Brewing in Denmark in WW I (part one)

Just because Denmark was neutral in WW I, doesn't mean the war had no impact on the country's brewing industry. It did. And in some ways developments parallel what happened in Britain.

The main cause was the disruption caused to world trade by the war. Some of this was direct, as in the destruction of shipping and difficulties in sourcing goods from abroad. Some was indirect, such as increased prices. These factors also influenced British brewing, but you'll see that the effect in Denmark was less extreme.

"The great expansion of the bottled beer trade in Denmark during the last year is very remarkable in view of the enormous handicap imposed in almost every direction by high prices and war conditions. High prices are world-wide and affect neutral countries equally and in special cases even more than belligerents. Such a special case occurred in Denmark in respect of coal. Imports were practically brought to a standstill and prices soared from their pre-war level of Kr. 20 per 1,000 kilos, to Kr. 150 in 1918, since when the increase has gone steadily on till they now stand at Kr. 230 per 1,000 kilos. (£1 per ton to £11 10s. per ton at normal exchange Kr. 20 = £I). The price of bottles may be given as another example of the constantly increasing burden of expenses borne by the trade during the period under review. Bottles of 330 c.cm. capacity (about 14 oz.) bought before the war at 5.5 ore (about 0.5.) now cost 30 ore (about 3d.).

Wages also have increased from Kr. 26 (26s.) per week in 1914 to an average now of Kr. 89.24 (£4 10s.), while working hours have fallen from 9.5 to 8 per day."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 1921, pages 25 - 26.

I can understand why coal would have become more expensive, as Denmark would have imported it. But I don't quite see why wages should have increased so much. There was a simple reason why wages had risen in Britain during the war: shortage of manpower. With so many men serving in the armed forces, employers struggled to find anyone to work for them. Why did wages almost quadruple in Denmark? Was it just inflation or was there an underlying structural change?

As in Britain, shortages in food supplies prompted the Danish government to intervene in the brewing industry:

"Restrictions on brewing were also imposed as national necessity demanded, the following regulations being successively brought into force:—

April 3rd. 1917.— Restriction of brewing material to not more than 80 per cent, of the normal consumption.

Nov. 9th, 1917.— Prohibition of the use of Danish barley for malting.

Nov. 24th, 1917.— Prohibition of export of beers and yeast. This regulation is not yet withdrawn, but it is possible to obtain permits for export. the restrictions on the use of brewing materials and on the employment of Danish barley for malting have, on the other hand, been recently withdrawn, but economies are still enforced by the prohibition since Feb. 6th, 1920, of the sale in Denmark of beer containing more than 3 per cent, by weight of absolute alcohol."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 1921, page 26.

This is freaky. April 1917 is exactly when the first big restrictions on beer output were introduced, reducing the number of standard barrels brewed to about a third of its pre-war level. It's not really a coincidence. In February 1917 German U-boats began unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping and it initially had a huge impact. Large numbers of merchant ships were sunk in the spring  of 1917 and food supplies began to dwindle in Britain.

Before the war, Danish breweries like Carlsberg had been big exporters. It's only logical that exports should be restricted at a time when raw materials were in short supply. A ban on the export of yeast is stranger. Though, again through Carlsberg and its yeast labs, Denmark exported lots of yeast, too.

In yet another parallel with Britain, new restrictions continued after the war's end. 3% ABW is about 3.75% ABV. The strictest restrictions on beer strength in Britain were in 1918, when the average of all beer brewed was capped at 1030º. Though by 1920 the situation in Britain had improved and the limit on average gravity had been raised to 1044º.

Just as in Britain, restrictions caused the range of beers brewed to be drastically reduced:

Average Original Gravities of Danish Beers 1914 - 1920
October 1st	1914	1915	1916	1917	1918	1919
September 30th	1915	1916	1917	1916	1919	1920
Lager beer	1052	1051	1048	1045	0	0
Pilsener beer	1044	1044	1041.5	1032	1038	1038
Stout, taxclass I	1076	1076	1072	0	0	0
Stout, taxclass II	1068	1068	1065	1058	1055	1056
Munich beer	1056	1056	1055	0	0	0
Export beer	1052	1050	1049.5	0	0	0
New Pilsener, taxclass II	1032	1032	1032	1030	1031	1031
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 1921, page 27.

For comparison purposed, here's what happened to Whitbread's beers during the war:

Whitbread beers 1914 - 1920
beer	style	1914	1915	1916	1917	1918	1919	1920
FA	Pale Ale	1048.5		1045.3	1035.2	1032.6	1032.4
IPA	IPA	1049.9		1046.8	1038.8	1033	1036	1034
PA	Pale Ale	1061.1		1056.5	1044.3	1035.1	1047.4	1047.5
KK	Stock Ale	1072.7		-	-	-	-	-
KKK	Stock Ale	1082		1069.6	-	-	-	-
X	Mild	1055.1		1047.9	-	-	1040	1043
MA	Mild	-	-	-	-	1022.7	1028.4	1027.8
ES	Stout	1066.8	-	-	-	-	1055	1055.3
LS	Stout	1055.7	1054.7	1050.4		1041.7	1042.9	1047.8
P	Porter	1052.4	1052.4	1050.4	1049	1036.1	1042.6	1041.4
SS	Stout	1081.7	1075	1074.9	-	-	-	-
SSS	Stout	1096.1	1094.5	1091.2	-	-	-	-
Source:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/09/109, LMA/4453/D/09/111, LMA/4453/D/09/112, LMA/4453/D/09/113, LMA/4453/D/01/080, LMA/4453/D/01/081, LMA/4453/D/01/082, LMA/4453/D/01/083, LMA/4453/D/01/084 and LMA/4453/D/01/085.

