1909 Beer Style Guide Courage Imperial Stout recipe correction

It's been brought to my attention - thanks Edward - that the grist numbers for the 1914 Courage Imperial Stout recipe in the 1909 Beer Style Guide are wrong. I've corrected the book, but I thought that I'd publish the recipe so those who have already purchased the book can get the correction.

Here you go:

Courage - 1914 - Imperial Stout
General info: Very big beer, buckets of alcohol, very hoppy and dark as night. This was a massively scarce beer. So rare in fact that when it was produced it was only done some with a gyle with the export stout and porter consisting of less than 2% of the entire parti-gyle. Such a sad, sad day... This, in my opinion, is the best Russian Stout every made. Hands down. Remember, everything in moderation...especially moderation.
Beer Specifics			Recipe by percentages
Gravity (OG)	1.094		English pale			72.6%
Gravity (FG)	1.018		Brown malt			17.9%
ABV	10.13%		Black malt			9.5%
Apparent attenuation	80.85%
Real attenuation	66.23%
IBU	64.0		Mash	120min@153°F		0.8qt/lb
SRM	171.0			120min@67.2°C		1.67L/kg
EBC	455.5
			Boil	120 minutes
	Homebrew @ 70%				Craft @ 80%
Grist	5gal		19L		10bbl		10hl
English pale	6.69	lb	3.046	kg	736.38	lb	284.51	kg
Brown malt	1.65	lb	0.789	kg	181.09	lb	69.96	kg
Black malt	0.88	lb	0.402	kg	97.25	lb	37.57	kg
	7.95	lb	3.619	kg		lb	0.00	kg
	0.42	lb	0.191	kg		lb	0.00	kg
	0.42	lb	0.191	kg		lb	0.00	kg
	0.07	lb	0.032	kg		lb	0.00	kg
		lb	0.000	kg		lb	0.00	kg
					1014.72
Hops
Fuggle 5% 120min	3.01	oz	85.3	g	186.63	oz	4.509	kg
Hallertauer 3.3% 30min	2.11	oz	59.8	g	130.75	oz	3.159	kg
Fuggles 5% dry hop	2.32	oz	65.8	g	144.0	oz	3.479	kg
Fermentation	65°F /18.3°C
Yeast	Nottingham yeast
	WLP013 London Ale Yeast
	Wyeast 1028 London Ale
Tasting Notes: Dark blackish brown and syrupy. Madeira, rum raisins, port, black cherries, hints of treacle and cocoa. Pipe tobacco and a walnut tannic drying character. A deep and rich drying finish that lingers for ages. Words do not do this beer justice...

Aitken's Ale in Australia (part two)

Aitken, big exporter, shipped loads of beer to Australia. That's a quick summary of the story so far. But why didn't they use their famous red "A" trademark?

From various newspaper reports of beer arrivals, I've been able to discover much. Like just how widely distributed in Australia Aitken's Ale was.

Let's go through the different colonies. First New South Wales:

Aitken's Ale, in hogsheads and half-hogsheads, in prime condition-HARRISON AND ATTWOOD, 251 George-street.
The Sydney Morning Herald, Previous issue Thursday 12 October 1893

Now Queensland:

The shipment of Burke's stout per Pass of Balmaha has been sold, and two consignments of Aitken's ale have been sold to arrive.
The Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 8 May 1901, page 8.

Where we also discover that Aitken's bottled Ale was brewery-conditioned:

Aitken's Ale, being entirely free from sediment, is the best for hotelkeepers' use.
The Brisbane Courier, Monday 19 October 1891, page 5.

Now Victoria:

Bottled ales and stouts are moving off freely at agents' prices. Besides other parcels, we are advised of 100 casks of Aitken's ale having been cleared off at current rates.
The Argus (Melbourne), Tuesday 21 September 1886, page 4.

And finally Tasmania:

10 casks Aitken's qt. ale, 10 csks do. pt do., 20 css Burke's light sparkling ale qts., 10 do. do. pts.,
The Mercury (Hobart, Tasmania), Saturday 29 April 1882, page 2.

Right, that's Aitken's considerable presence in Australia confirmed. Let's move on to their trademark. In Australia, from what I've been able to glean from the newspapers, their bottled beer was sold with the bizarre "Lifebuoy" branding. You can see what it looked like to the right. Probably the oddest old label I've seen



Here's some proof of its use in Australia:

James Aitken and Co.'s Bottled Ale, "Life Buoy" Brand (quarts).
Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Queensland), Thursday 18 July 1901, page 4

Aitken's Lifebuoy Ale is the best and purest in the Queensland market.
The Brisbane Courier, Thursday 3 December 1891, page 3.

