Sunday, 7 February 2021

Why did British beer become blander in the 1980s? (part two)

I'm just back from a walk. Unless it's pissing down, I always go for a walk around noon. A good time to think, while I'm strolling around my little patch of Amsterdam.

Not just think, but start writing in my head. Phrases or even whole sentences. I can shuffle the words around before committing them to metaphorical paper. (That's an example of a sentence I mentally wrote.)

But let's not stray from the point. I was pondering why and when UK beers became blander. A few things became clear. Oh, what I'm referring to is mostly cask-conditioned Bitter and occasionally cask Mild.

First, timeframe. I was thinking 1975 to 1985 or 1990. Then realised that the reason I started at 1975, if because that's when I began drinking in earnest. Were I ten years older, I'd probably have kicked off in 1965. I'm sure beers have been tending towards blandness at least since WW II.

As for why, I believe multiple factors. All to do with changes. Sometimes small changes having a cascading effect. Or acting in combination with another small change alter a beer's flavour cataclysmically.

Why does Harvey's Sussex Best still taste the same? Because they haven't changed anything for years. Same equipment, same ingredients, same process.

Cask Bitter is a surprisingly delicate beast. Easily thrown out of kilter by the slightest tinkering. Let's look at all the potential trouble spots in turn. While remembering that some breweries quite deliberately made their beers blander.


Ingredients.
Plenty of room for enforced change here. A barley variety may no longer be grown. A hop variety might succumb to disease. Or you could just be a cheapskate and use cheaper hops. Or fewer of them. Shortly after Greenall Whitley took over Nottingham brewer Shipstone, they started fiddling with the Bitter recipe, reducing the hopping and making it less bitter. Luckily, Greenalls didn't pay the Mild any attention and its recipe remained unchanged.

Equally, the thrifty brewer could replace some of the malt with something a little cheaper, like unmalted grain. As Guinness did with Extra Stout, when they substituted flaked barley for 20% of the base malt.

A proprietary sugar might be discontinued. If the manufacturer goes bust or is taken over. Which is reportedly what happened with the primings Boddington used.

I'm guessing Harvey's recipe hasn't changed much in many decades. Based on the sacks of flaked maize and tubs of invert sugar, it looks like a typical 1950s recipe.

Even water can change. Fullers had to abandon their well when it became contaminated. Now they use standard London tap water. I'm sure they're not the only brewer that's had the problem.

Yeast, too, can be a tricky bugger. Harvey's' have been repitching their John Smith's yeast for 60 years. If a brewery's yeast turns bad, they can be in real trouble.

In my first year at university (1975-76), I drank a lot of Sam Smith Old Brewery Bitter. Mostly because they had it on cask in the student union bar at 18p a pint. I quite liked, it as well. It wasn't simply the price. When I got back after the summer holidays I was horrified by my first sip. It tasted completely different. What the hell had happened? I later heard that they'd such bad problems with their yeast that they had to find a new one. They must have been constantly repitching - as Harvey's does - and didn't have their strain banked anywhere.

Equipment. Changing the size, type, dimensions or materials of brewing vessels can impact a beer's flavour. I won't include fermenter here as I'll cover those in fermentation.

For example, if you get a new mash tun without rakes and an underlet, you won't be able to underlet mash. Can your copper handle whole hops? One of my favourite beers ever was the 1837 Truman XXXX Mild Ale Pretty Things brewed some time back. An extremely simple recipe: mild malt and a shitload of whole leaf Goldings. The beer had this incredible citrus aroma you only get a huge concentration of leaf Goldings. Only thing is, the brew house was designed for pellets. Hop cones get stuck everywhere and it took them a day to dig them out of the equipment. So next time they brewed it they used pellets. It just wasn't the same. Still a really good beer, but not hitting the heights of the whole leaf version.

The shape of a copper can influence how much colour a wort takes on while boiling. Enclosed ones adding more colour than open ones.


