Sugar, sugar

"I discovered something really fascinating about the relative prices of malt, sugar and maize in WW I today, Dolores. . . . Dolores . . . Dolores!"

Apparently it isn't quite as fascinating as I'd imagined. The relative price thing. It's no wonder I hang around on the interweb so much. All the actual people around me, bizarrely, have no interest in discussing the price of brewing sugar in WW I. Philistines.

Right, so I've just trawled through Barclay Perkins WW I brewing logs noting down the prices of everything. Very nice of them to include the information. The results make fascinating reading. Maybe not to my family, but to me.

Between 1914 and 1920, the price of malt about trebled. The cost of maize increased a little more, by three and a half times. But the biggest jump was in the price of brewing sugar which, at its peak in late 1918-early 1919, was more than six times as expensive as it had been at the start of the war. Sugar went from costing a third less than malt per quarter to 50% more.



What's also striking is the complete disappearance of the more specialist types of malt - PA, SA and mild malt - in 1918 and 1919. No maize at all was used between October 1917 and October 1919. The reduction in the variety of brewing materials available inevitably had an impact on recipes and the character of finished beers.

An American view of cask conditioning ca. 1900

I'm constantly finding stuff that I wasn't looking for. Often it's more interesting that what I'd been after. This is a good case in point. I was searching for material on invert sugar, but tripped over this.

This is of part of a report on a trip taken by a group of American brewers to Britain. The author doesn't seem that impressed with cask-conditioning and predicts its demise. How prescient. I wonder if he could have imagined, a century later, American brewers messing around with casks and shives?

Storage of Ales.

A very small quantity of English ales is stored in vats, but stout is still matured in large oak vessels of great capacity ; particularly by Messrs. Guinness and other Irish brewers. Otherwise the fermented ale is run directly into the trade casks and these are kept in the beer storage; having a temperature of about 55° F, for a few days in the case of mild ales for quick consumption, (but for several months in the case of pale ales for draught and bottling purposes and strong ales of 1090 to 1110 Sp. Grav. 21.49%—25.85%B).

During this period of storage the ale is not interfered with in any way, except that any excess pressure produced by this fermentation is relieved by inserting in the bung what is known as a porous peg, which is a small peg made of very porous wood.

When the time of delivery arrives, the casks are filled up and finings are added to the casks, so that when a cask is placed in a customer's cellar, the beer quickly brightens.

Krausening of beer is very rarely practiced, and I have not heard of the use of chips.

The beer on arrival in the customer's cellar is allowed to settle from a few hours up to several weeks, according to whether it is a mild ale (quick consumption) or a pale or strong ale, stronger ales requiring a longer period to brighten, although it would be considered a very stubborn beer which was not absolutely brilliant within one week of delivery.

The gas condition of beer in the customer's cellar is regulated by a porous peg, as in the beer storage.

Excessive condition is very difficult to deal with in the customer's cellar, as the beer is drawn for distribution in the "Bar" (Saloon) by the aid of a pump, which would cause the sediment to rise in the barrel if there was too much gas condition in the beer.

Beer is not drawn through pipes kept cool by means of water or ice as in this country.

Drawing by means of gas or air pressure has been tried, but the cost and the fact that the English casks are not made to withstand this additional pressure, have much retarded the application of such systems. It is probable, however, that within the near future a gradual disappearance of the pumping systems, to which there are many objections, will take place.
"Transactions of the American Brewing Institute" 1907, pages 255-256.

Barrel-aged Russian Stout

Thanks to Gary Gillman for bringing this fascinating article to my attention. It's writer Cyril Ray's account of a visit to Courage and Barclay's "Russian cellars"

The old London brewing firm of Courage and Barclay has decided, after all, to resume the brewing of its Russian Imperial Stout, a noble product that had been under sentence of death as being too expensive to make and not in wide enough demand. Indeed, brewing was suspended throughiout 1964 and 1965, although this beer in the past had been breweed each year, just before Christmas. The directors have now come to the conclusion that they owe something to tradition, and in the summer of 1966 a beer that was first brewed in the late eighteenth century will be brewed again. On hearing of the reprieve I went along to what are still called "the Russian cellars," at the Courage and Barclay headquarters by Southwark Bridge to sink a celebratory bottle.

