Cask beer in the 1950’s – primings

As promised, here’s the stuff on primings.

Adding primings was very common amongst British breweries, and I’m sure it must still go on. It’s fascinating which pieces of equipment were insisted upon.

“Priming
Before an attempt is made to dissolve priming or syrups of any kind, it is as well for a brewer to make himself acquainted with the conditions required by the Excise. The necessary notice for dissolving and the quantity to be used must be entered in the Excise book. Not less than three vessels must be brought into use when the priming solution is prepared, and they should be a dissolving vessel, a cooling vessel (refrigerator), and a collecting vessel. All of them are required to bear the usual distinguishing marks, and must also have been duly entered in the brewing inventory. The collecting vessels must, in addition, have been gauged in order that the contents can be checked for duty charge. It must be noted that priming, like brewing sugar, may only be stored in vessels and departments specially entered in the brewing inventory for this purpose. On no account will the Excise allow the addition of priming to beer when in the cellars of licensed premises, although dispensations can be obtained in regard to bottling stores and other depots in responsible control.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 245.

All the bits of kit demanded are basically concerned with tax collection. The excise wanted to be able to see what was going on with the sugar. Because tax was charged of the gravity of the wort before fermentation. And the same was true of primings, tax was payable on their gravity. And the excise was particularly against any type of sugar being in a pub cellar. Too easy for a dodgy publican to water his beer and cover it up by adding sugar.

These are the relevant bits of kit in an illustration from the book:

"Priming soon develops a spontaneous fermentation, especially during hot weather, and it is essential to use it when fresh and new. It should be made frequently in small quantities, rather than less often in larger amounts. Priming is a very penetrating solution, and on that account, wood is an unsuitable material from which to make a collecting or storage vessel. Everything must be kept particularly clean and sterile.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 245.

That’s not the sort of spontaneous fermentation Lambic undergoes. He just means that it starts fermenting without the addition of extra yeast.

Here’s the point of priming:

“The real objects for using priming are twofold. First to promote the development of cask condition, and secondly, to impart an additional fullness to the palate of the beer. In order to achieve these objects, many primings have been introduced by various firms under different names, some of which differ in only a small degree. We are not going to mention any by name, but leave it to the brewer to choose and use one which he considers most suitable for his class of beer. The fashionable palate of the district where the beer has to be sold should of course be borne in mind. No difficulty should be experienced in obtaining from the makers of any priming a full analysis, showing particularly the extract given, the proportion of fermentable and unfermentable sugars, the amount of ash and mineral matters. It is important to have particulars of all these features.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 245.

The first purpose is pretty obvious. The alternative to priming would be to leave enough fermentable material in the beer to achieve cask condition. A much trickier feat than fermenting the beer all the way down then adding back in the required amount of fermentable material for cask conditioning.

Different primings were used for different types of beer:

“First consideration must be given to the flavour which the priming will impart. The brewer must also not lose sight of the class of beer for which the sugar is required. It is obvious that to use a priming consisting mostly of dextrins for a running beer intended for quick consumption is to defeat the object of the sugar. It would nevertheless add some palate fullness. On the other hand, little benefit would be derived from the use of a priming containing a low proportion of malto-dextrin with beers which are to be stored for ten days or a fortnight. The effects of such a priming would undoubtedly have worn off, especially if it was added at the time of racking. In some districts where beers are preferred to drink very sweet, priming made from sugar-candy gives the desired results. Unfortunately it is not a sweetness which lasts for any length of time, as this sugar ferments rapidly.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 245 - 246.

It makes sense that you wouldn’t want to prime with anything too fermentable if you were going to have the beer sit around in the brewery for a couple of weeks.

Not just the type of primings but when they were added was important:

“It will therefore be gathered that the problem of selecting the most suitable priming is one which needs careful consideration. Equally important is the correct time at which the priming should be added. For running beers we prefer to add it at racking time, preferably in the racking back where it can be easily distributed. The risk of infection by handling small quantities while measuring out is also eliminated. For beers intended for comparatively short storage we prefer to add half the quantity at racking time, and the remainder just before the beer leaves the brewery. This procedure must never be adopted, however, if the beer is inclined to fret or be turbid, as the trouble would only be intensified. Indeed, it should be a strict rule that priming must never be added to beer under such conditions. These remarks should also apply to stock ales, because the primary yeast will probably have been exhausted, and will be unable to keep in check any secondary or wild yeast, which priming may revive. As a final recommendation with regard to priming, we advise daily microscopical examination of all priming to be used, and the rejection of any about the soundness of which there is the slightest doubt.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

Again, all pretty logical stuff. I can certainly see the advantage of priming the beer in bulk rather than fiddling around adding adding a couple of pints to each barrel.

