Let's Brew - 1933 Whitbread DB

When Whitbread introduced a Brown Ale in 1932, it wasn’t much like the modern idea of an English Brown Ale. Especially not one brewed in the South.

Unlike after WW II, interwar Brown Ale wasn’t necessarily just a bottled version of Dark Mild. The larger London brewers, in particular, produced beers in quite a different style. Stronger and brewed from their own specific recipe.

Whitbread Double Brown is a great example of this style. There was also Doctor Brown from Barclay Perkins, which was along similar lines. The grist is different to that of Whitbread’s X Ale, which contained pale malt, crystal malt and No. 3 invert. DB has no crystal malt, but does include chocolate malt. While more than half of the base malt is PA malt, the most expensive type of pale malt.

The sugar is mostly something simply described as “Albion”. I’m assuming that it’s No.3 invert sugar, which some other DB brewing records to specifically mention. There’s a small quantity of something called “S.I.” which I’m guessing is some type of caramel. There certainly needs to be something adding more colour. The brewing record lists the equivalent of 27 SRM.

The hops were a combination of Whitbread Mid-Kent from the 1930 harvest, Mid-Kent from 1931, East Kent from 1931 and East Kent from 1932. All had been kept in a cold store. As many of the hops were quire old, I’ve reduced the hopping rate by around 20%.

It’s a real shame no-one makes beers of this type any more. I’d certainly drink it.

1933 Whitbread DB
pale malt	8.50 lb	76.78%
chocolate malt	0.25 lb	2.26%
No. 3 invert sugar	2.25 lb	20.33%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.07 lb	0.63%
Fuggles 75 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.00 oz
OG	1055
FG	1014.5
ABV	5.36
Apparent attenuation	73.64%
IBU	44
SRM	23
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	75 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This is one of the dozens of recipes in my book Mild! plus. Which is avaiable in both paperback:

 

and hardback formats:

Wild about Mild

Mild was one of the first topics I researched in the archives. Right after Porter. I didn't find what I expected.

Because I had no idea how much Mild had changed. I realised Mild had once been stronger. But not quite how strong. Finding versions over 10% ABV was a bit of a shock. The colour was the biggest surprise. Discovering all Mild had once been pale. The more I dug, the more I understood about the styles's remarkable transformations.

That's the great fun, for me. Coming across something different to what I'd expected. I still get a thrill when I uncover something new.

A while back I had a project with Pretty Things, where they brewed two versions of Barclay Perkins Mild. One from 1837, the other 1945. They had absolutely nothing in common. Demonstrating what time can do to a beer. Especially when that time contains major wars.

Exactly when, and why, Mild started getting darker remains a mystery. Frustratingly, brewing recirds only start giving a colour number after WW I. About twenty years after I think the process began. Any reason I offer can only be speculation. The cynical one being publicans needed a cheap, dark beer to dump slops into after Porter disappeared.

Mild Ale has been so many different things: pale, strong and hoppy; dark, weak and mild. It would make a great beer festival.  If anyone should be in search of a theme.

Barclay Perkins X Ale 1837 - 1945
Year	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1837	1071.5	1013.2	7.71	81.53%	7.05	2.44
1849	1071.5	1014.1	7.59	80.27%	7.79	2.68
1863	1060.9	1012.4	6.42	79.65%	13.06	3.62
1880	1060.4	1018.0	5.61	70.18%	10.97	3.09
1890	1058.0	1016.9	5.44	70.87%	9.06	2.19
1900	1052.6	1008.9	5.79	83.15%	8.15	1.73
1914	1051.3	1013.6	4.99	73.54%	5.49	1.15
1918	1046.5	1012.7	4.47	72.60%	5.01	0.97
1919	1039.4	1009.4	3.97	76.10%	6.96	1.11
1929	1042.6	1012.5	3.98	70.65%	6.50	1.10
1939	1034.8	1010.0	3.28	71.26%	7.00	0.95
1945	1029.7	1008.5	2.80	71.38%	5.49	0.65
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/1/550, ACC/2305/1/551, ACC/2305/1/553, ACC/2305/1/579, ACC/2305/1/586, ACC/2305/1/593, ACC/2305/1/603, ACC/2305/01/606, ACC/2305/01/607, ACC/2305/01/614, ACC/2305/01/623 and ACC/2305/01/626.

