Final results by brewery (part two)

I know. I'm still dragging you along. But I'm determined we'll all make the finishing line, even if I do scrape all the skin off your back.

Five more breweries today, hopefully not quite as dodgy as the last set.

First is Hoare, another of the Porter breweries that popped to prominence in the 18th century.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Hoare	Burton	1017.2	1054.94	4.89	68.70%	0.67	10	22.22%
Hoare	Pale Ale	1012.1	1046.3	4.44	73.83%	0.00	11	50.00%
Hoare	Porter	1010.4	1034.0	3.06	69.38%	-1.56	9
Hoare	Stout	1017.9	1054.2	4.70	67.06%	0.10	8
Hoare	X	1033.8	1009.8	3.11	71.16%	0.30	8	70.00%
average						-0.10	9.2	47.41%

That's not too bad. Only one negative score, but a pretty dreadful one: -1.56 for their Porter. But, if you remember, lots of the Porters were rubbish, even from breweries whose other beers were good. There are a couple of OK-ish scores for Stout and Mild Ale. Only Burton, with 0.67, gets much of a positive score. Not how that's the style with the worst clarity. One of the big lessons from these analyses is that clarity and quality don't necessarily always walk hand in hand.

Whitbread's choice of breweries seems quite random in some respects. Sure, the big London brewers are there: Courage, Whitbread, Truman, Charrington and Mann. But ones like Huggins and Lion - why pick them? They were neither particularly large nor famous. Especially when larger breweries, like Taylor Walker, were ignored.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Huggins	Burton	1012.5	1054.2	5.42	76.88%	0.67	11	44.44%
Huggins	Pale Ale	1008.7	1046.0	4.86	81.10%	0.36	6	54.55%
Huggins	Stout	1018.5	1062.1	5.67	70.27%	1.09	4
Huggins	X	1036.0	1008.1	3.63	77.57%	0.20	9	60.00%
average						0.58	7.5	53.00%

I'll be honest. I'd hadn't heard of Huggins before seeing the Whitbread Gravity Book. Having disappeared in the 1920's didn't help. They're the first brewery with all positive scores. However, there's no Porter, a style which let down many of the other breweries. Best scorer is Stout with 1.09, followed by Burton with 0.67. You can see that the beer that was most often clear, X Ale, got the worst average score. While second-best Burton had the worst score for clarity. With an overall average of 0.58 and no negative averages, Huggins seems a fairly safe bet.

Now owners of that spectacular riverside brewery, Lion.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Lion	Burton	1012.6	1053.73	5.35	76.47%	0.78	8	22.22%
Lion	Porter	1009.6	1037.7	3.64	74.35%	0.63	4
Lion	Pale Ale	1010.7	1046.5	4.65	77.05%	0.00	12	50.00%
Lion	X	1040.9	1007.6	4.33	81.37%	0.40	6	50.00%
average						0.45	7.5	40.74%

The lion which used to stand on top of the brewery is all that remains of the structure, sadly. We've another overall positive average, this time of 0.45. Not quite all positive scores as one is zero, but not too bad. Though once again the top-scorer, Burton, is the worst for clarity, with fewer than a quarter of the samples bright.

Mann was one of the rising stars of London brewing at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Was their popularity merited by the quality of their beer?

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Mann	Burton	1011.7	1053.86	5.49	78.31%	1.25	3	50.00%
Mann	Pale Ale	1008.3	1053.4	5.88	84.44%	0.07	10	35.71%
Mann	Porter	1009.2	1038.8	3.83	76.23%	-0.25	6
Mann	Stout	1012.0	1054.5	5.54	78.05%	0.43	6
Mann	X	1041.3	1008.2	4.26	79.96%	1.33	1	66.67%
average						0.57	5.2	50.79%

Partly. They were famous for their Ales amd, sure enough, both their Burton Ale and Mild Ale score well, averaging over 1. Their Pale Ale and Porter let them down which is why the overall average is only 0.57. For once it was the lowest scorer that was the least bright. I'd  be well served by a Manns pub as Burton and Mild would be my drinks of choice.

