Pure beer

Just about as soon as the Free Mash Tun Act became law in 1880, some began to campaign for "pure beer", that is beer brewed from malt, water, hops and yeast alone.

Brewers didn't share their enthusiasm for all-malt beers. They were mostly happy with the new situation, which allowed them to use unmalted grains like flaked barley or flaked rice.

"PURE BEER.
Brewers have had a bomb thrown among them by the advocates of pure beer. A few months ago, in order to allow time for some experiments, the Beer Materials Committee would not sit as soon as was expected. These experiments have now been concluded, and the results are not quite what the trade expected. When under examination last year, among others, Mr Cornelius O'Sullivan, who is far and away the leading man in the profession, and who is Bass's brewer, declined to commit himself to the assertion that no one could tell by the analysis of beer from what material it had been made. At present he knew of no way by which those materials could be identified. Other brewers of standing went a step further, and said it was a matter of impossibility, as the chemical changes which take plare during mashing, boiling, and fermenting processes entirely masked the nature of the cereals or sugar used. With this the Government officials did not disagree. and so could see no way by which brewers could he checked if a law were passed directing them to state on the labels attached to their barrels from what materials the beer contained in them was manufactured. After a good deal of evidence of this class had been given, the pure beerites asked for an adjournment, as they were unable to carry their case any further just then. There were no more witnesses ready, so the committee agreed. This looked very much as if brewers had come out with colours flying, and they were elated accordingly. The resources of the analyst were not, however, exhausted. Under the supervision of representatives of the pure beer party a number of brewings were made from different materials, and the beers, on being fixed and ready for sale, were sampled, and the samples handed to the well-known chemist, Dr Skidrowitz, to see if he could find out, whether they were all malt beers or whether substitutes had been used. The doctor succeeded at length in being able to tell whether anything besides malt was employed. Thus the revenue objection to a change in the law is overcome, and it seemed to be a formidable objection removed. During the Beer Materials Committee's inquiry a large amount of evidence was forthcoming as to the necessity for using "adjuncts," with malt made from British barley, because the latter had not had sufficient sun. Leading brewers said they could not turn out the bright, comparatively light, and lager-like beers now offered to the public from British-grown grain. Dr. Skidrowitz is quite satisfied that this is a mistake, and the results of the experimental brewings which have been nade corroborate him. Furthermore, the greatest authority on the Continent, Professor Aubry, of Munich, who cannot have a bias in favour of British-grown grain, agrees that British barley is as good as the standard article on the Continent, and that, in his opinion, the British brewer has no excuse for using substitutes. The very best Pilsener beer comes from Munich, and it is to be observed that throughout Bavaria substitutes for malt are forbidden. All infractions of this law are  punished by imprisonment plus a heavy fine.
Aberdeen Journal - Thursday 24 February 1898, page 6.

There's lots of fascinating information in there.

No surprise that the brewers, wanting to maintain the status quo, asserted it was impossible to tell what a beer had been brewed from. It sounds a dubious argument to me. And that they hadn't tried very hard to see if they could.

When Dr. Skidrowitz proved that you could, they just changed their argument, claiming you couldn't brew Light Bitters from purely English barley. Note how they are called "Lager-like". I've seen such beers quoted ass being a reason why Lager-brewing didn't take of earlier in Britain. Breweries were able to make something good enough to satisfy the public, with risky expenditure on expensive new plant.

Though it is true that these beers generally included adjuncts to keep both the body and colour light. Burton brewers tended to prefer sugar, while those in London mostly went with maize or rice. looking at late 19th-century grists, it may surprise some that an expensive top of the range Pale Ale contained a greater proportion of adjuncts than the cheapest Milds and Porters.

I've had several reports back from home brewers who have made AK that the flaked maize definitely added to the character, resulting in a light, crisp beer. Sort of, er, Lager-like.

Surely the very best Pilsener comes from Pilsen, not Munich. In 1898 they'd only just about started brewing pale Lager. But, of course, Austria had no Reinheitsgebot so the pure beerites argument would collapse.

Parliament investigates beer grists (1899)

Parliament was so much more fun in the old days. When they discussed interesting stuff like Irish home rule and beer grists.

1880's Free Mash Tun Act was to blame. Many weren't too happy about brewers' new freedom to use pretty much whatever ingredients they chose. There were several attempts to pass legislation to impose new restrictions on brewers. All failed and, after a while, Pure Beer agitation as it was called, died away.

I've posted this text for a couple of reasons. One is the reference at the beginning of the move from aged to running beers. The last few decades of the 19th century saw a huge decline in the popularity of aged beer, driven by changing fashion.

