Kettle souring

I've spent many a happy hour arguing with American home brewers that kettle souring isn't the traditional way to brew Berliner Weisse.

Franke, and his short-lived shortcut method of producing Berliner was only ever employed briefly, before being discarded for one very good reason. Which we'll get to later.

Good old Schönfeld dexcribes the method, as well as its advantages and disadvantages.

"e) Francke acidification process
Making distillery lactic acid bacteria usable for the production of Berlin Weissbier was the effort of O. Francke, who also put the process into practical use for some time. A sour starter is made from a pure culture of Bacillus Delbrücki using unhopped wort and wort, which has been run off from off the lauter tun and cooled down to 45-47ºC, is inoculated with it. Subsequent runnings must also be cooled to this temperature. The acidification takes place quickly and, depending on the circumstances, reaches a lactic acid content of 0.18-0.20% in 5-7 hours, which is enough for the formation of a sufficiently sour taste, but must not be exceeded, as this is associated with the risk that the work of the yeast is damaged both in terms of growth and fermentation ability. To prevent further acidification, the wort must then be heated to 80° C and held for one hour.

When cultivating the sour starter, it is advisable to inoculate 100 ccm of wort in the most vigorous bacterial development with new (5 l) wort, this again after reaching the highest development, which at the required optimum temperature of 45-47° C after the course of 24-28 hours is the case, is transferred to new wort (about 3–5 hl), which, with sufficient development after 24 hours, can now serve as sour starter for acidifying a brew of 30–50 hl. Inoculation material can always be removed from the sour starter for the creation of new sour starters. If the brewing does not take place continuously, but only sporadically after longer intervals, it becomes necessary to put the removed inoculum in a cold place in order to keep the lactic acid bacteria viable."
"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 155.

Basically, you run off some unhopped wort and throw in your lactobacillus starter. Pretty simple, really. You let it sour for a few hours, then pasteurise it at 80° C. Which is a pretty high temperatue, which will also kill all the lactobacillus stone dead.

That sounds great. Much simpler than the complicated symbiotic fermentation of Saccharomyces and lactobacillus. There was just one hitch:

"Artificial (biological) acidification has the great advantage of protecting Weissbier from any kind of infection by other bacteria through the immunity it generates. It allows the abandonment of the use of the old yeast and to switch to the use of pure yeast and ensuresthe production of a long-life beer that is resistant to lengthening (Langwerden), termobacteria and acetic acid bacteria. However, these advantages did not suffice to outweigh the disadvantages, which are expressed in a shift in properties and which are considered so essential that the use of the biological acidification process, which has been tried in various practical ways, has again been abandoned. After all, the process is suitable for producing a sour and pleasant-tasting beer, even if it does not have the full characteristics of the Berlin Weissbier."
"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 155-156.

My apologies, nut I've no idea what Langwerden is. Other than it's some sort of bacteria.

What was the problem with Francke's method? Beer produced by it didn't taste like Berliner Weisse. You could produce a pleasantly sourish beer. But without the characteristics of Berliner Weisse.

Why was that? Because it lacked the involvement of Brettanimyces, which wa responsible for an important flavour element.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1837 Reid BS

Reid, one of the great London Porter brewers, is one I've much neglected. Despite theirs being the first brewing records I collected.

It’s fun finally getting around to these Reid’s records. Not that the Porter recipes are that weird or exciting. Just nice to do some different ones.

This is their base level Stout. Brown Stout was the first modern Stout in the 18th century. Brown because of the base brown malt, Stout because of the strength.

I won’t talk at great length about the recipe. Because it’s the usual pale, brown, black malt and pale malt. And East Kent hops. Pretty standard. London Porter brewers were pretty conservative with their grists. And we’re before the period foreign ingredients flooded in. When British agriculture couldn’t keep up with the growth in population and thirst.

Hertfordshire malt and Kent hops. They were the backbone of London brewing through the birth and blossoming of Porter in the 1700’s. And continued when to be so while Mild Ale’s star rose in the middle of the 1800’s. Until there just wasn’t enough to brew the quantity of beer the masses required.