Next time we'll be looking at wartime taxation in Denmark and learning a little more about the country's beer styles.

Roasted malt or roasted barley

I remember when I first looked at Barclay Perkins Porter records being confused by the appearance of "roasted" in the grists. I assumed it stood for roasted barley. How little I knew back then.

The records in question were from before 1880 which meant it couldn't possibly have been roasted barley, as that was illegal before the Free Mash Tun Act. A kind reader helpfully pointed out that it must have been roasted malt, another way of describing black malt. Or patent malt. I've just stumbled upon something that means I might have been right after all. Sort of.

I've been spending the last couple of days ripping the statistical tables out of "A Practical Treatise on Malting and Brewing" by William Ford. It's got some great number on malt and hops. Just what I needed for my collection of beer-related statistics. I'm very proud of my tables of numbers. Every so often I open them up, just to admire them. I should really mould a second volume of "Numbers!" from them.

When I'd finished extracted and dusting off the numbers, I thought I'd run my eyes over the wordy parts of the book. May as well, while I was in the neighbourhood. Which is when I found this fascinating passage about roasted malt:

"This may be considered the proper place to introduce a few words on an interesting and prominent article in brewing, namely, Roasted Malt.

Being of comparative modern invention, and most valuable to the porter brewery, it has, in a great degree, superseded the Blown, or Brown Malt, which had constituted a very important branch of the malting business. It has likewise, to some extent, interfered with Amber Malt.

Both Brown and Amber Malt are used for giving colour and flavour, but principally flavour, to porter. But this misnamed malt, roasted, has displaced above two-thirds of the Brown and Amber. One peck of roasted is equal, in giving colour, to eight bushels of brown. Formerly the grist for porter was constituted of one-third pale, one-third brown, and one-third amber."
 "A Practical Treatise on Malting and Brewing" by William Ford, 1862, pages 68

Black malt interfering with amber malt? Surely it should be locked up for such behaviour. Being more serious, I'm sure that black malt did reduce the usage of brown malt. In the years before its invention in 1817, Porter grists were 30-40% brown malt. Not sure that equal parts of pale amber and brown is one that I've seen.

This is what happened to Whitbread Porter and Stout grists during the 19th century:

Whitbread Porter grists 1805 - 1900
Year	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	amber malt	crystal malt	sugar
1805	79.08%	20.92%
1808	56.95%	28.70%		14.35%
1816	54.76%	25.99%		19.25%
1817	88.00%	11.64%	0.36%
1821	94.98%	3.86%	1.16%
1830	98.28%		1.72%
1840	85.62%	11.99%	2.40%
1850	76.41%	20.34%	3.25%
1860	75.97%	20.36%	3.67%
1870	79.19%		5.99%			14.83%
1880	85.77%	8.70%	5.53%
1888	79.93%	4.08%	7.35%		8.64%
1891	77.49%	9.67%	6.82%			6.02%
1895	85.54%	6.81%	7.66%
1900	85.77%	7.12%	7.12%
Source:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/09/001, LMA/4453/D/09/003, LMA/4453/D/09/010, LMA/4453/D/09/011, LMA/4453/D/09/014, LMA/4453/D/09/023, LMA/4453/D/09/034, LMA/4453/D/09/043, LMA/4453/D/09/054, LMA/4453/D/09/064, LMA/4453/D/09/075, LMA/4453/D/09/082, LMA/4453/D/09/085, LMA/4453/D/09/090, LMA/4453/D/09/094.

It's clear that the introduction of black malt had an immediate impact on Whitbread's use of brown and amber malt. But the use of brown malt increased again between 1840 and 1860, before falling again at the end of the century.

"The word malt is greatly libelled in these roasting-houses. The corn is steeped only forty hours, being the shortest time the law allows, consequently pays at least 5 per cent. less duty than ordinary malt, and is usually thrown upon the kiln from four to seven days after being emptied from the cistern. Corn perfectly malted will not give out so much of colour, or so standing a colour, as that merely partially malted; and on the other hand, barley, unmalted or not steeped, gives still less colour, and the colour is not permanent. This corn is not so perfectly dried on the malt kiln as pale or other malts; and the process of roasting is conducted by law, as it respects the premises, not less than one mile from the malt-house; the business of roasting is similar to that of roasting coffee. The best quality is that which is of a dark coffee-brown colour, nearly black, and close roasted, that is to say, none of the corns burst.
"A Practical Treatise on Malting and Brewing" by William Ford, 1862, pages 68 - 69.