Russian Imperial Stout is so called because, as long ago as 1795, Catherine the Great, according to one of her contemporaries, "ordered repeatedly very large quantities for her own drinking and that of her Court." The beer was brewed in recent years at the Courage brewery in Horsleydown Lane and matured in the Russian cellars for two months in cask, before being given another year in bottle.

The firms visitors' bar stood me a bottle of the 1962 Russian Stout. This is not the latest brew, but is the one that most pubs would have that stock it. The 1963, bottled in 1964, is barely ready yet, and those publican who buy it will be giving it a little more bottle-age than the minimum of a year that it gets in the Russian cellars. Russian Stout is sold in "nip" bottles that hold about one-third of a pint, as against the half-pint of a standard beer bottle - quite enough to be going on with, for Russian Stout is about twice as strong as Guinness, half as strong again as Bass Barley Wine, and the nip is said to pack the same alcoholic punch as four whiskies. Nobody, my expert hosts told me, could floor more than four at one go and not show the effects.

A smooth, rich, velvety depth-charge of a drink - sweet, but with the sweetness only of the malt, for there is no added sugar, and yet with the bitter tang of hops. "Not quite so great a brew as the 1951," said one of my companions, going on to explain that slight differences of temperatures and humidity during the brewing and bottling can affect the quality of a fine beer, and that the year's climate can influence the quality of the malt.

This led him to invite me down to the Russian cellars to taste one or two that had been specially bottled and long matured. First the 1957, poured from a pint champagne bottle that had been corked and wired, exactly like champagne, and matured lying on its side. (Beer which is crown-corked - that is, with a metal closure - must stand up; if it has an ordinary cork, it must lie down like wine) The cork came out with a pop, and the beer frothed creamily into the glass, dark and rich. Smoother than the 1962, I thought, but it was surpassed by the 1948 which came from a full-sized champagne bottle, smelled like burgundy and drank like liquid silk.

My brewer friends told me that they could not always be sure that a bottle as old as this would be as good, but that Russian Stout had a great capacity for ageing. (In 1796, Farington recorded in his diary that he drank some of the Porter from Thrale's brewhouse - the same beer - and that "it was specially brewed for the Empress of Russia and would keep seven years.") Clearly, it is capable of keeping - and improving - over a much longer period, and I asked whether these champagne bottles of Russian Stout were generally available for laying down like claret. Alas, no, but the ordinary nips keep quite well - I have recorded in these columns how, earlier this year, I took a nip of 1958 Russian Stout and one of 1961 over to Dublin, to drink with Bryan Guinness. We found the 1958 in better condition, with more life and sparkle, but the 1961 had the more style and the cleaner finish.

The authorities in Courage and Barclay's Russian cellar told me how to make extra sure that the nips would keep really well. This is done by covering the crown cork with ordinary sealing wax, to make the bottle really airtight, making sure you get under the skirts - if you will pardon the expression - of the cork.
"Cyril Ray Cracks a Bottle of 1948 Russian Stout" an article published in Queen magazine.

My first though on reading this was; "I wonder if any of these champagne-bottled Russian Stouts still exist and where the hell can I get my hands on one." Anyone any clues?

How to look in archives

I've had a couple of queries about archives. How do you find where brewing records are. How do you get access to them. That sort of thing.

It would be great if more people would start looking at the wonderful treasure trove that archived brewing records form. I can't possibly get round it all myself. So here are a few tips to get started.


Where are brewing records kept?

In two main places:

1. Public archives. These are mostly run by local authorities, but there are others at universities. At many, you can just turn up at and request to see documents. This entails filling in a form with the document number and waiting for 15 - 20 minutes for then to fetch it from storage. At the London Metropolitan Archives you can order up to five documents at a time. Its opening times are:
   Monday, Wednesday and Friday 9.30am - 4.45pm,
   Tuesday and Thursday 9.30am - 7.30pm


2. Company archives. Getting to see these is more of a problem. They aren't generally open to the public and you'll have to ask nicely if you can come and take a peek.

