Unexpected consequences

The government, through taxation, licensing, restriction of pub opening hours, has done much to shape the British brewing industry. But its actions haven't always panned out as anticipated.

When travelling to London last week I was reading "Government Interference in the Brewing Industry" by John Spicer, Chris Thurman, John Walters and Simon Ward*. I've not finished it yet, but a clear point it makes is that of unexpected consequences. That the government intervenes with an aim in mind, but the result is something completely different.

It's about the 1986-89 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry which led to the Beer Orders of the 1990's. The idea was to open up the brewing industry to more competition, which the tied house system was seen to be preventing. The monopolistic tied estates of the Big Six were to swept away and all brewers given equal access to retail outlets. Of course, it didn't quite work out like that. Yes, the big brewers lost their enormous tied estates, but they were merely passed on to another set of monopolists, the big pub companies.

The phenomenon of unexpected consequences was nothing new. Something similar had happened at the end of the 19th century. Something which, indirectly, had led to the formation of those huge tied estates in the first place.

"The repeal of the Malt Act in 1880 by Mr. Gladstone, and the transference of the duty from malt to the wort prior to fermentation, was a momentous epoch in British brewing. I understand this change was sought by the barley growers, who thought it would benefit agriculture, but how, I cannot say. There is no doubt, however, that the tax on barley encouraged the buying of the best quality, as tho tax was irrespective of quality, but the result of the change caused by charging duty on wort produced instead of on barley was certainly no advantage to the farmer.

The revenue obtained from this method of taxing wort instead of malt resulted in a great gain to the State, and imposed a heavier charge on both brewer and consumer. The brewer was supposed to have been compensated by the fact that his materials were no longer being limited to malt, hops and sugar; he received the benefit of what was called the "Free Mash Tun," but this was of no real benefit to many brewers, for under the new taxation a brewer was often charged upon a quantity of beer he never obtained from his materials, because he had not the technical knowledge and plant necessary to do so. Further, the smaller brewer had not the requisite scientific and technical knowledge to obtain the standard quantities of extract from his declared quantities of materials used which the Excise authorities said he ought to have obtained. Nevertheless, he was charged duty on these standard quantities, although some extra allowance was given for "waste" against the deficiencies. This payment of tax on a quantity of wort which was not obtained was responsible, in my opinion, for the rapid decrease of home-brewing and the purchase of beer from the larger brewer. The publican-brewer found he was handicapped by a method of taxation which bore more heavily upon him than upon the larger brewer, whose greater technical knowledge of brewing and modern plant placed him in a far better position to pay the new duty."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 481 - 482.

I'd best explain how brewers paid tax on beer they hadn't produced. The 1880 legislation assumed that brewers obtained a certain amount of wort per bushel of malt. This is the relevant clause in the Act:

"13. (1.) Every brewer shall be deemed to have brewed thirty six gallons of worts of the gravity of one thousand and fifty-seven
degrees for every two bushels of malt entered or used by him in brewing."

No matter what the actual yield, the brewer had to pay the tax for at least one standard barrel (36 gallons at a gravity of 1057º) for every two bushels used. That amounts to four standard barrels per quarter of malt. Though the act did allow for 6% wastage during the brewing process.

How easy was it to get the yield the Excise expected? I thought I'd take a look at a big, modern brewery and see how many standard barrels they got per quarter. here are the results:

Whitbread yield per quarter of malt in 1881
Beer	Style	standard barrels	qtr. Malt	standard barrels per quarter	plus 6%
KKK	Stock Ale	450.5	127	3.55	3.76
X	Mild	767.7	197	3.90	4.13
FA	Pale Ale	158.3	44	3.60	3.81
X and XL	Mild	588.8	153	3.85	4.08
X	Mild	774.1	200	3.87	4.10
KK	Stock Ale	475.0	127	3.74	3.96
X and XL	Mild	605.4	150	4.04	4.28
PA	Pale Ale	322.2	89	3.62	3.84
Source:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/01/047

Even allowing for the six per cent wastage, Whitbread only managed to hit the target on four out of eight brews. The yield in a small pub brewery must have been much worse. It increased the advantage large brewers had over their smaller rivals. Because of their greater efficiency, the big boys in London had already been able to brew stronger beer than the smaller ones and sell it at the same price. Now small brewers were paying tax on beer that didn't exist. It must have been tough.