Now isn't that fascinating? Black malt wasn't properly malted, but just enough to pass the legal definition. It doesn't shock me that maltsters would try to skip as much of the process as they could get away with. I am surprised that the colouring properties of partially malted grains were better than either fully malted or unmalted ones. Especially that unmalted grains performed the worst.

"There is a special Act of Parliament for regulating the proceedings of the malt-roaster, which I have reason to believe was concocted mainly by a few of the London roasters, ostensibly to protect the trade and revenue against the fraud of roasting barley not paying the malt duty. But the effect of its provisions are to create a very nice little monopoly; the trade is in very few hands, all is sent out by certificate."
"A Practical Treatise on Malting and Brewing" by William Ford, 1862, page 69.

There was a reason for this legislation: the government didn't trust the roasters, suspected them of roasting unmalted grains. They limited the number of them so they could keep a better eye on them.

"I was sent for by the Excise to examine a sample of corn called Patent, or Black Malt, for my opinion whether it was ever malted. I found that about one-tenth—not more—had partially vegetated; my answer was,  'As part had vegetated, it was possible all might have been steeped and paid duty, consequently it was malt according to law, but never was the malt of commerce, inasmuch as the law, as now construed, constituted all grain to be malt that had been steeped forty hours, and had remained in couch thirty hours, without reference to its being malted.'

But by a late Act, all malt found upon the premises of a malt-roaster, or roasted malt found on the premises of a brewer, that has more than five per cent. of unmalted grain, or if grain have more than five per cent. of which the acrospire has not passed at least half over the grain, the same is liable to seizure.

The principal makers of Black or Roasted Malt are Mr. Walmsley, New Boad, Whitechapel; Mrs. Backhouse, Spital Square; Messrs. Bandall, Lambeth; and Mr. Swonnell, London; and Messrs. Plunkett, Dublin."
"A Practical Treatise on Malting and Brewing" by William Ford, 1862, pages 69 - 70.

So black malt was malt as defined by law, but not really malt in the sense of having been completely malted. If you see what I mean. Nor would it have qualified as malt according to an older legal definition. The latest legal definition seemed to be more concerned that it had been through the process where it was measured for tax purposes (i.e. the malt tax had been paid on the grains) rather that it actually having been malted fully.

As usual. it was all about money. As long as the government got their tax, they really didn't give a toss what the maltster did.

So what was it - roasted malt or roasted barley? Seems like roasted half-malt is the answer. I wonder if anyone still makes something similar?

Customer service

I've been reading the Northern Snippet blog and wondering if I've ever been one of the annoying type of customer described.

Quite possibly the picky type. Purely when it comes to beer, I'd point out. I'll shovel any old food down as long as it's fried. Or meat. Or some form of potato.

These two entries in  "10 of the most annoying and frequently fielded questions" had both me and Andrew chuckling:

3. 'I have a dairy intolerance what can I have?'
    Protracted conversation .....followed by:
'Excuse me you've forgotten to bring some butter for my bread..'

6.'Is there another menu?'
    What?You mean a secret one that we don't bother to show anyone because we don't want to sell anything on it?

Good stuff.

Export Pale Ale Brewing in 1903 (part three)

We're back in 1903 learning how to brew export Pale Ale. we've now got as far as fermentation.

See if you can make 100% sense out of this. I can't.

"The yeast must necessarily be free of rods microscopically, as well as fresh and sweet and the right age. If I am doubtful of the first, I, as a rule, treat the gyle which I am going to pitch from with a little salicylic acid in the copper. I do not like my temperatures of fermentation to go over 68°, and prefer to drop at half gravity, to either pontoes or dropping squares, getting the heat back as quickly as I can after the yeast crop is off. If I am using dropping squares I do not care for settling for this ale, as I think it is better without the exposure at this point. I like to have my attenuations well down, particularly if the ale is to be bottled."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1903, page 150.

I understand the first bit, rods being bacteria that were likely to cause at infection. Rods were the thing brewers all looked for, after they'd bought microscopes in the wake of Pasteur's work on yeast. It was a simple way of checking for potential problems with pitching yeast. Several brewing records have a special entry for details of a microscopic examination of the yeast. Such as this one from  Portsmouth & Brighton United Breweries from 1940:


That's the first time I've seen a reference to the use of salicylic acid as a preservative in Britain. Public health authorities in the USA often checked for its presence in beers they analysed in the late 19th century. They didn't seem to like its presence. Not sure why. Clearly it was in fairly common use as a preservative in the USA.

If you remember the table with details of Truman P2 Export, that was pitched at 58º F and hit a maximum of 69º F. Pretty much in line with the author's recommendation.

The next part has me confused. I understand the bit about dropping to a ponto or a settling square. They were fairly common methods of cleansing (removing the excess yeast from the wort). Though the point at which the drop took place could vary drastically. Fuller's dropped very quickly, usually no more than 24 hours after pitching, when the gravity was still well above 50% of the OG. But other brewers dropped much later. But for the life of me I don't get what he means about not settling. I thought that's what you dropped into, a settling square.

