Stout on the eve of WW I

Despite the decline of Porter, Stout remained very popular. Most breweries produced more than one at different strengths. London brewers often brewed three, four or even more Stouts.

There was a wide variation in the strength of Stouts. Provincial versions could be as weak as 1050º, very similar in strength to a London Porter. The strongest Imperial Stouts were over 1100º.

Milk Stout was an innovation that made an appearance just a few years before the start of the war. It was first brewed on the Kent coast by Mackeson, who acquired a patent for it and allowed other brewers to brew a version under licence.

Another variation was Oatmeal Stout. This was developed by Maclay of Alloa in the 1890s. They also tried to patent their invention, but with rather less success. Their Beer was called Oat Malt Stout and, as the name implies, used malted oats. Other brewers got around this by using oat flakes and calling their beers Oatmeal Stout.

London Stout before WW I
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1910	Barclay Perkins	OMS	1053.2	1016.5	4.86	68.98%	7.50	1.82
1910	Barclay Perkins	BS	1074.2	1025.0	6.51	66.31%	8.00	2.75
1910	Barclay Perkins	BS Ex	1076.0	1022.5	7.08	70.39%	12.00	4.12
1914	Courage	Double Stout	1078.9	1033.2	6.05	57.89%	7.20	2.33
1914	Courage	Imperial	1094.2	1038.8	7.33	58.82%	7.20	2.78
1914	Fuller	BS	1066.4	1020.8	6.03	68.70%	6.74	2.01
1914	Whitbread	LS	1054.0	1014.0	5.29	74.05%	5.99	1.37
1914	Whitbread	Exp S	1070.9	1013.0	7.66	81.67%	13.03	4.25
1914	Whitbread	SS	1079.7	1024.0	7.37	69.88%	8.56	3.03
1914	Whitbread	SSS	1095.0	1036.0	7.81	62.11%	8.56	3.62
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/602.
Courage brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/08/247.
Fullers brewing record held at the brewery.
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/108.

Provincial Stouts were, in general, a good bit weaker than their London cousins. And, while London brewers made multiple Stouts, outside the capital they tended to stick to just one.

Provincial Stout before WW I
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1914	Adnams	BS	1055.0	1013.5	5.49	75.45%	5.86	1.43
1914	Boddington	Stout	1054.0	1018.0	4.76	66.67%	3.10	0.94
1911	Lees	XXXP	1059.0	1017.0	5.56	71.19%	4.05	0.98
1911	Murphy	XXX	1088.0	1028.5	7.87	67.61%	15.21	5.87
1911	Russell	DS	1074.2				8.37	2.86
1904	Tetley	S	1066.8	1020.5	6.12	69.29%	4.91	1.36
1910	Warwicks	SS	1053.7	1022.2	4.18	58.76%	4.83	1.12
Sources:
Adnams brewing record Book 2 held at the brewery.
Boddington brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/126.
Lees brewing record held at the brewery.
Tetley's brewing record held at the West Yorkshire Archives, document number WYL756/51/ACC1903.
Warwicks & Richardsons brewing record held at the Nottinghamshire Archives, document number DD/NM/8/4/1.

The exception, in terms of strength, is from Murphy, which was based in Cork, Ireland. The Stouts with gravities in the 1050s look rather like London Porters in terms of strength. The hopping rates are all over the place, but generally lower than in London, with Murphy again being an exception.

Scottish Stout before WW I
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1915	Drybrough	XXX	1083	1026	7.54	68.67%	4.79	1.34
1909	Maclay	DBS 54/-	1044	1013	4.10	70.45%	7.56	1.53
1909	Maclay	OMS 63/-	1062	1024	5.03	61.29%	7.56	2.16
1914	Thomas Usher	48/-	1046	1021	3.31	54.35%	5.00	1.04
1914	Thomas Usher	54/-	1056	1025	4.10	55.36%	5.00	1.27
1913	Younger, Wm.	S2	1059	1029	3.97	50.85%	1.88	0.45
1913	Younger, Wm.	S1	1065	1031	4.50	52.31%	1.88	0.50
1913	Younger, Wm.	DBS	1065	1022	5.69	66.15%	10.65	2.63
1913	Younger, Wm.	MBS	1065	1020	5.95	69.23%	3.50	0.74
Sources:
Drybrough brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number D/6/1/1/3.
Maclay brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number M/6/1/1/2.
Thomas Usher brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number TU/6/1/5.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/58.