Aitken's Lifebuoy ale 9s.; bulk half-hogsheads £2 5s; hogsheads, £4. i.b.; Tennant's, 8s. 6d. Frans Joseph Lager, 12s. McEwan's, 10s. 6d. and 7s. 6d.; bulk, £4 10s., i.b. Beaver brand ale, 9s. 6d. ; Beaver brand stout, 10s. 6d. to 10s. for parcels. Dogs Head, quarts 11s., pints 7s. 6d. Burke's stout, quarts, 11s. Tennant's, 8s. 6d. Dagger stout, quarts, 10s., for parcels, to 10s. 6d. Pig stout, quarts 10s. 6d., pints 7s. 6d. Foster's 10s. 9d. and 7s. 6d. Aitchison's ale and stout, 10s. and 7s. Lager Bier : Crown brand, quarts, 11s.; pints, 7s. 6d.
The Brisbane Courier, Tuesday 8 May 1900, page 8.

I'm pretty sure I know why Aitken used this design rather than their usual distinctive red "A". Because someone had beaten them to it. Take a look at this label, registered in Victoria in 1871:

It's from Thomas Aitken's Victoria Parade Brewery of Melbourne. Who must have been one of the earliest breweries in Melbourne. Funnily enough, the brewery can't have been far from where I used to live. This is the first reference I've been able to find to the brewery:

THE Subscriber, in returning thanks to his friends for their post support, begs respectfully to acquaint them and the public that he has opened the premises No. 12 Flinders-lane west (opposite the Rob Roy Hotel), where always will be kept a Stock of Ales and Porters, in bulk and bottle, direct from the brewery, at brewery prices.

THOMAS AITKEN, Victoria Parade Brewery, East Melbourne.

The Argus (Melbourne), Tuesday 4 September 1855, page 8.

I'll finish with a question. Anyone know:

• the exact address of Thomas Aitken's brewery?
• when it closed?

Another Younger's advert

but this time from George not William. That's the George Younger who was one of the largest breweries in Alloa,

You'll probably guess why I picked it, despite it not being a masterpiece of the advertiser's art. Advertising was much less dynamic back in the day. Dawber & Co. of Lincoln used the same advert for at least 20 years:

Lincolnshire Chronicle - Friday 14 October 1864, page 4

Lincolnshire Chronicle - Friday 01 February 1884, page 5

A good example there of the rock-solid price stability of the late Victorian period. There's no change in price over a period of 20 years. How much did I pay for beer 20 years ago? Can't remember exactly, but it was much less than I pay now.

Best get this back in focus and back to George Younger and his advert. Here it is:

Motherwell Times - Friday 22 August 1924, page 3.

No, it's not the Pale Ale that drew me to this advert like a pervert to a playground. Oh, no. It's the other product being advertised. I hesitate to call it beer because it was alcohol-free: Black Beer.

There's a funny story behind the Black Beer and other non-alcoholic products of George Younger. One that includes Bass and the local-veto legislation. Robert  Meiklejohn had first brewed in the Candleriggs Brewer, but moved to the larger Grange Brewery on the edge of town around 1852.It was a former distillery that had been converted into a brewery. The Candleriggs Brewery was purchased by George Younger, who greatly expanded it.*

Trouble started after Charles Maitland became senior partner at Meiklejohn in the late 1850's. His family crest being the Bass Rock, he changed the brewery's name to Bass Crest. You can guess what happened next. Bass were notoriously litigious in protection of their trademark. In the 50 years following 1862, Bass instigated a number of actions against Meiklejohn with regard to their trademarks. The matter was only finally brought to a close when Bass bought Meiklejohn in 1918.**

Obviously Bass had no real interest in the brewery and soon sold it on. To George Younger, in 1919. Why did Younger want another brewery in Alloa? To operate delicensed brewery of non-alcoholic beers.This is all connected with the Local Veto Act, which allowed votes on the partial or total removal of licenses from a district.*** Canny Younger's were making sure they could still sell products in areas that had become delicensed. See how the advert stresses "no licence required".

As well as Black Beer, there were also Pony Brand Temperance Stouts. The beers did contain small amounts of alcohol, being brewed from very low gravities. The Black Beer had an OG of about 1014º.  The Grange brewery continued to brew non-alcoholic beers until 1941, when it closed and became a store.****

Funny thing is, their Sweetheart Stout was barely any stronger in the 1950's. I've plenty of examples that were only about 1.5% ABV. Maybe they got their idea for from their Temperance Stout. I've just realised that I've no need to say "about" with regard to the OG of Black Beer. Because I've an analysis of it from 1922. Plus a couple of other things. Take a look:

George Younger watery beers
Year	Beer	Style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Attenuation
1922	Black Beer	Black Beer	1004	1011	0.90	63.64%
1933	Lemon shandy	Shandy	1006	1014	1.03	57.14%
1933	Sparkling Table Beer	Pale Ale	1007.5	1021	1.74	64.29%
Source:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive

Not sure if all of those came from the Grange Brewery. I am sure that none of them would get you pissed.