What's unusual here is what hasn't been mentioned. The classic method of cleansing export Pale Ales was a union set, not just in Burton, but elsewhere in Britain. It's got me wondering which brewery the author worked at and how much Pale Ale they brewed. Breweries big on Pale Ale would usually have had union sets.

A high degree of attenuation was typical of export Pale Ales, for a fairly obvious reason: it left little food for an infection to work on.

Next it's the casks that are going to be used for export.

"In the event of the ale being required for the bulk trade, new casks are used as a rule, which simply require seasoning. These are generally a light cask with light iron, and are often sold with the ale. If it is shipped immediately after racking, as is often done, it is usual to put four or five porous pegs in, some putting two in the shive, and the remainder in the bung stave, not far from the shive, but this needs doing by an experienced cooper; this is of course done to allow of cask sickness, which, in sending to the colonies, for instance, there is plenty of time for, particularly if going by sailing ship, which the freight charges are naturally much lower in, than by steamer. If possible, I like to arrange for bulk export to get to its market about two or three months old."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1903, page 150.

You can understand why the casks would be sold with the beer. Shipping casks back from, say Australia, would be expensive and not really cost-effective. I imagine that the barrels would have been re-used at their destination, though not necessarily for beer. Using a light cask also makes sense, as you wouldn't want to ship any unnecessary weight.

I would have expected the beer to remain in the cask for a while before shipping. I'm surprised that it was usually sent out straight after racking. You'd have thought that the beer would still be quite lively then. Which is presumably why they took the precaution of inserting porous pegs, to let out excess CO2. Though I'm having trouble imagining exactly how they were fitted. By "cask sickness" I think the author means the beer fermenting too actively in the cask.

It's surprising how long sailing ships continued to move freight around the world. An article in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing from 1917 mentions sailing ships bringing barley to Britain from California:

"Prior to the war it was quite a customary procedure for a sailing vessel capable of carrying, say 15,000 qrs. of barley, to leave this country and go out to the Pacific Coast in ballast, the voyage in all probability taking about four months. She would require about a month to complete loading, etc., the barley was shipped in small cental bags, and the vessel would proceed on her homeward voyage, taking roughly another four months. In all, the round journey would occupy about nine months, and her earning capacity, for the barley cargo of 15,000 qrs., would be about £4,500 to £6,000."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 3, May-June 1917, page 172.

Two or three months in transit sounds like a long time. But consider how far the beer was being shipped: to India or Australia. For the latter, you'd have to be sending it by steamer to get in there in that length of time.

"In dry hopping, I also like a blend of a good Wurtemberg or Spalt, and if they are mild, have used as much as 50 per cent., but I think, 25 per cent, is enough.

For a preservative, I think, there is nothing as good as a good bisulphite of lime, which, while being effectual, is also cheap, and I generally find from a half pint to a pint per barrel to be a good quantity for an ale which is going a long distance, with a hot climate afterwards, but this, of course, must be judged by the trial it is to undergo, and by the confidence the brewer has in the soundness of his article."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1903, pages 150 - 151.

I've seen German or Saaz hops crop up as dry hops many times in brewing records. Their refined flavour made them eminently suitable for this purpose. The cheaper kinds of foreign hops - American, Belgian and French - were generally only used as bittering hops early in the boil.

Yet more preservatives, this time bisulphate of lime. Or calcium bisulphate as it's now usually known. I do have records of that being used. Listed on their records as BiS, in 1920 Barclay Perkins added it to some casks at racking time. Though is a rather lower proportion than the author recommends here: an eighth of a pint per barrel in Bottling KK, a quarter of a pint per barrel in export Pale Ale. None was added at racking to their standard draught beers in 1920, but that had changed by the 1930's and an eighth of a pint per barrel was added to their Bitters and Milds.

Next time we'll be looking at bottling.

UK hop usage 1934 - 1953

Except the war years are missed out. For a good reason. They didn't appear in one of the tables I'm basing this on.

I spend a lot of my day looking at numbers. Sometimes they provoke me to write a few words. As in this case. I'd been harvesting various statistics about barley and hops from the Brewers' Almanack, one of my all-time favourite books. When I was busy with those for world hop production something struck me. A fact I thought was worth passing on.

I noticed it because recently I'd been messing with the figures for UK hop imports nad hop usage. The quantity of hops used in the UK was still fresh in my mind. And easy to recall because it hovered around a quarter of a million cwt. for a long tiime in the middle of the 20th century.

To be honest, I was quite surprised how high up the league table of hop producers Britain came: number 2 pre-WW II, after the USA. Down to number 3 after WW II, but pretty much neck and neck with Germany.

Combining the world production with UK usage highlighted a fascinating fact: the UK used a considerable percentage of the world's hops.

