Berliner Weisse yeast

This was a fun little article to come across. And not just because it references Schonfeld, the VLB's top-fermentation specialist. But also on account of a feeling of smugness that comes over me knowing that I have a slightly deeper understanding of the topic than the author. Purely because of the advances that have occurred in brewing science in the last 100 year.

The Pitching Yeast of Berlin White Beer.
According to Schonfeld (Wochenschrift für Brauerei), the pitching yeast of Berlin white beer (Weissbier), occupies a unique position among yeasts, inasmuch as, instead of being carefully protected from bacterial infection, it owes its value precisely to its high content of a special kind of bacteria, namely, the rod-like lactic acid bacterium. The usual proportion of yeast cells to bacteria is 4 to 7 to 1. The yeast itself is also characterised by unusually high fermenting power, the attenuation at the close of primary fermentation averaging 70 to 75 per cent., as compared with the 35 to 40 per cent, of ordinary beers.

At one time the brewers did not prepare the pitching yeast themselves, but obtained it from the retailers; but, as this yeast is very liable to degenerate, another source had to be drawn upon, namely, the yeast used in the production of Kottbus bitter beer. At present, however, it has become the custom to prepare the pitching yeast in the brewery, and it has now attained such fixity of type as to be capable of continued use without losing its character.

The lactic ferment is probably of the same origin as those present in sour milk and the acid distillery mash, modified into the present variety by long exposure to the particular environment, and so fixed in type as to be no longer reconvertible. Although the final mashing temperature of this beer is too high to permit the reproduction of similar bacteria, it is probable that, before the employment of the thermometer, the final temperature was appreciably lower; and, as it has always been the custom to work with an open mash-tun during the filtration of the wort, it seems feasible to assume that the lactic bacteria first found their way into the pitching yeast in this manner, and that they have since become acclimatized to the conditions prevailing in the brewing process.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, July 15th 1902, page 436.

This is the bit that struck me: "The yeast itself is also characterised by unusually high fermenting power". Why? Because the very high attenuation in Berliner Weisse isn't as a result of the primary pitching yeast. But of the Brettanomyces that kicks off during secondary fermentation. As this was before Clausen revealed the secondary yeast's existence, you can't really blame the article's author. Especially as, even after everyone knew about Brettanomyces, no-one niticed it in Berliner Weisse until the 1980s.

Did the Lactobacillus really originally get picked from the environment? Sounds feasible to me.

Yeast 1850 - 1880

Walker & Homfrays Embee Amber Ale label.

It was in this period that Pasteur unlocked the mystery of fermentation and the true nature of yeast as a living microorganism. There had been much debate about the process of fermentation and the role played by yeast for decades. Brewers did, however, know how to work with yeast, despite not properly understanding exactly what it was.

Some still thought yeast was a type of catalyst and its action purely chemical. This was the theory propagated by the German Leibig. 

"The chief constituents of yeast are vegetable gluten, and a small quantity of albuminous matter. When this ferment is introduced into the wort, it stimulates similar principles therein, and these exciting causes act and re-act upon each until one or both are destroyed."
Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, page 43.

Whatever yeast was, the changes it provoked in a sugary liquid were understood: 

"oxygen, two parts of which unite with four of carbon, and six of hydrogen in forming alcohol; while four parts of oxygen unite with two of carbon, and form carbonic acid gas. These two substances did not previously exist, but are new products of the decomposition od sugar."
Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, page 43.

Though they might not have known its true nature, brewers understood that using the same yeast was important to maintain the characteristic flavour of their beer. They maintained a supply of yeast by harvesting it from fermenting wort. (Source: "The Art of Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1876, page 114.) Pitching yeast was referred to as "store". 

"The best yeast for store purposes is that derived from a beer when nearing its final attenuation point, yeast which has not been exposed to atmospheric influences for any length of time, through forming the upper surface of the floating head, and as a rule the best pitching store for distinctive beers is that taken from brews of like quality, or from a beer of medium gravity."
Source: "The Art of Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1876, page 114. 

It's worth remembering that "medium gravity" at the time would have meant a beer of 1060-1070º.

Yeast was preserved by running cold water over it to remove any sugars and then drying and pressing it. (Source: "The Art of Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1876, pages 115-116.)
 

Whitbread’s brewery in 1960 (part three)

Mostly just photos again this time. I do like to have some life at the weekend. That’s my excuse for being lazy every now and again. I’ll need to write at least another two posts today. Hopefully before the kids get up at start pestering me for cash.

First, a rather frightening looking piece of equipment:

“Yeast, the vital fermenting agent which turns wort into beer, is now put into a central yeast mixing vessel. This method, which was developed in Whitbread's Brewery, ensures greater control. Until two years ago it was pitched into the fermenting vessels manually.”
The Sphere - Saturday 23 July 1960, page 33.

  
I guess they mixed some wort with the yeast in that vessel. I suppose it meant a more even distribution of yeast. If you want to see how they did it before, there’s a photo on page 23 of “The Home Brewer’s Guide to Vintage Beer” showing someone tipping a bucket of yeast into a fermenter. Note that it’s taking four or them to work the machine.

This is so weird. I blogged a couple of days ago about Whitbread’s beers at the time this article was written. I mentioned that one beer I knew that they brewed, a Pale Ale for the Belgian market, was missing. Did they brew it elsewhere, or had I just missed it as I quickly skimmed through the logs? Turns out the latter was true.

Peter Symons – whose Bronzed Brews, a book about historic Australian beers and how they related the British beers they were inspired by, I can highly recommend – emailed me an image of Ex IPA this morning. And blow me if it didn’t contain an entry I wouldn’t have understood without this article from The Sphere:

That must mean that they’d done it the old way, with a bucket full of yeast.

“At all stages of brewing, samples are taken for checking. Left: The wort flows first into this vessel where a duty brewer takes a sample in a measuring cup to examine it against a strong light for strength and colour.”
The Sphere - Saturday 23 July 1960, page 33.

I suppose that vessel would be the underback. I can understand that the brewer might be checking the colour. Probably checking for clarity, too. But he wouldn’t be able to check for the strength by eye. Doubtless he had a hydrometer for that purpose.

“Right: A sample is taken from a storage vessel in the cellars.”
The Sphere - Saturday 23 July 1960, page 33.

This looks much more like a modern brewery. Though these are flat-bottomed vessels rather than conicals. What were they storing here? Beer for bottling, according to the text. If they were using the classic carbonated beer method, they’d be cooling it down to precipitate out anything that could cause a chill haze.

A bit more text next. Promise.

Guinness’s Park Royal Brewery in 1949 – the brew house (part nine)

We’re almost finished with the fermenting arrangements at Park Royal. Just the fascinating matter of yeast collection and processing.