Scottish started going weird in the late 19th century. Especially at William Younger, who combined minimal hopping (including some spent hops) with very poor attenuation. The forerunners of Sweet Stout, which would later become a Scottish speciality.



The above is an excerpt from my most recent book, Armistice!

 Buy this wonderful book.

Penalised for owning tied houses

We're looking again at the 1909 Budget and the impact it was likely to have on specifically the pub trade.But not the whole of the pub trade because of the different way licensing worked in the different parts of the UK.

When younger I used to wonder why almost all the pubs were tied in England, but not in Scotland. It turns out that it was all to do with the way licences were issued.

In England and Wales, the 1869 Licensing Act not only made it extremely difficult to obtain new licenses, it also made it much easier for the authorities to revoke licences. With temperance twats sitting as licensing magistrates in many areas, it's no wonder that there was an aggressive campaign to reduce the number of licences.

In Scotland and Ireland, things worked differently.

"His [Mr. Herbert Samuel, MP] estimate of the proportion of the total consumption of beer, as taking place in on-licensed houses, viz., two thirds of the total, itself illustrates how unequally the burden of new taxation is distributed.

About £2,800,000 annually is to be extracted from the English and Welsh brewers as a penalty for owning or supplying "tied houses."

Does any one doubt that if the conditions under which the Irish and Scotch publicans have carried on their business had been the same as they are here, they would not also have sold their licensed houses as they have in England?

In England a licensed house is a valuable monopoly, requiring capital and possessing a substantial saleable value.

In Ireland, owing to the ease with which licences have been granted, the monopoly has no comparison with that in England, and the capital required and the saleable value are correspondingly small.

In Scotland the licence is personal to the publican, and does not attach to his premises."

The English publican, therefore, has had most to fear from the organised hostility of the teetotal party, which is largely responsible for the tied-house system in this country, and it is not surprising that the old-fashioned English publican has long ago sold out his business."
Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, page 415.

Because the number of licences in England was limited and likely to decrease rather than increase, it greatly boosted the value of pubs. Mostly because it prompted a rush to buy tied houses in the 1880s and 1890s, a move financed by the capital raised when breweries coverted to public companies.

As the breweries owned most of the pubs in England, it was up to them to pay the licence fee. Meaning quite a big extra expense. It also reduced the value of pubs, which was a big problem for businesses where that's exactly where most of their  capital was tied up. In the remaining few years before the start of WW Imany breweries had to mark down the nominal value of their shares to reflect this reduction in capital.

Things have certainly changed in Ireland when it comes to the granting of new licences, which is as good as impossible today.

Scottish Pale Ale/IPA in the middle of the 19th century

Scotland, more specifically Edinburgh, was one of the first places outside Burton to take up brewing the trendy new IPA style. As early as the 1840’s, Edinburgh brewers were producing IPA for both the home and the Indian markets.

Trying to split apart Pale Ale and IPA in this early period is pointless. Brewers were highly inconsistent in their use of the two terms. In general, IPA was used to describe all early Pale Ales, regardless of their characteristics. Later in the 19th century Scottish brewers generally adopted the term Pale Ale instead, though IPA was sometimes used to denote one particular beer in a range of Pale Ales. Confused? You should be. I’ve been trying to get my head around this for a decade and still struggle.

