Bottling 1880 - 1914 (part 4)

I hope you're not getting bored with all this stuff about bottling. As I'm still not finished yet.

Forced bottling
This was effectively a streamlined version of natural conditioning. The main aim being to speed up the process and hence leave less capital tied up in conditioning bottles.

A quicker conditioning in the cask was encouraged and the beer fined before flattening prior to bottling. The store where the bottles were conditioned was at 60º and 70º F to speed up the process.

Beer produced by this method was satisfactory as long it was consumed quickly. When stored for too long it was likely to develop a thick sediment and become unappealingly cloudy.

Simple carbonation
In this method, beer was carbonated by injecting CO2 prior to bottling. Most brewers purchased cylinders of gas for this purpose, though some preferred to make it themselves. No-one seems to have collected the CO2 naturally produced during primary fermentation.

The big drawback of bottled beer produced this way was that it started to throw a sediment after just a few days. The shelf-life could be improved by filtering before bottling, but it remained limited.  Unless you could guarantee that the beer could be sold and consumed quickly, this wasn’t a suitable way of bottling. It did have the advantages of speed and reducing inventory of conditioning beer.

Quick chilling and filtering
Originally developed in the USA, this method entailed chilling beer quickly to around freezing point (26º - 36º F), which caused a haze to be precipitated. Carbonation and filtration followed, after which the beer was bottled.

Though quick, this method had the disadvantages of producing beers with a short shelf life and sometimes giving them an unpleasant flavour. Generally, the slow chilling method which follows was considered to be superior. 

Bottling 1880 - 1914 (part 3)

The original method of bottle-conditioning fell out of favour on account of drinkers’ preference for clear beer. Several new methods of bottling were developed in the final decades of the 19th century which resulted in sediment-free beer.

Five different methods of bottling were employed:

1.    Natural conditioning.
2.    Forced bottling.
3.    Simple carbonation.
4.    Quick chilling and filtering.
5.    Prolonged chilling and filtering.

Natural conditioning
This was the oldest form of bottling. And, because it relied on natural processes, also the trickiest to perform consistently. It only worked well with beers specifically brewed for the purpose.

Before bottling, beer was allowed to condition for a month in cask. There then followed a period of conditioning in the bottle of between 2 and 6 weeks, the average being about 4 weeks. The store where the conditioning took place was ideally between 55º and 60º F, as this was the temperature range which produced the best flavour.

The procedure for Strong ales was different. Such beers were aged between 6 and 12 months in cask after racking and then allowed to condition a further 6 months after bottling. Though it appears many brewers were too impatient to follow this procedure and often beers were given too little time to properly develop flavour and condition.

Casks were moved to the bottling store 1 to 2 weeks before bottling and soft spiled to allow most of the carbonation to dissipate. Some brewers primed with sugar to provide fermentable material for conditioning in the bottle, but others relied on the trickier method of using residual sugars in the beer itself.

Brewers were moving over to quicker and more reliable methods of bottling, even while accepting that they couldn’t match natural conditioning for flavour. Which is why some brewers of top-class Pale Ales and Stouts, such as Bass, Guinness and Whitbread, insisted on their beers being bottle-conditioned.
 

The future of Mild

As a novelty. A bit like Gose, but less popular as it's harder to throw all sorts of random shit into a Dark Mild.

When I started drinking way back in the early 1970s, Mild wasn't just a standard draught beer, it was a popular one. In Newark, every pub sold it. And lots of people drank it. When I went to university in Leeds, it was extremely popular in Tetleys pubs. In the type of working class pub I preferred, maybe a third of the punters were drinking Mild. And maybe another 20% drinking mixed. In the public bar, that is. More drank Bitter in the posh rooms.

It was only when I started looking more closely in The Good Beer guide that I realsied this didn't reflect the situation everywhere. There were already parts of the country where Mild was near extinct. Scotland, Northeast England, London, Southwest England. many  brewers had discontinued Mild or only sold it in keg form. The latter a sure sign that its popularity was plumetting.

The decline went back further than I realised. In Scotland, almost no Mild was brewed after WW I. though often 60/- Pale Ale pretended to be Mild. Region by region, it fell into terminal decline. Sometimes replaced  - as in the Northeast and Southwest - by low-gravity Pale Ales which were Light Mild in all but name.

