries. About the only change to the process since the early 19th century had been the introduction of sugar primings, which really took off at the beginning of the 20th century.

Primings were a sugar solution with an OG of 1140º to 1150º added at racking time with the principal aim of providing readily fermentable material to condition the beer in the cask quickly. Additionally, the primings could also add colour through the presence of caramel.

With as much as a gallon of primings being added per 36-gallon barrel, they could significantly boost the effective OG of a beer by as much as 10%. The increase was especially prominent in low-gravity beers like Mild Ale.

Frustratingly, most breweries didn’t record details of primings in their brewing records. Those few that do, show how sophisticated a procedure had become.

Barclay Perkins primed many of their beers, not just draught ones, but some of the bottled, too. Here’s how it all looked a couple of years into the war:

Barclay Perkins primings in 1941
Beer	Style	primings (gallons)	OG before primings	OG after ptimings
A	Mild	0.25	1028.7	1029.5
X	Mild	0.75	1031.8	1034.2
XX	Mild	0.75	1037.7	1039.9
KK	Burton	0.5	1051.4	1052.7
LS draught	Stout	0.75	1040.8	1043
LS bottled	Stout	1	1040.8	1043.7
IBS	Stout	0.75	1055.6	1057.4
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/624.

Watney had brewed some keg beer before the war. I’m not sure if this continued after the start of hostilities. However, I know for certain that Barclay Perkins produced their draught Lagers as non-cask. Because the cask sizes for Lagers were 5.5 and 11 gallons. That’s 25 and 50 litres, continental sizes. And they sold CO2 cylinders for their Lager.  

This is an excerpt from my recently-released BlitzKrieg!, the definitive book on brewing during WW II.

Get your copy now!

The second volume contains the recipes. But not just that. There are also overviews of some of the breweries covered, showing their beers at the start and the end of the conflict.

Buy one now and be the envy of your friends!

 

Primings

Time for another super-fascinating post. Perhaps even more thrilling than Containers. 

After a few weeks of laziness, I'm seriously attacking my WW II book again. I reassured myself that I was researching. In reality, I was dodging writing certain sections of the book. The ones where a whole load of raw source material  requires transformation into a coherent narrative. 

And I just couldn't be arsed. Daunted by the minimal intellectual effort required, I sought refuge in transcribing reams of William Younger brewing records and OCR'ing The Brewing Trade Review. Far more time and effort than just cracking on and writing a few thousand words.

That's what happens when you have whatever you call the craziness that goes on in my head. Being lazy entails countless hours of tedious, repetitive labour.

And I would have said, unproductive labour. That ludicrously detailed - and mostly pointless - research. Except, it did throw a few tasty dumplings my way which I might have missed. Had I been less obsessive. (And I do love me a dumpling. I dream of making suet dumplings like my Mum's. How did she get them that fluffy?)

Vaguely amusing bit over. Now the tedious, unedited, book preview. Some of the things what I wroted this week. Enjuyulate.

During the WW II draught beer was almost all in cask form. As it had been for centuries. About the only change to the process since the early 19th century had been the introduction of sugar primings, which really took off at the beginning of the 20th century.

Primings were a sugar solution with an OG of 1140º to 1150º added at racking time with the principal aim of providing readily fermentable material to condition the beer in the cask quickly. Additionally, the primings could also add colour through the presence of caramel. 

With as much as a gallon of primings being added per 36-gallon barrel, they could significantly boost the effective OG of a beer by as much as 10%. The increase was especially prominent in low-gravity beers like Mild Ale.

Frustratingly, most breweries didn’t record details of primings in their brewing records. Those few that do, show how sophisticated a procedure had become. 

Barclay Perkins primed many of their beers, not just draught ones, but some of the bottled, too. Here’s how it all looked a couple of years into the war:

Barclay Perkins primings in 1941
Beer	Style	primings (gallons)	OG before primings	OG after ptimings
A	Mild	0.25	1028.7	1029.5
X	Mild	0.75	1031.8	1034.2
XX	Mild	0.75	1037.7	1039.9
KK	Burton	0.5	1051.4	1052.7
LS draught	Stout	0.75	1040.8	1043
LS bottled	Stout	1	1040.8	1043.7
IBS	Stout	0.75	1055.6	1057.4
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/624.

