Number of breweries in Europe 1956 - 2014

Given the popularity of my post about the expanding number of breweries in Europe, I thought I'd expand the table by moving backwards in time.

Only four countries had fewer breweries in 2014 than in 1956: Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Luxemburg. For Denmark it's a tiny difference - just five breweries - and Luxemburg is an odd case, being so small. Which leaves just Belgium and Germany, both of which have about a third of the breweries they did 60 years ago. I have to admit, it makes the situation in Germany look much worse than the 2009 to 2014 figures.

I can see four scenarios:

1. Countries that have returned to around the number of breweries they had in 1956. Sweden and the Czech Republic demonstrate this.

2. Countries with far more breweries than in 1956, but still fewer than the historic high point. Examples are the UK, The Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Slovakia, France and Norway.

3. Countries with far more breweries than in 1956 and more than ever previously. Examples are France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Note that all of these (including Switzerland) are traditionally wine-drinking countries.

4. Countries with fewer breweries than in 1956.  Examples are Belgium, Germany and Luxemburg.

Number of breweries in Europe 1956 - 2014
Country	1956	1976	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2004	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Austria	98	-	59	55	60	74	106	145	172	172	170	173	194	198
Belgium	563	-	143	-	126	115	113	119	127	135	123	150	160	168
Czechoslovakia	330	96	95	-	-	n/a	n/a	-
Czech Republic		80	-	-	-	86	75	94	133	151	191	213	308	338
Slovakia		16	16	16	-	15	12	19	15	19	25	30	38	44
Denmark	155	24	-	-	-	-	-	34	N/A	N/A	150	150	150	150
France	390	55	-	-	-	-	-	-	322	387	442	503	580	663
Germany	3,218	n/a	1,516	-	1,329	1,243	1,279	1,274	1,331	1,333	1,347	1,340	1,349	1,352
Greece	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	11	11	17	18	20	20
Ireland	14	7	7	9	7	9	17	18	26	26	26	26	30	50
Italy	32	-	-	-	-	-	-	168	256	308	350	421	509	599
Lithuania						-	-	-	49	41	73	73	73	75
Luxemburg	11	-	-	-	-	5	5	-	6	7	7	7	7	7
Netherlands	48	20	19	25	30	44	-	65	N/A	N/A	125	165	N/A	263
Norway	25	17	-	-	-	-	-	-	22	30	33	40	54	77
Portugal	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	7	7	9	10	18	35
Roumania	19	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	21	18	17	17	18	22
Spain	40	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	47	65	88	132	221	332
Sweden	130	25	-	-	-	-	-	28	30	45	65	75	100	151
Switzerland	58	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	280	328	360	375	409	483
United Kingdom	404	142	191	305	279	481	500	519	745	828	948	1,300	1,490	1,700
Sources:
Ceský svaz pivovarù a sladoven
Die Deutsche Brauwirtschaft in Zahlen, 1994
Unser Bier, Conrad Seidl, 1991, 1995, 1996
Het Brouwersblad June 2004. p.6
Zythos (thanks Casimir!)
Brauwelt nr. 6-7 February 2001
Deutscher Brauer-Bund, Bonn
Tim Webb's calculation
Almanach für das deutsche Brauwesen 1957, pages 54 and 55
Brewers Association
BBPA Statistical Handbook 2003, p. 92
my calculation
2009 - 2014: The Brewers of Europe Beer Statistics 2015 edition, page 21.

I'm still far from convinced that Germany is taking full part in Europe's brewing renaissance.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part three)

It’s time to look at the conditioning tanks themselves in some detail. Quite a lot of detail, really. Way more than you need, if I’m honest.

A pressure gauge seems a pretty obvious thing to fit to your tank. Wouldn’t want the thing exploding.

“A good pressure gauge with a range from 0 to 50 lb. is necessary, and a safety valve, which should be fixed at the highest point. The safety valve should be adjusted to come into action at the maximum pressure to which beer is required to rise. In any case, the safety valve must blow off at the maximum figure allowed by the authorities. A glass gauge should run the full depth of the vessel and show die number of barrels contained. It may be found necessary, in the case of beer which is particularly stubborn in developing condition, to introduce CO2. A tap should therefore be inserted for this purpose with a screwed end on the outside fitted with a carbonator internally. A further tap for sampling the contents of the vessel will also be found useful.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 333.

