Trains and boats and planes

Planes, train and bus, really. And probably a few taxis. Walking, too, obviously.

My travel is all booked up for my Southern sojourn. Not done the hotels yet. I'll leave that stress fest to look forward to next weekend.

This is my itenerary:

Friday 10th April Houston
Saturday 11th April Houston
Sunday 12th April Birmingham
Monday 13th April Birmingham
Tuesday 14th April Atlanta
Wednesday 15th April Atlanta
Thursday 16th April Asheville
Friday 17th April Asheville
Saturday 18th April Houston

Asheville wasn't in my original plan. Which was based on practicality. But after a tempting invitation, practicality sought the window and left.

Several new states for me. Probably not including sober.

I always leave some time for social interaction. Or finding an excuse to drink in pubs, as Dolores claims. If you live in one of these towns, don't carry concealed weapons, like beer and want to buy me one, get in touch. We can meet up and I can drone on at you about beer history until your eyes bleed. Literally. It's happened before.

The whole point, obviously, is to shamelessly tart my shef durvre:








*The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer
http://www.amazon.com/Home-Brewers-Guide-Vintage-Beer/dp/1592538827

German brewing in the 1970’s – hops

Are you getting confused? I am. That’s what happens when you try to compose three long series simultaneously. Am I in 1930’s America or 1960’s Canada today? Neither. I’m back in 1970’s Germany.

Hops. Now there’s a topic that should attract some attention. People are obsessed with the things nowadays. That’s why I’m getting so interested in barley varieties. Which I really should write about, given the things I’ve discovered recently. Maybe next week.

“Table VIII gives the average analytical values for different German hop varieties, analysed by the method of Wöllmer. These hop varieties are used not only in German breweries but also in many foreign breweries. The well-known aroma-hops, Tettnang, Spalt, Hallertau middle-early and Hersbruck show contents of alpha-acids in the range 5.6-6.0%. The so-called bitter hops (hops with high resin content such as Brewers Gold, Northern Brewer and Record) have a-acids contents in the range 8.3-10.6 % and can be distinguished from the aroma hops by the ratio of a-acids to B-resins, which is lower than 1:1 for the bitter hops. The variety Record shows the same level of cohumulone content as aroma hops, whereas Northern Brewer and Brewers Gold give distinctly higher values. There is, however, no relation between the humulone contents of these varieties.

Table VIII also shows the essential oil contents of the different German hop varieties. The total oil content ranges between 0.88-1.15% in aroma hops and between 1.42-2.15% in bitter hops; in accordance with this, bitter hops contain more myrcene than aroma hops. The different hop varieties can also be distinguished according to their content of 2-methylbutyl-isobutyrate; this ranges between 1.76-1.97% in bitter-hops, whereas pure aroma hops contain only 0.05-0.56%. The high content of posthumulene-1 and posthumulene-2 is characteristic of the variety Hersbruck and is used to identify this variety.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 73.

Now isn’t that handy – a way to determine if hops are aroma or bittering without looking at alpha-acid content. Just check the 2-methylbutyl-isobutyrate level.

Here’s the table:

TABLE VIII. Bittering Substances (Wollmer Method) a-acid and Essential Oil Composition for Different German Hop Varieties (1974 Crop).
Variety	Tettnang	Spalt	Hallertau middle early	Hersbruck late hop	Record	Northern Brewer	Brewers Gold
Total resins	17.1	17.7	17.4	17.6	19.9	21.9	19.2
a-Acids (%)	5.8	6	5.6	5.7	9.3	10.6	8.3
B-Fraction (%)	9.7	9.5	9.4	9.7	8.5	8.2	8.3
a-Acid: B-fraction	1 : 1.66	1 : 1.58	1 : 1.68	1 : 1.70	1 : 0.91	1 : 0.77	1 : 1.00
a-Acid composition
Cohumulone (%)	—	22.5	18.1	19.3	19.9	25.5	42.9
Adhumulone (%)	—	17	15.7	15.2	19.5	15.6	15.9
Humulone (%)	—	60.5	65.4	65.5	60.5	58.3	4.11
Total oil (% DM)	0.87	0.88	1.15	1.01	1.8	2.12	1.42
Oil composition
Myrcene (%)	24.0	21.7	20.2	21.5	24.1	34.5	36.9
B-caryophyllene (%)	5.7	6.2	8.7	8.1	9.8	8	7.6
Farnesene (%)	11.4	11.2	+	+	+	+	+
Humulcne(%)	21.3	20.5	331	126	31.9	22.1	194
Posthumulene 1 (%)	1.53	1.66	1.35	7.9	0.86	0.94	1.79
Posthumulene 2 (%)	0.55	0.55	0.39	6.4	0.34	0.29	0.32
2-MethyIbutylisobutyrate(%)	0.05	0.06	0.56	0.44	1.76	1.82	1.97
Methyl-n-octyl-ketone (%)	0.28	0.57	0.3	0.15	0.11	0.11	0.03
Linalool (%)	0.65	0.51	0.6	0.53	0.25	0.27	0.28

