England vs Scotland, part 3b: early 1850's Best Mild Ale

I'm still running, stumbling and falling. Metaphorically, you know. We've moved on to one strength band to what, for the want of a better name, I'll be calling Best Mild

I'll run through the categories I'm using before we go any further. I've split the Milds into these bands:

1060º - 1069º Mild
1070º - 1079º Best Mild
1080º - 1089º Special Mild
1090º - 1099º Extra Special Mild
1100º - 1109º Imperial Mild

That should make the description easier for me.

As you can see, this comparison thing is going to take a while. There are still three more posts to come on Mild Ale alone. And in this set, as I do have Porter and Stout from Younger, there will be more styles to compare. Such fun. What did I do with myself before I discovered Scotland?

England vs Scotland early 1850's Mild 1070º - 1079º
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fer-ment-ation temp	length of fer-ment-ation (days)
2nd Oct	1850	Whitbread	X	1070.6	1027.7	5.68	60.78%	7.87	2.42	1.17	2	2	64	74	6
9th Oct	1850	Whitbread	X	1072.0	1029.9	5.57	58.46%	7.98	2.41	1.5	2	2	64	74	6
24th Sep	1850	Whitbread	X	1073.7	1027.7	6.08	62.41%	7.91	2.42	1.5	2	2	64	74	5
7th Oct	1850	Whitbread	X	1073.7	1030.5	5.72	58.65%	9.95	3.13	1.5	2	2	64	74	5
8th Oct	1850	Whitbread	X	1074.5	1031.6	5.68	57.62%	7.85	2.59	2	2	2	64	74	5
25th Sep	1850	Whitbread	X	1077.3	1029.1	6.38	62.37%	8.36	2.76	2	2	2	64	74	5
25th Sep	1850	Truman	X Ale	1078.1				8	2.67				61
1st Jul	1850	Truman	X Ale	1078.4				8	2.62				63
9th Oct	1850	Whitbread	XL	1079.2	1033.2	6.08	58.04%	7.98	2.65	1.5	2	2	64	75	6
Average				1075.3	1030.0	5.88	59.76%	8.21	2.63	1.60	2.00	2.00	63.6	74.1	5.4
5th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1070	1029	5.42	58.57%	5.00	2.21	1.5			58	64	7
20th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1070	1031	5.16	55.71%	8.00	2.95	1.25	1.5		57	67	7
25th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1070	1032	5.03	54.29%	1.61	1.67	1.33			57	65	7
2nd Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	X	1070	1030	5.29	57.14%	7.00	2.19	1.08	1.25		56	67	8
24th Jul	1852	Younger, Wm.	X	1070	1035	4.63	50.00%	8.00	2.74	1.17	1.25		59	69	7
20th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1070	1031	5.16	55.71%	7.73	2.83	1.5	1.5		56	68	8
23rd Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1070	1027	5.69	61.43%	8.00	2.87	1.33	1.5		55	66	7
4th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1071	1033	5.03	53.52%	9.00	3.08	1.25			56	66	7
28th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1071	1029	5.56	59.15%	8.00	3.15	1.33	1.5		56	67	8
14th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1071	1029	5.56	59.15%	8.00	2.70	1.25	1.5		57	66	8
26th Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	X	1071	1031	5.29	56.34%	7.00	2.26	1	1.25		56	66	7
28th Jul	1852	Younger, Wm.	X	1071	1034	4.89	52.11%	8.00	2.73	1	1.17		61	67	6
10th May	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1071	1030	5.42	57.75%	9.00	3.05	1.5	1		57	68	7
14th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1072	1030	5.56	58.33%	1.50	1.13	1.75			56	67	8
6th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1072	1029	5.69	59.72%	9.00	3.20	1.25	1.5		57	67	7
3rd Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1072	1029	5.69	59.72%			1.5			57	66	8
27th Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	X	1072	1031	5.42	56.94%	7.00	2.22	1	1		56	66	7
26th Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1073	1030	5.69	58.90%	4.58	1.64	1	1.5		56	66	8
30th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1073	1024	6.48	67.12%	5.00	1.90	1.5	1.5		58	67	7
13th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1073	1030	5.69	58.90%	9.36	3.20	1.25	1.5		56	66	8
4th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1073	1030	5.69	58.90%	8.00	2.67	1.25	1.75		57	67	8
15th Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1073	1031	5.56	57.53%	8.57	2.86	1.5			57	67	7
4th Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1074	1034	5.29	54.05%	4.32	1.52	1.66			57	67	8
30th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1075	1033	5.56	56.00%	5.00	1.67	1.25	1.5		57	67	8
12th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1075	1033	5.56	56.00%	5.00	1.54	1.25	1.5		57	67	8
22nd Jul	1852	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1075	1036	5.16	52.00%	6.00	2.14	1.17	1.25		59	68	7
11th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1075	1028	6.22	62.67%	8.33	2.78	1.25	1.17		56	68	9
26th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1075	1036	5.16	52.00%	1.94	1.82	1.5			58	66	6
21st Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1076	1036	5.29	52.63%	5.00	1.69	1.5	1.25		56	67	8
24th Jun	1854	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1076				7.42	2.65	1.5			59
17th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	XX	1076	1033	5.69	56.58%	7.88	2.80	1.33			57	67	7
24th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	XX	1076	1029	6.22	61.84%	8.00	3.00	1.5			56	66	8
30th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	XX	1076	1030	6.09	60.53%	8.00	3.08	1.5			56	68	8
20th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1077	1032	5.95	58.44%	5.00	1.76	1.17	1.5		57	67	8
2nd Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	X	1078	1029	6.48	62.82%	5.36	2.00	1.33			56	66	8
12th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1079	1036	5.69	54.43%	4.50	1.37	1.42	1.5		57	68	7
Average				1073.1	1031.1	5.54	57.31%	6.55	2.37	1.33	1.38	0.00	56.9	66.8	7.5
difference				-2.2	1.2	-0.34	3.25%	-1.67	-0.26	-0.27	-0.62	-2.00	-6.6	-7.4	2.1
Sources:
William Younger brewing record document number WY/6/1/2/5 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread brewing record document number LMA/4453/D/01/014 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Truman brewing record document number B/THB/C/132 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