Fascinating that a CO2 inlet was considered an optional extra. Which implies that the beer in the tank was conditioning itself. Which would explain the need to keep rousing it. A degree of fermentation was required to generate CO2. Presumably any filtering occurred after the conditioning phase.

This next passage confirms that: the beer went to the tank straight from the fermenter. Or cleansing vessel. Odd to see that mentioned as specific cleansing vessels were out of fashion. A couple of breweries still had Burton unions and in the South dropping fermentation was still reasonably common. But far from every brewery had a cleansing vessel. While in the 19th century they were universal, in one form or another.

“The usual procedure adopted with the system of conditioning in bulk is to run or pump the beer direct from the cleansing or fermenting vessel into a tank. In this way the time necessary for maturing may be only ten days or a fortnight, although longer periods can be given. In this time condition and the required pressure must be developed. With light gravity beers and stout the procedure may be adequate, but for best pale ales there is room for improvement, on our opinion. In the case of old and strong ales previous storage in vats or casks is advantageous. In fact, we believe that if it were possible to substitute oak vats for metal ones considerable improvement would result in the ultimate character of the beer. Unfortunately, we are afraid that oak vats cannot be made sufficiently air-tight to retain the internal pressures. But we see no reason why wooden vats should not be used as intermediate maturing vessels, between the cleansing or the fermenting vessels and conditioning tank. Such a process might involve additional pumping with ordinary beers, but in the case of old ales it would be preferable to lengthy storage in numerous casks.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 334.

I’m surprised that beer was left as long as two weeks to condition. I’d been expecting no more than a day or two. But I suppose they were letting it carbonate naturally. Do you know what it reminds me of? The method of Lagering Skol. That was left to carbonate naturally in a tank, too, though the temperature was lower.

I’m truly gobsmacked at the suggestion of using oak vats for conditioning. It seems like a backwards move. Though it’s rubbish to say that oak vats can’t be made airtight. How on earth could Germans and Czech lager in oak vessels? You just need to line them with something – like pitch – that is airtight.

The bit about Old Ales confirms my suspicion about London-brewed Burton Ales. I suspected they were usually aged in trade casks. Mostly based on an image in Barnard’s “Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland”, showing a cellar full of casks marked “KK”. I can see several disadvantages in maturing in trade casks. You wouldn’t get an consistent degree of maturation across the casks, especially if there were ones of different sizes. Consistent ageing was one of the reasons huge vats were employed for Porter.

Next time we’ll be actually filling our tank. Won’t that be exciting?

Random Dutch beers (part fifteen)

It will be interestinbg to see how far I can run with this one ion 2016. My guess is that I'll have lost interest by March. You probably lost interest in November.

Not that  a shortage of beers to try would be a problem. There are so many breweries in Holland now I'd have enough to last me years at the rate I'm going. I never thought I'd be able to say that. It's not that many years ago I seriously tried to sample every beer brewed in the Netherlands. No way I'd attempt that now.

Reassured by their lack of nastiness so far, I'm starting with another De 7 Deugden beer.

De 7 Deugden Scherp + Zinnig 5% ABV
It's a dishwater dirty gold, despite my best efforts at pouring it clear. A pleasant enough fresh hop aroma, with an undertone of fruit, like fallen apples in an orchard. In the mouth the fruit continues to lurk in the grass, while the hops dance amongst the trees. Another drinker.

I picked up several more beers in Nijmegen yesterday, all from local breweries. Who would have guessed Nijmegen would have five breweries?

I'm playing safe with my second beer, too. From Utrecht's De Leckere:

De Leckere Witter Vrouwen 5% ABV
Looks like the urine of someone with serious kidney problems: a hazy, pale yellow. Smells like a Belgian Witbier. Nothing wrong with that. Light and spicy, like a somethingy something. You fill in the blanks. Like a non-fatal accident in a spice mill. That do? You'll have to excuse me now while I go and finish the beer.

