Busy, busy, busy

That’s what my life has been like lately. So busy that I haven’t had time to write up most of my recent travels.

Like the Kerstbierfestival last month. Maybe I should get on with it now.

Of course my daily posts take up a fair amount of my time. Especially as I have to research the buggers, too. And did I mention that I was assembling another book? It’s a bit short at the moment, just 120 pages. But I’ll soon sort that out. Bit early yet to tell you the title. I’ll save that until it’s closer to being finished.

Right. Kerstbierfestival. Dolores liked it so much in 2013 that she’s come along again. Though with the chaos caused to the Dutch-Belgian train connections by the Fyra fiasco, it’s a trickier (and slower) journey than it used to be. We’ve cheap Kruidvat tickets meaning we’ve only paid 14 euros for the Dutch part of the journey. The couple of hundred metres of the trip that’s in Belgium cost another 6.50. What a rip off.

In one way the journey has improved: our train connects better with the slow train to Antwerp. Just a few minutes to wait. Once we’ve found where to check out.

We pick up some food from the butchers on the way. The festival is just far enough away from the station for the walk to be a bit annoying. We’ve planned to get there just after opening time, but when we arrive at the hall there’s an enormous queue outside. Which is worrying. Will we get in?

It turns out that the festival starts later than I’d thought and the doors aren’t open yet. But there are still hundreds of people in front of us. How long will it take to get in and will we get seats. That’s an important point. I hate standing at festivals. I blame my half-century old legs. I should really invest in a new pair.

Everything is really well organised at the entrance and we’re soon inside. I get the glasses and tokens while Dolores heads to bag some seats. “As close to bar as possible, Dolores.” I hate walking to fetch beer at festivals, too.

Dolores has done a good job. I can almost touch the bar from my seat. I don’t even bother looking at the programme. I know which beer I’ll start with.

St. Bernardus Xmas is a tweaked version of my favourite Abt. A few extra spices or summink. It is indeed spicy. And lovely.

A group of twenty-something Belgians sit next to us. They’ve an, er, interesting accent. But at least I recognise it’s Dutch they’re speaking. I’ve had experiences with Belgian accents that were so weird, I didn’t twig that it was Dutch for twenty minutes.

I go for a change of pace with my next beer: Dupont Avec les Bons Voeux. A strange one, this. Quite funky and bitter. But weirdly sugary, too. Quite odd, but drinkable.

I’m surprised I haven’t spotted anyone I know yet. I’m usually tripping over acquaintances.

Next up is a St. Bernardus Xmas. Just checking it’s OK.

Pretty much all the seats are now gone. But we’ve a nice spot so what do I care?

Being a big fan of Het Anker, I try Gouden Carolus Kerst. And the matching beer mat is on the table in front of me. It’s nice and dark with the perfume/spice aroma that you’d expect from their yeast. A bit burnt and nastily bitter at the end. Bit vegetably. Not nice. I drink it out of spite.

Dolores is opting for the weaker options. Which are trickier to find than the huge beasts I’m choosing.

I need to wash my mouth out after that nasty Gouden Carolus. I return to St. Bernardus Xmas and am lucky enough to get a freshly-opened bottle. It’s still lovely.

Next, a total change of pace as I opt for a draught St. Bernardus Xmas. Maybe not quite as lovely as the bottled version. But lovely still.

I realise that I’m being all Beer Nutty for once, writing notes for each beer I drink. Though obviously not quite of the same quality. Just one step up from “full of beery goodness” really.

I randomly choose Rebelle Winter. That it’s 10.5% ABV probably has something to do with my selection. That and it’s on the same page as St. Bernardus Xmas in the programme. Very liquoricy . Sweet/bitter. OK, actually.

It’s 15:50 and getting crowded. I’m glad it’s getting close to effing off time.

Not long left. Best get something special. Like a St. Bernardus Xmas. Nice.

I’m just saying “I’d expect to see Tim Skelton here.” When I do indeed see Tim. Not that it’s been long since we last met. He was on the same table at the beer hacks’ dinner two weeks ago. I congratulate him on the prize for Beer in the Netherlands he won that night.

I try draught St. Bernardus Xmas just to make sure the bottled version really is slightly better. It is.

So I have a bottled St. Bernardus Xmas next.

It’s just about time to go. It’s packed and I’m getting tired. I end with a Netebuk Winter 8. Spicy aroma. Bit of vegetable in there. Liquorice.

And that’s it. As we leave there's a queue of people outside waiting for someone to leave so they can get in. We stroll back to the station and jump on a train.

On the train, I look back through my notes and marvel at how many different beers I've tried: Five. Six if you count draught and bottled versions as separate beers. Way more than I got through at Borefts.

When I get home I crack open a St Bernardus Abt to celebrate.

German brewing in 1966 – bottling

This really is, finally, the end. Though I’ve just noticed that I’ve not one but two later JIB articles about German brewing. It’s going to be a long, dark winter.

You may remember that I ran a long series about bottling in Britain. I’m weirdly fascinated by the process of making non-bottle-conditioned beers. It’s an area where there was a great deal of progress in the first half of the 20th century, mostly following the lead of the US brewing industry.

But I digress. We’re supposed to be discussing German bottling.