We start with the yeast collection vessels:

“There are two stainless-steel enclosed cylindrical yeast collecting vessels each of 200 cu. ft. capacity, i.e. 400 cu. ft. for three skimmers holding some 1,275 barrels of beer. These collecting vessels are fitted with internal power-driven fob breakers for degassing the yeast by cutting it down as it enters the vessel. Continuous yeast collection can be carried out as one collecting vessel can be blown to the yeast presses while the other is being filled. The capacity of each pair of yeast collecting vessels is sufficient to take about 65 per cent, of the total yeast from three skimmers, as the yeast "broken down" by the fob breakers is about the same density as ordinary liquid yeast.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 285.

Presumably these two cylinders per 3-skimmer bank were being filled from the yeast troughs at the end of each skimmer.

Those fob breakers sounds dead handy. I should get myself one. How often have I thought: what I need now is a good fob breaker.

I’ve been having trouble imagining how these skimmers were arranged. This makes it clearer:

“As there are eight banks of skimmers there are 16 yeast collecting vessels in all, arranged in two aisles one on each side of the house. The vessels are equipped for pressure evacuation by air at 45 Ib. p.s.i.g., the yeast being blown to filter-cloth yeast presses. There are two blowing mains, one for "pitching," i.e. yeast used in the brewing process, and the other for surplus yeast. This ensures that a selected "pitching" crop can be isolated from collection in skimmer to pressing. The yeast-blowing mains are of tinned copper with rubber diaphragm valves and flexible rubber connections for connecting one vessel to either "pitching" or surplus yeast lines. The yeast vessels are scalded out with hot water at 190° F. after each brew.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 285.

Eight banks of skimmers, each consisting of three skimmers vertically spread across three storeys. It’s an odd arrangement. I’ve come across plenty of different cleansing systems, but never one like this. I assume that they had the same in their Dublin brewery. The photo archive on the Guinness website had a picture of one that seems to fit the description. Though only one skimmer is visible so you can’t see if it’s in a bank of three.

The presses were where the yeast was pressed to both remove wort and make the yeast more compact. Interesting to see how carefully they kept the pitching and surplus yeast apart.

More details about the presses and an intriguing mention of bottoms (stop sniggering at the back):

“The yeast presses are of the standard filter-cloth type cooled with chilled water at 45° F., there being one bank of four 9 cwt. presses for store or "pitching" yeast, this quantity being sufficient for two brews, which is necessary to maintain brewing over holiday week-ends. For the surplus yeast, there are seven 16 cwt. presses cooled with chilled water. All the above weights are of pressed yeast. The barm beer from the press is collected in welded mild-steel enclosed collecting vessels. All the bottoms from the fermenting tuns and the fermenting house vessels are collected in stainless-steel enclosed cylindrical-bottomed vessels and blown to the surplus yeast presses.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 285.

Right, so they’re collecting the barm beer from the presses and the bottoms of the fermenting tuns. But what are they doing with it? Is it being re-used or is it being discarded? Remember that Watneys collecting all this sort of crap and blended it into new brews. Did Guinness do the same? Perhaps the author is reluctant to admit it, because he’s a bit vague at this point.

The vat house next.

Guinness’s Park Royal Brewery in 1949 – the brew house (part eight)

We start actually inside Guinness’s Park Royal fermenters. Taking a close look at the rousers. Very important kit, rousers are.

“Originally, the tuns were roused with mechanical power-driven paddles arranged on the floor of the tun, but it was almost impossible to keep these even reasonably clean and they are now being replaced by compressed-air rousers, which consist of a venturi tube in aluminium in the throat of which is arranged a 0.75-in. nozzle. The potential energy of the compressed air is converted to kinetic energy in the venturi, thus inducing movement of the liquor mass. The unit is small and compact and readily removable for cleaning and is arranged on the floor of the tun. The air rouser gives excellent results, promoting vigorous circulation which can be easily controlled by the air valve, the operating pressure of the air being about 15 lb. p.s.i.g.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 284.

I had to look up what a venturi tube is. Partly to make sure it wasn’t in OCR error. Turns out it’s a tube that gets narrower in the middle of its length. As a liquid passes through the narrow section. Its velocity increases and its fluid pressure falls. Still not totally sure how this makes the wort circulate. One thing I do know: a tube sounds a lot easier to clean than a mechanical paddle.

We now move on to the skimmers. Which are really a sort of cleansing vessel, that is somewhere primarily concerned with yeast removal.

“As the top fermentation process is used, means are provided for the mechanical removal of yeast from the beer surface. This is done in skimmer, of which there are 24 arranged on the three top floors of the fermenting house. The skimmers are large shallow cast-iron vessels each of 425 barrels holding capacity and are 57 ft. 8 in. long by 12 ft. wide and 4 ft. 3.5 in. deep. When the gravity in the fermenting tun has reached the pre-determined figure above primary gravity, the beer is pumped to the overhead skimmers. Yeast is collected by the dropping system, the skimmers being worked in vertical banks of three vessels.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 284.

I make the total capacity of the skimmers 10,200 barrels. Or around three days’ worth of brews. The dimensions of the skimmers are very different from the fermenters. They were 28 ft. long and 20 ft. deep. The skimmers were less than a quarter of the fermenters depth but more than twice as long. 

I’m about confused by mention of the dropping system. That usually meant starting fermentation in a deep cylindrical vessel than dropping to a shallow square one. From the mention of them being used in a vertical bank of three – presumably one on each floor – I assume that they dropped beer from the top skimmer to lower ones.

“Of the eight skimmers occupied by a brew, one is a balance vessel fitted with the orthodox parachute or movable yeast hopper. Ordinary skimmers have a yeast trough on the end of the vessel, and the yeast is manually skimmed to the trough and dropped into the yeast collecting vessels below each bank of three skimmers. Each skimmer yeast trough is fitted with two outlet chutes and a portable plug which allows the yeast from the skimmers to be passed down selected chutes to the yeast collecting vessels below. In this way a yeast crop for pitching can be kept isolated.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 285.

A parachute, in this context, is an inverted cone that floated just beneath the surface of the wort. The ordinary skimmer was just a plank that was moved across the surface of the wort skimming off the top of the yeast head. They’d want to keep the pitching yeast isolated as this would have been collected at very specific times to ensure that it was healthy and suitable for repitching.

As it took eight skimmers to hold, they must be a whole day’s output by “brew”. Eight skimmers could hold 3,400 barrels.

Yeast collecting vessels next. Surely the most exciting part of any brewery.

German brewing in 1966 – fermentation (part one)

Not too far to go now. Before you know it we’ll be done and I’ll have to think up another interminable series.

Were now at one of the most vital phases of beer production, fermentation. Where the yeast works its magic and turns dull sugars into exciting alcohol. My favourite constituent of beer.

“The Main and Secondary Fermentation
During the last ten years exact control of fermentation has been made possible by the use of suitable flocculating and non-flocculating yeasts. The characteristics of a large number of yeasts were known and it was possible to obtain small quantities of yeast in optimum conditions from the appropriate institutes. However, the quantities required were occasionally so large that even smaller breweries could introduce their own yeast culture plants. The main fermentation was carried out at 5-9° C. for 7-12 days. Yeast was pitched at a rate of 0.3 and 1.0 litres to the hl. and the usual intention was to reach 90% of the final attenuation in the fermentation cellar.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 20.