Getting back to the beer, the simplicity doesn’t extend to the mashing scheme. Three mashes, no sparges. With a fourth mash for a return wort.

Here are the details:

action	water (barrels)	water temp.	tap temp.	time
mash	213	160º F	142º F	90
mash	114	182º F	158º F	50
mash	155	168º F	158º F	40

As you’d expect, BS spent some time in vats. It wasn’t the poshest Stout, so perhaps less than a year, but at least six months.

1837 Reid BS
pale malt	13.75 lb	77.46%
brown malt	3.25 lb	18.31%
black malt	0.75 lb	4.23%
Goldings 75 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings 60 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1074
FG	1023
ABV	6.75
Apparent attenuation	68.92%
IBU	98
SRM	33
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	75 minutes
pitching temp	65º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my wonderful book, Let's Brew!:

 

 

More on Karamelbier

More quotes from Schönfeld's wonderful book on top-fermenting beer from the 1930s. translated by me (with some help from Google Translate).

 I've not quite finished with Karamelbier. This time looking at the specific type of sugar used to flavour it.

 "The character of the added sugar is also not insignificant for the flavour profile. As is well known, the sweetness of the same increases with an increasing content of mineral salts up to a certain limit, beyond which a more and more salty-bitter taste is added. It is the chlorides of alkalis and alkaline earths present in the beet that are concentrated in the syrup and are not removed during the first crystallisation, but are attached to the sugar crystals, especially during the last crystallisation of the byproducts. These not extensively refined sugars also contain other, organic, partly colored, partly uncolored co-formulants, so that instead of being pure white they have a yellow to yellow-brown or even brown color. They are ideal for sweetening malt beer and are also enthusiastically used by breweries, provided that they are allowed under the Beer Tax Act (Biersteuergesetz), according to which sugars are permitted whose mineral content does not exceed 0.75%. Sugars that come close to this limit, however, have a clearly stronger sweetness than the purest refined versions."
"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 137. 

 We learn that beet sugar was employed. And not very pure beer sugar at that. It doesn't sound like the sugar is being inverted, simply crystallised. Is it true that certain impurities make sugar taste sweeter? Can't remember hearing about that before.

The description of the colour doesn't make it sound very attractive stuff. More dirty. But I suppose that in a dark beer you weren't really going to notice. Ot would be a different matter in a pale beer.

Karamelbier seems to have given a new impetus to top fermentation, getting it into what had previously been Lager-only breweries. So why not bottom ferment Karamelbier? Because it wasn't allowed under the Reinheitsgebot. Sugar was only permitted in top-fermenting beers.

"With Karamelbier, top fermentation, which had sunk more and more to insignificance and could almost only be kept in medium-sized and smaller companies, was able to emerge from this relapse and to conquer an equal place in its technical development alongside bottom fermentation. Because with the Karamelbier it could and had to find its way into the larger and larger companies, from which it had been closed until then, and which now, due to its highly developed technical equipment of top fermentation, allow the care and expedient treatment it requires to the same extent as with bottom fermentation.

This upward trend was not limited to Karamelbier. At almost the same time, top fermentation began to take off in another special area. It was top-fermented bitter lager, to which the customers were more inclined and which now also gave rise to a stronger stimulation of top fermentation."
"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 137.

That last paragraph is fascinating, hinting, as it does, about another type of top-fermenting beer that was on the up: Bitter Lagerbier. Or, as it would be called today, Kölsch or Alt. Two beers I would dearly love to learn more about. Especially their origins. I'll be getting around to that fairly soon.

Scottish beer exports

Scotland hit far above its weight when it came to beer exports. I've known this for a long time. Always nice to get numbers to back this up.

Scotland was about 11% of the UK populations, but was the source of almost half of beer exports.