Fermentation
. It has a multitude of traps. Most obvious is changing the type of fermenter. For example, ditching the dropping system and just open ferment. Or do what Fullers did and go straight to conical fermenters. Here's where we get back to yeast. When Fuller moved to conicals, they slimmed down their pitching yeast from three strains to one. Which did they pick - the one that gave the most distinctive flavour. Which also happened to fit the bill in other aspects.

Adnams still have two strains. One provides most of the flavour, the other the attenuation. Neither would work on their own. But I'm sure there are breweries who opted for a bland attenuative yeast when they wanted to simplify what they pitched.

Even a simple thing like changing the size of a fermenting vessel can influence flavour. Yeast is funny stuff and can be picky about where it works.

When Bass removed their union sets in the 1980s, it had a huge impact on the beer. Never tasted the same - or as good - again.

A new brewhouse can cause a total disaster, if something goes badly wrong. Take Home Ales, a regional brewery based in Nottingham and with around 400 pubs. Their boozers were mostly pretty basic, but well frequented. Their beer was cheap and dead reliable. Not my favourite, but OK and guaranteed to be in good condition. The brewery seemed to be doing very well. So well, that they invested in a shiny new brew house. And that's when the trouble started.

There was a source of infection somewhere in the new plant. Their beer was now sometimes just about OK, but mostly tasted infected. It must have hit them financially, too, as they sold up to Scottish & Newcastle in 1986. I don't know if they ever really fixed the problem.


Dispense.
Including cellaring. Lots of sensitive spots here, as well. Primings and finings, for a start. A change in the former might affect secondary fermentation, as well as the flavour. Then there's how much secondary fermentation there is and how long it lasts. Miles Jenner told me that they stored casks in a warehouse for a week after filling. Basically because they don't trust all landlords to leave casks long enough before tapping.

I was a bit of a Tetley's Mild snob when I lived in Leeds. It was about all I drank and could detect considerable differences in flavour between different pubs. I suspect it was all to do with how long the landlord left a cask alone before serving it. Where they didn't wait long enough. Too young and it tasted much like the bright version. Which was served through the same electric pumps as cask. I thought the Newlands sold bright beer until the landlord went on holiday. Under his standin, the beer got much better and was obviously cask. As soon as the landlord was back from holiday, the beer became crap again. Clearly something that was going on in the cellar that made a big difference to the flavour.

Turning onto dispense proper, most obvious purveyor of blandness would be excessive CO2 top pressure. Or nitrogen. Though that would make it no longer cask. I'm not sure if anyone applies CO2 top pressure any more. I'm not including cask breathers in that.

Exactly how you serve proper cask is hugely important. When I first moved to Leeds, handpilled Tetleys was a rarity. Almost all the pumps had metred electric pumps. Only a few pubs in some of the rougher parts of town had retained beer engines. My first taste of handpulled Tetley's Mild was in the Sheepscar. A corner pub in the middle of nothing, the street around it having been demolished. I have no idea where they got their customers from. Me and my mate Matt dropped by one evening at were delighted - at least, I was - to see a set of working handpulls. The beer was wonderful. And very different from the electric pump version. Much smoother somehow. I guess from the univac/econimiser method of serving. Where beer was recirculated from the drip tray. Tetley's just doesn't taste right unless it's served that way.

In 1976, I started regularly frequenting the Cardigan arms in the Kirkstall Road in Leeds. A lovely Victorian pub. Electric pumped, but well kept beer. Then the hand pumps were put back in. The beer was like nectar. So drinkable. So moreish. The perfect session pint. Such a big difference just from how the beer was moved from cellar to cask.

In conclusion, there are a stack of ways beer can become blander. Some beers may been afflicted with several changes. Others just the one. It can be an incremental process - like the reduction in the hopping rate in Budweiser. In multiple, almost imperceptible individually, steps.

Saturday, 6 February 2021

Let's Brew - 1977 Boddington IP

While I’m on the topic of Boddington Bitter, I thought I’d throw out a few more recipes. Just for extra context.