We begin with something about the oxygen content of bottled beer:

“Developments in Bottling
As a result of pasteurization and the increase in storage times, particular interest is being shown in the oxygen contents of bottled beer. Filter-sterilized beers are also oxygen sensitive, but not to the same degree as flash-pasteurized or bottled pasteurized beers.

Filtered beer brings a certain air (i.e., oxygen) content with it to the filling machine; this can vary, according to treatment, between 0.15 and 0.5 mg. per litre. The oxygen content can be increased in the filters and also by collecting in air-filled bright-beer tanks, and subsequent resting at a high air-pressure level. In these cases, pre-filling of the tanks with CO2, the use of deflecting plates and the washing of the beer with CO2 can improve matters. During the actual filling of the bottle the greatest danger of oxygen absorption occurs.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 23.

By longer storage times it doesn’t mean lagering at the brewery, but the greater length of time packaged beer spent in the distribution change with the move from pub to home consumption. The more oxygen in the beer, the quicker the bottle would spoil.

“The ring-canal bottling machines give better results than the tank type. The air uptake of the beer is increased during filling of the bottle if high air pressure has to be applied, owing to the use of bottlers without tubes, or to beer with a high CO2 content being bottled with cock fillers. For the same reason, shortened filling tubes, intended for the filling of various sizes of bottles, are not desirable.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 23.

What’s a ring-canal bottling machine? I would tell you, had I any idea. But a search on the internet came up with zilch. Please tell me if you know what the hell it is and how it differs from a tank type bottling machine.

Isn’t filling the bottle with CO2 the way to keep oxygen out? Apparently not.

“Prefilling of the bottle with CO2 has little success unless the bottle has previously been evacuated or the old Seitz method of CO2 rinsing is used. With this system, the air-CO2 mixture in the bottler is used to prefill the bottle entering the bottling machine.

Pre-evacuation and subsequent prefilling with CO2 is used for hot bottling, and it was this method which helped the hot-bottling system to become acceptable. By causing the beer to foam out of the bottle useful air values can be reached. This is achieved by regulation of the bottling pressure, temperature, CO2 content (more than 5 g. per litre) or by tapping or use of ultrasonic devices. However, it has to be guaranteed that all taps on the bottler work in a similar manner and this is a problem that cannot be solved without special assistance.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 23 - 24.

Bottling on foam is what that’s called. Which seems to be the desirable way to go. I discussed this with a brewer in the US recently. Where was it? Their old bottling machine only achieved the right level of foam on some of the filling heads. It meant that some bottles had a very short shelf-life and couldn’t be shipped very far. A new machine with capped every bottle on foam greatly increased shelf-life and had opened up new distribution possibilities.

How much air was acceptable in a bottle?

“My own results (which have recently been confirmed by Kipphahn) showed that a detrimental effect on the flavour of the beer occurs when the air value is in excess of 1.5-1.8 ml. per half-litre bottle.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 24.

Briggs recommends even less than that:

“A successful bottling line should allow the brewer to:
 maintain the dissolved oxygen level in the beer to at least less than 0.2 mg/l, although there are now reports of plant able to meet a specification of less than 0.05 mg/l”
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 761.

What did the future hold?

“The introduction of CO2 bottling has produced considerable improvements in beer flavour, particularly with regard to flash pasteurized beers, hot-bottled beers and bottled pasteurized beers. Of the various possibilities, hot bottling would seem to have the greatest promise for future development.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 24.

Was hot-bottling the future? It doesn’t seem so. I can’t find any mention of it in Briggs. He describes a different method of getting the beer to foam before capping:

“It is essential en route to the crowner to eliminate air from the head space of the bottle to avoid subsequent oxidation of the beer. This is now usually done by water-jetting. A high-pressure stream of sterilized water is sprayed onto each open bottle. Only a few ml of water enter the bottle but this causes an effective beer foaming, which rises in the neck and dispels oxygen and prevents any further entry. This process is carefully adjusted to minimize beer loss. Liquid nitrogen jetting may also be used (Donovan et al., 1999). This technique reduces beer losses and, perhaps more importantly, reduces waste. The foam is formed initially around the nitrogen gas and it is not necessary to expel foam containing air and losses are lowered.”
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 779.

That really does sound weird, spraying water into a newly filled bottle. But I suppose it must work.

And that’s us done with Narziss. And German post-war brewing. For the time being. There are those other two articles.

Southeast tour in April

Sorry to pester you with this again. But I'm still trying to get my next US trip organised.

This is my outline schedule:

Friday 10th April Houston
Saturday 11th April Houston
Sunday 12th April Birmingham
Monday 13th April Birmingham
Tuesday 14th April Atlanta
Wednesday 15th April Atlanta
Thursday 16th April Tampa
Friday 17th April Tampa
Saturday 18th April Houston

It looks like I've got Birmingham sorted out, but I'm still looking to arrange events in Houston, Atlanta and Tampa. So if you're a brewer, homebrewer or pub owner in any of those cities, get in touch.

Obviously if you want to be entertained by my dazzling wit and hollow legs. But who doesn't?








The idea is, naturally, to flog more copies of my book:

The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer.

25% off my Lulu print books

but only until the end of Thursday (8th January) with this code:

FLASHY15

the whole of the wonderful Mega Book Series could be yours: Porter!, Mild! plus, Bitter! and Strong!. Go on, treat yourself.