Read loads more about Mild in Mild! Plus. Which is available in both paperback:

 

and hardback formats:

UK-brewed Lager before WW II

Barclay Perkins made a few trial attempts at Lager brewing during WW I. It obviously opened their eyes its possibilities, as they started building a Lager brewery right after war’s end. It started brewing in 1921.

But Lager remained a tiny market, dominated by a handful of specialist producers. In 1936 a parliamentary debate revealed that a mere six breweries produced Lager in Britain. The total output of all six was just 114,000 barrels in 1935 . That’s out of a total of 20,864,814 barrels, making Lager just 0.55% of UK beer production.

The six breweries were: Arrol, Tennent, Barclay Perkins, the Red Tower Lager Brewery in Manchester, the Wrexham Lager Brewery and Jeffrey of Edinburgh. Three of six were located in Scotland.

Brewer	Location	Date started
Arrol	Alloa	1921
Tennent	Glasgow	1885
Barclay Perkins	London	1921
Red Tower Lager Brewery	Manchester	1920’s
Wrexham Lager Brewery	Wrexham	1883
Jeffrey	Edinburgh	1902

Newspaper advertisements of the period reveal that several Lagers - Graham’s, Barclay’s, Tennent’s and Wrexham - were available nationally, at a time when few beers were sold outside their own region.

Unlike the Lager that started its march to domination in the 1960s, those of the 1930s were mostly above-average strength. Though there were exceptions, such as Barclay’s Draught Lager.

Allsopp’s Lager was produced at Arrol in Alloa. They had installed a fancy American-built Lager plant in their Burton brewery in 1899. Their Lager wasn’t a great success and, after Allsopp went into receivership in 1913, the plant was moved to Alloa.

UK-brewed Lager before WW II
Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1932	Allsopp	Lager	Lager	1041	1009.4	4.10	77.07%
1932	Allsopp	Lager	Lager	1045	1010	4.55	77.78%
1937	Allsopp	Lager	Lager	1045.2	1011.8	4.33	73.89%
1933	Arrol	Graham's Golden Lager	Lager	1044.5	1010.5	4.42	76.40%
1932	Barclay Perkins	Lager	Lager	1051	1011	5.21	78.43%	12.5
1934	Barclay Perkins	Draught	Lager	1032.2	1013.0	2.54	59.63%
1935	Barclay Perkins	Draught	Lager	1043.5	1011.0	4.30	74.71%
1936	Barclay Perkins	Lager (Dark)	Lager	1058	1017.6	5.24	69.66%
1936	Barclay Perkins	Lager (Light)	Lager	1045.7	1010.1	4.63	77.90%
1932	Jeffrey	Pilsener	Pils	1052	1007.8	5.77	85.00%	9
1936	Jeffrey	Lager	Lager	1046.4	1013.1	4.32	71.77%
1933	McEwan	Pilsener	Pils	1044	1010	4.42	77.27%	8
1934	McEwan	Pilsener	Pils	1049.6	1009.6	5.21	80.65%
1933	Red Tower	Lager Beer	Lager	1049.7	1011.4	4.98	77.06%	12.5
1934	Red Tower	Lager	Lager	1051	1011	5.21	78.43%
1932	Tennent	Light Beer	Lager	1049	1007.4	5.43	84.90%	6.5
1931	Tennent	Lager Beer	Lager	1043.1	1009.3	4.39	78.42%	8
1937	Tennent	Pilsener	Pils	1051.2	1010.8	5.26	78.91%
1934	Wrexham	Pilsener	Pils	1052	1010.7	5.38	79.42%
Sources:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive.
Younger, Wm. & Co Gravity Book document WY/6/1/1/19 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive.
Barclay Perkins brewing records.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1916 Whitbread X

The first couple of years of WW I weren’t that cruel to beer. Gravities of the more popular beers had a few points shaved off their gravity, but for the most part beers were unscathed. That would all change when 1917 rolled around.