UK hop usage 1934 - 1953
year	cwt hops	world production	% used in UK
1934	248,744
1935	258,300
1937	270,692
1937	277,846
1938	286,716
average 1934-38	268,460	1,173,302	22.88%
1951	228,512	1,379,251	16.57%
1952	225,569	1,272,678	17.72%
1953	216,841	1,182,653	18.34%
Sources:
1955 Brewers'Almanack, page 63
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 65.

As you can see, immediately before WW II, the UK used almost 23% of the world production of hops. I was surprised that it was so high.  Even after WW II it was around 18%.

Knowing how much British hop usage fell after WW I - 1905 to 1914 an average of 560,549 cwts were used each year in the UK* - I can only assume that the percentage of the world crop consumed in Britain was much higher. Possibly as much as 50%. I need to find the figures for world hop production for the early years of the 20th century.

Here's the table of world hop production. The vast majority came from the four largest producers: USA, UK, Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Hops: World Production
Country	Annual Averages
	1934-38	1945-1949	1951	1952	1953
	cwts.	cwts.	cwts.	cwts.	cwts.
Northern Hemisphere
USA	348,009	465,455	564,634	546,991	372,786
Canada	14,393	19,170	17,339	17,920	15,179§
United Kingdom	250,205	275,768	321,821	282,348	266,000
Czechoslovakia	191,625§	90,393	98,420§	80,705§	98,420§
Germany	178,866	76,143	252,795	206,187	280,500
France	44,071	24,161	41,330	34,446	48,223
Belgium	23,741	13,527	19,366	17,062	19,179
Spain	—	t	t	2,607	3,661
Poland	34,884	t	t	t	t
Yugoslavia	35,509	25,179	24,652	23,652	25,589
Other European	2,643	t	t	t	t
USSR	19,687	t	t	t	t
Japan	1,286	2,196	9,054	16,241	13,286
Total	1,144,919	991,992	1,349,411	1,228,159	1,142,823
Southern Hemisphere*
Australia	20,571	21,348	18,384	31,920	28,000§
New Zealand	7,812	7,107	7,795	8,036	7,589§
Union of South Africa	t	2,018	2,482	3,384	3,125§
Argentina	t	768	1,179	1,179	1,116§
Total	28,383	31,241	29,840	44,519	39,830§
World Total	1,173,302	1,023,233	1,379,251	1,272,678	1,182,653§
* crops harvested early in the following year
t not available
§ estimate
Source:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 65.

* 1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 120.

Export Pale Ale Brewing in 1903 (part two)

We're now moving on to the brewing process itself. Starting with mashing:

"In the mashing operations I like to get my goods down as stiff as possible, and have found it useful at times to use a little bisulphate of lime in the mash, running it into the mash in a small stream as it runs down, but given malt such as I have described, I do not think there is any need of it, though I have found little harm from it if not more than a pint to the quarter is used.
. . . .
I like an initial heat in the goods of 151º.2, and to raise it at the end of ten minutes to about 154º, keeping it there till taps are set, after which one proceeds in the ordinary way. Seeing that all my plant is, if possible, more than usually clean, I think a plentiful supply of really boiling water through the mains and in the vessels is the best way of making sure of sterilizing everything, and it is essential to bring the wort to the boil as rapidly as possible."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1903, page 149.

That's a very precise temperature, 151.2º F, unless I'm misreading it. How does that tally with a practical example? Truman P2 Export seems a good beer to check. That had a strike heat of 164º F and a tap temperature of 151º F. The brewing record doesn't give the initial heat, but that would have been a few degrees higher than the tap heat - probably around 154º F. Which means the mashing temperatures were quite similar, just the other way around.

The author has some interesting points to make about boiling:

"In copper hops, I find the use of two or three pounds to the quarter of good Wurtemberg or Spalt hops to be a great assistance when they are to be got good and ripe. I think particular care should be taken that the filter bed in the hop back should not be disturbed or even sparged over, and if any liquor is required at the last to bring gravity right, I prefer to got it direct without putting it over the hops. I have taken particular note of the time of boiling, and have come to the opinion that, given a good boil, where evaporation is not a necessity, 1.5 hours for each copper is long enough. I have brewed many gyles of light bulk export for the colonies at a gravity of 1050° only boiling for this time, and found the ales were equally sound to those boiled for the longer period, and I consider of a rather better flavour, and I am of the opinion that a great deal of fuel might he saved in this direction. Perhaps some of the members present will give their opinion on this point? I think it is borne out by what Messrs. Briant and Meacham found some time ago, viz., that after a certain time soft resins become converted into hard resins in the copper, but I am getting away from the practical side."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1903, page 149.

Pale Ales were the one type of beer where English hops were usually preferred over foreign ones. The examples I have to hand confirm this. Whitbread PA of 1903 and Barclay Perkins PA of 1900 both used 100% East Kent hops. The 1887 Truman P2 Export used a combination of Worcester and Kent hops. I'm pretty sure they're Worcester hops. It could possibly be Wurtemberg, as it's written W then a squiggle.