Barclay Perkins Bookstore

American beer styles of the 1930’s – Stock Ale

We’ve now wandered from the woods of bottom-fermentation into the garden of Ales. Don’t worry. We’re getting close to done.

The first top-fermenter we’ll look at is American Stock Ale. This had been around for a while, probably since at least the middle of the 19th century and was derived from English Keeping or Stock Beers. Though the American versions had fared somewhat better than their British counterparts: by the 1930’s very few Stock Beers of any type were being brewed in Britain. The occasional strong Stout or Old Ale was about all that remained and the quantities brewed were tiny.

“American Stock Ale
If an alcoholic content is desired in a brewed product higher than the Muenchener type of beer, the preferred method of brewing is with ale production methods. A brewed product with 6% alcohol by weight has such a large proportion of alcohol that its taste cannot readily be covered even with the flavor derived from malt and it is then necessary to use an entirely different yeast in its production. This is best accomplished by using top fermenting yeast and fermenting at relatively high temperatures. The flavor resulting from this type of fermentation is stronger and readily covers the ordinary alcohol taste.”
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 172.

I find the first statement an intriguing one. Is it really true that you needed a top-fermenting yeast to cover up the alcohol flavour? I do know that it’s rare to find bottom-fermenting beers above 7.5% ABV (6% ABW). The Wahls do seem to have a thing about the alcohol flavour. And keep using it as an excuse to load up grists with adjuncts.

“The English method of brewing ale requires mashing in at relatively high temperatures (150 degrees F.) but it is preferred in making a stable bottle ale for American consumption to use all the principles of fine brewing such as observance of proper peptonization temperatures and the proper rest for saccharification, it being desirous in brewing ale to have a high percentage of sugar in the wort. Therefore, we prefer to brew American stock ales using regular mashes of the type for brewing a strong Pilsener beer, that is, a substantial percentage of brewing adjuncts and a strong powerful low-dried malt. Such a brew in the kettle will be approximately 13% original extract to which sugars are added to build up the original extract in the final wort to 16% or over. This type of ale should have a proper bitter character requiring approximately .7 pounds hops per barrel and after proper fermentation and storage the ale should be dry hopped considerably to give it the added fragrance of fresh hops. (See analysis on American Stock Ale.)”
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, pages 172 - 173.

So they basically just mashed it like any other beer and used the same base of pilsner malt as their Lagers did. And, just like the Lagers, the grist was loaded up with adjuncts. I assume though that the colour was darker than Lagers, so where did the colour come from? There’s no mention of any darker mats. But . . . .

There is a lot of sugar being added in the copper. Raising the OG from 13º to 16º Balling implies that sugar forms about 19% of the grist. If there was the usual 30% unmalted grain, that’s leaving the malt component at barely more than 50%.

The hopping doesn’t seem very high to me. And it’s not much higher than for the other styles, despite having a higher gravity and supposedly having a bitter taste.

Compare the hopping with that of these Barclay Perkins beers:

Barclay Perkins Strong beers in 1928
Beer	Style	OG	FG	OG Plato	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	hops lb/US brl	dry hops (oz / barrel)
IBS	Stout	1060.6	1021.0	14.92	5.24	65.35%	9.00	2.25	1.61	0.00
KK bottling	Strong Ale	1069.4	1021.5	16.96	6.34	69.04%	11.00	2.99	2.15	8.00
PA export	Pale Ale	1058.6	1017.5	14.44	5.43	70.12%	9.00	2.15	1.54	4.00
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/614.

The closest in terms of style and gravity is the KK Bottling, which was Barclay Perkins’ Old Ale. You can see that it’s hopped at three times the rate recommended for an American Stock Ale.

I wonder what quantity of dry hops was added to American Stock Ale? The half pound per barrel KK got is quite a lot. I can’t imagine it was anything like that much, based on the amount of copper hops.

Before I forget: remember that IPAs of the period were Stock Ales. Judging by descriptions of Ballantine India Pale Ale, it was considerably more heavily hopped than the Wahls recommended. But I suppose that beer was a bit of an exception.

Here’s the Stock Ale analysed by the Wahls:

AMERICAN STOCK ALE
Reported by Wahl Institute, April 2, 1936
This beer is composed of the following substances, reported in percentages or pounds per hundred:
Alcohol (by weight)	6.06
Real extract (dry substance)	4.2
Carbonic acid	0.59
Water	89.15
	100
The real extract (4.2) is made up of the following substances:
	In Percentage	In Percentage
	of the beer	of the extract
Acid (lactic)	0.117	2.79
Acid salts	0.144	3.43
Protein	0.424	10.1
Ash	0.132	3.14
Sugar (reducing)	1.61	38.33
Dextrins	1.773	43.21
	4.2	100
The following are important brewing figures:
Specific gravity of beer	1.007
Original balling of wort	16.32
Apparent extract of beer (balling)	1.65
Real attenuation	12.12
Fermentable sugar in the wort	13.93
Apparent attenuation	14.67
Alcohol (by volume)	7.58
Percent of extract fermented	74.3
Percent of extract unfermented	25.7
Percent of sugars in original wort	85.3
Percent of non-sugars in original wort	14.7
pH value	4.3
Total acidity	0.261
Carbonic acid by volumes	3
Amylo dextrins	none
Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 178.