How can I find brewing records?

In the case of the UK, it couldn't be easier. The National Archives has a search engine that covers most of the publicly held archives. You need to search for things like "gyle book", "brewing book" or search for production records of breweries. You'd be amazed how much there is. I've not really looked for the brewing records elsewhere as I haven't finished with the London Metropolitan Archives yet.

Canada seems to have something similar in the Archives Canada site.

I've not been able to find a centralised search site for the USA, but I have been able to track down archives with brewery records. For example, the University of Wisconsin and Northwest Digital Archives. I'm sure there are many more.


How can I record what I find?
Some archives allow you to take photocopies, but often that isn't allowed for material bound as a book in case the spine is damaged. Photography (without a flash) is usually permitted.


So go on. Get researching. You've no excuse not to.

Getting poetic

Here's another poignant comment. Brewing logs often contain details of the weather. Air temperature, rain, thunderstorms. That sort of thing. This is rather more poetic description.

"Black fog all day. And like a ball enshrouded us."

It's scribbled in pencil on the log of a batch of Barclay Perkins X Ale brewed December 16th 1916.

Note that there no longer seems to be a shortage of amber malt. This brew contains both amber and crystal malt. Look closely and you might see something else of interest. Can you spot it? Here's a clue, it's to do with the prices.

OK, I'll tell you. The crystal malt was 58 shillings a quarter and the maize 62 shillings. That's right. The maize was dearer than some of the malt. In 1914, maize had been just 26 shillings a quarter and crystal malt 32 shillings.

It's a world gone mad, when adjuncts are more expensive than malt. There will be more about the price of ingredients in WW I soon. Is that a threat or a promise?

Short of amber

Brewers often had to improvise during WW I. Ingredients were in short supply and getting all the right malts was tricky. Here's an example.

This is part of a log for Barclay Perkins X Ale, brewed 25th April 1916. You 'll see that the recipe has been changed in red ink. Crystal malt has been substituted for amber malt. The comment "short of amber" explains why.

The substitution must have had an impact on the flavour of the finished beer. But perhaps drinkers were too pleased to actually have a pint in their hands to quibble about its exact taste. It would get worse as the war progressed and German U-boats tightened their grip. There were times in 1917 when the recipes (and sometimes strengths) changed almost daily.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1942 Barclay Perkins KK

This week it's a kitchen sink beer from our old friends Barclay Perkins. I picked out this beer because of its weird and wonderful list of ingredients. There was a war on, you know.

KK was part of the standard range of draught beers of London breweries. It was usually the strongest draught beer you'd find in a pub. Its origins can be fiound in the 19th century when breweries had two sets of Ales: mild X Ales and Stock (or Keeping) K Ales. Dark and quite well-hopped, it doesn't fit well with modern style calassifications.

In the public bar, KK would have been called "Burton". In the 1930's it sold for 8d a pint and had a gravity of around 1055. Burton was still a standard option in London pubs well past WW II. It gradually petered out in the 1960's. In the 1970's Fuller's dropped their Burton and replaced it with ESB. Currently, the only survivor of the style is Young's Winter Warmer, which had its name changed, presumably when the monicker Burton became a liability.

Now here's Kristen tio guide you further . . .



Barley Perkins 1942 KK

Drum roll....for the first beer in the anything alcoholic month of June is....BP's 1942 KK (one K shy of being evil). This beer is the epitome of being ANYTHING alcoholic. It has pretty much everything you could possible throw into a beer. Is it a mild? Hmm...maybe? This is definitely not really like anything else we've ever done on this thing.

