Lees Best Mild 1950 - 1963

Time for a table. I don't seem to have done one for yonks. As the title gives away, it's of Lees Best Mild. I'm sure it was a lovely drink. I wish I'd got to drink it.

This is the first in a series of posts looking at Lees post-WW II beers in ridiculous detail. Why does this table only start in 1956 if it's about post-war beers? Easy. Lees only started brewing Best Mild in 1950.

Any way, here's the table (I hope it isn't too wide):

Lees Best Mild 1950 - 1963
Date	Year	Beer	OG	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	barrels	lbs hops	qtrs malt	boil time (hours)	dry hops (oz / barrel)	colour	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	choc. Malt	crystal malt	MA malt	PA malt	enzymic malt	oats	flaked maize	flaked oat	glucose	other sugar	lactose	total
20th Jun	1950	Best Mild	1035.0	5.82	0.84	104.4	88	15.125	1.75	0.92		82.22%	0.00%	0.87%	0.00%	3.50%	0.00%	0.00%	1.75%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.33%	9.33%	0.00%	100.00%
9th Aug	1950	Best Mild	1035.0	5.46	0.78	107.6	84	15.375	1.75	0.89		80.00%	0.00%	0.87%	0.00%	3.48%	0.00%	0.00%	1.74%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.32%	11.59%	0.00%	100.00%
20th Mar	1952	Best Mild	1033.0	5.57	0.80	39.8	32	5.75	1.75	0.00	100	66.67%	2.38%	2.38%	4.76%	4.76%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	19.05%	0.00%	100.00%
10th Mar	1952	Best Mild	1034.0	5.57	0.81	39.4	32	5.75	1.75	0.00	100	66.67%	2.38%	2.38%	4.76%	4.76%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	19.05%	0.00%	100.00%
19th Oct	1953	Best Mild	1033.0	5.87	0.80	112.9	90	15.33	1.75	0.00	100	71.49%	1.77%	0.88%	3.53%	3.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	16.47%	0.00%	100.00%
31st Jul	1954	Best Mild	1034.0	5.51	0.81	111.8	90	16.33	1.75	0.00		43.83%	1.69%	0.84%	3.37%	3.37%	24.44%	0.00%	0.00%	2.23%	0.00%	0.00%	4.50%	15.73%	0.00%	100.00%
15th Jul	1954	Best Mild	1035.0	5.51	0.81	111.4	90	16.33	1.75	0.00		68.27%	1.69%	0.84%	3.37%	3.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.23%	0.00%	0.00%	2.25%	17.98%	0.00%	100.00%
25th Oct	1954	Best Mild	1035.0	5.56	0.82	85.4	70	12.58	1.75	0.00	100	64.46%	1.11%	1.11%	2.22%	4.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.93%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	23.71%	0.00%	100.00%
28th Mar	1955	Best Mild	1035.0	5.51	0.82	109.9	90	16.33	1.75	0.00		68.27%	1.69%	0.84%	3.37%	3.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.23%	0.00%	0.00%	4.50%	15.73%	0.00%	100.00%
2nd May	1955	Best Mild	1035.0	5.51	0.81	111.3	90	16.33	1.75	0.00		68.27%	1.69%	0.84%	3.37%	3.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.23%	0.00%	0.00%	4.50%	15.73%	0.00%	100.00%
28th Feb	1956	Best Mild	1035.0	4.86	0.74	83.9	62	12.75	1.5	21.15		8.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	6.72%	17.92%	26.87%	2.24%	0.00%	5.97%	2.96%	0.00%	28.37%	0.00%	100.00%
27th May	1957	Best Mild	1035.0	5.17	0.75	82.5	62	12	1.5	16.29		54.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
25th Apr	1958	Best Mild	1035.0	4.96	0.75	82.3	62	12.5	1.5	16.33		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
9th May	1958	Best Mild	1035.0	4.96	0.75	83.1	62	12.5	1.5	16.17		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
27th Apr	1959	Best Mild	1035.0	4.96	0.75	83	62	12.5	1.5	16.19		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
11th May	1959	Best Mild	1035.0	4.96	0.75	82.9	62	12.5	1.5	16.21		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
19th Oct	1959	Best Mild	1035.0	5.17	0.76	82	62	12	1.5	16.39		56.69%	7.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.36%	0.00%	4.72%	2.36%	0.00%	23.62%	3.15%	100.00%
2nd Nov	1959	Best Mild	1035.0	4.96	0.75	83	62	12.5	1.5	16.19		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
5th Feb	1960	Best Mild	1035.0	4.88	0.73	83.1	61	12.5	1.5	16.17		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
21st Mar	1960	Best Mild	1035.0	4.88	0.75	80.8	61	12.5	1.5	16.63		54.96%	6.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.29%	0.00%	4.58%	2.29%	0.00%	25.95%	3.05%	100.00%
6th Apr	1961	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.74	94.9	70	14.5	1.5	14.16		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
30th Nov	1961	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.72	96.8	70	14.5	1.5	13.88		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
8th Dec	1961	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.74	94.5	70	14.5	1.5	14.22		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
22nd Dec	1961	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.72	97.9	70	14.5	1.5	13.73		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
2nd Apr	1962	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.72	97.5	70	14.5	1.5	13.78		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
19th Oct	1962	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.72	97.5	70	14.5	1.5	13.78		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
11th Feb	1963	Best Mild	1035.0	4.83	0.72	97.1	70	14.5	1.5	13.84		54.90%	7.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.96%	0.00%	5.88%	1.96%	0.00%	24.84%	2.61%	100.00%
Source: Lees brewing records