* "Alloa Ale", by Charles McMaster, 1985, page 51.
** "Alloa Ale", by Charles McMaster, 1985, page 52 - 55.
*** "Alloa Ale", by Charles McMaster, 1985, page 55.
**** "Alloa Ale", by Charles McMaster, 1985, page 55.

The Scottish Temperance Act, 1913

Licensing legislation - who isn't fascinated by it? I know, everyone but me. Not to worry. I'll plough on anyway, like a runaway bus smashing through a market, dragging stalls in cacaphoic chaos.

You can guess what types of interests would have come up with an Act with the word "temperance" in it. They'd stopped even pretending that the legislation was about anything other than closing pubs and creating dry zones. This was the law that allowed districts in Scotland to vote on the type of licensing regime they wanted. Voters got three options: No change, Limitation of licences, No licence.

The temperance movement had long dreamed of this type of legislation. They saw it as a means of gradually snuffing out the drink trade. Their expectation was that more and more districts would vote to restrict or completely prohibit licenses. That didn't happen. For one very simple reason: a majority were against the removal of licenses and voted to retain pubs. You have to wonder at the naivety of the temperance campaigners in expecting the working classes to vote to abolish pubs.

The legislation turned out to be the high watermark of the temperance movement. The restrictions in pub opening times and the reduction in beer strength took the wind out of their sails. They were increasingly marginalised. When in WW II they began the same sort of agitation for prohibition they'd tried in WW I, they were basically told to bugger off by the government.

"Meanwhile, the greatest test of public opinion ever known in these islands in relation to liquor legislation was in progress. Despite the fact that the Scottish (Temperance) Act, 1913, had, since its inception, taken away from the licensing courts the right to demand structural alterations; that many of those best suited to carry on the business of licence-holders had been kept out of the trade by the uncertainty of what would happen at the end of the lime limit; despite the fact that the loss of their licences with no compensation was an incentive to licensees to adopt questionable trading methods; and although drunkenness is far more prevalent north than south of the Tweed, and the Churches and the teetotal organizations had been working with accumulating force for seven years to subdue the trade — in the face of all these adverse factors the people of Scotland have delivered a crushing condemnation of "no licence." Even "limitation of licences" by 25 per cent, has had relatively little support, despite the fact that practically no reduction has taken place in Scottish licences since 1913, whereas in England and Wales in the same period 5,801 on-licences and 1,509 off-licences have been eliminated. The Scottish Elections reflect public opinion throughout the land, and as the only practical effect of the 1913 Act has been a definite retardment of progress both in the way of the elimination of unwanted houses and the structural modification of others, it is recognized that it would be extremely foolish for the Government to jeopardize its existence by the inclusion of Local Veto in the long-delayed Licensing Bill which they now promise to introduce later this year."
"Brewers' Journal 1921", page 1.

As was so often the case, the legislation didn't have the desired effect. More than that: it had the opposite effect, by limiting the actions of licensing courts. Temperance activists hoped that the scheme would be extended to England. Thankfully, that never happened. Given the Scottish experience, it's debatable how much effect it would have had anyway.


Take a good look at those figures of licence reductions in England and Wales. 5,801 pub licences in 8 years. That works out to about exactly two pubs per day over five years. Remember that next time someone tells you that pubs a currently "closing at an unprecedented rate". They aren't. It was much worse in the first two decades of the 20th century.

"drunkenness is far more prevalent north than south of the Tweed" There's a statement I wouldn't dare make.

I've loads more on the Scottish Temperance Act. Not sure how much of it I'll torture you with. Probably most of it.

Manchester here I come!

It's krokusvakantie* time. And that means cheap trip to industrial British city. Sorry, a chance to show the kids some more of the wonderful nation of my birth.

As the flights to Manchester were cheapest, we'll be in there 27th February to 1st March.

I know there are a few of a Northwestern persuasion who read this blog. This is where I saw off the tops of your skulls and spoon out the contents. (That is what picking someone's brain means, isn't it? That's the image that always pops into my mind.)

Being too lazy to do any research of my own, I'm going to throw out a few questions. Like frisbees, floating and curving majestically. Here goes:

• Which pubs would you recommend?. Preferably ones with wifi and a tolerant attitude to kids.
• Which curry houses would you recommend? Preferably fairly central.
• Any local beers to particularly look out for?
• Who fancies a pint? I'm sure I can escape the rest for a few fleeting flashes of fun.

Any other suggestions welcomed.



* crocus holiday.

