Let's Brew Wednesday - 1996 Youngs Wheat Beer

In the 1990s, Youngs brewed a wide range of beers. Including some which weren’t very traditional. At least, not traditional British styles. This wheat beer being a good case in point.

It’s a rather odd beer. Exactly what type of wheat beer were they aiming for? The coriander is very much Witbier rather than Weizen. And using lager yeast to ferment it is very much against the Reinheitsgebot, which only allows wheat in top-fermenting beer. On the other hand, it’s fermented warm, despite using lager yeast. I’m confused.

The grist is pretty simple, just lager and wheat malt. With slightly more of the former. So, sort of Reinheitsgebot.  Except for the lager yeast, obviously.

Half of the coriander was added to the kettle, the other half to the hop back. Not sure why there were the two additions. Interestingly, there was only one hop addition, at the start of the boil. A single type of English hops was used.

1996 Youngs Wheat Beer
lager malt	4.75 lb	52.72%
wheat malt	4.25 lb	47.17%
ground coriander	0.01 lb	0.11%
Fuggles 67 min	1.125 oz
OG	1041
FG	1007
ABV	4.50
Apparent attenuation	82.93%
IBU	15
SRM	2.9
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	163º F
Boil time	67 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	Wyeast 2042 Danish lager

 

AK adjuncts after WW II

My apologies. We weren't quite done with AK. I'd forgotten that I hadn't finished running through post-war AK.

I've lumped together adjuncts and malt extract, for no real reason other than that the table would have been ridiculously small. 

Not there's much to say, even with the added extra ingredient. The Shepherd Neame examples, coming from just after the was have the obligatory. They would have dropped it from the AK recipe a few years later, had AK itself not already been dropped.

Eldridge Pope were big fans of wheat flour, with almost 13% in the 1984 version. I still don't get this. Was flour cheap or ws it just for head retention. If the latter, some of the quantities seem larger than necessary.

The small quantities of  malt extract implies that it was used for diastatic purposes. Which, to be honest, was the normal reason. Which sort of justifies it being here rather than with the sugars as it would have been added to the mash tun rather than the copper.

AK adjuncts after WW II
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	wheat flour	flaked barley	malt extract
22nd Jan	1946	Shepherd Neame	AK		11.57%	1.29%
15th Jul	1947	Shepherd Neame	AK		6.29%	1.40%
19th Mar	1952	Strong	SAK			1.94%
3rd Jan	1964	Eldridge Pope	BAK	4.88%		3.25%
6th Jan	1967	Eldridge Pope	BAK	10.53%		4.06%
17th May	1982	Eldridge Pope	BAK	6.45%
27th Jun	1984	Eldridge Pope	BAK	12.86%
Sources:
Strong brewing record, number 79A01-A3-3-27.
Eldridge Pope brewing record.
Shepherd Neame brewing record held at the brewery.

Malted wheat and oats

Sorry about this. I never quite finished everything in "Brewing Theory and Practice" about grains. Just got distracted, as usual.

Though in a way it’s a good thing that I was delayed. Because I’ve since got my hands on more brewing records from the 1950’s. Where malts other than from barley do show up.

But I’ll let Jeffery talk first.

“Malted Wheat and Oats
In addition to malt made from various types of barley, both wheat and oats can be malted. The former is difficult to put through the process because the acrospire grows outside the skin of the grain, and thus has no protection. Consequently, the malting of wheat is not a proposition favoured by maltsters. But when properly malted and used in mild ales, it imparts a fullness of flavour to the beer and also provides valuable feeding properties for yeast.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 132 - 133.

OK, I think I get that. Wheat is difficult to malt, but it fills out Mild Ales nicely. Let’s take a look at actual practice. Flowers, a later Whitbread victim, used wheat in some of their beers. In 1955 they brewed nine different beers of which four received some wheat. But it wasn’t in the Mild Ale or Brown Ale. It was in their bottled Pale Ales. The percentage was pretty small, just 3% or 4% of the grist.

Let’s try another brewery. Shepherd Neame, they also dabbled in wheat. And in 1956 they also brewed nine beers, four of which contained malt. Once again, Mild wasn’t one of them. The four were Abbey Ale (a Strong Ale), Double Brown, Brown Ale and Light Dinner Ale. Interestingly, all bottled beers again. The proportion in the grist was again below 5%.

In the 1960’s, Eldridge Pope had malt wheat flour in pretty well all their grists: Bitter, Old Ale, Mild Ale, Brown Ale and Strong Ale. Only Lager and Stout received none. And when they first brewed Hardy Ale in 1967, that too contained wheat malt flour. Quite a lot of it, at over 10% of the grist.