Another reason is the discussion of the role of sugar, particularly in the brewing of running ales. The impression given is that the Free Mash Tun Act allowed better satisfaction of the public's new-found love of lighter beers. Were the brewers pulled by drinkers' preferences or did they push the beer that generated the most profit? Being realistic, there was probably a bit of both.

And, of course, there's the mention of AK. It's described as a Light Pale Ale. I won't argue with that.Its importance can be judged by the fact that it's one of only four types of Ale mentioned.

"My opinion is that if (1) a sufficiency of fine English barley were available, and if (2) the present public taste were in favour of a stock beer as against a fresh beer, the need for malt substitutes would cease to exist. But (1) the quantity of fine English barley is extremely limited, and (2) the present taste is practically entirely in favour of fresh brewed beers. Under these circumstances it is not practicable to brew ales without the assistance of malt substitutes. The taste for fresh ales as against stock ales set in some 20 years or more ago, and it has been steadily progressive without any tendency to reversion; and even within the past few years I have known brewers who previously brewed their pale ales on stock principles abandon stock beer brewing, and have found that the ales brewed on running ale lines have given greater satisfaction. There are about 1,600 or 1,700 wholesale brewers in this country, and of the ale brewers I do not think that more than six brew without the use of substitutes. Excepting these few firms, the all-malt brewers are the publican brewers, who brew simply for retail consumption, but such ale is not held to compare favourably with the ale produced by brewers for sale. A friend of mine who brewed entirely from malt sold his houses recently to a firm using about 20 per cent, of invert sugar in their brewings. Since the change, the trade in these houses has increased by 33 per cent. It has been stated in evidence that running beers may be successfully brewed from English malt only ; the most recent evidence to that effect is that of Mrs. Lovibond. I have had the opportunity, through a relation of Mrs. Lovibond, of tasting these ales. We have heard that they suit her customers j but they would not suit the customers of most of the brewers, I know, and in my opinion their character and palate compare unfavourably with those of beers correctly brewed with a small amount of substitute. Her heavy stock beer, on the other hand, is excellent; but she admits that there is only a small demand for it, and her evidence on that head entirely corroborates my experience. My opinion is that the public prefer a beer brewed with a small amount of substitute; and although Mrs. Lovibond has extensively advertised, for some time, that her beers contain no substitute, she admits that her trade is below the brewing capacity of her brewery. My experience of other private trade, as well as public trade, breweries is that, as a rule, the brewery plant is too limited for the demand. The object of using substitutes, then, is to produce a beer which shall mature or ripen quickly, and this, in my opinion, is the kernel of the matter. If a beer is brewed on stock principles, to ripen slowly, its flavour and character are different to those of a quickly-maturing beer, and such character and flavour are, at the present time, unpopular. In some breweries with which I am connected there is still some stock beer brewed, although only a small quantity, say 0.5 to 1 per cent, of the trade. In the brewing of such ales I use no sugar, or only a very minute quantity; but for the running ales in the same brewery I find it necessary to use an adjunct. The material for the different classes which I use in ordinary seasons are usually as follows:—

(a.) Stock ale, kept 4 to 12 months before delivery:—
Fine English malt - - 66 to 66
Fine foreign malt - - 25 to 34
No. 1 invert sugar or glucose - 9 to 0
100

(b.) Semi-stock pale bottling beers, kept about three months before delivery:-
Good to fine English malt - - -.,60
Good to fine foreign malt - - - 25
No. 2 invert sugar or glucose - - 15
100

(c.) Light pale ales (A.K.), kept about 2 to 4 weeks before delivery:—
Good to fine English malt - - -.,55
Good to fine foreign malt - - - 25
No. 2 invert sugar or glucose - - 20
100

(d.) Mild ale (X. or XX.—fourpenny) kept four to ten days before delivery :—
Good English malt - - - -50
Good ordinary foreign malt - - - 25
No. 2, invert or glucose - - - 25
100