IBS is Russian Stout. If you're wondering why I've used an image of the Cossack bloke.

Barclay Perkins Gravities in November 1922

When visiting archives, I mostly concentrate on brewing records. But there's all sorts of other material, some of it packed with goodies.

I got into a routine of always photographing one document which wasn't a brewing book on every visit. Which is why I have pictures of something called "Brewing notebook A-H", A.H. presumably being the initials of a brewer.

It's packed with all sorts of handy stuff: the control prices of barley in WW II, Bass wholesale prices in 1920, the cost price of BBS Export from 1912 to 1919, barrels brewed 1913 to 1955, coal usage 1905 to 1955, brewing materials used 1920 to 1945, quantity of finings per beer in 1921, the price paid for spent grains 1902 to 1952 and much more.

I was having a look through it yesterday in the hope of finding details of the configuration of the brew house. To be specific, the number of mash tuns and coppers they had. I wanted to see how bad the bomb damage was in September 1940, when the brew house took a couple of hits.

 I didn't find that, buy I did come across this very useful table , which shows the gravities of all their beers, plus details of the primings and their effect.

Barclay Perkins Gravities in November 1922
Price	minimum Regulation Gravity	Mark	Brewed Gravity	Sweet added	Original Gravity Actual	Declared Gravity	Original Gravity according to Declared Gravities
5d	1027	Ale 5d	1030.2	1 qrt @ 1130	1030.8	1029	1029.6
6d	1033	XLK(C)	1034.2	NIL	1034.2	1033	1033
6d	1033	TT	1034.2	6 qrts @ 1130	1038.1	1033	1037
7d	1039	XLK(B)	1040.2	NIL	1040.2	1039	1039
7d	1039	X	1041.4	3 qrts @ 1130	1044	1041	1042.83
8d	1046	Lager Home	1045.2	NIL	1045.2	1044	1044
8d	1046	XLK(T)	1047.2	NIL	1047.2	1046	1046
8d	1046	L.S.	1047.2	3 qrts @ 1130	1048	1046	1047.7
8d	1046	O.M.S.	1051.2	3 qrts @ 1130	1052.8	1050	1051.6
9d	1054	B.S. (T)	1055.2	4 qrts @ 1130	1957.2	1054	1056
9d	1054	R.N.S.	1055.2	3 qrts @ 1130	1056.7	1054	1055.5
9d	1054	K.K.	1055.2	1 qrt @ 1130	1044.7	1054	1054.5
9d	1054	IBS	1061.2	3 qrts @ 1130	1062.6	1060	1061.4
9d	1054	K.K.K.	1082.2	NIL	1082.2	1081	1081
9d	1054	K.K. Bottling	1070.2	NIL	1070.2	1069	1069
9d	1054	Lager Sp Dark	1058.2	NIL	1058.2	1057	1057
Export		Lager Export	1050.3	NIL	1050.3	1050	1050
Export		XLK EX	1049.2	NIL	1049.2	1048	1048
Export		P.A.	1059.2	NIL	1059.2	1058	1058
Export		B.S.c	1066.2	3 qrts @ 1150	1067.9	1065	1066.7
Export		XMAS B.S.c	1076.2	3 qrts @ 1150	1077.5	1075	1976.5
Export		B.B.S. EX	1080.2	NIL	1080.2	1079	1079
Export		I.B.S. EX	1103.2	NIL	1103.2	1102	1102
Source:
Brewing notebook A-H held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/711/1.

In case you're wondering, "minimum Regulation Gravity" refers to the last set if price controls, where beer retailing for a certain price had to fit into a gravity band. For some beers, the primings significantly increased the OG, For example, TT (Porter), which by almost 4º.

The table also told me that Barclay Perkins breed a Christmas version of Best Stout. Never stumbled across that in the brewing records.

Let’s Brew 1936 Barclay Perkins DB

I’m always working on stuff in the background. Things that may or may not surface at some point.

One of my current projects is converting the old recipes in Mild! plus to my new standard format. It’s a bit weird having them in two different formats. Latest up for revision is Doctor Brown Ale, Barclay Perkins Brown Ale.