Let's Brew Wednesday – 1950 Lees Best Mild

I suppose I should do Lees Best Mild to go with their Bitter. Then you’ll be able to recreate that 1950 Manchester pub experience more completely.

Lees had an interesting range in 1950: Bitter, Mild, Best Mild, Stout and “C” Ale. I was particularly pleased in finding the last one. I’d seen references to “C” Ale from several breweries in the Manchester area, but had no idea what sort of beer it was.

Lees Best Mild has a slightly more complicated recipe than their Bitter. There’s a little crystal malt, for starters. And some glucose. As well as a pretty tiny amount of black. Even so, there’s nothing like enough dark malt to get the finished colour of the beer. You’ll need to add caramel to hit the number.

I’ve simplified the sugar again. The original included a couple of types of proprietary sugar.

This is quite a strong beer for a Mild, even a Best Mild at this date. Some brewers had Mild at 1027º and Best Mild at 1032º. This was about as strong as Mild got in 1950.

I can’t think of anything else to say. Except: here’s the recipe.

1950 Lees Best Mild
pale malt	6.50 lb	81.81%
black malt	0.07 lb	0.88%
crystal malt 60 L	0.25 lb	3.15%
enzymic malt	0.125 lb	1.57%
glucose	0.25 lb	3.15%
No. 3 Invert	0.75 lb	9.44%
Fuggles 90 min	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 min	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.125 oz
OG	1035
FG	1008
ABV	3.57
Apparent attenuation	77.14%
IBU	28
SRM	25
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

Number of breweries in Europe 2009 - 2014

The brewing industry is booming in Europe. Pretty much everywhere (with one notable exception).

I had some idea of what was going on, but was still slightly shocked by the figures.In most European countries tha lastcouple of years have seen crazy growth in the number of breweries. Even the Czech Republic, where the number of breweries had been quite stable, has suddenly started sprouting dozens of new ones.

The one exception? Germany. The number of breweries hasn't changed significantly in the last few years. Which has left it lagging far behind. For the first time since the 19th century, it doesn't have the most breweries in Europe. The UK caught up in 2012 and has since powered ahead. If you'd told me 10 years ago that there would be over 1,500 breweries in the UK, I'd have felt your bumps.

The effect has been to drastically reduce Germany's share of the breweries in Europe. From over a third in 2009 it fell to less than a quarter in 2014. While the UK's share has risen for just under 20% to almost 25%.

Paricularly striking is the growth in countries that aren't traditionally beer drinking. In Italy, France and Greece the number of breweries doubled. While in Portugal the increase is fivefold. In Spain almost sevenfold.

Number of breweries in Europe 2009 - 2014
Country	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Austria	172	172	170	173	194	198
Belgium	127	135	123	150	160	168
Bulgaria	8	8	13	13	13	16
Croatia	7	7	7	6	6	6
Cyprus	2	2	2	2	2	4
Czech Republic	133	151	191	213	308	338
Denmark	N/A	N/A	150	150	150	150
Estonia	6	6	6	7	10	15
Finland	18	25	25	30	43	49
France	322	387	442	503	580	663
Germany	1,331	1,333	1,347	1,340	1,349	1,352
Greece	11	11	17	18	20	20
Hungary	N/A	N/A	24	50	50	50
Ireland	26	26	26	26	30	50
Italy	256	308	350	421	509	599
Latvia	17	15	16	16	25	29
Lithuania	49	41	73	73	73	75
Luxembourg	6	7	7	7	7	7
Malta	1	1	1	1	1	2
Netherlands	N/A	N/A	125	165	N/A	263
Norway	22	30	33	40	54	77
Poland	89	103	117	132	155	133
Portugal	7	7	9	10	18	35
Romania	21	18	17	17	18	22
Slovakia	15	19	25	30	38	44
Slovenia	22	22	N/A	N/A	30	51
Spain	47	65	88	132	221	332
Sweden	30	45	65	75	100	151
Switzerland	280	328	360	375	409	483
Turkey	11	11	11	11	12	9
United Kingdom	745	828	948	1,300	1,490	1,700
Total EU 28	3,468	3,742	4,384	5,060	5,600	6,522
Total All	3,781	4,111	4,788	5,486	6,075	7,091
Source:
The Brewers of Europe Beer Statistics 2015 edition, page 21.

