Adnams beers before and after WW I

I thought we'd have a look at how another brewery's beers were changed by WW I. This time a small country brewery.

With batch sizes of 40-odd barrels, Adnams certainly qualifies as pretty small. At least in comparison to most of the other breweries I have records for.

Adnams started the war with a range of seven beers: two Milds, two Pale Ales, two Stouts and one Strong Ale. That's fewer beers than at some large breweries. The beer themslves were also differnet to those in London.

Mostly by being weaker. BS (presumably Brown Stout) was only about the same strength as a London Porter. Even the stronger XX Mild is much lower gravity than a standard London X Ale, which was over 1050º. No London beer was as weak as the 1033º of Adnams X Ale. And a top-level London Pale Ale was at least 1060º.

These are the 1914 beers:

Adnams beers in 1914
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
X	Mild Ale	1033	1005.5	3.64	83.33%	4.38	0.58
XX	Mild Ale	1042	1007	4.63	83.33%	4.20	0.73
Tally Ho	Old Ale	1082	1029.5	6.95	64.02%	5.92	2.21
BLB	Pale Ale	1044	1007	4.89	84.09%	7.00	1.34
PA	Pale Ale	1056	1011	5.95	80.36%	6.53	1.30
BS	Stout	1055	1013.5	5.49	75.45%	5.86	1.43
DS	Stout	1065	1016.6	6.40	74.43%	6.97	2.11
Source:
Adnams brewing record Book 2 held at the brewery.

They're mostly quite highly attenuated for the period. Many pre- WW I beers had less than 70% apparent attenuation.

When things had settled down after the war, Adnams beer range looked quite different:

Adnams beers in 1923
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
XX	Mild Ale	1029	1004.2	3.29	85.67%	4.99	0.59
XXXX	Old Ale	1057	1016.6	5.34	70.84%	6.70	1.53
PA	Pale Ale	1038	1007.2	4.07	81.05%	8.52	1.29
DS	Stout	1044	1010	4.50	77.34%	6.59	1.19
Source:
Adnams brewing record Book 9 held at the brewery.

You can addd Tally Ho to those four. I know they brewed it in the 1920s, I just didn't spot a brewing record for it.  XXXX seems to have been introduced in 1915. I assume to partially replace Tally Ho.

Not that the decline in gravity is inconsistent. XX fell by around 31%, PA by 32% but DS just by 17%. The average fall for the UK was 19%.

XX is very weak for a standard Mild of the interwar period. They were usually 1035º-1040º. In London you did find cheap Milds of a similar strength, but they were brewed in small quantities and there was always a stronger version, too. Mmm. Just realised that a 50-50 blend of XX and XXXX would be 1043º: the classic strong Mild OG of the 1920s. I wonder if Adnams did blend them for customers that wanted a higher gravity Mild?

State purchse

The brewing industry was very worried during WW I that the government might extend the State Management Scheme in Carlisle and other locations to the whole of the country.

The apparent success of that scheme led some members the Central Control Board to press for full nationalisation. While there was some sympathy for the proposal withing the governement, practical considerations rule out such a move. Though there were committees set up to look into the possibility.

"STATE PURCHASE PROPOSALS.
THE discussion of proposals for the State purchase of the Liquor Trade first began in the early days of the Great War, and in 1915 the Government appointed Advisory Committees, that for England and Wales being under the chairmanship of Mr. Herbert Samuel. The reports of both Committees were published as White Papers (Cd. 8283 and Cd. 8319, price 1d. each) in the following summer. In the case of the English report the proposals, stated briefly, were that breweries and their licensed properties should be expropriated, the State by means of the issue of 4 per cent. stock to pay an amount based on the average Stock Exchange price of each company's securities as recorded during the three years ended June 30 1914. The reports were abortive because, acting on the advice of their financial experts, the Government were forced to the conclusion that the occasion was inopportune.