I've figures of the numbers of breweries off various sizes for the right period:

UK Breweries by size 1870 - 1914
	<1,000	publican brewers	1,000 - 10,000	10,000 - 20,000	20,000 - 100,000	100,000 - 500,000
1870	26,506	-	1,809	210	128	23
1875	22,138	-	1,864	260	194	25
1879	17,542	-	1,863	301	217	27
1880	16,770	-	1,768	272	203	23
1881	14,948	14,479	1,677	275	183	24
1885	12,608	-	1,537	270	187	27
1890	9,986	-	1,447	274	255	34
1895	7,213	-	1,162	267	256	34
1900	4,759	-	910	262	308	42
1905	3,787	-	832	232	280	40
1912	2,868	2,663	673	205	266	43
1913	2,700	2,502	615	210	271	42
1914	2,536	2,357	580	197	280	46
Source:
1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 118.

You can see that the number of brewers in the smallest category, mostly pub breweries, fell dramatically between 1870 and 1900, falling from over 26,000 to under 5,000. It's easier to see the trends by looking at the percentage decrease by decade:

Change in number of breweries by size 1870 - 1900
decade	<1,000	1,000 - 10,000	10,000 - 20,000	20,000 - 100,000	100,000 - 500,000
1870-1880	36.73%	2.27%	-29.52%	-58.59%	0.00%
1880-1890	40.45%	18.16%	-0.74%	-25.62%	-47.83%
1890-1900	52.34%	37.11%	4.38%	-20.78%	-23.53%
Source:
Derived from figures in 1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 118.

The rate of closure of small breweries did indeed accelerate after 1880. While the number of breweries in the two largest categories increased. There was a clear swing to a smaller number of larger breweries.

What happened to the pubs whose breweries closed? They bought in beer from larger breweries:

"When the small brewer ceased to brew and purchased his beers instead, there arose keen competition among the bigger brewers to secure permanent outlets for their beer and in consequence excessive prices were paid for "free" houses. When these were made "tied" houses and became so numerous, competition increased to such a degree that the tenants found it hard to get a living, and tho owners had great difficulty in obtaimng remunerative rents. Further, now regulations reducing the hours of trading, with additional limitations on Sundays, and the activities of opponents of licensed houses, together with stricter magisterial administration of the licensing laws, brought about a dearth of persons of sufficient capital who desired to become tenants of properties in which the owners had invested large sums of money. As a consequence, what is known as the "managerial system" of conducting the retail trade was evolved, under which the licensed trader receives a wage and carries on the business on behalf of the owner, whereas under the "tenancy system" the licensee pays a rent, agreeing to obtain his supplies from the brewer-owner of the house and, of course, retains the profits of his trading."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 42, Issue 6, November-December 1936, page 485.

Ultimately, those pub breweries were sucked into the tied estates of larger breweries.

So changing the taxation from malt to wort caused the closure of thousands of small breweries and helped build the tied estates of larger breweries. Not at all what the change in law had intended.



* Disclosure time: I was sent a free copy of this book.

My Arse again

I promised you my arse and here it is. In the form of the new back cover for the super-duper hardback edition of Bitter!.

You know, that book of mine that's all about the alphabet soup that is Pale Ale: IPA, AK, PA, ALK and goof old BB. You'll find them all inside, vainly trying to form themselves into fude words. Like touret's on toast. But classier.

This is the first real Mega Book Serires edition, in luxury hardback form. Given the minimal difference in price - the softback is €24.95, the hardback €29.95 - you may as well buy the posh edition. That's what I've done.

Notice what's odd about the Bass label?

All that's left for me to say is Buy Bitter! now!. It's full of fun stuff.

German Lager styles in 1984 (part one)

Bored of me fiddling around in WW I's underwear? I thought so. Then you'll be happy to learn that we're moving forwards several decades to the 1980's. Ah, the 1980's - they seem like yesterday. Then again, I have been in a coma for 24 years.