Finally this time it's Meux, who had only just vacated their horseshoe brewery at the corner of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Meux	Burton	1009.7	1053.31	5.69	81.69%	1.11	4	44.44%
Meux	MA	1028.1	1005.9	2.88	78.93%	-0.57	1	57.14%
Meux	Pale Ale	1007.4	1044.8	4.87	83.36%	0.33	7	41.67%
Meux	Stout	1014.7	1054.9	5.23	73.29%	0.18	7
Meux	X	1041.2	1008.2	4.28	80.02%	0	10	54.55%
average						0.21	5.8	49.45%

That's not too bad. only one negative score and that was for watery MA, the low-gravity Mild. Kiddies Mild I think of it as. At under 3% ABV, it was about as alcoholic as Radler. Their Burton came out on top, with an average of 1.11. However this wasn't reflected in its clarity score, which was a poor 44%.

Right. Just one more last push and the slog is over. Let's hope I can find enough about Lager to keep us entertained.

25% off my Lulu print books

until the end of Wednesday (15th October) with this code:

EATYOUREGGS

Isn't that handy - you can pick up my latest masterpiece Draught! for a very reasonable price

Barclay Perkins Bookstore













This code may only work in the US Lulu bookstore.

Lambic in the 1930's again

Remember me saying I wished I had more old description of Lambic brewing? It turns out I did. And in a really obvious place.

What could be a more obvious place to look than "Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces"? (Investigation into the yeast type Brettanomyces') The Dutch author, knowing Brettanomyces played a role in Lambic brewing, clearly made a little trip down to Brussels to find out more. He picked a brewery you may have heard of.

"Thanks to the kind cooperation of Mr. A. Vossen, Director of Brasserie "Mort subite" in Brussels, I have been able to acquaint myself with the method of preparing "lambic". Essentially this is done as follows.

The grist for "Gueuze-Lambic" is a mixture of barley malt and unmalted wheat, in which the quantity of the latter raw material makes up 40 to 50% of the total deposit. After this mash has passed the usual temperatures for the protein degradation and saccharification, it is filtered, hops are added and the hopped wort boiled for about 5 hours. The amount of added hop is 800-900 grams per hl of wort.

To demonstrate better the significance of this number, it is important to note that for beer brewed in this country and also for the normal types of beer brewed in Germany, up to 250 grams of hops is added per hl of wort."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 24.

You can see that a large amount of hops is confirmed. Though this is much less - 2.8 to 3.2 lbs per barrel - than the 8 to 12 lbs specified in the 1932 Brewers' Journal article. Which source to trust? Not sure. It could just be different hopping rates at different breweries.

"The product thus obtained, after filtration, is put into flat coolers where it remains ± 24 hours; there is no artificial cooling.

During cooling, the wort takes numerous organisms from the air. After cooling the wort is put into wooden barrels of about 2 hl size and these vessels in a room with a temperature of 15 ° - 18 ° C.. Yeast is not added; A slow fermentation occurs spontaneously. A closing piece is placed on the barrels, in which a small opening is located; this opening closes iself automatically with exudates, which will float up through the action of the fermentation.

The beer remains 2 to 3 years in the casks and then after clearing it is filled into bottles where the fermentation and lagering continue at the same temperature for about 2 years. The product thus obtained is the so-called "Gueuze-lambic "; it has an original gravity of 13-14° Balling.

The resulting product of two to three years fermentation and lagering in the casks is already suitable for consumption itself. It is also sold on draught under the name of "gueuze".

"krieken-lambic" is "lambic", where an appropriate amount of cherries is added in the barrels.

In passing it should be mentioned here that "faro" and "mars" which are also Brussels special beers are prepared in a similar way to "lambic ", but these beers have a lower original gravity than "lambic "."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, pages 24 - 25.