Export of Beer quarter ending 31st March
	1893	1894	1895	% in 1895	population 1895	% pop.
England and Wales	64,840	49,669	64,220	48.78%	30,451,528	77.64%
Scotland	65,645	66,635	63,207	48.01%	4,209,645	10.73%
Ireland	3,911	3,880	4,224	3.21%	4,558,941	11.62%
United Kingdom	134,396	120,184	131,651		39,220,114
Source:
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, page 121.

A considerable percentage of Scottish beer was exported: more than 10%, if we extrapolate these figure out for the whole year, Scottish brewers would have exported more than 200,000 barrels. out of a total of around 1.8 million barrels.

UK brewing stats in 1895
Country	barrels
England & Wales (standard barrels)	27,248,804
Scotland (standard barrels)	1,758,879
Ireland (standard barrels)	2,670,803
UK (standard barrels)	31,678,486
Exports (bulk barrels)	432,742
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 115
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 109.

Which explains why Edinburgh could support so many breweries with a relatively modest population. Not every brewer was involved in the export trade, at least not outside the UK. A considerable quantity of Scottish beer went to England. Both types of export were important for brewers in places like Edinburgh and Alloa.

Exports were far less important, relatively speaking, for English brewers. Around 200,000 barrels out of more than 27 million in total. Which isn't to say the exports weren't important for all English brewers. Exports were important for brewers such as Bass and Allsopp, who had made a speciality of shipping beer long distances. The vast majority of English brewers didn't export any beer.

You might be surprised by the tiny quantities of beer exported from Ireland. Large amounts were being shipped to England and Scotland by Guinness, but that didn't count as exports. As soon as part of Ireland became independent, UK beer imports jumped by a million barrels a year.

Tied houses in the 1890s (part two)

I intended a single post based on the parliamentary debate on tied houses. Too many words.

Bite-sized is my aim with blog posts. Not much more than a screenful. That's about as much as I can be arsed to read. I'm guessing not many of you have a much longer attention span.

But I digress. To sum up what's going on: MPs arguing the toss about tied houses:

"Mr. G. Russell said his hon. friends, the members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Leicester, were to be congratulated upon having elicited from a most competent judge, the hon. member for Burton, emphatic testimony in favour of the virtue of beer sold in free houses as against that of beer sold in tied houses. That testimony, however, was contradicted by no less an authority than the hon. member for Essex. Who should decide when brewers disagreed?"
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, page 132.

Bit of vested interests going on there. Most of the trade becoming tied buggered the big Burton brewers, who had relied on quality and reputation to sell their beer, rather than owning the pubs. Bass and Allsopp got into the tied trade too late and suffered the financial consequences.

Though it seems that certain famous brewers could get their beer into some "foreign" houses:

"Mr. Usborne denied that the beer supplied in free houses was much superior to the beer supplied in tied houses. As to the number of tied houses, he believed that quite 95 percent, were practically tied. He meant that the brewer or wholesale tradesman supplied the publican or retail tradesman with the capital with which he conducted his business. The number of publichouses was so large, and the competition consequently so keen, that it was easy for a publican to leave one house, if he was dissatisfied with the quality of the beer supplied, and to remove to another. Country brewers did not compel their tenants to sell their own beers exclusively. Any tenant of the firm with which he was connected could keep Allsopp’s ales or Guinness’s stout in stock if he chose to do so. He hoped a committee would be appointed to inquire into the question, because he was satisfied, and the trade were satisfied, that then the already often-contradicted and refuted statements made with reference to the tied-house system would be absolutely and completely exploded."
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, page 132.

Guinness managed to continue the pub-free model of business right through the rise and fall of the brewery-owned pub model. No-one else did. Bass sold a lot of beer through the pubs of others, but had a tied estate of their own. 

Those two breweries had products so desirable that even Whitbread sold considerable quantities through their pubs - all bottled by Whitbread, of course.