A year later, however, in June 1917, the Government set up Committees for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland to consider the financial aspects of control and purchase of the liquor trade by tho State. Lord Sumner was appointed chairman of the English Committee, Lord Shaw of Dumfermline of the Scottish Committee, and Mr. Justice Gordon of the Irish Committee. All three Committees examined witnesses without delay and all presented reports within the next six or eight months, though those reports were not published until May 1918. They were then issued in one document (Cd. 9092, price 9d. net). The proposals for England, briefly summarised, were that payment for breweries and their properties should be based on 15 years' purchase of the profits from 1910 to 1914, less depreciation due to the war down to the time of purchase. The stock in payment was to bear 5 per cent. interest, but was to be issued at pre-war values. Thus £1,000 payable would be satisfied by an actual payment of about £715 new stock, and the estimate of total cost, put by the Committee at £350,000,000, would in fact be reduced by over 25 per cent. Moreover the prior rights of debenture and preference shareholders would be in great measure taken away from them. From the example set out in the report it is made clear how the interest or dividend received by an investor would be reduced. Thus a holder of £1,000 5 per cent, debentures, well secured and at present yielding £50 a year, would be cut down to £33 or less. The yield on £1,000 6.5 per cent. preference shares, at present £65, would be reduced to less than £45. The holder of ordinary shares, who had been receiving a dividend of 5 per cent., would be lucky apparently if he continued to receive any dividend at all, while certainly he could not look to receive more than 1.75 per cent, or 2 per cent. And all these yields would of course be subject to deduction of income tax. At the same time as it is contended that the State would make a profit on the transaction, no one can deny that the terms proposed to be offered mean an absolute loss to individuals.

By the time the reports were published tho whole question had ceased to be a matter within the region of practical politics, the then critical position of the Great War absorbing the whole energies of the nation. Mr. Asquith on Nov. 14 1918 declared that "State Purchase was financially unsound," and "on every ground he was opposed to it."
Brewers' Almanack 1922, pages 83 - 84.

Basing the purchase price on the profits in the years 1910 to 1914 was pretty cynical. 1909 to 1914 were very poor years for brewing, with few breweries making much in the way of a profit. Using those years as the basis would effectively had meant the government getting a knockdown price.

Similarly, using pre-war values for the stock would also unfairly reduce the price. It looks as if brewery investors would have got a very bad deal. It would have been pretty frustrating, seeing as the war had finally returned most breweries to profit. To have your dividends reduced by state purchase just when they were starting to pay again would have been a bitter pill to swallow.

Of course, serious proposals for complete nationalisation of brewing were never put forward. Though after the war the Labour party was in favour, as were some Liberals. Things were too tight financially after the war for it ever to be on the cards. Carlisle, however, continued to have state control until the 1970s.

The Labour government voted in at the end of WW II briefly toyed with the idea of nationalising brewing but it never resulted in anything concrete. Had it gone ahead eitehr after WW I or WW II, the most likely result would have been a massive reduction in the number of breweries, as in Carlisle, where only one of the four breweries remained open.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1901 Boddington's Stout

A double recipe post today for you lucky devils. Because I seem to have misplaced this recipe from Kristen and had already queued up a recipe of my own.

Back at the turn of the 20th century Boddington still brewed two Stouts, this one and the stronger Double Stout. Though, if I’m honest, it’s quite Porter-like, at least in terms of gravity. But that’s something I’ve come across more often. Provincial Single Stouts having a London Porter-like gravity.  As result of beers brewed in London being generally stronger than those from outside the capital.

There’s a surprisingly small amount of roasted grain in the grist, which makes you wonder how they got a Stout-like colour. The answer may lie in how the black malt was handled. It wasn’t mashed with the other grains but added with the sugar during the boil. I’ve seen this technique before and assumed it was intended to draw as much colour as possible out of the malt.

Stout can’t have been their most popular beer as sometime between 1903 and 1913 it was discontinued. Again, this is something I’ve seen at other provincial breweries, where reduce the number of Stouts from two or three to one in the early 20th century. It was a different story in London, where breweries were still making multiple Stouts in the 1950s and 1960s. Whitbread, for example.




That’s enough of me, over to Kristen . . .

Kristen’s Version:
Notes: Probably the least stouty of all the stouts we’ve done in a very long time….not really even a porter. Really has all the hallmarks of a strong dark mild, not that it really needs a ‘what’. This is a cool, dark fruity, easy drinker for any occasion. 

Malt: Three base malts. English, American and Ouchac…. A really neat evening ensued with a glass (ok glasses) of whiskey that led me down the rabbit whole of finding out what in the Ouchac it is/was. Ouchac malt, made form Ouchac barley, was also know as Anatolian barley…from Anatolia…Asia Minor…after many horrible atrocities, genocides and wars, it became know as the Republic of Turkey (1923). So, malt from Turkey. You’ll also see a little sprinkle of black malt. Just a touch. A smidge. And a good dose of No3ish Invert to get that color up to moderately dark.