The grist hasn’t really changed a great deal since 1914. It’s still a simple combination of pale malt and invert sugar. I’m assuming again the latter was No. 3 invert, though the type isn’t specified in the brewing record.

The malt is rather more complicated than it at first appears. There were no fewer than six types of pale malt: three from UK-grown barley, plus one each from Smyrna, Indian and Californian.

One change is in the hopping. The rate has fallen from 6 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt to 5 lbs. In addition, the hops used are all older. They’re all Mid-Kent from the year 1914. The combined effect is to reduce the (calculated) IBUs from 32 to 18. Drinkers must have noticed such a big change, especially as in took place over a short period.

A higher rate of attenuation means that the ABV has increased from 5.03% in 1914 to 5.4%. Which is pretty beefy for a Mild.

1916 Whitbread X
pale malt	10.25 lb	93.18%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.75 lb	6.82%
Fuggles 105 mins	0.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	0.50 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	0.50 oz
OG	1051
FG	1010
ABV	5.42
Apparent attenuation	80.39%
IBU	18
SRM	9
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	105 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This is one of the dozens of recipes in my book Mild! plus. Which is avaiable in both paperback:

 

and hardback formats:

Porter in the free mash tun age

Not every brewer was keen to embrace the exhilarating freedom of a free mash tun. Whitbread continued on much as before. Though they did eventually submit to the temptation of sugar.

At least in their Porter.  Because from the 1860s, sugar was popping up almost universally in Whitbread’s Stouts. It may seem odd that the cheapest beer was sugar-free. But that’s to misunderstand 19th-century brewing. Sugar was employed for specific purposes. Not as a way of lowering costs.

When sugar does appear in Whitbread’s Porter just after 1900, it doesn’t appear to be a deliberate choice. But simply a result of falling Porter sales. Which meant it was mostly brewed as part of a parti-gyle with Stout. The recipe of which already contained sugar. There was always only going to be one loser in a clash of recipes.

It was a sign of the fading fortunes of Porter before the war that it was rarely brewed single-gyle. In 1900, it was still very much the boss of the parti-gyle. And that it was becoming the junior partner in parti-gyles. The brews from 1902-1903 are about five barrels of Porter to one of Stout.  But in 1907, there’s a parti-gyle with almost twice as much Stout as Porter.

The hopping rate, as measured per quarter, continued to drop. From around 8 lbs before 1900, to around 5lbs after 1910. Unless they were using hops with more alpha acid – which is unlikely as Whitbread mostly sourced their hops from Kent and had done for a long while – this change must have impacted the character of the beer.

Whitbread Running Porter grists 1880 - 1914
Year	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	sugar
1880	1056.5	1011.9	5.90	78.92%	7.44	2.19	80.83%	11.67%	7.50%
1885	1055.7	1010.8	5.94	80.60%	8.90	2.05	75.95%	15.19%	8.86%
1890	1057.1	1012.0	5.96	78.97%	9.74	2.07	83.53%	8.24%	8.24%
1895	1058.4	1016.0	5.62	72.62%	7.20	1.76	81.72%	8.60%	9.68%
1900	1055.7	1013.0	5.65	76.65%	6.48	1.49	82.54%	8.73%	8.73%
1905	1054.5	1014.0	5.36	74.33%	7.69	1.91	77.42%	12.90%	9.68%	5.16%
1910	1052.9	1014.5	5.08	72.59%	4.96	1.15	74.86%	13.71%	11.43%	9.14%
1914	1053.0	1016.0	4.89	69.79%	5.55	1.21	77.22%	14.23%	8.54%	8.54%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/09/075, LMA/4453/D/09/080, LMA/4453/D/09/084, LMA/4453/D/09/090, LMA/4453/D/09/094, LMA/4453/D/09/099, LMA/4453/D/09/104 and LMA/4453/D/09/108.