England vs Scotland, part 3c: early 1850's Special Mild Ale

Special Mild, as it's now officially called, is how far we've got in this tediously detailed comparison of beers from the 1850's. I would speed up, but it's hard to change pace once you've got into a rhythm.

Mild Ales 1080º to 1089º. That's the technical description of this set. Special Mild is the shorthand for that. You've probably noticed how strong Milds Ales were back in the day. Recreations of these beers puzzle the pants off the more dogmatic contemporary drinkers. How can a beer of 9% ABV be a Mild? I've heard that question asked several times in relation to Pretty Things XXXX Mild. Maybe I shouldn't bang on too much about Mild's intoxicating past. Or the style nazis will start insisting Mild has to be at least 8% ABV to be authentic,

Blethering. I've been doing a fair bit of it today. Not that you can see it. Not published yet. I've already rattled off two posts today. I must be in a chatty mood.

Back to Milds. Strong Milds. There's one difference between England and Scotland that doesn't come across in the direct comparisons. While a range Milds were brewed North and South of the border, the most strength of Mild was quite different. In London the vast majority of Mild produced was X Ale, with a gravity of around 1070º. The stronger Milds, especially XXXX, were only brewed occasionally. William Younger's most popular Mild was 100/- Ale - a beer with a gravity of 1100º. Just thought I'd share that with you.

Let's get on with the numbers:

England vs Scotland early 1850's Mild 1080º - 1089º
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fer-ment-ation temp	length of fer-ment-ation (days)
21st Mar	1851	Truman	40/- Ale	1084.2				6	2.40
28th Sep	1850	Truman	40/- Ale	1087.3				9	3.98				61
30th Sep	1850	Whitbread	XX	1088.1				7.85	3.09	1.5	2	2	60	76	6
3rd Jul	1850	Truman	40/- Ale	1088.9				9	3.59				62
7th Oct	1850	Whitbread	XX	1089.5	1031.9	7.62	64.40%	9.95	3.80	1.5	2	2	60	75.5	5
Average				1087.6	1031.9	7.62	64.40%	8.36	3.37	1.50	2.00	2.00	60.8	75.8	5.5
28th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	XX	1081	1037	5.82	54.32%	6.64	2.37	1.5			55	69	8
25th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	XX	1081	1032	6.48	60.49%	9.00	3.60	1.33			56	68	9
14th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	XX	1082	1029	7.01	64.63%	6.67	4.76	1.5			56	67	8
14th Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	XX	1082	1035	6.22	57.32%	9.16	2.42	1.5			56	67	9
4th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1086	1034	6.88	60.47%	7.00	2.93	1.5	1.5		56	68	9
22nd Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1086	1034	6.88	60.47%	6.81	2.74	1.25	1.5		57	68	10
29th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1086	1038	6.35	55.81%	8.00	3.46	1.5			57	69	8
30th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1087	1037	6.61	57.47%	6.50	2.60	1.25	1.25		56	67	8
18th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1087	1035	6.88	59.77%	5.00	2.00	1.33			56	68	9
21st Jun	1854	Younger, Wm.	110/-	1087	1040	6.22	54.02%	7.85	3.00	1.67			57	69	6
22nd Jun	1854	Younger, Wm.	110/-	1087	1040	6.22	54.02%	8.81	3.50	1.5			59	69	5
9th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1088	1036	6.88	59.09%	7.00	2.97	1.25	1.5		56	69	8
26th Jul	1852	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1088	1038	6.61	56.82%	7.00	3.06	1	1.33		59	70	7
18th Nov	1853	Younger, Wm.	XXX	1088	1040	6.35	54.55%	8.94	4.00	1.33			56	68	8
1st Dec	1853	Younger, Wm.	XXX	1088	1038	6.61	56.82%	8.00	3.69	1.5			57	68	7
7th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1089	1036	7.01	59.55%	5.00	2.18	1.5	1.75		56	66	7
27th Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	80/- K	1089	1034	7.28	61.80%	8.00	3.33	1.08	1.25		54	67	8
22nd Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	80/-	1089	1036	7.01	59.55%	8.22	3.79	1.33	1.5		55	66	7
23rd Jun	1854	Younger, Wm.	110/-	1089				9.94	3.75	1.5			58	63
Average				1086.3	1036.1	6.63	58.16%	7.55	3.17	1.39	1.45	0.00	56.4	67.7	7.8
difference				-1.3	4.2	-0.99	-6.23%	-0.81	-0.20	-0.11	-0.55	-2.00	-4.3	-8.1	2.3
Sources:
William Younger brewing record document number WY/6/1/2/5 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread brewing record document number LMA/4453/D/01/014 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Truman brewing record document number B/THB/C/132 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

 . . . followed by more blether.

