London vs provincial beer in the 1930's: Bitter

In the second part of this series we'll be taking a look at Bitter brewed inside and outside London.

Despite several London brewers (Truman and Mann, among other) owning breweries in Burton, there was a considerable amount of Pale Ale brewed in London. It made up a big chunk of the beer brewed at Whitbread's Chiswell Street brewery. While Courage brewed none in London, bringing it in from a plant they owned in Alton, Hampshire.

First it's the turn of London Bitters. I'd say that there were two types 8d and 7d Pale Ales. Nos. 12 and 14 are the former, the others the latter. Which leaves a rather muddied picture, especially as the number of samples is small.

Composition of London Beers
					Calories per pint.
	Total Solids per cent.	Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent.	Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1).	ABV	Solid Matter.	Alcohol.	Total.
Bitters and Pale Ales.
No. 10	4.37	3.88	1:0.88	4.93	102	154	250
No. 11	3.44	3.79	1:1.10	4.81	80	151	231
No. 12	4.64	4.36	1:0.93	5.54	108	173	281
No. 13	2.81	3.38	1:1.20	4.29	65	134	199
No. 14	3.63	4.21	1:1.15	5.35	85	167	252
Average	3.78	3.92	1:1.03	4.98	88	156	245
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, pages 84 - 88.

Note the very low figure for residual solids. These beers are all pretty well attenuated.

Now for country Bitters, which are even more diverse:

Composition of Country Beers
					Calories per pint.
	Total Solids per cent.	Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent.	Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1).	ABV	Solid Matter.	Alcohol.	Total.
Bitters and Pale Ales.
No. 50	5.23	4.54	1:0.86	5.77	122	180	302
No. 51	4.63	4.66	1:1.00	5.92	108	185	293
No. 52	2.45	2.97	1:1.21	3.77	57	118	175
No. 53	3.98	3.76	1:0.94	4.78	93	149	242
No. 54	4.02	4.40	1:1.09	5.59	94	175	269
No. 55	4.45	4.08	1:0.91	5.18	104	162	266
No. 50	3.04	4.05	1:1.33	5.14	71	121	192
No. 57	5.63	3.16	1:0.58	4.01	131	125	256
No. 58	0.87	3.27	1:0.47	4.15	160	130	290
No. 59	4.37	3.13	1:0.71	3.98	102	124	226
No. 60	4.15	3.56	1:0.85	4.52	97	141	238
No. 61	6.19	3.70	1:0.59	4.70	144	147	291
No. 62	4.34	3.08	1:0.70	3.91	101	122	223
No. 63	4.88	3.46	1:0.70	4.39	114	137	251
No. 64	5.23	4.24	1:0.81	5.38	122	168	290
No. 65	4.05	3.83	1:0.94	4.86	94	152	246
No. 66	2.23	2.40	1:1.07	3.05	52	95	147
No. 67	2.58	2.78	1:1.07	3.53	60	110	170
No. 68	3.11	3.18	1:1.00	4.04	72	120	198
No. 69	4.00	3.65	1:0.91	4.64	93	145	238
No. 70	4.69	4.23	1:0.90	5.37	109	168	277
Average	4.29	3.62	1:0.84	4.60	100	142	242
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, pages 84 - 88.

That's quite a spread of ABV's, from 3.05% to 5.92%. Anything under 4% ABV was pretty weak for a Bitter in the early 1930's.

Once again, the London beers are stronger, but in this case it's the country beers which have more residual sugars. The two balance out, leaving the calorific value of London and Country Pale Ales nearly identical.

Now a direct comparison of the averages:

					Calories per pint.
	Total Solids per cent.	Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent.	Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1).	ABV	Solid Matter.	Alcohol.	Total.
London	3.78	3.92	1:1.03	4.98	88	156	245
Country	4.29	3.62	1:0.84	4.60	100	142	242
% difference	11.89%	-8.29%	-0.31%	-8.29%	12.00%	-9.86%	-1.24%

I'm not really seeing a pattern yet. Other than London beers containing more alcohol.

Snowden's 1931 emergency Budget

It's about time I gave you some background to Snowden's 1931 emergency Budget. I've mentioned the thing so often, I feel I owe you that.

