Barclay Perkins mashing schemes 1805 - 1929

Ridiculous levels of detail. That's what this blog is all about. Providing a level of detail that no crazy person, let alone someone in their right mind, could ever require.

Mashing schemes. I haven't mentioned those for a while. I've just been harvesting numbers (it is autumn, after all) from a Barclay Perkins logs. Including the mashing details. It's all part of one of my many projects. One that, unlike some, might be completed this side of doomsday.

But I'm wandering. I promised you over a century of mashing schemes and I don't want to disappoint you. Here goes.

15th February 1805 Barclay Perkins BSt
	brls	water temp	tap temp.	barrels/qtr	pints/lb
mash 1	512	166	143	2.23	1.91
mash 2	190	185	155	0.83	0.71
mash 3	210	160	151	0.91	0.78
total	912			3.97	3.40
qtrs malt	230
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

30th September  1859 Barclay Perkins BS
	brls	water temp	tap temp.	barrels/qtr	pints/lb
mash 1	482	161	149	1.85	1.59
mash 2	217	190	162	0.83	0.72
mash 3	258	190	170	0.99	0.85
total	957			3.68	3.15
qtrs malt	260
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

10th May 1886 Barclay Perkins BS
	brls	water temp	tap temp.	barrels/qtr	pints/lb
mash 1	65	150	140	1.63	1.39
mash 2	14.25	182	150	0.36	0.31
mash 3	44	160	149	1.10	0.94
sparge	69.75	150	144.5	1.74	1.49
total	193			4.83	4.14
qtrs malt	40
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

7th October 1891 Barclay Perkins BS
	brls	water temp	tap temp.	barrels/qtr	pints/lb
mash	67	154		1.70	1.46
underlet	7.5	170	147	0.19	0.16
mash	30	174	155.75	0.76	0.65
sparge	74.5	172	154	1.89	1.62
total	179			4.95	4.24
qtrs malt	39.375
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

16th November 1910 Barclay Perkins BS
	brls	water temp	tap temp.	barrels/qtr	pints/lb
mash	44	155		1.47	1.26
underlet	7	175	145	0.23	0.20
mash	22	175	157	0.73	0.63
sparge	20	168	153.5	0.67	0.57
sparge	39	160	151	1.30	1.11
total	132			4.40	3.77
qtrs malt	30
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

7th January 1929 Barclay Perkins BS
	brls	water temp	tap temp.	barrels/qtr	pints/lb
mash	70	153		1.20	1.03
underlet	15	183	146	0.26	0.22
underlet	40	172	150	0.68	0.59
sparge	129	172	152	2.21	1.89
total	254			4.95	4.24
qtrs malt	58.5
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

I suppose you expect some sort of comment from me now? Alright. If you insist.


The water to grain ratio increased from about 4 barrels (144 gallons) a quarter (336 pounds) in the early years of the 19th century to 5 barrels a quarter after 1860. Which was also when Barclay Perkins started sparging. They still performed multiple mashes, much in the manner of the 18th century, just with a sparge thrown in at the end.

After 1890 they started underletting. The process was mash, stand, underlet, stand, drain, mash, drain, sparge.

In the early 20th century, a second sparge stage was added. And after WW I the second mash was changed to an underlet.

That's all the analysis you're getting. If you need any more, you have to do it yourself. Maybe taking a long at the temperatures. I'm sure they've also a story to tell.

All those things

that didn't make it. Blog-wise.

Munich - wood with Mike.
Liverpool - legs that won't work.
Stuttgart - wake for a world-beater.
Jersey - liberation.
Liverpool - flying pigs.
Manchester - tracks to nowhere.
Philadelphia - not grey but golden.
Philadelphia - what cost Triumph?
Washington - CD
New York - scraping sky in the basement.

New York - wobble time.

Hard rain, man, hard rain.

Just as well I noted down all those titles. No way I would have been able to remember them. Now I just need to recall what the hell they are about. Hang on. An idea is forming. Start with the title and just make the rest up. Yes. Euwhatsit.

"Bitter, Pint." Lucas says that. A quote of some sort. My bitterness comes in quarts.