To put those two or three pounds per quarter into context, 1887 Truman P2 Export contained 20 lbs of hops per quarter. The Whitbread and Barclay Perkins domestic PA's 11-13 lbs per quarter. Making the author's recommended proportion of German hops 10-25% of the total. It's no coincidence that German hops were selected for a posh, hop-accented beer like Pale Ale. They were amongst the most highly-rated foreign hops in terms of flavour, along with Saaz.

I was surprised at the length of the boil for Truman P2 Export - 3 hours. I'm sure that I recall reading that Burton brewers didn't like to boil for too long because it darkened the colour. Of the three example beers I've been using, only Whitbread PA, with boil times of 1.33 and 1.5 hours for the two worts was close to the author's suggested time.

Boil times generally fell around WW I, for two reasons. Firstly, to save fuel. Coal shortages during the war encouraged brewers to be more economical. Secondly, with the fall in beer gravities, the need for long boils to evaporate off water and concentrate the wort mostly disappeared.

I almost forgot to mention one of the most significant statements in that passage: that the author had brewed Pale Ales for export to the colonies that were only 1050º. What do i usually say at this point? I remember  - IPA was not a strong beer.

There's one thing that tallies with the author's next comment. The Barclay Perkins PA was brewed in June using 1898 and 1899 season hops, all of which had been kept in a cold store. How do I know that? Because C.S. is written after the hop entries.

"There is no doubt that the use of a good cold stored hop is a great advantage in this class of brewing if one is called upon to turn out a few extra brewings in the late spring. I would again like to have the opinion of members as to how they have found hops come out of cold store at the end of one, two, or more years? It appears to depend a great deal on the cold store. I have myself seen a great difference in similar hops brought out from different cold stores at the same age, and I consider it shows it to be very necessary for the brewer to know his cold store and, in fact, to have his own, if possible.

Too much cooler exposure I do not care for, but, at the same time, I think particular care should be taken that cooler sludge is not allowed to go down with the wort."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1903, pages 149 - 150.

Now isn't that interesting? Not all cold stores were created equal. That makes my life even trickier, trying to work out exactly how much hops had deteriorated in storage. I'm sure that the large London breweries I mostly look at all had their own cold store.

British beer exports by destination 1890 - 1910

One comment on my post about brewing export Pale Ale asked where the beer might have been heading. A very good question. Which is why I looked for the answer.

A numbers collector like me always has some relevant statistics lying around somewhere. Sure, enough, I've ones for British exports by destination for the years around 1903.

Unfortuantely, the "other countries" row cover s a big percentage of the totals. Which conceals a lot of detail. The principal named export destinations were the USA, India and Australasia. Were Pale Ales sent to all three of those? Australia and India are a definite yes. The USA? Probably. Bass Pale Ale was definitely exported there.

Malta is almost certainly another destination for Pale Ale. I know Simonds sold so much that they started brewing their Hop Leaf Pale Ale there. In fact thye beer still exists. Egypt I really don't know about. It's a possibility, though I think by 1900 it might well have been mostly Lager that got shipped there.

What I know about beer exports to the West Indies has me doubting whether Pale Ale was sent there. It was mostly Stout or strong Scotch Ale that was sent to the Caribbean.

I've honestly not the faintest idea of what type of beer might have been sent to South Africa.

Here's the table with the numbers:

British beer exports by destination (standard barrels)
	1890	1900	1910
USA	48,991	47,700	69,688
Egypt	6,591	18,597	20,600
Malta & Gozo	20,390	22,932
British S. Africa	25,582	31,446	5,937
British India	97,196	94,918	96,914
Australasia	147,014	96,785	90,416
Brit. West India Islands	26,882	18,794	21,726
Other Countries	150,565	202,605	285,065
Total	502,921	510,845	590,346
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 115.

Good London Porter, warranted free of mixture

Old advertisements can be great sources.  They can give a good idea of what drinkers' options were in the past, as well as the relative price of different kinds of beer.

But that's not all we can learn from this advert. It's surprisingly full of useful information.

"GENUINE PORTER and ALES.
PETER GRANT, at his cellars, Niddry Street, Edinburgh, most respectfully informs his friends and the public. that he has got to hand, in addition to his former Stock, a large quantity of mild London Porter.— He has likewise on hand a large stock of excellent old and mild Ales, and Scots Porter, in perfection, for immediate use; the whole being brewed on purpose for himself, of a superior quality to any in the place, a trial of which  will be found sufficient recommendation, and sells it at the following prices, in dozens, viz.

	s. d
Good London Porter, warranted free of mixture	2 9
Ditto Rack	3 0
Brown Stout	3 6
Scots Porter	2 0
Ditto ditto	2 3
Best double	2 6
Strong Ale	2 6
Double Ale	3 0
Ditto ditto	3 6
Double double	4 0
Treble Strong	5 0

 As the above prices are three-pence cheaper on each dozen, than can be got of the Same quality elsewhere, no credit will be given. Bottles, if not returned, 2s. per dozen.

Ales from one month old to five years old.

N. B. Families can be advantageously Served with London Potter in hogsheads, as well as in bottles, carriage free to any place in town or Suburbs.

Commissions from the country carefully executed."
Caledonian Mercury - Thursday 11 May 1797, page 1.