Philip Snowden was a funny character. A strict Methodist and teetotaller, he was also the first Labour chancellor serving under Ramsay MacDonald. In 1931 things started to get out of hand, with the economy doing poorly and a growing budget deficit. The cabinet couldn't agree on how to handle the crisis, some proposing higher import tariffs, others spending cuts.

With the cabinet unable to agree, the government resigned in August 1931. It was repalced by the National Government, which included members from the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties. The latter group included prime minister Ramsay MacDondald and chancellor Philip Snowden. The Labour partty itself mostly chose to go into oppostion and expelled members, such as MacDondald and Snowden, who supported the new government.

Snowden's first act was to force through an emergency budget full of spending cuts and tax increases. It's all starting to sound very familiar, isn't it? Here are some more details:

"THE BUDGET.
EVERYBODY TO PAY.
INCOME-TAX UP 6d.
REDUCTION OF ALLOWANCES.
BEER, TOBACCO, AND PETROL INCREASES.
CUTS IN TEACHERS' & POLICE PAY.
MINISTERS. M.P.'S, AND JUDGES TO GET LESS.
UNEMPLOYMENT PAY REDUCED 10 PER CENT.
Mr. Snowden. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made in a crowded House of Commons Thursday afternoon his stern call to the nation to shoulder the additional burdens to restore Britain's financial position. It was, he said, one of the most disagreeable tasks that had ever fallen to his lot.

An unbalanced Budget was regarded as one the symptoms of a national financial instability.

It was not deficit at the end of the year that mattered so much as whether measures were taken or not to meet the deficit.

Nationally for some time past had been living beyond our means and living to a considerable extent on our capital. We had been under the delusion during the last few years in these times of unparalleled depression that we could maintain the expenditure of prosperous times. The Government had decided that borrowing from the Unemployment Fund and the Road fund must cease.

There was a £25,000,000 drop in Inland Revenue, and £4,000,000 in Customs and Excise. The estimated deficit in this year Budget was £74,700,000.

The deficit on next year's Budget would be £70,000,000. Nine-tenths the proposed enconomy were proposed and approved by the late Government.

The Chancellor spoke for minutes, and when he concluded he received a great ovation." Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser - Wednesday 16 September 1931, page 1.

The chancellor was insanely optimistic about the impact of his tax increases. This is the exact damage to beer:

"BEER AND TOBACCO.
One penny per pint on beer. An increase both Customs and Excise duties will be made on all ordinary descriptions of beer by 31s per standard barrel. This represents a penny a pint on beer. The increase on beer to date from Friday. The anticipated yield is £4,500,000 this year.

Customs duty on tobacco to be raised from from 8s 10d to 9s 6d a lb. Other forms of tobacco to be increased in the same proportion. The increase of 8d in the tobacco duty would yield this year £2,500,000, and next year £4,000,000."
Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser - Wednesday 16 September 1931, page 1.

I don't know why they've listed the increase as 31 shillings. It was really 34 shillings. The duty had been 100 shillings per standard barrel*, but there was a flat rate 20 shilling rebate per bulk barrel. The emergency budget increased the duty to 134 shillings per standard barrel.

That 1d per pint increase doesn't add up, either. 34 shillings is 408 pence and there are 288 pints in a barrel, making the increase 1.42d per standard pint. Average gravity was about 1043 in 1931, so we need to multiply that 1.42d by 43 and divide it by 55 to get the average price increase. It comes to 1.11d, or a little more than the 1d stated.

This is what really happened with the tax yield from beer:

1930	£71,254,674
1931	£69,269,299
1932	£68,710,020
1933	£67,097,581
Source:
Document B/THB/C/256c held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Not quite the extra £4.5 million Snowden had anticipated.

Snowden wa quite an accompl;ished public speaker, but this sounds a bit creepy:

"CHANCELLOR'S CLARION CALL.
DRAMATIC SCENE AT CONCLUSION SPEECH.
SNEERING SOCIALISTS.
The Chancellor, in the course his speech, referred to the many letters had received since the crisis. They were, said, the most amazing letters, which showed the willingness the nation — of men and women of all classes — to make their contribution to the common need.

Old-age pensioners had returned their pensions (Opposition groans and cries "Shame!"). War pensioners had offered to forego their pensons for a year (renewed groans and jeers). National Savings Certificates had been returned cancelled (more jeers).