Contrast that with a typical top fermentation:

“The wort is pitched as soon as possible using pressed yeast at a rate of 0.15 to 0.30 kg/hl (0.5 to 1.0 lb/imp. brl). Traditional practice is to pitch at 15± 16º C (+-60º F) and allow the temperature to free rise to 20-24º C (68 to 75º F, Fig. 14.1) as fermentation proceeds. This is rapid and normally finishes in around 48 hours.”
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 528.

Having spent many a happy hour looking at fermentation temperatures in brewing logs, I can say that Briggs is bang on the money there. Though four or five days is a more typical duration for primary fermentation.

It’s a bit difficult to compare pitching rates as one is given as a weight and the other as a volume. However, it’s obvious that 1 litre of yeast is going to weigh considerably more than 300 gm. The much higher pitching rate for bottom-fermentation is presumably why it was worth the while of even small breweries to have their own yeast propagation system.

Now on to secondary fermentation, or lagering:

“The secondary fermentation at a temperature of +4° to 0 or -1° C. continued for 8-12 weeks. The desired final degree of attenuation was not always reached, so a certain percentage of non-flocculating yeast was used as secondary fermentation yeast or alternatively one, added 6-10% of a two-day old primary fermentation beer. When these methods were properly applied, beers of excellent quality could be obtained. In classic fermentation systems one requires large fermentation rooms with a capacity of one-twenty-third of the yearly output. The storage cellars require a capacity of one quarter of the yearly output in order to allow for the summer peak. These methods are today still used in the breweries of Dortmund and Munich as well as in many other large and small breweries, where every increase in capacity of 1000 brl. per year results in a corresponding increase in the fermentation and storage cellar. Other breweries are looking for a way to avoid new building and as a result of replacement of wooden storage casks with modern tanks a considerable increase in the brewery's capacity can be achieved without difficulty, as a storage period of 8-12 weeks still enables certain reserves to be made available. In addition, fermentation and storage might be saved by cold filtration of the wort, but even this method gives a minimum of 1 week's main fermentation and 4 weeks' secondary fermentation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 20.

The first part of the paragraph is a description of the classic method of brewing Lager. A cool primary fermentation followed by a long, slow secondary fermentation at around freezing.

Adding young, fermenting beer is usually called “kräusening”. The only real record I have of this practice is from Amsdell, an Ale brewery in Albany New York, from around 1900. They were adding a far larger volume of Kräusen – about 25%.

I wonder where that figure of one-twenty-third comes from? I presume it’s based on a batch taking approximately two week in primary fermentation. The one quarter for the lager cellar is easier to work out. If beer was going to be lagered for three months, you’d need about three months’ worth of beer in the lagering cellar.

Reducing the fermentation time is an obvious way of saving money. Nowadays I’m sure the big industrial brewers rush their Lagers through in less than five weeks. I’m not sure that they even lager at all really.

Here’s what happens when the fermentation is rushed too much:

“Frequently attempts were made to obtain a quick fermentation by increasing the pitching quantity and the fermentation temperature (9-12° C.); usually the secondary fermentation intensity was no longer satisfactory as the yeast adapted itself to the higher temperature and received quite a shock as a result of the quick cooling in the storage cellars. The unsatisfactory second fermentation produced beers with insufficient maturity; by-products of fermentation were evident in greater quantities and reduction of diacetyl and acetoin was unsatisfactory. The beers had an unfinished yeasty flavour, a rough bitterness and insufficient CO2 and head stability; continuously changing character and insufficient secondary fermentation affected the normal increase in colloid particles and protein deposits which is necessary for the stability of the finished beer. In these cases an improvement in quality had to be obtained by means of increased use of filter aids and absorption-stabilizing media, in order to obtain beers with the required characteristics. In this connection, it was also useful to replace a large part of the flocculating yeast by non-flocculating yeast which, however, caused difficulties with beer filtration.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 20 - 21.

9-12° C isn’t far off a top-fermenting temperature. No surprise that the yeast didn’t like being chilled down to near-freezing after getting used to the warmth. But I wonder how many of these faults are present in today’s mass-market Lagers? Maybe not the diacetyl, but I’ve had Lagers with rough bitterness. When you could spot the bitterness, that is.

Next time we’ll be looking at newer methods of fermentation.

Storage of German and English Beer in the 1930’s

Staying with the Wahls, we’re now considering the different storage method employed by British and German brewers.

It stresses the different methods of preserving beer in the two countries. Basically it’s refrigeration versus hopping and alcohol. Sadly, it contains at least one statement which I’m sure is completely wrong.

“Preservation during Storage
The high alcoholic content and heavy hopping have a preservative effect so that these beers keep well during the long storage period. For this reason they were made with a high alcoholic content and highly hopped. Substitutes for some of the malt are generally employed in England; these are sugar, rice and corn products. The draft ales and stouts are but lightly bunged by using porous spiles in storage casks and do not foam much when drawn into the glass. Little regard is had for effervescence or foam stability. They should however be as clear as sparkling wines in this respect.

German lager beers are kept in storage at cellar temperatures of 34 to 35 degrees F. which prevents their spoiling. The beer itself when reaching the stock vat or tank has a temperature of about 40 degrees. The vats are exclusively of wood construction. It requires 4 to 6 weeks for the beer to reach within one degree of the temperature of the cellar. During this period the beers are bunged.

The English stock ales and stouts undergo a brisk secondary fermentation induced by a peculiar yeast-like organism saccharomyces Pastorianus. It takes several months before this fermentation is completed. This wild yeast gives to stock ale its peculiar flavor, and it has the peculiarity of fermenting malto-dextrins —a power not possessed by either the bottom or top pure brewers' yeast. The organism Pastorianus develops the fine flavor for which ales and stouts are known and seems to accompany all top yeast in England. Therefore pure culture yeast has found no favor as secondary fermentation could not set in if it were used.
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 155.

They’re right about adjuncts, but after WW I rice wasn’t normally used. Too expensive, I think.

Cask British beer is more complicated than he describes. A soft, porous spile is only used for part of the process. Non-porous hard spiles are also used to build condition in the cask. Compared to American beer, I suppose it would seem to have little condition.

But the stuff about secondary conditioning yeast is clearly wrong. For a start, they’ve got the capitalisation wrong: it should be Saccharomyces pastorianus, not saccharomyces Pastorianus. It’s not yeast-like, or wild, but a normal brewer’s yeast. Lager yeast is what it’s usually called. That or Saccharomyces carlsbergensis.

But that’s small beer compared to the assertion that it was responsible for the aged flavour of British Stock Beers. And that it can ferment malto-dextrins. I can’t believe that it was really in pitching strains.