Brewing liquor
This is one of the most tanted brewing liquors I have seen. 6 different brewing salts are added to create the 'KK' brewing water. Lots of gypsum and epsom salts. If you want to make it more 'traditional' I would suggest the following for a start:
Gyp - 3g/ gal (4L)
Ep - 2g/ gal (4L)
Chalk - 0.5g/ gal (4L)

Grist
Its definitely not as big as older versions of the KK but its got a good amount of crystal and sugars in it. These aren't the dark sugars as most of the color comes from the dark caramel colorant. The two pale malts are actually mild malts. Its hard enough finding one mild malt
so substituting any good quality pale malts would work just fine. Nearly 5% of this sucker is rye malt which is higher than I've seen in any other beer. Speaking of which, there are nearly 25% adjunct ingredients!

Hops
The hops are relatively fresh and suprisingly quite high. With around 40bu of bitterness this beer would pack a pretty good punch ESPECIALLY with the lower gravity.





Tasting notes
Graham crackers, Scottish biscuits and a touch of dark fruity figs. Lots of hay in the nose with hints of minerals. Lots of spicy hops and rye in the flavor. Some light sultanas and toast from the amber malt. The bitterness comes through quickly and brightens up the finish. The mineral character really drys out the end and extends the flavor for quite a while.

Lots of sugar

I'm sure I mentioned my trip to London this week. Yesterday, it was. These day trips are a bit of an endurance test. I'm still knackered.

I'll be busy for weeks combing through everything, but I thought I'd give you a random taste. As we were halfway through a conversation about sugar, that seems a good place to start. I photographed logs from quite a few new breweries and guess what? They all used sugar. Lots of different types.

Russells Gravesend Brewery did something I'd not seen before. Use cane sugar, invert sugar and glucose in the same brew. And, just for good measure, something called "tintose". I suppose that's a proprietary sugar. In case you're wondering, it's from 1929 and the beer is 6d Ale. Best Mild, you could call it. OG 1041.55. Sugar made up 14% of the grist.

Dora's demise

There's a funny story behind why I bought this book. Well, maybe not funny. A story, anyway.

It's all because of a blog post. One on Called to the Bar. This post to be precise. Doubtless you can guess when grabbed my attention. The rows and rows of beer books. Poor, sad bastard that I am, I pored over the photograph searching for volumes I didn't possess. One that caught my eye was "Beer is Best" by John Watney. A few seconds later I'd ordered a copy from Abebooks.

It's not the greatest book ever written about beer. And there are some pretty enormous factual errors (John thinks pub closing times were only introduced in WW I). But this passage about licensing hours is eerily prescient.

"With Britain in Europe, it would seem again as if the end of D.O.R.A. [Defence of the Realm Act that drastically cut pub opening hours in WW I] must now surely be in sight. European countries have never had licensing hours. Cafés, bistros, beer-kellers and ristorantes open and close when they like. It has always been possible, after a long mountain trek for instance, to stop at half-past three at a foreign inn and have a cooling draught of lager.

Continental habits are expected to be adopted increasingly in the British Isles, along with decimalization, metrication and the other systems in use in Europe. Surely tough old D.O.R.A. will not be able to hold out much longer? Or will she, in order to survive, adopt the nationalist mantle and declare that, despite the evidence of history, it is somehow British to have strictly regulated opening and closing hours? We shall see."
"Beer is Best" by John Watney, 1974, pages 50 - 51.

As it happens, D.O.R.A. is pretty much dead. Though his assertion that continental countries never had closing times is pretty wide of the mark.

How many books?

I've tried getting the kids catalogue my books. Lexie did a couple of shelves. The ones with rows of bound copies of trade magazines. He's no fool. Those are a piece of piss. He lost interest when he got to the Swedish brewery histories. I can't say I blame him.

No definitive list, then. But I am intrigued as to how many books I have. I'm a bit obsessive about counting things. I'm probably totally nuts. So I just counted them. It's not a 100% accurate count. I might have missed the odd one. And Mike has borrowed a couple.

470.

That's in the football field of what I imagined. I'd sort of hoped it was 500. Not to worry. Promise not to tell Dolores this. More are on their way. "You can never have too many books." I say. "Yes you can, Ronald." Dolores disagrees.

Hang on. I didn't include digital books. Wonder how many of them I have?

Sawdust beer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Why is British lager so weak?

Ever wondered why British lager is usually so much weaker than it is in the rest of Europe? This might help explain it.