The Journal of the Institute of brewing just keeps giving. I don't know how I survived without access to its wealth of facts. What makes it so special is that the articles aren't written by some time-serving hack, but genuine experts. Before WW II you have Sydney Nevile and Lloyd Hind. After the war De Clerq. One of the most difficult things to explain to part of the beer geek community is that not all sources are created equal. One Lloyd Hind or Schönfeld is worth more than 300 homebrewing texts.

My source today is Ludwig Narziss of Weihenstephan. A brewing scientist who wrote several books and numerous articles for technical journals. As he was working at Weihenstephan when this was written, I think we can trust him on German brewing practices of the time. Though the article it's taken from was entitled "The German Beer Law", there are lots of the technical details I love, most not that directly connected to the Reinheitsgebot.

The bits that most interest me are details of brewing methods and grists for different styles. It may sound odd, but I have more information about German beer 100 years ago than that of the present day. I suppose that's what you get when you spend your days with your nose inside old books, rarely venturing outside.

Here's a table of German beer types and their characteristics which is helpfully provided at the start of the article. Unlike most other countries, certain specifications are built into German national law and state laws.

Gravity of German Beers According to Beer Tax Law
	Gravity % p	Amount of production
'Plain beers' (Einfachbiere)	2.0-5.5%	<0.l%
'Draught' beers (Schankbiere)	7-8%	0.20%
'Full' beers (Vollbiere)	11-14%	99%
Bock beers	>16%	0.70%
According to other regulations
Lager beers	11-12%
Pils	11-12-5%
Export beers* for domestic consumption	>12.5%
Special beers	>13%
Märzen beers	>13%
Bock beers	>16%
Strong beers
'Saints' beers —'ators'	>18%
* Export beers to other countries has to comply with the regulations of the importing country.
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, page 351.

Note how the overwhelming majority of beer produced was in the Vollbier category.

Some of the translations of German terms sound a little strange. Like the name of the first type of beer we're going to look at, "Light lagerbeer". Helles Lagerbier is what he means. Here's what he has to say about them:

"Light Beers with more Body
The traditional light Lager beer meets with different expectations throughout Bavaria. Whilst to the southern part and in Munich it has a light colour, it should be somewhat darker to the northeastern part of the country. Adding a small proportion of dark malt or of very light, light or dark caramel malt, the choice of the quality of brewing liquor, i.e. a higher residual alkalinity in combination with a more intensive mashing procedure, 2-decoction mashes of prolonged boiling time, the required wort and beer quality can be achieved. Usually, along with a more pronounced malt character, the hopping rate is reduced."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, page 354.

It's not the easiest language to understand, especially as he's using "country" to mean Bavaria. I can't say that I had ever noticed that regional variation. The northeast of Bavaria - what exactly does he mean by that? Franconia is in the North but doesn't stretch very far to the East. That's where the Oberpfalz is - Zoigl country. I've not had enough beers from commercial breweries from that region to be able to comment. So darker, maltier and less hoppy. Interesting, because West of Oberpfalz in Franconia the hopping is a good bit heavier than in Munich.

Though now I think about it, Fässla in Bamberg brew something called Lagerbier which is a good bit darker than a normal Helles.

The next table gives details of Helles Lagerbier from various breweries, presumably in Bavaria:

Light lagerbeers of different character extract ca 11-5% P. = 1046*G
Brewery	1	2	3	4	5	6
Colour or beer EBC	5.5	7.5	7.5	9.0	11.0	14.0
Bitter unit EBC	18.0	22.0	28.5	26.0	23.0	20.0
Alcalinity of brewing liquor ºGH	-3	+2	-2	+3	+3	+4
Colour EBC of malt	2.8	3.0	3.0	4.3	6.0	8.0
Specialmalts %
cara lightest (5 EBC)	—	3
light (40 EBC)				3	3	3} or
dark (130 EBC)				or	1	3}
Dark malt (15 EBC)				10		40
Mashing procedure	D2	1	D2	D2	D2	D2
Mashing-in temp ºC	62	45	52	52	52	37
I = Infusion mash.
D2 = Two mash decoction
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 90, Issue 6, November-December 1984, page 355.

You can see that there's considerable variation in both the colour and the bitterness levels. My guess would be that the bitterness levels have fallen since 1984. But without knowing which breweries the beers came from, that's impossible to check. I was more surpised by the variation in mashing techniques. The six breweries used four different mashing in temperatures. Even more surprisingly, one brewery used an infusion mash. I suspect this latter technique has gained in popularity over the last 30 years, mainly because it's cheaper and less time-consuming.