I keep staring at the hopping rates hoping something is going to jump out at me. All I can see here is noise. The London beers are a much tighter set, though the sample size is much smaller. The variation is much greater among the Younger beers. The most heavily hopped has about 3 times as many hops as the least heavily hopped. Averaged out, The London beers have about 10% more hops. Yet I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions. Apart from: in the early 1850's Younger's Best Mild Ales were on average a little less heavily hopped than equivalent London beers.

Thank you boil times. At least you make my life easy in this set. Once again, the pattern isn't hard to spot: Younger's boil times were shorter. There's only the occasional Younger that matches or exceeds the London times. The first boil averaged 15 minutes less, the second almost 40 minutes less. Especially of the second wort. I'll look you straight in the eye and say: in the early 1850's Younger's Best Mild Ales had shorter boils than equivalent London beers.

The differences in fermentation temperatures have been reasonably consistent until now. Younger's pitching temperatures being around 4º F and the maximum temperature 7-8º F lower. This time both figures are pretty similar. Which makes things dead simple: in the early 1850's Younger's Best Mild Ales were fermented on average 7º F cooler than equivalent London beers.

This is so easy. There's an obvious pattern in the length of fermentation. None of Younger's beers took fewer than six days to ferment, most took longer. Six days was the longest London fermentation. No need to say any more: in the early 1850's Younger's Best Mild Ales took about a day longer to ferment than equivalent London beers.

Once again, Younger's attenuation is lower. But not as much lower this time. Only about 5% less than in London, whereas previously it's been 10%. I'm not so sure there's much significance in this. The difference in ABV is pretty minimal, too. Especially as the average OG of the London beers is slightly higher. The FG of Younger's is a bit higher, but again not by much. Idon't feel confident about saying anything much for certain. In the early 1850's Younger's Best Mild Ales were slightly less attenuated than equivalent London beers.