What’s really odd is that they then go on to discuss Brettanomyces:

“Stock and Bottle English Beers
After secondary fermentation is concluded the stock beers both ale and stout are stored for 4 to 6 months in casks after which they may be bottled. Then in the bottle a third fermentation sets in, which, according to Chapman was thought for a long time to be due to the same wild yeast that carries on secondary fermentation but it has been shown (first by Claussen) that certain organisms belonging to the group of Torula which he named Brettanomyces are in reality the active agents. These are closely allied to the true Saccharomyces in which they differ chiefly in their inability to form ascospores. Chapman says "It is highly probable that the characteristic flavor of certain bottle beers (English unpasteurized ales) is to some extent the result of their activity."
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 156.

So the Brettanomyces only kicked in after bottling? I’m certain that’s incorrect. Six months in a cask would have been plenty of time for it to become active.

I’m confused and disappointed by this section. It’s so wrong in a period when the mechanisms of ageing were known.

Brewing in WW II (part eleven)

We're almost at the end of another marathon series. Anyone still out there?

As I mentioned earlier, the food supply problems of WW I prompted the government to be very careful right from the start of WW II. They tried to ensure that as little food as possible was wasted. Even stuff that wasn't obviously food. Like waste yeast.

"Early in the war the salvage department of the Ministry of Supply invited the Institute of Brewing to go into the question of brewery waste products, and a committee was formed which collected the necessary information and made its report. Yeast was considered to be the most valuable of brewers' bye-products in view of the fact that one-half of its dry weight consists of readily digested protein while it also contains vitamins. Most of the surplus yeast in the large centres is utilized for human foods or is dried and used in the preparation of cattle foods. It was realized, however, that a good deal of the yeast from the smaller breweries in outlying districts and the smaller towns was not being utilized, and steps were taken to advise the farmers throughout the country of the value of yeast as a supplement to the pig food ration, with a view to overcoming this waste. Most towns and urban district councils organized a collection of household waste, and breweries in these districts had no difficulty in disposing of their waste yeast to them, and it is probable that Very little of this valuable foodstuff was wasted."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, pages 125 - 126.

The human food I guess would mostly be marmite. I didn't realise it was also used to feed animals, but I suppose that makes sense. There's no way you were going to persuade everyone to eat marmite. I wonder if it's still used in cattle food? Breweries produce a lot of yeast, far more than is needed to ferment subsequent batches. The excess needs to be disposed of somehow. Where does it go?

I mentioned that there were a host of wartime difficulties that I hadn't considered. Changes to the water supply is another one. It was all to do with the level of chlorination:

"For a number of years before the war the chlorination of water supplies as a supplement to nitration in order to reduce its bacterial content to a safe limit has been very generally practised, but the amount of chlorine present was usually too small to become noticeable and was never sufficient to have any deleterious effect when it was used for brewing. The quantity used during the war period, however, was often increased after damage of mains by bombing and much heavier quantities were necessary for short periods. No noticeable effect, however, seems to have been experienced by those breweries using the London supply. Although even an excess of chlorine is hardly likely to have any directly harmful effect either on yeast or beer, its effect on the pipes and mains through which it is conveyed does not appear to have received the attention it deserves. A case occurred in a town which had been severely blitzed, and it was found necessary to chlorinate the water supply to overcome suspected contamination. The writer found that this had been carried to excess, so much so that it had a corrosive effect on the copper-lined fermenting vessels of a brewery. Fortunately there is a simple antidote for chlorine and the necessary steps were taken to treat the water in the cold liquor tanks before any harmful effects occurred, but it is a matter that should be borne in mind, as others might not be so fortunate."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 126.

Is this still a problem? Mains water is often still very heavily chlorinated in Britain. I drink the tap water in Newark. It's like taking a mouthful of swimming pool. Hang on. I remember asking John Keeling about Fullers' water supply. He told me that they had to stop using their own wells because they became contaminated. They now used mains water which they first dechlorinated. I'd assumed that was flavour reasons but maybe it was really to protect their equipment.

That's the article itself done. Just the discussion to go. If I can be arsed.

Brewing in WW II (part four)

I'm skipping one bit about nitrogen in malt that made my head hurt when I read it. We'll move directly on to yeast problems. Though you'll see that there's still a connection with the nitrogen level in malt.

And remember, this the less head-melty part of the article:

"The nitrogen constituents which are precipitated on cooling go forward into the fermenting vessel, and although some of them and those precipitated in the copper which have not been completely removed in the hop back rise to the surface with the first dirty head, a proportion, however, drop through the wort and settle on the bottom of the fermenting vessel; and, as Bishop has demonstrated (ibid., 1938, 70), forms points of disengagement for the CO2, the bubbles of which become coated with yeast as it rises through the beer and by thus bringing it to the surface is liable to restrict the attenuation of the beer. Where there is an excess of this type of nitrogen compounds this effect will be enhanced. The ph value of the wort has a direct influence on the cold break of wort, and when this is not normal the precipitation in the cold is not complete and a type of nitrogen compound will remain in a state of fine dispersion in the wort. There are other nitrogen compounds which are not precipitated on cooling but tend to coagulate as the ph value is altered during the progress of fermentation, and all these are capable of being adsorbed on the surface of the yeast cells. This coating on the surface of the yeast restricts its power of assimilating the yeast feeding material in the wort and results in a deterioration in its health and vigour. This effect was especially noticeable during the past year, for although the malts contained a high percentage of permanently soluble nitrogen the greatest difficulty was experienced in producing healthy and vigorous yeast crops. This was one of the most serious difficulties with which the majority of brewers had to contend throughout the war years, but it was most pronounced during the years when the malts were high in nitrogen and poor in quality. Another effect of the coating of the yeast is to cause it to agglomerate or flocculate, and when this happens it is inclined to purge out of the beer at an early stage of the fermentation. leaving the attenuations high and causing the beer to rack very clean. Slow cask conditioning is the result, and where there is any infection with wild yeast this has an opportunity of developing and cask frets inevitably follow."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 120.

This is how excess nitrogen buggers up a fermentation. They mess up the cold break and leave crap in the wort. This nitrogen crap coats the yeast and either drags it up to the surface or prevents it working properly. So brewers couldn't get a decent crop of yeast from their fermentations.

Presumably because it racked so clean there was too little yeast from the secondary cask conditioning. I guess there was a lot of flat beer in pubs. What a shame the Whitbread Gravity Book inspectors weren't around.

More about yeast problems:

"Yeast weakness has been a constant source of trouble throughout the country, and caused the brewer the greatest anxiety. The average gravity of beers when war broke out was down to 1041°, but this figure varied considerably in individual breweries, and when it became subject to a reduction of 20 per cent, some of those whose original average gravity was low were faced with considerable difficulty, which was appreciably increased in those years when the malts were so poor in quality. While lack of attenuative power is often taken as a measure of yeast weakness, it is not always so, as a weak yeast will more often than not cause excessive attenuation. The appearance of the yeast cells under the microscope is the surest method for determining yeast weakness. Signs of elongation of the cells are the first indication, and the more numerous and pronounced these become the greater is the deterioration in health and vigour. This is readily confirmed by the appearance of the heads on the fermenting vessels. The first effect of a falling off in health and vigour is the development of a "yeast bite" in the beer, which becomes more pronounced as the deterioration becomes progressive. It has been noticeable in low gravity beers of an average gravity of 1030° and under, and he was afraid that there have been many beers brewed of even a lower gravity. In beers of higher gravity a weak yeast tends to produce an unpleasant unclean flavour, and when this becomes very pronounced it renders the beer almost undrinkable. That flavour also is associated with an unclean nose, which can be readily detected on the fermenting vessel, usually at about half gravity, and, in fact, can often be detected as soon as the fermenting room is entered."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 120.