You’ve probably noticed that all the hop varieties in the table are still kicking around today, unlike the barley varieties we saw earlier. Why is it that barley varieties come and go within a decade, but hop varieties hang around for centuries? Could it be connected with the more direct contact between hop growers and brewers? With barley, there’s the maltster inbetween. And, as I’ve discovered recently, barley varieties are bred with the farmer rather than the brewer in mind. The emphasis is on yield per acre rather than flavour or performance in the brewhouse.

The next paragraph is frustrating and quite handy at the same time:

“All these hop varieties are used in breweries but it is unfortunate that no exact information exists on the proportions of each variety that are used in the copper as cones or as powdered products or as extracts. It is believed that, calculating the quantities of hops on the basis of their a-acid contents, 35-40% of the hops needed in West Germany are used as hop cones or as hops ground in the brewery, that half of the rest is sold as commercial hop powder and half as extract. Since in the future the whirlpool will find a wider distribution in breweries, it is expected that more and more hop products will replace the use of hop cones. The average rates in Germany, expressed as g/hl a-acids in the wort, are relatively high, e.g.

Light lager beer	(11.5% Plato) = 6-8 g/hl
Export beer	(12.5% Plato) = 8-12 g/hl
Pilsener beer	(12.0% Plato) = 12-18 g/hl
'Altbier'	(12.0% Plato) = 12-16 g/hl

Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, pages 73 - 74.

So they’ve no idea how the hops were actually used. At least the author is honest. Then again, it does give hopping rates. Unfortunately in form I’ve no other statistics for.

Anyone who has looked closely at a modern German beer label will know how widely used hop oils are. Annoyingly widely, as they often leave a nasty, coarse bitterness which is perfect for ruining a delicate Lager. But everywhere in the world there’s been a move away from cone hops. Many modern breweries are physically unable to handle them.

That pilsener and Alt are the most heavily hopped is pretty obvious to anyone who has tasted German beer. I’d be very interested to see what hopping rates are like today. My guess would be that the rate for Pilsener has dropped considerably.

I’ve just discovered a wonderful table of all the world’s hop varieties in Briggs. I’ll doubtless be pestering you with that soon.

Adnams and the Local Veto Bill

There will be a lot more about Adnams in the weeks to come. I've got a lovely collection of snaps of their brewing records. It would be a shame not to start using them.

But I'll begin with a random newspaper article:

"THE LOCAL VETO BILL, CONFERENCE OF SUFFOLK PUBLICANS.
A meeting of Licensed Victuallers of Lowestoft and neighbourhood was held at the Greet Eastern Hotel, Lowestoft, on Monday, under the auspices of the Lowestoft and East Suffolk Licensed Victallers' Association, of which Mr. B. Riden is the secretary. Captain E. M. U. Adnams, the Brewery, Southwold, occupied the chair, and amongst others present were - Mr. J. J. Dunne (solicitor of the National Trade Defence Association), and about 150 representatives of the trade from all parts of North Suffolk.