Hopping rates to kick off. The average OG of both sets is very similar, making this a sensible comparison. And what do we see? On average, the London beers have about 6% more hops. Though the two most heavily hopped were both from Younger. There's a difference, but it isn't huge. My wishy-washy conclusion: in the early 1850's Younger's Special Mild Ales were on average a little less heavily hopped than equivalent London beers.

I'll run through you boil times at a canter. (Or at least what passes as one for me. A short sprint, followed by bending double and gasping for breath. I won't be trying that again in a hurry.) Not many English numbers to work with, but the Younger's beers are still consistently displaying shorter boil times. The lid of the first-running syrup story is now will and truly nailed down. And, as I took the precaution of driving a stake through its heart, it won't be coming back to life any time soon. I'll say unequivocally: in the early 1850's Younger's Special Mild Ales had shorter boils than equivalent London beers.

The same pattern of fermentation temperatures presents itself again: Younger's beers were pitched cooler and the temperature increase during fermentation was smaller. The figures here are about bang on the average: Younger's pitching temperatures were 4º F lower and the maximum temperature 8º F lower. Split the difference and the result is: in the early 1850's Younger's Special Mild Ales were fermented on average 6º F cooler than equivalent London beers.

The length of fermentation also show a clear pattern. Younger's beers took longer to ferment. On average, more than two days less. Simple: in the early 1850's Younger's Special Mild Ales took about two days longer to ferment than equivalent London beers.

With a figure for just one London beer, it's hard to say much about attenuation. Except that, at an average of 58%, the attenuation of Younger's beers is low. Based on other data, I know that sole Whitbread beer is about typical in terms of attenuation. Which means I can make a tentative claim: in the early 1850's Younger's Special Mild Ales were less attenuated than equivalent London beers.

That's one small step . . . closer to the finish line. I just try to get on with it without thinking. Else I'd despair at the enormity of the task.

Aitken's Ale in Australia

I've told you that Aitken was a big exporter of beer. Particularly to Australia. Well here's some evidence of that trade.

Let's begin with an article. Perhaps advertorial might be more accurate. Because it's really just a puff for Aitken's wonderful new Ale:

Aitken's Falkirk World-famous Prize Golden Ales.

BULK AND BOTTLE.

The thousands of people in Australia who believe in the superiority of British beer over anything else of the kind yet produced, will be downright glad to hear that that colossal English propretary, the Aitken Ale people, have determined on making Australia a separate and distinct field for their enterprise. People who have turned their attention to the subject, will have noticed the marvellous improvements effected in the draught British Ale offered for sale throughout the colonies daring the last few years. Previously it was heavy, always unsuitable to Australia or wants. This, doubtless, arose from a non-acquaintance with the climate of Australia. The British Ale which has come to Australia in bulk has been much improved, and but for the colonial article and the protection duty of 25 per cent, per hogshead, the consumption would have been much greater. The means of communication are more expeditious, and the brew is delivered her in excellent condition. The proprietary of the world famous Aitken's Ale have resolved, however, on yet greater improvement, and for some time past started on the important work on providing a brew specially for Australia. The coming summer season will find this available all over Australasia. The British firm's agents are Messrs. Phillips & Co., of Bridge-street, their agents for New South Wales, and these gentlemen are prepared to do business on special terms in bulk and bottled ales of this special Australian brew at, we are informed, very reduced prices. The attention thus given to the colonies in this important essential of British Ales is satisfactory evidence of the growing importance of these colonies in the eyes of the world beyond the seas.
North Australian (Darwin, NT : 1883 - 1889), Friday 4 September 1885, page 8.

There's lots of good stuff in there. First: Aitken brewed an Ale specifically for the Australian market. What was it like? From the description of the unsatisfactory Ales as being heavy, I suppose it must have been light. Was it a type of Pale Ale. Or was it an "Australian Ale"?

It's difficult to believe that a brewery in Falkirk was a supplier of draught beer in Australia. When you think of the distance involved and the Australian climate. And people think globalisation is something new. It's hard to think of a more global institution than the British Empire. The United Nations, there's one. But you know what I mean.

I'd not realised that the Australian clonies imposed an import duty on British beer. 25% is a fair whack. It's easy to see how Aitken's profit margins could have been squeezed once colonial brewing picked up.

You know those weird Aitken labels with a figure clinging to a lifebuoy? I think I might know a reason why they exist. And why Aitken didn't use their red A trademark in Australia. But that's for next time.

Brewing at Aitken in the 1950's and 1960's (part two)

I never promised you a rose garden. No, I promised you more excruciating detail about brewing at Aitken. And here is is, not petals and thorns but casks and kegs.