Hops: Like the IPA, there were 5 different hops blended. A bunch of Englishy hops and an American one. Frankly, it doesn’t really matter here. There were no dry hops, nor late hops so all we want is to get our BU’s in this baby. For me, I’d add them all FWH and be done with it. You can add them more traditionally as listed.

Yeast: Same as the IPA. Pick something that doesn’t attenuation so well and I’d under pitch a touch to to keep her a bit more round on the end. London III really would go swimmingly with this beer. Stay away from anything really minerally I’d say…or weird. Or really, you could do anything. This is such a different type of stout, feel free to mess around with it.

Cask: Standard procedure:
1) let the beer ferment until finished and then give it another day or so. For me right around 5-7 days.
2) Rack the beer to your vessel of choice (firkin, polypin, cornie, whatever).
3) Add primings at ~3.5g/L
4) Add prepared isinglass at 1ml/L
5) ONLY add dry hops at 0.25g/l – 1g/L.
6) Bung it up and roll it around to mix.
Condition at 55F or so for 4-5 days and its ready to go. Spile/vent. Tap. Settle. Serve at 55F.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1951 Boddington IP

A few years on, and Boddies’ Bitter has changed a bit. Proof that commercial recipes are often in a permanent state of flux.

For a start, the gravity has increased by three points. And the rate of attenuation has gone up, leaving a beer over 4.5% ABV. Hopulon, the hop preparation has been dropped.

The other big change is the lack of an adjunct. I was quite surprised to see that. Because I know Boddington included flaked maize in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Pretty much in all their IP recipes, really, other than in war years. It’s a surprise to see them brewing with just malt and sugar.

The hopping rate has been reduced. Another surprise. I’d expected it to be much more bitter, given the beer’s reputation. 19 calculated IBUs is bugger all. Though as the beer is extremely dry, maybe it comes across as more.

One nice thing. The description of the base malt is just one word: Newark.

1951 Boddington IP
pale malt	7.50 lb	85.71%
enzymic malt	0.25 lb	2.86%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	11.43%
Fuggles 90 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.75 oz
Brewer's Gold dry hops	0.125 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1040
FG	1005
ABV	4.63
Apparent attenuation	87.50%
IBU	19
SRM	6
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	110 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

Boddington grists in 1923

Part two of my look at Boddington's beers either side of WW II. This time, it's the grists.

They weren't the most complex of recipes that Boddington used. Most of their beers had only three elements: pale malt, flaked maize and sugar. Though a couple didn't bother with the maize. The only exception was their Stout, which also contained high-dried malt, black malt and caramel.

Note the complete lack of crystal malt in any of their beers. Crystal really wasn't all that popular before WW II. Though in later years it does appear in Boddington Mild. Bit never in their Bitter. Unsurpringly, given its very pale colour.

The lack of coloured malts in anything but Stout wasn't unusual. Even when Mild became dark, most of the colour was derived from sugar or caramel.

Boddington grists in 1923
Beer	Style	OG	pale malt	high dried malt	black malt	flaked maize	caramel	sugar
IP	IPA	1049	78.00%			18.00%		4.00%
XX	Mild	1034	66.18%			26.47%		7.35%
Stout	Stout	1050.25	43.80%	43.80%	2.19%		2.92%	7.30%
CC	Strong Ale	1057	95.60%					4.40%
Source:
Boddington brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/127.

Had the grists changed much since before the war? Not really:

Boddington grists in 1914
Beer	Style	OG	pale malt	high dried malt	black malt	amber malt	flaked maize	caramel	sugar
IP	IPA	1053	87.38%				8.74%		3.88%
B	Mild	1037	78.69%				14.75%		6.56%
BB	Mild	1048	81.52%				9.78%		8.70%
XXX	Mild	1051	85.23%				10.23%		4.55%
AK	Pale Ale	1044	84.51%				12.68%		2.82%
PA	Pale Ale	1046	86.60%				9.28%		4.12%
Stout	Stout	1054	32.39%	29.15%	0.40%	29.15%		2.43%	6.48%
CC	Strong Ale	1062	85.71%				6.12%		8.16%
Source:
Boddington brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/126.

The only real difference is the use of amber malt in the Stout. And the proportion of flaked maize was generally lower.