I can’t make any sense out of that. Two breweries seem to have used it just for bottled beers, the third for just about everything. In the case of the first two, my guess is that the main purpose of using wheat, especially given the small quantities, was head retention. At Eldridge Pope the amounts are too large for that to be the reason. In the case of Hardy Ale it may be to keep the colour pale.

Will malted oats make any more sense?

“Malted oats are used as a minor blend in the production of stout, whence comes the name 'oatmeal stout'. They certainly provide and add to the nourishing value of stout, and supply useful nutrition for yeast. Such nutrition is much needed when roasted and black malts are in use, as the latter are practically devoid of nutriment. Oat malts have an extremely low diastase, but as the proportion used is very small, this is of no great importance.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 133.

Let’s see if Jeffery is any more accurate in the use of malted oats. Shepherd Neame did, indeed, use it in an Oatmeal Stout. Though, because of the way they parti-gyled, that meant it also ended up in some of the PA, a Bitter. Again, it was about 4% of the grist.

When Maclay brought back their Oat Malt Stout in 1966, obviously the grist included malted oats. Maclay were pioneers of the style in the 1890’s and, just like the early versions, the grist in the 1960’s had a high percentage of oats, around 30%. Which was even more than in 1909, when it was 25%.

Whitbread brewed an Oatmeal Stout until 1950. In contained a tiny amount of malted oats, less than 1% of the grist. This was typical of London brewers who would use just a token amount of oats.

A little earlier than Jeffery, large quantities of malted oats were consumed by British brewers. But that was during WW II when they were forced to by the government after a bumper crop of oats one year. Brewers hated it and dropped it again as soon as they could.

Gruit Grists

In my post about brewing a gruit at Beau's in Canada, I mentioned that I had a series of gruit grists for medieval Holland. Some of you asked if I could publish them. What can I say? your wish is my command.

To be honest, these aren't all Gruits. Hopbier, unsusprisingly, was hopped. Bet you never would have guessed that, eh? Koyt I'm pretty sure was always a Gruit. The others without a specific name? Who knows. They could be either hopped or not.

Here's a table with all the details. The very last entry was the basis of the Beau's beer.

Dutch Medieval Grists
Year	Town	beer	OG (Plato)	litres beer	grain (kg)	oats	wheat	barley	rye	hart coerens	oats or rye or mesteluyn (a mix of wheat and rye)
1340	Delft	Hopbier or Turfbier	18.9	3725	1274	837	437
1404	Utrecht	Hopbier	13.2	3100	747	477	270
1433	Utrecht	Dubbelde Hoppen	20.3	2480	915	645	270
1433	Utrecht	Dubbelde Koyte	20.1	2800	1019	484	190	345
1433	Utrecht	Eenwisselen Bier (Hoppe or Koyte)	15.8	2480	714	484		230
1447	Utrecht	Dik Bier	18.1	2480	1018	403	270	345
1451	Utrecht	Dun Bier	11.5	2480	518	403		115
1491	Utrecht	Bier	19.2	2480	868	523		345
1491	Utrecht	Bier	19.5	3725	915	685		230
1407	Haarlem	Hopbier	20.5	1790	668	465		203
1407	Haarlem	Hopbier	21	1790	685	465	183	37
1407	Haarlem	Koyt			777	310	244	223
1501	Haarlem	Hopbier	19.9	1850	668	465	203
1501	Haarlem	Hopbier	21.2	1850	718	465	142	111
1407	Haarlem	Koyt	13.7	3950	985	413	203	369
15th C	Amsterdam	Bier	16.6	3100	935	336	240	359
1475	Naarden	Bier	18.6	2480	837	480	151	206
1484	Amerfsfoort	Bier	24.4	2480	1098	630	198	270
1484	Amerfsfoort	Bier	15.6	3880	1098	630	198	270
1488	Gouda	Bier	15.6	3820	1085	19 sacks oats, spelt, wheat, rye or barley
1513	Gouda	Bier	14.5	3950	1040	540		274		226
1497	Leiden	Bier	8.5	5120	794		180	294			320
1497	Leiden	Bier	8.6	4350	684		148	262			274
1500	Wijk-bij-Duurstede	Bier	23.8	3725	1615	650	408	557
1515	Zutphen	Eenvoudige Koyten	9.5	4970	863	348	183	332
1515	Zutphen	Dubbele Koyten	18.8	3100	1058	426	244	388
Source:
De Middeleeuwse brouwerij en de gruit by G. Doorman, 1955.