I am wondering if I'll ever get to the end of this series. Determination and a general lack of activity in my cranium should see me through.

Drinking inside Aitken

Drinking in breweries used to be common. I doubt there was a dry brewery in the country 50 years ago. Drinking went on before, during and after work. Health and safety concerns have, I fear, ended the fun.

Here Jimmy Manson, once an Aitken employee, remembers:

"We used to get free beer. You were allowed to go to what we called the Murly when you started work at 7-30am, at lunch, and when you finished at 5pm. The amount of free beer that you got was dependant on the size of the container that you look along, although obviously there were limits. And even with all this for nothing, there was still the occasional person caught trying to smuggle more out of the brewery. One day there was a terrible crash in the yard. A woman had slipped on the metal weighbridge and dropped all of the bottles of beer she'd had hidden up her skirt. It was quite funny at the time, but in the end she got her books."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, page 8.

This must have been draught beer, as it was being filled into containers. Reading carefully, it sounds as if you could fill up a jug to drink while at work, have a couple of pints with your lunch, then fill another jug or whatever to take home at the end of the day.

Not being of the female persuasion, I've no idea how many bottles you could fit up a skirt. How had she secured them inside? Like much about women, it's all a mystery to me.

Arthur Cramb, another former Aitken employee, also remembers free beer:

"Brewery workers were allowed to have a drink before and after work. They went to a room set aside for this. Staff were allowed two dozen beer each month, which was delivered to your house."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, page 18.

The word "staff" is being used in a very specific sense here. It means salaried office personnel as opposed to the hourly-paid manual workers. They'd have been given bottled beer because they wouldn't have gone to the Murly with the manual workers.

The Murly sounds much like what I experienced at Hole's. We had our breaks in a bare cellar. A keg of AK and another of Mild in one corner. I used to eat in there. On reflection, it may not have been the most hygienic environment. None of the office or managerial staff were ever to be seen there.

We weren't allowed to stock up on beer to sip while actually working. But there was a way around that. Some of my colleagues would rinse out the plastic cups from the tea machine and fill them from the keg filler. A bit messy, but it worked.

Max Cowan recalls the final party at Aitken:

"When I arrived at the Brewery on its last official working day, I found my father reasonable quickly, but not in the bottling hall. If I remember correctly, he was in the shed where the casks were stored. He asked me if I wanted a drink and look me into a corner where a firkin was set up with what I think was Aitken's Heavy. It quickly became clear to me that everybody had been drinking for most of the day. The other thing that struck me was that there did not seem to be any of the white collar staff around, perhaps that was intentional. After a few pints we went to the Brewer's Room in the main part of the Brewery where some of the employees had gathered and had a few more drinks. There were no speeches, although there may have been earlier. It was simply a case of workmates saying goodbye to each other. The atmosphere was reminiscent of the fag end of a long Hogmanay. The only other thing that sticks in my mind is that my father and I got a lift home in a rather tatty Aston Martin that one of the former Younger's of Alloa employees owned."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, page 13.

At least they got to drink their farewells with cask beer. Nice touch that. Given that it sounds like there was plenty of boozing on a normal working day, I'm not surprised they'd been going a bit crazy on the last day. Only natural.

Aitken's new bottling hall

James Aitken's bottling hall. We're learning more about it than any man ever need know. This time it's from a newspaper article written at the time the shiny, modern bottling hall opened.

I learned something else today. That the British Newspaper Archive isn't as complete as I'd hoped. I didn't find the article below there, but reproduced in a Scottish Brewing Archive Journal. The archive's collection of Falkirk Heralds only goes as far as 1903. How irritating.