Occasionally there are higher gravity brews in brewing logs during the war years where it specifically says they were to produce a good yeast crop. It might also explain the weird practice of some brewers like Truman and William Younger who in the years immediately after WW I fermented fairly strong worts then blended them to produce a weaker finished beer. Were they doing that for the sake of their yeast, making sure some of it was healthy?

I'm not sure I follow why a weak yeast would over-attenuate. Makes absolutely no sense to me on any level. An "unclean nose" sounds more like an infection than just crappy yeast. It doesn't sound as if the end result was much fun to drink. Presumably in the difficult war years, even almost undrinkable was better than no beer at all.

Now something about Californian barley and nitrogen:

"In discussing possible war-time problems he had suggested that the lack of Californian malt might prove a difficult one (ibid., 1940, 272), he stated then that "Practical experience had shown that the use of Californian malt improves the brilliance of beers and assists in obtaining polish in bottled beers. It is evident, therefore, that it must be effective in adjusting the balance of the nitrogen constituents in the wort and effecting a stable equilibrium." Various opinions were expressed on this point during the discussion, and the general opinion appeared to be at that time that no serious difficulties had been experienced by reducing the proportion of Californian malt or discontinuing its use altogether. This, however, was experience gained in 1940 with the well-made malts from the sound barleys of 1939. Later on, when the quality of the malts deteriorated, and especially during the two very bad years, there is no doubt that the usefulness of Californian malt would have been clearly demonstrated. There is no question that the maltsters would have welcomed a supply of Californian barley, especially in those years when the quantity of held-over barleys was small and the quality was poor, as it would have enabled them to hold off malting the new season's crop until it had recovered from its dormancy and satisfactory results could have been assured."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, pages 120 - 121.

So it wasn't just the nitrogen content of Californian barley that made it attractive but also the fact that it was ready to malt earlier than British barley. Which also gave the home-grown stuff time to get into shape before it was malted. How complex this is.

Next time we'll be looking at flaked grains.

Heineken and pure yeast cultures (part two)

Here's more about the forgotten contribution of Heineken to pure yeast cultures. This time in the form of a book review.

"THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF
PURE YEAST.
Attention is drawn in an interesting article by E. Elion (Ann. Brass. Dist., 1932, 30, 275-8 and 291-4) to a recently published monograph on the history of pure yeast culture by H. Lüers and F. Weinfurtner. The monograph is considered to be incomplete and in some respects inaccurate. It is contended that the production of pure yeast had its inception at the beginning of 1886 in the installation of the Hansen-Kuhle apparatus in Copenhagen, since Hansen's earlier method of working with small open vessels could not be considered to give a pure product. The new process met with much opposition in brewing circles, but had strong supporters in Aubry, of the brewing research station in Munich, where the open-vessel process was in use, and H. Elion, of the Heineken Brewery in Rotterdam. Elion designed and had made an apparatus of his own based on that of Hansen and Kiihle, and it was a facsimile of this apparatus which, in 1887, was the first to be introduced into Germany. Records show that the amount of yeast distributed from Rotterdam during the next few years was greatly in excess of that sent out from Munich, many breweries in Germany and other parts of the Continent being supplied from the Heineken Brewery. This information goes to prove that the process of pure yeast production, conceived in Denmark, owed its rapid development to Holland and not to Germany, and that the work of Elion at Rotterdam did not, as has often been stated, follow along paths already prepared by the station at Munich. Hansen himself, in 1888, subscribed to the erroneous belief that the introduction of the pure yeast system into Germany was due to Aubry, and Lüers and Weinfurtner have omitted almost all reference to the work of Elion in their mono graph. Michel, director of the school of brewing in Munich, in 1897, acknowledged the Heineken brewery to have been foremost in the industrial development of pure yeast culture."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 39, Issue 1, January-February 1933, page 2.

Elion, the chemist at Heineken Rotterdam had only died a couple of years before this article was published. I know that because an obituary appeared in the Journal. They hadn't forgotten about his achievements. Then again, he was an honorary member if the Institute.

"OBITUARY.
H. ELION.
Dr. H. Elion, from 1894 honorary corresponding member of the Institute of Brewing, died at the Hague, Holland, on April 13, 1930, at the age of 77 years.

Dr. Elion, who was born in Rotterdam in. 1853, obtained the degree of chemical engineer at Delft Technical University and continued his studies at Leiden University, from which he received the degree of D.Sc, in 1884.

From 1886 to 1921 he was the technical adviser of Heineken's Brewery, Rotterdam. In this sphere of action, he exerted a great influence on the development of the brewing industry both in Holland and abroad, especially by his successful industrial application of pure culture methods. The pure culture yeast and the apparatus, introduced by Dr. Elion in Heineken's Brewery, found their way in to many of the greatest breweries in Austria, France, Switzerland, Belgium and above all in Germany, and contributed mainly to the rapid development of this new process of manufacturing. In 1906, at the 6th International Congress of Applied Chemistry in Rome, Dr. Elion reported that the yeast, which he introduced in 1886, was still cultivated in Heineken's brewery in pure state, without any alteration of its properties. He then stated that it would be possible to maintain its good condition as long as desired, and when he retired 15 years later, this prediction proved to be confirmed. Even at that time the Rotterdam yeast was still used in several foreign breweries.

Although much of Dr. Elion's research work could not be published, he wrote a number of interesting chemical and biological subjects. Mention may be made of an extensive study on the estimation of the dry substance in maltwort and beer by the aid of dry air under diminished pressure at a temperature of 97° C, which method has proved useful in many directions. He constructed a table on reference to which the dry material can be derived from the specific gravity. He published work on the determination of salicylic acid in beer, the gravimetric estimation of sugar, the partial decomposition of beer, maltwort and hop by boiling, the detection of preservatives in beer, and a biochemical method for the determination of maltose, dextrose and dextrin in maltwort and beer, based on a fermentation of the sugar by a pure culture of Saccharomyccs cerevisiae.

Dr. Elion's knowledge of yeast fermentation and yeast culture not only advanced the development of the brewing industry, but also the manufacture of bakers' yeast. Indeed, more than 35 years ago, he succeeded in devising a process for producing a yeast of high quality for baking purposes from a new raw material, namely molasses. At that time a good pressed yeast could be made only from cereal products, and the new mode of procedure was an advance from a technical as well as from an economical standpoint. The process is employed industrially on a large scale and was of especial use during the War. At present, bakers' yeast is manufactured principally from molasses and in some countries the use of cereals in the fermentation industry is not allowed.