You probably remember me saying that Brown Ales don’t turn up that often in brewing records. That’s because at many breweries it was just a bottled version of Mild, though it may well have been primed differently. Meaning there are no records for specifically Brown Ale.

One exception was in London, where both Barclay Perkins and Whitbread had a beer called DB that was a separate brew. Neither beer was a version of their Brown Ale, but an individual brew with its own particular grist. A grist unlike that of either their Pale Ales or Mild Ales.

The lack of mild malt and amber malt mark it out from the Milds, while the presence of crystal malt and No. 3 invert set it apart from the Pale Ales. Having a grist unlike any other beer meant that it had to be brewed single-gyle, something Barclay Perkins didn’t do very often. Most brews were dome sort of parti-gyle.

Another feature which singles DB out is the very heavy priming. A maximum of 1 gallon per barrel was used in other beers. DB has two gallons. Which is enough to raise the effective OG to 1046.5º.

In the case of Milds, which were cask-conditioned, some of the primings would have been fermented. Not so sure if this would have been the case with DB. Doubtless in would have spent some time in a tank before bottling, but I’m not sure how much fermentation would have been going on. Assuming little, the degree of attenuation falls to about 66%.

1936 Barclay Perkins DB
pale malt	6.00 lb	64.31%
crystal malt 60 L	1.00 lb	10.72%
maize	1.25 lb	13.40%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.50 lb	5.36%
brown sugar	0.50 lb	5.36%
caramel	0.08 lb	0.86%
Fuggles 150 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.75 oz
OG	1041
FG	1010
ABV	4.10
Apparent attenuation	75.61%
IBU	29
SRM	15
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	150 minutes
pitching temp	60.5º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Fining

The fun really never ends, does it? Or does it never start?

This time we’re revisiting fining. Another topic that gets Jeffery all hot under the collar. Especially over-enthusiastic fining.

“Fining
Most breweries prefer to send their beers out already fined, although a few brewers still consider that better and more regular results can be obtained if the beers are fined down about 24 hours after delivery into the cellar. Both beer and finings will then have become acclimatized to the temperature of the cellar. First, however, let it be stated that no attempt should be made to fine down beers which show any degree of fermentation. Not only will such a procedure mean useless loss of finings, but it will probably intensify the trouble. If the beer is reasonably quiet, it will be necessary first to remove some of the contents of the cask and make room for the finings. With part of this surplus, thoroughly mix the required quantity of finings (usually one pint per barrel of 36 gallons for running mild beers, and one and a half pints for pale ale) before adding to the cask. If it is then possible, give the cask a good rolling. This process is particularly necessary with dry hopped pale ales, as the hops will assist the action of the finings. If rolling is impossible for want of room, then the contents of the cask must be well roused right from the bottom. It is hopeless and useless to add to beer finings which have not been well mixed with a proportion of beer before adding. In their heavy and undiluted state they will immediately drop to the bottom without fulfilling their purpose. Should it be necessary at any time to re-fine beer, it can often be achieved by adding diluted finings to the extent of half a pint per barrel, and rousing in at the top of the cask only. If this procedure is found to be ineffective, the only remedy is to add the additional finings and roll the cask completely over again several times.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 256 - 257.

I wonder why Bitter required more finings than Mild? Especially if the dry hops it contained helped the process. If you fined in the brewery, there’d be no real need to roll the casks specifically around. That would happen automatically during the delivery process.

Do any breweries let their beer be fined in the pub today? I doubt it. Let’s check to see what Briggs recommends:

"Settling controls yeast count but to aid this process, finings are used (Chapter 15). Isinglass finings are added at the rate of 1 to 4 pints/imp. brl (0.36±1.44 l/hl). These finings can be added in the racking tank or at any point up to when the beer is dispensed. The usual point of addition is at rack with perhaps a prior addition in the racking tank. In any event the beer will require from 12-48 h and possibly up to 72 h to fine and settle before it is sold. The fining of cask beer is one of the most difficult of all brewery operations to control consistently. Often brewers experience periods of poor fining which are difficult to explain. Isinglass finings bear a positive charge because of the rich collagen content and interact with the negative charge on the yeast cell wall. In most circumstances this interaction is sufficient to achieve effective clarity.”
"Brewing Science and Practice" by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2000, page 807.