The Chancellor looked up with the same understanding smile with which had faced his former friends at the beginning of his speech. After the jeers had died down he continued:—

"Postal orders, large and small, have poured in. Children have sent from their money boxes shilling or half-a-crown. (Opposition jeers and cries of "Shame!"') These little children have helped the nation in its need. (Laughter and jeers.) Factory girls have come to me with the proceeds of collections taken in workshops. (More jeers.) To-day I received a five per cent. War Loan Bond for £1,000 cancelled." (More jeers.)

"The country will accept these proposals and in doing so will show the world an example of the indomitable British spirit in the face of difficulties" he declared, and then, regardlees of the irresponsible mutterings and cries the Socialists, flung in their faces the words of Swinburne's Ode on England.

"All our past proclaims our future: Shakespeare's voice and Nelson's hand,
Milton's faith and Wordsworth's trust in this our chosen and chainless land.
Bear witness: come the world against her, England yet shall stand."

"England yet shall stand," cried the Chancellor as, slowly and with difficulty, resumed his seat.

CHEER BECOMES ROAR.
There came a cheer from the Conservative benches. It became a roar as Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Baldwin, and all the Ministers on the Government Front Bench stood and looked admiringly at Mr. Snowden.

Behind them were cheering ranks of men whose feelings had been roused by the word "England " — men who had forgotten Mr. Snowden's "unpleasant and disagreeable measures " which he said he regretted to have bring forward.

Before the seated figure of Mr. Snowden, relaxing after his ordeal, were the Socialists, dumbfounded and a little shamed-looking that they could not share in the demonstration raised in honour of the man who was and no doubt is — were it not for party machinery — one their stalwarts.

The sound half-hearted booing came from their benches. But this was drowned the enthusiastic cheers the Conservatives, caught for the moment by the spark of intense faith and patriotism shown by the Chancellor.

Quickly it all ended. Experienced parliamentarians said they had never witnessed such a demonstration."
Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser - Wednesday 16 September 1931, page 1.

What was the reaction of the trade? To increase prices:

"Burton brewers have decided to increase the price of all draught beers 24s per barrel, equivalent to a penny pint. This took effect on all orders executed on and from Monday.

The London Bottlers' Association, at their meeting on Monday, resolved to advance bottled Bass. Worthington, and Guinness prices 8d per dozen on half-pints and 1s 4d per dozen pints. This makes the price to the trade 4s 11d per dozen and 9s per dozen half pints and pints respectively."
Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser - Wednesday 16 September 1931, page 1.

24 shillings is exactly 1d per pint. The increase in the price of bottled beer was more than 1d. 16d per dozen is 1.33d per pint.


* 36 Imperial gallons with an OG of 1055.

Toronto airport

I'm stuck hanging around in Toronto airport for a delayed flight. And annoyingly they don't sell any booze until 11:00.. Should I be thankful that my flight is so late that time has now passed?

It's all very high tech. There's an iPad at very seat from which you can order without having to catch a waitress's eye. You can also use the iPad for other things. Like writing blog posts.

I'm having a Wellington Imperial Russian Stout. Canned, but pleasant enough. And a double Maker's Mark.

I wouldn't want the Stout to feel lonely, would I?

The delay means that I'll be late for my afternoon appointment in Chicago. I would tell you what it was, but the project is in a very early stage. Another of the 5 drillion projects I have in some phase of development. Like my book on malting, which might have been out by now, had I not been off gallivanting again.

I had some pretty decent beers in Toronto, most of whose names I can't remember. Cask caknucklehead is one I can recall. Excellent stuff, of which I drank several pints.

My reading matter is Brew Britannia. Been pretty good so far. And strangely unnerving when it describes events, such as the first big CAMRA festival in Coventry Garden, which I attended. Am I now part of history?

London vs provincial beer in the 1930's: Mild Ale

I just love the Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Especially the fact that it's all available online.

I've trawled through it a few times using different search terms. When I find a useful article, I save the pdf and extract the text. I've quite a pile of them, waiting for my attention. Including one on the food value of beer. Which I've finally got around to looking at.

Not that I'm all that interested in the food value of beer. But the article has loads of tables with data taken from beer analyses. And I'm a total tart for any type of beer analysis.