It's great to see some genuine modern Lager grists. All but two of the beers used some darker malt. The beers from brewery 2 and brewery 3 were the same colour despite, brewery 2 using some caramalt. This discrepancy can probably be accounted for by the different mashing schemes. A decoction mash, with it boiling of the wort, would tend to darken it.

Next time we'll be looking at special beers and methods of decoction mashing.

Malting and brewing in Germany in WW I (part two)

In the second of this brace of posts we look at the beers being brewed in Germany during the war.

While in Britain shortages of raw materials didn't really start to kick in until 1914, Germany had struggled virtually from the outbreak of hostilities. The Royal Navy's blockade began strangling Germany in 1914, while it was only with unfettered U-boat attacks in 1917 that Britain's supplies came under serious threat.

"We gather from the author's remarks that the beers which are now the staple product in Germany are brewed at a gravity not exceeding 1036. In these circumstances it is not surprising to learn that the German brewer has been confronted with the difficulty of obtaining yeast, and the plan adopted to meet this difficulty has been that which has been carried out successfully in many English breweries of late. It is to brew a beer of average gravity capable of yielding a yeast crop, and one of lower gravity, and to blend the two in such proportion that the mixture has the desired original gravity. W. Windisch points out that if a beer of something like 1048 gravity be mixed with one of, say, 1024, in such proportion that the mixture is equivalent to a beer of original gravity 1036, such a mixture drinks fuller than one brewed direct at 1036. With regard to the factors conducing to palate-fulness, he considers that alcohol plays the most important part, but that a high dextrin percentage in the wort tends to produce thin drinking beers. He deals at some length with fermentation, but, inasmuch as his remarks only apply to bottom-fermentation, they have little or no significance in this country."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 356.

Wow. I'm so glad I found this. Because it's explained something that had puzzled me for quite a while. I'd wondered why at Truman's Burton brewery they blended beer after fermentation. This is the explanation. They wanted to ferment a stronger wort to get a good yeast crop. And guess when I found the first example of it? May 1917, just when gravities started to seriously fall. It explains why they would parti-gyle two beers, ferment them, then blend the result. On the face of it, that's a completely crazy way to work.

Truman had two ways of applying this technique. The simplest was when a Single beer was being brewed. The gyles were blended to give a wort marked "S", presumably standing for "strong" and another "W", most likely meaning "weak". After fermentation these two would be mixed together to give one beer at the required gravity.

Here are two examples from 1918:

Truman XX 16th Sept 1918
	barrels	gravity
S	75	1046.7
W	152	1021.7
racked as	227	1030.0
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/334.

Truman XXX 18th Sept 1918
	barrels	gravity
S	128	1046.7
W	122	1022.2
racked as	250	1034.8
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/334.

It was more complicated when they were parti-gyling. Then they would brew the weaker beer at the required gravity and the stronger one above its target gravity. Some of the weaker beer was blended after fermentation with the stronger one to bring it down to its intended gravity. Here's an example of that:

Truman XX and XXX 6th June 1917
	barrels	gravity
XXX	69	1050.0
XX	135	1037.8
racked as
XXX	135	1043.9
XX	69	1037.8
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/333.

This is how it looks in the original brewing record:

Truman continued to perform post-fermentation blending up until at least 1939.

William Younger took a slightly different approach. They brewed to a higher gravity than intended then watered down the beer post fermentation. They, too, continued this practice well after the end of the war. It's a real pain in the arse as it makes their records really tricky to analyse.

Time to get back to our original text:

"The author goes minutely into figures, showing the amount of money which might be saved by carrying his suggestions into practice In the first place, using the particular grist he recommends, malting losses would be minimised greatly. Further, he recommends very strongly the use of a filter-press in the place of a mash-tun. "
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 356.

I wonder if anyone still uses the filter press method of mashing? It may have produced amazing efficiency but seems to have had an adverse effect on the character of the final beer. I think only a handful of breweries ever tried it in Britain.