Sounds like Briggs prefers fining in the racking back or to the barrel at filling time. Though he does admit that fining could take place later. Intriguing that he recommends significantly more finings, up to four pints per imperial barrel, as opposed to Jeffery’s one to one and a half pints.

Isinglass finings alone aren’t always enough:

“Some beers, sometimes will not fine with isinglass alone. The yeast may have a too low negative charge or the concentration may be too high (say >2 million cells/ml), or there may be too high a concentration of positively charged colloids in the beer. In this situation auxiliary finings derived from alginates, carrageenan or silicic acid, and having a negative charge, can be added to the beer before isinglass finings to precipitate the positively charged colloids (Vickers and Ballard, 1974). An effective method is often to add the auxiliary finings in the racking tank and separate the flocs thus formed in this vessel and then to add the isinglass at the rack of the beer. Priming sugars are also added to some beers at this stage. These are normally solutions at 1150º Sacch (37º) and are added at rates of 1 to 5 pints/barrel (0.35±1.75 l/hl). The priming sugar provides a small quantity of fermentable carbohydrate (often sucrose) to assist the yeast to achieve effective secondary fermentation in the cask."
"Brewing Science and Practice" by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2000, pages 807 - 808.

Sounds to me as if something isn’t right in the brewing process if isinglass won’t work by itself. Most of the sludge should be gone before the beer hits the racking tank.

I thought I’d leave in the bit about primings. Those rates seem to tally with the practice at Barclay Perkins.

Just in case you weren’t listening the first time, Jeffery repeats his warnings about fining fermenting beer and using too many finings:

“We must once again impress upon our readers a rule which should always be observed. Never add finings to a cask of beer which shows the slightest degree of fermentation. Such a procedure is a waste of finings.

Before leaving the subject of fining, we should also like to stress the fallacy of using more finings than are really needed. Any excess deprives the beer both of character and condition.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 257.

Have you got that yet? Don’t fine fermenting beer and don’t fine too much.

Secondary fermentation next. But I bet you’re really waiting for ullage. Lovely word that, ullage.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – primings

As promised, here’s the stuff on primings.

Adding primings was very common amongst British breweries, and I’m sure it must still go on. It’s fascinating which pieces of equipment were insisted upon.

“Priming
Before an attempt is made to dissolve priming or syrups of any kind, it is as well for a brewer to make himself acquainted with the conditions required by the Excise. The necessary notice for dissolving and the quantity to be used must be entered in the Excise book. Not less than three vessels must be brought into use when the priming solution is prepared, and they should be a dissolving vessel, a cooling vessel (refrigerator), and a collecting vessel. All of them are required to bear the usual distinguishing marks, and must also have been duly entered in the brewing inventory. The collecting vessels must, in addition, have been gauged in order that the contents can be checked for duty charge. It must be noted that priming, like brewing sugar, may only be stored in vessels and departments specially entered in the brewing inventory for this purpose. On no account will the Excise allow the addition of priming to beer when in the cellars of licensed premises, although dispensations can be obtained in regard to bottling stores and other depots in responsible control.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 245.

All the bits of kit demanded are basically concerned with tax collection. The excise wanted to be able to see what was going on with the sugar. Because tax was charged of the gravity of the wort before fermentation. And the same was true of primings, tax was payable on their gravity. And the excise was particularly against any type of sugar being in a pub cellar. Too easy for a dodgy publican to water his beer and cover it up by adding sugar.

These are the relevant bits of kit in an illustration from the book:

"Priming soon develops a spontaneous fermentation, especially during hot weather, and it is essential to use it when fresh and new. It should be made frequently in small quantities, rather than less often in larger amounts. Priming is a very penetrating solution, and on that account, wood is an unsuitable material from which to make a collecting or storage vessel. Everything must be kept particularly clean and sterile.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 245.

That’s not the sort of spontaneous fermentation Lambic undergoes. He just means that it starts fermenting without the addition of extra yeast.