The CHAIRMAN said he did not anticipate that the Local Veto Bill wonld pass, but it was impossible to disguise the dangers which confronted them. The temperance reformers for years had been strengthening their forces against the licensing trade, and their undisguised desire was entire suppression, In their own interests, publicans should band themselves together to resist the assault. It was proposed to amalgamate the several Trade Protection Associations in North Suffolk. They had held meetings on the subject at Southwold, Beccles, and elsewhere, and it was to be seen whether the publicans of Lowsetoft were in favour of the proposal. He was entirely in sympathy with it himself, and he believed that if the members of the trade were banded together in the Division of North Suffolk, under one Association, they would be able to offer a very substantial support to any political candidate who would be prepared to champion their cause. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DUNNE dealt at length with the Local Veto Bill, which he arged, would be mischievous, would lead to mush illicit drinking, and the establishment of ill-conducted clubs. He maintaised that it was not fair that the trade should be harassed by such legislation, and he confidently relied upon the licensed victuallers of the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk offering all the opposition in their power to the Bill, which they intended, not only to "scotch," but to kill entirely. (Hear, bear.) He directed attention to the project of one Defence Association for the Division, and he was confident that if they were thus banded together, seeing that they must either sink or swim together, they could almost command the seat for North Suffolk. (Applause).

Mr. RICHARD RIDEN read a reply from Mr. H. S. Foster, M.P., in which that gentleman intimated his intention of opposing the second reading of Bills which were antagonistic to the trade, and moved, "That this meeting protests against the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill, and pledges itself to prevent the passing of the same."

Mr. H. STEBBINGS seconded, and the resolution was carried unanimously. The proposals for the amalgamation of the Association were ultimately adopted."
The Ipswich Journal - Saturday 18 March 1893, page 8.

The Local Veto Bill would have allowed a vote on closing pubs in a district. It was one of temperance campaigners' attempts to set off a rolling prohibition of all alcohol. This bill failed, though the Temperance (Scotland) Act of just after WWI did allow for such votes in Scotland. Some areas did initially go dry, but the hoped for snowball effect never materialised and after a while nowhere new voted for it. Thankfully, they were never daft enough to introduce similar legislation for England.

Here, as promised are some Adnams beers from a little later:

Adnams beers in 1913
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
17th Jun	BS	Stout	1055.0	1014.0	5.42	74.55%	5.81	1.12
18th Jun	BLB	Pale Ale	1044.0	1007.0	4.89	84.09%	8.29	1.22
19th Jun	Tally Ho	Old Ale	1081.0	1025.0	7.41	69.14%	8.00	2.25
20th Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1008.0	4.10	79.49%	5.12	0.66
21st Jun	X	Mild Ale	1033.0	1005.5	3.64	83.33%	4.86	0.54
23rd Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1008.0	4.10	79.49%	5.12	0.65
24th Jun	BS	Stout	1055.0	1014.0	5.42	74.55%	5.81	1.08
25th Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1009.0	3.97	76.92%	5.12	0.65
26th Jun	DS	Stout	1060.0	1014.0	6.09	76.67%	6.35	1.34
27th Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1007.0	4.23	82.05%	5.12	0.65
28th Jun	Tally Ho	Old Ale	1081.0	1027.0	7.14	66.67%	8.00	2.29
Source:
Adnams brewing records held at the brewery.

The low gravity of the new Mild Ales is striking. I've never seen such weak Milds before WW I. In fact X and XX look more like beers of the 1920's.

The two Stouts are also pretty weak. Neither would have counted as a Stout in London, BS being about the same gravity as Porter there.

BLB, on the other hand, is classic Light Bitter strength, in the mid-1040's, where you'd expect an AK or its like to be.

Then, just to be weird, there's Tally Ho at a fairly decent gravity.

It's all quite different from what I've seen in London. The hopping rates are also low. It's rarae to see anything with less than a pound per barrel at this date in London.

Lots, lots more to come.

American brewing in the 1930’s - materials

More numbers. Lots of them. It’s happy day for me, if not for you.

I’m really glad to get the numbers below. Why? Because they give the true picture of adjunct use in the USA. And because I’ve similar numbers for the UK. Perfect for a little compare and contrast session.

“The quantities of materials used in 1935 are given in Table II.