I think we all already knew that Lambic was left in a cooler. 24 hours is a long time to be in a cooler. Longer than you would need to cool the wort. Clearly cooling isn't the only consideration at play here.

I'll admit to not quite understanding the bit about the closing. Oh, the original book is in Dutch, by the way. It's my translation here. Exudates is what Google translate comes up with for the Dutch word "afscheidingsstoffen". If anyone has a better translation, let me know.

A gravity of 13-14° Balling, with the 90% attenuation you would expect from Lambic, leaves a beer of 6 to 6.5% ABV. Which is a bit higher than today. Two or three years in cask on the other hand is much like today. Though it confuses me that Gueuze-lambic is used for the version refermented in bottles and just Gueuze for the younger draught stuff. That's definitely different from current practice, where the names would be Gueuze and Lambic respectively.

Faro and Mars are once again said to be lower-gravity versions. No mention of sweetening, which I though was an essential feature of Faro.

""Lambic" is only be brewed in the cold seasons, viz. from October to April. In the last twenty years it has been attempted, through the use of pure cultures of the yeast and bacteria species generally found in "lambic", to shorten fermentation and lagering to 5 to 6 months and also to brew in the summer. However, this process has not made much progress.

For the fermentation of lambic Brettanomyces yeast is now considered essential; these probably also tend to get into  the wort during cooling. This is not so surprising, since the air and the coolers are undoubtedly sufficiently contaminated with these yeasts."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 25.

I wonder if any of the commercial Lambic breweries currently use pure cultures? It wouldn't surprise me. But, unlike the Brewers' Journal text, this does state that Lambic was usually spontaneously fermented, with the infection starting in the cooler.

That was informative, wasn't it? Maybe I should look to see if I have more stuff like this about Lambic.

Draught! is out

Yes it's finally complete, posssibly my least commercial book yet.

What can I say? Creating something less saleable than Numbers! I took as a challenge. One I've risen to with this minute examination of draught beer in London pubs in the 1920s. Maybe I should have made it slightly more specific.

I'll finish with a traditional:

buy my books!



Almost forgot. There's a deluxe hardback edition available, too.

Final results by brewery

I think we're finally there. The very last post in this series. I think.

We'll be looking at the results for each of the beers from every brewery. It's quite depressing in some cases to see just how shit the quality of beer in their pubs was. There really are some breweries whose houses should be avoided.

I suppose I'll just dive straight in with the first brewery alphabetically, which just happens to be Barclay Perkins.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Barclay Perkins	Burton	1010.8	1052.4	5.42	79.41%	-0.18	13	27.27%
Barclay Perkins	Pale Ale	1008.7	1045.6	4.81	80.88%	0.25	8	50.00%
Barclay Perkins	Porter	1011.6	1037.5	3.35	68.98%	-0.63	8
Barclay Perkins	Stout	1014.6	1055.4	5.31	73.72%	-1.21	12
Barclay Perkins	X	1041.8	1010.7	4.01	74.38%	-0.64	12	7.14%
average						-0.48	10.6	28.14%

Shit. That's the only way to describe their beer. Only their Pale Ale claws its way up to a small positive score. the Stout - with an average score of -1.21 is just awful. And you'd want to steer well clear of the Porter and Mild Ale, too. The overall average of -0.48 is very poor. Cloudy shit, too. Only just more than a quarter of the samples were bright.

Next it's Cannon.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Cannon	Burton	1013.3	1052.8	5.13	74.77%	-0.73	14	45.45%
Cannon	Pale Ale	1009.0	1045.2	4.72	80.06%	-0.09	14	54.55%
Cannon	Porter	1009.6	1034.6	3.25	72.38%	-2.56	11
Cannon	Stout	1014.9	1049.5	4.49	70.05%	0	9
Cannon	X	1035.1	1008.1	3.53	77.11%	0.54	4	64.29%
average						-0.57	10.4	54.76%

That's not really any better. Still only one positive score. And the truly appalling score for their Porter leaves the average even worse than Barclay Perkins at -0.57. Surprisingly, the one half-decent beer is a fairly weak Mild. At least their beer wasn't as murky as Barclay Perkins, with around half the samples bright.