If 10 per cent, flaked maize or rice were used in beers (c) and (d), 5 per cent, of foreign malt and 5 per cent, sugar would be displaced. It must not be assumed (and I must particularly emphasize this point) that because I recommend little or no sugar in the stock ales, and a fair proportion in the running ales, that the use of sugar depreciates the keeping properties of the beer. This is not the case at all. The keeping properties of the stock ales are due not to the absence of sugar, but to the high hop rate, the high qualities of malt and hops, and a system of brewing directed rather to keeping properties than early maturity. And, as I stated before, in spite of high gravity, high quality of malt and hops, and high hop rate, stock ales are unpopular, and becoming increasingly unpopular, and although it is to the brewers' pecuniary advantage to brew and push stock ales, the successful brewer of to-day is he who can turn out first-class mild and bitter ales which shall mature rapidly, and in this connexion I wish to emphasize the points (1) that it is more difficult, and requires far greater skill to turn out these fresh ales successfully than to produce a good stock ale ; and (2) that on the light fresh ales there is considerably less profit per barrel to be obtained than on the more expensive stock ales. Hence, although stock ale brewings carry (greater profits and require less skill, the brewer has to ignore these advantages and meet the public demand by brewing the less remunerative fresh ales requiring greater skill. I have advanced no theory as to why brewing sugar is desirable in the brewing of rapidly maturing beers, because, in my opinion, the theories available on this head are not exhaustive. Tho decrease in the soluble uncoagulable albuminoids doubtless explains much, but there are many other points to be considered, viz., the decrease in the acid phosphates, and the amount of unmodified starch in the malt, and other points. I prefer to base my statements upon what I find, and upon what practically all brewers for sale find, viz., that a running ale brewed with a certain percentage of sugar is a superior beer in palate, character, fineness, condition, and popularity than one brewed without. It is true that the finer the malt the less need for

sugar, but the amount of fine English malt is strictly limited, and it carries a price which would be prohibitive in the running ale trade, in which there is such competition and in which profits are cut very fine. In fact, the use of a small amount of sugar permits of the employment of our ordinary grade English barleys, and these barleys without that assistance would be unusable. The use of sugar is not so economical as has been made out by Mrs. Lovibond, for instance. In her comparison she takes fine malt on the one hand and the very cheapest sugar on the other. This is not quite fair, for between fine malt and cheap sugar there is no competition. Sugar only displaces ordinary mall, and in spite of the extreme cheapness of American glucose the bulk of the sugar used even in cheap beers is invert sugar—a much more expensive article. I can go further and say that the competition is principally between brewing sugars and cheap foreign malt. Taking ordinary English malt and a No. 2 invert, and allowing for the different extracts yielded by the two, and the grains given by the malt, and not by the sugar, the cost per pound of brewers' extract, in ordinary years, is 4d. to 4.5d. for malt, and 3d. to 3.5d. for sugar. In cheap foreign malt the cost per pound of brewers' extract may go down to 3.75d. to 4d. I have already pointed ont that it is really the commoner barleys (which yield the staple beer of the country, viz., mild ale) which require the assistance of sugars, and this is the experience of the brewers of this country. I have seen it stated by Mr. Schidrowitz, quoting from Professor Aubry and from a Dr. Doemens, that common English barleys, if properly worked up, make as satisfactory a malt as fine barleys, and that such malts can be brewed successfully without the use of sugars. Such views are absolutely theoretical, emanating from persons having no practical experience on the matter, and it is not difficult to show that they are fallacious. Any comparison of malts made from fine barleys and common barleys is out of the question. If, as implied by Mr. Schidrowitz's authorities, a properly adjusted malting system could remedy the defect of common barleys, it is quite clear that the great divergence of price existing between fine and common barleys would cease, and that all barleys of a season would tend to a fixed mean. There is no such tendency. It is no news to us in this country that common barleys require different handling in the malt-house to fine barleys; such different treatment is given in every malt-house in the country, and while under good manipulation a common barley will give a better malt than under bad manipulation, the best malt made from a common barley cannot compare with a malt well made from a fine barley. The German chemists quoted imply that all that need be done in the case of common barleys is to grow a longer root on them with the object of abstracting more nitrogen. But under the conditions under which a large root is encouraged there is a great transformation of insoluble nitrogenous matter (which is immaterial) into soluble nitrogenous matter (which is very material), and the amount of that transformation, for any given encouragement of rootlet growth, exceeds the extra amount of nitrogen abstracted by the root. So that if I grow a big root on a barley, the resulting malt, though showing less total nitrogen, contains a greater amount of soluble nitrogen. This constitutes one of the great difficulties in malting common barleys, viz., that in order to modify them properly conditions must be adopted which leave in the malt an excess of soluble albuminoids."
"Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental committee on beer", 1899, pages 190-191.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA190&dq=%22stock+ale%22&lr=&ei=F1J-S_a4LoTyyASvnJicCw&client=firefox-a&cd=22&id=ipgvAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=%22stock%20ale%22&f=false

My apologies for the terrible formatting. The original text doesn't bother with paragraphs.

Pure beer is best

It wasn't just the Germans who had a thing about Pure Beer. The Free Mash Tun Act of 1880, which allowed ingredients other than malt and hops, didn't go down well with everyone. The following years saw several attempts to have it repealed or amended.

One of the foremost proponents of Pure Beer was MP W. Cuthbert Quilter. The following is a quote from an article he wrote in 1887.