I’m struck by the very low finishing gravity. Which gives an apparent attenuation of 90%. You know what it reminds me of? Bottled Bass Pale Ale of the 19th century. That sometimes went up to 95% attenuation. But then again, that was getting help from Brettanomyces.

The loads of sugar added in the copper doubtless aided attenuation. You’ll note that the percentage of sugars in the wort was very high at 85%. The other styles we’ve seen were around 70%

I suppose the low FG would have made such a beer taste more bitter as the hops would have had little to compete with.

I’m slightly surprised that the lactic acid level is about the same as for the other styles. Then again, I doubt these beers underwent a real secondary fermentation where lactic acid would have developed.

Just one more style to go: Half and Half. And no, it’s not what you think.

German brewing in 1966 – pasteurisation and stabilisation

It only seems like several years since we embarked on this journey and now we’ve nearly arrived. Nearly.

What’s my feeling about pasteurisation? I’d rather drink beer that hadn’t been through it, is the simple answer.

“Flash heating of the beer has been introduced in many cases. Supervision is simpler and one is less dependent on the personnel. Such a unit requires approximately one-third of the costs of a sheet filter and provides the same shelf life.

Heating times of up to 60 sec. have been selected. It seems that heating units with pressure beer flow have the best effect. On the other hand, the colloidal stability is reduced and in many cases the flash-heated beers had a protein deposit after 6-8 weeks, whilst the beer had already had a pasteurization flavour for some weeks previously. It may be necessary to stabilize the beers before they have been filtered which will nullify to some extent the low cost of flash pasteurization.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 22.

That’s pretty honest about why you’d pasteurise rather than filter: it was cheaper, simpler and more reliable. You can’t really argue with that. Except, of course, it can bugger up the flavour of the beer.

Cooling was another way to stabilise beer:

“In many cases it was possible to increase the stability of beers by storing them for a number of days prior to filtration at less than —1° C. so that the colloid particles increased. The deep cooling system is only useful if it is designed to counteract temperature increases in pipelines and filters by chilling the beer as it leaves the storage tank. Filtration after aggressive cooling can result in haze formation in the bright beer tank. The results achieved with chilling were not always sufficient and therefore a stabilization method had to be introduced.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 22.

I think I understand how that would work. The cooler the beer, the more gunk that will precipitate out. Chilling, filtering and artificial carbonation were the first techniques employed to produce sparkling bottled beers without sediment towards the end of the 19th century. The practice was originally developed in the USA then spread to Europe.

The method of stabilising beers was to add an absorbative material to the beer than would remove unwanted stuff, like protein, which could later cause a haze. German brewers, because of the Reinheitsgebot, had a limited number of options:

“For domestic consumption, only bentonites and silica gels are permitted. Bentonites are only really useful for stabilization in the storage tank. It is necessary to mix the beer with the bentonite by repumping the tank. After the rest period of 5-10 days the stabilized beer is filtered which results in a loss of 5% in sludge deposit.

The strongly swelling alkaline bentonites have a more intensive effect than the weak swelling calcium bentonites, but the latter can be applied in larger quantities and can even be added during filtration. The short reaction time during contact stabilization gives only a limited improvement in chill- and protein-stability, as compared to the rest method; nevertheless, this improvement is sufficient for the required purpose. If the beer requires a shelf life in excess of 2 months, then the rest method must be used.

According to the type of bentonite being used, dosing varies between 50-100 g. for contact stabilization and 30-200 g. per hl. for the rest method. The latter amounts are used for export beers. The bentonite quantity is calculated fairly exactly, partially for economic reasons but also to obtain head stability. It is known that bentonites selectively remove a considerable quantity of haze-forming matter; they also cause a considerable reduction of the total nitrogen and so remove many head-forming products. The danger threshold is fairly low, being at approximately 60 g. per hl. Next to the linear reduction in coagulating protein, the corresponding increase in the Esbach precipitation (picric acid test) is particularly notice able. This test can be used to control the success of stabilization. Bentonites have an effect on flavour; as the dose is increased, a reduction in full-bodied flavour occurs and a slightly harsher after-taste is noticed. The after-taste disappears after some weeks in the bottle. Analytically, the effect is a reduction in bitter values, a lighter colour and increased pH, which is particularly noticeable when alkaline bentonites are used.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 22 - 23.

Did you get all that? A lot of it went straight over my head. What the hell is bentonite to start with. This is how the ever-reliable Wikipedia describes it:

“Bentonite is an absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite.”

Not sure I’m much the wiser. In addition to being used to stabilise beer, it’s also eaten by hippies:

“But natural clay, especially the form known as "bentonite clay", has not only been used medicinally for hundreds of years by indigenous cultures around the planet, but has, in recent years, been increasingly used by practitioners of alternative medicine as a simple but effective internal cleanser to help in preventing and alleviating various health problems.”
http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/bentonite-clay.htm

Not sure I’d eat the stuff myself. Maybe smear it on as a mudpack.

Getting back to beer, it seems as risky thing to use in beer, given that it reduced body, buggered up the head, reduced bitterness, stripped out colour and added a harsh aftertaste. Just a few disadvantages there.