One note about the brown malt. After 1958 it's something described as "oak-dried" in the logs. I wasn't quite sure what to make of that, but brown malt seemed the closest. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Despite a few recipe changes, you'll notice that the gravity was unchanged at 1035 for around a decade. The ABV almost certainly didn't. The later versions contained lactose, which much have raised the FG. Unfortunately, this period of Lees logs doesn't give FG's.

What next? The enigmatic K? Or what about the wonderfully vaguely-named "Bottling Beer"? Who knows. I've not decided yet.

Scottish beer vs English beer

For those who think I'm extrapolating this stuff about Scottish fermentation from a couple of examples, here's the raw data to look at yourselves.

England vs Scotland

See what conclusions you come to.

Patent malt

This advery in Barnard's "Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 4" attracted my attention. And it wasn't just because of the testimonial from Guinness.Take a look:

This is getting as bad as brewing sugars. Now there are patent malts, too. So what the hell were patent chocolate malt, candied malt and golden malt? Good question. To which I have a partial answer. From Barnard's own article on the Plunkett Brothers maltings.

"After a pleasant chat with the partners, we were taken to the sample room, to witness some experiments with malt and barley, and to inspect the numerous shades of colour, produced from black, candied, amber and high dried malts, all of which are shown in tall glass vases, bearing labels relating to the history of the product, etc. One specimen was new to us - golden brown malt - a speciality of the firm, which they make for a number of brewers whose names were mentioned to us. It is used for both ales and stouts, where flavour and richness are a desderata."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890  , pages 555 - 556.

The order in which the malts are listed, seems to be going from dark to pale. Which implies candied malt was relatively dark.

"Progressing onwards, we next reached the No. 2 roasting house, a lofty building with an iron roof and stone walls. Here are placed five other roasting cylinders, some of them on the same principle as those already described, and near them, is an extensive cooling floor. Two of these machines, which are of a peculiar pattern, are used exclusively for making the sweet-tasting candied malt."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890  , page 557.

What does this tell us? That candied malt was roasted. And that it was roasted in a way unlike other malts, because they had special machines to do it.