Boddington use relatively little sugar in their beers. 10-15% was typical.

Census of production of brewing and allied trades 1907

I'm gradually trolling through the 1922 Brewers' Almanack for tidbits. Mostly lovely tables full of numbers. Like this one.

It's an extract from the first Census of Production, which was undertaken in 1908 for the year 1907. It has some handy figures relating to the brewing industry. Especially with regard to the number of people employed.

I was aware that brewing employed relatively few people, but I was shocked by just how few: 84,969.  Just because of how many breweries there were before WW I. In 1905, there were 5,180 breweries in the UK. That works out to an average of just 16 per brewery. Lesss that that, really, as in the employee number also includes those involved in malting.

However, of those 5,180 breweries, 3,787 produced fewer than 1,000 barrels a year. Or bugger all. These would mostly have been pub breweries that might not have employed anyone at all, other than the brewer. If we just take the 1,393 breweries that produced more than 1,000 barrels annually, it still only comes to about 61 employees per brewery.

It's significant how many were involved in bottling. At the time, most breweries didn't bottle much themselves, but relied on independent bottlers. The bottling process was still labour-intensive at the time, hence the large numbers. And I assume some of the numbers for brewing also include breweries inhouse bottling plants. The 1,800 or so female wage-earners were almsot certainly involved in bottling, that being about the only manual job women performed.

Talking of women, only 2.3% of brewery workers were women, while 27.5% of those employed in bottling were fremale. I'm intrigued as to the function of salaried women inside breweries. Were they performing secretarial or clerical work? Or were there already female lab technicians?

Of course, breweries are still very male-dominated. But I'm sure more than 2% of those employed are female. If anyone knows where I can find gigures for the present day I would be very grateful.

The net output per persomn employed, at £331, must have been one of the highest for any industry. It would be interesting to see what the average wage of a brewery worker was. The figures exclude beer duty, which that year came to £13,117,000.

Census of production of brewing and allied trades 1907
Trades.	Gross output, Selling value or value of work done.	Materials used. Cost.	Work given out. Amount paid to other firms.	Net output. Value.	Persons employed.	Net output per person employed.
Brewing and Malting	54,133,000	25,843,000	196,000	28,104,000	84,969	331
Spirit Distilling	4,833,000	3,352,000	-	1,481,000	6,525	227
Spirit Compounding, Rectifying, &c.	4,027,000	3,625,000	-	402,000	1,135	354
Bottling, &c	12,795,000	9,635,000	-	3,140,000	20,265	155
Aerated Waters, British Wines, &c.	6,035,000	2,461,000	-	3,577,000	28,657	125
	£81,826,000	£44,920,000	£196,000	£36,704,000	141,551	£259
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1922, page 82.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of those employed:

Numbers employed in brewing and allied trades 1907
	Wage-earners. Average No. and age class				Salaried persons. Average No and age class.
Trades.	Males		Females.		Males		Females.
	Under 18.	Over 18.	Under 18.	Over 18.	Under 18.	Over 18.	Under 18.	Over 18.
Brewing & Malting	4,148	63,069	175	1,604	978	14,786	14	195
Spirit Distilling	125	5,378	5	124	60	812	2	19
Spirit Compounding. Rectifying, &c.	23	633	7	27	23	412	4	6
Bottling	3,115	9,793	697	3,148	278	2,989	20	225
Aerated Waters, British Wines, &c.	3,063	16,354	449	4,804	261	3,399	30	297
	10,474	95,227	1,333	9,707	1,600	22,398	70	742
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1922, page 82.

Boddington beers in 1923

1923 is the year when UK beer reached a new normality. The dramatic changes of the war years were finally over and average gravity hit 1043º, the level it would remain art for the rest of the decade.

WW I had an enormous impact on UK beer. It wasn't just gravity that was reduced, but also the range of beers. Anything that was marginal or very strong got the chop towards the end of the war. Some returned once things had settled down, but most didn't. Boddington is a fairly typical example.

In 1914, Boddington brewed eight different beers:three Milds, three Pale Ales, a Strong Ale and a Stout. That wasn't a particularly large set before the war.

It was normal for provincial breweries to have three or even four Milds in their portfolio. Though often they were all parti-gyled together. Boddington, on the other hand, brewed all their beers single-gyle.