The alternative was silica gel:

“The silica gels are synthetic silicic acid preparations which are popular as contact stabilizers because they can be effective in a matter of minutes. Ideally they should be allowed to act for several hours but in this case re-pumping systems must be used. Silicic acid preparations result in a lesser reduction in total and coagulable protein, the Esbach precipitation increases only slightly, and the amount of ammonium sulphate precipitation increases considerably.

Even though the shelf life of beers treated with small quantities of silica gel (30-100 g. per hl.) is equal to that of beers stabilized with bentonites, the oxygen sensitivity of these beers is somewhat greater. The head retention is not affected and the original full-bodied flavour is retained; reduction of colour is marginal. Recently, patent mixture of bentonite and silicic acid gels have been marketed.

When stabilization products are being used with filtration it is necessary to introduce a reaction tank where the beer can remain for 20-30 min. Nevertheless, the contact method requires twice the quantity of stabilizing products compared to the rest method, without being able to increase the shelf life to more than 10-12 weeks.

Polyamides may only be used for Export beers. In Bavaria these are forbidden.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 22 - 23.

Ah, the vagaries of the Reinheitsgebot. You are allowed to stick bentonites and silica gels in your beer, but not polyamides. I’d love to know the reason why. Thinking that only water, malt, hops and yeast were allowed? Think again. Stuff that supposedly doesn’t end up in the finished beer because it’s filtered out – like bentonites and silica gels – are fine.

I think I’d go with silica gel, myself. Sounds like it has far fewer nasty side effects.

That must be my dullest post ever. Best end with a joke. What do you call a man with a condom on his nose? Fuck knows.

We’ll finish with bottling.

American beer styles of the 1930’s – Vienna Type Beer

Continuing our leisurely stroll through the beer styles of the 1930’s, we’ve arrived at one of the early Lager favourites.

The Vienna style of Lager was very much the creation of one man, bottom-fermenting pioneer Anton Dreher. His brewery in Klein Schwechat just outside Vienna soon became the largest in Continental Europe on the back of the success of his amber Lager, which was to be found in every capital in Europe.

But when Dreher died a relatively young man, Vienna Lager’s star began to dim as newer, paler styles took over. Which is why the first sentence of this quote surprises me:

“Vienna Type Beer
This type of beer has gained considerable popularity in America since the repeal of Prohibition. It contains approximately 3.8% alcohol when correctly brewed and can be produced with all malt of the same variety as used in brewing Pilsen beer; that is, one that has been dried at low temperatures, thus containing very little caramel. The boiling period should be shorter than that used in brewing the Muenchener type but longer than that used in brewing the Pilsener type. This beer can be satisfactorily produced from worts of 13% original extract. The hops employed should be approximately .65 pounds per barrel if the wort can be removed from the hops in less than one-half hour's time.”
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, pages 171 - 172.

I would have expected the exact opposite: that Vienna Lager’s popularity was fading and the style shuffling towards extinction. That’s what you get for making assumptions: you  end up looking an idiot.

The hopping rate is exactly half way between Mild and Strong Pilsner, and is pretty light. A British beer of that strength would have had more than a pound a barrel. And the hopping rate was lower than pre-Prohibition. As you can see from this table:

Hopping rate for Vienna Lager
OG Balling	kg/hl	lbs/US barrel
12.5	0.36	0.93
13.5	0.4	1.03
Source:
"American Handy Book of the Brewing, Malting and Auxiliary Trades" by Robert Wahl and Max Henius, 1902, page 783.

I make that around 50% more hops in the older iteration.

How exactly do you brew an amber beer using all pilsner malt? Unless you’re using some sort of sugar or caramel to get the desired colour. Then again, you could totally cheat:

“The preferred method for producing beer having the characteristics of the Vienna type is to properly brew the mild Pilsener type and also the strong Muenchener type and then after storage these two beers are mixed in approximately equal proportions giving a resulting beer having characteristics midway between the mild Pilsener and the strong Munich beers. (See analysis on Vienna Type Beer.)”
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 172.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this was more common than brewing Vienna as its own beer. Just makes life so much simpler.

Now here‘s a real-life Vienna Lager analysed:

VIENNA BEER
Reported by "Wahl Institute, April 21, 1936
This beer is composed of the following substances, reported in percentages or pounds per hundred:
Alcohol (by weight)	3.74
Real extract (dry substance)	5.2
Carbonic acid	0.59
Water	90.47
	100
The real extract (5.2) is made up of the following substances:
	In Percentage	In Percentage
	of the beer of	the extract
Acid (lactic)	0.117	2.25
Acid salts	0.117	2.25
Protein	0.503	9.67
Ash	0.15	2.89
Sugar (reducing)	1.276	24.54
Dextrins	3.037	58.4
	5.2	100
The following are important brewing figures:
Specific gravity of beer	1.015
Original balling of wort	12.68
Apparent extract of beer (balling)	3.75
Real attenuation.	7.48
Fermentable sugar in the wort	8.76
Apparent attenuation	8.93
Alcohol (by volume)	4.68
Percent of extract fermented	59
Percent of extract unfermented	41
Percent of sugars in original wort	69.1
Percent of non-sugars in original wort	30.9
pH value	4.7
Total acidity	0.234
Carbonic acid by volumes	3
Amlo dextrins	none
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 177.