What makes them particularly handy is that there are separate tables of London and provincial beers of different types. Giving me a chance to check something I've seen mentioned but have never found real proof for: that London-brewed beers were stronger. I think originally it was because London brewers, being on the whole quite large, could brew more efficiently. As beer generally sold for the same price everywhere, there wasn't much competition on price. Brewers drew in drinkers by offering a stronger product.

I've combined two different tables from the article, plus added a calculated ABV. First, London Milds:

Composition of London Beers
					Calories per pint.
	Total Solids per cent.	Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent.	Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1).	ABV	Solid Matter.	Alcohol.	Total.
Mild Ales.
No. 1	4.35	3.16	1:0.72	4.01	102	126	228
No. 2	5.00	2.98	1:0.59	3.78	116	118	234
No. 3	3.87	3.41	1:0.88	4.33	90	136	226
No. 4	6.00	3.94	1:0.65	5.00	140	156	296
No. 5	4.91	3.08	1:0.62	3.91	114	121	235
No. 6	4.74	3.18	1:0.67	4.04	110	126	230
No. 7	5.17	2.90	1:0.56	3.68	120	115	235
No. 8	4.90	4.37	1:0.89	5.55	114	174	288
No. 9	4.62	2.98	1:0.64	3.78	108	118	220
Average	4.84	3.33	1:0.68	4.23	114	130	244
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, pages 84 - 88.

That's odd. The average ABV is what I would expect for a London X Ale, a bit over 4% implying on OG of around 1043. But that average has been distorted by the two much stronger examples, Nos. 4 and 8. The relative large proportion of calories which comes from the solid matter implies a fair amount of unfermented material in the finished beer. You'll see better what I mean when I compare Bitter and Mild in a later post.

Now here are the country beers:

Composition of Country Beers
					Calories per pint.
	Total Solids per cent.	Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent.	Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1).	ABV	Solid Matter.	Alcohol.	Total.
Mild Ales.
No. 27	2.47	2.81	1:1.13	3.57	58	112	170
No. 28	4.40	3.83	1:0.87	4.86	103	152	255
No. 29	2.32	2.92	1:1.25	3.71	54	116	170
No. 30	2.69	3.61	1:1.34	4.58	63	143	200
No. 31	2.81	3.57	1:1.27	4.53	65	142	207
No. 32	3.29	3.06	1:0.03	3.89	77	121	198
No. 33	4.02	3.58	1:0.89	4.55	94	142	236
No. 34	4.54	2.92	1:0.64	3.71	106	116	222
No. 35	4.57	2.74	1:0.59	3.48	106	109	215
No. 36	6.58	3.58	1:0.54	4.55	153	142	295
No. 37	2.53	2.19	1:0.86	2.78	59	87	140
No. 38	3.24	2.70	1:0.83	3.43	75	107	182
No. 39	3.49	2.60	1:0.74	3.30	81	103	184
No. 40	4.76	2.00	1:0.60	2.54	111	115	220
No. 41	4.79	3.06	1:0.63	3.89	112	122	234
No. 42	5.74	4.15	1:0.72	5.27	133	165	298
No. 43	3.61	2.79	1:0.77	3.54	84	111	195
No. 44	3.28	2.93	1:0.89	3.72	76	116	192
No. 45	3.38	2.94	1:0.86	3.73	79	117	196
No. 46	2.49	2.54	1:1.02	3.23	58	101	159
No. 47	3.99	3.78	1:0.94	4.80	93	150	243
No. 48	2.72	2.81	1:1.03	3.57	63	112	175
No. 49	3.15	3.15	1:1.00	4.00	73	125	198
Average	3.69	3.09	1:0.83	3.92	86	123	209
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, pages 84 - 88.

As you can see, the country-brewed Milds were indeed weaker. But I was surprised to see that to see that they were also more highly-attenuated. That becomes much clearer when you make a direct comparison of the averages:

					Calories per pint.
	Total Solids per cent.	Absolute Alcohol (by weight) per cent.	Ratio of Total Solids to Alcohol (T.S.=1).	ABV	Solid Matter.	Alcohol.	Total.
London	4.84	3.33	1:0.68	4.23	114	130	244
Country	3.69	3.09	1:0.83	3.92	86	123	209
% difference	-31.17%	-7.77%	0.25%	-7.77%	-32.56%	-5.69%	-16.75%

The country beers have less of everything: alcohol, unfermented material, calories.