"The worts were then divided into five vessels and brought to a certain gravity by adding cutting liquor (hot water) then cooled down as process for worts. Yeast was added to each fermenting vessel while worts was being added. Each fermenting vessel had coils to control temperature during holding time (several days). Once certain gravity was reached in vessels, beer was then either put into casks or transferred to holding containers in the bottling hall to be bottled or placed in kegs/canisters when ready.

One complete brew from start to being declared, vessels dipped and gravity checked and put into the excise book, took approximately 11 hours. On the night shift, one foreman brewer, 6 operators, and a fireman on the boilers, could make around 400 barrels of beer of different gravity. More fireman worked day shift as steam was needed for washing bottles and casks, as well as daytime brewing."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, pages 15 - 16.

Now there's something odd. Why, when the wort hadn't been cooled, would you dilute it with hot water? Surely you'd save cooling if you used cold? The coils to control the temperature in the fermenting vessels are, of course, attemperators.

400 barrels on one night, eh? Add a day shift and you've a capacity of 800 barrels a day. Multiply that by 300 brewing days and you get 240,000 barrels annually.  That's a pretty decent-sized brewery, especially in Scotland. As you can see, brewing operations didn't require a huge amount of labour. Just 8 men were needed to brew 400 barrels. Of course, you still need people to fill the bottles and barrels, draymen to take the beer to pubs, administrative workers, etc, etc. But actual brewing requires hardly anyone at all.

"Empty wooden beer casks were prepared for filling at the washing area next to the coopers department. They were thoroughly washed then steamed, before being brought to the filling area beneath the fermenting vessels. The casks were prepared for filling; corks were put into the end and they were marked with the type of beer they contained. A discharge line was filled between the fermenting vessel and the filling machine. Four heads from the filling machine were fittted into four casks. When full, the filling head was withdrawn and a bung with a partially-bored half-inch hole was fitted to seal the cask. These casks were all set up and handled by two women workers. The casks were mostly filled by Mr Tandy Aitken.

The full casks were then transferred to large holding cellars holding approximately 800 casks. Over a period the bungs on these casks were punched in the middle and an inch-long cane spile (or plug) was placed in the bung. (This let beer in cask work off.) Beer froth worked its way through the spile. Liquid colouring, candy, and finings were added to the casks.

One of the heaviest jobs in the cellar was when 'hardening' was done. This entailed upending casks full of beer - usually weighing 7 to 8 hundredweight - so the coopers could hammer down every metal band. The cask had to be turned to allow the other side to be done.

Samples of every brew put into casks were taken and kept in a cask in the sample room in the cellar in case of complaints from customers. The samples were always held there until all the same brew was finished."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, pages 16 - 17.

Was Mr. Tandy Aitken one of THE Aitken's? I doubt it very much. He wouldn't have been filling barrels if he had.

I've never come across that "hardening" process before. I can understand why you'd do it - to tighten the staves as much as possible. I wouldn't want to do it myself, mind. I can imagine how much fun manipulating a full 36-gallon wooden barrel would be. Empty ones are trouble enough.

How they treated the cask beer beer drew my attention. Clearly it was being conditioned in the holding cellar before sale. Not only that, it was also being primed and coloured in the cask. That peculiarly Scottish practice of colouring the same basic beer to a variety of different shades. It doesn't make my life easy, I can tell you. You've no idea of the colour of the final beer based just on the brewing records.

Shipstones used to keep samples of their draught beer in a similar way. They had a special cellar with a barrel of each batch of Bitter along one wall and barrels of Mild along the wall opposite. I'm sure many breweries did something similar. As insurance against complaining landlords.

And finally, a little something about the beer itself.

"Of the beers brewed. Export and Pale Ale were both bottled and placed in kegs or barrels for draught. Strong Ale, called wee heavies, was bottled, as was stout. Piper Export was made and first sold for the English market. It was sent to Newcastle by rail (the brewery had its own railway sidings running down to Grahamston Station), and later also sold in Scotland. After Younger's of Alloa closed, some workers came to work at Aitken's. Younger's made Belgium Ale. Aitken's had a trial run making this very strong beer, but after one brew never made it again."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, page 17.

Now here's a funny thing. I've started coming across references to WH from brewery employees. But it's always in the plural: wee heavies. Strange, isn't it? I've absolutely no idea why, or what significance it might have.

Younger's Belgium Ale. I think we all know what that was: Gordon's Scotch Ale. So they tried to brew it at Aitken, after Younger's Alloa brewery closed. Where did it go after that?

Scottish questions

It's time to take a little time out, stand back and admire the remarkable edifice that is my Scotland series. And ask myself a few questions. Mostly why, but also a little where to and until when.