Charrington was very much a brewery on the up between the wars.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Charrington	Burton	1014.6	1054.48	5.19	73.28%	1.00	6	66.67%
Charrington	Pale Ale	1008.7	1048.2	5.14	81.91%	-0.09	15	27.27%
Charrington	Stout	1012.9	1049.7	4.78	73.73%	-1.09	11
Charrington	X	1040.8	1008.7	4.17	78.63%	-0.70	13	30.00%
Charrington 9d only	Stout	1013.3	1052.5	5.10	74.70%	-1.00	10
average						-0.38	11	41.31%

Which is why it's such a surprise how poor their beer is. Again there's a single average positive score, this time for Burton. But the overall average is negative once more, -0.38. Clarity isn't great, either. The vast majority of Pale Ale and Mild Ale samples were cloudy.

So far so bad. Will City of London show any improvement?

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
City of London	Burton	1010.2	1051.33	5.36	80.03%	0.09	12	27.27%
City of London	Pale Ale	1008.7	1045.5	4.79	80.82%	1.00	5	38.46%
City of London	Porter	1008.9	1036.1	3.54	75.56%	-2	10
City of London	X	1033.7	1006.4	3.55	81.04%	-1.25	14	33.33%
average						-0.54	10.25	33.02%

A bit. OK, the overall average is still a poor -0.54. But at least two beers have a positive average, Pale Ale and Burton. Even if the Pale ale score is only just positive. Clarity, on the other hand, is dreadful.

Not sure I can face all of this today. Maybe I'll stop after the next brewery, Courage.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Courage	Burton	1012.1	1052.45	5.25	76.95%	1.25	2	50.00%
Courage	Pale Ale	1012.0	1053.8	5.46	77.93%	1.25	4	50.00%
Courage	Porter	1010.9	1037.5	3.45	70.88%	0.22	5
Courage	Stout	1011.6	1046.3	4.51	74.98%	-1.67	13
Courage	X	1034.5	1007.3	3.53	78.76%	0.38	7	93.75%
average						0.29	6.2	64.58%

That's better. Take out the rubbish Stout and it would look pretty good. Even with that, there overall average is still positive at 0.29.  Without it, the average would be 0.79. Odd that their Porter did better than their Stout. Clarity is excellent for their Mild, not so good for their Burton and Pale Ale.

Fifteen breweries in total, five done today. I make that two more parts to go. Then we really will be done.

Lambic in 1932 (part two)

We're back with that 1930's article on Lambic. With more surprising stuff about blending.

I wish I had more material like this on Belgian brewing. Then again, maybe it's better I'm not distracted any more than I already am from my primary aims. But every time I read something modern about Belgian beer history I get uneasy. The same assumptions that have plagued histories of British beer seem at play. Projecting the present into the past being the most dangerous.

First some more about the beer itself.

"The spontaneously fermented beers of the Brussels district are usually brewed from equal parts of malt and ungerminated wheat. Several types are frequently obtained from the same brew. For example, the first wort gives Lambic, the later runnings give March or small beer. Faro is obtained by blending the two. The Lambic is often kept two or even three years before use. Gueuse-lambic is natural Lambic to which no additions have been made. The customer may add sugar if he so desires. It is often kept several years in bottle."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

I've read about the three types of lambic brewed from a single mash in 19th-century texts. I can't imagine that they currently make anything weaker than Faro. I wonder if that's brewed as is or made from diluting Lambic? It's interesting how the term Gueuse-Lambic is used differently from today. Now it means a blend of aged Lambic blende and bottled. Back in the 1930's, it seems to have meant uncut Lambic. I wonder when the meaning changed?