Table II
Brewing Materials Used in 1935
	cwt.	Per cent. on malt.
Malt	15,408,357
Maize and corn products	3,043,224	19.75
Rice	1,247,580	8.1
Sugar and syrups	1,387,273	9
Hops	283,740
		36.85

The average hop rate, expressed in English measures, would thus be 6.18 lb. per quarter of malt; 4.6 lb. per quarter of all materials; or 0.9 lb. per British barrel.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 5, September-October 1936, page 416.

A quick reformatting of the table is probably more useful, as if shows the percentage of malt and adjuncts used:

Brewing Materials Used in 1935
	cwt.	%
Malt	15,408,357	73.07%
Maize and corn products	3,043,224	14.43%
Rice	1,247,580	5.92%
Sugar and syrups	1,387,273	6.58%
total	21,086,434	100.00%

You may remember that the Wahls reckoned Lagers used about 30% adjuncts. Taken over the industry as a whole, the figure is 27% - not a million miles away from the Wahls’ claim.

How does that compare with the UK? Like this:

Brewing Materials Used in the UK in 1935
	cwt.	%
malt	8,444,452	79.10%
unmalted corn	10,956	0.10%
rice, maize, etc	587,841	5.51%
sugar	1,631,926	15.29%
total	10,675,175	100.00%
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 62

Adjunct usage in Britain wasn’t just lower, the forms used differed. The use of rice and corn was four times higher in the US, while less than half the proportion of sugar was used. The pattern is clear. Britain loved sugar, the USA maize.

It makes sense on several levels. Sugar was often used for colouring in Britain. But in the USA, where most beer was very pale, sugar wasn’t needed for this purpose. Maize was widely grown and cheap in the USA, but had to be imported into Britain. Sugar, on the other hand, was produced in the UK from sugar beet.

Now for hopping. Time for another table:

Brewing materials in the UK (cwt)
year	malt	unmalted corn	rice, maize, etc	sugar	hops	bulk barrels	lbs hops/ qtr	lbs hops/ brl.
1930	10,080,120	25,765	762,633	1,835,238	307,289	24,488,629	7.58	1.41
1931	9,119,236	22,725	688,850	1,698,163	277,406	22,561,497	7.53	1.38
1932	7,115,230	12,586	533,405	1,377,126	219,587	18,864,711	7.59	1.30
1933	7,239,776	12,294	521,151	1,379,965	222,868	18,931,185	7.61	1.32
1934	7,995,574	11,816	547,865	1,543,228	233,419	20,378,879	7.22	1.28
1935	8,444,452	10,956	587,841	1,631,926	248,744	21,598,179	7.27	1.29
1936	8,646,322	10,734	592,734	1,705,418	258,300	22,207,859	7.35	1.30
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 62

As you probably guessed, hopping rates were considerably higher in the UK, around 1.3 lbs per barrel compared to 0.9 lbs in the USA. But remember that American beer was on average stronger. The hopping rate per quarter is a fairer way to compare the hopping of beers of different strengths: 7.5 lbs per quarter of all materials compared to 4.6 lbs in the USA.

Here’s a nice table of that information:

Hopping rates in 1935
	USA	UK	% difference
lbs / brl	0.9	1.29	43.33%
lbs / qtr	4.6	7.27	58.04%
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 62
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 5, September-October 1936, page 416.

Next time we’ll be looking at taxes and other costs.

Brewing in Canada in the 1960’s – mashing and boiling

We’re still ambling along the winding country lanes of Canadian brewing. This time it’s dead exciting as we’re starting to look at the brewing process itself.

We begin with mashing. It’s a bit lacking in specifics – like temperatures or mashing techniques – but it does tell us something.

“Mashing: In the mashing process, the malt enzymes break down the starch to sugar, and the complex proteins of the malt to simpler nitrogen compounds. The mashing takes place in a large round tank called a "mash mixer" or "mash tun", and requires careful temperature control. Sometimes at this point, depending on the type of beer desired, the malt is supplemented by starch from other cereals such as corn, wheat or rice.

Lautering: When mashing is finished the mash is transferred to a draining or "lautering" vessel, usually cylindrical, with a slotted false bottom 2" or 3" above the true bottom. The liquid extract drains through the false bottom and is run off to the brew kettle. Water is "sparged" or sprayed through the grains to wash out as much of the extract as possible.”
"Brewing in Canada", Brewers Association of Canada, 1965, page 30.