One word of warning. There are at least two different types of Mild in the country beers. Ones around 3% ABV are 4d Ales, while those around 4% are X Ales. There aren't any of the former in the London examples, though such beers were brewed in London.

Beer sales by type in the early 1930's

I just stumbled across some handy numbers in an article in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing. I thought I'd share them with you.

The article is, intriguingly, about the food value of beer. I'll be regaling you with some of stuff more directly related to that topic later. There are so many lovely tables, how could I resist?

Now admitedly these aren't hard numbers, just educated guesses as the author, A. Chaston Chapman,  himself admitted:

"So far as I am able to ascertain, the above classes of beer are consumed in something like the following proportions"

these are his guesses:

Beer sales by type in the early 1930's
London and Suburbs.
Mild Ales	40%
Bitters and Pale Ales	40%
Stouts and Porters	15%
Strong Beers and Old Ales	5%
Rest of UK
Mild Ales	50%
Bitters and Pale Ale	35%
Stouts and Porters	10%
Strong Beers and Old Ales	5%
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 1932, page 88.

It's interesting to see that there was a difference between drinkers preferences in London and the rest of the country. I know that it was more complicated than that. The types of beer consumed in Scotland and Northern Ireland were very different from in England.

But I do have some real numbers. I know how much of each type of beer Whitbread brewed in the early 1930's. It was this:

Whitbread production by type 1930 - 1932
Beer type	1930	1931	1923
Mild Ales	35.47%	31.42%	30.44%
Bitters and Pale Ale	32.03%	31.01%	33.13%
Stouts and Porters	28.21%	28.97%	28.56%
Strong Beers and Old Ales	9.77%	8.61%	7.87%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/096, LMA/4453/D/01/097 and LMA/4453/D/01/098.

Not quite the same as Chapman's. Then again, these are production, not sales figures. The Stout figures in particular may well be decepetive. I'm pretty sure Whitnread supplied Stout to other brewers. And a higher proportion than average of Whitbread's trade was in bottled beer. As their Mild Ale wasn't bottled, that's automatically going to lower its share of production.

Not sure if that has taught us much. But at least we had a laugh, eh?

Truman and Snowden's 1931 Budget

Yet another post I've managed to squeeze out of that single document. And I'm still not finished wringing. Not even had to use the mangle yet.

You should all be well aware of Snowden's 1931 emergency Budget. I keep going on about it enough. It was one of the most cataclysmic events in recent British brewing history. And about the only one which didn't take place in wartime. Its effect on British beer - a further lowering of gravities - was permanent.

Document B/THB/C/256c has some figures which highlight wonderfully the Budget's effect. There was an immediate drop in beer production. By 1933, the number of bulk barrels produced was down by more than 25% compared to 1929. But the impact in the number standard barrels* produced was even greater - a reduction by a third. Bad news for the government because the tax was charged on standard barrels.

Why the discrepancy between standard and bulk barrels? Because brewers lowered gravities to reduce their tax bills. This pushed average OG down below 1040. The net result was that even though the tax rate had increased by 42.5% (from 80 to 134 shillings) the amount of revenue collected fell.

By the time the increase was removed the damage was done. And the revenue collected fell even further, hitting its nadir in 1935 at 75% of its 1929 level.

Here's all that information in an tabley numbery form:

UK output and tax paid
year	standard barrels -6%	%	bulk barrels -6%	%	duty payable	%	average gravity
1929	19,252,986	100	24,350,155	100	£70,846,978	100	1043.21
1930	19,550,867	101.5	24,984,168	101.3	£71,254,674	100.5	1043.05
1931	18,488,400	96	23,780,784	96.9	£69,269,299	97.7	1042.69
1932	15,514,209	80.6	20,675,383	84.3	£68,710,020	97	1041.19
1933	12,898,594	67	17,843,579	72.7	£67,097,581	94.7	1039.69
1934	15,043,120	78.1	20,182,308	82.2	£53,884,405	76	1040.99
1935	15,577,830	80.9	20,804,814	85	£53,582,335	75.6	1041.06
1936	16,356,985	85.1	21,969,763	89.6	£55,451,926	78.3	1041.02
1937	16,983,231	88.2	22,724,450	92.6	£57,318,585	80.9	1041.1
1938	18,055,539	93.8	24,205,631	98.6	£61,241,404	86.4	1041.02
1939	18,364,156	95.4	24,674,942	100.6	£62,370,034	88	1040.93
Source:
Document B/THB/C/256c held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Why are they giving the numbers minus 6%? Because brewers were allowed a wastage of 6%. Tax was payable on the amount of wort that went into the fermenters, minus 6%. That's where larger brewers had an advantage as their loss was less than 5%, meaning they paid no tax on some of the beer they sold.