"A new bottling hall, equipped with plant of the most intricate and completely modern description, and costing approximately £20,000. was inaugurated yesterday at the Falkirk brewery of James Aitken & Co. (Falkirk) Ltd. The interesting ceremony of declaring the hall open and setting the machinery in motion was performed by Miss E. M. Aitken. sister of the late James H. Aitken and a descendant of the Aitken family by whom the brewery was founded in 1746. almost two hundred years ago. The proceedings were presided over by Mr R. Beveridge Smith, J. P.. chairman of the company, and others present included Mrs Smith, Mr W. F. Finlay. managing director, and Mrs Finlay; Mr Roy R. Finlay, assistant managing director, and Mrs Finlay; Mr Dan Robertson, director and head brewer, and Mrs Robertson; Mr James H. Finlay. C. A.. Glasgow, son of the managing director, and Mrs Finlay; other directors, and invited guests.


INAUGURATION CEREMONY

Mr Beveridge Smith, addressing the representative company assembled, said they had gathered at the brewery that day for the purpose of assisting in the inauguration of what he considered to be the most interesting thing that had happened in the brewery since it was completed a long number of years ago. That was the starting-up of what he believed was the most up-to-date bottling plant in any brewery north of the Tweed. (Applause.) They were fortunate in having with them Miss Elizabeth Aitken, who would pull the lever which would set the machinery in motion. Before this was done, however. Miss Aitken was to be made the recipient of a presentation, and he called upon Mr J. G. Callander, architect for the building, to perform that duty.

Mr Callander, asking Miss Aitken's acceptance of a beautiful silver bowl, said this was in the nature of a gift from himself and from the contractors as a memento of her performance of the opening ceremony of the new bottling department. He expressed the hope that it would always remind her of her long association with the brewery. (Applause.)

Miss Aitken briefly expressed her thanks and then pulled the switch which set the new bottling plant in operation. Having done so, she was presented with a beautiful bouquet by Miss Lizzie Fallon, the girl employee with the longest service with the firm.

NEW PLANT DESCRIBED

Those present were then conducted on a tour of inspection of the new bottling plant, and all were impressed with its remarkable efficiency and speed in operation. The plant installed is of the very latest design and is capable of turning out from 4000 to 5000 bottles of beer per hour. The whole operation is automatic, and the product is not touched by hand during the whole process. The beer is chilled by means of a 3-cylinder high-speed ammonia compressor working on a patent chiller. In this the beer is also conditioned previous to passing through a filter where all sediment is removed. From the filter the beer passes to the filling machine. This is 24-head rotary filler capable of the output previously mentioned. The process through which the dirty bottles pass before being filled with beer is a most interesting one. The bottles, in two-dozen cases, are placed on a conveyor which carries them to a large "Thoro" brush-washer. This washer is automatic, and when the bottles are inserted by the operator, they pass through a strong solution of caustic soda, continuously being sprayed both inside and out, after which they pass through the hot-water lank, where they are again sprayed, and also brushed internally and externally. After this operation they are given a final rinse thoroughly with clean water. The washed bottle is delivered automatically from the washer on to a conveyor, passing an operator who "sights" each individual bottle as it passes a powerful electric light. If a bottle is not perfectly clean it is taken from the conveyor and is returned to the washing plant.


UNTOUCHED BY HAND

The bottles, travelling along the conveyor, reach the filling machine, where they are filled. Alter being filled they pass along to the crowner, where the bottle is sealed. The bottle of beer is then conveyed to the pasteuriser. This process takes about 1.5 hours, but as the pasteurisation is continuous, and synchronised with the washer, filler and crowner, no delay is caused by the process. From this, the bottle travels on a conveyor to the labelling machine, which labels four bottles at the one time. This machine puts two labels on each bottle. From this point they have to be handled by an operator, who places the labelled bottles in cases, the latter having been delivered to this particular point by means of a conveyor and elevator. The cases of beer are then placed on a run-way which takes them to a box elevator which takes them to the room immediately above the bottling hall. Here the bottled beer is stored, and from here is loaded to the lorries. The plant has been installed by the Farringdon Works and H. Pontifex & Sons. Ltd., London, the well-known brewery engineers. An outstanding feature of the whole bottling plant is the scrupulous care that is taken to ensure that at every stage of the process the beer or bottle is not touched by hand, thus giving a clean and absolutely sterile product. In addition to the beer store on top floor, rooms have been arranged for the manager, reception room, and offices for despatch clerks."