The grist sounds much like today: a mix of malted barley and unmalted wheat.

"One is frequently asked what is the origin of the name Gueuse-lambic. It may simply be the Lambic of the poor. It is known that the latter adopt as a title of honour the name which was given to them in contempt. The poor woodmen and sailors reserve for themselves the best drinks and foods they produce."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

It's all very well coming up with an explanation about the Gueuse bit, but what about Lambic?

Now some more about blending.

"Tasting is a very important ceremony in the preparation of special beers. As with all luxury drinks, the aim is always to please customers. Each brewery consequently has a taster who has to determine the quantity of candy syrup or old beer which must be added. He has to regulate the blends and must know the taste of every customer. Each brewery thus tends to produce a beer of special flavour and the fermentations differ from one brewery to another. Details of brewing also influence the flavour. Thus blending in cask or fermenting vessel have different effects. It has been noticed that the flavours marry better in the latter case, as some of the constituents of the old beer may be modified during fermentation. The Lambic may contain all sorts of disease organisms and may have suffered from ropiness or haze. The yeast must consequently progressively become more infected, and the bad effects show themselves in the beer after quite lengthy periods of storage, sometimes months or even a year. Wort to which additions are to be made is comparatively strong, and in it 25 to 50 per cent, of wheat or other grain is used, with 8 to 12 lb. per barrel of hops. The beer is fermented in large storage casks and clarifies spontaneously. After the secondary fermentation it is kept long enough to become definitely acid."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

You can what they mean by blending is quite different from today. We'd now proably call mixing with syrup or vinegar cutting rather than blending. And note again that they mention blending in old beer with wort before fermentation. Having a skilled blender is still important in Lambic breweries. I can remeber being told that was one of the problems at Belle Vue. That produced some of the best Lambic, but not having good blenders couldn't get the most out of it. Or maybe it was just the sugar and other shit they were putting into it.

Yeast getting infected? Isn't that the whole point of Lambic brewing? That's rather a lot of hops for beer of this strength. Sadly, there's no mention of their age. I'd be shocked if they used that quantity of fresh hops, as it's a 19th-century IPA type level of hopping.

I'm intrigued by it souring "after the secondary fermentation". What's going on then? Is there a tertiary fermentation? Having seen a breakdown of a Lambic fermentation, it seems to go through multiple fermentations, with different organisms taking the lead, after finishing primary.

"The alcohol content of Lambic varies from 4 to over 6 per cent., with solid matter between 6 and 3 per cent. The beers are better fermented in open casks than in fermenting vessels as the attenuation is too rapid in the latter. The lactic acid develops first followed by the acetic. The fermentation is slow and the characteristic flavour is not developed in less than a year. The beers are very dextrinous.— Petite Gazette du Brasseur."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

Now there's a thing. While many Belgian styles have become stronger Lambic hasn't. If anything, it's got weaker. Nowadays they're always around 5% ABV. I know that there were stronger versions because I've an analysis of a 19th-century Lambic that was 6% ABV.

That's it for this article. Must pan the Brewers' Journal for some more nuggets.

Saturday 1st November 2014

I'll be free for a beer in New Jersey.

"Aren't you supposed to be in the Northwest in November?"

Yes I am. And will be. This is a work trip. I'll have a full two days to recover before heading across the Atlantic again.

15% off my Lulu print books

until the end of Thursday (9th October) with this code:

FINDACURE

a luxury hardback edition or one of my outrageously expensive books might now be within reach.

Barclay Perkins Bookstore



This code may only work in the US Lulu bookstore.

German brewing in 1960

Right. More Lager. I seem to have gone back into bottom-fermenting mode. No idea why. Just interesting stuff I tripped over, I suppose.

This is the second part of a Journal of the Institute of Brewing article on Danish and German brewing. We'll dive right in with the introduction.