"In accordance with the announcement made in the House of Commons by the Minister of Food on March 24th, 1947, arrangements have been made for the importation of beer under individual licence from Continental countries. The maximum gravity permitted will be 1036 degrees (before fermentation). Importation will not be confined to pre-war importers and there will be no restriction on quantities.

"Re-exports will not be permitted except for ships' and aircraft stores. Importation for such re-export will not be restricted to a maximum gravity of 1036 degrees and separate applications for import licences should be submitted."
"The Brewing Trade Review 1947" page 367

Take a look at the table of Lagers below. See how the strength of Carlsberg sold in Britain fell between 1939 and 1950.


Heineken brewed a beer especially for the British market. The Pils they sold everywhere else had an OG of around 1048º and was 4.7% ABV. For Britain, it was 1032º and 3% ABV.

Did you like these numbers? These - and many more - are available for your delectation in "Numbers!", my latest Mini Book.

Why sugar is inverted

I'd been hoping to find something like this. An explanation of why brewers used invert sugar rather than straight cane sugar:

"It is more usual to add sugars to the wort in which they are fermented together with the maltose of the malt. The sugars generally employed are cane sugar, invert sugar — which is most largely used — and glucose. Refined cane sugar has to be inverted by the yeast before fermentation, and to a certain extent weakens the yeast, favouring the production of lactic acid, so that it is preferable to invert the sugar first."
(Source: "Chemistry for engineers and manufacturers" by Bertram Blount, Arthur George Bloxam, 1896, pages 193-194.)

Refined sugar vs invert sugar

This is a good one. I've seen it argued by homebrewers that brewing sugars are a waste of money. The line of reasoning goes that you may as well use table sugar as this will be inverted in the wort by invertase excreted by the yeast. Sounds reasonable enough.

But hang on a minute. Why the hell do breweries use invert brewing sugar if it's just the same as cheap refined sugar? Isn't sugar just sugar?

No, it isn't. Brewing sugar isn't just inverted refined sugar. It's inverted raw cane sugar. This contains more than just sucrose. And it's these "impurities" that provide the flavours brewers are looking for.

"Invert sugar made from refined sugar lacks the lusciousness and other characteristics desirable in a brewing sugar, so that raw cane sugars are generally used. In addition to invert sugar, uninverted saccharose and water, therefore, commercial invert contains from 0.2 to 0.7% of albuminoids, from 3 to 6% of unfermentable organic matter and from i to 3.5% of mineral matter, the latter being partly derived from the raw material and partly introduced as calcium carbonate to neutralise the acid used in effecting hydrolysis. Sulphuric acid is generally employed as hydrolyst because the comparative insolubility of calcium sulphate makes it possible to eliminate most of the mineral matter introduced for the purpose of neutralisation.

Raw beet sugar could not be used for the production of brewers' invert, on account of the objectionable flavour of the secondary constituents. No such objection would attach to the use of hightly refined beet sugar, but highly refined sugars are not used for the reasons already stated. Occasionally invert sugar is made from a mixture of raw cane sugar and high- grade raw beet sugars (first runnings) and the origin of such invert sugar is not readily detected by the palate or nose. It is, however, desirable to exclude it from the brewery, and this can usually be done by limiting the permissible percentage of albuminoids, which is higher in beet than in cane products. Brewers' invert is supplied in three grades, and it is reasonable to require them to contain less than the following percentages of albuminoids: No. I, 0.3%; No. II, 0.5%; and No. Ill, 0.75%. A good No. Ill will comply with the standard here set up for No. I, so that the above limits cannot be unduly stringent."
"Allen's commerical organic analysis", 1917, pages 7-8.

Inverting the stuff you buy in the supermarket to sweeten your tea won't give you brewing sugar. You need to start with a less refined sugar. Something like demerera sugar, I guess.

Pure beer

"Pure beer" is a concept that's been around for a while. But what exactly is "pure beer"? Beer without sugar?

I can remember some within CAMRA arguing that only beer brewed from malt and hops alone should be classified as Real Ale. Thankfully their crazy idea wasn't adopted. It would have left almost no Real Ale in Britain.