I’ve picked 1977 because it’s a year of transition, when several ingredients were dropped, namely enzymic malt, wheat malt and flaked maize. The first did make a comeback the next year, however.

It was also the second year of glucose and the last year of another sugar, Flavex. The latter had featured in Boddington Bitter since before WW II. A search on the web has thrown up bugger all results for it. Most are for a modern artificial sweetener. The only useful hit was an advert in the 1952 Brewing Trade Review, I think from EDME.

Great, I though. I’ve got a run of Brewing Trade Review from the 1940s and 1950s. Frustratingly, my collection ends at 1951. If you happen to own the 1952 volume, take a look at page 64 and let me know exactly what it says. In this recipe, I’ve substituted No. 2 invert.

Not knowing anything about the hops, other than that they were from the 1976 harvest and English, I’ve produced two versions of the recipe. One using older varieties and one using more modern ones. I’ve plumped for Northern Brewer and Bramling Cross in the latter case, as they were varieties that I know Boddington used in the 1980s.

The choice of hop has quite an impact on the (calculated) IBUs: 20 for the older varieties, 31 for the newer ones.

1977 Boddington IP
pale malt 4.50 lb 62.07%
lager malt 1.25 lb 17.24%
malt extract 0.25 lb 3.45%
glucose 0.25 lb 3.45%
No. 2 invert sugar 1.00 lb 13.79%
Fuggles 85 min 0.75 oz
Goldings 30 min 0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops 0.25 oz
OG 1034.5
FG 1006.5
ABV 3.70
Apparent attenuation 81.16%
IBU 21
SRM 4.5
Mash at 150º F
Sparge at 162º F
Boil time 85 minutes
pitching temp 63º F
Yeast Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)


1977 Boddington IP alternate hops
pale malt 4.50 lb 62.07%
lager malt 1.25 lb 17.24%
malt extract 0.25 lb 3.45%
glucose 0.25 lb 3.45%
No. 2 invert sugar 1.00 lb 13.79%
Northern Brewer 85 min 0.75 oz
Bramling Cross 30 min 0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops 0.25 oz
OG 1034.5
FG 1006.5
ABV 3.70
Apparent attenuation 81.16%
IBU 31
SRM 4.5
Mash at 150º F
Sparge at 162º F
Boil time 85 minutes
pitching temp 63º F
Yeast Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

 

 


 

Friday, 5 February 2021

A collection of Boddington Bitter recipes

To add even more background to my earlier post about Boddington Bitter, here's a selection of recipes from 1939 to 1987.

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/03/lets-brew-wednesday-1939-boddington-ip.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/03/lets-brew-1947-boddington-ip.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/03/lets-brew-wednesday-1951-boddington-ip.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/02/lets-brew-1966-boddington-ip.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/02/lets-brew-wednesday-1971-boddington-ip.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/03/lets-brew-1974-boddington-ip.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2012/05/lets-brew-wednesday-1987-boddingtons.html


I'll be adding another to this set tomorrow.

Do let me know if I'm boring you with all this ridiculous detail about just one beer. It won't make me stop, though it might make you feel better. And that's what I'm all about: making my readers happy.

Boddington Bitter 1945 - 1970

Loads of you seemed to enjoy my detailed look at Boddington Bitter 1971 to 1987. Why let the fun end there?

Why, indeed? Looking at the preceding decades, stretching back to the end of WW II, would be instructive.  To that end, I've been rummaging around in in the Boddington's records from the quarter century following WW II. A couple of disvoveries have come my way.

Why I've found tends to confirm something I've long suspected: that the decades before I started drinking were some of the least dynamic in UK brewing. At least in terms of recipes and strength.

At the end of the was, Boddington Bitter was a decent strength: 1037º and a touch over 4% ABV, on account of the high degree or attenuation.  The gravity rose a couple of degrees after the war, peaking at 1040º in the 1950s. The gravity slipped in the 1960s and by the end of the decade was lower than it had been in 1945.