"West Germany
In West Germany, beer is subject to the Purity Law which forbids the brewing of beer from materials other than malt, hops, yeast and water. This restricts brewing to all-malt mashes and prohibits the use of soluble chill-proofing agents. Adsorptive materials have, however, long been allowed, and where formerly beech shavings were added to the lager cask, silicate earths such as bentonite are now widely used for clarification.

Great changes have been made in the last 15 years with rebuilding, particularly in the war-damaged areas of the North which now holds a distinct technical lead in modern plant over the old-established centre of Munich. With the growing popularity of pale Dortmund beers, there are now, in Dortmund, the four largest single German breweries with a combined output of over 2.5 million brl.; this represents about 8.2% of the total German beer production."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 66, 1960, pages 498 - 499.

He's not quite correct there with the Reinheitsgebot - it allows sugar in top-fermenting beer. I like the mention of beechwood shavings, a practice I seem to remember an obscure American brewery employing. I know what the argument is for allowing things like shavings and silicate earth: they didn't end up in the finished beer, ergo weren't ingredients. It's a bit of a fiddle.

Interesting that the focus of the industry was moving north from Munich to the Rhineland. Though I guess I should have known that, as Dortmunder Export was all the rage after WW II. That growing popularity was just about to end, as this table shows:

German beer production by beer type (%)
type	1968	1970	1976	1992
Export	57%	50%	32%	10.1%
Pils	19%	25%	41%	64.1%
Sources:
Die Biere Deutschlands, 1993.
Brauwelt Brevier 2003

2.5 million barrels isn't a great amount for the four largest breweries in the country. That's only an average of 600,000 barrels each. It shows how much less concentrated the German brewing industry was than the British one. The largest British breweries in the late 19th century brewed over 1 million barrels a year. The four largest UK breweries would have produced way more beer than that in 1960. 

Now something on beer types:

"In general, beers fell into three types: the dry, highly-hopped Pilsner, the fuller and less bitter Dortmund and Bavarian voll-bier type, and the heavy dark Munich type. Barleys were obtained from Central Germany and Czechoslovakia, and those from the latter source, being generally finer in quality and of lower nitrogen content, were used extensively for Pilsner brewing. Australian barley was also bought direct ex-farm at competitive prices, but extensive screening was needed before it could be used."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 66, 1960, page 499.

It's indicative of how marginal Weissbier was at the time that it doesn't even get a mention. By Bavarian Voll-Bier they mean Helles and "the heavy dark Munich type" is Dunkles. Which was already starting to become rarer. As this table demonstrates:

Löwenbräu Munich sales by type %
	1938/39	1950/51	1960/61	1970
Dunkles	64	17	11
Helles	36	83	89
draught	80	56	41	37
bottled	20	44	59	63
Source:
"Löwenbräu, Von den Anfängen des Müunchner Brauwesen" by Wolfgang Behringer, pages 268 - 269.

And that's a brewery in Munich, a place where Dunkles remained relatively popular. Be interested to know what the proportion of Helles and Dunkles is today.

Not having seen German brewing logs, I didn't really have idea of the source of their barley. Czechoslvakia is pretty obvious, other than the Iron Curtain thing going on at the time. But I wouldn't have guessed Australia. Obviously Britain, with its global Empire and international trade plucked raw materials from every part of the world.

Now let's look at German malting:

"Malting.—The main malting procedures observed are outlined in Table III. Aeration in steep was always abundant and was usually in-place, but occasionally involved transferring to another cistern. All six makings visited had modern Saladin installations, although Munich and Märtzen malts were still made on the open floor.