Some styles have made remarkable comebacks. Who could have predicted the return of Milk Stout? Which in my youth was as fashionable as a tweed jacket. Proof that anything is possible.

I just can't see that happening with Mild. Yes, plenty of trendy brewers will knock one out now and again, possibly in a bid to cross off all the "official" styles. But few introduce a Mild as a regular addition to their portfolio. While older brewers may persist half-heartedly with their Mild, whilst not daring to use the name. Instead labelling it Dark or some other mealymouthed euphemism.

Should this make me sad? As someone who loved a good Mild, yes. It does. I'd love to go to Cross Green and drink 10 pints of Tetley's Mild again. But it isn't going to happen. The world has moved on. Beer styles come and go. And almost never return. I'll just cherish the memories of a time that's gone forever. Like a Porter drinker in the 1940s.

The same fate, incidentally, awaits Pilsner and IPA. All styles have their day.

Having said this, my local brewery, Butcher's Tears, pretty much always has a Mild on tap. Sometimes two. The last couple of weeks, even on cask. Perhaps there's life in the style after all. 

(I dropped by Butcher's Tears yesterday, as every Saturday. Sure enough, they had gravity-served Dark Mild. Very nice it was, too.)

Let's Brew - 1897 Hancock SBA

Now here’s a confusing beer. I’m assuming SBA stands for “Special Bitter Ale”. So, you would expect it to be stronger than BA. But it isn’t. Instead, it’s exactly the same OG.

What makes it “special”, then? Well, there is one big difference with BA: SBA is all malt. Just like BA, it’s a combination of Chilean and Ouchak. But there’s no No. 1 invert sugar. As the invert sugar only cost 15s a quarter and the malt was 30s and 33s 6d per quarter, SBA was more expensive to brew. BA cost 14s 6d per barrel, while SBA was 15s 9d per barrel.

There was also extra cost in the hops. Both beers used all 1896 East Kents. But BA had two types, one at 56s and the other at 88s. SBA opted for 100% of the latter.

All in all, the difference between SBA and BA is the use of classier ingredients. The same quantities and the same gravity. I dearly wish I’d been able to find a Hancock’s pricelist so I could see how much more was charged for SBA.

1897 Hancock SBA
pale malt	12.26 lb	100.00%
Goldings 120 mins	2.25 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.25 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1053
FG	1012
ABV	5.42
Apparent attenuation	77.36%
IBU	57
SRM	5
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	White Labs WLP099 Super High Gravity

 

Bottling 1880 - 1914 (part 2)

As you can probably tell, I'm working away on the next volume of my mega series on the history of UK beer. 60,000 words or so, currently. Still a along way to go, though. Loads more recipes to write.

This week, I wrote 13,000 words on bottling. Like these ones:

Several different methods of sealing bottles were employed. The oldest, and one still used today, was a cork. This was very effective, but relied very much on the quality of the cork itself. And good quality corks were expensive. It was also easy to disturb any sediment when removing it. There was also a risk of contamination from corks as they naturally contained moulds and yeasts. 

"there is nothing to beat a corked bottle beer — provided the cork is steamed and washed in a revolving wire drum to remove all dust and to soften and sterilise it." 

The most popular type was the internal screw stopper. They were usually made of very hard wood and fitted with a rubber washer. That such stoppers could be reused was a double-edged sword. As they used a standard thread, they would fit any brewer’s bottles. Unlike the bottles themselves, customers made little effort to return stoppers to the right brewery. Which meant that even if you bothered to buy good quality stoppers you would inevitably end up with inferior ones from your rivals.  I can remember buying quart bottles with this type of closure in the late 1970s.

Flip-top stoppers – like those used by Grolsch – weren’t much used in the UK, despite their popularity in the USA and the rest of Europe. Its use was mostly limited to Lager and rarely used for British-style beers.

Various weird and wonderful single-use stoppers were in use, most of which didn’t hang around for long. One did, however, stand the test of time: the crown cork. In the run up to WW I this was becoming increasingly popular, especially for half pints. 

"He [Mr. Robert D. Clarke] believed that the crown cork would prove to be the cork of the future. It imparted no taste, and being soaked in paraffin it was absolutely clean and satisfactory. He had practically scrapped the whole of his ordinary cork bottles, and was using nothing but crowns and porcelain stoppers." 