I need to be stout. Not meek. Nor sweet. Or getting into a lather. I'm not lazy, but I want someone to carry my bag. Am I so regal?


Block it with stars.

No dad you just write:

F***ing  - that's what's resonsible for the food on our tables.

Help Martyn Cornell weekend

It's help Martyn Cornell weekend here at SUABP. Here's another oldDutch advert supporting his assertion that Burton Ale isn't Pale Ale.

Take a look at this:

Het Nieuws van den dag, 3rd June 1891.

See there at the bottom? Four beers from Bass, including Pale and Burton Ale. Clearly Bass didn't see them as the same thing. And, at 20 cents a bottle, Burton was more expensive than Pale Ale.

Coincidentally, a good snapshot of Heineken's products before they became a Pils-only (just about) brewer. Beijersch was a dark Lager, in case you're wondering. Intirguing that Van Vollenhoven brewed two Stouts.

Here's another slightly earlier advert, with India Pale Ale and Burton Ale clearly differentiated:

Dagblad van Zuidholland en 's Gravenhage, 10th December 1868.

Can we agree Burton Ale and Pale Ale or IPA were completely different types of beer, that just happened to both be brewed in Burton?

beer engine photo

For reasons I can't be bothered to explain, I need a photograph. A photo of a set of four beer engines.

Something like this:

It needs to be dead on straight. Just like my little drawing above.

There will be some sort of prize for the right photo.

I would take it myself, but, where the hell can you find a set of four handpumps in Amsterdam?

Burton Ale 1856

Porter and Mild. AK. KK. The prosaic styles that occupy me.

Martyn Cornell has a nobler obsession. Burton. Burton Ale. One of Britain's greatest beers.

Not bloody Pale Ale. That's Burton Pale Ale. Burton Ale is something else.

As this Dutch advert, from 1856, makes quite clear:

Dagblad van Zuidholland en 's Gravenhage, 21-05-1856

See what it says?

Allsopp's  Pale Ale
Burton Ale
Allsopp's East India Pale Ale
Bass Pale Bitter Ale

There's Allsopp and Bass Pale Ale, both from Burton. But neither called Burton Ale. It implies Burton Ale and Pale Ale aren't the same thing.

The week so far

Weight or volume?

Something's been troubling me. No, I'm not worried about losing my job, global warming, Iranian nuclear weapons, religious hatred, civil war or baldness. It's how malt was measured.

Brewing records (at least ones of the date I look at) all record the malts used in quarters. The quarter being a unit of volume. The weight of a quarter of malt depends on the type of malt, how it's been malted and a load of other factors. Generally, a quarter of pale malt weighed around 320 pounds, a quarter of brown or black malt 250-275 pounds.

The differing weights make calculations of the percentage of each malt in a grist a bit trickier, but still doable. Except there's another type of quarter. A weight rather than volume one. Which is 336 pounds for everything. Now here's the problem: how to work out which sort of quarters are meant. Are they working in weight or volume quarters?

First half of the 19th century, it's fair to assume a volume quarter. But later on? I'd assumed that after 1880 everyone worked in 336 pound quarters. But having this note in a Barclay Perkins Brown Stout log from 1921 has me confused. See what you think it means:

It's the bit in red: "Malts weighed at stated weights per quarter commencing this brew." What exactly does that mean?

See the "Weight per bushel" column? That's a dead handy feature of Barclay Perkins records. They give the weight of the malt. Multiply this number by 8 and you have the weight per quarter.

The way I understand that not, is that as of this brew, they were using volume quarters. Which seems like the opposite of what I would have expected. Or am I misunderstanding this completely.

Export India Porter in 1910

The export trade in Porter to India appears to have been very resilient. I hadn't remembered seeing one so late.

Yes, I'm back in full didactic mode. About to explain all the minutiae of this Barclay Perkins beer.

This one:

EI. You may have heard me mention that before. Export India Porter. I've seen loads of examples, all through the 19th century. Slightly better grist - some amber, maybe - fair bit more hops. But same OG as the standard Porter, TT.

The gravity of this beer - 1063.5 - was a good bit higher than a Porter's of the period.