I'm going to begin with mild. It's interesting that the Porter is specifically identified as Mild Porter. That is, Porter with no age on it. You might have expected Porter that was being shipped up to Edinburgh to have a little more age on it to help stability. Though the journey from London to Edinburgh wasn't as tricky as that to many other parts of Britain. Doubtless the Porter would have been shipped by sea directly from London to Leith. A relatively cheap and simple trip in the days before the railways.

That's Mild Porter, now let's look at Mild Ales. Though there are Stock Ales too, as it specifically says they have stock of Ale between a month and five years old. Lambic aside, I can't think of any modern beer that's aged as long as five years before sale.

Unfortunately, in the table of prices there's no indication of which Ales are Mild and which aged. It would be easy to assume that the stronger ones were the old ones, but that's a dangerous path to take. Ales of modest strength - though not usually the very weakest - might be aged and, conversely, Ales of great strength might be sold young.

Once again, the vast majority of the beers on offer are bottled. As we know, that's a particularly Scots habit. In England, most of these beers would have been sold in barrels. Though it's not explicitly stated, Peter Grant had almost certainly bottled these beers himself.

It says something about the frequency of adulteration - or at least the public's fear of it - that the advert states it's "free of mixture", i.e. it hasn't been tampered with. Unsurprisingly, the London Porter is more expensive than the locally-brewed Scots Porter. 37.5% more than standard Scots Porter, 22% more than posher Scots Porter.

I've no idea what London Porter Rack means. Presumably some better sort of Porter.

While we're on the subject of names, I particularly like Double Double. Shouldn't that be Quadruple? I'm guessing that the Ales were all brewed in Scotland. If the Ales were English it would surely have been mentioned. Which now has me wondering about the Brown Stout. Was that Scottish or from London?

I lost my Private Eye

on Thursday night.

I'm kicking myself. It had turned up late (bloddy useless modern postal services) and I'd only been reading it one day. I was still on Street of Shame. Bugger. I missed Yobs. And Dumb Britain. Bum, bum, bum.

If only I weren't to blame.

I don't go out much on week nights any more. There's a shop in Amstelveen I walk past every day chomping a sandwich called "Listen to your Body". I have. It said: "Don't go on the piss when you have to work the next day." Thursday night I turned up the music and pretended I couldn't hear my killjoy body.

As part of Dutch Beer Week, a new beer was being launched: Amsterdamsch Bruin*. That got my attention. Old-fashioned spelling and brown in the name. I'm a sucker for dark beer. Even when it's 4.7% ABV. Pre-war Mild, was my first thought.

That brought back memories of my best ever dream. When I was in wartime Newark, on a pub crawl, drinking Mild. My heaven (if you're listening, god). I had to drop by Wildeman to give it a try.

Come Thursday morning, I was too busy OCRing articles from the Journal of the Institue of Brewing to remember to leave my briefcase at home. I'd need to go directly to town from work. How could I carry the shopping and my briefcase?

It's great having a Marks & Spencer in Amsterdam again. Crisps, crumpets, pork pies and Scotch eggs for the kids; pork pies, crisps, crumpets, Scotch eggs and joints of meat for me. Finally a choice of something to roast on Sunday. And bagels for Dolores.

Coupled with the satellite dish picking up all the British channels, it's no wonder Tarquin** thinks he's in the UK.

The health food . . .

Sorry. I forgot to tell you why I wanted to go to Marks in the week.  A deciding factor in me attending the Wildeman event.

I assuage my guilt for doing eff all domestically by loading up with goodies at M & S on a Saturday. It fits in nicely with a few afternoon beers.

But Saturday is my mate Will's annual birthday barbecue. It's a great event, because my kids are invited. They've not broken anything yet, which is a sign of how much they like Will. Or that they don't want to miss out on the opportunity of playing with fire.

Being otherwise occupied on Saturday, I needed to raid Marks earlier. Combining it with the beer launch made total sense.

I was in and out of Marks quicker than expected, but more laden down. Two bags stuffed with shopping and my stupid briefcase. Stupid because I only use it to carry a banana and Private Eye to work.

Overloaded with bags I was glad to find not only a free seat in Wildeman, but one with plenty of space to stash away my bags. I'd arranged to see Mike at about 18:30, but my unexpectedly quick sweep through Marks meant  I'd arrived half an hour early. No problem. I could read my Private Eye while I waited.

The Amsterdamsch Bruin hadn't been tapped. But they did have a Dutch cask beer. Oedipus Pale Ale***, I think it was called. Full of those fancy modern hops, but low ABV (4%) and lightly carbonated. Went down a treat. Made me realise what I miss most about cask beer - being able to gulp greedy great gobs of beer in one go. Three gulps and gone.

While I was at the bar waiting to get a second pint, I noticed an American bloke standing next to me reading the Lambik menu. I couldn't help but peek at the prices. Were they for a crate or a single bottle?

"Man, look at those prices." I couldn't help saying to American chav.

"Seem very reasonable to me."

"What? It used to be much cheaper. I blame you Americans. Since you lot noticed Lambik the prices have rocketed."