Whitbread sales of Porter & Stout 1929 – 1938 (barrels)
	total Whitbread production	Guinness & Bass	total	% Guinness & Bass
1929	481,663	45,595	527,258	8.65%
1930	492,605	50,064	542,669	9.23%
1931	466,218	45,245	511,463	8.85%
1932	416,623	37,977	454,600	8.35%
1933	437,102	39,192	476,294	8.23%
1934	476,205	41,528	517,733	8.02%
1935	494,715	41,773	536,488	7.79%
1936	510,260	41,344	551,604	7.50%
1937	528,725	41,353	570,078	7.25%
1938	538,914	39,077	577,991	6.76%
Sources:
Whitbread archive document number LMA/4453/D/02/16
Whitbread brewing records

A bit later, I know. But 8% of Guinness or Bass? That's a lot of beer. Forty or fifty thousand barrels.

Let's Brew - 1879 William Younger 50/-

Yes, I've found a recipe in a book that I haven't published yet. And one of an unknown shilling number in the current bollocky designations.

The Scots brewed to a much larger range of gravities than English brewers. From super strong to super watery.

You might have found beers with gravities as low as 1040º in the English countryside, but not in London. A small provincial brewery wouldn’t have been brewing stuff at Imperial strength as well. Younger spanned the both. From the modestly-strengthed drinking Ales of the sticks, to the headiest beers of the capital.

At the lower end of the Shilling Ales, this would have been considered a Table Beer. More of a refreshment than an intoxicant. It’s a very straightforward beer, with a reasonable bitterness for its strength.

1879 William Younger 50/-
pale malt	8.25 lb	100.00%
Cluster 90 min	1.00 oz
Goldings 20 min	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.75 oz
OG	1036
FG	1007
ABV	3.84
Apparent attenuation	80.56%
IBU	35
SRM	4
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	105 minutes
pitching temp	59º F

 
The above is an excerpt from my excellent book on Scottish brewing:

Which is also available in Kindle form:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q8XHBL2

Tied houses in the 1890s

Boak & Bailey conveniently got the full version of the 1895 Brewers' Guardian available in Google books. Very useful for my book after next.

A quick flick through its pages resulted in me finding an interesting report on a House of Commons debate about tied houses. Which weren't very popular with some politicians

The debate kicked off with a tied house opponent:

"Some twenty or thirty years ago there were comparatively few tied houses in the country, but statistics now showed that at least 70 per cent, of the licensed houses were held in that way, and the rapid growth of the system was, no doubt, the result of keen competition between brewers. A return published in 1890 showed that in Liverpool some five or six brewery companies held between them no fewer than 504 publichouses, while the tied houses in St. Helens numbered 126, and in Portsmouth 212. In Birmingham one firm alone owned as many as 155, whilst one firm in Bristol headed the list with 287. Quite as bad a state of things prevailed in the country licensing districts. And not only were publicans tied in regard to the sale of beer and spirits, but in many cases the restrictions were applied to mineral waters, matches, and even the sawdust which was used in the spittoons. In some cases the publicans were only monthly tenants of the brewers, and as the licences were granted for a year he claimed that that tenure constituted an evasion of the licensing laws. The system bore very hardly upon the publicans, and in some of the agreements he had seen it was distinctly specified that the brewer or his agent should have the right to inspect the cellars of the house at any hour of the day or night. They were obliged, too, to sell whatever liquor was supplied, whether it was good, bad, or indifferent. In some cases he had to pay from 15 to 20 per cent. more for his liquor than the owner of a free house, with the result that he was compelled to force his trade by illegitimate means very often, so as to get a bare livelihood out of the house. Licences for the sale of drink were granted for the general well-being of the community; but it certainly was contrary to the interest of the public that in a very large number of licensed houses the only beer that could be obtained was the beer which some single firm of brewers choose to sell. In most cases it was bad beer made from the substitutes for malt and hops; and he therefore appealed for support for his motion to the hon. gentleman opposite, who strongly upheld the other night the use of pure beer and of the English barley-grower."
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, pages 130 - 131.

The percentage of houses which were tied was thrown around by a few speakers. Not always the same number. 70% seems to have been the most popular.