Let's start with some why. Simple: I wasn't satisfied the accounts of Scottish beer history that had been published. As no-one else looked about to tackle it, I was left with only one alternative: do it myself. I can't claim to fully understand the story yet. But I've glimpsed pieces. You should have, too. If you've been following closely.

This is both a how and a why. Getting access to the British Newspaper archive has provided more material than I can handle, to be honest. Then there's that pile of Brewers' Journals I recently acquired. More stuff in them. The series has continued because I keep finding new material that I at least find interesting. (I understand my interest threshold lies in a different place to yours.) If it runs out, I'll stop. Not the greatest of reasons.

Where to's turn now. Where will this end? Actually, I think I just answered that question. Not in a very satisfactory way, admittedly. When I think you've learned enough. Sorry, that's the wrong answer. That comes next. Where? With a better understanding of Scottish beer. At knowledge corner about to turn down wisdom street.

When. When will I for the love of humanity stop?  When I think you've learned enough. (Yep, that's the right place.)

I'm basically selfish. Whatever I might pretend to the kids. Why? Because it interests me, that's why I'm digging exploratory trenches across the barrow of Scottish brewing. Why do I continue? Nothing else has attracted my attention.

Guinness Double Brown Stout Porter

Given up my Scottish theme? Not a chance, as you'll see when you get a bit further.

Guinness Double Brown Stout Porter. There's a name that rolls easily off the tongue. No wonder they shortened it to Extra Stout. Here it is, with a misspelling that was to be repeated thousands of times over the years:

Carlisle Journal - Saturday 02 April 1836. page 1.

That's pretty early for Guinness in England. And confirmation - if any were needed - that Guinness Extra Stout was once called Stout Porter. That should help settle a few arguments.

Then there's the Scottish connection. McNellan, that's what later became Calder. The Shore Brewery, in both cases, was the names of the premises. But look at what they're selling: Pale Alloa Ale. It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that it was a Pale Ale. But I'd be more cautious. Just as likely it was a pale-coloured Alloa Ale, that is a strong Scotch Ale. I'd incline towards the latter as 1836 is early for a Pale Ale.

I had another post planned in this slot. One about Archibald Arrol. But I've had to postpone it. I've found a stack of related material I need go through properly first. Dead exciting stuff. Honestly. All about their financial structure.

Brewing at Aitken in the 1950's and 1960's

I was particularly pleased to find this particular reminiscence in the Scottish Brewing Archive's Falkirk edition. It's from Arthur Crumb, who was Production Supervisor for the 10 years leading up to the brewery's closure in 1967. Why am I so pleased? Because it's a description of the brewing process.

"Grain for brewing beer came from Linlithgow maltings. This grain was prepared for brewing beer by being spread on stone floors and rotated round these stone floors containing heat. The grain was then put in sacks and sent to the brewery, where it was stored in large bins.

The production and number of brews was decided every Friday. The materials and times for a production of a complete brew of beer from start to finish was then entered in the Custom and Excise book in the Customs Office at the brewery.

For each brew a grist line was made out for how many quarters of malt grain, flaked maize and rice. The grain was then weighed, put through a rolling mill - the rollers set so that the grain seed was cracked open (not crushed). This was then put into a mash tun hopper ready for mashing at beginning of a brew. A sample of this grist was taken when grain had been through mill and checked in the lab."
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, page 14.

That's a pretty dodgy description of the malting process. But, as he wasn't a maltster, I'll let him off. One thing I'm learning: even though the barley might have come from anywhere in the world, the malting always took place in Scotland. Those were Aitken's own maltings in Linlithgow. And pretty substantial ones, as Bernard describes them (you can also see a picture of them above):

"Where is now the new range of malthouses and kilns, formerly stood the Main's Distillery, celebrated at the end of the eighteenth century for the special character and quality of its Lowland malt whisky. One of the old malthouses, the walls of which are of great solidity and strength, is still standing, and is utilized for its original purpose. It was in the year 1875, that the new maltings were built, under the personal direction of Mr. John Aitken, the present senior partner. They are most substantial four-storied stone buildings, of neat elevation, and possess a frontage to the meadows of 190 feet."
"The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2" by Alfred Barnard, 1889, page 189.

But that's enough of the maltings. I need to live up to the word "brewing" in the title. Let's move on to the brewery itself.

"Aitken's brewery had two mash tuns, one large, and one about quarter size of the large one. Large mash tun was for most beer brewed; small mash tun for making stout.

These mash tuns had close fitting brass plates fitted on the bottom with fine slits to let raw worts run through. To start a mash grist in hopper was controlled by feeding into a long funnel with a screw worm inside, this was mixed with hot water to a porridge-like paste. This mixture had to be kept at a specific temperature which was registered on a chart. From start to finish a mash was half-an-hour. The grist was then lifted up about four inches by pushing hot water through pipes in bottom of mash tun. This would have the mash sitting on top or supporting the mash.