And here’s something about the priming rate:

“Priming solution is generally made to a gravity of 53 lb. (sp.gr. 1148) and added at the rate of 1 to 3 pints per barrel. Occasionally for sweet mild ales which are to be drunk quickly, up to 4 pints are used. (Calculations for the quantities of sugar and liquor required are given on p. 63.)”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

I can check this with Barclay Perkins records as they clearly state what primings were added. Here are some examples:

They were adding 1 to 4 quarts per barrel. Rather more than Jeffery suggests. You can see though that the gravities, at 1144º and 1150º were pretty much as stated in the book.

Interestingly, not all their beers were primed. The Milds and K Ales were. The Porters and Stouts weren’t. The Pale Ales weren’t, either, with the exception of the Export version of their PA.

Fining next.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1911 Heineken (Rotterdam) Gerste

Look at this. A Let's Brew Wednesday on . . . . a Wednesday.

This is another recipe I've knacked together for another project. Why waste it? Even though I doubt many of you will ever brew such a deeply unfashionable beer as this. Despite it being an extinct style. Doubtless peach and coffee infused versions will be appearing soon "inspired by" Gerste.

Who am I kidding? This beer ticks all the wrong boxes. Not that strong. Dark. Lightly hopped.


Gerste is an oddball beer from the early days of bottom-fermentation in Holland. It was originally a top-fermenting style, but Heineken used the name for a cheap and cheerful type of Dark Lager. It was incredibly popular. There's a fair amount of sour grapes in how Baartz, of rival Oranjeboom in Rotterdam, described Gerstebier in 1884:

"although a bottom-fermented beer, it is of a low gravity and not lagered, and is a beer quick to make for a significantly lower price" ("een weliswaar ondergistend bier, maar van licht gehalte en geen Lagerbier, maar een bier van snelle confectie en tot belangrijk lager prijs").
"Korte Geschiedenis der Heineken's Bierbrouwerij Maatschappij N.V. 1873 - 1948", by H. A. Korthals, 1948, page 96.

Bottom-fermented, but not really a Lager. Presumably that's how Heineken could bang it out on the cheap. This shows you how much cheaper:

Heineken retail prices in 1895
Beer	per bottle (cents)
Export	20
Münchener	20
Pilsener	18
Gerste	12
Tafelbier	9
Source:
Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad 22nd February 1895, page 4.

It's only when you look at the specs of the beers that you realise how good value Gerste was:

Heineken Rotterdam beers in 1911
Bier	OG Balling	FG Balling	app. degree attenuation	% ABV	Colour	kg hop/hl
Pils	13.2	4.15	68.56%	4.8	6	0.2
Lager	9.8	3.3	66.33%	3.4	9	0.16
Gerste	12	5	58.33%	3.7	13.5	0.18
Beiersch	13.1	5.3	59.54%	4.2	13	0.18
Bok	16.7	7.5	55.09%	5	14	0.2
Source:
Heineken brewing record held at the Amsterdam Stadsarchief, document number 834-1752.

Not not that much lower in ABV than Beiersch, but less than half the price. The obvious choice for the cost-conscious boozer. Which is reflected in the sales figures:

Heineken Rotterdam production by type in 1911
type	no. of brews	size of brew (HL)	total amount	% of total
Lager	226	270	61,020	36.13%
Gerste	356	220	78,320	46.37%
Beiersch	28	200	5,600	3.32%
Pils	107	200	21,400	12.67%
Bok	17	150	2,550	1.51%
total	734		168,890
Source:
Heineken brewing record held at the Amsterdam Stadsarchief, document number 834-1752.

It was almost half of what they were brewing, in the Rotterdam brewery at least. A really important product for Heineken.

One last technical note. Heineken had two yeast strains. The posh beers like Pils and Beiersch were fermented with the posh A strain. Gerste was brewed with second-division Heineken’s D strain..

Almost forgot. In Dutch "gerste" means barley.