Very exciting times. I wonder what the future will hold? Obviously, there's a limit somewhere to the number of breweries that can operate. But I suspect we're still a long way shy of that.

Random Dutch beers (part fourteen)

Yes, I'm continuing this crap into 2016. Why not? It saves me having to do any difficuly crap, like research. I just crack open a bottle and write some rubbish about it.

We'll begin with a beer for an outfit in Utrecht that started more than a decade ago, disappeared for a while, then reappeared. I can't remember the exact story. But they do have their own brewery. I drank their beers a bit the first time around

De Leckere Gulden Craen 6% ABV
A rounded golden colour with a white head much like Andrew's - worryingly pale. A pleasantly fruity smell, like a wholesale market in the early morning, but without all the noise. Doesn't taste like I expected. Quite a lot of hop bitterness in a twig sort of way. Like chewing birch twigs on a crisp autumn morning. Pretty well made and enjoyable to drink. A winner. It's a Blond, in case you're wondering about the style.

"Do you want to try my beer, Dolores?"

"If it won't make my mouth taste all horrible."

"No, this is a nice one."

Dolores takes a couple of sips. "Mm. That isn't bad."

Praise indeed.

Next, another from De 7 Deugden, an Amsterdam outfit, located in one of the least fashionable parts of the city.

De 7 Deugden Stout + Moudig 7% ABV
Black as a moonless midnight at the bottom of a well. Topped by a cream-coloured cumulus of foam. It certainly looks the part. The aroma is as roasty as an espresso bar's dustbin. In a a good way. That's rather nice. Roast bitterness dances on the tongue while a slug of chocolate slopes by.


It's been a good start to the year (it's the 1st January as I write). Two new Dutch beers that are more than drinkable - actually quite pleasurable. And I've already knocked off three blog posts today. What a dilligent Ronald I am.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part two)

Conditioning tanks – a topic to truly make the spirits and the heart sing.

How many nights have I lain awake wondering about the construction of conditioning tanks in the 1950s? This should save you from a similar torment.

“The conditioning tanks are usually of glass-lined steel, or more recently of stainless steel. Copper was used at one time and such tanks are still in use, but it is unlikely that copper would be used for constructing new tanks; copper tanks should not be tinned, as this metal can be responsible for haze. Considerable pressures develop and for this reason steel tanks are preferable. They are usually of about 20-50 barrels in capacity. Glass-lined tanks need special care in cleaning. The glass is easily scratched or chipped, and in this condition it is difficult to keep clean and free from deposit. Only bristle brushes should be used for cleaning, on no account should wire brushes be used. Workmen entering the tank should have rubber overshoes and no one should be allowed to enter with nailed boots; they should be cautioned against letting spanners or other tools drop into the tank.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 332 - 333.

Presumably this where the march to all stainless steel breweries began. Obviously, tanks of unlined ordinary steel wouldn’t work. And glass seems a rather fragile lining. Especially as any imperfections in the surface were likely to harbour sources of infection. Sounds like they were a pain the the arse to keep clean and undamaged.

I can see one big problem with copper tanks: the expense. And, of course, during wartime copper was urgently required by the munitions industry.

As with all brewing equipment cleanliness was vital. And there were plenty of spots that were tricky to keep clean.