Why were tied houses so much more common than 20 or 30 years earlier? That's an easy one: the 1869 Licensing Act, which made it very difficult to obtain new licences and had provisions for actively reducing the number.

At a time when the population was increasing, the number of pubs was falling:

Pubs in England and Wales 1870 - 1895.
Date	Full	Beerhouse	Total Pubs	population	pop. per pub
1870	68,789	49,396	118,185	22,783,541	193
1875	69,184	43,884	113,068	24,045,385	213
1880	69,112	49,597	118,709
1881	68,632	38,309	106,941	26,046,142	244
1885	67,822	37,278	105,100	27,220,706	259
1890	67,315	36,498	103,813
1893	67,028	35,809	102,837
1895	66,750	35,351	102,101	30,451,528	298
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 162.

With the number of potential outlets in decline, brewers increasingly tied pubs, either my outright purchase or by loans.

Tying pubs on matches and sawdust? That sounds very Sam Smiths

Beginning of the end for Barclay Perkins

The 1950s were troubling times for UK brewers. Beer consumption was falling and as a reaction mergers and takeovers were occurring at an increasing pace.

Early in 1955 a proposed merger between Courage and Barclay Perkins was announced.

"Big brewery merger in prospect
Courage and Barclay Perkins
Notes from our City staff — Friday Evening
The preliminary stages of an important brewery merger were announced today. The boards of Courage and Co. and of Barclay Perkins and Co. state that they have agreed in principle to the desirability of a merger by the formation of a holding company to acquire the share capitals of the two companies. An independent firm of chartered accountants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. has been instructed to prepare a report with a view to advising the respective boards as to a suitable basis for such a merger.

Issued capital of Barclay Perkins is £2,911,000 and of Courage £2,540,000. At December 31, 1953. assets of the last-named group £13,417,000, and at March 31, assets of Barclay Perkins amounted to £12,948,000. The two groups, whose headquarters are in London, have a large trade there and in the home counties."
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 12 February 1955, page 7.

What surprised me is how similar in size the two breweries were. Both has assets of around £13 million. Though, with £2.9 million in issued capital compared to £2.5 million, Barclay Perkins was slightly larger in that respect.

With the two breweries so close together on the south bank of the Thames, it doesn't take a genius to work out the likely outcome.

"Both companies earned trading profits of more than £1,000,000 in their last accounting years, and in each ease they were higher than a year before and both increased their distributions. The motive for merging two such strong units is probably the familiar one that the big brewers are all trying to extend the area in which they can sell, in particular, their bottled beers — and amalgamation is a simple way of doing so. In addition. there are several districts in which both companies operate and, therefore, substantial saving in operating costs could be effected."
Birmingham Daily Post - Saturday 12 February 1955, page 15.

The obvious way to make a "substantial saving" was to close one of the breweries.With their trading areas pretty much identical, supplying both sets of pubs from one site wasn't going to be much of a logistical problem.

Yes, Barclay Perkins was profitable, but it was only making a net profit of just around £200,000 - less than it had in the 1930s. And it was operating at well below capacity. In 1955 it produced 228,343 barrels - less than half the 485,431 barrels it churned out in 1946. While it 1912 589,543 barrels were brewed.*

Did the Barclay directors realise what was going to happen? You think it would be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. But, having read Anthony Avis's book, it seems many brewery owners were blind to what selling up entailed long-term.  

* Document ACC/2305/1/711/1 in the London Metropolitan Archives

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1837 Whitbread KXXXX

The strongest of Whitbread’s Stock Ales, KXXXX, was real loony juice at around 11% ABV. You wouldn’t be drinking eight pints of it in a session.

The recipe is as simple as that of its weaker siblings: base malt and English hops. But that’s just the way things were in the first half of the 19th century. Crazy strong beers with uncomplicated recipes.

London brewers didn’t stick with the strongest Ales for very long. Both XXXX and KXXXX had been discontinued by 1845. Not that very much of them had ever been brewed. No more than a couple of hundred barrels a year, at most.