Someone requested I explain brewing logs more. I thought I'd already done it a couple of times. Mind you, I couldn't find all of the posts last time I looked. Where would you like me to start on this one? The ingredients, perhaps?

Here you go:

HB - Hertfordshire brown malt
HA - Hertfordshire amber malt
R - roasted malt
Eng - English pale malt
Sacc. No. 2 - No.2 invert sugar

Hallertau 10 - 1910 Hallertau hops
EK 10 - 1910 East Kent hops
Sonoma 09 - 1909 hops from, I suppose, California
EK 09 - 1909 East Kent hops

Simple, eh?

You can also see the blend of gyles, the OG and the volume in the fermenter in the detail above. Yield, hops per barrel and hops per quarter, too.

That good for starters?

American hops in British beer

Innovation is a wonderful thing. Yes indeedy. Truly wonderful. It heartens me to see British brewers adopting exotic ingredients like American hops.  A brilliant innovation. I wonder who was first to do it? And when?

Take a butchers at this. The bottom left-hand corner in particular. It's a Barclay Perkins brewing log from 1848.

The bottom left. That's where the hops are listed. The next to last line reads

Amn. 1846 428

American hops, from the 1846 crop. Which means they were almost certainly grown in New York state.

Innovative chaps, those Victorians.

On a totally unrelated note, I wonder if you can guess what I'm currently working on. Behind the scenes. My recent posts should give it away. It's obvious to me.

More random Dutch advert fun

Look, I'm a deeply lazy person. Let's be realistic. You can't expect me to pen an erudite essay every day of the year. So it's back to that reliable standby, 19th-century Dutch beer adverts. Courtesy of Historische Kranten.

Algemeen Handelsblad 02-09-1839

Note that they are using the technically more accurate term. Brown Stout, rather than just Stout. I hope you can still remember my explanation of Brown Stout and Pale Stout from a few days ago. Because I'm not going to repeat them now.

I was a little surprised that it's all bottled beer. 1839 seems quite early for that. A few decades later and bottled Porter had pretty much disappeared. It became an exclusively draught beer with only Stout being bottled.

Journal de La Haye 15-02-1834

You've probably already spotted what's odd about this ad: it's in French. As was the rest of the newspaper. Not sure why. ("Huguenots, dad".) Maybe they thought French was posher. ("Huguenots, dad".) Or more international. ("Huguenots, dad".) Definitely not Huguenots, Andrew.

Apart from the interesting spelling of Scotch, it was the mention of Burton that attracted me. I wonder which Burton they mean? If it were the Pale Ale, I'd expect, well, Pale Ale after the Burton. From that and the comparatively early date, I'd put my money on it being Burton Ale. You know, the stuff that eventually evolved into Bass No. 1.

That was fairly painless. Now on with my day.

Barclay Perkins Table 1836

Hah! Fooled you. This post isn't a table of Barclay Perkins beers. No. It's about Barclay Perkins Table Beer.

At one time London brewers turned out large quantities of Table Beer. There was one good reason why: it was taxed at a much lower rate than full-strength beer. The tax per barrel of Table Beer was just 2/6d. Whereas for the strong stuff it was 10/-. But this all changed in 1830, when the excise tax on beer was abolished. Tax on beer was then collected indirectly, through a tax on malt and hops.

Of course, one of the classic wheezes of unscrupulous publicans was to buy a cask of Table  Beer and one of strong beer. They'd mix the two together and hey presto, two barrels of "strong" beer. Which is why there were all sorts of rules to discourage the practice, including huge fines.

After 1830, the market for Table Beer contracted, partly because of a reduced price differential as a result of the tax changes. And partly because of social changes. Like the provision of clean drinking water. As it became increasingly safe to drink water, there was less need for Table Beer.

The role of Table Beer as a drink with meals also came under pressure from the new bottled beers that appeared in the final decades of the 19th century. Many of these were relatively low-gravity Dinner or Luncheon Ales, designed as a light accompaniment to food.