Boddington beers in 1914
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
IP	IPA	1053	1016	4.89	69.81%	4.00	1.35
B	Mild	1037	1010	3.57	72.97%	2.86	0.51
BB	Mild	1048	1016	4.23	66.67%	3.28	0.88
XXX	Mild	1051	1015	4.76	70.59%	3.67	0.99
AK	Pale Ale	1044	1013	4.10	70.45%	2.92	0.57
PA	Pale Ale	1046	1014	4.23	69.57%	3.33	0.97
Stout	Stout	1054	1018	4.76	66.67%	3.10	0.94
CC	Strong Ale	1062	1020	5.56	67.74%	3.53	1.18
Source:
Boddington brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/126.

Nine years later, only three of those beers survived, IPA, CC and Stout. In addition, there was a new Mild, XX.

Boddington beers in 1923
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
IP	IPA	1049	1015	4.50	69.39%	5.29	1.54
XX	Mild	1034	1010	3.18	70.59%	6.17	1.19
Stout	Stout	1050.25	1014	4.80	72.14%	5.63	1.52
CC	Strong Ale	1057	1018	5.16	68.42%	5.16	1.64
Source:
Boddington brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/127.

What's interesting is how little the gravity of the three surviving beers had fallen. It's only 7% or 8%. While average gravity for the UK fell from 1053º in 1914 to 1043º in 1923, or about 19%. So why such a small decrease at Boddington? There is an explanation.

There was considerable variation in beer strength in different parts of the country. In particular, London beers were quite a bit stronger than those from elsewhere. For example, A London X Ale was over 1050º in 1914, a standard London Stout around 1065º-1070º and a Strong Ale 1070º-1075º.

After the war, beer strengths became much more standardised across the country. Generally fitting in with the gravity bands of the last set of price controls. Which meant that the fall in gravities was greater in London than elsewhere.

Boddington continued to brew those four beers until WW II.

My books cheap

Until 5th March you can save 10% on orders of my Lulu print books. Plus free mail or 50% off ground shipping.

Use Code: BOOKSHIP18

Visit my book store or click on one of the books in the left-hand margin.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/andrewsblag

Or just click here to get my latest book:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ronald-pattinson/lets-brew/paperback/product-23289812.html

Let's Brew - 1947 Boddington IP

IP, the beer known as Boddington’s Bitter, had started life as the strongest of the brewery’s Pale Ales. In 1914, it had an OG of 1053º.

By 1947, two World Wars had knocked that down to 1037º, the level of an Ordinary Bitter. Though the high degree of attenuation meant that it was almost 4% ABV.

The influence of the war is plain to see in the presence of flaked barley, which brewers were forced to use. At breweries like Boddington who’d used adjuncts before the war, it replaced flaked maize. The invert sugar is my approximation for three proprietary sugars: 2 cwt DMS, 1.5 cwt Fla, 2 cwt. B.

There were two copper hops, about which all I know is that they were English and from the 1945 season. There were also 3 lbs of hopulon, a preparation of hops. According to a Whitbread brewing record, 1 lb hopulon is the equivalent of 7 lbs of hops. So I've bumped up the hop quantity by 21 lbs.

Oddly, given the vagueness of the hop descriptions, which usually just list the grower, the dry hops are specifically listed as Brewer's Gold.

1947 Boddington IP
pale malt	6.25 lb	78.13%
enzymic malt	0.25 lb	3.13%
flaked barley	0.50 lb	6.25%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	12.50%
Fuggles 110 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.75 oz
Brewer's Gold dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1037
FG	1007
ABV	3.97
Apparent attenuation	81.08%
IBU	23
SRM	6
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	162º F
Boil time	110 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

Why I'm going to the US next month

Another of my dreams is coming true. An historic Lager festival.

It's being held at Urban Chestnut in St. Louis on Sunday 22nd April at the Grove Brewery & Bierhall from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m.

http://urbanchestnut.com/save-the-date-for-historic-lagerfest/

I'm not 100% sure of the lineup yet, but it should include US, British and continental Lagers. I suspect that many will be surprised at the variety. There's much more to Lager than Pils.

If you're intrigued and want to learn more, many of the recipes are in my most recent book, Let's Brew!


http://www.lulu.com/shop/ronald-pattinson/lets-brew/paperback/product-23289812.html

How to reduce the price of beer

In the early 1920s there was general agreement - except, of course, amongst temperance nutcases - that beer was too expensive. But how could the price be reduced?