My guess is that in many cases the adjunct weren’t added to the main mash but that during a cereal mash before the main mash began. That’s what you have to do if you’re using non-gelatinised adjuncts like corn grits, which were very popular in North America.

You can see that they were using continental-style brewhouses with a mash tun, a lauter tun and a copper rather than British-style brewhouses with just a mash tun and a copper.

This happens the world over:

“The "spent grains" are then removed and sold, for they are in great demand by farmers for cattle feed. They are either dried and placed in bags or sold wet.”
"Brewing in Canada", Brewers Association of Canada, 1965, page 30.

Though I’ve only heard of British breweries selling the grains wet.

Now boiling:

“Boiling and Hopping: The liquid in the brew kettle is called "wort". It is not yet beer. The brew kettle, a huge cauldron holding up to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons and made of shiny copper or stainless steel, is probably the most striking sight in a brewery. It is fitted with coils or a jacketed bottom for steam heating and is designed to boil the wort under carefully controlled conditions.

During the boil, which usually lasts about two hours, the green, aromatic hops are added. (Hops are the flowers of a climbing plant; in Canada they are grown in British Columbia.) The hop resins contribute flavor, aroma and bitterness to the brew. Boiling serves to concentrate the wort to the desired specific gravity, to sterilize it and to obtain the desired extract from the hops. Undesirable protein substances which have survived the journey from the mash tun are destroyed, leaving the wort pure and sterile.”
"Brewing in Canada", Brewers Association of Canada, 1965, pages 30 and 32.

If those are US barrels, that’s between 500 and 650 barrels. If they’re imperial barrels, 400 to 550. Approximately. Whichever is the case, that’s brewing on quite a scale.

Two hours seems a long time for the boil. I wouldn’t have expected more than 90 minutes.

“Hop Separation and Cooling: After the beer has taken on the flavor of the hops they must be removed. The wort is passed through a "hop jack" or separator to remove both the hops and a large amount of the protein which was precipitated during the boil. This protein is known by the short and expressive name of "trub".

The wort itself proceeds from the hop jack to the "hot wort tank", where most of the remaining trub is removed by settling. The wort is then cooled, usually in a deceptively simple looking apparatus called a "plate cooler". As the wort and a coolant flow past each other on opposite sides of stainless steel plates the temperature of the wort drops from boiling to about 50°F. — a drop of more than 150°F. — in a few seconds.”
"Brewing in Canada", Brewers Association of Canada, 1965, page 32.

Surely that’s a hop back rather than a hop jack. Just looked it up. It seems “hop jack” is the North American term for hop back. I wonder how that name came about? Is it a corruption of hop back?

The hot wort tank seems to be fulfilling one job of a cooler – for settling out gunk from the wort. Though “tank” implies something deeper than a shallow cooler. With the efficiency of the plate cooler in dropping the wort temperature quickly, the hot wort tank didn’t really need to cool the wort, so from that point of view could be as deep as you liked. Though one advantage of having a shallow vessel like a cooler was that the muck would settle out more quickly.

You can probably guess what’s coming next: fermentation.

German brewing in the 1970s – barley

We’re past the statistics and into the meat of this fact sandwich, starting to take a look at raw materials. Beginning with barley.

What barley varieties were being grown in the early 1970’s?

“Table VI gives analytical data for new German barley varieties of the 1974 crop. The Table also gives the areas of seed barley sown which indicates the amounts of the different barley varieties cultivated. The variety Villa has been widely distributed until recently but, giving only mediocre yields per acre, it is being replaced by the variety Carina, which was introduced in 1971. This latter variety also gives an inadequate yield and although it shows a very good extract yield and high a-amylase content it is expected to be replaced by the varieties Canova, Aramir and Adorra. Adorra has given the best yield of grain and a high extract yield (81.2%) by the EBC Congress Mashing Method.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 73.