"As regards the effect upon the health of the nation of so-called beer of the various kinds, I cannot do better than give the following statements of Mr. W. C. Young, public analyst for the districts of Poplar, Whitechapel, and St. George's-in-the-East; and of Dr. Bernays, the eminent chemist of St. Thomas's Hospital.

Mr. Young says:—

1. Barley Malt contains important nitrogenous and mineral constituents, possessing valuable nutritive, digestive, and strengthening properties.

2. Maize Malt, saccharine, and other malt substitutes do not contain these matters, or only in very small quantities.

3. Beer brewed from barley malt differs from that brewed from any of its substitutes in containing the above-mentioned important constituents.

4. Beer brewed from malt substitutes is practically only a solution of alcohol, so that of all the properties a beer should possess, it has only the worst—that of intoxication.

5. The alcohol produced from barley malt is purer than that from maize, rice, &c., the latter containing appreciable quantities of fusil oil.

6. Beer brewed from these substitutes will not keep sound for more than a few days.

7. After a long study of the subject, I have been assured by a gentleman who was for many years a Medical Officer of Health for one of the poorest quarters of the East End of London, that in the majority of cases which had come under his notice of the worst form of confirmed drunkenness, he could trace the effects to the continual drinking of such beer, or what is commonly known as 'fourpenny ale.' He attributes much of the squalor, dirtiness, and wretchedness of the poor in his parish to the use of this 'fourpenny ale.'"

“The Nineteenth Century Vol XXI” edited by James Knowles, 1887, Pages 130.

In case you're wondering "fourpenny ale", or X Ale, was the standard Mild of the day. It was so called because it cost fourpence a quart. I never realised Mild could be so bad for you.

Sawdust beer

The British parliament isn't what it was. As these quotes from the debate on the Beer Bill of 1901 prove.

After the passing of the Free Mash Tun Act in 1880, which allowed brewers to use anything that wasn't harmful in the production of beer, there were various attempts to re-impose control on brewing ingredients. The 1901 Beer Bill proposed having two classes of drink: "malt beer" and "part-malt beer".

Sir Cuthbert Quiller spoke eloquently of the injurious effect of the Free Mash Tun Act:

"I should, however, like to point out once more the extraordinary increase of the use of sugar in proportion to malt that has taken place since 1880. In 1870 the quantity of sugar used in brewing was ; 295,000 cwts. ; in 1899 the quantity had increased to 2,943,752 cwts., or ten times the amount. To illustrate what the free mash tun has led to. I hold in my hand a Patent, No. 12241, which was taken out in 1899, for an improved process of converting wood, wood shavings, wood fibre and sawdust, as well as other materials, into glucose and alcohol. I think, Sir, you will agree with me that, if we are to consume glucose at all we i should certainly prefer it to be derived from some other source than sawdust. I am assured that this process has been employed in Germany for the past ten years — for export only, I imagine. Whether the patent lights have been exercised in this country I am unable to say, but, at any rate, 1 think it shows conclusively the necessity for enabling the public to obtain beer which they know has not been derived from any such source."

I don't understand his point. What could possibly be wrong with beer made from sawdust?

Consumer choice, Sir Cuthbert insisted, was what it was all about:

"We are prepared to let the public choose for themselves. The two classes of liquor which are defined in the Bill will stand on their own merits and fight their own battles for popular favour. We are told that people for the most part prefer beer made from chemicals, bright and sparkling. If that is so, they should welcome this Bill, because when they are thirsting for a glass of that chemical beer, which is so much the fashion, there will be no chance of their swallowing any of that thick heavy muddy stuff called "malt beer," which but for this Bill might be thrust upon them. De gustibus non est disputandum. But each person ought to be able to get what kind he likes, whether chemical or otherwise. I have found it very difficult to reconcile the zeal with which advocates of glucose and substitutes defend their concoctions as superior to old-fashioned malt and hops with their anxiety to be allowed to trade under the title of a drink which they assert to be inferior. The principle of warranty is one which it is difficult to attack, and it is this principle which furnishes one of the grounds upon which I ask the House to pass the Bill. It is the principle which underlies all legislation with respect not only to the adulteration of food, but to trade marks, the hall marking of precious metals, and like public safeguards. It is a principle which is already applied by law to beer in the greatest beer-drinking country in the world, and in most other countries force of public opinion is such as to render the employment of substitutes practically non-existent."

Mmmm, lovely chemical beer. "Two pints of chemical and a pint of malt, please." Who wouldn't want to be able to say that at the bar?



(Source: "The parliamentary debates", 1901, pages 1466 - 146.)