Over to me . . . . ..

1911 Heineken Gerste
pilsner malt 2 row	10.00 lb
Carafa III	0.40 lb
Hallertau 60 mins	1.50 oz
OG	1048
FG	1019
ABV	3.84
Apparent attenuation	60.42%
IBU	24
SRM	17.5
Mash double decoction
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	48º F
Yeast	WLP830 German Lager

Cask beer in the 1950’s – secondary fermentation

I’m continuing my look at the handling of cask beer in the 1950’s. There are a few surprises.

Secondary fermentation is extremely important for cask beer. It’s where it gets its carbonation. But appears much more complicated than I imagined.

“Secondary Fermentations
There are two kinds of secondary fermentation. One is a healthy one, due to me breaking down of the sugars passed on from the primary fermentation by healthy yeast. The other is the result of wild yeast. If the beer was not encouraged to develop a certain amount of movement in the cask, it would provide a very dead and insipid drink. It is the condition, mostly derived from fermentation while in the cask, which imparts that sting and sharpness on the palate. Together with a satisfactory flavour, these points are those most appreciated in beer. Even with running ales some attempt should be made to encourage a movement, by priming with a solution consisting mainly of fermentable sugars. Some malto-dextrin, is, however, necessary to carry on the development of condition. The casks should be rolled as frequently as possible before being sent out, provided that violent condition is not set up. Once beer, of whatever gravity, is saturated with its naturally developed gases, it can stand variations of temperature with comparative impunity. Here again, as in many instances with beer, the seasons have to be carefully considered. It would be dangerous to send a cask out in the broiling sun of summer if it was already charged with gas to the limit of its pressure resistance. Its head would probably be blown out during transit, or the staves would bulge and crack, thus losing much beer. Great difficulty would, of course, be experienced in getting the beer quiet and in saleable condition, when it reached the public-house cellar. On the other hand, if the beer has attained its full condition, it could, during the winter, be placed in the open and exposed to many degrees of frost without harm, provided that the temperature of the cellar in which it is subsequently placed is higher than that of the temperature prevailing outside. The temperature should not, however, be too unreasonably high.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 243 - 244.

This is an interesting redefinition of secondary fermentation. Fifty years earlier, by definition secondary fermentation wasn’t the result of normal yeast. It was the result of Brettanomyces, which you can argue is wild. Back then what’s been described would have been called an extended primary fermentation. Of course, Brettanomyces is very different from just any old yeast or bacteria.

Do you really need malto-dextrin for conditioning. Is the idea that it would be consumed slowly by the yeast rather than in a full-blast fermentation?

Does carbonated beer really handle temperature changes better?I’ve no idea. Leaving the beer outside in the winter reminds me of the piles of Bass Pale Ale stacked up outside the brewery in the 19th century. Was that being protected by carbonation? Or was it just as touch as old boots?

Now some good stuff about Stock Ales:

“Stock ales are brewed with the object of a certain amount of malto-dextrin being carried forward into the casks. The malto-dextrin has to be broken down gradually by the few remaining healthy yeast cells which should also be present. It is therefore necessary to encourage a slow fermentation in order to achieve the object. Sometimes the fermentation will develop spontaneously. As soon as it is noted a porous peg should be inserted in the cask in order to ease the pressure of gas. Immediately the pressure has slackened a hard peg must be substituted or the beer may flatten to a degree from which it might never recover. Generally, one fret in the brewery cellar is sufficient for ordinary beer, but for extra strong ales which are stored for many months, two or even three frets in the cask may be necessary. If any difficulty is experienced in bringing them into action, a vigorous rolling coupled with a slight rise in cellar temperature, and if necessary the addition of a small amount of priming, will generally have the desired effect. The use of priming at this stage is not advised with confidence, since it might well result in rousing wild yeast to action, with troublesome turbidity as a result. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the correct manipulation of both hard and porous pegs has a very great effect on all cask fermentations.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 244.

So I was right about the malto-dextrin. It was providing slow food for the yeast. (You can tell I hadn’t properly read this before I started writing.)

By ‘fret’ he means an active fermentation. Interesting that a beer stored for longer could have several. And how much active attention the beer demanded, like beer in a pub cellar. All that fiddling with spiles sounds labour-intensive.