There's a general downward trend in the hopping rate, falling from 7 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt on 1945 to 6 lbs per quarter in 1970.

It's a shame that I only have the colour for the 1060s examples. Between 1966 and 1968 Boddington Bitter became quite a bit lighter. Quite deliberately as it coincides with a recipe change.

We'll see exactly what that change was next time.

Boddington Bitter 1945 - 1970
Date Year OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation lbs hops/ qtr hops lb/brl dry hops (oz / barrel) colour
9th Apr 1945 1037 1006 4.10 83.78% 7.00 1.07 3.67  
15th Apr 1946 1037 1006 4.10 83.78% 6.46 0.97 2.31  
3rd Jan 1947 1037 1007 3.97 81.08% 6.82 1.01 3.21  
5th Apr 1948 1039.5 1006 4.43 84.81% 7.32 1.21 3.30  
1st Apr 1949 1039 1005 4.50 87.18% 6.08 0.96 3.08  
6th Apr 1950 1038.25 1005 4.40 86.93% 6.40 1.01 3.24  
24th Dec 1951 1040 1005 4.63 87.50% 5.78 0.94 3.01  
6th Jan 1966 1038.5 1004 4.56 89.61% 5.49 0.85 3.10 18
9th Jan 1968 1036.5 1005 4.17 86.30% 5.96 0.94 0.00 12
20th Apr 1970 1035.5 1003 4.30 91.55% 5.96 0.92 0.00 15.5
Sources:
Boddington brewing records held at Manchester Central Library, document numbers M693/405/129, M693/405/130 and M693/405/133.


Thursday, 4 February 2021

Why did British beer become blander in the 1980s?

I'd really like to know what happened to make UK beers less distinctive in the 1980s.

You may have been following my ludicrously detailed analysis of Boddington's Bitter. Probably not, if you value your time. It's a great case study, as I have so many of the brewing records.

How does subjective interpretation - that Boddies Bitter started to lose its way in the late 1970s and really went bad in the early 1980s - match up with the recipes and brewing practices?

There's nothing obvious to me. On the face of it, the recipe improved. Adjuncts were dropped, the malt percentage increased. While the hopping level remained around the same. You'd have expected the quality to have increased, or have not got worse.

Yet drinkers subjective opinions is that the beer got worse. I've not heard anyone say that it improved.

Why is this? I can't see any big change in process, other that the mash tuns and fermenters increasing in size.

A change in the yeast could be the reason. But I haven't been able to pin that down. 

I'm stumped. 

Was there really a big change in the beer, or was it people's perception of it? When it flipped from outsider to mainstream, was it assumed that it had sold our and turned to shit?

Some beer I drank definitely did bland out. I love Harvey's Sussex Best precisely because it reminds me of how Southern Bitter used to taste in the 1970s. While most other Bitters have become less distinctive.

Let me know if you have an explanation.

Yeast would be my guess. And old-fashioned fermentation methods.

Boddington Bitter 1971 - 1987 (part three)

This time I'm going to try to answer the points made nu qq in the comments of the first post. Here goes.

"I don't think the decline of Boddies was down to any single factor, more a mixture driven by management perceiving a need to make it more "mass-market" as a response to the rise of lager in the hot summers of 75/76 and the generally crap economic situation particularly in the industrial areas of the north. You've mentioned in the past how they moved to older hops, which is a cunning way to save a few quid and make it less bitter, whilst pretending that the recipe is the same."

Boddington really upped their output in the 1970s. In 1973 and 1974 they added new 500 barrel fermenters. As their brew length was 125 barrels, it meant they needed to make four brews to fill these vessels. They did retain the 125 barrel and 260 barrel fermenters they already had. On April 1977 they changed their brewhouse as the brew length increased to 250 barrels. Though they did for a time to continue to brew on the older, smaller plant. The new brew house coincided with the change in the recipe where the wheat and maize were dropped.

It's hard to say too much about the age of the hops as the harvest year was only occasionally recorded.