Here’s confirmation that that early date Scotland was both exporting, and drinking, IPA:

"Large quantities of a light, pale, and highly-hopped variety of ale have been for some considerable time past exported to the East Indies, where it is in high estimation; and is now, also, rather extensively used in summer in this country."
"A Dictionary, Practical, Theoretical, and Historical, of Commerce and Commercial Navigation" by John Ramsay McCulloch, 1844, page 9.

Despite what you may have been told to the contrary, early IPAs were not particularly strong beers, at least by the standard of the day. They were, however, extremely heavily hopped. AT levels that just look plain crazy today. Heavy hopping was very necessary for export versions, if the beer were to arrive in India in good shape.

WH Roberts provides some intriguing analyses of Scottish-brewed IPAs in the 1840’s. Some are surprisingly weak, even ones genuinely exported to India:

Early 19th century IPA
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price	size	package	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1844	Unknown	90/- IPA Export, India	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1007.75	1067.6	7.60	88.54%
1844	Unknown	84/- IPA Export	18.67d	gallon	draught	1005.25	1060.4	7	91.30%
1844	Unknown	95/- IPA Export	21.11d	gallon	draught	1008	1069.4	7.8	88.48%
1844	Unknown	90/- IPA Export, India	20.00d	gallon	draught	1008	1066.3	7.4	87.93%
1844	Unknown	84/- IPA Export, India	18.67d	gallon	draught	1010	1062	6.6	83.86%
1844	Unknown	81/- IPA Home	18.00d	gallon	draught	1012	1059.3	6	79.75%
1844	Unknown	60/- IPA Export, India	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1006.5	1053.8	6	87.91%
1844	Unknown	60/- IPA Export, India	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1005	1053.8	6.2	90.71%
1844	Unknown	60/- IPA Export, India	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1013	1054.2	5.23	76.00%
1844	Unknown	90/- IPA Export, India	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1012	1065.6	6.8	81.69%
1844	Unknown	95/- IPA Export, India	21.11d	gallon	bottled	1007.25	1067.1	7.6	89.20%
1844	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1007.5	1068.9	7.8	89.12%
1844	Unknown	60/- IPA Home	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1005	1044.7	5.04	88.81%
1844	Unknown	60/- IPA Home	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1004.25	1049.9	5.8	91.49%
1844	Unknown	60/- IPA Home	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1006	1047.2	5.23	87.28%
1844	Unknown	81/- IPA Export	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1003	1061.3	7.4	95.10%
1844	Unknown	81/- IPA Export	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1003.25	1058.4	7	94.43%
1844	Unknown	66/- IPA Export	14.67d	gallon	bottled	1004	1054.4	6.4	92.65%
1844	Unknown	90/- IPA Export, India	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1010.25	1070.1	7.6	85.38%
1844	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1009	1067.3	7.4	86.62%
1845	Unknown	81/- IPA Home	18.00d	gallon	draught	1006.5	1053.8	6	87.91%
1845	Unknown	81/- IPA Home	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1006	1054.8	6.2	89.06%
1845	Unknown	81/- IPA Home	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1005	1058.6	6.8	91.46%
1845	Unknown	81/- IPA Home	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1005	1060.1	7	91.68%
1845	Unknown	81/- IPA Home	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1005.25	1058.8	6.8	91.07%
1845	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	draught	1012.25	1062.7	6.4	80.45%
1845	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	draught	1012.25	1064.2	6.6	80.93%
1845	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	draught	1012	1062.4	6.4	80.77%
1845	Unknown	90/- IPA Export, India	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1010.5	1068.5	7.4	84.68%
1845	Unknown	60/- IPA Export	13.33d	gallon	bottled	1004.25	1048.4	5.6	91.21%
1845	Unknown	60/- IPA Export	13.33d	gallon	draught	1004.25	1048.4	5.6	91.21%
1845	Unknown	63/- IPA Export	14.00d	gallon	draught	1005.5	1049.6	5.6	88.91%
1845	Unknown	81/- IPA Export	18.00d	gallon	bottled	1003.75	1058.9	7	93.63%
1845	Unknown	63/- IPA Export	14.00d	gallon	bottled	1003.25	1055.2	6.6	94.11%
1845	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	draught	1007.5	1068.9	7.8	89.12%
1845	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	draught	1007.75	1069.2	7.8	88.80%
1846	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	draught	1006	1054.8	6.2	89.06%
1846	Unknown	90/- IPA Home	20.00d	gallon	draught	1006.5	1055.3	6.2	88.25%
1846	Unknown	90/- IPA Export	20.00d	gallon	bottled	1005	1052.3	6	90.43%
1846	Unknown	65/- IPA Export	14.44d	gallon	bottled	1005.25	1062	7.2	91.53%
Source:
“Scottish Ale Brewer”, by W.H. Roberts, Edinburgh, 1847,  pages 171 and 173