Here’s another subtle dig at the cellarmanship of publicans:

“One other point is important in connection with secondary fermentations. Brewers should always endeavour to arrange them to take place in a brewery or store cellar, rather than in that of a public house. Very few licensees know how to manage a cask fermentation. Some are even alarmed at it, and at once imagine that the beer is defective. We have heard of many cases when beer fermenting in casks has been returned to the brewery without even waiting to see the result of the cask movement.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 244.

I’m amazed a brewery would even consider letting maturation take place in the pub. Though I’m surprised Stock Ale is even mentioned. I thought it was pretty much dead by then, with the exception of a few survivors like Russian Stout.

Priming next time.

Beer consumption per capita 1976 – 2004

It turns out arsing wasn’t  problem. So here are figures for the intervening years. Or at least some of them.

My apologies for their incompleteness. The different sources I’ve used have different subsets of countries, hence the holes in certain places. A word of warning, too: the figures don’t always use the figure for population. Some only includes those of legal drinking age, others over-16’s and others the whole population. Unfortunately, some sources don’t bother to say which population figure they’ve used.

Here are the tables (a single table is too wide):

Beer consumption per capita 1976 - 2004
Country	1976	1980	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1993
Belgium	143	131	128	126.3	121	119.8	122	119	115	121	108
West Germany	147	145.9	148.6	144.4	145.4	156.4	144.2	144	143
East Germany	118	-	146.7	142.2	141.6	142.1	143	143	-
Germany											138
Australia	142	-	117.8	114.5	115.5	111.3	111	113	-	-	96
New Zealand	133	-	114	116.9	115.2	120.8	122	115	-	-	-
United Kingdom	126	121.7	108	108.4	77	77.3	94	94	90	-	112.6
Austria	104	101.9	109.4	107.7	111.6	118.5	118.3	118	-	-	118
Denmark	128	130.7	133.9	129.7	121.2	125.7	125	125	127	-	126
Switzerland	71	69.5	70.3	68.6	69.2	69.4	69.3	69	-	-	65.5
Canada	86	-	83.5	82.7	81.6	81.1	82	83	-	-	71
United States	82	-	92	90.7	90.3	90.8	90.1	89	-	-	86
France	-	44.3	-	-	-	38	39	-	-	-	39
Sweden	60	47.4	-	-	-	47	52	-	-	-	64
Netherlands	73	86.4	87.5	83.4	84.5	86	84.3	83	88	-	85
Norway	-	48.1	-	-	-	49	-	-	-	-	50
Italy	-	16.7	-	-	-	18	23	-	-	-	25.1

Beer consumption per capita 1976 - 2004
Country	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Belgium	106	106	102	101	98	100	99	98	96	96	93
West Germany
East Germany
Germany	139	137.7	131.7	131.2	127.4	127.5	125.5	123.1	-	117.7
Australia	-	-	95.3	94.7	94.5
New Zealand	-	-	-	-	84.7	-	-	-	-	-
United Kingdom	112.6	112.7	118	123.7	124.2	126	125	125	-	118
Austria	117	115.6	116	113.2	108.1	108.9	108	106.9	-	110.6
Denmark	126	124.4	117.6	116.7	107.7	104.6	102	99	-	96.2
Switzerland	64.8	64.5	60.6	59.5	59.9	58.8	58.3	57	-	58.7
Canada	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
United States	-	-	-	-	82	-	82	81	-	-
France	39.3	39.1	39.6	37	38.6	38.7	36.2	36	-	35.5
Sweden	67.3	64.5	59	61.7	57.3	59.3	58.4	55	-	55.4
Netherlands	85	86	85.1	86.4	84.3	84.4	82.8	83	-	78.8
Norway	50.5	52.5	52.6	52.9	49.7	52	52	51	52	50.6
Italy	26.2	25.4	24	25.4	26.9	27.1	28	29	-	30.1
Sources:
World Guide to Beer, Michael Jackson,
Bier in Belgie, Geert van Lierde,
Larousse la bière,
The Confederation of Belgian Brewers.
Economics Department, German Brewers' Association.
Brauwelt Brevier 2000
Brauwelt 31-32/2002
Bryggeriforeningen (Norway)
Brauwelt 18/2004 page .513
Brauwelt 3/2004, page 86
Brauwelt 22/2004, page 651
The Brewers of Europe (2003)
Centraal Brouwerij Kantoor
Het Brouwersblad June 2004. p.6
Deutscher Brauer-Bund, Bonn
Brauwelt Brevier 2005, p.20
1988 Brewers' Almanack, page 67.
Het Brouwersblad June 2005. p.7

This is only a subset of the full table that includes so many countries that it’s rather unwieldy. Though you never know, I might be arsed to publish it in full.