In the aftermath of the 1880 Free Mash Tun Act, there was a "Pure Beer" movement. Its aim was to re-establish a Reinheitsgebot in Britain. They even managed to get a bill to that effect into parliament. However it was never enacted and the movement petered out. (I plan returning to this movement at some point soon).

This letter sent to The Times in the 1880's demonstrates the public concern about the purity of their beer, but also ignorance about how it was brewed. The most revealing assertion in the letter is that sugar was employed "to meet the requirements of the public taste ".

"PURE BEER.

MR. E. R. MORITZ, chemist to the Country Brewers' Society, sends the following letter to the Times :—

Sir,—I observe in your report of "Briant v. Faulkner," tried on Tuesday before Mr. Justice Kay, that the interesting features in the case consisted in the facts disclosed about brewing and the judge's observations on the ingredients used at the present day in the manufacture of beer. Mr. Justice Kay observed that instead of beer being nowadays brewed from good and wholesome malt and hops, chemical processes were used for extracting beer from what was called invert sugar ; and he went on to comment in severe terms upon the sulphuric acid and gypsum employed in the process in question. As a matter of fact, however, beer is not extracted from invert sugar, and the process referred to consists in the preparation from cane sugar of invert sugar, which some brewers find it advantageous to mix in small proportions with their malt worts. Sulphuric acid certainly plays a part in the conversion of the sugar, but none of it, as such, is permitted to remain in the sugar, and consequently none can enter the beer; indeed, by conversion into gypsum the acid is, to all practical purposes, removed, and against the minute quantity of gypsum which may escape separation there cannot possibly be the minutest objection. It occurs naturally in the celebrated well waters of Burton, and it is in no inconsiderable degree responsible for the delicacy and flavour of the popular ales brewed in that district.

With regard to the use of sugar in brewing, it cannot be too frequently insisted upon that its employment is adopted simply to meet the requirements of the public taste in certain districts, and not with the object, which some persons would have us believe, of putting extra profits into the brewers' pockets. Nor must it be forgotten that our malts are by no means invariably "good and wholesome," and that intermixture with sugar solutions of good quality is productive of a sounder, purer, and more wholesome beer than that obtainable from the bulk of our malts when used alone.

Persons with any leanings towards so-called "pure beer" would do well to refer to Mr. Goschen's remarks to a deputation of hop and barley growers which waited on him on April 5 last year. Mr. Goschen pointed out that during the course of the prosecutions for beer dilution, so many of which took place about that time, the beer samples had been generally tested for deleterious substances by the Government chemists at Somerset House, and that not a single sample was found to contain any. Yet some of these beers had assuredly been in part brewed from that invert sugar which Mr. Justice Kay so severely denounces. Indeed, the pure beer cry, like so many of the agitations against brewers, is almost exclusively supported by privileged and irresponsible utterances, which, when critically examined, as was the case on April 5 last year, are found unsound and devoid of proper foundation."
"The Chemical Trade Journal" by Davis, 1888, page 179

Let me know if you're getting bored with sugar. It won't stop me writing about it, but it may make you feel better.

The end of adulteration (but not watering)

Someone asked the other day about how long watering and adulteration continued to be practised. I think I've found the answer.

Increased control by local authorities had finally put an end to poisonous adulteration.

"Beer adulteration had also practically ceased to exist by 1880, except for innocuous dilution. Fables continued to circulate, particularly at temperance meetings, about the poisonous ingredients allegedly used by brewers - a speaker in 1883 made the unsupported statement that 245,000 cwt of 'chemicals' were annually used in British breweries, and a few years later a book purporting to be a serious study of drinks and drinking habits stated that bitternesss in beer was produced by strychnine, absinthe, and nux vomica, and intoxication by belladonna, opium, henbane, and picric acid. In fact, cocculus indicus was last reported in 1864 and grains of paradise in 1878, and only rarely after this were old adulterations such as 'heading', capsicum, and liquorice discovered by public analysts as isolated curiosities. Narcotics disappeared from beer with the vigilance of local habits: by the closing decades of the century people no longer wanted to be stupefied and had turned away from porter and 'hard beer' towards lighter, less alcoholic varieties. Dilution remained the outstanding problem, and a seemingly intractable one: as late as 1900 one in five samples was watered, and a great many of these salted in order to restore lost flavour and, no doubt, increase thirst."
"Plenty and want: a social history of food in England from 1815 to the present day" by John Burnett, 3rd edition, 1989, pages 234 - 235.