As far as the public were concerned, many believed that brewers could afford to knock off a penny a pint due to reduced costs. Though, with half of the retail price consisting of tax, the raw materials and labour costs represented only a small fraction.

Brewers had other ideas. To be fair, quite realistic ones. The only way to reduce the price of beer was to cut the tax.

"There has been considerable reduction in the prices of malt, sugar, &c., but hops are costing rather more. As to labour, there has been a general reduction of wages, but not to anything like the extent indicated in the Press—viz., 14s. 6d. per week. In many cases brewers have reduced wages but very slightly, and in few instances has the reduction exceeded half the amount mentioned. As to reductions in the cost of manufacture, these did not occur suddenly, and they were only now beginning to have substantial effect, owing to stock bought at higher prices and running contracts based on a larger output than exists at present. And that effect is largely nullified by the diminishing demand for the finished article, with consequent increase per barrel of all standing and overhead charges. It is not true to say that these savings have been without any disadvantage to the consumer, because most brewers have increased the gravity of their beers and continued to supply them for the same money.

As regards a reduction in price of 1d. per pint, which as shown above would cost about £30,000,000, where is that sum to come from, unless relief from taxation is afforded? It is out of the question to reduce the quality of the article, for one of the chief complaints is that the gravity of the beer is still too low, and brewers are anxious as far as passible to pursue the policy of increasing the gravity and so giving the consumer improved value for his money. Therefore it is futile and impracticable to say that the brewer is "morally and economically compelled to give the people cheaper beer." Any brewery company that reduced prices by even a farthing per half-pint, (12s. a barrel) would wipe out, and very often more than wipe out, its present profits. To reduce by a halfpenny per half-pint (the smallest workable coin and representing 24s. a barrel) would convert the present amount of profit into a loss of at least a corresponding amount. To reduce prices by 3s. or 4s. a barrel, if that were possible, could have no beneficial effect for the consumer because it would represent only a fraction of a farthing per pint.

The next move lies with the Government, and, being brewers themselves on a large scale at Carlisle, they can fully bear out the accuracy of the above statements. The Government are not only brewers but are owners of more than 200 tied or managed licensed houses. If ordinary brewers are morally and economically compelled to give the people cheaper beer, it might be expected that the Government itself would set the example in the State-managed districts, and the fact that they have done nothing of the sort makes it obvious that the contention is unsound. Substantial reduction of the £5 a barrel duty must take place before relief can be given to the consumer."
Brewers' Almanack 1922, pages 149 - 150.

Working men's clubs had been particularly unhappy with the price they had to pay for beer. Which prompted the last wave of new breweries before the 1970's: club breweries. In several parts of the country clubs got together and built their own brewery. There were still three such breweries when I stated drinking: Federation, Yorkshire Clubs and South Wales and Monmouthshire United Clubs Brewery.

The bit about increasing the gravity of beer is interesting. Average OG rose after 1919, but got stuck at around 1043º, which is where it stayed for the rest of the decade:

UK beer output and average OG
Year	bulk barrels	average OG
1918	19,085,043	1039.81
1919	23,264,533	1030.55
1920	35,047,947	1039.41
1921	34,504,570	1042.61
1922	30,178,731	1042.88
1923	23,948,651	1042.72
1924	25,425,017	1043.04
Sources:
Brewers' Journal 1921, page 246.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 110.

Funnily enough, average OG remianed at just below the level of the last gravity restriction of 1044º.

In 1923, the government did come up with a way of reducing the price of beer by 1d. a pint. But they didn't reduce the 100s per standard barrel tax. They gave a 20s rebate per bulk barrel. Which may sound like it's reducing the tax to 80s. a barrel, but it wasn't. As most beer was below the 1055º of a standard barrel, the reduction was greater for lower gravity beer. Yet another discouragement to brewing stronger beers.

That rebate did leave brewers paying for some of the 1d a pint price reduction. There are 288 pints in a 36-gallon barrel and 20s is 240 d. Meaning 48d - 4s - of the drop came from brewers' profit margins. The rebate would have needed to be 24s to pay for the full cost of the price reduction.

The excessive taxation of beer

Brewers might not have been happy with the high rate of taxation during the war years, but were prepared to acccept it as necessary temporary evil.