“Conditioning tanks of whatever material should be thoroughly cleaned out with a stiff brush followed by liberal swilling with hot water as soon as they are empty. No deposit must be allowed to dry on. Particular care must be given to the fittings and washers connected with beer mains, sampling cocks, gauge glasses, thermometer pockets and so on, as deposits which harbour infection collect very readily at these spots. We have mentioned that wire brushes should not be used in glass-lined tanks, and even with copper tanks it is inadvisable to use them or to employ abrasives such as pumice. Small abraded particles of copper can be readily trapped in the crevices of the fittings and may oxidize and dissolve in the beer. A slight staining of the copper surface is of no account provided no scale is formed. Conditioning vessels must be provided internally with an efficient rouser, usually in the shape of a propeller fitted near the bottom of the tank, its shaft passing out through the side, top or bottom as most convenient, through a packing gland and driven from a pulley or by a separate electric motor. Special attention must be paid to the packing gland as a possible source of infection. The vessels may be cither vertical or horizontal.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 333.

Simple things like the fittings connecting pipes and other equipment could cause havoc in a brewery, if they became a source of infection. Brewers have been driven crazy by infections they couldn’t track down. One weak spot in all the miles of piping contained in a brewery was all it needed to big a brewery to its knees. The cases where the source couldn’t be found, usually ultimately led to a brewery’s closure. As in the sad case of Home Ales.

We’ll learn later of the essential role played by the rouser. There’s a lovely table I’ll be sharing that documents the process of conditioning a beer in a tank. It was all news to me. And more complicated than I’d anticipated.

Guinness’s Park Royal Brewery in 1949

Let's start the New Year with a real treat. Or a new interminable series, depending on how you look at it.

You may have spotted my obsession with Guinness. Not sure where it comes from. Maybe fond memories of bottle-conditioned Guinness Extra Stout. So I as dead happy when I found a long article about the Guinness brewery at Park Royal, London.

Why did they build the brewery in the first place?

“The construction of Park Royal was an event in the history of English brewing in that it was the first time in this country that a large brewery had been built on a clear site— one might even say, a green field—with nearly 200 years' experience of an existing brewery to draw upon and the difficulty overcome of starting up a completely new plant for a process which depends so much upon carefully conditioned vessels and other equipment. The operations of the Company and the Dublin Brewery are well known to the Brewing Industry, and as for some years it had been apparent that, since so large a proportion of the output from Dublin was being sent to England it would be economical to establish a brewery here for that trade, in 1933 it was decided to do so. Once the capacity of the English brewery had been determined by considerations of trade and distribution, the design of it was commenced and at the same time a survey made of probable sites.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 278.

I don’t totally believe the argument about why they built a brewery in London. Irish independence I believe was the key factor. It left Guinness in a vulnerable position, with the bulk of what had been its domestic market suddenly a foreign country. Should a British government decide to whack a hefty tariff on beer imported from Ireland, they’d be totally screwed. Having a plant in England removed this possibility.

Had the argument about shipping from Ireland been true, then you would expect all of the UK requirements to have been brewed in London. But they weren’t. Park Royal supplied the South, but the North of England and Scotland still got their Guinness from Dublin.

This explains the choice of site:

“The site selected was convenient to the Great Western Railway (now British Railways, Western Region) and the Grand Union Canal, and had excellent road connections, being adjacent to two of the main arterial roads in north-west London. The site was planned with a view to developing it on modern lines not only from the point of view of factory operational efficiency, but also to provide those amenities and facilities for the staff which have always been a feature of the Company's activities. The area of the site selected was about 137 acres, the eastern portion of about 45 acres being allocated to the brewery proper and the remainder of the land north and west to playing fields, employees' houses and other amenities. A feature of the site is the fall of the land contour from south to north, and the main brewery buildings were arranged with a view to the maximum use being made of this fall, the process flow following it as far as possible. ”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, pages 278 - 279.

Interesting that even in the 1930’s access to the rail network was still considered to be important. That’s an enormous site. Not sure anyone could afford so much land in London now. Which is probably why Guinness closed the brewery and sold off the land.
This lets slip that the brewery wasn’t intended to provide for all the UK’s supplies of Guinness:

“The brewery was designed for a normal production of 650,000 barrels per annum, with an overload production capacity of just over 1,000,000 barrels per annum with all plant in operation. The wisdom of this latter decision was manifest during the War, when with so many difficulties affecting materials, fuel, and transport from Eire, the ability of the Park Royal plant to produce this additional output was invaluable. Construction was commenced in November, 1933, and the first trial brew was run through in February, 1936. By the time War broke out in 1939 production had begun to approach the design figure as more and more plant was conditioned and brought into operation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 279.