The weakest IPA exported to India was just over 5% ABV. That’s not even a strong beer by modern standards. It’s interesting that they go all the way from 60/- to 90/-. The latter is very rare as a beer designation. Though weirdly it popped up again in the 1920’s to describe a low-gravity (low 1030º’s) bottled Pale Ale. More recently it’s been used for Strong/Scotch Ales.

The IPAs William Younger was brewing a few years later look remarkably similar to those analysed by Roberts.

William Younger Pale Ales 1851 - 1853
Year	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1851	XP	1060	1018	5.56	70.00%	20	5.15
1851	XXP	1072	1018	7.14	75.00%	24	8.18
1852	XP	1056	1018	5.03	67.86%	20	4.66
1852	XXP	1067	1017	6.61	74.63%	24	8.20
1853	XP	1056	1015	5.42	73.21%	20	5.14
Source:
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/5.

The text above is another excerpt from my tone-setting tome on the history of Scottish beer. Way better than any other book on the subject.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ronald-pattinson/scotland-vol-2/paperback/product-23090497.html 

Let's Brew - 1939 Whitbread Mackeson Stout

One of Whitbread’s most popular beers was their Milk Stout, Mackeson. They had acquired the brand when they bought the eponymous brewery in Hythe in Kent.

Mackeson was the inventor of Milk Stout – Stout with added lactose – releasing the first version in 1909. The concept was to create a more nourishing version of Stout. It’s debatable whether that’s true, but the new beer was a hit with drinkers.

Mackeson was savvy enough to patent their idea but, as they weren’t large enough to meet demand for the new style themselves, they allowed other brewers to produce their own version under licence. Mackeson, however, remained the brand leader and it was the main reason Whitbread bought the brewery.

This beer is one of the many reasons I thank the heavens for the Whitbread Gravity Book. Because without it I’d have no idea how much lactose was used. Since it isn’t mentioned in the brewing records. Whitbread brewed it as a normal Stout and only added the lactose as primings at racking time. By comparing the OG as brewed with the OG in the Gravity Book, I could work out how much lactose had been added. As brewed, the OG was 1050

Other than the added lactose, the recipe is the same as Porter and London Stout, with which Mackeson was parti-gyled in various combinations.

1939 Whitbread Mackeson Stout
pale malt	8.25 lb	66.43%
brown malt	1.00 lb	8.05%
chocolate malt	1.00 lb	8.05%
flaked oats	0.09 lb	0.72%
lactose	0.75 lb	6.04%
No. 3 invert sugar	1.00 lb	8.05%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.33 lb	2.66%
Hallertau 75 mins	0.50 oz
Fuggles 75 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
OG	1057
FG	1021.5
ABV	4.70
Apparent attenuation	62.28%
IBU	32
SRM	43
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	75 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

London gets screwed

Nowadays we're used to London being treated better than the rest of the UK. (Transport is a great example.) It's one of the reasons the country is in such a mess. But on the eve of WW I, it was London feeling disadvataged by new licence duties.