Dr. Elion was one of the oldest honorary corresponding members of the Institute of Brewing, a compliment which he acknowledged by sending a paper to this Journal. By his decease the brewing industry loses one of its most distinguished representatives."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 36, Issue 4, July-August 1930, page 334.

I think that's me done with pure yeast for now.

Heineken and pure yeast cultures

The role of Heineken in promoting the use of pure yeast cultures seems to have been mostly forgotten. Odd, considering how the brewery is much more significant internationally than it was in the 19th century.

The pioneering work on pure yeast cultures was performed by Hansen at Carlsberg:

"Hansen, of the Carlsberg brewery in Copenhagen, in 1883 published a treatise in which he showed that the yeast used in the breweries at that time consisted of several species, and that among these there were perhaps strains of an undesirable kind. For that reason he cultivated in his laboratory, on a small scale,  a yeast that consisted of the pure progeny of one single yeast-cell, and so represented a pure culture in the strictest meaning of the word. To obtain sufficient quantities of yeast for use in the brewery, he grew it further in small open vessels which rendered a certain degree of infection possible. Hansen fully appreciated the disadvantages of this method and very soon — that is in the end of 1885 or the beginning of 1886 — in co-operation with Kühle, he had constructed a metal apparatus which afterwards became famous under the name of "Hansen-Kühle pure culture apparatus," and which enabled large quantities of yeast to be produced for direct use in the brewery without danger of contamination."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 43, Issue 4, July-August 1937, page 295.

The use of pure yeast cultures gave a huge boost to Lager-brewing in Europe. It allowed brewed to make a more consistent product than ever before. While in Britain the varied results in using pure cultures - unaware of the role of Brettanomyces in the ageing process, brewers were baffled as to why secondary fermentation failed - meant they didn't catch on.

Hansen's work was taken up by the chemist at Heineken's Rotterdam brewery:

"Meanwhile, Dr. Elion, an eminent supporter of Hansen's ideas, was at work in the Heineken brewery at Rotterdam. Up to that time the brewery had obtained yeast from Munich and Copenhagen. Elion never used Hansen's method of the open vessels, but began with large 75-litre glass bottles (16.5 gallons), which could only be sterilised with difficulty, but which enabled him to make sufficient quantities of absolutely pure yeast. The method, however, was rather laborious and the glass vessels were replaced by an apparatus made of copper. In this apparatus Elion was able to carry on the cultivation of pure yeast indefinitely. Thus, the Heineken brewery was the second in the world to use a pure culture apparatus for yeast. That this apparatus was remarkably well constructed is shown by the fact that it is still in use.

Elion had the good fortune to be able to isolate two strains of yeast which were, and still are, very popular in foreign breweries. The general propagation of pure culture yeast and its popularity were much advanced by the Heineken brewery; thus, in the year 1886-7, more than 7,000 kgrms. of a pure and generally appreciated yeast were sent to different breweries in Germany. The only institution in Germany which cultivated pure yeast was at that time the Wissenschaftliche Station fur Brauerei in Munich, but for many years the station was unable to produce sufficient pure yeast to meet the demand. It is not too much to say that the supply of pure yeast to German breweries in the period between 1885 and 1900 was principally from the Heineken brewery, and was the result of the work of Dr. Elion."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 43, Issue 4, July-August 1937, page 296.

How ironic that Heineken supplied so many German breweries with yeast. It was a big business for them back before WW I. One of the main tasks of the Rotterdam brewery was the production of yeast. Which sounds quite odd nowadays.

The two strains are the Heineken A and D yeasts. A was used in Heineken's posher beers like Pilsener and Beiersch, while the D strain was used in cheaper beers like Gerste. They still use the A strain today.

Bottling in 1901 - other factors affecting flavour

You have to admit that Mr. Lott seriously analysed the different elements influencing the flavour of bottled beers. Which is one reason why this series of posts is dragging on interminably. That and my determination to kick out the last few ounces of shit out of this article's corpse.

This is a pretty obvious one. But, as the author points out, it wasn't just the flavour elements created directly by the yeast, but also those it was indirectly responsible for. For example, the amount of unfermented sugars it left behind.

"E. The variety of yeast used.

The well-known "summer sickness" of ale being closely associated with the growth of a variety of Saccharomyces ellipsoideus, it is obvious what a serious effect on flavour the use of faulty yeast may have. There are in fact a great variety of distinct flavours possible, due to particular species of yeasts, some pleasant and therefore desirable, and some otherwise. This is, however, quite apart from the distinctive character of the ale as determined by the rate of both primary and secondary fermentation and the degree of final attenution, which depend to a very great extent upon the kind of pitching yeast employed and the species of Saccharomyces it happens to contain."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, page 200.

I can't iimagine Saccharomyces ellipsoideus was soemthing any brewer would deliberately pitch into his wort. Different yeasts do produce quite different tasting beers. When Fullers moved from dropping fermenters to conicals they slimmed down their pitching yeast from three strains to one. The main criterion for choosing that one yeast was the falvour it produced. They chose the yeast that was most responsible for the distinctive Fullers flavour.

This next one is no surprise, either. The mashing scheme, type of copper and method of boiling, type of fermenting vessel and temperature of the fermentation all have an impact on the flavour of the finished beer.

"F. The process of manufacture.

Every part of the process—mashing, boiling, cooling, fermenting, cleansing, racking, and storing—has more or less a direct influence on the quality of the flavour of the ale produced. The man accustomed to drink stone square ale would have little or no difficulty in distinguishing it from ale brewed in unions or tunners. A high mashing heat produces a marked difference in the dextrin-maltose ratio of a wort as compared with a low mashing heat, and thereby influences the rate and degree of fermentation, and, consequently, the flavour. Deep coppers undoubtedly favour a higher boiling heat, and consequently produce more cooking of the wort and a flavour not otherwise found; in extreme cases the wort may be actually "copperburnt," and naturally this would have a marked effect on the ultimate flavour of the ale.

As before mentioned, the prolonged boiling of hops, especially with soft waters, gives an unpleasant, harsh, bitter to the wort, even with the finest flavoured hops.

The temperature of the fermentations largely influences the proportion of those delicate ethers to which the ultimate flavour of the matured ale—more especially strong ales—owes so much.

Every brewer has a dread of the idea of "yeast-bite," and this is not so frequently caused by the use of faulty yeast as by working the yeast faultily. I might here point out that yeast-bite, produced by the yeast parting with a certain amount of its cell-sap and adherent resin to the ale, is in a minor degree constant to the process, hence the peculiar flavour of the ale whilst cleansing. Fortunately, however, it usually passes away as soon as secondary fermentation sets in, and it is only in severe cases or when an excessive amount of yeast pressings or the pressings from a yeast, the cells of which have extremely thin and tender walls, have been added to the beer at rack that the final product is prejudicially affected.
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, pages 200 - 201. 

How does a stone square ale taste? I've drunk plenty of beer that was brewed in them, but could I spot one? I doubt it, to be honest. Nor a beer from a union set, I fear. Though I have absolutely no doubt that both have an impact on the finisshed beer. Not sure what is meant by tunners. Dropping system? Pontoes?