"Then there seems to be a period of inconsistency from an attenuation POV at least - 81%, 93%, 81%, 76% !!!!!That's chaotic - perhaps when they were messing around with recipes, or was this when they lost the yeast???)." 

The FG is very inconsistent, ranging between 1003.5 and 1008.5. And while it does seem average out a little higher after 1978, it's no more than 1º or 2º.

"That 92.5% AA 1978 brew looks alround weird - only 41 barrels? Are you sure that's the "regular" bitter and not something to do with their bicentenary celebrations that year?"

As far as I can tell it was a one-off, parti-gyled with a standard version.

"By 1979 people seem to be thinking "it's not quite what it used to be". SSM CAMRA in 1987 had this to say :
    http://www.ssmcamra.co.uk/OTfiles/Archive/044dec87.pdf#page=6
    "the re-equipment of the brewery employed traditional brewing methods, simply scaled up. While brewing methods and recipes have not changed [!!!!], though, the same cannot be said for the raw materials used. In particular around 1980 the brewery switched from classic malting barley varieties to a German-originated variety called Triumph, of which many brewers are privately scathing; while it would be wrong to exaggerate the change in character of the bitter to a blander brew, the trend is certainly there and suspicion must fall on this raw material switch as a contributory factor.""

As I've shown, the recipe did change in the 1970s. Not sure if the barley variety really affected the character of the beer that much.

"I wonder if the switch to Triumf coincided with the dropping of lager malt, so in fact happened with the 1979 harvest? ISTR you proudly mentioning Newark as the source of their malt, do you know what "classic malting varieties" they would have been malting in the 70s? Probably a bit too far south for Golden Promise? Is 1979 too late for Otter as a mainstream commercial malt?"


I really don't know which varieties were in use then. Given how quickly varieties come and go, there would have been several different ones in the 1970s.

"Then there seems to have been a step-change some time around 1981-2. It's been suggested that they changed the recipe in order to get it into the pubs of their 31% shareholder Whitbread, and it started appearing down south in 1983 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140302044856/http://www.huntscamra2.org.uk/download/ot136.pdf ). That would seem to coincide with a major recipe change - dropping almost all the sugars, but it's not clear why that would be a bad thing. Can you see when exactly that happened?"

I'm afraid not. I have only a few photos from the relevant brewing record and they aren't even mine. I got them from Boak & Bailey. None at all from 1983 when the change seems to have taken place.

"However the apparent attenuation doesn't seem to change much which maybe points to process changes that did bugger it up? B&B have mentioned that the mash went from an hour in 1968 to 2.5 hours in 1982, and the fermentation went from 7 to 6 days. Is it easy to see when those changes happened?"

That's a very simplistic view of the mashing. I'll be honest: I don't understand it. Every day there were multiple brews and the "time waiting" varies considerably. In 1966, over a couple of days this varied from 50 minutes to 165 minutes. Over 2 days on 1885, the extremes were 90 minutes and 190 minutes.

The length of fermentation was either 6 or 7 days. In the 1970s, it was sometimes 5 days, but generally it was 6 or 7 days from the 1960s to the 1980s.

"Some of the colour change can be explained by B&B's reference to changes in priming sugars in a Roger Protz interview with some Boddies managers :
    ‘The brewery had used a blend of of cane sugar and a variety called Ambrose… When [Tate & Lyle] phased it out Boddington’s switched to another blend from the same company called DAS… Kendel and Laws think that stands for “dark ale syrup”, a singularly inappropriate name for Boddington’s Bitter.’"

I don't know anything about the priming sugars, other than that they had a relatively low OG - 1005º to 1010º. At Barclay Perkins it was 1045º to 1055º.

"Finally, I'd love to hear from anyone who knows more about what happened with the Boddies yeast. Clearly the Tadcaster yeast they acquired after the brewery was destroyed in WWII was diastatic - do we know if it was phenolic at all? Diastatic yeast usually are, but the British ones tend to be fairly weakly so, and British processes tend to minimise the phenolics although you can still pick them up in beers like Harveys. Ray suggests he heard somewhere that they cleaned up the yeast at some point, which is plausible as a lot of breweries did that in the 1970s. But did they lose it altogether at some point, or was a conscious decision made to replace it with the Whitbread yeast?"