These are the equivalent numbers for Truman. You can see that things panned out slightly differently for them:

Truman (including Russells) output and tax paid
year	standard barrels -6%	%	bulk barrels -6%	%	duty payable	%	average gravity
1929	424,671	100	523,828	100	£1,600,838	100	1044.59
1930	449,373	105.8	558,898	106.7	£1,687,954	105.4	1044.22
1931	429,788	101.2	536,544	102.4	£1,673,738	104.5	1044.06
1932	346,549	81.6	460,534	87.9	£1,575,574	98.4	1041.39
1933	278,252	65.5	398,852	76.1	£1,465,428	91.5	1038.37
1934	333,364	78.5	454,587	86.8	£1,182,116	73.8	1040.33
1935	343,842	81	471,946	90.1	£1,183,347	73.9	1040.07
1936	359,492	84.6	493,712	94.2	£1,236,822	77.2	1040.04
1937	369,115	86.92	507,091	96.81	£1,269,215	79.3	1040.03
1938	373,459	87.9	518,762	99	£1,276,433	79.7	1039.59
1939	371,728	87.3	519,831	99.2	£1,264,241	78.9	1039.33
1940	370,528	87.3	522,691	99.8	£1,534,821	95.9	1038.99
Source:
Document B/THB/C/256c held at the London Metropolitan Archives

1930 to 1932 they did slightly better than the industry as a whole, even increasing output in 1931. After 1936, bulk numbers were almost back to their 1929 level, though standard barrel numbers lagged behind and were lower than average. This is explained by the other difference with the national picture: Truman's average gravity was lower.

It had taken the industry the remainder of the 1930's to get back to where it had been in 1929. And what happened just when everything was getting sorted out? WW II. Which completely buggered things up again.

In the first half of the 20th century the brewing industry was perpetually in turmoil, all of it caused by external factors. There was the 1911 Budget, WW I, the 1931 Budget then WW II. No wonder so many family-owned breweries were happy to sell up in the 1950's.





* A standard barrel is 36 Imperial gallons with an OG of 1055.

Toronto here I come

I'm just about to set off on my third North American trip of the year. Probably my last in 2014. Not because of the cost, but because I'm running out iof holidays.

The highlight (for me at least) will be talking at the AHA Conferrence in Grand Rapids. Though I'm filling in the week running up to it with various events. Obviously mostly designed to persuade you to buy my wionderful new book. Though if you already own the book, you can come along and I'll sign it for a nominal fee.

It's really not all that long until the first event, which is on Sunday in Toronto. Local hiome brewers have brewed up some recipes from the book. You'll get to taste the beers while I spout my usual bollocks. Contextualisation I like to call it, of only because it's a seven syllable word. I'm sure it will be lots of fun.

I'm finally getting excited about the trip. I've been too busy fussing about getting eveything organised for it (and other stuff I'm doing in Europe) to really think about it much.


Sunday 8th June home brewer's event
12:00 -
Toronto Brewing Co.
3701 Chesswood Drive,
Unit 115,
Toronto, Ontario M3J2P6   
http://www.torontobrewing.ca/               
https://www.facebook.com/events/233005603563445/


Tuesday 10th June Chicago event
18:00 - 21:00
Moxee Kitchen & Madmouse Brewery,
724 W Maxwell St,
Chicago, Illinois 60607
http://www.moxeerestaurant.com/
https://www.facebook.com/events/618211321602781/


Wednesday 11th June Grand Rapids event
19:00 - 21:00
Perrin Brewing Company
5910 Comstock Park Dr NW
Comstock Park, MI 49321
(616) 551-1957
http://perrinbrewing.com/
http://sicilianosmkt.blogspot.nl/2014/05/new-beer-friday-ron-pattinson-edition.html


Just in case you've forgotten in the minutes it's taken you to read the above, this is my new book:

The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer.