I can see in brewing records that brewers mashed at different temperatures for different types of beer. Here's a random example from some Whitbread records I happen to be looking at just now.

Whitbread mashing temperatures
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	strike heat	underlet heat	tap heat	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
22nd Apr	1965	Whitbread	W	Pale Ale	150º	170º	144º	1036.5	1006.4	3.98	82.47%
22nd Apr	1965	Whitbread	Best Ale	Mild	155º	180º	148º	1030.0	1008.3	2.87	72.33%
Source:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/01/133.

The mashing temperature was higher for the Mild Ale and, as you would expect, its degree of attenuation was also lower.

London Porter brewers used deep, enclosed coppers because they wanted to boil at a high temperature and darken the wort. For exactly the opposite reason Burton Pale Ale brewers used shallow open coppers - they wanted to avoid the wort becoming darker.

Mmm. Not sure what the bit about fermentation temperatures is saying. Was a higher of lower fermentation temperature needed to get the delicate flavour elements of a matured Ale? My experience of brewing records tell me that, while pitching temperatures varied to some extent, the maximum temperature reached was much the same for all types of beer from a particular brewery. Meaning there was no real difference in the temperature of an X Ale and a KKK Ale fermentation.

We're almost through this bit. Just one more post and we'll be done with flavour factors. Though there will be more on bottling to follow that.

Indian-brewed IPA

It seems several lifetimes ago that I was obsessively researching and writing about Pale Ale and India. Before Scotland and all things hops. Oh well. Today I'm returning to that particular well, with a bucket and a thirst.

Thanks to Bailey of Boak and Bailey for pointing me in the direction of this.

There had been breweries in India since the middle of the 19th century, but they had been limited to higher-altitude regions in the north of the country until the development of artificial refrigeration after 1870. In the south of India, it seems that it took rather longer for breweries to appear.

"THE MADRAS B.B.B. BREWERY CO., LTD.
There are not many cities of the same size as Madras which, up to quite a recent date, did not possess a brewery for the manufacture of beer, ale, and stout, and yet this busy, dusty, thirst-producing town had no such industry as brewing until the year 1913. when the Madras B.B.B. Brewery Co., Ltd.—which is an offshoot of the British Beer Breweries, Ltd., of London—was established. The managing agents are Messrs. McDowell & Co., Ltd., of Second Line Beach, Madras, and they have given the same unremitting attention to this venture as to the manufacture of their famous cigars and cigarettes, which have justly earned for themselves an enviable reputation in nearly every civilized country in the world.

The first and the most important consideration in brewing is an abundant supply of pure water, and this was only obtained after fourteen months' diligent search. No fewer than 14 bores were sunk before the spring which is now in use was found. A well 18 ft. in diameter was built, which gives 6,000 gallons of water an hour. This water has been tested by the Government analyst, and it has been certified to be absolutely pure. The buildings were constructed in accordance with plans designed by Messrs. George Adlam & Sons, of Bristol, England, who supplied the up-to-date brewing plant, and they have been erected in such a manner that enlargements can be carried out and additional plant accommodated without difficulty at any time.

The company has acquired the sole rights for the Madras Presidency for the use of S.T. yeast (Saccharomyces Thermantitonum), which differs from the English type in that it is heat-resisting and impervious to the extreme heat of the summer months on the plains of India. Imported yeast, on the other hand, cannot survive for long a temperature of 75° F., and it rapidly dies in the hot weather months. A fully qualified English brewer and chemist is employed as chief brewer, and some 40 hands are regularly engaged at the brewery. Exceedingly good examples of India pale ale and light dinner ale are brewed especially for the Indian climate, from the finest Scotch malt and Kent hops. Pilsener, a beautiful light beer, is made from Bavarian hops and Bohemian malt, and it has all the pleasurable characteristics of the imported article ; while a fine double stout of genuine London type is also the product of British malt and hops only.

There is an excellent market in Madras and in the surrounding districts, as the nearest competing brewery is over 200 miles distant.

The management of affairs at the brewery is in the capable hands of Mr. W. R. Prosser, a brewer and brewing chemist of considerable experience, and though the concern only lately started (May 1913), progress has been so satisfactory and such an encouraging reception accorded to its beers that the future of the company should be a bright one."
"Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources" compiled by Somerset Payne, 1914-1915, page 139.

I'm glad that they bothered to list the types of beer brewed. Most excitingly, an Indian-brewed IPA is among them. Though, without the sea journey, would it have been properly matured?  I'd love to know exactly how they brewed it. If you remember, Burton Pale Ales like Bass spent months in the brewery yard before even starting the journey to India. I can't imagine they could have done the same in tropical Madras.

It's a sign of changing tastes that they made a Pilsener as well as British styles. The outbreak of WW I must have made getting hold of Bavarian hops and Bohemian malt rather tricky. I wonder where they sourced their raw materials during the war?

Was there any particular reason for picking Scottish malt? I suppose when you were shipping it half way around the world, it made little difference if it came Leith or London.

I realise there's one style notable for its absence: Mild Ale. Was it ever brewed in India? It must have been imported at some point, surely.

Saccharomyces Thermantitonum is new to me, but seems pretty damn weird. It was accidentally discovered by Grove Johnson in 1905. Here's what he had to say about it:

"Imagine, then, how my interest was excited by the discovery of a yeast that resisted destruction at 183° F., and whose most favourable temperature for the performance of its functions — budding, fermentation — was found to be, after countless experiments, between 105° and 112° F."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 11, Issue 6, November-December 1905, page 469.

You can see why you would want to use a yeast with these characteristics if brewing in Madras. It sounds as if you could use it in the tropics without the need for refrigeration. It seems such handy stuff, that it would still be used today. Unless, of course, it makes beer that tastes horrible.

Johnson himself saw possibilities for its use in temperate climates, too:

"The habits and characteristics of the new yeast being once under stood, I quickly realised that I had to deal with latent possibilities capable of revolutionising existing methods of tropical brewing, whilst the savings that might be effected at home appeared not less striking. The extremely high temperature favourable to fermentation rendered unnecessary anything in the nature of coolers, refrigerators, and ice machinery, and the extraordinary solidity of the yeast after fermentation obviated the processes of skimming, cleansing, and yeast pressing;"
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 11, Issue 6, November-December 1905, page 470.

It sounds like amazing stuff. Why have I never heard of it before? I'm sure there are homebrewers in Texas who would love to have a yeast that can work at such high temperatures.

The article prompted me to do a litttle digging around on brewing in India. I'll be pestering you with it soon.

Reinheitsgebot exceptions

I'm now going to quote parts of Narziss's article which do directly refer to the Reinheitsgebot.

The first is something I'd wondered about after hearing that some Hefeweizen was bottle-conditioned with bottom-fermenting yeast.