"In the paper by K. Windisch an account is given of the instructions issued by the German Brewers' Union for the preparation of the lighter war-beer. Owing to the shortage of malt in Germany, beers are now brewed, we are told, at an original gravity of about 1020, or even as low as 1012. The methods recommended for producing these light beers embody W. Windisch's suggestions."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 356.

They shouldn't have sniggered quite so much about these watery German beers. In June 1918 Whitbread started brewing a version of their MA Mild at just 1011.5 and 1.4% ABV.

Barclay Perkins Lagers 1925 - 1934 (part two)

As promised, we're now going to take a closer look at the ingredients and brewing techniques of Barclay Perkins' Lagers.

We'll start by running our eyes quickly over the recipes for the three different Lagers. There have several striking features. All three are quite different. And the differences in recipe also entailed a difference in brewing technique, which we'll get to later.

Draught Lager had the simplest grist: 100% lager malt. At least I think it's lager malt. Until 1932 the base malt was supplied by Schwills, whom I believe was a German maltster. I'm pretty sure this was lager malt. After that, some of the base malt was supplied the English maltster Taylor. I'm not sure whether this was lager malt or just plain pale malt.

Export, in addition to lager malt, contained 23% grits. Which seems odd; given that the other Lagers were all malt. I can only conclude that the reason for its use was connected with flavour or some other attribute of the finished beer.

Dark had the most complicated grist, containing crystal malt and either black malt or roast barley in addition to lager malt. The percentage is quite low so presumably the beer wasn't unduly roasty. Switching between black malt and roast barley was typical of Barclay Perkins. They also swapped around between the two in their Porter and Stout recipes. The resulting beer was about 40 EBC, 20 SRM. This probably doesn't resemble a German Dark Lager of the period, which would more than likely have been coloured with Sinamar.

All three beers used the same hop combination at any given time, though what that combination was would vary from year to year. The one constant was Saaz, sometimes in combination with Goldings or another English hop, at others with German hops such as Hallertau or Tettnang.

You've probably guessed what the difference in brewing technique was that the ingredients dictated: a cereal mash. That was required for the Export which used grits. The technique is one I have practical experience of, because Dann of Pretty Things used it when brewing No. 1 Scotch Ale, an event I witnessed. The cereal mash started at the same time as the doughing in of the main mash at 120º.  The grits were mashed at 160º F with 2.5 quarters of lager malt for 20 minutes, then boiled for 5 minutes. This was then added back to the main mash, much as a decoction would be, raising the temperature to 158º F. Steam further raised the temperature of the main mash to 170º F, where it stayed for 30 minutes when there was a small underlet of near boiling water. After 30 minutes the first wort was run off, followed by sparges at 175º F and 170º F.

The mashing scheme for Dark was by definition different, as there were no grits in the grist. The lager malt was doughed in with water at 123º F. It was left to stand for an hour and 15 minutes, during which time the rakes were turned on a couple of times. A combination of steam and an underlet with water at 212º F, raised the mash temperature to 145. At this point the coloured grains were added to the mash and the temperature raised with steam to 170º F. Then there was a second underlet at 212º F and the mash was left to stand for 30 minutes before the first wort was run off. There were then sparges at 175º F and 170º F.

That's quite a complicated scheme and not a decoction but a step mash. However, some of the wort was boiled. 16 barrels of bright wort were boiled for 3 hours and then pumped to join the rest of the wort in the copper. It says in the notes that this boil was for caramelisation.

The scheme for Draught was the same as for Dark, but without the coloured malt addition.

Scanning the logs I've just noticed something else: the hop additions. Barclay Perkins are about the only brewery I've come across that properly recorded these details. The Dark had 18 lbs of Saaz in the hop back, 35 lbs Saaz 10 minutes before flame out, 13.5 lbs English hops were boiled for an hour and another 13.5 lbs for half an hour.

Next time we'll be looking at Barclay's Lagers during WW II.