I've lowered the FG from the racking gravity given in the brewing record as, after a year or so with Brettanomyces slowly chewing its way through the sugars Saccharomyces couldn't ferment, it would have been much lower when the beer was sold.

1837 Whitbread KXXX
mild malt	22.50 lb	100.00%
Goldings 120 mins	3.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	3.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.50 oz
OG	1099
FG	1025
ABV	9.79
Apparent attenuation	74.75%
IBU	65
SRM	9
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my two new books, Strong! vols. 1 & 2 and Strong! vol.2.

Beers sweetened with sugar (Karamelbier)

It's been far too long since I posted anything from Schönfeld's "Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung". Having been rather distracted by working on the forthcoming book on WW II.

Today we'll be looking at another type of sweetened beer, Karamelbier. One sweetened with sugar rather than artificial sweetener. It's a type of beer which is still produced, I believe, though in tiny quantities.

I'm surprised to discover that the original production method left yeast in the beer. Which seems awfully dangerous in a beer containing lots of highly-fermentable sugar.

"c) Beers sweetened with sugar (Karamelbier)
If sweetener-sweetened beer owes its origin to the war, sugar-sweetened Malzbier (Karamelbier) appeared around 16 years earlier. The original method of production, which is still used, consists, if it is bottled beer, of adding sugar to the beer after fermentation (vat fermentation), then it is filled into bottles and, after sufficient sediment has formed, further fermentation is prevented by pasteurisation.

The formation of sediment can be accelerated by the application of heat, which is often done, and can easily be carried out in such a way that the bottles are either brought into warm rooms or straight into the pasteurisers, which have been appropriately warmed up.
"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 135 - 136.

I guess pasteurisation would effectively avoid any bottle bombs. Newer methods of making Karamelbier sought to remove yeast from the equation:

"Soon, however, the goal became apparent to fill the sugar-sweetened beer into bottles and containers without yeast. Some proceed in such a way that they transfer the beer into a storage barrel after the sugar has been added and stop the secondary fermentation early when the beer is sufficiently saturated with carbonic acid, and then filter it. Others first filter the lagered beer and transfer it onto tanks into which the sugar solution has previously been poured. Still others add the sugar solution to the shipping barrel before the beer is drawn off.

By means of cold storage and careful filtration, the beer can be made

to contain so little yeast that,

despite its high sugar content, it can still be kept for 8 to 10 days as a draught beer, so that for customers not too distant from the brewery can be supplied without it being pasteurised, without the risk of it becoming "wild" through a vigorous secondary fermentation. Of course, the landlord also has to ensure that it is kept cool. He must not have the barrel lie under the tap for too long. He must be careful to pour the beer quickly. In accordance with sales, he should order the appropriate sizes of barrel and order smaller barrels from the brewery rather than larger ones.

The unpasteurised beer is not suitable for shipping over long distances or for longer storage at the pub. The high sugar content, provides favorable conditions for the growth of yeast, and with increasing growth the attack on the easily-fermentabe sugar increases. It is therefore one of the most important measures to bring the beer to the shipping barrel as bright as possible and thus with as little yeast as possible. But not only this, but also to transfer it with the highest possible carbonic acid content, since the carbonic acid counteracts the yeast's growth; though it is unable to stop it completely."

"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 136. 

I'm surprised that Karamelbier was sold on draught. Especially given what sounds like an inherent instability. I've never heard of it as anything other than a bottled beer.

Does CO2 really inhibit yeast growth? Never heard of that one before. Wouldn't that bugger bottle conditioning in a beer like Duvel?

"It is therefore necessary, especially with bottled beer, whether it contains yeast or not, to ensure shelf life by pasteurisation. A sufficient level of safety is achieved by a temperature of 70-72º C, which must be maintained for one hour. Rapid cooling is not required. Experience has shown that it is more expedient and more advantageous for the beer to cool slowly, which is why certain devices, e.g. the vapour pasteuriser dispense with water cooling, but rather pull the cart loaded with the bottles out of the chambers shortly after the pasteurization and let the air in the room do the cooling.