Kilning provided many examples of modern plant operated with much reduced labour forces. A common feature was the singlefloor construction with forced air draught provided from a pressure heating chamber below, with turning in this case unnecessary. Quantities of the order of 100 Qr. were kilned at one time, with a limiting depth of about 30 in. Heat supply to the calorifier was either steam or super-heated water in a closed high-pressure circuit at temperatures well above boiling point. Temperature-recording at various points in the piece was common, and in one plant the rate of ventilation was electrically coupled to the relative humidity of the exhaust air. Some kilns could be tilted for discharge; others used a manually-controlled stripper. Central relay panels incorporating the temperature charts were used to control kilning."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 66, 1960, page 499.

Interesting that they stuck with floor malting for the darker malts. Speaking of which the article includes a nice table of the different malts:

TABLE III
West German Malts
	Pilsner	Martzen or Vienna	Munich
Steep temperature	About 60" F.	60-66° F.	50° F. (3-4 days)
Germination	8-day, rising to 63° F.	8-day, rising to 68° F.	8-day, rising to 76° F.; stewing on last day
Kilning	20-hr. Maximum draught early. Temp. to 160º F.	20-30 hr. Maximum draught early. Temp, to 190-220° F.	Less draught early. Finished at 230-240° F.
Analysis
Colour (E.B.C.)	approx. 3°	approx. 6°	9-12°
Fine/coarse difference (lb. per Qr.)	4	2 - 3	-

How does that compare to British malts? I thought you might ask that. SO I prepared another table:

British and Continental malts
	Pale Ale	Mild Ale	Pilsner	Vienna	Munich
kilning	203-221º F		158º F	194º F	212-221º F
Colour (E.B.C.)	4-6º	6-9º	3°	5.5-6º	15-25°
Source:
"Brewing Science and Practice" by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2000, pages 27 - 28.

The Pilsner, Vienna and Munich malts are of continental manufacture. Pale ale malt fits in somewhere between Vienna and Munich malt. The big difference in colour in the Munich malts tends to make me believe that they are different types. The one from the Journal of the Institute of Brewing being pale Munich, the other dark Munich.

Next time we'll be looking at brewing.

Lambic in 1932

One of my big problems is harvesting information then forgetting about it before I have time to use it. Like this article about Lambic in the Brewers' Journal.

It seems to be a translation of an article from the French-language brewing periodical, "Petite Gazette du Brasseur". It provides a tantalising glimpse into pre-war Lambic brewing.

"LAMBIC

Visitors to Belgium usually wish to taste some of the beers typical of that country, such as Lambic or Faro, though they afterwards admit, not infrequently, that their palates would require a certain amount of education before they could fully appreciate the special qualities of these beverages. One of the characteristics of these beers consists in the use of grain other than barley. Wheat is generally used in the form of raw grain mixed with malt. The quantity employed may be even equal to that of the malt, it is usually said that wheat beers froth a great deal, but it would be more correct to say that they hold their head better than all-malt beer. Lactic and acetic acid are very quickly produced in them, and this is one of the characteristics of the Special Brussels beers. The high percentage of acids produced esterifies the alcohol during storage and gives the typical aromas to these beers. Use of different kinds of wheat gives special characteristics to the beers, while rye, oats and buckwheat are also occasionally used in addition."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

"their palates would require a certain amount of education" what a polite way of saying they spat out Lambic in disgust. because that's probably what happened when it was first sampled by the unwary or unwarned.

I'm not an expert in Belgian styles and their history. So the fact that I hadn't heard of grains other than barley or wheat in Lambic doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't surprise me. In the Middle Ages and early modern periods beer in the Low Countries and Northwest Germany was often brewed from multiple grains. Using a combination of barley, wheat, oats and rye wasn't unusual.

The high acid content shouldn't surprise you. I thought it was mostly lactic acid in Lambic, but don't quote me on that. In general, pleasant acidity in beer usually comes mostly from lactic acid.

