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

This is so exciting. We’re actually getting to fill the conditioning tank.

This first bit seems pretty obvious:

“When a conditioning tank is filled with beer it is important to see that it is filled to the top. It is essential that no air remains, and in order to make sure that such is the case some of the top pressure should be blown off as soon as it reaches about 2 lb. Hopping-down hops, priming, or any other additional ingredients must, of course, be added to the tank before it is filled.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 334.

Having CO2 in any headspace would cut the risk of infection during maturation. As would the dry hops. Which is what they mean by “hopping-down hops”. Adding dry hops and primings is exactly what would have happened when beer was racked into casks. So up to this point bottled beer was being handled much the same as cask beer. Except rather than in a trade cask, the conditioning was occurring in bulk.

Here’s a little more detail on dry hopping:

“Dry hop rates vary according to the original gravity of the beer. For the lighter pale ales of O.G. 1030-1035 from 2 to 3 ounces per barrel are used and up to about half a pound per barrel for a strong ale. Only the most delicately flavoured hops are used for this purpose; Goldings are the most flavoured. Hop oil can be used as an alternative, being prepared as explained in Chapter 4. It is of particular importance to insure that if hop oil is used it is very thoroughly roused in so that there is no danger of uneven distribution.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 334.

Great. Some numbers that I can check. At least in some cases. Not all brewers could be arsed to note the dry hops in their brewing records. Let’s take a look at low-gravity Pale Ales first:

Dry hopping of low-gravity Pale Ales 1946 - 1959
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	dry hops (oz / barrel)
25th Jan	1946	Barclay Perkins	IPA	1031.5	1009.0	2.98	71.43%	4.00
25th Jan	1946	Barclay Perkins	XLK	1035.3	1010.0	3.35	71.67%	4.00
20th May	1952	Strong	GA	1033.5	1007.5	3.44	77.69%	8
1st Sep	1959	Ushers Trowbridge	KK	1036.8	1010.8	3.44	70.68%	0.66
1st Sep	1959	Ushers Trowbridge	BPA	1031.9	1008.6	3.08	73.04%	1.50
1st Sep	1959	Ushers Trowbridge	LB	1030.7	1009.4	2.82	69.37%	1.54
7th Jun	1949	Wm. Younger	Pale XXPS	1037.0	1011.0	3.44	70.27%	2.03
7th Jun	1949	Wm. Younger	XXP	1031.5	1011.0	2.71	65.08%	0.99
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/626.
Strong brewing record, document number 79A01-A3-3-27.
Ushers brewing record held at the Wiltshire archives at Chippenham, document number 1075-275-6.
William Younger brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number WY/6/1/2/88.

It’s not the most enormous sample, but you can see that there’s considerable variation between breweries. Barclay Perkins and Strong used more than Jeffery suggests, while Ushers and William Younger used less. Not all of these were necessarily bottled beers, though Barclay Perkins IPA definitely was.

When the type of dry hops is recorded, it’s mostly EK Goldings. Though occasionally Saaz were used. Along with Hallertau they were the only foreign hops to be routinely used for dry hopping.

As promised, more about the rousing process:

“As soon as the tank has been filled it should be subjected to a vigorous rousing for at least an hour. The beer may then be left for 24 hours,  during which time internal pressure should steadily develop. At this stage it becomes necessary to map out a programme of rousing times followed by intervals of rest. This programme will depend mainly for its arrangement upon the aptitude of the beer for developing condition. Other governing factors will be the gravity of the beer and its age.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 334 - 335.

Rousing, i.e. agitating the beer, seems to have been an essential part of the process for getting beer into condition. We’ll see later just how minutely planned conditioning was, especially rousing.

This details how frequent rousing was:

“It will generally be found sufficient for rousing to take place for one hour in every three hours. This procedure should continue until the maximum pressure desired has been attained. If pressure is slow in developing it may be necessary, on the other hand, to rouse the beer every alternate hour. In cases of extreme stubbornness it may be necessary to resort to krausening as well. (Krausening is the addition of a small quantity (not more than 5%) of briskly fermenting wort taken from a fermenting vessel about 24 hours after pitching. This practice is common in lager beer fermentations, but is not much used in top fermentation brewing.) Sometimes the beer proves to be exceptionally lively, and pressure develops rapidly to its full amount. In that case some gas should be blown off and the figure reduced by 5 lb. This release may have to be repeated, because the final maximum of 22 or 23 lb. is sufficiently high for beers of ordinary gravity (16 to 20 lb.). Strong ales may be allowed to run up to 28 lb. We have mentioned that conditioning takes place as a rule in metal tanks. In spite of efforts made to preserve a normal average outside temperature, extremes of temperature in summer and winter are bound to have some effect upon the contents. Constant attention is therefore necessary.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 335.

One hour in three sounds like a lot to me.

Fascinating that kräusening was only employed when all else had failed. It doesn’t ever seem to have been very popular amongst British brewers other than Guinness. In the 19th century and early 20th century all their beers contained three elements: young beer, aged beer and “heading”. The latter being a sort of Kräusen.

This is a point of difference with American Ale-brewing practice. What most intrigued me about the records of Amsdell (of Albany, New York) from around 1900 is how almost all their Ales were kräusened. To me it’s a sure sign of the influence of German brewers.

Next we’ll be looking at a detailed record of tank-conditioning.

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.