The 1909 Budget caused massive political unrest. Which ultimately led to reform of the House of Lords, when it was voted down by that house.  The Liberal government's proposals, conceived by chancellor David Lloyd George were quite progressive, introducing the first bits of the welfare state. Things like old age pensions. But they needed to be pais for.

One of the areas wher enew revenue was to be raised was from the drinks industry. But this time it wasn't to come from an increase in the tax on beer. Instead, licences were to be the source. Specifically brewing licences and pub licences.

"London and High Licences.
The National Trade Defence Association have issued a statement pointing out the eifect of the proposed licence duties in the administrative County of London, an area in which the Chancellor admits that the gross annual values on which the duties are to be paid approximate to the real values. The following figures are quoted, drawn from “Licensed Premises, 1909,” Return No. 1,255, May 7th, 1909, issued by the London County Council:—

FUTURE DUTIES.
Public-houses (4,742), gross annual value	£1,576,266
Take, according to the Finance Bill, 50 per gross annual value per cent. of this value	£788,133
Beerhouses (1,715), gross annual value	£145,593
Take, according to the Finance Bill, one-third of this value	£48,531
Total Future Duties	£836,664

PRESENT DUTIES.
Public-houses (4,742) at an average gross annual value of £332 would pay an average licence duty of £40	£189,680
Beerhouses (1,715): (537 at £4 and 1,178 at £3 10s.)	£6,271
Total Present Duties	£195,931
Therefore the future duties will exceed the present duties by	£640,713

Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, pages 413 - 414.

The average licence fee of a London fully-licensed was going to rise from £40 a year to £166.20 - a more than fourfold increase.  To put that into perspective, a pint of Mild cost 2d in the public bar. Assuming a generous 1d per pint profit for the publican, that's around 40,000 pints that would need to be sold just to pay for the licence. Or slightly more than 2.5 barrels per week.

The result of the new rules would leave London paying a disproportionate amount of the increase. Why? Because the new licence rate was based on the rateable value of the pub and those values were much higher in London than elsewhere.  Partly becasuse in London the rateable value was close to the rent which could be realistically obtained for the premises. While in most of the country the rateable value was a nominal sum.

Which meant London publicans got doubly screwed. Once, because property prices were high in London and again because the rateable values were high.

"The population in the administrative County of London is one-tenth of that of the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (the statement proceeds) in his Budget statement said that he expected to get an additional £2,600,000 from his new licence duties and his new brewers“ licences. Deducting £630,000 for brewers' licences and for duties to be levied on licensed premises other than public-houses and beerhouses, we have £2,000,000 as the additional amount to be obtained from the public-houses and the beerhouses of the United Kingdom. One-tenth of this sum is £230,000; instead of that, the administrative County of London will be called upon to pay £640,000. In the year ending March 31st, 1908, the yield of the licence duties was £2,222,359, from which must deducted the receipts for duties levied on licensed premises other than public-houses and beerhouses, and out of the total so reduced the administrative County of London paid £195,951, or approximately one-tenth of the whole.

The result may be summarised as follows:— London will pay a sum at least four times as large as the licence duties at the present time, and more than three times as large as the just share of the increased duties which should fall on London, measured either by population or by its share of the licence duties paid hitherto, and this in a district where the price of beer charged by the brewer is exceptionally low. These figures reveal such a startling inequality in the treatment of London that it is impossible to think that it can be left unredressed."
Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, pages 413 - 414.

I found this statement of note "the price of beer charged by the brewer is exceptionally low". That's not something that could be said of London nowadays.

UK brewing 1938 - 1949

WW II was a challenging time for British brewers, though, due to a variety of factors, not nearly as difficult as WW I.

The biggest difference was that, unlike in WW I, beer production was maintained at it pre-war level.  Even in terms of standard barrels, which take the OG of the beer out of the equation. In terms of bulk barrels, production actually increased by 25%.

The difference between the two wars was due to a variety of factors. Better preparation, an assumption that the war would last several years, and controlling food supply right from the outset meant that raw materials were never in as short supply. But another important factor was the more sympathetic approach of the government. In WW I the authorities had been positively hostile to the industry.