In a record from 1984 it says "New culture" in the yeast column. Maybe this is when the y changed yeast. Though it isn't in red ink as you would expect for such a big change. The sourse is given as "ex YPU 2" and not a fermenting vessel, which it was usually was.

"So the assumption must be that the "London" in 1318 is Whitbread and it comes from a "Whitbread" brewery that was brewing Boddies at some point. Was that Strangeways in the 1990s or was it keg/smallpack Boddies brewed at Magor/Samlesbury/Wellpark after Strangeways was closed? Did the Export/Pub Ale sold in the US use Whitbread yeast at Strangeways even while cask Boddies used the Tadcaster yeast, or was the Tadcaster yeast dropped much earlier?"

I don't have an answer to those questions. It would be nice to get hold of a former Boddingtons brewer who would be able to shed more light on the yeasts used.

Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1945 Truman No. 7

Parti-gyled with XXX was this example of No. 7. Truman’s strongest Mild, if you don’t count XXX. Which I’m pretty sure was marketed as Burton Ale.

The changes since 1942 are pretty minimal. The gravity having declined just a little – a mere 1.5º. Which, in the context of the war, is bugger all. The elements are all pretty much the same, albeit with slightly altered proportions.

Truman’s Burton brewery was really there to provide classy Pale Ales for their London pubs. Who were provided with Mild, Stout and Cooking Bitter from their Brick Lane plant in the capital. So what was the intended market for their Burton-brewed Milds? I’m pretty sure the answer is: their tied estate in the Midlands.

Why would a company run two estates of pubs? Probably because, at the time, the beers expected in by drinkers in Staffordshire weren’t the same as in London. When the brewery closed in 1971, Truman sold off 73 pubs to Allied Breweries.  Not a huge estate, but I imagine it had been larger a couple of decades previously. And Truman probably kept any particularly lucrative pubs.

In this case I've included the caramel required to hit the right shade.


1945 Truman No. 7
pale malt 3.25 lb 45.71%
high dried malt 1.75 lb 24.61%
crystal malt 60 L 0.50 lb 7.03%
black malt 0.04 lb 0.56%
flaked barley 0.75 lb 10.55%
No. 3 invert sugar 0.50 lb 7.03%
caramel 1000 SRM 0.25 lb 3.52%
malt extract 0.070 lb 0.98%
Fuggles 90 mins 0.33 oz
Fuggles 60 mins 0.33 oz
Goldings 30 mins 0.33 oz
OG 1033
FG 1004.5
ABV 3.77
Apparent attenuation 86.36%
IBU 13
SRM 22.5
Mash at 148º F
Sparge at 160º F
Boil time 90 minutes
pitching temp 62.5º F
Yeast Wyeast 1028 London Ale (Worthington White Shield)



 

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Boddington Bitter 1971 - 1987 (part two)

Lots of interesting comments after my first post about Boddington's Bitter. I'll be getting back to them - and answering them - in a later post. For the moment, however, I'll be unloading some more information on you. Namely the hops employed by Boddington.

Unfortunately, the information is patchy. For the 1970s, only the grower in listed. No harvest year (mostly) and no variety. About the only thing I know for certain is that all the hops were English. I suspect that at least some came from Kent, one of the growers being Neame.

The information for the 1980s is much better, mostly including both the harvest year and the variety. You'd be surprised how rare having all this useful data is. The presence of higher alpha varieties such as Bramling Cross and Northern Brewer could explain a drop in the hopping rate in 1984.

Was the appearance of Whitbread Goldings Varieties a result of an increased Whitbread influence?

One trend with the hops is clear. After 1982 more different types were used in each brew. Earlier, just two or three types were employed. Later, it was between five and seven types. That's an awful lot. Between two and four different hops was standard. Severn is really excessive.