There's the background. On to the specifics of Barclay Perkins Table Beer. A fascinating beer. Because it's a type of Porter. A very weak one. Though, ironically, stronger than many beers of the final generation of London Porter in the 1930's.

Here's the beer itself:

You can see that they were still using a multiple mash system without sparging. These are the details of the four mashes:

	barrels	water temp.	tap temp.
mash 1	139	160	144
mash 2	141	166	144
mash 3	222	168	155.5
mash 4	230	150	143.5
total	732

Nothing too weird there. I've seen some weird mashes in other Barclay Perkins logs. Where some of the striking heats were over 200º F.

The ingredients. I forgot to mention those. This is the grist:

	quarters	% age
pale malt	65	85.19%
brown malt	12	11.84%
black malt	3	2.96%

I told you it was a type of Porter, didn't I? I bet you're wondering about the hops. Well there aren't any. At least none are mentioned in the log. I guess they used second-hand hops from another brew. When they did use fresh hops, it was at a rate of about half a pound per barrel.

These are the basic specs:

OG	1033.0
FG	1008.0
ABV	2.9
attenuation	75.73%

I'm intrigued to know how it would taste. Probably a bit thin, but nice and roasty. Anyone fancy giving brewing it a try?

1805 Barclay Perkins EI

More from the oldest Barclay Perkins brewing records. This time EI. Or Export India Porter. The stuff that got shipped east for the pisshead penpushers of the East India Company.

Pale Ale wasn't the only beer shipped to India. Considerable amounts of Porter were shipped, too. But for some reason this often gets overlooked or ignored. I guess there isn't a romantic enough story behind it. Both Barclay Perkins and Whitbread brewed a Porter specifically for the Indian market.

So what was and Export India Porter like? You'd expect it, like IPA, to be brewed stronger and with more hops to help it survive the journey. (Only joking. We all know by now that IPA wasn't a strong at all.). Why don't we take a look?

The grist is very simple: 110 quarters of SP (Sussex pale malt) and 100 quarters of HB (Hertfordshire brown malt). Along with just over a ton of Mid Kent hops (2,500 pounds). Which is about 3.5 pounds of hops per barrel. The OG is 18.9 lbs per barrel or 1052.

How does that compare with Barclay Perkins standard Porter? Here's a table comparing TT (standard Porter) and EI (Export India):

Barclay Perkins 1805 Porter
	TT	EI
pale malt	42%	60%
brown malt	45%	40%
amber malt	13%	0%
hops (lbs/barrel)	2	3.6
gravity (lbs barrel)	20.00	18.90
gravity (OG)	1055.40	1052.35
gravity (FG)	1015.50	1016.00
ABV	5.28	4.81
apparent attenuation	72.02%	69.44%
Source: Barclay Perkins brewing records.

The version exported to India was actually weaker than the domestic beer. Though considerably more heavily hopped. The grist was of EI also quite different, containing no amber malt and a higher proportion of pale malt.

Pale Stout

I've mentioned this before. Pale Stout. I'd seen a record of it, but had no photo. I had been on one of my first archive visits, when I just took notes.

I rediscovered it this spring. I've been meaning to post about it ever since. But, well, you know, I've been busy, man. Places to go, people to see, beers to drink. Now autumn's here, I've more time.

There's a reason why I just stumbled over the log again. Part of yet another time-consuming project. I'd tell you more, but I don't want to spoil the surprise.

But enough of my mindless burbling. Here's the log in question:

Cool, eh? P Stout. I'm pretty sure that stands for Pale Stout. The beer certainly wasn't dark. 120 HP at the bottom left. That's the grist. 120 quarters of Hertfordshire pale malt.. The 1040 EKs below are the hops. Some sort of East Kents, from the 1803 season. There were 260 barrels brewed, so that's about 4 pounds of hops per barrel. Quite a lot, but nothing extreme for the period. Barclay Perkins Brown Stout of the same year was also hopped at 4 pounds a barrel.

28.5 is the gravity, given in pounds per barrel. 1079º in new money. 62.41 is the yield in brewers pounds per quarter. It's rubbish. A couple of decades later, it would always be 80 plus.

I hope you enjoyed squinting at the dawn of modern brewing.