At first glance it might seem odd that imports held up so well during WW II. In WW I, imports had dwindled to zero. But it’s all about Ireland, which in 1939 was an independent country. But still supplying large quantities of beer to the UK. Imports during the war years were almost exclusively from Ireland. And the vast majority of it a single beer, Guinness Extra Stout.

There was one thing which suffered: the strength of beer, which dropped by almost 20%. Average gravity would never return to its level of 1939, settling down at around 1037º in 1951. Where it remained for the next forty years.  It was one of the most long-lasting effects of the war.

Beer production and consumption, which both fared well during the war, weren’t so lucky during the peace. They fell all through the 1950s and only got back to their 1948 level in 1961.  Falling demand was one of the factors behind the large scale rationalisation in the 1950s.

UK brewing 1938 - 1949
Year	Production (bulk barrels)	Production (standard barrels)	Consumption (bulk barrels)	Exports (bulk barrels)	Imports (bulk barrels)	Average OG
1938	24,205,631	18,055,539	25,087,393	281,284	1,163,046	1041.02
1939	24,674,992	18,364,156	25,229,287	283,974	838,269	1040.93
1940	25,366,782	18,738,619	25,922,694	266,766	822,678	1040.62
1941	26,203,803	18,351,113	26,768,038	225,552	789,787	1038.51
1942	29,860,796	19,294,605	30,813,374	94,796	1,047,374	1035.53
1943	29,296,672	18,293,919	30,027,441	107,019	837,788	1034.34
1944	30,478,289	19,193,773	30,973,081	77,597	572,389	1034.63
1945	31,332,852	19,678,449	31,968,011	130,443	765,602	1034.54
1946	32,650,200	20,612,225	33,391,810	187,418	929,028	1034.72
1947	29,261,398	17,343,690	30,011,879	109,680	860,161	1032.59
1948	30,408,634	18,061,390	31,067,391	205,098	863,855	1032.66
1949	26,990,144	16,409,937	27,611,545	254,147	875,548	1033.43
change 1938 - 1949	11.50%	-9.11%	10.06%	-9.68%	-24.74%	-18.50%
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, pages 50 and 57.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1900 Amsdell Winter XX

In a change from the usual plain fare of UK recipes, here's one from the famous brewing town of Albany, New York. And fitting in with March as Mild month, it's a Mild recipe. How wacky is that - a genuine US Mild recipe?

X Ales were one of the mainstays of American Ale breweries in the 19th century. With their origin obviously lying with English X Ales.

The term Mild Ale doesn’t seem to have been used much in the USA. “Present Use”, a slightly old-fashioned term in the UK by 1900, was used to signify the same thing. But mostly they were just called Ales. Usually XX or XXX, for some reason. X Ale, the most popular Ale in England, doesn’t seem to have been a thing in the USA. Probably just breweries bigging up their Ales.

Amsdell’s XX has about the same gravity as a London X Ale of 1900, though the bitterness is a bit lower. (Refer back to 1899 Barclay Perkins X for a full comparison. I can’t be arsed to do it for you.)

The grist has the same ingredients as usual as Amsdell. Except there’s also a little black malt, presumably for colour. It doesn’t specify where it was added, so it could have been in the copper. Where it would have added more colour than in the mash. What was added in the copper was 20 lbs of salt. Which is slightly less than an eighth of an ounce for a recipe of the size below.

1900 Amsdell Winter XX
pale malt	8.25 lb	65.32%
grits	4.00 lb	31.67%
black malt	0.05 lb	0.40%
glucose	0.33 lb	2.61%
Cluster 30 mins	2.25 oz
OG	1056
FG	1022
ABV	4.5
Apparent attenuation	60.71%
IBU	31
SRM	6
Mash at	156º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	30 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	WLP051 California V

This recipe is one of many North American ones in my outstanding collection of historic recipes:

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