After two hours we started running raw worts from the bottom of the mash tun. This was done by opening eight taps. This was then run into two coppers with steam coils in bottom. To keep the mash tun level hot water run at controlled temperature was sparged on top of grist to let it filter through grist into mash tun. When these two coppers were being filled and boiled up hops which had been selected and weighed, tins of malt extract, eight one-hundred-weight blocks of sugar (like tablet) were all added to the coppers then boiled for two hours and sampled. Gravity checked. These were then run into square hop back containers which had brass plates with fine slits. The raw worts was then pumped to another holding tank. This then ran through two parraflows; hot worts to one side of plates, cold water other side, and worts then came out at a reduced temperature. This was then pumped to selected fermenting vessels (tuns).
Scottish Brewing Archive Journal volume 4, 2002, pages 14 - 15.

Porter and Stout never reached the same dizzy heights in Scotland. Stout was a niche product for most of the 20th century. Which explains why it was brewed in a mash tun a quarter of the size used for other beers. They only made small quantities of it. Or perhaps, as some others did, they made it up mostly from ullage and returns.

By "Screw worm" he means a Steel's masher. I'm not going to explain again what that is, other than to say: external mashing machine. It would be odd, no downright weird, if they hadn't used one. The next bit is exciting. The bit about pushing hot water into the mash from below. He's describing an underlet mash. What does he mean by lift up? does he mean that it lifted the grain bed off the false bottom? I'd always assumed the point of underletting was to raise the temperature of the mash. Here it sounds more like it was to lift up the grain bed.

Two hours standing is pretty standard, though the odd brewery kept it down to just 90 minutes. Then they opened the taps and fly sparged. Fascinating stuff. Not really. The next bit is, though. See? The description of the copper. Heated with steam coils. That is, not directly fired. So pretty useless for kettle carmelisation. No surprise that sugar went in the kettle. The malt extract is more unusual. I've seen it in logs before now, but it didn't say where it was added. It's a shame there's no mention of how much. Because there's one reason I can think of for using malt extract: lack of mash tun capacity. That probably isn't the reason, though. My guesses are always rubbish.


Here's a break with Victorian practice: no cooler. The wort is going straight from the hop back to paraflow refrigerators. I wonder what happened to all the gunk that would settle to the bottom of the coolers? How did they get that out of the wort? (I worry about some weird things.)

This is getting a bit long. Best save some for part two.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1868 William Younger No. 3 Export

It's a very special beer today. One with which I have a special rela . . . .. hang on, already done that one twice. I need to think of a new spiel. er . . er ...

I've not had chance to try the revived Younger's No.3. I'm very much looking forward to it. When I was in Glasgow (god, almost two years ago) I had a pint of No.3. in the State Bar, just of Sauchiehall Street. I'd dumped the family in the Wetherspoons opposite. Can't remember who had brewed it. Some new Scottish brewery. Quite nice, it was.

The revived No. 3 won't taste anything like this beer, that's for sure. General beeriness aside. This is a very different puppy. Bigger. Bolder. And an awful lot paler.

I'd like No. 3 to get the respect it deserves as one of the classic Scotch Ales. But surely Scotch Ales don't really exist outside of Belgium and American homebrewers' fantasies? Ever the contrary bastard, I'd argue Younger's No.1 and No. 3 were beers famous enough and long-lived enough to warrant being called a style. Or two styles. Give me a while and I'll write up some style guidelines for them.

Talking of style guidelines, guess what BJCP's used to give Younger's No. 3 as an example of?. Go on, guess. 80/-. Eighty effing shilling. Blind as well as clueless, whoever came up with that one.

Pale and hoppy - exactly what you'd expect from a Scotch Ale. A Scotch Ale from the 19th century. That's if you've been paying the slightest attention to what I write. Younger's seem to have had a real thing for Saaz. I suppose that's makes their beers Bohemian Scotch Ales. Remember that I coined that one first. I've started making up the most ridiculous style names I can. They'll call me a visionary ten years from now.






I've wasted enough of your time. Let's go over to Kristen for the real stuff . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Introduction:
This 1868 set will have a lot in common with the later 1879 set we’ve done the past few weeks. Very straightforward.


Ingredients

Grist – A few pale malts. Do you r best to find your favorite combo of UK and continental pale. I really like the Dingmanns pale malt and Optic English malt. Great combo for this beer.

Hops – You really can any low alpha acid hop to replace the Goldings. However, you need some very fresh Saaz for the end. Feel free to replace them with any of the new Saaz hybrids. Sterling work very well here.

Yeast – Whiteshield. Wonderful yeast that will bring out  the hops and not dry out too much.