The Falkirk Herald, 21st May 1938

The first paragraph reveals why Aitken's lost their independence: the line fizzled out. James H. Aitken had been the only son and he had no male heir. That his widow lived in France demonstrates how little connection she had with the running of the business. James H. Aitken had only one child, a daughter.

Miss E. M. Aitken was presumably the Miss E. Aitken who was a shareholder when the company went public and the Elsie Aitken who never married. I've no idea if she was older or younger than James H. Presumably she still owned a stake in the company at this point. Which could also explain why she never married: with a private income, she didn't need to.

Four to five thousand bottles an hour sounds impressive. I know that during busy times (mid-November until the end of December)the bottling hall worked "six and a half days and four nights per week" (source: Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, page 11). Assuming an 8-hour shift and 4,000 bottles an hour, I make that 583 barrels in a week (if they were all half-pints) 1166 (if all pints). Assuming a 50-50 split, that's 875 barrels in a week. Or 5,250 barrels over those 6 weeks.

I love all this guessematics. five and a half 8-hour day shifts at 4,000 bottles an hour, half pints and half half-pints, over 46 weeks is about 21,000 barrels. Add that to the rush weeks and you've got about 26,000 barrels.

In the 1930's bottled beer accounted for around 35% of total beer sales. So my calculation would leave Aitken with a pretty modest output of 75,000 barrels a year. I fairly certain that they really produced over 100,000 barrels a year. Why the discrepancy? They probably didn't do all the bottling themselves.

"The beer is chilled by means of a 3-cylinder high-speed ammonia compressor working on a patent chiller. In this the beer is also conditioned previous to passing through a filter where all sediment is removed." I take this to mean that the beer was chilled and then artificially carbonated in the cylinder and then filtered. Though doesn't it make more sense to carbonate after filtration?

Unbelievably, I've still loads more about bottling at Aitken. Aren't we lucky?

I'm number five!

In the Wikio rankings. I'm so proud.

Can't say I quite understand how they come up with the rankings. A couple of months ago I was in position 20-something. The number of visitors I get hasn't changed appreciably in that time.

If only it meant something in terms of money.

Did I mention my plan? My get-someone-to-pay-me-to-research plan. It's based on optimism and an unreasonable faith in human nature. Surely there must be bearded beery philanthropist somewhere?





Why that image? I just like remembering Shippos.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1879 William Younger No.3

It's Thursday, it's five to five, it's . . . . Crackerjack! Let's brew, really. A day late. Well, 8 days late, technically. But who's counting?

This is a terrifically exciting day for me. Because we're getting into known territory. For me, at least. Let me explain. I have a special relationship with Younger's No. 3 (not quite like Britain's special relationship with the USA - we treat each other with mutual respect).

But to explain it we'll need to travel back in time, to the dark days of the early 1970's, when the flares were wide, the colours gaudy, and the power regularly cut. A fun time to be an impecunious teenager, not quite of drinking age. There was a way around the twin barriers of age and poverty: brew your own.

My brother was a CAMRA member and What's Brewing had a regular home brewing section. One month they published a clone recipe for Younger's No. 3, a beer that had been discontinued. "Dark Bitter" is how I think they described it. Makes you laugh now. Though I'm not sure a modern style dilettante would do much better. Burton would have been the most apposite descriptor. It looked an interesting beer so we brewed it up.

I recall it being one of our better extract efforts. The dark grains helped hide the extract twang. We must have brewed a fair bit, because I have several memories of drinking it. I took along a couple of bottles to the first party I attended. Happy days.*

Later Younger (well, S & N) resurrected No. 3. It was preferred drink in their pubs. Not a bad drop, when looked after. Which brewery would it have come from then, back in the 1980's? Abbey? Fountain?