At just 70%, the degree of attenuation is the lowest we’ve seen so far. Note that the gravity is lower than the 13º Balling suggested by the Wahls, though the ABW is pretty much spot on.

Next time we’ll be moving on to top-fermenting styles. Bet you won’t be able to sleep until then.

German brewing in 1966 – filtration

We’re fast approaching the end of the article and this series. But don’t despair. I’ve another article from a decade later to continue with once this one is done.

Filtration – what a, er, dull topic. As a cask beer man, I’ve always thought of it as the work of the devil. Though I do realise that bottle-conditioned beer is usually filtered and then reseeded with yeast.

This should be pretty quick because I can’t imagine I’ll have much to say. Which is rare for me. I’d make the most of it if I were you.

“Filtration and Stabilization
The changes in the consumption of beer and the distribution through supermarkets and direct delivery to the home have increased the requirements for biological and physico-chemical stability of the beer. For this reason simple kieselgur filtration is no longer sufficient, despite the fact that by this means a shelf-life of 3 weeks can be reached, which is sufficient for cask beer. Despite the use of carefully-calculated initial coating mixtures plus the addition of asbestos and even with careful mains dosing at reduced output (2.5 hl. per square metre), it is not possible to remove all yeast from the stored beers and this has resulted in yeast hazes in the bottle.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 23.

Interesting that changes in consumers’ buying habits – bottled beer from the supermarket ousting draught beer in pubs – caused a change in brewing practices. Of course, in a beer that’s supposed to be crystal clear, any sort of sediment is a pretty bad fault. Presumably the average time between packaging and consumption increased considerably when supermarkets got involved. Lots of time spent hanging around in warehouses.

I can remember Czech bottled beer from the communist days having a very short shelf-life. After a couple of weeks a sediment would form. Not a problem for Czechs, as they didn’t leave beer hanging around undrunk for long.

“In many cases the old pulp filters were brought into use again. The labour requirement is very high as regeneration of the pulp is necessary after each use. Nevertheless, a considerable increase in stability could be obtained by pressing the pulp at 5 atm. And adding 0-5% asbestos whilst at the same time slowing down filtration to 1 hl. per cake. Other breweries use as a final filter the new cotton candle filters whose output is calculated at 1 hl. per hr. per candle. The ability of these filters is limited but they are useful for obtaining the required sterility and the absolute output depends on the size of the pores. Output also depends on the constitution of the beer, and on the pre-filtration and type of sterilization and regeneration (2% caustic soda with hydrogen peroxide).”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 23.

1 hl per hour is effing slow if you’re brewing on an industrial scale. You’ll be there for ever trying to filter a 200 hl tank.

I always find the mention of asbestos scary. I was going to ask if it was still used for filtration purposes. But why speculate when I’ve Briggs to hand:

“Filter sheets were originally made from a mixture of cellulose and asbestos fibres. Sheets have also incorporated kieselguhr for over 70 years. Recently perlite, glass fibres and cotton fibres have been used. Asbestos is not now used because of the carcinogenic properties of some types of asbestos. It is fair to comment that the elimination of the use of asbestos took a long time in many breweries. Asbestos was useful because it offered adsorption through electrical charge as well as surface filtration. This has been replaced in some applications by the incorporation into the sheet of aluminium oxide or zirconium oxide fibres.”
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 576.

So, no, but it took a while. I’m glad I drank beer that hadn’t been filtered in the1970’s and 1980’s. No need to consume carcinogens unnecessarily.

This part of the article is demonstrating an important point: the brewery technician’s interest are focused differently from mine. The section on filtration and stabilisation is as long as that on the brewing process, something that I would have preferred more detail on.

“The biological results are satisfactory even though the effect of a very carefully controlled pulp filter is not quite achieved. The cotton cylinder filter has proved to be particularly useful as a final filter after kieselguhr sieve filters. Nevertheless, a further biological improvement in the beer can be achieved by means of sheet filters or pasteurization.

Despite the automation of the flash heat-exchanger units some breweries prefer the sheet filter for improving shelf life. By means of careful filtration, sufficient calculation of the filtering surface, observation of the pressure conditions, and possible control by means of a graph, a very stable beer can be produced which will even be suitable for long distance transport. By these means, detrimental effects on flavour will be less than with pasteurization and the detrimental effect on head stability is marginal.

Nevertheless, the sheet filter has to be opened every day or every second day and the price of the sheets is high. E.K. sheets have an output of only 1-1.5 hl. per square metre—i.e., in total, approximately 12 hl. On the other hand, if one selects the so-called clearing sheets then the output can be increased at the cost of reduced biological filtration effect.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 23.

Right. Sheet filters were a way of getting a beer that was near-sterile without pasteurisation. Which as we all know can bugger up the flavour of a beer a treat.

Briggs also points out the lack of throughput in sheet filters;

"The standard filter sheet in breweries is 60 - 62 cm and the largest normally 100 - 100 cm. A large single-ended filter press would have 240 filter plates allowing a filtration rate of 120 hl/h. This low throughput rate has limited the use of sheet filtration for primary filtration in large breweries. Sheet filters are now usually used only as second polishing filters following depth filtration with powders or are dispensed with completely."
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 576.