Charmed by my insightful summation of Lambik pricing and its causes, we got chatting. We were still standing at the bar when Mike turned up. Irritatingly, right about when arranged.

I never did get back to my seat. We stood at the bar, had a free glass or two of Amterdamsch Bruin  (OK, but could do with a bit more malt character for my taste) and did what blokes do it bars. Talk shit and drink.

When it was time to leave, I paid, picked up my bags and pissed off to the tram stop.

I was half way home when I realised I didn't have my Private Eye. I'd left it on the table when I went to the bar to buy that second beer.

What am I going to read on the tram to work next week?




* It 's collaborative beer of Amsterdam breweries De Prael and Het Ij.
** A joke I can't explain for fear of a police raid. The kids know what I mean.
*** Oedipus seems to be a new Amsterdam brewery that had escaped my notice. I'm really getting out of touch.

Keeping Small Beer

There were many odd features to Scottish brewing. One of which was its renown at making beers at either end of the strength spectrum. You'd wouldn't expect a country to be famous for both very strong and pretty weak beers. But Scotland was.

One of the myths that's hardest to permanently kick into history's long grass is that beer exported to the tropics had to be strong. It persists despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Below you'll find yet more.

"Keeping Small Beer.
WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM Brewer at Dundee, late a partner and manager in the extensive Brewing Company at Glasgow, begs leave to inform the public, and his friends, that he continues to brew SMALL BEER that will keep through the most sultry summer months, in the greatest perfection.— The excellency of this Small Beer is such that when all other kinds become sour and useless, the above small beer stands the heat of any climate; the liquor retaining its original taste, flavour, and colour in the warmest, even in any part of the West  Indies ; —it has been much admired as table-drink for taverns or private families.

The Small Beer has also given intire satisfaction to ship masters who make voyages to any part of the West Indies ; but as no great quantity is made without being bespoke, Mr Cunningham wishes those who favour him with their orders, would do it before the brewing season is over, as it is not fit for use, either for home or foreign consumpt, in less than six weeks from the date of the commission. The Small Beer is sold at 3s. 9d. per dozen, bottles, &c included, or 24s. per hogshead.

Mr Cunningham also brews PORTER, allowed by the best judges not to be inferior in quality or Savour to London Porter: and as his machinery and materials are well adapted to that branch of manufacture, he flatters himself, the public, upon trial, will find it as good as any brewed in England, notwithstanding the many prejudices against Scotch Porter, which he now hopes are pretty much removed.

The prices of the several articles he manufactures are as follows, viz.

The above Keeping Small Beer, 24s. per hogshead.
Porter, from £2 12s. to £3 3 s. per hogshead.
Strong Ale, from £3 to £3 10 s. per hogshead.

Commissions from either town or country, directed to Mr Cunningham at Dundee, will meet with a ready and careful dispatch."
Caledonian Mercury - Monday 22 March 1773, page 4.

That's quite a claim, from Mr. Cunningham, that his Small Beer would remain sound "even in any part of the West  Indies". I suspect most modern brewers would struggle to keep their beers in good condition in a tropical climate for any length of time without refrigeration.

You have to consider the name for an explanation as to how a relatively weak drink could stand the heat. It's call Small Beer. The article dates from the 18th century, a time when Beer meant something specific: a malt liquor that was heavily hopped. It's also called Keeping Small Beer. Keeping, or a malt liquor meant to be kept for before drinking also implies extra hopping.

London and Country Brewer tells us something about how Small Beer was brewed in the 18th century. Often it was brewed from the later runnings of a stronger brew. But, especially when a better quality product was required, it could also be brewed "Intire", that is where all of the wort produced was used for Small Beer.

"'Tis therefore that some prudent farmers will brew their Ale and Small Beer in March, by allowing five or six bushels of Malt, and two Pounds of Hops, to the Hogshead of Ale; and a Quarter of Malt, and three Pounds of Hops, to five barrels of Small Beer. Others there are, that will brew their Ale or Strong Beer in October, and their Small Beer a Month before it is wanted."
London and Country Brewer, 1737, page 71.

Assuming 60 to 65 brewers pounds of extract per quarter of malt, that would give 5 barrels with a gravity of around 1035º.Note that the book also recommends keeping Small Beer before use, though two weeks less than the minimum recommended by Mr. Cunningham.

Moving on to the Porter, in the 1770's, that usually had a gravity of around 1070º*. Which would tally with it being about double the price of the Small Beer, after taking into account the tax. In the 1770's, that was 1s 4d for Small Beer, 8s for a Strong Beer (like Porter). 24s minus 1s 4d is 22s 8d; 54s (£2 12s) minus 8s is 46s.

Scots drinkers seemed to have some trouble being persuaded that locally-brewed Porter was as good as that from London. Was that pure prejudice or was there some basis to it? We'll probably never know. It is clear that Scottish brewers struggled to sell their Porter and that drinkers preferred the stuff from south of the border.





* "Statical Estimates of the Materials of Brewing" by J. Richardson, 1784, page 150.