Here’s that first table:

TABLE VI. Analytical Quality of New German Spring Barley Varieties, 1974 Crop.
Variety	Year of registration	Extract %DM	a-Amylase DM	Diastatic power ºWK, DM)	Yield*	Seed area (ha)
Villa	1968	81.7	92	213	4	3,841
Carina	1971	83.0	104	228	5	3,007
Conova	1973	82.0	72	220	6	753
Hilde	1973	81.9	91	272	6	6
Aramir	1974	82.1	79	203	8	446
Adorra	1974	81.2	87	239	6	517
* Yield: 2 = very low, 8 = high.

The vast majority grown was just two varieties, Villa and Carina.

Recognise any of those names? I don’t. Because they’re completely different from the varieties grown a decade earlier:

Malting barley varieties in 1963
variety	% of crop
Breun's Wisa	44.50%
Firlbeck's Union	14.00%
Ackermann Donaria	17.00%
Isaria	5.80%
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 14 - 15.

Even the varieties just being developed in the 1960’s had all disappeared: Heines Amsel, Ackermann's Bido, Breun's Nota and Breun's Volla. More evidence of how quickly barley varieties are adopted and discarded.

Time for some more details:

“Table VII gives further analyses of these new German spring barley varieties; results are the averages from seven different regions. Compared with other foreign varieties, malts of these barleys show excellent extract values. It is a pity that Congress worts of the variety Aramir are very dark in colour, even when kilned at temperatures of 80°C, due to its high content of proteolytic enzymes. It is likely, therefore, that Aramir will not find as wide a distribution as, for example, the new variety Canova. The fine-coarse difference indicates that the variety Canova also has a very high content of proteolytic enzymes. The Kolbach indexes of all varieties show excellent values but it should be noted that the malts were produced in a micromalting plant using a floor malting regime where no loss of green malt moisture occurs. The high enzyme content of the varieties Aramir and Villa can also be seen from their attenuation limit values. Overall these figures show how in the future barley varieties in Germany will be cultivated for extract yield and high enzyme content.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 73.

A dark coloured malt wouldn’t be much use to you in Germany where most beer is very pale.

This is the accompanying table:

TABLE VII. Further Analyses of the New German Spring-Barley Varieties (1974 Crop).
Variety	Villa	Carina	Canova	Hilde	Aramir	Adorra
Extract (% DM)	81.7	83	82	81.9	82.1	81.2
Colour (°EBC)	3.1	2.9	3.7	3.1	4.9	3.0
Fine/Coarse-grind extract difference (DM. %)	1.4	1.6	1.0	1.9	1.4	1.9
Total protein (% DM)	10.2	9.2	9.0	9.8	9.9	9.1
Kolbach index (% DM)	45.3	44.9	48.3	47.3	53.8	45.4
Hartong 45ºC mash (% DM)	41.5	43.3	47.9	46.0	52.9	42.4
Apparent attenuation limit (%)	82.4	81.9	81.8	81.0	82.1	80.0

I’m not going to pretend that I understand all those numbers. But there is one I do and which may answer a question that’s been kicking around in my head for a while: why is the degree of attenuation of modern German beers so much higher than 100 years ago? It looks like my hunch of it being the malt could be correct.

The apparent attenuation limit looks close to the degree of attenuation of modern German Lagers. As German Lager is all-malt, attenuation can’t be boosted by the use of more readily fermentable adjuncts. Leaving the capacity of the malt as the limiting factor. Where can I get these sorts of analyses from the early 20th century?

Hops next time.

Tally Ho

If you follow my twittering, you may already know that I was in Southwold at the weekend. Norwich, too, but that’s another story.

Fergus Fitzgerald, the head brewer, invited me yonks ago to drop by. But Southwold is a bit out of the way. I’d never been anywhere even vaguely close by. Until now. Norfolk isn’t that far away. Especially when someone’s giving you a lift, as Fergus did me.

I gorged myself on their brewing records, taking 759 photos, Spanning more than a century, from the 1870’s to the 1980’s. Wonderful material. And with my new camera, wonderfully sharp.