Barclay Perkins Lagers 1925 - 1934
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	black malt	crystal malt	lager malt	grits	roast barley	hops	colour
16th Apr	1925	Dark	Dunkles	1057.6	1020.1	4.96	65.10%	1.45%	17.39%	81.16%			Saaz, East Malling and Pacific hops	88
4th Feb	1926	Dark	Dunkles	1057.4	1019.0	5.08	66.90%	1.45%	17.39%	81.16%			Saaz and English hops	84
12th May	1927	Dark	Dunkles	1057.5	1020.2	4.93	64.87%	1.45%	17.39%	81.16%			Saaz, British Columbia and Golding hops.	80
6th Jan	1928	Dark	Dunkles	1057.2	1020.7	4.83	63.81%	1.45%	17.39%	81.16%			Saaz and Golding hops.	80
13th Jan	1928	Dark	Dunkles	1057.3	1020.4	4.88	64.40%	1.45%	17.39%	81.16%			Saaz and Golding hops.	84
7th Aug	1930	Dark	Dunkles	1057.3	1019.4	5.01	66.14%		17.39%	81.16%		1.45%	Saaz and Tettnang hops.	88
15th Aug	1930	Dark	Dunkles	1057.3	1020.2	4.91	64.75%		17.39%	81.16%		1.45%	Saaz and Tettnang hops.	88
7th Aug	1931	Dark	Dunkles	1057.4	1019.7	4.99	65.68%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz and Tettnang hops.	84
11th Jul	1932	Dark	Dunkles	1057.3	1021.0	4.80	63.35%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz and Hallertau hops.	84
12th Sep	1932	Dark	Dunkles	1057.3	1021.3	4.76	62.83%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz and Hallertau hops.	86
24th Jul	1933	Dark	Dunkles	1057.5	1016.7	5.40	70.96%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz hops.	84
9th Apr	1934	Dark	Dunkles	1057.5	1020.8	4.86	63.83%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz hops.	88
28th May	1934	Dark	Dunkles	1057.5	1020.8	4.86	63.83%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz hops.	80
9th Sep	1935	Dark	Dunkles	1057.6	1019.0	5.11	67.05%		18.87%	79.25%		1.89%	Saaz hops.	86
7th Jul	1932	Draught	Lager	1043.5	1013.6	3.96	68.74%			100.00%			Saaz and Hallertau hops.	11.5
19th Jul	1932	Draught	Lager	1043.4	1013.2	4.00	69.59%			100.00%			Saaz and Hallertau hops.	12
10th Jul	1933	Draught	Lager	1043.4	1010.4	4.37	76.04%			100.00%			Saaz hops.	12
14th Mar	1934	Draught	Lager	1043.4	1011.1	4.27	74.42%			100.00%			Saaz hops.	13
4th May	1934	Draught	Lager	1043.2	1011.7	4.17	72.92%			100.00%			Saaz hops.	11
7th Sep	1935	Draught	Lager	1043.5	1010.1	4.41	76.69%			100.00%			Saaz hops.	11
1st Apr	1925	Export	Export	1050.5	1014.1	4.82	72.08%			76.92%	23.08%		Saaz, East Malling and Pacific hops	14
3rd Feb	1926	Export	Export	1050.6	1015.4	4.66	69.57%			76.92%	23.08%		Saaz and English hops	13
16th May	1927	Export	Export	1050.7	1013.8	4.88	72.78%			76.92%	23.08%		Saaz, British Columbia and Golding hops.	12
11th Jan	1928	Export	Export	1050.2	1014.6	4.71	70.92%			76.92%	23.08%		Saaz and Golding hops.	10
22nd Jul	1930	Export	Export	1050.2	1012.1	5.04	75.90%			76.92%	23.08%		Saaz and Tettnang hops.	12
13th Aug	1930	Export	Export	1050.3	1012.3	5.03	75.55%			76.92%	23.08%		Saaz and Tettnang hops.	10
5th Aug	1931	Export	Export	1050.4	1010.7	5.25	78.77%			76.32%	23.68%		Saaz and Tettnang hops.	11
12th Jul	1933	Export	Export	1049.4	1009.5	5.28	80.77%			76.32%	23.68%		Saaz hops.	10.5
21st Mar	1934	Export	Export	1049.5	1011.6	5.01	76.57%			76.32%	23.68%		Saaz hops.	9.5
2nd May	1934	Export	Export	1049.4	1011.1	5.07	77.53%			76.32%	23.68%		Saaz hops.	10
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/1/638, ACC/2305/1/640 and ACC/2305/1/641.