Notice the crazy amount of oats in just about everything - as much as 80% in some cases. Only a couple of the Leiden beers contain none. You'll also see that none of the beers used a single type of grain. All used at least two and sometimes more. This was typical in all of the Low Countries, both what is now Belgium as well as Holland.

This has just been a short aside. I'll be back to WW I and/or Scotland next time.

How beer is adulterated

Google books is brilliant. I'd never have looked in something called "Food and Sanitation" if it hadn't popped in the search results for laevuline.

This article is full of fascinating titbits:

"HOW BEER IS ADULTERATED.

The following extracts from transactions of the Institute of Brewing are portions of a lecture given by Mr. Salomon. They are interesting as showing the results of Sir Algernon's West's ignorance and Mr. Gladstone's folly in transferring the duty from the malt to the wort. It should be remembered that despite this enormous saving to the brewer, the price of beer to the publican who rents a tied house and to the public is the same as when beer was the product of malt and hops, and was far stronger than it now is. Mr. Salamon says:—

The question of raw-grain conversion is comparatively new to English brewers, for it was not until the year 1880, when the transfer of duty was made from malt to wort, that any such process was possible : indeed, it was expressly forbidden, as we shall see by glancing at the statutes controlling the operations of the maltster and the brewer. It is essential to bear in mind that this prohibition was exercised exclusively for fiscal reasons, and did not in any way contemplate injurious effects resulting from raw-grain conversion, nor was it because the use of raw-grain was regarded in the light of adulteration. It is important to bear this in mind, lest the point should be emphasised by pure beer advocates. In such a case, the answer is sufficiently contained in the fact that, at the present moment, such processes are under the direct sanction of the law.

In the year 1821, we first find it enacted that brewers shall enter, in a book delivered by the Excise officer, the quantity of malt intended to be used in the next brewing; and it was then further directed that the grains were not to be removed until gauged and taken account of by the officer. Of the duty collected under this and previous Acts, a very considerable proportion had been diverted to the Privy Purse. This custom dated back as far as Charles II., and the income thus derived was termed "the hereditary beer duty." This duty was repealed in the year 1830, and the sovereign was proportionately compensated. It was deemed advisable to bring about this change in order to concentrate the Excise laws, and render them easier in working. As a result of the appeal, and in |the same year, namely, 1830, brewers were compelled to pay their license duty in proportion to the quantity of malt used by them in brewing. Practically, then, it may be stated that the malt-tax dates from that year. As soon as the brewer was taxed in terms of malt, the most stringent precautions were found necessary to prevent evasion of the law. Brewers were compelled to make entry of all premises and utensils used for brewing or storing of beer and malt, and the Excise officers had the right to enter any buildings, at any time, for the purpose of inspecting or taking an account of the beer or malt stored. There was a distinct proviso forbidding the employment of raw-grain or even its storing in the brewery premises, and this section of the Act is so important as bearing upon my argument that I purpose quoting it in full. It is as follows :—

"And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any brewer of beer for sale in the United Kingdom to have in his or her brewery, or in any part of the entered premises, or in any mill connected with such brewery or entered premises, any raw or unmalted corn or grain whatsoever, either whole or unground, or ground or bruised, and that all raw or unmalted corn or grain, whether whole or unground, or ground or bruised, which shall be found in such brewery or premises or mill, and all malted corn or grain, whether whole or unground, or ground or bruised, with which such raw or unmalted corn or grain may have been or shall be mixed, shall be forfeited and may be seized by any officer of Excise, together with all sacks, casks, vessels, or packages in which such raw or unmalted corn or grain shall and may be contained, or in which such raw and unmalted corn or grain, and the malted corn or grain with which the same may or shall have been mixed, shall or may be continued. And every brewer shall, for ever)' such offence, forfeit the sum of £200."

This Act continued in force, although during the year 1847 a further Act was passed permitting brewers to use sugar in the brewing or making of beer. The collection of duty in terms of malt used led, notwithstanding, to much fraud and deception, and for fiscal reasons again, it was found expedient to pass a more stringent Act to prevent the possibility of employing raw grain. This was in the year 1855. The enactment is contained in 18 and 19 Vict., cap. 94, sec. 36, and again it is interesting to follow the exact wording:—

"And for preventing fraud and evasion of the duty of Excise on malt by the use of raw or unmalted corn or grain in the brewing of beer for sale, be it enacted that it shall not be lawful for any brewer of beer for sale to have in his brewery or in any premises belonging or adjacent thereto, whether the same shall be entered by him or not, any raw or unmalted corn or grain whatsoever, either whole or unground, or ground or bruised, except corn or grain not ground or braised being in premises entered by such brewer for the purpose of making malt, and all raw or unmalted corn or grain which shall be found in such brewery or other premises except as aforesaid, and also all malted corn or grain, whether whole or unground, or ground or bruised, with which such raw or unmalted corn or grain may be mixed, shall be forfeited, and the brewer for every such offence shall forfeit the sum of £200."