They can't have been happy when the tax on beer increased even more after the end of hostilities. This is an overview of the tax changes around WW I:

Tax per standard barrel 1914 - 1920
Date	tax
1914	7s 9d
November 1914	23s
April 1916	24s
April 1917	25s
April 1918	50s
April 1919	70s
April 1920	100s
Source:
“The Brewers’ Almanack 1928” pages 100 – 101.

I'm sure brewers would have been mightily depressed if told that the tax on beer would stay high. It remained at 100s. per barrel until 1931, when it was raised again. Though from 1923 there was a rebate of 20s per bulk barrel, which allowed the price of beer to be reduced by 1d. per pint.

It was also a question of economics. During the war, when wages were high and there was full employment, the high price of beer wasn't such a problem. But by the time the 1920's rolled around the UK economy was performing poorly and there wasn't as much money knocking around.

"THE EXCESSIVE TAXATION OF BEER
WITH reductions taking place in wages during 1921, following the gradually diminishing cost of living, complaint of the maintenance of the high price of beer has become more insistent and pronounced. Mention has been made by the chairmen of several brewery companies of the impossibility of any reduction of price to the consumer being made so long as the present excessive taxation of the national beverage is maintained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That taxation is nearly thirteen times as much as before the War, and with the very greatly lessened spending capacity of the workers, is not unreasonably regarded as punitive, and as having some ulterior object, rather than as existing solely as a revenue-producing device. It is true that, in the financial year 1920-21, the yield of the duty at the rate of 100s. per barrel exceeded the Budget estimate and yielded no less than £123,393,000. That enormous sum taken out of the pockets of the beer drinkers compares with the relatively modest yield of about £13,600,000 in the year 1913-14. That the 100s. duty did not operate in reducing consumption can only be ascribed to the general prosperity which then obtained. The position in 1921-22 is entirely different, and conditions of depression and unemployment in which the nation is living are clearly reflected in the diminishing consumption of beer. For the three months ended June 30 1921, the decrease amounted to 6.5%, and for the three months ended Sept. 30 it had reached 10%. Official figures for the third quarter are not yet available, but no one will be surprised if they indicate a fall of 20% or more. For the complete year, consumption will probably pan out at nearly 20% lower than for the previous year. That would involve a loss of 25 millions to the Exchequer, and should make it manifest to the Chancellor that his duty is being charged at an excessive rate. A pint of beer at standard gravity pays more than 4d. in duty, and a pint at 1039° as nearly as possible 3d.

The Brewers' Society at the close of 1921 were seeking an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the position. Every brewer recognises the reasonable grievances of the consumer and the hardship which the excessive price of beer entails upon him. But they are quite unable to bring about a reduction unless and until the existing duty is modified. The simplest calculation will prove that to reduce prices by one penny per pint - and any smaller reduction would bo looked upon as useless and merely playing with the question — must cost 24s. per barrel, whatever the gravity or quality of the particular beer may be. The present rate of consumption may be put roughly at not less than 25 million bulk barrels, 24s. on each of which represents a total of £30,000,000. The beer duty was excessively high, even when the masses had plenty of money to spend. It is now, in the sadly altered conditions which prevail, altogether extortionate, and if maintained must defeat its object. And, quite apart from financial considerations, questions of policy and expediency have to be taken into account, and the Government must know that feeling in the country is running high.

In many quarters attempts are made to lay the blame for the high price of beer upon the shoulders of the brewer and he has been attacked by the Press and by the Clubs Union. The salient facts of the situation are:

1. Since 1914 the Beer Duty has been increased from 7s. 9d. to 100s. per standard barrel — equal to 1,190% or nearly thirteen-fold.

2. In 1913-14 the duty paid to the Government was £13,022,000 on over 35 million barrels In l920-2l the duty had reached £123,303,000, although the consumption had fallen to approximately 26.5 million barrels.

3. In 1914 about one-farthing represented taxation out of every 3d. speny on beer. Now the proportion has risen to about 3.5d. out of every 7d.

4. That the consumer cannot afford to pay present prices in clearly indicated by the fall in consumption as shown by the official figures for the first half of 1921-22. That fall has more recently become much accelerated."
Brewers' Almanack 1922, pages 148 - 149. 

The claim that half the price of a pint was tax is about true according to my figures. And that's where it stayed for the rest of the 1920s

Like so many aspects of British beer, the pattern for the rest of the century was set just after the war's end. British beer would continue to be very highly taxed.

I've just worked out why Guinness Extra Stout had an OG of 1055º in the 1920s.