You'll find more information that you'll ever need to know about Porter in my excellent book on the subject:

Black malt on the rise

More on the history of Porter. Because I'm feeling lazy.But also because it is interesting to see how Porter grists evolved.

How needed black malt was as a colourant is demonstrated by the fact that a brewer like Whitbread adopted it the year of its invention, 1817.

Initially the quantity used was small – less than 1% of the grist. But that percentage steadily increased as the decades ticked away. By 1875, black malt made up 6% of the grist of Whitbread’s Running Porter. This could mean one of two things: either Porter was becoming darker or black malt was becoming paler. I incline towards the former explanation.
The proportion of brown malt used shows no such consistent trend, varying up and down between 0% and 20%. Though it mostly made up at least 15% of the grist.

The gravity of Porter recovered in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars and the high taxes that paid for them. At Whitbread, the OG peaked in the 1849s, after which the general trend was one of decline. Though there were a few ups and downs.

The hopping rate, which was mostly around 12 lbs per quarter of malt (336 lbs) was quite high. Whitbread’s X Ale, for example, was hopped 8 lbs. per quarter in this period. The last example, from 1875 had a significantly lower hop charge. Was this a permanent change? We’ll find that out later.

Whitbread Running Porter grists 1817 - 1875
Year	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	black malt
1817	1054.0	1017.7	4.80	67.18%	8.78	2.44	87.89%	11.82%	0.30%
1825	1058.7	1018.8	5.28	67.92%	11.67	3.01	95.05%	3.81%	1.14%
1830	1058.2	1019.4	5.13	66.67%	13.63	3.41	98.59%		1.41%
1835	1061.2	1018.6	5.64	69.68%	13.47	3.49	88.45%	9.63%	1.93%
1840	1061.8	1020.2	5.50	67.26%	10.94	2.71	85.52%	12.07%	2.41%
1845	1063.2	1022.7	5.35	64.04%	11.85	3.04	80.93%	16.23%	2.84%
1850	1061.2	1019.4	5.53	68.33%	12.50	3.26	76.27%	20.46%	3.27%
1855	1059.0	1015.5	5.75	73.71%	10.81	2.79	76.64%	19.46%	3.89%
1860	1054.0	1015.8	5.06	70.77%	11.19	3.02	75.83%	20.49%	3.69%
1865	1057.1	1018.6	5.09	67.48%	12.96	3.14	80.63%	14.18%	5.20%
1870	1051.8	1015.0	4.87	71.12%	12.44	2.95	94.35%		5.65%
1875	1055.1	1017.5	4.98	68.34%	7.87	1.90	78.95%	15.04%	6.02%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/09/011, LMA/4453/D/09/019, LMA/4453/D/09/024, LMA/4453/D/09/029, LMA/4453/D/09/034, LMA/4453/D/09/039, LMA/4453/D/09/043, LMA/4453/D/09/049, LMA/4453/D/09/054, LMA/4453/D/09/059, LMA/4453/D/09/064 and LMA/4453/D/09/070.

The birth of Porter

Porter was a hot new beer style in the early 18th century. It was a fairly simple beer, brewed from 100% brown malt and a development of the Brown Beer which had been brewed in London for a century or two. The big innovation of Porter wasn’t how it was brewed but how it was conditioned.

Until the Porter revolution London brewers had shipped out their beer at the end of primary fermentation. Any ageing took place in a haphazard manner, either by publicans or third parties. With Porter, brewers took the ageing process in house.

Initially they aged all their Porter for a medium length of time – no more than six months. As they became more accomplished at ageing beer, brewers realised that Porter matured more evenly and more reliably in larger vessels. Soon they were building vats with a capacity of thousands - or even tens of thousands – barrels.

The aged flavour which brewers sought – and which drinkers loved – derived from a long, slow secondary fermentation with Brettanomyces. Brewers at the time had no idea how this process worked, not realising that another type of yeast, other than the one that they pitched, was inoculating their worts.