Though stopping the watering of beer was more problematic:

"In many areas the newly appointed Public Analysts began to examine random samples and prosecute offfenders: in 1873 the PA for North Staffordshire found twenty-six out of eighty-nine random samples of beer adulterated, six with poisonous cocculus indicus. When the Inland Revenue Act 1880 restored the duty on beer, the Excise Department became more active in testing for adulteration by publicans, and in effect a concordat developed by which the Excise concentrated on dilution and the Public Analysts on other additions. . . the proportion of samples reported by Public Analysts as adulterated was comparatively small - 9.3 per cent in 1877 but falling quickly to between 2 per cent and 5 per cent up to 1914, though with occasional high variations (1892 16.8 per cent, 1900 8.8 per cent). The results of the Excise test for added water were very different, however - 78 per cent in 1880, 29 per cent in 1890 and still 15 per cent at the end of the century: the persistent rumours in late Victorian England that the workers' beer was watered had real foundation."
"Liquid pleasures: a social history of drinks in modern Britain", by John Burnett, published by
Routledge, 1999, ISBN 0415131812, page 123.

There you have it. Adulteration with poisons was a thing of the past by 1880. Watering survived much longer. At the risk of offending any publicans reading this, does watering still go on? Or is British beer already watery enough?

Brewing with sugar

I told you it was sugar week.

I'd never realised there were so many different ways of adding sugar to the wort. I'd sort of assumed it was always added in the copper.

"BREWING WITH SUGAR.

Sugar and syrup are used in large quantities, and by many brewers, for all descriptions of ales, porters and stouts, but like raw grain more as adjuncts to than as substitutes for malt. In 1847 sugar was first allowed to be used in brewing, and in 1874 all kinds of sugar and syrup were so allowed; under the head of statistics will be seen how this privilege has been used. The proportion used in any brewing varies greatly, ranging from 5 to 40 per cent. of the entire weight of mashing materials. Brewing with sugar requires far less labour than the ordinary malt brewing does, for the sugar is so easily and so quickly dissolved, either by condensed steam, by hot water, or by hot wort. Some have recommended that when cane sugar is used it should be introduced into the mash-tun with the other materials, in which case it would partly undergo conversion to a directly fermentable sugar, but if there were no other objection there would be the loss in draining to be considered. Often the sugar meets the malt wort in the underback; either it is placed in this vessel in the dry state or it is first dissolved ; in either case the mixed wort is pumped into the copper as a whole. Frequently, however, the sugar, dry or in solution, is let direct into the copper; sometimes a platform or cage holding it is suspended in the boiling wort until the sugar is dissolved. Other brewers add the sugar at a later stage, namely, in the hop-back, where the boiling wort on its way to the cooler dissolves the sugar or mixes itself with the sugar solution. It is preferable that the malt and sugar worts should at least meet in the copper, for thorough boiling of the saccharine material has a beneficial effect, and is a safeguard against its impurities. Moreover, by being so boiled together the two kinds of wort get thoroughly mixed together and with the hop extract, so that a perfect and equable solution is obtained; but if the sugar is placed in the hop- back these advantages may not occur, or may only partially occur, and a sticky wort may pass through the coolers and over the refrigerator, rendering the cleaning of these vessels more difficult. If the sugar wort does not meet the other wort until the fermenting vessels are reached, a preliminary boiling of the sugar wort should certainly have taken place, and even then there will be the difficulty of mixing the two kinds of wort in the fermenting vessels to be considered."
"A study of the history and of the art of brewing" by J. A. Nettleton, 1883, page 39

When were specialist brewing sugars first developed? I'm wondering about that one. Earlier that 1884, in any case. That''s the year of the Garton's advert above.