"To the right of the loading-out room, is the "candied" malt department, where scores of sacks filled with this speciality of the firm were awaiting removal. This make is peculiar to Plunkett Bros., and is used by brewers, in conjunction with pale ale, for public-house mild ales. We were informed that candied malt, which is most nutritious, can only be made from the finest quality of barley, and that it imparts a delicious aromatic smack to ales. In another store, we saw some of the ordinary crystal malt, which, in some respects, to our uninitiated eye, seemed to resemble the candied malt."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890  , pages 557 - 558.

Intriguing. Candied malt seems to have been used in Milds to add flavour. And, at least in appearance, it resembled crystal malt.

"In these maltings Messrs. Plunkett Brothers have their kilns for the preparation of amber brown malt made by a very old-fashioned but favourite process. the furnaces are fired with oak chips, which give out an agreeable smell; but, unfortunately for the maltster, this fuel is consumed very quickly. Over the fires, is the drying floor, which is ventilated by adjustable louvres. Here, after being subject to a great heat for one hour and ten minutes, the malt is withdrawn on to an iron bridge or gangway leading to the cooling loft, situated in the upper storey of one of the malt houses, where, after it has got cold, it is screened in a very careful manner."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890  , pages 558 - 559.

This bit isn't to do with candied malt, but interests me for another reason. I've just found some Lees records that mention "oak dried" malt. I'd wondered what the hell it was. Sounds like it was probably a type of brown malt.

"We were informed by our intelligent guide that the firm have a peculiar and secret process for fixing the aroma of their patent malt, which is fully retained until it is found in the mash tuns, where it communicates the rich flavour for which their Dublin porter malt iis so justly celebrated.

The firm work off their stocks of roasted malt daily, and frequently have to divide up their orders to satisfy the demands of the brewers. A stock of roasted malt is under no circumstances ever kept in hand, Messrs. Plunkett Bros. being of the opinion that it is safer to send out freshly roasted malt to their customers."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890  , pages 561 - 562.

This isn't a cndied malt thing either. But I've included it to take yet another swipe at the ridiculous theory that Guinness based their success on the use of unmalted and untaxed roast barley. Yet Plunkett Brothers had been supplying Guinness with patent brown malt for more than 50 years (according to the testionial in the advert) in 1873. Sounds to me like Plunketts were the source of Guinness's patent malt for the whole of the 19th century.

Scottish fermentation temperatures

I don't want to start an argument. Really. I really don't. Just present a few facts and leave the rest to you? Don't complain if the information presented isn't what you think it should be. I'm just the messenger here.

Our today theme: were Scottish beers fermented colder than English ones?


To start, a random set of quotes. They were dead easy to find. An indication of how often this claim is made.

"Scotch ales are fermented at much lower temperatures (50-60F) than traditional ales, and the fermentation can take several weeks to complete as a result."

"Scottish ales were usually fermented slow and cold (like 50-55 degrees for weeks) compared to their English counter parts (65-70 degrees for days). The result was less attenuation and cleaner flavor."

"Historical research informs us that classic Scotch and Scottish ales require cool fermentation and low attenuation."

"The natural selection for the yeast in Scotland favors yeast which will ferment well in the cold temperatures there."

"The Scots brewing tradition is one of cool fermentations (’cause, uh, it’s cold in Scotland), and the yeasts used tend to like a long, slow ferment, at near lager temperatures."

"Long, cool fermentation leads to clean malt character (which may include some faint peat or smoke character)."

Now for some historical research.

This is part of a 1913 brewing record from William Younger, of Edinburgh. It records the fermentation of several brews:

Here's a Fuller's one from 1914:

You're probably as lazy as me, so I'll extract the relevant information for you.