I’m keeping it short this time as, to be honest, I’m in a rush. I have to pack for a work trip to Germany. This is just a quick piece about Tally Ho, a beer I was surprised to learn Adnams had brewed for a very long time:

“SOUTHWOLD - ITS ANCIENT AND MODERN BEER AND SALT.
Two hundred and forty-seven years ago, in the days of Charles I., a writer, describing Southwold, says it is a curiously-shaped town, entered by a drawbridge, and famous for its beer. Later on another historian writes (1735) :- "Southwould drives a considerable trade in salt and old beer, having excellent springs of good water, which may be one reason why their beer is so much esteemed." A century after (1848) Southwold is said to be famous for fine old ale, in consequence of the excellence of its water, of which it has many copious springs. Few, if any, brewers can boast or even trace their descent from generation to generation, and all the way through find credit given them for producing beer which has made them famous, not only in their own neighbourhood, but throughout the county. The vast improvements and facilities for transit of heavy merchandise in other towns have kept Southwold somewhat in the background, and Southwold salt and fine old beer have not been able to go abroad as in the former days, owing to railways, &c., attracting the trade from Southwold which had been formerly carried on by the large fleet of ships belonging to this town, which ships are now a matter of history. But a change comes o'er the scene. No sooner does the pioneer of civilisation make its way to the curiously-shaped town of Southwold, than an impetus is given to its trade which will carry it over the bar of opposition, and launch it on the sea of success. Already, after but a few months of trial, has the railway caused the people of Southwold to commence their march of progress. Buildings are springing up on every side - fine houses, worthy of any place. The Corporation are offering the facilities at their command, which no doubt will be accepted, not only by the inhabitants themselves, but by many at a distance, to avail themselves of the bracing and salubrious air, grand views, and other attractions of this curiously-shaped town, entered in the year 1880 by water, road, and rail. What a change has taken place in the old brewery since the year 1633. Could the old brewer of that day revisit his former abode he would scarce believe his own sight. The present proprietor, Mr. E. U. Adnams, has found it necessary to enlarge and improve the place each succeeding year he has had it, and the latest additions - copper, squares, &.c.- make it now one of the most compact in the district. To inaugurate the opening of the new plant a luncheon was given on Friday, which was served in the copper. Around the festive board placed therein assembled several of Mr. Adnams' customers and friends; the celebrated "Tally Ho" was quaffed, and after the cloth was removed Mr. Fitch proposed "Success to the Sole Bay Brewery and its enterprising proprietor," which toast was received heartily. Some capital songs were sung. The men employed in the brewery had their luncheon in the new square, and did justice to the good things set before them. It was a novel sight to see the party descend to their seats in the copper, and it was difficult to see which was the post of honour at the round table, but Mr. Adnams occupied the chair, Mr. Robert Smith was vice, and a very pleasant social hour was passed. Among the company present were Mr. Mills (Blythbergh), Mr. Fitch, Mr Cummis, Mr. Debney, Mr. R. Smith, Mr. E. W. Moore, Mr. R. P. Critten, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Snowden, &c, the general opinion being that Southwold is still famous for its ancient production - fine old ale.”
The Ipswich Journal - Tuesday 02 March 1880, page 3.

What was that Tally Ho like? This:



Just pale 67% malt, 33% sugar and 95 lbs. hops. A hefty OG of 1090 and 5.8 lbs. of hops per barrel.  Which is a lot. So strong and packed with hops.

Not sure what the other beer is. IA could stand for India Ale.

American brewing in the 1930’s – the end of Prohibition

As promised, more about American brewing in the 1930’s. This time from an article in the “Journal of the Institute of Brewing”, co-authored by A. Gusmer and H. Lloyd Hind.

The latter shouldn’t need any introduction as one of the foremost brewing scientists from between the wars. His “Brewing: Science and Practice” forms the backbone of my book “Peace!”.

British brewers must have been delighted with repeal. Their nightmare was for Prohibition to be introduced to the UK. Though after 1920 the possibility of that became more and more remote, with reduced pub opening times and reduced beer strength taking the wind from temperance campaigners sails.

Let’s crack on with the article.