That sounds better, because large numbers of filter sheets were being used. Even 120 hl. per hour is still pretty slow.

Just pasteurisation and bottling to go.

American beer styles of the 1930’s – Muenchener

You have to feel sorry for the Munich style of Dark Lager. It was, along with Dreher’s Vienna Lager,  the first bottom-fermenter to colonise Europe. Yet soon fell out of favour and was supplanted by paler types.

The style hung on through the first half of the 20th century but gradually disappeared from most countries after WW II. Even in its Munich heartland it had to play second fiddle to Helles after the war.

“Muenchener Type Beer
We recommend in order to supply the higher alcoholic variety the Munich type beer be brewed. The Muenchener beers are higher in alcoholic content than the Pilsener and to correctly brew this type of beer a greater amount of materials per barrel are necessary. For the strong flavor quality introduced with the increased materials as well as that inherent in the alcohol produced in the fermentation of this grain mash a coverage quality stronger than that of the hops is necessary.

To correctly brew this type of beer therefore a very high percentage of malt is necessary. This type of malt should be dried at high temperatures by the maltster in its manufacture. Such a procedure gives this malt considerable caramel flavor, better known to the brewing trade as a malty flavor. To be correctly brewed the Munich type of beer should have a taste which predominates in malt.
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, pages 170 - 171.

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? It should be brewed from mostly malt and should taste, er, malty. It’s implying that dark Munich malt should be used as the base, rather than using a small amount of highly-coloured malt on top of a pils malt base. I wonder how true that was in the 1930’s? Even in Germany a pils malt base was common for dark beers. Why else does Sinamar exist?

Here are some more details:

“As above stated a brew of this type having 4-4.5% alcohol by weight cannot be brewed to its perfection with a high percentage of brewing adjuncts having a very neutral flavor. Furthermore, the hop quality of this type of beer should be subdued by the employment of not more than .55 pounds or slightly more than 0.5 lb. hops per barrel if the wort can be removed from the hops in less than one-half hour's time. This Muenchener type beer should be made from worts of approximately 14% original extract.”
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 171.

That’s 5 to 5.3% ABV. Which doesn’t sound particularly high strength nowadays. But you need to remember the poor degree of attenuation prevalent. A modern Bavarian Märzen of a similar gravity is usually around 6% ABV. Half a pound of hops per barrel is pretty light hopping. But only a little less than in the lower-gravity Pilsener types we’ve already looked at.

Here’s something else I don’t really understand:

“This high alcoholic beer with a predominating malt flavor should receive considerable boiling period in the kettle. It contains a high percentage of malt which requires considerable boiling to stabilize. The longer boiling period furthermore adds an additional malty flavor produced from caramelization in the kettle. (See analysis on Muenchener Type Beer.)”
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 171.

I’ve never heard before that malt-accented beers needed to be boiled for longer. I can see you might want to get more colour through a long boil, but malty flavour?

Here’s the nice table of details on this type of beer:

MUENCHENER TYPE BEER
Reported by Wahl Institute, April 27, 1936
This beer is composed of the following substances, reported in percentages or pounds per hundred:
Alcohol (by weight)	4.53
Real extract (dry substance)	4.75
Carbonic acid.	0.59
Water	90.13
	100
The real extract (4.75) is made up of the following substances:
	In Percentage	In Percentage
	of the beer	of the extract
Acid (Lactic)	0.117	2.46
Acid salts	0.081	1.71
Protein	0.613	12.91
Ash	0.19	3.3
Sugar (reducing)	1.243	26.17
Dextrins	2.506	53.45
	4.75	100
The following are important brewing figures:
Specific gravity of beer	1.011
Original balling of wort	13.81
Apparent extract of beer (balling)	2.85
Real attenuation	9.06
Fermentable sugar in the wort	10.3
Apparent attenuation	10.96
Alcohol (by volume)	5.66
Percent of extract fermented	65.6
Percent of extract unfermented	34.4
Percent of sugars in original wort	74.6
Percent of non-sugars in original wort	25.4
pH value	4.7
Total acidity	0.198
Carbonic acid by volumes	3
Amylo dextrins	none
"Beer from the Expert's Viewpoint" by Arnold Spencer Wahl and Robert Wahl, 1937, page 176.

Surprisingly, the percentage of sugars in the wort is higher than for the Pilseners – 69% for Mild Pilsener and 72.6% for Strong Pilsener.

The degree of attenuation is higher, too – 79%. It was 72% for Mild Pilsener and 77% for Strong Pilsener. Fascinating stuff, I’m sure you’ll agree.

It’s brilliant. This is going to keep me going for ages. Plenty more beers styles to come. Half and Half is particularly exciting.

New Year 2014/2015

German brewing in 1966 – fermentation (part two)

We’re fair rattling through this article. Just a few more months and we should be done.

Fermentation is still the topic, though we’re moving from the traditional to the innovative. Or is that from good to bad? Obviously all that messing around in lager cellars was time-consuming and expensive. Reason enough for some to looking for a quicker and cheaper method.