The slow cooling has a beneficial influence on Malzbier in that it enhances the roasted, malty, bready taste that is valued in Karamelbier."

"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, pages 156- 137.

I wonder why slow cooling enhanced the malt flavours? Is that why UK pasteurised beer tasted so bad? Was it cooled too quickly.

Dodgy crown corks

Court case often give a brief glimpse into one aspect of the brewing industry. This article provides several insights. I'll explain exactly what later. 

First read the article:

"DUNDEE FIRM
CLAIMS CORKS SPOILED BEER  
Alleged faulty corks, resulting in beer being spoiled, are the subject of action by Dundee firm against the cork suppliers in the Court of Session.

Alexander Graham Dunn, bottler, sole partner of Messrs William Smith, bottlers, 160 Nethergate, claims £475 12s 2d from the Defiant Crown Cork Co., Thames Iron Works, Lewisham, London.

Dunn states that in September 1948 customers said bottled beer he supplied was defective, because it had musty smell and flavour, and was undrinkable. They rejected the beer.

On inspection the corks were found to defective, and the beer was spoiled. Beer returned was as follows:—290 dozen bottles Guinness, valued at £159 10s; 25 dozen bottles Barclay Perkins Red Label stout, valued at £15; and 172 dozen half pints of bottled Bass beer, valued at £107 10s.

He alleges that the defective state of the corks was due to breach of contract by the London firm. The corks after use were discoloured, blackened, with musty smell. Dunn believes and avers that the corks were of inferior quality and contained pitted holes when delivered. It is also believed that the holes contained bacteria which were invisible to inspection, but which caused mould and caused the bad taste.

Dunn also states that his suppliers did not sterilise or pasteurise the corks before delivery, the normal and proper practice. Had they done so the corks would not have become mouldy and discoloured.

NOT IN DAMP
It is denied that the cases of corks were deposited on the floor of a damp cellar. They were stored in a dry cellar. Other corks from the same suppliers, stored in the same cellar, were perfect for at least year. In any event, the corks were not damp when put in the bottles, and would not have been used had they been damp. Prior to being used in the bottles they were clean and normal in colour, and had no visible defect or bad smell.

The sum claimed represents the value of the beer and stout returned, cost of carriage of the bottles to and from the customers, and loss of profit.

The Defiant Crown Cork Co., who deny liability, state that corks returned to them by Dunn were affected by mould, caused by the corks being stored in damp conditions. Corks in a full and unopened case also returned were in perfect condition. They explain that cork is a natural product, and all corks contain pitted holes which are inherent in their nature. When the corks were delivered to Dunn they did not contain bacteria.

The corks underwent a heat treatment in manufacture, and were thoroughly sterilised. These corks form only a small fraction of a batch made on the same day, and no complaints have been received from other users. If the contents of the bottles became unusable it was not caused by any defect in the corks.

It is also denied that any discoloration, blackening or mustiness arose in the corks only after use in the bottles. The case of corks complained of was at least six months old and cases sent to Dunn after the one complained of had been used, before it.

CASE ON FLOOR
When examined by their Glasgow agent, the case was deposited on the floor of a damp cellar, and appeared to have been there for some time. It was lying opposite a wide door through which dampness could come.

The defect in their condition was due to being kept in the damp cellar since February 1948. Dunn knew that corks should be stored in a dry place, and that dampness encouraged the growth of various moulds. Moreover, he failed to use the corks in the order in which they were sent to him. Further, he or his servants ought to have inspected the corks within a reasonable time after delivery, and in any event prior to using them.

It is believed that any discoloration or blackening was due to iron sulphide and iron tannate, and could not have communicated a foreign odour or flavour to the contents of the bottles, but the presence of such discoloration or blackening should have attracted their attention prior use, and have caused them to make the further simple examination by smelling them. This would have revealed at once that the corks had a musty smell.

Proof will be heard on October 31."
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 04 October 1950, page 3.

 Where to start? With the beers themselves.