Section 37 enacts:—

"That no brewer of beer for sale shall have or use, for the purpose of grinding, crushing, or braising malt, any mill-stones, or any mill constructed otherwise than with metal rollers only, such rollers not being fluted but having plain and smooth surfaces, and no malt which shall be ground by any means or crushed or bruised otherwise than by means of such metal rollers as aforesaid, shall be used by or be received into the possession of any such brewer."

The penalty in this case was a forfeit of £200. The object of this section was to prevent barley or other raw grain being ground with malt, it being known that in such case smooth metal rollers would be unfit for the purpose, and that either fluted or stone mills would be necessary. Precautions were further taken to prevent raw grain passing into the brewery under the style of roasted malt, and according to the instructions given to the Excise officers, it was not deemed malted if the plumule of 95 per cent. of it did not extend one-half the length of the grain. The preparation of roasted malt was also strictly under Excise supervision.

The Acts above alluded to remained in force until the year 1880, when, by the well-known Free Mash Tun Act, the duty was transferred from the malt made to the wort produced and gathered.

Thus it will be seen that whatever merit may attach to raw-grain processes, it is only within the last thirteen years that the English brewer has been enabled seriously to consider them; and therefore in this particular case the familiar phrases in which the words conservative and prejudice figure so prominently do not apply. Indeed, the brewer has not been slow to avail himself of the privileges derivable under the new Act, and it was not long before he was found to be seriously considering the advisability of employing starch in some form other than malt. It is quite recently, however, that a fresh impetus has been given to the whole question, which is one of sufficient importance to merit our close attention.

The amount of starch which the brewer can obtain from a given weight of material employed will obviously determine his extract, and it is found that although the proportion of starch in any one class of seed is remarkably constant, considerable variation exists among the various plants. Thus we have t the following data supplied by O'Sullivan:—

Barley 46 per cent.
Maize 54 to 58 „
Rice 75 to 77 „
Oats ... 35 to 38 „
Wheat 54 to 55 5 „

It will be seen that barley, which is chiefly employed by the brewer, is much inferior in starch proportion to maize, and contains vastly less starch than rice. These differences become emphasised when maize and rice are prepared for the use of the brewer—that is to say, when the seeds are properly husked and the germ removed. When ready for the mash tun, we may take it that malt averages between 68 to 70 per cent, of carbo-hydrate other than cellulose, and that prepared materials from maize and rice yield from 81 to 83 per cent. Hence it is that whereas malt yields an average extract of about 90; maize and rice, if properly prepared, will give a theoretical carbo-hydrate extract of about 105lbs. It is clear then that, weight for weight, a far better yield is obtainable from rice and maize than from barley.

In view of the large saving, and of the beneficial effects attendant upon the use of rice and maize preparations, many attempts have been made to devise methods which should permit of the admixture of a largely increased percentage of these materials. Hitherto the apparatus designed have not been successful, at least in this country, although I am aware that some brewers have employed methods of their own with a considerable measure of success. The more one studies the question, the more is conviction forced upon one that the problem is extremely difficult. It is, however, well worth fighting for, because if by the present methods the limit of raw-grain that can be employed is 20 per cent., and the saving in that case is large, it follows that if 50 per cent, of a material which has not to be prepared, or flaked, can be used, the saving will be proportionately greater. This question of £ s. d. has inspired Mr. Billings to produce the most perfect machine at present known, and I have no hesitation, as the result of prolonged study of the apparatus and the method of working it, in stating that by its use 50 per cent, of maize or rice can be incorporated with the malt without the slightest injury attaching to the resulting beer."

"Food & sanitation, Volume 4", 1894, page 102.

It's worth noting the particular efforts of the authorities to prevent the roasting of unmalted grains. Yet some still persist in the fantasy of Guinness cleverly using roast barley instead of black malt in the early 19th century.

And I'm grateful for being told the year the use of sugar was legalised: 1847.