 

Bottling 1880 - 1914

Bottled beers were becoming increasingly popular and this popularity had inspired brewers to come up with new methods for producing them.

For some breweries, such as Whitbread, bottled beer was starting to be a hugely significant part of their sales. Between 1901 and 1904, bottled beer increased its proportion of their total sales from 25% to 50%.

Whitbread Draught and Bottled sales 1901 – 1914
	total draught		Bottling		Burton
Year	barrels	%	barrels	%	barrels	%	Total
1901	538,097	73.63%	188,525	25.80%	4,153	0.57%	730,775
1902	546,043	72.92%	198,812	26.55%	3,975	0.53%	748,830
1903	552,383	71.00%	221,651	28.49%	3,998	0.51%	778,032
1904	546,402	69.40%	237,522	30.17%	3,379	0.43%	787,303
1905	538,584	67.67%	254,373	31.96%	2,983	0.37%	795,940
1906	526,766	64.32%	289,898	35.40%	2,361	0.29%	819,025
1907	513,881	61.49%	320,140	38.30%	1,749	0.21%	835,770
1908	477,470	58.97%	330,767	40.85%	1,459	0.18%	809,696
1909	456,638	56.14%	355,212	43.67%	1,481	0.18%	813,331
1910	446,477	55.72%	353,534	44.12%	1,325	0.17%	801,336
1911	459,908	53.81%	392,899	45.97%	1,564	0.18%	854,371
1912	464,539	49.95%	463,938	49.88%	1,548	0.17%	930,025
1913	436,095	51.17%	414,661	48.66%	1,415	0.17%	852,171
1914	418,402	49.38%	427,455	50.45%	1,415	0.17%	847,272
Source:
Whitbread Bottled Beer Sales ledger held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/16.

Not all types of beer were bottled. Most notable of the excluded types was Mild Ale. Despite being the most popular style at the time, it was rarely bottled. The name Porter also rarely appeared on a label. Not because it wasn’t bottled, but because bottled forms were marketed under another name, such as Luncheon Stout or Cooper.

Bottled beer types
Type	Min. OG	Max OG
Strong Ale	1069.5	1111.2
IPA	1055.6	1069.5
Light Pale Ale	1041.7	1050.0
Stout	1055.6	1077.8
Luncheon Stout	1044.5	1050.0
Source:
“A Treatise of Practical Brewing and Malting” by Frank Thatcher, 1907, page 477.

Several different methods of sealing bottles were employed. The oldest, and one still used today, was a cork. This was very effective, but relied very much on the quality of the cork itself. And good quality corks were expensive. It was also easy to disturb any sediment when removing it. There was also a risk of contamination from corks as they naturally contained moulds and yeasts. 

"there is nothing to beat a corked bottle beer — provided the cork is steamed and washed in a revolving wire drum to remove all dust and to soften and sterilise it." 

The most popular type was the internal screw stopper. They were usually made of very hard wood and fitted with a rubber washer. That such stoppers could be reused was a double-edged sword. As they used a standard thread, they would fit any brewer’s bottles. Unlike the bottles themselves, customers made little effort to return stoppers to the right brewery. Which meant that even if you bothered to buy good quality stoppers you would inevitably end up with inferior ones from your rivals.  I can remember buying quart bottles with this type of closure in the late 1970s.

Flip-top stoppers – like those used by Grolsch – weren’t much used in the UK, despite their popularity in the USA and the rest of Europe. Its use was mostly limited to Lager and rarely used for British-style beers.

Various weird and wonderful single-use stoppers were in use, most of which didn’t hang around for long. One did, however, stand the test of time: the crown cork. In the run up to WW I this was becoming increasingly popular, especially for half pints. 

"He [Mr. Robert D. Clarke] believed that the crown cork would prove to be the cork of the future. It imparted no taste, and being soaked in paraffin it was absolutely clean and satisfactory. He had practically scrapped the whole of his ordinary cork bottles, and was using nothing but crowns and porcelain stoppers." 

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1897 Hancock BA

I’m on much steadier ground with this beer when it comes to style. I’m certain that this is a Pale Ale. With the name presumably being “Bitter Ale”.