Obadiah poundage’s letter of 1760
Obadiah Poundage was the author of a famous letter which explained the early history of Porter. His real identity is unknown, but it’s assumed that he had worked as an outdoor cooper for one of the large Porter brewers. At outdoor cooper being a brewery employee who went around pubs checking up their cellars.

Here's how I interpret his letter:

• many drinkers liked the taste of aged beer, to get this they drank either all old beer or old beer mixed with young
• before Porter, breweries sent out all their beer young and to get old beer publicans either had to age beer themselves ("start butts") or buy it from middlemen
• brewers had the idea of a partially-aged beer themselves to:

• generate greater profit

• make life easier for landlords

• the first Porter was Brown Beer aged for 4 or 5 months
  by 1760 customers and publicans expected Porter to be clear

Richardson's hydrometer experiments in the 1770s give us the first hard data on the strength of Porter:

Richardson's hydrometer trials early 1770s
Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
Strong ale	1110	1052	7.67	52.73%
Common ale	1075	1025	6.61	66.67%
Porter	1071	1018	7.01	74.65%
Table beer	1040	1004	4.76	90.00%
Source:
“A History of Beer and Brewing” Ian S. Hornsey, 2003 p.436.
Note:
ABV my calculation from the gravity drop.

Porter and me

You may have noticed that I've been posting stuff on the history of Porter. There's a good reason for that.

I'm busy writing the talk I'm going to give in Asheville beer week. In about two weeks. This is the link:

https://avlbeerweek.com/event/the-rise-and-fall-of-english-porter-1750-1960-lecture-tasting-at-zebulon-artisan-ales/2019-05-26/

My mate Mike Karnowski of Zebulon has brewed up a bunch of Porters that span the history of Porter, from the 1750s to the 1920s. While the crowd enjoy the beers. I'll be rambling on about history in my usual way. I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

And, just as a side thing, Mike has brewed up the Warwick's & Richardson's (a brewery in my home town of Newark) range of beers from 1910. He really does spoil me.

When I write a new talk, I always kick off my writing an article on the topic. Then write the slides based on that. It pulls my thought together nicely, writing the article. Plus I get I get the article itself. One went on to become the book Lager!.

The article for my Porter history talk is getting a little bit out of hand. Over 10,000 words. I usually aim for between 4,000 and 5,000 for a 45-minute talk. Lots of editing required, unless I intend talking for two hours.

It would be a shame to waste what is a nice potted history of Porter. I've been thinking that it would make a good introduction to a book of historical Porter recipes. Would anyone be interested in that?

I'd say that I wouldn't waste my time on it, if no-one was interested. But that's never stopped me in the past.

Let's Brew - 1914 Whitbread X

The first years of WW I were the last hurrah for strong Mild, unfortunately.

Since dropping the stronger XK in 1905, Whitbread were down to brewing just a single Mild, X Ale. Ironically, the war would prompt them to brew multiple Milds again. Though not necessarily in a good way, as some were ridiculously weak. As you’ll see in later recipes.

The grist hadn’t got any more complicated, consisting of just pale malt and sugar. There were four types of pale malt, however, including some made from Indian-grown barley. Once again, I’m guessing as to the sugar type. This time, I’ve gone for No. 3 invert. It seems a fair enough bet, as another brew of X Ale from a couple of months earlier definitely contained No. 3. They just always be bothered to note it down.

There were three types of hops: Pacific hops from the 1913 harvest, plus two types of Mid-Kent hops from the same year, some of which had been kept in a cold store.

It’s odd to think that fewer than ten years after this was brewed 1055º would seem ridiculously strong for a Mild.

1914 Whitbread X
pale malt	10.75 lb	91.49%
No. 3 invert sugar	1.00 lb	8.51%
Cluster 115 mins	0.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	1.00 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	1.00 oz
OG	1055
FG	1017
ABV	5.03
Apparent attenuation	69.09%
IBU	35
SRM	10
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	115 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This is one of the dozens of recipes in my book Mild! plus. Which is avaiable in both paperback:

 

and hardback formats: