Beer consumption per head in 1877

Funny the things you stumble across. This is something I found whilst trying pin down Colgate hops. It's beer consumption per head statistics from the 1870's. And you know how much I like statistics.

Beer consumption per head in 1873
Country	population	total consumption (hl)	proportion per head (litres)	proportion per head (litres) calculated from the other figures	2003
Austria and Hungary	35,644,000	12,222,000	34.5	34.3	110.6
Prussia	24,693,000	9,271,900	39.5	37.5	117.7
Saxony	2,556,000	1,545,280	60.5	60.5
Other parts of Northern Germany	4,116,000	2,002,990	48.5	48.7
Bavaria	4,198,000	9,207,030	219	219.3
Wurtemberg	1,818,000	2,801,080	154	154.1
Baden	1,461,000	418,950	56	28.7
Alsace-Lorraine	1,638,000	836,310	51	51.1
Great Britain and Ireland	30,838,000	35,682,590	118	115.7	99.5
Belgium	4,829,000	7,000,000	145	145.0	96
France	36,103,000	7,000,000	19	19.4	35.5
Netherlands	3,652,000	1,355,720	37	37.1	78.8
Sweden	4,159,000	520,000	14.5	12.5	55.4
Norway	1,701,000	253,400	12.5	14.9	50.6
Russia	63,659,000	9,740,000	14	15.3
North America	38,650,000	9,982,000	26	25.8	81
Source:
"Hops their Cultivation Commerce and Uses in Various Countries" by Peter Simmonds, 1877, page 145

A couple of notes: the 2003 figure given for Austria and Hungary is just for Austria; that for Prussia is for all of Germany; that for Great Britain and Irealnd is the UK; that for North America is the USA. Some of the numbers in the orignal table don't tally. Which is why I've added my own calculation.

You'll see that beer consumption has increased in most countries. Apart from Bavaria, Belgium and the UK, who were the top three in 1873.

Washington homebrew

My website and blog have had many impacts on my life. The most positive is the friends it's brought me. From all over the world.

This isn't a detailed travel report. Just a few impressions of an event that impressed me deeply. A party at a homebrewer's house in Washngton DC.

Me and the family have just spent five days in Washington. The DC one. A city I had no interest in visiting when I lived in New York. Stupid me. Very stupid me.

Like many defining events, it has its random elements. A fragile chain of unlikely happenings that led to deep and enduring friendships. I needed Craig to remind me of how it all started. Way back, when my kids were still small enough to control physically without the need for police intevention.

I would bore you with all the details. But it's late, I'm lazy and that beer just isn't going to drink itself (a Bell's Porter, in the remote chance that you might be interested).

BURP. That's the name of the Washington hombrewers' club with which I've become enmeshed. A lovely group of people. Who brew some exceptional beers. I know that for certain. Dolores is a far more critical judge of both beer and character than I'll ever be. And that's her opinion. (I've learned never to argue with someone who has been trained in the use of weapons).

Dragging myself back to this piece's theme, various BURP chums had a party on Friday. Gordon and Holly were hosts. In a way that makes me blush in shame at my own half-arsed attempts at hospitality. Crabs, shrimp, bocce ball and a whole stack of homebrewed beer.

I knew I was in for a good evening when I spotted the two beer engines. Serving Mild and Bitter. Yes! I could use my stock answer to the question "What would you like to drink?" seriously for once. "A pint of Mild, please." How do you think it tasted? Good, of course. I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it, had it been pants.

The nice BURP people plyed me with their beer all evening. None of it worse than good. Much of it pretty damn good. Better than most of the stuff I pay money for. In all sorts of styles, but, the odd strong Stout excepted, at the rational end of the alcohol scale. Drinks flowed, but the legs continued to function.

Are homebrewers the future of beer? On this showing, they're the present.



I have to give a mention to Jamie and Paul, who generously housed me and my crazy kids during our stay. Great people and great brewers. I slept in their basement, home to a better beer selecton than Kulminator. Luckily, self-control is my middle name.

Seedless hops

Some discussions never seem to end. Like whether seedless hops are better than seeded ones. Today's item is plucked from a discussion at the Institute of Brewing in 1907. British brewers and hop-growers still haven't worked out which they think is best. Unlike on the Continent, where male hops were rooted up yonks ago.

But that's all just an aside. I've picked this text for another reason. A brewer gives his citeria for selecting hops. And which varieties he prefers for which purpose. There's only one slight problem. I've never heard of two of the types he mentions: Colegates and Henhams. Colegate - I thought that was a type of toothpaste?

"Mr. P. K. Lemay, speaking as a practical brewer, said that he did not agree with the authors of the paper in the idea that the larger the hop, the better the quality. He well remembered when he first went to study hops, a large number of samples were put out for him and he was asked to pick out the best. He looked at the samples and found a fine large yellow hop with big seeds, and he naturally chose that. On turning over the sample to see what class of hop it was, he found it labelled "Flat-catcher," and the people with whom he was studying told him that that was often the case with brewers, they generally went for a big hop, which had a fine appearance and big seed, without taking into considering that these hops as a rule contained a comparatively small amount of resins and tannin. When purchasing English hops himself, he first of all divided the samples up into five classes, roughly as follows: (1) Goldings, for pale ale brewing, both for copper use and hopping down; (2) Fuggles, for copper use in mild ales and stouts; (3) Colegates, as a rule a hop rich in lupulin, but rank in flavour; very good copper hops for stouts; (4) Henhams and other varieties of large coarse hops, which from a brewing point of view would be a dear hop to buy; (5) Any class of hops showing mould or aphis blight, which to a brewer would be costly at any price. All classes of hops he found varied from season to season, and what would be considered good for hopping-down one year would be quite out of the question another. Brewers could not always depend on a certain class of hops for any one particular use. Speaking generally, the brewer required samples to show a good side, that is, whole hops, plenty of resins and tannin, and as little seed as possible, no mould or blight, cleanly picked, to be perfectly ripe, being rather on the deep yellow side than on the green, and to be of the required flavour for the quality of beer to be produced. The finest hops he had ever seen for flavour and lupulin were grown in Bavaria, and were seedless, and he was quite sure that in a few years the English brewer would recognise the brewing value of English seedless hops, and that a demand for these would at once create a supply, much to the benefit of the brewer, so far as quality was concerned, and also to that of the grower, so far as competition with his Continental rivals was concerned. He might also add that some six years ago he had a few Kentish sets sent to Hertfordshire, and that although there was no male hop amongst them, yet they still retained their seeds, although he must mention that these seeds were very small and empty, compared with the original ones. He had found the quality of the hops improve from year to year."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 14", 1908, pages 335-336.

Mm. That's got me thinking about old hop varieties. A search has thrown up a few books on the subject. Something to read on the plane, perhaps.

Watering beer

Food and Sanitation. It's becoming one of my favourite magazines.There's always so much about beer in it. Admittedly, not very reassuring stuff if you're living in the 1890's. At the distance of more than a century, the tales it tells aren't quite as scary.

I'll admit that the title of this item is a bit of a puzzle. There's no mention of a brewer anywhere in the article.

"THE BREWER CAN PRACTISE THIS GAME WITHOUT BEING FINED.

At Lambeth on June 18th, John Thomas Smith was summoned hy the Excise for diluting beer. Mr. Squires, from the Solicitor's Department, Somerset House, appeared in support of the summons, and said the case was a bad one, the dilution being equal to 6.5 gallons to a barrel of 36 gallons. The defendant carried on business at a fully-licensed house in Marmont-road, Camberwell, and on March 27th a supervisor of Inland Revenue took a sample of beer from a cask in the defendant's cellar. Upon examination at Somerset House, it was found that the beer had been diluted at least to the extent mentioned.—The defendant said his instructions to the cellarman were that he was in no way to dilute the beer, and the cellarman assured him that he used only a gallon of finings. The defendant had no chance of defending himself, as the Excise did not divide the sample, and he heard nothing of the matter for two months,—Mr. Squire pointed out that the defendant was present when the officers called, and could have had a sample if he had chosen to ask for it.—Mr. Biron (to defendant) : You were there when they took the sample, and any man of ordinary intelligence would have taken a sample himself.—The defendant said samples had been taken from his place on previous occasions without any complaint being made. There must be some mistake in this case.—Mr. Biron ordered the defendant to pay a fine of £30, and £2 10s. costs."
"Food & sanitation, Volume 4", 1894, page 199.

To put the fine of £30 into context, a 36-gallon barrel of standard-strength beer cost £1 16s. The landlord could have bought a couple of week's supply of beer - 16 barrels - for the same amount as the fine.

Another way of brewing Berliner Weisse

Idly flicking through "Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 14", I stumbled across this little nugget about Berliner Weisse.

It's a radically different way of brewing Berliner Weisse.

"Important Question for Breweries which produce Acid Beers of the Type of Berlin " Weiss" Beer. 0. Francke (Wochensch. Brau., 1907, 24, 621—624).—" Weiss" beer is prepared by fermenting wort with yeast and lactic acid bacteria. It is a very difficult matter, however, to acclimatise a mixture of lactic acid bacteria and pure yeast in constant proportions. The author recommends a process (which has been employed for two years with very satisfactory results) in which the lactic acid and yeast fermentations are carried out separately. The wort, as it runs off from the spent grains, is subjected to the action of pure culture lactic acid bacteria until the required degree of acidity is attained. The wort is then boiled, cooled, and fermented with pure culture yeast. The beer thus prepared has a pleasant acid taste, and does not require the aid of certain non-slime forming pediococci (see this Journal, 1907, 13, 626—630) to impart a pleasant flavour to it. If a mature, vinous " Weiss " beer is required, it is only necessary to treat the lactic acid-containing wort with ordinary bacteria-containing " Weiss " beer yeast. The presence of the lactic acid protects the fermenting wort against the attack of dangerous pediococci, and the beer acquires a sound, vinous taste. The beer prepared by the first method (i.e., that in which the lactic acid fermentation is followed by a pure yeast fermentation) only requires a short period of storage before it is ready for consumption. For the lactic acidification, the author employs distillery culture lactic acid bacillus Delbrucki, and for the alcoholic fermentation, top-fermentation pure yeast, Race B (high attenuating)."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 14", 1908, pages 196 - 197.

So, rather than going to the trouble of keeping the mixed yeast/lactic acid bacteria culture in balance, you ferment first with the bacteria, then with the yeast. It's the first mention I've seen of this method. I wonder if it was ever used much?

Walmer AK

I've just been browsing through Barnard's "Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland". It's a wonderful book. Full of fascinating facts. I really should read all of it someday.

What caught my eye was this section. One of the throw-away paragraphs towards the end of an article, where Barnard mentions the beer produced at the brewery he's just described in minute detail. You can probably guess what drew me tio this:

"Proceeding along the yard, we stepped into the sampling and tasting room, situated at the end of the racking-house, where we tried one or two samples of the firm's brew. We we much pleased with the A.K. light bitter - a delicious drink, clean to the palate and well flavoured with the hop. All the ales brewed by the firm are known in the locality as "Walmer ales;" but the best known, perhaps, is the XX beer, which has a wide-spread reputation"
"The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 4", Barnard, page 522.

The brewery in question was Thompson & Son at Walmer in Kent.

One thing is clear: Barnard regarded AK as a type of Bitter. I think we can trust his opinion, can't we?

I found another reference to Walmer Brewery AK

"The A.K.S. Bitter Ale will be found a particularly well flavoured tonic ale for general use; whilst the A.K. cheaper ale, and the celebrated India Pale Ale are both of excellent quality, clear and bright to the last. The latter as well as Pale Ale, Light Dinner Ale, Stout and Cooper are also obtainable in fine condition in screw topped bottles. The other productions of the Walmer Brewery consist of X, XX and XXX Ales of varying strengths, Double Stout and Porter; whilst the firm also bottle large quantities of Bass's Ales in the best possible condition."
"The Deal and Walmer Illustrated Guide", 1897.

AKS - that's a new one to me. I wonder what the hell that signified?

Why British beers need sugar

Browsing through an old brewing manual, as one does, on the tram, I came across this passage. It explains why brewing sugars are essentail for British beers.

"When the tax on malt was abolished many years ago, and the so-called system of frre mash tun substituted, little could it have been imagined what an important part such a step would play in the history of brewing. We venture to say that it would be impossible to produce beers of the quality which a critical ale drinker now demands, without replacing a quantity of malt with substitutes in the shape of sugar and kindred carbohydrates. Nowadays sugar is used as a substitute for malt, not only for the sake of economy but because it has become necessary to do so. We are told, and have no reason to doubt, that the old-time beers produced from malt and hops only were very very palatable. But we do know it was necessary to store and mature them for a very long time before they became so. High taxation and other overhead charges have only been met by means of a quicker turnover of capital. In order to achieve it, brewing methods have had to be overhauled and speeded up. Consequently, beers must now be brewed such as will be in good condition and ready for consumption within a few days of being racked. This object can best be achieved by using materials such as sugars, the addition of which does not increase the total nitrogenous matter in the beer. This argument is in itself indisputably in favour of sugar. There are many others. With the gravities of beer too low to give fementation and yeast production such as we should desire, sugar is an undeniable asset. Invert sugar can be added to the fermentations and may be of the greatest benefit, and we know of cases where apparently hopeless situations with sluggish fermentations have been saved by the simple addition of a suitable sugar solution. Furthermore, it may well be argued that great economy of space is effected by using sugar instead of malt. There is certainly much to be said for this argument when one comes to study the convenient method now adopted of solidifying invert sugar into hard oblong slabs, instead of sending it in inconvenient casks and pails, and the even more recent development of fluid delivery in bulk."
"Brewing: Theory and Practice" by E.J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 160-161.

Why have I posted this? Because the important role of sugar in British brewing isn't properly recognised. And there are still those who think there's something wrong with its use.

Smyrna barley

Large quantities of foreign barley were imported into Britain for malting. California and the Mediterranean were the main sources of cheaper malt. Top-quality, very pale malt, was made from barley imported from central Europe, usually Bohemia, Moravia or the Saale district. The latter were mostly used in the best Pale Ales, such as Bass.

Mediterranean barley, usually given the generic name of Smyrna, was extremely popular because of its price and adaptability.

Here's what Alfred Barnard had to say about Smyrna barley:

"A remarkable feature of Smyrna and kindred malts is their adaptability to every class of beer that is produced upon the English system. Originally, except perhaps in Scotland where their value was earlier recognised, they were used solely for light pale ales. Now, it is understood, that their use is equally desirable for full-bodied mild ales and even black beers, a very large quantity of these qualities finding their way to Dublin, both in malt and barley. Except in the case of the finest pale ales, where the more costly Moravians are used which themselves supply the same properties in a higher degree, all beers are cleaner, sounder and more brilliant when a portion of Smyrna malt is blended with the heavier English grain. Whilst this is, doubtless, owing, in some measure, to an almost perfect climate where these barleys are grown, it is probably to a still greater extent due to the fact of their being grown on a natural unmanured soil. We believe the yield hardly exceeds one quarter per acre, and the grain is exceedingly light, weighing only about 400 pounds per Imperial quarter, whereas an average English crop will yield from four to six quarters per acre of barley, weighing nearly 448 pounds per quarter. In attaining this, however, there is no doubt that certain constituents have crept in which the brewer is much better without, but they can be largely neutralised by blending them with the pure extract from barley grown under more natural conditions and sunnier skies.

In addition to the advantages we have already described as accruing from the use of Smyrna malts, there is another feature of no slight importance to the brewer. These malts, when judiciously used, are by far the most economical of any at the brewer's disposal. The barley comes over at so low a price that, when properly manipulated, the cost per pound extract, even if brewed by itself, is much less than from any English malt. The difference in extract between an average Smyrna and an average English malt may roughly be taken at some seven or eight pounds; this represents a difference against the Smyrna of about three shillings per quarter. The difference, however, in price between the two malts, would average more than double this amount in favour of the Smyrna, even as compared with an English malt of quite inferior quality. Besides this, when blended, as is usually the case, with the heavier English malt during the process of mashing, the drainage of the "goods" and the thorough conversion of the more starchy malts are both largely assisted by the nature and character of the thinner grain; hence, many brewers have found that, provided only it be sufficiently ground, as much as twenty per cent. of the thinner malt can be used without any appreciable diminution of extract, as compared with the results obtained from English malt by itself. We need hardly say, that this points to a saving so large as to have made these malts a very important factor in the brewers' calculation of the cost of his finished product."
"The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 4" by Alfred Barnard, 1891, pages 540-541.

Sometimes it's hard to know when to stop looking more deeply. Going past brewing, fermentation, chemistry and malting and getting into plant biology and agriculture. Is there any aspect of science without a connection to brewing?

Cologne brewhouse in 1907

I love old books and magazines. As you might have realised over the last few days. So full of  fascinating stuff. To me, at least.

I thought this might interest a couple of you. It's a report about a couple of Cologne breweries, one top and one bottom-fermenting. A very early reference to Kölcsh, though it isn't mentioned by name:

"On our arrival at Cologne, the friends who met us there informed us that they could not offer us the inspection of large breweries such as we should have seen in Berlin and other parts, but they had many small breweries, and, if of interest, they would arrange for us to look over any of them.

We were taken to a small brewery, known as the Obergahriges Restaurant Brewery, which had been working about two years, and whose beers at the moment were exceedingly popular in the town. It was a large restaurant brewing its own beer; behind the restaurant was a model brewing plant, with everything nicely arranged, covering a space of 100 feet square ; the whole plant had been erected at a cost of £2000.

The beer was produced on the top-fermenting system: it was fermented for four days, then run into the lagers and stored for eight weeks, afterwards chilled and filtered, and served up in the usual way. Its gravity was 17 lb., and we again noticed the pronounced hop flavour which finds such ready appreciation with Germans. The whole of the brewery production was sold in the restaurant (at the time of our visit, about 12.30 in the day, we found 200 customers there), and, as far as I could ascertain, their trade was not less than 100 English barrels per week, to us a large and remarkable trade for one restaurant. We were told, much to our surprise, that the majority of the restaurants brewed their own beer.

We also visited a still smaller brewery, connected with a small restaurant resembling the home brewery attached to the licensed house, frequently found in this country. The proprietor informed us that he was only able to brew during the winter months, but he brewed sufficient then to carry him through the summer. In his case he brewed with bottom-yeast, and he was able to carry through his fermentation successfully at about 50° F. When the beer had gone through its course of fermentation, it was filled into lagers of 12 to 15 English barrel capacity, and removed to the town cellars, where large quantities of beer were stored for small brewers, and the casks were taken out one at a time as required.

It will be noticed that the small brewer was maturing his lager at cellar temperature, viz., 52° (a high temperature in comparison with the large breweries), and I was astonished to find he was able to do without an expensive ice plant, and still produce a beer which I considered equal to any lager I had tasted; it had the pronounced hop flavour, and was very pleasant and refreshing, although perhaps a little too bitter. His trade, he informed me, was from 10 to 15 barrels per week. This was also the only case where I found the boiling of wort done by fire in place of steam."
"Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 14", 1908, pages 50 - 51.

A couple of points. First, how bitter both beers were. I'd though that, in this period, British beers were much more heavily hopped. Secondly, I methods used by the Lager brewer seem a little weird. I'm surprised that he could brew a decent Lager without any refrigeration or ice.

Philly

After a relaxing 19-hour journey we arrived at our Philadelphia hotel late last evening. I felt so full of energy, I didn't go to the pub. Shit. It's day two and I still haven't been in a pub. What's happening to me? I didn't even have a beer in the airport.

I did find a corner shop, or convenience store as they so quaintly call them here, yesterday.  Which was first encounter with Pennsylvania's weird laws. No singles on sale, only sixpacks. A real pain in the arse for someone like me, who's only in town a couple of days. Decisions, decisions. The choice wasn't great - loads of PAs, IPAs and wheats. Naaah, didn't fancy any of them. So I went for Bell's Porter.

No. I'm not going to tell you about that (a bit too roasty for a Porter - sorry, I've just checked the label and it says "robust Porter" so I guess that makes it OK). Because, revisiting the shop today, I notice they had Victory Storm King. Storm King. What happy memories of coffee spiked with grapefruit juice it conjures up. But it is full of alcoholly goodness. Just what I need after my 36-hour alcohol fast.

I like it more than last time. Though that could be because it messed up my legs on an afternoon New York pub crawl. I really shouldn't have insisted on a full Imperial pint. It proved to me that anyone who thinks you can session beer of any strength has no idea of what a session is. Or is an elephant.

It's still quite chilled. Which seems to be supressing the grapefruit nicely and just leaving the roast. Much more my kind of Stout. I'm feeling quite chilled, too. And not just because I'm sitting next to the airco.

Dolores and the kids are swimmng. This arvo we plan visiting USS Olympia. A pre-dreanought heavy cruiser. And, totally coincidentally, the Triumph homebrew pub is on the way. How's that for planning?

How beer is adulterated

Google books is brilliant. I'd never have looked in something called "Food and Sanitation" if it hadn't popped in the search results for laevuline.

This article is full of fascinating titbits:

"HOW BEER IS ADULTERATED.

The following extracts from transactions of the Institute of Brewing are portions of a lecture given by Mr. Salomon. They are interesting as showing the results of Sir Algernon's West's ignorance and Mr. Gladstone's folly in transferring the duty from the malt to the wort. It should be remembered that despite this enormous saving to the brewer, the price of beer to the publican who rents a tied house and to the public is the same as when beer was the product of malt and hops, and was far stronger than it now is. Mr. Salamon says:—

The question of raw-grain conversion is comparatively new to English brewers, for it was not until the year 1880, when the transfer of duty was made from malt to wort, that any such process was possible : indeed, it was expressly forbidden, as we shall see by glancing at the statutes controlling the operations of the maltster and the brewer. It is essential to bear in mind that this prohibition was exercised exclusively for fiscal reasons, and did not in any way contemplate injurious effects resulting from raw-grain conversion, nor was it because the use of raw-grain was regarded in the light of adulteration. It is important to bear this in mind, lest the point should be emphasised by pure beer advocates. In such a case, the answer is sufficiently contained in the fact that, at the present moment, such processes are under the direct sanction of the law.

In the year 1821, we first find it enacted that brewers shall enter, in a book delivered by the Excise officer, the quantity of malt intended to be used in the next brewing; and it was then further directed that the grains were not to be removed until gauged and taken account of by the officer. Of the duty collected under this and previous Acts, a very considerable proportion had been diverted to the Privy Purse. This custom dated back as far as Charles II., and the income thus derived was termed "the hereditary beer duty." This duty was repealed in the year 1830, and the sovereign was proportionately compensated. It was deemed advisable to bring about this change in order to concentrate the Excise laws, and render them easier in working. As a result of the appeal, and in |the same year, namely, 1830, brewers were compelled to pay their license duty in proportion to the quantity of malt used by them in brewing. Practically, then, it may be stated that the malt-tax dates from that year. As soon as the brewer was taxed in terms of malt, the most stringent precautions were found necessary to prevent evasion of the law. Brewers were compelled to make entry of all premises and utensils used for brewing or storing of beer and malt, and the Excise officers had the right to enter any buildings, at any time, for the purpose of inspecting or taking an account of the beer or malt stored. There was a distinct proviso forbidding the employment of raw-grain or even its storing in the brewery premises, and this section of the Act is so important as bearing upon my argument that I purpose quoting it in full. It is as follows :—

"And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any brewer of beer for sale in the United Kingdom to have in his or her brewery, or in any part of the entered premises, or in any mill connected with such brewery or entered premises, any raw or unmalted corn or grain whatsoever, either whole or unground, or ground or bruised, and that all raw or unmalted corn or grain, whether whole or unground, or ground or bruised, which shall be found in such brewery or premises or mill, and all malted corn or grain, whether whole or unground, or ground or bruised, with which such raw or unmalted corn or grain may have been or shall be mixed, shall be forfeited and may be seized by any officer of Excise, together with all sacks, casks, vessels, or packages in which such raw or unmalted corn or grain shall and may be contained, or in which such raw and unmalted corn or grain, and the malted corn or grain with which the same may or shall have been mixed, shall or may be continued. And every brewer shall, for ever)' such offence, forfeit the sum of £200."

This Act continued in force, although during the year 1847 a further Act was passed permitting brewers to use sugar in the brewing or making of beer. The collection of duty in terms of malt used led, notwithstanding, to much fraud and deception, and for fiscal reasons again, it was found expedient to pass a more stringent Act to prevent the possibility of employing raw grain. This was in the year 1855. The enactment is contained in 18 and 19 Vict., cap. 94, sec. 36, and again it is interesting to follow the exact wording:—

"And for preventing fraud and evasion of the duty of Excise on malt by the use of raw or unmalted corn or grain in the brewing of beer for sale, be it enacted that it shall not be lawful for any brewer of beer for sale to have in his brewery or in any premises belonging or adjacent thereto, whether the same shall be entered by him or not, any raw or unmalted corn or grain whatsoever, either whole or unground, or ground or bruised, except corn or grain not ground or braised being in premises entered by such brewer for the purpose of making malt, and all raw or unmalted corn or grain which shall be found in such brewery or other premises except as aforesaid, and also all malted corn or grain, whether whole or unground, or ground or bruised, with which such raw or unmalted corn or grain may be mixed, shall be forfeited, and the brewer for every such offence shall forfeit the sum of £200."

Section 37 enacts:—

"That no brewer of beer for sale shall have or use, for the purpose of grinding, crushing, or braising malt, any mill-stones, or any mill constructed otherwise than with metal rollers only, such rollers not being fluted but having plain and smooth surfaces, and no malt which shall be ground by any means or crushed or bruised otherwise than by means of such metal rollers as aforesaid, shall be used by or be received into the possession of any such brewer."

The penalty in this case was a forfeit of £200. The object of this section was to prevent barley or other raw grain being ground with malt, it being known that in such case smooth metal rollers would be unfit for the purpose, and that either fluted or stone mills would be necessary. Precautions were further taken to prevent raw grain passing into the brewery under the style of roasted malt, and according to the instructions given to the Excise officers, it was not deemed malted if the plumule of 95 per cent. of it did not extend one-half the length of the grain. The preparation of roasted malt was also strictly under Excise supervision.

The Acts above alluded to remained in force until the year 1880, when, by the well-known Free Mash Tun Act, the duty was transferred from the malt made to the wort produced and gathered.

Thus it will be seen that whatever merit may attach to raw-grain processes, it is only within the last thirteen years that the English brewer has been enabled seriously to consider them; and therefore in this particular case the familiar phrases in which the words conservative and prejudice figure so prominently do not apply. Indeed, the brewer has not been slow to avail himself of the privileges derivable under the new Act, and it was not long before he was found to be seriously considering the advisability of employing starch in some form other than malt. It is quite recently, however, that a fresh impetus has been given to the whole question, which is one of sufficient importance to merit our close attention.

The amount of starch which the brewer can obtain from a given weight of material employed will obviously determine his extract, and it is found that although the proportion of starch in any one class of seed is remarkably constant, considerable variation exists among the various plants. Thus we have t the following data supplied by O'Sullivan:—

Barley 46 per cent.
Maize 54 to 58 „
Rice 75 to 77 „
Oats ... 35 to 38 „
Wheat 54 to 55 5 „

It will be seen that barley, which is chiefly employed by the brewer, is much inferior in starch proportion to maize, and contains vastly less starch than rice. These differences become emphasised when maize and rice are prepared for the use of the brewer—that is to say, when the seeds are properly husked and the germ removed. When ready for the mash tun, we may take it that malt averages between 68 to 70 per cent, of carbo-hydrate other than cellulose, and that prepared materials from maize and rice yield from 81 to 83 per cent. Hence it is that whereas malt yields an average extract of about 90; maize and rice, if properly prepared, will give a theoretical carbo-hydrate extract of about 105lbs. It is clear then that, weight for weight, a far better yield is obtainable from rice and maize than from barley.

In view of the large saving, and of the beneficial effects attendant upon the use of rice and maize preparations, many attempts have been made to devise methods which should permit of the admixture of a largely increased percentage of these materials. Hitherto the apparatus designed have not been successful, at least in this country, although I am aware that some brewers have employed methods of their own with a considerable measure of success. The more one studies the question, the more is conviction forced upon one that the problem is extremely difficult. It is, however, well worth fighting for, because if by the present methods the limit of raw-grain that can be employed is 20 per cent., and the saving in that case is large, it follows that if 50 per cent, of a material which has not to be prepared, or flaked, can be used, the saving will be proportionately greater. This question of £ s. d. has inspired Mr. Billings to produce the most perfect machine at present known, and I have no hesitation, as the result of prolonged study of the apparatus and the method of working it, in stating that by its use 50 per cent, of maize or rice can be incorporated with the malt without the slightest injury attaching to the resulting beer."

"Food & sanitation, Volume 4", 1894, page 102.

It's worth noting the particular efforts of the authorities to prevent the roasting of unmalted grains. Yet some still persist in the fantasy of Guinness cleverly using roast barley instead of black malt in the early 19th century.

And I'm grateful for being told the year the use of sugar was legalised: 1847.

Plunkett Brothers malt

Here's another advert for Plunkett Brothers maltsters. It provides a little more information. Not much, but a little.

It's a couple of years earlier than the last one, from 1888.

This tells us that candied malt was patented in 1885. Useful to know, even if it tells us little about the nature of the malt itself.

But I was surprised at just how many odd malts they were offering for sale. Two types of amber brown malt. Roasted maize - I wonder what on earth that was used for? Golden finish malt - great name, but what the hell was it?

More questions. Many more than the answers so far.