Now something about fermentation:

"The fermentation methods adopted in the breweries may resemble either bottom or top fermentation. In the first case the temperature is kept below 50 deg. Fahr. and the yeast settles on the bottom of the fermenting vessel. The top fermentations are carried out at the temperature of the air and the yeast comes up. In certain cases the fermentation is spontaneous and started by organisms from the air or in the casks. This fermentation is very slow, and is not now used in the breweries devoted to making these beers."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

What an odd thing to say: "may resemble". It implies that while they may look on the surface like top- or bottom-fermentation, something else is really happening. But the last part I find most surprising. That Lambic brewers no longer spontaneously fermented. Is he only talking about larger commercial Lambic brewers? He must be, because the little ones around today I think have always stuck with spontaneous fermentation.

The way they blended also has some surprises:

"Additions of wort or very acid old beer play a very important part in the brewing. These are made in variable proportions to suit the taste of customers, and sometimes even vinegar or acetic acid are added. The old beer is acid and has passed through a sequence of diseases. If it is added to the casks, it is advisable to pasteurise it by heating it for a short time at 158 deg. Fahr. If the old beer is added before fermentation, it may be boiled for a few minutes in the copper and afterwards passed over the refrigerator before mixing with the wort in the starting vessel."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

Remember recently in a piece about brewing during WW II in Belgium it was mentioned that vinegar was used to sour blends in place of Lambic? It's clear that the practice pre-dated the war. Surely just adding vinegar to make it sour is cheating?

I can't imagine that old Lambic is pasteurised today before blending. And I'm certain no-one blends in old beer before fermentation starts. I t makes you realise that blending Lambic hasn't necessarily always been performed ass it is today.

I think that's enough for today. Next time we'll be learning more about the people who drank it.

German Pilsner

I tumbled over this lode-bearing rock when looking for something for Adrian Tierney-Jones. For some reason he thought I might be the sort of person who owned a bound edition of the 1933 Berwers' Journal. Of course I do.

I was really pleased to be able pick up good run of years between the wars from an Institute of Brewing and Distilling auction. Brewing journals are as good as non-existent in the normal second hand book market.

But I'm rambling. The article in question is about the use of the word Pilsner to describe German beer. Before the Czechs (or Bohemian-Austrians as they were back then) knew it, brewers all over Europe were calling their beers Pilsner. They never really had a chance of regaining control of the term. Especially when they were still part of a larger empire. I've noticed that breweries in what is now Austria were some of the first to be guilty of this.

"PILSNER" BEER.
The German Law Courts have had before them the suit of the brewers of Pilsen, who sought to have German brewers forbidden the use of the designation "Pilsner." The Reich Supreme Court first ruled in 1912 that German brewers were entitled to market beer brewed elsewhere than in Pilsen, Bohemia, but in the Pilsner manner under such names as "Radeberger Pilsner."

Since then the issue has been complicated by the fact that Pilsen is no longer an Austrian but a Czechoslovak town. All ingenious argument of the German breweries was that, as the Czech Government insists on the use of the Czech name for all towns within its territory, "Pilsner" beer could in future only be brewed in Germany. The Reich Supreme Court has confirmed recent judgments of Hamburg and Cologne courts based on its own 1912 ruling, and reversed the judgment of a Berlin court which had ruled that German breweries might only sell beer under such names as "Gottesberger Pilsner"  if the two words were printed in type of equal size and were followed by the words "Beer in the Pilsner manner."
"Brewers' Journal 1933', page 87.

How odd that they should have picked Radeberger Pilsner as their example, a beer that a couple of decades later was a flag-ship beer of the DDR. (I never cared for it much myself. There were much better Pilsners in Thüringen.) Though it was one of the first German breweries to really concentrate on the style.

I'm trying to think of a case where a brewery won this sort of action, clawing back exclusive use of what had become the general name of a type of beer. I can only think of one example: Zacherl (later Paulaner) with Salvator.

It's clever the way they tried to use Czech nationalism - using the Czech names for towns - against the brewers from Pilsen. Of coursew, a few years later, there would be far worse conficts between the two countries than the name of a type of beer.