Adulteration - the penalties

I'm back on the topic of adulteration. Remember how widespread it appeared to be in the mid-19th century? Well here's what publicans were risking.

The 1830 Beer Act was very specific as to what would happen to anyone selling watered or adulterated beer.

". . . and if any person so licensed as aforesaid shall knowingly sell any beer, ale, or porter made otherwise than from malt and hops, or shall mix or cause to be mixed any drugs or other pernicious ingredients with any beer sold in his house or premises, or shall fraudulently dilute or in any way adulterate any such beer, such offender shall for the first offence forfeit any sum not less than ten pounds nor more than twenty pounds, as the justices before whom such offender shall be convicted of such offence shall adjudge ; and for the second such offence such offender shall be adjudged to be disqualified from selling beer, ale, or porter by retail for the term of two years, or to forfeit any sum of money not less than twenty pounds nor more than fifty pounds, at the discretion of the justices before whom such offender shall be adjudged guilty of such second offence ; and if any offender convicted of such offence as last aforesaid shall during such term of two years sell any beer, ale, or porter by retail, either in the house and premises mentioned in the licence of such offender, or in any other place, he shall forfeit any sum not less twenty-five pounds nor more than fifty pounds, and shall be subject to a like penalty at any and every house or place where he shall commit such offence ; and if any person shall at any time, during any term in which it shall not be lawful for beer to be sold by retail on the premises of any offender, sell any beer by retail on such premises, knowing that it was not lawful to be sold, such offender shall forfeit any sum not less than ten pounds nor more than twenty pounds, as the convicting justices shall adjudge."
"A collection of statutes connected with the general administration of the law", 1836, pages 910-911

To put the minimum 10 quid fine into context, remember that a pint of beer only cost 3d to 4d at the annual rent of a beerhouse was just 2 pounds. Ten pounds was a substantial sum. Anyone caught twice, risked losing his licence for two years. Yet despite these harsh punishments, adulteration was still rife. There must have been an awful lot of money in it.

Amsterdam Pub Guide - new edition

Just in time for the city's summer season rush, I've released an updated version of my Amsterdam Pub Guide. The second-best book about Amsterdam's pubs ever written. (In case you're wondering, number one is "Amsterdamse Kroegen Encyclopedie". That covers all 1,200-odd of the city's pubs, but is ten years out of date.)

The Amsterdam Pub Guide is invaluable for anyone visiting the city. Unless they don't like beer. Though there is the stuff about architecture. And public transport. There are maps, too.

Eighty-two pubs and three beer shops are covered. Address, opening times, beers sold, nearest public transport - everything you need to know to plan your perfect Amsterdam pub crawl is included. As an extra bonus, there are features on the breweries of Amsterdam, past and present.

If you're purchasing just one guide to Amsterdam pubs this year, it has to be this one. Available both as a pdf and in printed form.

Buy the Amsterdam Pub Guide now!

Brewing sugar again

It's sugar week here at Barclay Perkins. A bit weird, coming from someone who hasn't eaten any for almost 40 years. But here I am, doing my bit to restore brewing sugar to its rightful place. Right at the heart of British brewing.

For many years, I shared the general prejudice against the use of sugar. Why? Because I didn't know any better. As I've learned more about brewing, it's become clear that sugar isn't some nasty, cheap ingredient, but a valuable weapon in the brewer's arsenal.

Yet sugar's role in British brewing has largely been ignored or glossed over. Homebrew recipes for British styles are usually all malt, despite very few commercial beers being made that way. Why is that? Is it just some subliminal effect of the Reinheitsgebot that has turned homebrewers against sugar? And surely the Brewers' Association's definition of a traditional brewer doesn't help:

"A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of it’s volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor."

Time for a table. One that shows the steady presence of suger in postwar British brewing:


Around 15% was the average amount of sugar in grists. That's very similar to what I've seen in brewing records. It must be true.

Now where can I find out more about the composition of proprietary brewing sugars?