It’s fascinating to note when beer consumption peaked in the different countries. Though as I don’t have figures for every single year it’s not 100% pinned down. Germany 1986, Belgium 1976, Australia 1976, New Zealand 1976, UK 1976 and 1999, Austria 1986, Denmark 1983, Switzerland 1963, Canada 1976, USA 1983, France 1980, Sweden 1994, Netherlands 1989, Norway 2010 and 2011, Italy 2003.

As you can see, in most of the traditional beer-drinking countries the peak was in the 1970’s or 1980’s. Outliers are Switzerland with 1963 and Norway and Italy, the only two countries with a peak in the 21st century.

I’m sure you pick more out of the numbers. Like Austria’s level of consumption being quite constant, the UK’s being up and down, but in most of the West a slow, steady decline for the last 20 years.

Cask beer in the 1950’s - cellars

I’ve so much half finished. I’m continually shocked when I stumble across something I’d forgotten about. Like a really detailed description of how to handle cask beer in a 1950’s brewing manual.

I scanned the relevant pages years ago. Then forgot I even owned the book. I hadn’t the slightest idea where it was. And my first search didn’t find it, either. But I’ve just found. Thankfully, it’s on the right shelf. Along with my other 20th-century British brewing and malting manuals.

I can see why I scanned these pages. It’s a wonderful description of the cellaring techniques required for cask beer. I’m sure most of it is still relevant.

We’ll start at the beginning of the chapter, with a details of cellar design:

“Cellarage
We have already described in Chapter 2 what, in our opinion, is an ideal cellar. It is therefore fitting now to give an outline of the treatment which should be accorded to the beers stored in that cellar. Let it at once be stated that it is unsatisfactory to store both stock and running ales in the same cellar. The compromise in temperature required does not do justice to both types. If only one cellar is available, it should be partitioned off, and a portion specially reserved for each type of beer.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 242.

And there’s the first surprise. Not that Running Ales and Stock Ales required different types of cellars. But that they still had Stock Ales in 1956, when the book was published.

Here’s a great argument in favour of proper stillage:

“Whatever the class of beer, one must not forget that if the casks are allowed to rest upon the floor, the temperature of the latter, especially if cold, will be imparted to the contents of the cask. Beer may thus easily be chilled and become flat. Any dampness rots the wood of the cask, and rusts the hoops. It is therefore advisable to provide wooden trestles, in convenient lengths of from 16 to 20 feet, according to the space available, and to stack the casks upon them. Trestles may be taken outside and scrubbed whenever necessary. Plenty of wooden scotches will also be required, and they should be used liberally to hold up the casks. If the casks are left in an insecure condition, especially if stacked, one may fall off the stack when least expected, and a broken limb may be the result. If room is available, running beers required to come into rapid condition for early consumption are best left on the floor without being stacked, as they can then be rolled over two or three times a day to assist their rapid conditioning. Stock ales may be stacked, as slow maturity is the more suitable for them. Nevertheless, it may be found necessary during the very cold months to break the stack and roll the casks in order to bring on a fermentation.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 242.

I guess it pretty obvious that having wooden cask on the floor isn’t a good idea. Obviously modern metal casks aren’t going to rot through damp, but they’re going to pick up the cold even worse. How cold does cask beer have to get to become cold? Is it because secondary fermentation is messed up? Because cold beer can absorb more CO2 than warmer beer.

I should point out that this is about cellaring in the brewery rather than the pub. We’ll be getting on to the handling of casks in the pub later.

Rolling casks around to promote fermentation is pretty obvious, especially for beers being brought into condition quickly.

Now something about temperatures.