“After fourteen years of Prohibition, the sale of beer in the United States was permitted on 7th April, 1933. At that time only beer containing 3.2 per cent, of alcohol by weight was allowed, inasmuch as such beers were declared to be non-intoxicating; and it was not until 5th December, 1933, that the so-called "repeal" took place, making it possible to brew beers of any strength desired. The conditions in the brewing trade of America are consequently very interesting at the present time. We see a very active trade, handicapped in some ways by the necessity to use old plant which had lain idle or been turned to other uses, but showing its virility by a desire to adopt the newest methods wherever it has been found possible to rebuild or expand.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 5, September-October 1936, page 415.

3.2% ABW, or 4% ABV, isn’t what I would call non-intoxicating. Sounds rather like a fiddle to get some booze back on the shelves before a proper repeal could be passed. I’d certainly take 4% ABV beer over nothing. Or the 0.5% ABW stuff they had to put up with during the dark days of Prohibition.

Fourteen years is a long time to have your brewing kit lying around unused. I can’t imagine many brewers investing money in maintaining it when there was no immediate prospect of being able to brew again.

Near beer wasn’t hugely popular:

“During Prohibition the brewers made a beverage which was allowed to contain not more than 0.5 per cent, of alcohol by volume, but large quantities of strong liquor were consumed, since Prohibition could not be enforced, and the nation was weaned from drinking such so-called beers. During the last few years of Prohibition only a few million barrels of "near beer" were sold yearly and this was produced by less than 100 breweries. It was, however, fortunate that a few more of the brewers had gone into the malt extract business, the malt extract being sold for home brewing, and had consequently kept their brewhouses in operation and condition, but the cellar equipment had mostly been dismantled. It was therefore necessary for the brewers to become very active, and, in order to lose no time, it was found most convenient to remodel and build breweries very much like those used before Prohibition.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 5, September-October 1936, page 415.

Allowing brewers to sell malt extract to home brewers seems like a pretty big hole in Prohibition. Was home brewing itself allowed? I would have thought not. So why allow production of something that can only really be used to make alcohol?

Obviously if you’re just making malt extract you don’t need most of your kit. Just the malt mill, mash tun and copper, as there won’t be any fermenting going on. That’s a pretty small percentage of a brewery’s machinery.

Now for some numbers.

“The figures for 1933 only cover the nine months period from 7th April when brewing was legalised. Despite the great increase in population the output for 1935 has only attained approximately 70 per cent, of the pre - Prohibition production of about 48,000,000 British barrels, but it is anticipated that 70,000,000 (100,000,000 American barrels) will be reached at no very distant date. The total beer sales for 1935 showed an increase of 12.5 per cent, over those for the year 1934. If the same ratio of increase is maintained during 1936, the consumption should amount to nearly 51,000,000 American barrels, or about 36,000,000 British barrels. The increase in cask trade amounted to 6 per cent, while that in bottles and cans reached nearly 33 per cent. In 1935 the proportion of sale in bottles and cans was nearly 30 per cent, of the total, compared with 25 per cent, in 1934. Ninety-five per cent, of the output is accounted for by eighteen States, New York leading with 17.4 per cent, of the total production, followed by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 5, September-October 1936, page 416.

Here’s the accompanying table:

Table I
United States Statistics of Fermented Malt Liquors
American barrels
Breweries operated.		Brls. produced.	Brls. taxed bottled.	Brls. taxed draught.	Total sales.	In store Dec. 31st.
1933	177	24,501,676	6,407,128	14,002,242	20,469,370	4,402,965
	582
1934	593	43,155,166	10,022,344	30,012,163	40,034,507	5,437,955
	686
1935	678	47,939,540	13,203,795	31,773,529	45,057,324	6,204,595
	674
British barrels
1933		17,700,000	4,600,000	10,100,000	14,700,000	3,200,000
1934		30,800,000	7,200,000	21,400,000	28,600,000	3,900,000
1935		34,300,000	9,500,000	22,800,000	32,300,000	4,500,000

You can see that there was a swing towards bottled beer right from the start.

Notice how production was concentrated in the two most populous eastern states, New York and Pennsylvania, and four Midwestern states Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. If you remember that table of pre-Prohibition nationally-distributed bottled beers that they all came from the Midwest.

For comparison purposes, here’s UK beer output for the same period:

UK beer production (British barrels)
1933	17,950,303
1934	20,182,308
1935	20,864,814
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 50

Next we’ll be looking at raw materials and costs.