Malting and brewing in Germany in WW I

We're back in WW I again. Can you imagaine what it's going to be like here next year, the anniversary of the outbreak of the war? Unreadable. Sorry, unmissable.

It's a little odd, given the huge degree of animosity in Britain towards the Germans, how Britain's brewing scientists continued to read German technical publications. I wonder how they got hold of them? Probably via some neutral country like Holland.

"MALTING AND BREWING IN GERMANY DURING THE WAR.

We publish this month abstracts of two papers (see pp. 411 and 414) one by Professor W. Windisch under the above title, and the other by Professor K. Windisch dealing with "War Beer." The first paper is a very long one, running through, in fact, sixteen numbers of the Wochensehrift für Brauerei for this year. It reviews practically the whole of the author's recent research work in brewing, and shows how the prolongation of the war far beyond its expected limits has adversely affected the German brewing industry through the scarcity of labour and materials, and how these difficulties have been met by the brewing of lighter beers."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 355.

It was the same story everywhere: lack of labour and raw materials. In both participant and neutral countries. Only the extent of these problems varied. Everywhere beer strength and the quantity of beer produced were reduced.

Now here's an interesting point about the malt being used in wartime Germany, given the stipulations of the Reinheitsgebot

"W. Windisch states that in the case of the 1915 barleys the grist used successfully consisted of 20—40 per cent, of imperfectly modified corns, equivalent, therefore, to the so-called "chit" malt, which consists of barley steeped and couched, and as soon as sprouting has commenced loaded on kiln, whilst the remainder was short-grown malt. This latter is malt germinated for a considerably shorter period than a normal one. Naturally in neither of these forms of grain has modification proceeded very far, but the Author states that he has corrected this by the adoption of certain methods in the brewery. We would point out that in pre-war days "chit" malt was condemned by the majority of German brewers as being only raw barley."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 355.

You could argue that neither of those types was "true" malt, having gone through a very abbreviated production process. It's not clear why they took short cuts in the malting process. Was the grain too low quality to be properly malted? Or were they trying to save fuel?

I've not come across anything similar in Britain during WW I. Though in WW II the government encouraged the use of flake barley because it required less fuel to produce.

Now let's read how they mashed this crappy malt-like stuff:

"The recommendations are to grind the malt to a fine grist in a six-roll mill, to soak the grist in cold water overnight, the temperature of which must be below 68—77° F. [20-25º C], and separate into a thick mash and a thin mash. The former is maintained at 122º F. [50º C] for a certain period, and then saccharified at 148—158º F. [64.5-70º C], after which it is heated to boiling. The boiled thick mash is mixed with the cold thin mash, and the mixture held at 122º F. [50º C] for about half-an-hour, then raised to the temperature of saccharification, and finally heated to the mashing-off temperature. It is stated that if this process be adopted using a liquor containing carbonates a nauseous flavour is produced in the resulting beer, this being attributed to the action of carbonates during the cold digestion of the grist. The best liquor to use in these circumstances is said to be a water containing little or no mineral matter, or a gypseous water."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 23, Issue 6, November-December 1917, Page 355.

To my untrained eye, that looks very much like a single decoction, similar to this classic DDR method:

mash in at 50º C
Warm whole mash to 70º C
Draw off mash and bring to the boil
Aufmaischen* at 76º C and mashout

Though Dickscheit** said that this produced a beer that tasted very similar to one from an infusion mash. Why did they mash this way? Probably for a combination of reasons. Pre-war, most German bottom-fermenting breweries would have used some sort of double or triple decoction mash. Which is expensive in terms of the energy it consumes. With just a single boil of the mash, this was bound to use less fuel and be quicker, so use less manpower. Then why not just go for a simple infusion mash? Because the undermodified malt probably wasn't up to it. And for another much simpler reason: their breweries were designed for decoction mashes. They weren't necessarily that suitable for infusion mashing.

I can't comment on the effect of carbonates in the water. Though I will point out that there were other decoction methods, for example the Augsburg one, where after doughing in with cold water the mash was left to stand for several hours. Presumably the same effect would have taken place. I wonder what the composition of Augsburg brewing water is?






* pump the boiled mash back to the remainder of the mash
** "Leitfaden für den Brauer und Mälzer", 1953, pages 64 – 66.