“Temperature of Cellars
Correct temperatures at which cellars should be kept vary according to the class of beer to be stored in them. So far as stock ales and those required for bottling are concerned, 50º to 55º may be regarded as satisfactory. This range of temperatures neither encourages rapid conditioning, which is not desirable, nor will it altogether allow the beer to remain dormant. With running ales the problem is more difficult. Whereas a forcing temperature of 55º to 60º is necessary to encourage development of a rapid condition, if the beer is suddenly subjected to a lower temperature and is required for consumption before it has got thoroughly acclimatized, the finings may refuse to function. The result will be thick, flat, and undrinkable beer. This situation is frequently encountered in winter, when many cellars in public houses are allowed to run down to undesirably low temperatures. If it were possible to insist that all cellars in licensed houses were kept at a certain temperature, the brewer could arrange his cellar heat with ease. He could choose a temperature which would give him the most satisfactory results rather than those now frequently met with. Variations in transport would, of course, have to be allowed for. Whatever the temperature decided upon as most suitable, it must be a constant one. Nothing is more detrimental to the satisfactory condition of beer than varying heat. It must not be forgotten that dampness in one place and dryness in another contribute to variations in temperature. It is far better to have the entire cellar damp than only part of it so. Damp air is, however, not advisable since it contributes to the formation of mould spores, especially where the air is stagnant.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 242.

Having the cellar cooler for Stock Ales isn’t a surprise. Though 50º to 55º isn’t that cold. 55º to 60º sounds more like room temperature. At least back in the 1950’s. Or 1960’s. Presumably the author thinks 50º to 55º was the right temperature for a pub cellar.

You can start to sense his frustration with what happened in the pub. There’s quite a bit more of that later in the chapter. It was a recurring theme amongst brewers, annoyance at the maltreatment of their beer by incompetent or indifferent landlords. It’s one of the things that prompted brewers to switch to keg, which they hoped would be impossible for publicans to spoil.

Of course, cellars getting too cold in the winter wasn’t the only danger. Getting too warm in the summer was an even worse problem.

Mould was a bigger danger when casks were still wooden. If it got a hold in a cask, it was only good for firewood.

We’ll be looking at secondary fermentation next time. Both the good and bad kinds.

Too much

Scanning a complete brewing manual today. A silverfish of doubt slipped between the tiles. Do I really need to do this?

Am I going to use all of this?

Then again, the book in question has brilliant information on the handling of cask beer. And stuff about barley varieties, which I've suddenly become fascinated by. So maybe it's not completely crazy.

I could scan the 30 or 40 pages concerning what interests me now. But I accumulate interests like a dictator's wife shoes. Who knows what new ones I'll have next week, let alone next year.

I can't remember buying "Brewing Theory and Practice". Or how I'd heard of it. Or why I forgot to write about it. Just another thing that slipped my mind.

The truth is: I'm overwhelmed. Drowning in data.

I need a research assistant.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1939 Barclay Perkins Sparkling Beer

It's been a while since the last Let's Brew. Kristen has been very busy, as have I.

Speaking of being busy, this post is a spinoff from a tricky project. Or my crazy project, as I call it. Can't tell you too much, as it's not 100% definite yet. Pretty sure no-one has ever done anything like it before.

The beer is a funny one. It's something Barclay Perkins started brewing in the 1930's and seems to have been mostly sold in canned form. Barclays were early adopters of the can. For export, it appears.

These cans were found recently in the middle of the North African desert, left there by British troops in WW II.

The beer is a decocted, amber Lager. With a pretty simple grist of just pilsner and crystal malt with 100% Saaz hops. I'm really not sure what style you'd call it. Vienna Lager, perhaps.

It has a fairly decent gravity and even in the 1950's and 1950's, was still 1045.5, well above average gravity and much stronger than most British Lagers. Perhaps this was because it was principally an export beer.

Anyway, here's my concise little recipe:

1939 Barclay Perkins Sparkling Beer
pilsner malt 2 row	9.50 lb	88.29%
crystal malt 80l	1.25 lb	11.71%
Saaz 90 min	1.25 oz
Saaz 60 min	1.25 oz
Saaz 30 min	1.25 oz
OG	1048
FG	1014
ABV	4.50
Apparent attenuation	70.83%
IBU	43
SRM	11.5
Mash at	158º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	45º F
Yeast	Wyeast 2042 Danish lager

.
If you fancy decocting, these are the details:

L is the water volume, H the temperature and T the tap temperature. It's interesting that the crystal malt was only addedwhen the temperature was raised to 175º F. (There were 31 quarters of pilsner  and 4 of crystal in the original recipe.)

I may do some more recipes while I wait for Kristen to have time.