As with XXB, the malt was all from foreign barley. Again, Chilean and Ouchak. Which does strike me as strange. But there must have been some reason as it’s the same for all Hancock’s Pale Ales.

This time the sugar is what you would expect: No. 1 invert. And slightly more of it than in XXB, being 18% compared to 15%. Unsurprisingly, the resulting colour us paler, despite the gravity being higher.

This time there are two types of hops. Though both are East Kent from the 1896 season. And there a quite a few more of them than in XXB: 9.33 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt compared to 6.3 lbs. Rather surprisingly, BA wasn't dry hopped.
 

1897 Hancock BA
pale malt	8.75 lb	81.40%
No. 1 invert sugar	2.00 lb	18.60%
Goldings 120 mins	2.25 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.25 oz
OG	1053
FG	1012
ABV	5.42
Apparent attenuation	77.36%
IBU	57
SRM	7
Mash at	155º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	White Labs WLP099 Super High Gravity

 

 

I've never been to Sleaford

"You know what, Dolores? I'm much better travelled in Holland than in Britain."

"You always say that."

One of the great things about getting older is repeating yourself. My elderly realtions were experts. I've only just discovered its joys. Obviously, most of the time you don't realise you're doing it. But when do, it's as fun as a conscious dream. Looking at the doubt on the face of your interlocutor, when they're trying to decide whether to let on or not that you've already told them that 20 times. Dolores always opts for the latter course, which makes it far less fun.

But I digress.

Sleaford is one of the closest towns to Newark, where I grew up. About 20 miles away from my brother's house. Never been there. Why would I want to?

Retford. Been through it hundreds of times on the train. Only, I think, ever got off once. To change trains.I didn't leave the station.

Grantham, which I normally refer to as Newark's evil twin. Thatcher was born there, after all. Been there maybe three or for times. First was for a CAMRA branch meeting with my brother. That it was in a pub selling cask Barnsley Bitter gives an idea of how long ago it was. Pretty sure that's the only branch meeting I've ever attended.

I once had an hour two between trains in Grantham with Dolores. She wasn't impressed. "Don't bring me back here again, Ronald." I haven't.

My only time in Mansfield was to watch Sunderland play. With my brother, obviously. We stood on a cop at one end with all the Sunderland fans. At one point, a Sunderland player ran half the length of the pitch and smacked the ball into the net in front of us. Everyone around us went crazy. Most exciting moment ever at a sporting event. And I'm a Newcastle fan.

Loughborough I've been to twice. Once for a pub crawl. The town had a really good variety of tied houses. Ones from 8 or 9 different breweries. Which was rare in a place of its size. Meaning you could do a statutory pub crawl (8 pubs, a pint in each) drinking beer from 8 different breweries.

The other time was to watch Wishbone Ash. A band I loved at the time. Though I now realise some of their stuff is wank. But that was the early 1970s for you.

Hang on. I think it was also Loughborough where I saw Dr. Feelgood whilst the is sixth form. I can remember arguing with a classmate a few days that Wilko Johnson was a better guitarist than Jimmy Page. I still by that opinion.

Derby. Been there twice. Once just for a few pints around the station whilst making a connection. First time was on a school trip to see a theatre production of Tommy. I got stuck in a Hardy & Hansons pub drinking electric-pumped Mild with Martyn Young. We were so distracted that we only caught the last ten minutes of the performance. They had to stop the bus on the way home so I could get off to throw up. Happy days.

Trust Dolores to bring me back to reality.

"Maybe it's because you've lived much longer in Holland."

Don't distract me with logic, Dolores. I'm busy ranting.

UK alcohol consumption 1979 - 2016

We've arrived at the final part of my look at alcohol consumption. Starting with the peak beer-drinking year of 1979 and ending with the 2016, the last year I have numbers for.

Through the 1980s, despite high levels of unemployment, beer consumption was pretty stable at around 110 litres per year. There was a slight decline in the 1990s, taking it down to 100 litres or so. 2000 saw a sharp drop to fewer than 90 litres. It recovered a little in the following years, but, after 2004, it was all downhill. Every year after than 2010, fewer than 70 litres were consumed. By 2016, consumption had fallen 46% from its 1979 peak.