Guinness and Bass are exactly the type of beers you'd expect to be seeing bottled by a third party. But Barclay Perkins? Unlike Bass and Guinness, it wasn't a brewery which got its beers into lots of other breweries pubs. And Scotland is an awfully long way away from their usual London market.

But I'd already found several advertisements for Barclay's Stout in Scottish newspapers.  I expect that they had to pull out of it due to zoning during WW II. Only a select few brewers - such as Bass and Guinness - were allowed to distribute nationally. Everyone else was only allowed to sell beer within a certain distance of the brewery. Distant tied houses were supplied by brewers closer by.

Clearly, Barclay's Scottish trade did return after the end of zoning. Though I could have surmised that from their brewing records. As one of their post-war beers had the brew house name of IBSt Sc. That is a version of Russian Stout especially for the Scottish market. In 1950, weak enough to count as a session beer.

We also get to see what the wholesale price of the three beers was. I'll spare you the maths, but the Guinness works out to 11 shillings per dozen, Barclay's Stout 12 shillings and Bass 12 shilling and sixpence. It says something of its perceived quality that Barclay's was more expensive than Guinness, itself not a cheap beer.

Third-party bottlers - companies whose sole business was bottling other breweries' beers. It was quite a big thing in the first half of the 20th century, but slowly petered out in the 1960a and 1970s.

This case illustrates the danger for a brewer. By farming out bottling to another company they lost control of the quality. You could end up with undrinkable beer through no fault of your own. That's probably one of the main reasons the practice died out.

William Younger Holyrood Beers in 1938

William Younger’s second brewery, Holyrood, was built in the 1860s.  Intended to be a Pale Ale brewery, it was fitted with union sets.  

On the eve of WW II, Holyrood was, indeed, almost exclusively churning out Pale Ales of various descriptions. The only exception being an occasional batch of No. 3.

Only three Pale Ales were produced at both breweries: XP Btlg, XXP Btlg and XXPS. LAE, XXPS Btlg and Pale XXPS were exclusive to the Abbey Brewery. While P, P Btlg, Pale 3 (IPA Pale), XP and XXP only emanated from Holyrood. Simple, isn’t it?

Once again, the OGs fit quite well into the 4d, 5d, 6d, 7d and 8d per pint gravity bands. Ext – which I assume stands for “Export – was about as strong as UK Pale Ales got in the 1930s. At least ones intended for domestic consumption.

Don’t be fooled by the apparently poor degree of attenuation. That’s a cleansing gravity rather than a real FG or even a racking gravity. I know from analyses of beers as sold that the rate of attenuation was really higher.

At under 5lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt, the hopping rate is feeble. In London Pale Ales were hopped at a rate 7.25 - 10 lbs per quarter by Whitbread  and 7.5 lbs by Barclay Perkins.

Dry hopping is on the low side, too, just 2-3 ozs per barrel. In 1939, Barclay Perkins Pale Ales received 3-6 ozs. 

William Younger Holyrood Beers in 1938
Date	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	dry hops (oz / barrel)
17th Oct	P	1033.5	1011	2.98	67.16%	3.00	0.38	1.93
5th Jul	XP	1037	1012	3.31	67.57%	3.00	0.42	2.14
19th Oct	XP Btlg	1037	1012	3.31	67.57%	4.81	0.67	1.99
20th Oct	P Btlg	1042	1010	4.23	76.19%	4.83	0.75	1.98
18th Oct	XXP	1043	1013	3.97	69.77%	3.18	0.52	1.99
20th Oct	XXP Btlg	1043	1011	4.23	74.42%	4.83	0.77	2.03
17th Oct	XXPS	1048	1015	4.37	68.75%	3.29	0.69	2.31
5th Jul	Pale 3 (IPA Pale)	1055	1017	5.03	69.09%	4.25	0.89	3.03
6th Jul	Ext	1055	1017	5.03	69.09%	4.84	1.00	2.55
8th Jul	3	1055	1018	4.89	67.27%	3.25	0.69	2.05
Source:
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/3/77.