"3.1.5. Yeast. The bottom and top fermenting yeasts are clearly defined and simple control methods described. Bottom fermented beer must be pitched with bottom yeast exclusively, top fermented beer vice versa with top fermenting yeast, but in order to achieve a sufficient second fermentation 0.1% bottom fermenting yeast may be added to the bottle or instead of this 15% bottom fermenting Krausen. Mixtures of both kinds of yeast are not permitted. In order to suppress infections of coccae or other lactic acid bacteria the yeast is acidified by sulphuric acid to a pH of 2 for 3-4 hours. The acid has to be removed afterwards by washing in a conical vessel."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, pages 353 - 354.

It seems a bit of a nonsense to me to insist that wheat beers can only be fermented by top-fermenting yeast but to allow secondary conditioning with a bottom-fermenting yeast. Where's the logic in that? If a Lager yeast is good enough for secondary fermentation why not for primary fermentation?

The harder I look at the Reinheitsgebot, the less sense any of it makes. Some things - like Lager yeast for bottle-conditioning - seem to be allowed just for the convenience of the brewer. And the stuff about sugar just a clumsy compromise to fit in with North German brewing practices.

"3.2. Export-Beers
In the North German Beer Tax Area, great quantities of light 'Exportbeer' were produced even prior to 1914. For these beers, which had to be kept apart from the domestic production, the use of maize, rice or sugar was permitted. This was a protective measure, to help the German export industry to meet the foreign customers' quality expectations and to attain a better shelf life. As stabilizer, tannin was used; its application had to be declared and controlled. The same referred to the use of ascorbic acid after 1948. The restriction on these raw materials and additives was that they may not exceed the amounts permitted by the regulations of the other countries. These dispensations had never been valid in Bavaria, Badenia and Württemberg. These countries had to brew their export beers according to the Purity Law. After 1948 the more liberal handling for the export beers was maintained, but the control measures achieved by the excise officers had been so tight and strong, that almost a brewery within a brewery was established. Thus, with the exception of some big export brewers the great majority of the others stopped the production of'Export-Beers'. This was favoured by the introduction of adsorbents for beer stabilisation like bentonite, but especially silica gel and PVPP. The use of tannin was dispensable."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, page 354.

The North German Beer Tax Area is, of course, the Brausteuergebied. An area that covered most of the German Empire, with the exception of Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, Alsace, Lorraine and Luxemburg. It had rather more liberal rules than the South up until 1906, when the Reinheitsgebot was applied to the whole of the Empire. So it's a little misleading to say that they were producing beers for export that contained maize or rice before 1914, because before 1906 such beers were also brewed for the domestic market. Rice beer was particularly popular.

Interesting that the reason they allowed adjuncts in export beer was so they could compete with foreign brewers. That's not very principled, is it? And I thought that was what the rules were all about, the principle of purity, not just commercial expediency. The foreigners like beer filled with crap? Let's brew it for them, then.

I'd love to know whether Beck's was brewed to the Reinheitsgebot. For a while - 1921 to 1949 - it wasn't sold at all in Germany and was a pure export beer. After Haake and Beck merged in 1921, I wonder if they used the Beck brewery just for brewing export beer? Presumably that would have masde it easier to comply with the rules if they were using adjuncts.

Malting and brewing in Germany in WW I (part two)

In the second of this brace of posts we look at the beers being brewed in Germany during the war.

While in Britain shortages of raw materials didn't really start to kick in until 1914, Germany had struggled virtually from the outbreak of hostilities. The Royal Navy's blockade began strangling Germany in 1914, while it was only with unfettered U-boat attacks in 1917 that Britain's supplies came under serious threat.

"We gather from the author's remarks that the beers which are now the staple product in Germany are brewed at a gravity not exceeding 1036. In these circumstances it is not surprising to learn that the German brewer has been confronted with the difficulty of obtaining yeast, and the plan adopted to meet this difficulty has been that which has been carried out successfully in many English breweries of late. It is to brew a beer of average gravity capable of yielding a yeast crop, and one of lower gravity, and to blend the two in such proportion that the mixture has the desired original gravity. W. Windisch points out that if a beer of something like 1048 gravity be mixed with one of, say, 1024, in such proportion that the mixture is equivalent to a beer of original gravity 1036, such a mixture drinks fuller than one brewed direct at 1036. With regard to the factors conducing to palate-fulness, he considers that alcohol plays the most important part, but that a high dextrin percentage in the wort tends to produce thin drinking beers. He deals at some length with fermentation, but, inasmuch as his remarks only apply to bottom-fermentation, they have little or no significance in this country."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 356.

Wow. I'm so glad I found this. Because it's explained something that had puzzled me for quite a while. I'd wondered why at Truman's Burton brewery they blended beer after fermentation. This is the explanation. They wanted to ferment a stronger wort to get a good yeast crop. And guess when I found the first example of it? May 1917, just when gravities started to seriously fall. It explains why they would parti-gyle two beers, ferment them, then blend the result. On the face of it, that's a completely crazy way to work.

Truman had two ways of applying this technique. The simplest was when a Single beer was being brewed. The gyles were blended to give a wort marked "S", presumably standing for "strong" and another "W", most likely meaning "weak". After fermentation these two would be mixed together to give one beer at the required gravity.

Here are two examples from 1918:

Truman XX 16th Sept 1918
	barrels	gravity
S	75	1046.7
W	152	1021.7
racked as	227	1030.0
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/334.

Truman XXX 18th Sept 1918
	barrels	gravity
S	128	1046.7
W	122	1022.2
racked as	250	1034.8
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/334.

It was more complicated when they were parti-gyling. Then they would brew the weaker beer at the required gravity and the stronger one above its target gravity. Some of the weaker beer was blended after fermentation with the stronger one to bring it down to its intended gravity. Here's an example of that:

Truman XX and XXX 6th June 1917
	barrels	gravity
XXX	69	1050.0
XX	135	1037.8
racked as
XXX	135	1043.9
XX	69	1037.8
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/333.

This is how it looks in the original brewing record:

Truman continued to perform post-fermentation blending up until at least 1939.

William Younger took a slightly different approach. They brewed to a higher gravity than intended then watered down the beer post fermentation. They, too, continued this practice well after the end of the war. It's a real pain in the arse as it makes their records really tricky to analyse.

Time to get back to our original text:

"The author goes minutely into figures, showing the amount of money which might be saved by carrying his suggestions into practice In the first place, using the particular grist he recommends, malting losses would be minimised greatly. Further, he recommends very strongly the use of a filter-press in the place of a mash-tun. "
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 356.

I wonder if anyone still uses the filter press method of mashing? It may have produced amazing efficiency but seems to have had an adverse effect on the character of the final beer. I think only a handful of breweries ever tried it in Britain.

"In the paper by K. Windisch an account is given of the instructions issued by the German Brewers' Union for the preparation of the lighter war-beer. Owing to the shortage of malt in Germany, beers are now brewed, we are told, at an original gravity of about 1020, or even as low as 1012. The methods recommended for producing these light beers embody W. Windisch's suggestions."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 356.

They shouldn't have sniggered quite so much about these watery German beers. In June 1918 Whitbread started brewing a version of their MA Mild at just 1011.5 and 1.4% ABV.