If you look at the sales of Guinness in the UK before WW II, you can see that it was only designed to produce about half of the UK’s needs. Even running full tilt, it wouldn’t produce enough:

Guinness sales 1930 - 1939
Year	Britain	Ireland	FES/Export	total
1930	1,380,718	784,863	31,352	2,196,933
1931	1,260,587	733,810	18,240	2,012,637
1932	1,056,670	668,326	14,735	1,739,731
1933	1,076,436	680,179	18,610	1,775,225
1934	1,143,271	689,194	22,717	1,855,182
1935	1,190,741	724,032	18,843	1,933,616
1936	1,200,751	726,741	21,430	1,948,922
1937	1,223,524	741,423	26,472	1,991,419
1938	1,166,782	757,827	20,419	1,945,029
1939	1,159,136	754,655	24,053	1,937,844
Source:
"A Bottle of Guinness please" by David Hughes, pages 276-279

Next time we’ll start looking at the different sections of the brewery in more detail.

Branded Odds and Sods in 1953

These are the beers which didn’t fall neatly into any of the other style categories. Or I just missed. It’s a bit of both.

Some are in recognisable styles: Golden Ale, Honey Beer, Black Beer. Others – Dark Ale, Dark Beer, Dark Heavy Ale – are extremely vague. Are they bottled Mild? A type of Brown Ale? One certainly was, Trubrown. I know that was Truman’s Brown Ale brand.

And I should have had Tuborg Export in the last set. I just missed it when I pulled out the Lager set. I’m pretty sure Tuborg Gold was/is in the Export style. Tuborg Guld (as it’s called in its homeland) is still brewed by Carlsberg. It’s the only one of these brands to survive. And, typically, it’s the one non-UK brand.

It’s sad to see how few British beer brands have survived. Even ones from successful breweries like William Younger. Even the mighty Bass struggles everywhere except North America.

Brown Bracer is my favourite. Conjures up all sorts of images, not all of them salubrious. While Kentish Beer could easily be used for comic purposes by someone with a coarser sense of humour than I.

Golden Mead Ale, to give it its full name, intrigues me. “The original and genuine honey ale” it says on the label. Which implies it did indeed contain honey. Though how much is the question. Having seen hundreds of barrels of Oatmeal Stout brewed from a grist contained just a few pounds of oats, I know how they took the piss. Honey was often appears in domestic beer recipes from the 18th and 19th centuries, but for most of that period wasn’t legal in commercial beer.

Hope & Anchor, you may recall, was where Eddie Taylor began on his merger spree. A spree which eventually led to the creation of Bass Charrington, Britain’s largest brewing group. Even before Taylor arrived, Hope & Anchor had been ambitious, trying to get their bottled beer – in particular Jubilee Stout – into other brewers’ pubs. No surprise someone like them would come up with a gimmicky Honey Ale.

Branded Odds and Sods in 1953
Brewery	Brand	Type
J. E. Mather & Sons	Jem	Black Beer
South Wales and Monmouthshire United Clubs Brewery Co.	Brown Bracer	Dark
Cairne's	Vat 25	Dark Ale
Truman	Trubrown	Dark Ale, bottled
Benskin's	Jubilee	Dark Beer
Wm. Murray	Wee Samson	Dark Heavy Ale
Andrew Buchan's Breweries	Chestnut	Dark, bottled
John Richdale	Brit	Dark, strong, draught
T. & J. Bernard	Grouse Brand	Export
Tuborg	Tuborg Gold Label	Export Beer
Wm. Hancock	Five Five	Export Pale Ale
Fremlins	Kentish Beer	Export Quality
Wm. Younger	Monk	Export, bottled
South London Brewery	Jenners	Golden Ale
Robert Younger	Old Edinburgh	Heavy Ale
Hope & Anchor	Golden Mead	Honey Beer
Source:
Brewery Manual 1953-1954, pages 382 - 394.

I’m finally done with this crap.