When I was in my last job in London (1984 -1985) an S & N pub just off Gloucester Place was our local. At least for lunchtime and hometime pints. They had two or three cask beers, including No.3. I must have drunk a fair few pints of it over the 18 months I worked there. It was still a decent beer. And had the advantage of being dark and not Bitter.

Little did I realise the history nor the dramatic transformation that No.3 had endured. The beer I'd drunk was literally a shadow of its former self: it was, like a shadow, darker than the original, but infinitely thinner.

If you've been waiting for me to describe the beer from the recipe, you've waited in vain. My head is somewhere else today. Trying not just to remember the name of that pub off Gloucester Place, but its location. I can't seem to track the bugger down on Google maps. John Cumberpatch was one of my colleagues. Now there's a coincidence.





Best hand you over to Kristen while there's some semblance of coherence . . . .

See Younger's 1879 No1 for instructions

FYI - These next No3’s will be pretty much the same as the No1’s of the same year. If there are any differences, we’ll chat about it here. This one, there are none.









* Not really. Miserable, boring days I'm glad are long gone.

Why paying writers matters

Because otherwise they might not bother.

To make a change from plugging my own books, I'm going to plug someone else's work. Evan Rail's, to be precise. And it isn't just because I get a mention in it (flattering as that might be).

Oh yes, what is it I'm pushing? (Getting this all twisted around again. That's what happens when you start writing and only bother thinking after the first two paragraphs.) Evan Rail's essay Why Beer Matters. That's it.

What's it about? I would have thought that was pretty effing obvious from the title. OK, I'll spell it out for you: it's about why beer matters. He didn't need to convince me. I've thought that since, well, a few seconds after that first pint of Barnsley Bitter hit my lips.

On a purely (and extremely selfish note). I'm intrigued to see how he gets on flogging stuff through Amazon, Might be worth considering myself.

England vs Scotland, part 3a: early 1850's standard Mild Ale

Taking an idea, running with it, dropping it, picking it up again, tripping over, standing back up, bumping into someone and dropping it, picking it up once again and doing some more running. That's what I do. Start with a simple enough idea, but pursue it way beyond logic or reason.

So it is with my comparison of William Younger's beers with those brewed in London. It took me multiple posts to cover the first two decades, the 1930's and 1840's. There won't be as many for the 1850's. Oh no. There will be twice as many. Why? The Crimean War. As usual, an increase in the tax on beer (indirectly through the tax on malt) quickly followed the declaration of war. Just as ineluctably, a gravity drop followed the tax increase. Comparing a beer from 1857 with one from 1850 just isn't fair.

Once again, I've a whole bunch of Younger beers I can't do anything with. Because there are no London beers of  similar gravity. Most are 42/- with a gravity in the 1040º's. Maybe I should have included them in this table. They'd have raised the average hopping rate per barrel. One had a whopping 3 pounds per barrel, despite having a gravity of just 1047º.

But I didn't, so the first table is Mild Ales in the range 1060º to 1069º. Here are the numbers in neat rows:

England vs Scotland early 1850's Mild 1060º - 1069º
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermentation temp	length of fermentation (days)
30th Sep	1850	Whitbread	X	1067.3	1024.9	5.61	62.96%	7.85	2.36	1.5	2		64	74	6
15th Feb	1851	Whitbread	X	1067.6	1024.9	5.64	63.11%	12.50	3.91	1.5	2	2	64	74	7
12th Oct	1852	Reid	X	1069.3	1024.9	5.86	64.00%	12.26	3.63	1.5	3		57	72.5	5
1st Nov	1852	Reid	X	1069.3	1024.9	5.86	64.00%	11.24	3.32	1.5	3		57	72	5
29th Aug	1853	Reid	X	1069.3	1020.8	6.41	70.00%	12.00	3.60	2	3		56.5	75	7
Average				1068.5	1024.1	5.88	64.82%	11.17	3.36	1.60	2.60	2.00	59.7	73.5	6.0
21st Jun	1854	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1062	1032	3.97	48.39%	4.82	1.31	1.67			58	65	6
24th Jun	1854	Younger, Wm.	60/-	1062				5.34	1.56	1.75			60
11th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1062	1027	4.63	56.45%	8.00	2.47	1.08	1.25	1.67	57	67	8
19th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1062	1029	4.37	53.23%	7.57	2.26	1.08	1.25	1.5	56	67	7
26th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1062	1029	4.37	53.23%	7.48	2.18	1.08	1.33	1.5	56	66	7
2nd Dec	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1062	1027	4.63	56.45%	8.00	2.96	1.5	1.67		56	66	8
3rd Dec	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1062	1029	4.37	53.23%	7.52	2.19	1.08	1.33	1.5	57	65	7
3rd May	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1066	1024	5.56	63.64%	8.00	2.67	1.25			57	69	8
4th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1067	1026	5.42	61.19%	7.33	3.67	1.75			58	66	6
17th May	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1067	1028	5.16	58.21%	9.00	2.91	1.25	1.17		58	68	7
28th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1068	1032	4.76	52.94%	8.00	2.97	1.33	1.5		57	68	8
5th May	1853	Younger, Wm.	X	1069	1027	5.56	60.87%	8.64	2.77	1.5	1.5		59	67	7
Average				1064.3	1028.2	4.80	56.17%	7.47	2.49	1.36	1.38	1.54	57.4	66.7	7.2
difference				-4.3	4.1	-1.08	-8.65%	-3.70	-0.87	-0.24	-1.23	-0.46	-2.3	-6.8	1.2
Sources:
William Younger brewing record document number WY/6/1/2/5 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread brewing record document number LMA/4453/D/01/014 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Reid brewing record document number 789/273 held at the Westminster City Archives

Hopping rates, hopping rates. Confusing devils, they are. On the face of it, William Younger's beer had about 25% fewer hops per barrel. But, if I knock out the 7 beers with a gravity of 1062º, (so only compare the ones with similar gravities to the London beers) that drops to just 10%. Not really any huge difference, especially given the large variation between different individual beers. I'd say: in the early 1850's Younger's standard Mild Ales were on average a little less heavily hopped than equivalent London beers.

Thankfully I've more London boil times in this set. Once again, the pattern isn't hard to spot: Younger's boil times were shorter. Especially of the second wort. I've 100% confidence with this one: in the early 1850's Younger's standard Mild Ales had much shorter boils than equivalent London beers.

We're going to have to watch two things with fermentation temperatures. Not just how those of Younger compared to those of London brewers, but how Younger's changed over time. If you pay careful attention to the numbers you'll notice how nothing remained constant for long. When we've finished the England vs Scotland thing, I'll produce tables to show the changes and Younger. A sort of Younger vs Younger thing. The difference in pitching temperatures here is small. Younger's beers were pitched on average almost 2º F cooler. The maximum fermentation temperature was almost 7º F cooler. It's pretty clear: in the early 1850's Younger's standard Mild Ales were fermented cooler than equivalent London beers, on average around 4 - 5º F.

You don't need me to tell you that Younger's beers took longer to ferment. A day and a bit on average. Despite some being lower gravity that any London beer. Another simple one: in the early 1850's Younger's standard Mild Ales took about a day longer to ferment than equivalent London beers.

We're getting used to seeing lower attenuation at Younger than in London. It's very clear in this table. Despite the average OG of Younger's beers being 4º lower, the FG was 4º higher. Once again, many of Younger's beers have under 60% apparent attenuation. On average Younger's beers are 1% ABV weaker, though remember that some are lower gravity than any London beer. In the early 1850's Younger's standard Mild Ales were less attenuated and lower in alcohol than equivalent London beers.

If you think the differences aren't huge in the sets we've seen so far, wait until we hit the 20th century.