“Newer methods of fermentation.—The so-called pressure fermentation had its origin in the production of champagne wheat beer with bottom or top fermentation, where it has been used for 35 years with the best of results. Before the pressure fermentation starts the wort must be cleared of trub. Then follows, with a bottom yeast, a short fermentation (24 hr.) at approximately 15° C, before the wort is pumped to a pressure tank at 17-18° C. This tank should only be filled to two-thirds of its capacity. The fermentation carries on for approximately 4 days to an attenuation degree of 63-67% with all valves open; subsequently this temperature is maintained, the valves are closed and a pressure of 2 atm. is reached. When the beer has been fermented almost to the final attenuation the tanks are cooled, either by jacket coolers or by internal coolers to 12° C, in order to cause the yeast to settle; this takes 1-2 days.

After a settling period, the beer is pumped to a further tank, as a result of which most of the yeast is removed; it is then cooled in several stages to below freezing point. At the same time, the pressure is dropped at intervals to the pressure corresponding with the required CO2 content. This period lasts for 10 to 14 days. The escaping CO2 produces a certain maturation and induces increases in colloid particles as well as in protein deposit.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 21.

Surely bottom-fermenting a wheat beer was a no-no under the Reinheitsgebot. By “champagne wheat beer” I’m pretty sure they mean Kristalweizen, or filtered wheat beer. I seems a weird mixture of open and closed fermentation. I’m quite confused by this knowing that today Weissbier is commonly open fermented, even at large producers like Schneider.

The cooling and pressurising process sounds very much like classic lagering, albeit considerably shorter at a maximum of two weeks.

35 years puts the origin of this method back in the early 1930’s. Which I find surprisingly early. The implication is that the technique was developed for Kristalweizen then applied to other types.

It did have some disadvantages:

“Beers produced with this method have a good head and if intensive cooling has been combined with good fermentation they also have good chill stability. Severe variations in output can result in over-aged beer or in insufficient brightness, which makes filter work more difficult.

Poor flavour can result if too much yeast is put into the maturing tank or if the required pressure is not reached or the maturing time is too short or much too long. The yeast should also be examined with regard to its ability to produce by-products of fermentation such as higher alcohols, volatile acids and esters. Our results show that the various yeasts differ clearly in this respect.

A yeast used during warm fermentation can only be used for a limited period; thereafter a fresh yeast from the conventional cold brewery must be obtained."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 21.

OK, it had a nice head but tasted shit. Or at least did if conditions weren’t optimal. Clearly then yeast wasn’t too happy with this treatment as it couldn’t operate for long under these conditions.

But there was a way around these problems: blending.

“As a result of experience to date, it appears to be essential to blend beers fermented according to the conventional system with beers from the quick maturing system. By this means the output of "cold" fermented beer can be kept constant and the output of other beers can be varied. At the same time, this blending system prevents excessive ageing of beers when output stoppages occur. If pressure tanks are not available then a CO2 rinsing or washing system can have the same effect. In Germany, CO2 from the actual beer fermentation is the only type that can be used.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 21.

That sounds a right pain in the arse. Because beer from a pressure fermentation couldn’t be left long in the brewery you also need to have beer that could. That is, beer produced the old-fashioned way. And you needed to have two sets of fermentation equipment to produce the two types of beer. Sounds expensive in terms of plant.

Only allowing CO2 produced during a fermentation to be used for artificial carbonation is one of the quirks of the Reinheitsgebot.

“A second method is more complicated. It depends, however, on the existing processes. By increasing the temperature in the fermentation cellar, final attenuation is reached and the yeast is removed by means of a green-beer centrifuge. This yeast-free beer can now be cooled by means of a heat exchanger unit to 4° C. without endangering the yeast. Subsequently it can be pitched with non-flocculating yeast. As the warm fermenter beer contains only small amounts of CO2, the non-flocculating yeast must provide CO2 saturation in 10-14 days, whilst at the same time the beer is cooled to less than 0° C. The combination of the easily fermentable "Krausen" extract with the intensively fermenting yeast completes this process. The resulting beer is well matured and, according to existing observations, good protein stability is obtained.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 21.

Let’s get this straight. The beer is fully attenuated during a warm primary fermentation and the yeast removed. It’s then cooled and repitched to carbonate the beer. It sounds like this was all done with the classic fermentation and lagering equipment.

“Beers brewed according to this method have a satisfactory and stable flavour. It is, nevertheless, necessary to reduce the high pressure in the green-beer centrifuge as otherwise severe aeration of the beer occurs, resulting in a detrimental flavour due to diacetyl and other factors. Kieninger has suggested a modified quick-maturing method in which green beer is centrifuged with a low back pressure and cooled to 0° C. before or after centrifuging. By means of corresponding pressure regulation it is possible to introduce CO2 in excess into the centrifuge and the subsequent rest period is utilized for releasing the C02 at intervals, so that the action of the C02 on the large surface area produces a maturing of the beer. This method is still experimental but experiments to date have been giving encouraging results.

These methods have made it possible to produce a satisfactory beer in 10-20 days from the date of brewing by modifications of the existing fermenting and maturing methods.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 21 - 22.

The difference between this and the preceding method appears to be artificial carbonation rather than a secondary fermentation with new yeast.

The time taken to produce beer was about halved using this method. Remember the classic method entailed a least a week in primary and four weeks lagering – 35 days in total.

Filtration next time. That sounds like fun.