The story for wine is quite different, with consumption rising until 2007, then declining a little and stabilising around 20 litres. Between 1979 and 2016, wine consumption increased by 60%. The arcs of wine and beer are quite different, implying that the decline in beer shrinking wasn't simply due to external economic factors. There seems to have been a definite move from beer to wine drinking.

Something similar can be seen with cider, which peaked in 2009. Though after that there was a considerable decrease. Even with that late fall, between 1979 and 2016 consumption increased by 65%.

Spirits are another story. Apart from a slight dip in the 1990s, consumption was pretty stable over the whole period.

Wondering what RTDs are? They're things like wine coolers and alcopops.

UK alcohol consumption 1979 - 2016
Year	Spirits	Wine	Beer	Cider	RTDs
1979	1.9	8.1	123.4	3.8
1980	1.8	8.1	118.3	3.8
1981	1.7	8.6	113	4.1
1982	1.6	8.7	109.8	4.8
1983	1.6	9.5	111.2	5.4
1984	1.6	10.4	110.9	5.4
1985	1.7	10.9	110.1	5.2
1986	1.7	11.3	109.7	5.3
1987	1.7	12	110.4	5.2
1988	1.8	12.4	110.9	4.9
1989	1.8	12.8	110.8	5.4
1990	1.7	12.5	113.9	6.4	0.3
1991	1.6	12.3	109.7	6.5	0.5
1992	1.5	12.6	105.9	7.6	0.8
1993	1.5	13.2	102.6	7.8	0.8
1994	1.6	13.6	104.8	8.3	0.9
1995	1.4	13.4	102.1	9.6	1.6
1996	1.4	14.1	103.2	9.7	3.1
1997	1.5	15.2	105.1	9.5	2
1998	1.4	15.7	100.9	9.5	2.1
1999	1.6	16.6	100.7	10.3	3.1
2000	1.6	17.2	88.4	10.2	4.8
2001	1.6	18.1	90.1	10	6.3
2002	1.7	19.5	91.9	10	6.5
2003	1.8	20	93.9	9.9	5.1
2004	1.9	21.8	92.1	10.2	4.9
2005	1.9	22.3	89.3	10.7	4
2006	1.7	21.3	86.2	12.4	3.1
2007	1.8	22.9	81.3	13.1	3
2008	1.8	22.4	77.6	13.6	2.4
2009	1.7	21	71.2	15.1	2
2010	1.8	21.2	68.5	14.8	2.4
2011	1.7	21	67.2	14.7	2.3
2012	1.7	20.8	67.4	13.7	2.4
2013	1.7	20.5	66.2	13.5	2.9
2014	1.7	20.2	67.7	12.3	3.2
2015	1.7	20.4	67.2	11.7	3.5
2016	1.8	20.4	66.7	10.8	3.9
Sources:
Brewers Society Statistical Handbook 1990, page 34.
Statistical Handbook of the British Beer and Pub Association 2003, page 35.
Statistical Handbook of the British Beer and Pub Association 2017, page 28.

The decline in domestic brewing

At the start of the 19th century, domestic brewing was still very significant. The term covers everyone brewing not for sale, but for their own use. It was carried out by a widely disparate range of people, from agricultural labourers brewing in their cottages to the upper classes in their stately homes.

Domestic brewers did have one advantage before 1880: the restrictions on brewing ingredients to just malt, hops and, after 1847, sugar, did not apply to them. Recipes for such brewers often included all sorts of ingredients forbidden to commercial brewers, such as molasses, ginger, hartshorn shavings and coriander. 

The 1880 Free Mash Tun act for the first time required this class of brewers to hold a brewing licence. Though they were exempt from beer duty.

In the 18th and early 20th centuries, there was often little difference between a large domestic brewer and a small commercial brewer in terms of equipment and scale. But as brewing industrialised and was carried out on a larger scale, commercial brewers gained a distinct advantage. Domestic brewers just couldn’t compete in terms of efficiency and cost.

Another factor which didn’t help was the taxation system. Between 1830 and 1880, there was no tax on beer itself, just on the ingredients, that is, malt and hops. Which meant domestic brewers, unless they made their own malt, were effectively being taxed just the same as their commercial rivals.