Why have so many different hops? Usually, it's to even out the flavour from batch to batch. If you used a single type of Golding then switched to all Norther Brewer, there would be a sudden change in a beer's character.

Boddington Bitter hops 1971 - 1987
Date Year hop 1 hop 2 hop 3 hop 4 hop 5 hop 6 hop 7
4th Jan 1971 English English          
28th Oct 1974 English English English        
28th Apr 1975 English English English        
29th Apr 1976 English English English        
18th Apr 1977 English 1976 English 1976 English        
30th Oct 1978 English English          
17th Oct 1979 English English English        
31st Dec 1979 English English English        
31st Mar 1980 English 1978 English 1979 English 1979        
4th Jan 1982 English 1980 English 1980 English 1980        
9th Jan 1984 Bramling Cross Bramling Cross Goldings Goldings Northern Brewer    
14th May 1984 English 1980 English 1982 English 1982 English 1982 English 1982    
25th Mar 1985 Bramling Cross 1982 Fuggles 1983 Whitbread GV 1982 Goldings 1982 Goldings 1983    
24th Feb 1986 Bramling Cross 1983 Fuggles 1984 Whitbread GV 1983 Goldings 1984 Northern Brewer 1982    
29th Dec 1987 English English English English English English English
Sources:
Boddington brewing records held at Manchester Central Library, document numbers M693/405/134, M693/405/135 and M693/405/136.
Boddington brewing record held at the Science and Industry Museum, Manchester, document number 2006.4/Z/7/1 and 2006.4/Z/7/2.

 

Monday, 1 February 2021

Some post-WW II tables

Carrying on from an earlier post about world beer production during WW II, here's what happened when all the nastiness ended.

Only one country experienced a fall in the quantity of beer brewed: the UK. While the good times

Other countries saw modest increases: USA and France, for example. Over the period covered. The situation with France was more complicated. Production being two million barrels down on 1947. And, yes, those numbers aren’t the same as in the European table. Though I’ve made it difficult for you to spot by using different units. 1945 and 1946 tally, the rest are 300,000 – 400,000 barrels lower in the European table.

Belgium and Czechoslovakia saw a reasonable growth of 23% and 38%, respectively. Canada and Australasia did even better with 52% and 93%. Germany’s seemingly impressive figure is tempered by the fact that they were starting from zero. 

Overall, prospects looked good for brewing in most of the world.

World beer production 1945 - 1954 (1,000 barrels)
Year U.K. Australasia Canada U.S.A. Belgium Czechoslovakia
1945 32,667 3,587 3,859 62,091 4,809 4,534
1946 30,580 3,804 4,328 60,925 6,600 4,538
1947 29,802 4,375 4,811 62,989 7,696 5,405
1948 28,184 4,374 5,022 65,452 6,929 4,987
1949 26,276 4,941 5,013 64,337 6,412 5,924
1950 25,164 5,278 4,946 63,671 6,196
1951 25,087 5,770 5,294 63,792 6,067
1952 25,000 6,088 5.777 64,240 6,215 6,989
1953 24,984 6,395 5,922 64,837 6,239 6,698
1954 23,866 6,929 5,869 66,361 5,907 6,235
change -26.94% 93.17% 52.09% 6.88% 22.83% 37.52%
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 56.
Brewers' Almanack 1962, page 54.


World beer production 1945 - 1954 (1,000 barrels)
Year France West Germany East Germany U.S.S.R. Other Countries Total
1945 5,656
1946 6,410
1947 8,043 7,326
1948 5,295 6,529
1949 5,637 8,648 25,875 153,063
1950 5,167 11,117 35,007 156,546
1951 5,031 17,360 33,583 161,984
1952 5,532 16,328 4.272 9,886 37,503 187,830
1953 5.636 15,806 5,127 11,182 40,076 192,902
1954 5,932 16,648 6,496 11,579 42,395 198,217
change 4.88% 127.25%        
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 56.
Brewers' Almanack 1962, page 54.