English brewers' visit to Holland

Another random Journal of the Institute of Brewing article that caught my attention. Or rather, which I went hunting for.

Accounts of British brewers' trips abroad are such great resources. They are the perfect reporters, both understanding the brewing process and fascinated by practices which differ from those in Britain. Sadly, this article doesn't contain that level of detail. But it does tell me where I can find it.

"ENGLISH BREWERS' VISIT TO HOLLAND

The eighth annual tour of foreign breweries organised and conducted under the auspices of The Brewers' Journal took place last June —the country visited being Holland. The party, numbering over thirty, included several members of the Institute and was easily the most notable so far, including as it did representatives from many of the largest breweries in England and Scotland.

The party were abroad for a week, making their headquarters in Amsterdam, and visiting, in addition, The Hague, Rotterdam and Amersfoort. At The Hague, the well-known "Z.H.B." brewery was visited. This brewery has a capacity for 92,000 barrels a year, of which the greater proportion is sold in cask. Messrs. Heineken's was the brewery visited at Rotterdam. This firm also has a branch in Amsterdam, and between them can turn out about 460,000 barrels a year. The party were received by Dr. Heineken and Dr. Mendlik, whom, it will be remembered, read a paper before the London Section in March of this year, and which was published in our July issue. The outstanding feature of this brewery was the brewhouse, which is one of the best seen on these tours.

At Amersfoort the party visited the Phoenix Brewery which, although smaller than the others, was most interesting. The capacity is about 40,000 barrels a year, and the point of special interest was that practically the entire output is exported. In Amsterdam, the Amstel Brewery was visited. As a single concern this is the largest in Holland, with a capacity of about 320,000 barrels a year. The maltings of this company are a fine example of the pneumatic system equipped with sixteen large Galland drums."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 43, Issue 5, September-October 1937, page 368 - 369.

I'm very grateful for those production figures. It helps put the Dutch industry into context. Amstel was the largest brewery with an annual output of just 320,000 barrels. That's quite modest by British standards. But Holland is a much smaller country and this is before Dutch breweries got heavily into exporting.

It would be interesting to know how much of Heineken's beer was brewed in Amsterdam and how much in Rotterdam. I assume they're referring to the 1930's brewhouse at Heineken, which is still intact. Very attractive it is, too.

Phoenix and ZHB were two of the older Lager breweries and it's a shock to see just how little they brewed.

I love stuff like this, details of the tax regime:

"The Excise Duty Holland in is charged at the rate of 1.50 guilders per degree—hectolitre, the charge being taken in the copper immediately before turning out. An allow ance of 4.2 per cent, is made for shrinkage in volume on cooling, but there is no allow ance for loss. The degree is 10° of specific gravity, so that the duty on a barrel at 1,048° would be about £1 6s 6d.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 43, Issue 5, September-October 1937, Page 369.

I'd suspected tax awas paid on degree hectolitre because there's a column for that in Heineken's brewing records. In case you're interested, the tax in Britain on a barrel of beer with an OG of 1048 was £3 9s 9d, or more than two and a half times as much. ever  since WW I high taxation has been a feature of British brewing.

"The party was received with proverbial Dutch hospitality throughout the week, while the weather combined to make the tour one of the most successful on record. Readers interested will find a detailed account of the tour in the July and August issues of The Brewers' Journal.

Holland, in common with the rest of Europe, suffered in the depression some years ago, but trade is now on the upgrade, chiefly for export, as the Dutch can hardly be described as a beer-drinking nation. The beer, however, is good and has a distinctive flavour. There are not a large number of breweries outside the big cities, so that they have no Institute to compare with our own. Nevertheless, they have taken a prominent part in scientific research, and names which come readily to mind—Elion, Kluyver, Hartong and Mendlik—testify to the progressive nature of the industry."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 43, Issue 5, September-October 1937, Page 369.

In the Brewer's Journal, eh? I'm sure I've got a bound copy of the 1937 issues. Must take a look in that.

Holland has fallen in and out of love with beer a couple of times over the last century. It's only really after WW II that beer-drinking properly took root. Somnething many Dutch don't realise.