Here’s the point of priming:

“The real objects for using priming are twofold. First to promote the development of cask condition, and secondly, to impart an additional fullness to the palate of the beer. In order to achieve these objects, many primings have been introduced by various firms under different names, some of which differ in only a small degree. We are not going to mention any by name, but leave it to the brewer to choose and use one which he considers most suitable for his class of beer. The fashionable palate of the district where the beer has to be sold should of course be borne in mind. No difficulty should be experienced in obtaining from the makers of any priming a full analysis, showing particularly the extract given, the proportion of fermentable and unfermentable sugars, the amount of ash and mineral matters. It is important to have particulars of all these features.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 245.

The first purpose is pretty obvious. The alternative to priming would be to leave enough fermentable material in the beer to achieve cask condition. A much trickier feat than fermenting the beer all the way down then adding back in the required amount of fermentable material for cask conditioning.

Different primings were used for different types of beer:

“First consideration must be given to the flavour which the priming will impart. The brewer must also not lose sight of the class of beer for which the sugar is required. It is obvious that to use a priming consisting mostly of dextrins for a running beer intended for quick consumption is to defeat the object of the sugar. It would nevertheless add some palate fullness. On the other hand, little benefit would be derived from the use of a priming containing a low proportion of malto-dextrin with beers which are to be stored for ten days or a fortnight. The effects of such a priming would undoubtedly have worn off, especially if it was added at the time of racking. In some districts where beers are preferred to drink very sweet, priming made from sugar-candy gives the desired results. Unfortunately it is not a sweetness which lasts for any length of time, as this sugar ferments rapidly.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 245 - 246.

It makes sense that you wouldn’t want to prime with anything too fermentable if you were going to have the beer sit around in the brewery for a couple of weeks.

Not just the type of primings but when they were added was important:

“It will therefore be gathered that the problem of selecting the most suitable priming is one which needs careful consideration. Equally important is the correct time at which the priming should be added. For running beers we prefer to add it at racking time, preferably in the racking back where it can be easily distributed. The risk of infection by handling small quantities while measuring out is also eliminated. For beers intended for comparatively short storage we prefer to add half the quantity at racking time, and the remainder just before the beer leaves the brewery. This procedure must never be adopted, however, if the beer is inclined to fret or be turbid, as the trouble would only be intensified. Indeed, it should be a strict rule that priming must never be added to beer under such conditions. These remarks should also apply to stock ales, because the primary yeast will probably have been exhausted, and will be unable to keep in check any secondary or wild yeast, which priming may revive. As a final recommendation with regard to priming, we advise daily microscopical examination of all priming to be used, and the rejection of any about the soundness of which there is the slightest doubt.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

Again, all pretty logical stuff. I can certainly see the advantage of priming the beer in bulk rather than fiddling around adding adding a couple of pints to each barrel.

And here’s something about the priming rate:

“Priming solution is generally made to a gravity of 53 lb. (sp.gr. 1148) and added at the rate of 1 to 3 pints per barrel. Occasionally for sweet mild ales which are to be drunk quickly, up to 4 pints are used. (Calculations for the quantities of sugar and liquor required are given on p. 63.)”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

I can check this with Barclay Perkins records as they clearly state what primings were added. Here are some examples:

They were adding 1 to 4 quarts per barrel. Rather more than Jeffery suggests. You can see though that the gravities, at 1144º and 1150º were pretty much as stated in the book.

Interestingly, not all their beers were primed. The Milds and K Ales were. The Porters and Stouts weren’t. The Pale Ales weren’t, either, with the exception of the Export version of their PA.

Fining next.

Bottling in 1901 - other factors affecting flavour (continued)

Still no end in sight to my look - with the help of the Journal of the Institute of Brewing - at bottling at the start of the 20th century.

We're now longer at substances added to beer after the completion of primary fermentation.

"G. Priming, finings, antiseptics.

Each of these may have a more or less marked influence on the flavour of the ale, and I know that they are occasionally accountable for unpleasant flavoured ales.

The distinct flavour of many of the sugars specially recommended for priming is, more especially in the case of stout, a feature of considerable importance.