More malt 1815 - 1850

Not quite finished with malt yet. Here's something about malt made from something other than barley. At least one thing has become clearer: why oatmeal Stout appeared at the end of the 19th century.

As a bonus, there's a little about sugar. Essentia bina, or caramel, had been used to colour Porter until it was outlawed in 1816. As you'll see, the fines for brewing from other than malt and hops were severe. If you reckon a barrel of beer sold for around two quid, a 100 pound fine is the equivalent of 50 barrels of beer.


Other grains
"Malting is not confined to barley, but oats, peas, beans, maize, buck-wheat, and common wheat, which are all capable of being malted, and have been experimented upon, but barley is the most prized grain." (Source: "The Art of Brewing and Fermenting" by John Levesque, 1836, page 20.)

"Wheat, on account of its weight, has had many trials, to bring it into more general use among brewers; but, from many communications the author has had with those who have brewed with wheat malt, either alone, or mixed, complain of a heaviness of flavour, and not altogether so pleasant as the liquor brewed from barley malt." (Source: "The Art of Brewing and Fermenting" by John Levesque, 1836, page 20.)

Let me explain. Malt was taxed per bushel, a measure of volume. A bushel of wheat weighed on average 67 pounds, a bushel 56 pounds, at most. So you got about 20% more weight of grain for the same amount of tax when using wheat.

Wheat, being heavier, took longer to malt than barley. Oats, being lighter, took less time. (Source: "The Art of Brewing and Fermenting" by John Levesque, 1836, page 26.) 13 bushels of barley malt were the equivalent of 9 bushels of wheat, 10 of rye or 19 of oats, in terms of extract. (Source: "The Theory and Practice of Brewing" by W.L. Tizard, London, 1846, page 46.)

At times when barley was expensive, considerable amounts of wheat were malted and used in brewing. Tizard recommended malting wheat mixed with barley, to protect the tender skin of the wheat grains. Likewise in the mash, wheat malt was best mixed with coarser barley grains to avoid wheat flour clogging the mash tun. Wheat malt also required less crushing the barley malt as it was more inclined to turn into flour. (Source: "The Theory and Practice of Brewing" by W.L. Tizard, London, 1846, page 47.)

Oats were not much used in this period. Oat malt incurred the same duty as barley, but produced not much more than half the extract. Only after 1880, when the malt tax was repealed, were oats an economic proposition and started being used again. Hence the appearance of oatmeal Stout at the end of the 19th century. (Source: "The Theory and Practice of Brewing" by W.L. Tizard, London, 1846, page 51.)

Big, a type of primitive barley, was malted and used for brewing in Scotland and Ireland. The quantities used were quite modest, about 10% of the amount of barley malted. Big malt was taxed at a lower rate than barley malt - 2 shillings, as opposed to 2 shillings and seven pence for barley. (Source: "Brewing and Distillation" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, Edinburgh, 1849, page 109.)



Sugar
In 1811 brewing with unmalted grain and sugar was outlawed by act of parliament in response to falling revenue from the malt tax. Sugar, in the form of caramel, was still permitted for colouring Porter. The following year, 1812, sugar was allowed to be used for brewing again. As the amount received through the malt tax was still disappointing, a full Reinheitsgebot was introduced in 1816. Malt and hops were the only ingredients permitted. (Source: "The Theory and Practice of Brewing" by W.L. Tizard, London, 1846, pages 490-491.)

Some claimed sugar could not only be used in conjunction with malt, but to completely repalce it. Professor Donovan wrote of ale made entirely from sugar "To persons who have acquired an inveterate prediliction for the abominable and varied flavours which the skill of the brewer enables him to communicate, this pure and simple drink may be less pleasing; but it is singular how quickly the consumer acquires a high relish for it, and prefers it to every other. There is a purity of taste belonging to it quite different from the indescribable jumble of tastes so perceptible in common ales; and a light sharpness, combined with tenuity, which is more agreeable than the glutinous, mucilaginous softness of even the best ales. But it has one advantage which places it above all competition, and that is, its lightness on the stomach; this, when compared with the sickly heaviness of malt ales, is really remarkable." (Source: "The British Wine-Maker and Domestic Brewer" by WH Roberts, Edinburgh, 1835 page 278.)


Adulteration
The penalties for those caught using illegal ingredients were severe. Using sugar, molasses or honey - 100 pound fine. Using hop substitutes - 20 pound fine. Using drugs - one hundred pound fine and confiscation of utensils. (Source: "The Spirit, Wine Dealer's and Publican's Guide", by Edward Palmer, London, 1824 page 17.)