The Younger's beers were pitched at:

59.5, 59.5, 59.5, 60, 60, 61.5º F

None of the fermentations took more than 4 days. The maximum temperatures the fermenting worts reched were:

69, 68.5, 67.5, 70, 69º F

Fuller's pitching temperatures:

60, 59.5º F

The fermentations took six days. The maximum temperatures were:

67, 67º F

Schultheiss in 1907

I thought this might interest you. It's an account of a visit to the Schultheiss brewery in Berlin by a delegation from the Institute of Brewing.

It's a glimpse into the early days of large-scale, industrial brewing in Germany.

"Dr. Schultze-Besse was in early attendance at our hotel another day, having made arrangements for us to visit two Berlin breweries. We were first taken to the Schultheiss Brewery, which we were informed was the largest in Germany, employing 1200 men. This brewery worked in three sections and we were taken over one section, first inspecting the stables, where they had accommodation for 330 horses. Here we noticed that to each stall a small water tank was provided, connected up with a ball syphon. The horse was thus able to drink at any moment, presumably any quantity—quite a new theory to us, and on humane grounds I see every reason to appreciate the idea, and think it well worth our further attention.

We were next taken to the engine room, which contained several large and beautifully designed engines for ice making and electrical power generation. The cost of machinery in this room alone must have run into many thousands of pounds, and the ice plant undoubtedly forms a most important item in the process of lager beer manufacture. Each ice engine was fitted with two stroke compressors, and all worked on the ammonia system by direct compression.

The ground floor fermenting room was kept at a temperature of 44°, the atmosphere being carefully filtered through cotton wool before entering the room. It contained a few hundred fermenting vessels, holding something like 15—20 barrels each. These vessels were not fitted up with attemperating pipes, we saw an occasional small, flat, portable attemperator, about 2 feet square and 2 inches wide, suspended by a thin iron bar across the top of the fermenting vat and connected up with detachable rubber piping, but it appeared to me that very little attemperating was required.

The beer remained in the fermenting room for 8—12 days, it appeared to ferment- very slowly and was just able to throw up a brown head. The gravity of the pale lager was 18 brewers' lb [1050º]. and the dark lager 22 lb [1055º]. The pale lager was sold to the trade at 18s. per hectolitre, which averages almost 30s. per English barrel, and the dark lager at 20s-. per hectolitre, about 33.s. per barrel. Both beers were retailed at the same price, 2.5d. per litre (or reputed pint), and the firm was paying a dividend of 18 per cent. per annum.

From here we were taken to the lager cellars, of very large capacity. The atmosphere let into this cellar was also filtered, and the temperature kept at 32°—36°. The lagers held about 40—50 barrels and were " horsed " three high. You will imagine the enormous number of these lagers required, when the output of this brewery last year was 13,904 English barrels per week, and that the pale lager was stocked for six to eight weeks, and the dark lager from three to four months. In this brewery they had already commenced to use, as an experiment, the American glass-lined iron tanks, to substitute the wooden lagers, and in this case their capacity would be from 200 to 300 barrels. The tanks, unlike the lagers, were fixed permanently, and the cylinder had a full-sized doorway of entry at the side, to enable them to be examined and washed, whereas the lagers had to be taken out of the cellars and washed on the ground floor, entailing, of course, a great amount of labour. I am unable to say whether the experiment has proved a success; it is generally recognised that the use of birch pitch has an influence on the flavour of lager beers, which will be lost in a glass-lined cylinder.

In the mashing and boiling house they appeared to be kept busy throughout the whole day. Their vessels were of small dimensions compared with the large trade they were doing, mashing approximately 15 to 20 quarters at a time, and boiling in certainly not more than 100 barrel lengths. The decoction system is the only system employed in the production of lager beers, and it does not appear to lend itself to brewing in very large lengths, which consequently necessitates an increase in the number of mashing and boiling tuns. Rakes were used in the mash-tuns, and long oar-like arms in the boiling pans. Only steam boiling was resorted to, and the mash-tuns were close to the boiling pans, elevated just sufficiently to empty themselves into the pans, and the pumps were immediately underneath to throw back the wort. The interior of this department was elaborate and costly, and no expense had been spared in the construction of the plant.