Finings made in the old-fashioned way with sour beer may and do seriously affect the flavour of ale in which they are used. The various sulphites used as antiseptics may almost invariably be detected by a skilled palate for some days after they are first added, but fortunately their action is only transient in this respect, and it is quite the exception to find a beer properly matured having any appreciable flavour of sulphites.

More powerful antiseptics, such as salicylic acid, are, I am glad to say, condemned by the county authorities, so are but rarely used, for although there is no evidence that such a small amount as two or three grains per gallon has any harmful effect when taken into the system— in fact, in cases of rheumatism it might be distinctly beneficial—there is always the risk of larger amounts being introduced, and if a man must take drugs he prefers to have them administered by a doctor. I may say that I have seen salicylic acid tried in the full dose of half an ounce to the barrel in badly brewed ales, and these beers have not kept any the better, and have developed a flavour infinitely more
objectionable than when not so treated.

The use of sanitas, formalin, and silico-fluorides is I consider subject to serious objections, the first two having decidedly objectionable flavours, and the latter have recently been proved to be poisonous.
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, pages 201 - 202.

Primings - a high gravity sugar solution added at racking time to promote fermentation in the cask - were gaining popularity at the end of the 19th century. They helped to bring cask Running Beers into condition quickly.

Letting the primary fermentation run its course then adding more fermentable material was an easier and more reliable way of quickly producing well-conditioned cask beer. Ttrying to guess when there was just enough fermentable material left for secondary conditioning was much trickier and could lead to beer that either wasn't properly carbonated or too lively. The same was also true of bottled beer, if it were left unpasteurisaed and so still contained active yeast.

I'm intrigued  that Stout is specifically singled oput as a type of beer where primings were particularly necessary. If you've been reading this blog for long, you'll know that Guinness had their own particular way of fining. They used high-gravity wort called "heading" instead of a sugar solution. A sort of Reinheitsgebot version of priming. Or an Irish take on kräusening.

Which reminds me that I've some good stuff lined up about American Ale brewing from around this period and the use of kräusening. I should be getting around to it in a few days.

I've always read with horror the descriptions in old brewing textxs of how to dissolve isinglass in sour beer to make finings. Sounds like a great way to infect your beer.

I'm pretty sure salicylic acid was quite commonly used as a preservative. It was one of the things American health authorities looked for when they analysed beer. And they regurlarly detected it. It sounds a pretty useless additive: it could be dangerous to health, adversely affected the flavour of the beer and didn't really help preserve beer. The other preseervatives mentioned sound even scarier.

"H. Alcohol and carbonic acid.

The characteristic effect on the palate produced by these two normal ingredients of all beers is not perhaps what people usually mean by flavour, but they are so closely associated with it, and so markedly influence the power of distinguishing the true flavour, that I think they must be included here; more especially carbonic acid, as it is really the most important factor in producing the difference in flavour of bottled and draught ales.

I would in this connection draw your attention to the difference between the effect on the palate of carbonic acid gas held in true solution in a liquid, as compared with the same amount of gas merely mixed with the liquid, as it is this difference which very materially causes old bottled beer to taste so much nicer than newly bottled ales, even when the latter are highly charged with carbonic acid gas."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, page 202.

The amount of carbonic acid gas - or CO2 as we call it - is certainly the one of the biggest differences between bottled and draught beer. Or perhaps I should say cask beer, as artificially-carbonated keg beer can have CO2 levels similar to bottled beer.

The second paragraph brings up a topic that has puzzled me for a long while: can CO2 be held by beer in different ways. I've often seen it claimed that in a naturally-conditioned beer smaller CO2 bubbles form than in a force-carbonated beer. The counter-argument is that CO2 is just CO2 and there's no difference between that formed naturally in the beer by fermentation and that added externally.

I've been reluctant to take a position on this, because I've heard such conflicting opinions and I don't understand the science personally. But experienced brewers have assured me that there is a difference. Is it possible to mix beer and CO2 without the latter fully dissolving? I've no idea. I'll welcome comments from the more scietifically educated amongst you.

This article is really jam-packed with good information. And we're not finished yet. Next we'll be looking at the effect of kilning temperatures and mash heats on the fermentability of wort.