Despite this, there were still more than 100,000 domestic brewers, compared to 15,774 commercial brewers.  The numbers collapsed in the 1890s and by 1915 there were fewer than 5,000 licences issued. However, this was still more than the 3,556 licences issued to brewers for sale.
 

Brewers not for sale 1881 - 1920
Year	number
1881	71,876
1882	110,025
1885	88,007
1886	95,301
1890	25,281
1895	17,041
1900	12,734
1905	9,930
1908	8,481
1909	7,568
1910	7,006
1911	6,855
1910	7,006
1915	4,741
1917	5,217
1918	1,602
1919	1,879
1920	2,999
Sources:
1912 Brewers' Almanack, page 157.
1922 Brewers' Almanack, page 117.

 

 

Let's Brew - 1897 Hancock XXB

We’ve now come to Hancock’s Pale Ales. Or at least I think we have. I’m fairly sure that the “B” stands for Bitter. But I’m not totally sure.

The hopping rate per quarter (336 lbs) of malt is slightly lower – 6.3 lbs compared to 7 lbs – than X. If XXB is a Pale Ale, you’d expect it to be the other way around. On the other hand, it is dry hopped and the water treatment, with a large amount of gypsum, is the same as for another Pale Ale, BA. On balance, I’d call this as a Pale Ale.

None of the base malt was from English barley. Just over half was Chilean, the rest Ouchak (spelt Ushak in the brewing record), that is, Middle Eastern. Quite a contrast with X, which was all English. It’s unusual to see all foreign barley. Usually, at least some was English.

It’s rather strange to see No. 3 invert sugar in a Pale Ale. The result is a colour which is pretty dark for a Pale Ale. No. 2 invert is a more normal sugar to see in this type of beer.

A single type of hop – East Kent from the 1896 harvest – was used in the copper. I’m guessing that’s also what was used in the rather heavy dry hopping.

1897 Hancock XXB
pale malt	8.25 lb	84.62%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.75 lb	7.69%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.75 lb	7.69%
Goldings 120 mins	1.25 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1046
FG	1005.5
ABV	5.36
Apparent attenuation	88.04%
IBU	30
SRM	10
Mash at	155º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	White Labs WLP099 Super High Gravity

 

UK alcohol consumption 1960 - 1979 (litres)

Continuing on from the last, here's a look at UK beer consumption over another 20 years. Though I haven't just picked the dates because they cover a neat period of two decades.

1960 was the year consumption increased for the first time after a long post-WW II decline. And 1979 is the last year it increased. From 1980 onwards another long period of decline began. One which still hasn't ended.

It's fascinating - though surely a coincidence - that the 1979 peak is almost exactly the same as that of 1914 (125.06 litres), the date after which the long, slow 20th-century decline kicked off.

Beer consumption increased by 43% between 1960 and 1979. Which is pretty impressive. But pales into insignificance compared to other alcoholic drinks. Cider consumption rose by 138%, spirits by 171% and wine by 252%. Clearly beer was in reality faring relatively badly.

I'm particularly intrigued by consumption of all drinks trending upwards during the 1970s, which were quite tough times, economically. With unemployment on the rise, why did the increase in beer consumption not stall? 

UK alcohol consumption 1960 - 1979 (litres)
Year	spirits	wine	beer	cider
1960	0.7	2.3	86.1	1.6
1961	0.8	2.4	89.2	1.7
1962	0.8	2.5	88.6	1.6
1963	0.8	2.8	89	1.6
1964	0.9	3.1	92.6	1.6
1965	0.8	3	91.9	1.7
1966	0.8	3.1	93.7	1.8
1967	0.8	3.4	94.8	2.1
1968	0.9	3.8	96.6	2.1
1969	0.8	3.7	100.4	2.4
1970	0.9	3.7	103	2.6
1971	1	4.4	106.2	2.6
1972	1.1	5	107.6	2.6
1973	1.4	6.3	113.3	2.8
1974	1.5	6.7	116.1	2.8
1975	1.5	6.3	118.5	3.3
1976	1.6	6.5	120.7	3.8
1977	1.4	6.3	119.1	3.6
1978	1.7	7.5	121.3	3.7
1979	1.9	8.1	123.4	3.8
Source:
Brewers Society Statistical Handbook 1990, page 34.