The beer duty was assessed hereby the malt passing through an automatic weighing machine, which registered the amount of malt mashed. Only malt and hops were allowed to be used in the production of their beers. I might also draw your attention to the fact that wet grains were in great demand, and were selling at 6s. per quarter, obviously making the price that grains are realising here a very low one, indeed much below their value.

The bottling department bore out the impression we had formed at the Exhibition, that it had become a very large and important branch of the brewing trade. I omitted to enquire what their output was in bottled goods alone, but it must have been very considerable from the great number of men we saw at work in this department. They worked in sets of fire or six; the dirty bottles were taken from the boxes, put into a bottle-washing machine, brushed, rinsed, conveyed by a small revolving machine fitted with pegs, to the filling machine, then filled, labelled, and carried away. 1 was struck by the fact that there was no attempt to dry the bottles; they were filled wet. The enormous amount of work that was being got through, and the rapidity the men were working at, suggested they were being paid on piece work.

The last portion of the brewery was an agreeable surprise to us, and one I think I should refer to. We found a number of children at play in a playground attached to a handsome building containing various rooms, where the children received instruction in the well-known system of Kindergarten by a staff of teachers, or, rather, some of the children were so young, it would be more correct to call them children's nurses. We were informed that the employees had the privilege of sending their children here free of charge, to be looked after during the day. Nor had the workmen themselves been overlooked; in a separate building erected for them was a range of bathrooms, also dining rooms with every facility for cooking.

We were very much impressed by our visit to this brewery, and came away with feelings of admiration for the careful planning and working details of the brewery, as well as for the generosity and consideration which the firm were showing to their workpeople."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing vol XIV", 1908, pages 47-4.

Fascinating, eh? 

Bitter question

Hi. You may remember my not too subtle previews for my next book. "Bitter!"

It would be in the shops now (if I had a proper publisher), had Andrew got his finger out. The lazy git wants to spend his summer holidays having fun. Selfish bastard. there's a book to finish. That's what I told him. My dad would have got his belt off if I'd defied him. Stuff like that. It's fun painting the 1960's as a time of psychotic parents beating their children unconscious with any handy blunt object. Teachers ritually beating young boys at the slightest excuse. Hang on. That last one really happened.

Where was I? Bitter! More exclamation marks. It must be a new book. My Mini Book Series. Do you remember the original concept? I think I do. Correct me if I get it wrong. 11 volumes. I get 10 copies of each printed, sign them, keep one for myself and give the rest away. A round 99 in all. (Still a few left. Especially "Numbers!" That only goes to people who might find it interesting. A remarkably select group.)

Playing online with his Playstation Wii remains Andrew's primary occupation, despite threats and bribes. Patience. Something we could all do with more of. You'll need some, if you're eager for the book. We'll be away in the US soon. No chance for Andrew finish before September.

Silver lining time. I've had chance to throw, no, carefully assemble all sorts of extra bits in the meantime. Tables. Numbers. Recipes. The stuff you probably don't read. Most of you, anyway. But what to do with it?

Mega Book Series. That was Andrew's idea. Good concept, bit of a struggle with the details on my side. What am I trying to tell you? Options. I'm going to be giving you some. About what forms "Bitter!" will take. Because, lacking any better idea my first Mega Book will be a bigger version of a Mini Book. Make sense? It does to me. (Like not calling all top-fermenting beers "Ales". Or not biting your toenails while watching TV with your in-laws.)

Mega Book. Mini Book. Two books to collect and and cherish. That's what I'm hoping. Screw a little more money out of this book thing for Andrew. He wants to go to university. I told him to start saving.

But what should I put in each? All my blog posts about the various types of Pale Ale, for sure. The Mini Book would be just that. The Mega Book would also have thirty or forty recipes and one of those tables of beer details I do.

That's the plan. Could change.