Brettanomyces – hero or villain?

I thought this article about Brettanomyces would interest you. It contains some great stuff.

First, an overview of Brettanomyces and its role in brewing:

“Brettanomyces spp. have long been known as important factors in the production of condition and flavour in certain high-gravity beers and in lambic beer. They have also been mentioned as possible spoilage organisms in beer but have generally been considered as of little importance in this connection. Thus Wiles stated that Brettanomyces had only once been reported as a spoilage organism of beer, and that although Brett. bruxellensis was sometimes detected it was not of common occurrence and was unlikely to be a cause of spoilage. On the other hand, Shimwel1 found a Brettanomyces to be the cause of a fret in beer and suggested that it might be widely encountered as a spoilage organism. It has been stated that Brettanomyces can cause a mawkish "nose" and turbidity in beers of original gravity less than 1060.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 257.

Now isn’t that fascinating? That Brettanomyces produces a funny flavour in beer under 1060º. Why would that be? They seem undecided on whether Brettanomyces was a common spoilage agent. By ‘fret” they mean a too vigorous secondary fermentation in the cask.

I’ve mentioned this before. Although Claussen (of Carlsberg) was the first to publish about Brettanomyces, it had been discovered earlier:

“Occurrence of Brettanomyces.—The earliest reference to Brettanomyces, or secondary yeasts, was in a patent for the use of these organisms for the preparation of English beers which was taken out by Claussen in 1903. In a paper to the Institute of Brewing in 1904, Claussen described the importance of Brettanomyces for secondary fermentation and the production of the characteristic flavour of English stock beers. Claussen did not give a detailed description of these organisms, which he included in the genus Torula. Shortly after this, Seyffert of the Kalinkin Brewery in St. Petersberg announced that he had isolated a "Torula" in 1889 from English beer which produced the typical "English" taste in lager beer, and which was similar in other respects to Claussen's Brettanomyces. In 1899 J. W. Tullo, in the Chemist's Laboratory, Arthur Guinness Son & Co. Ltd., Dublin, had already isolated two types of "secondary yeast" from Irish stout, and in an unpublished report described the characteristics of these yeasts and their importance in secondary fermentation.  At this time the "secondary yeasts" were important constituents of the flora of all stock beers, and in particular of those beers, designed for the export trade, which under-went long maturation in the brewery. These export  beers  depended indeed on  the "secondary yeasts," not only for their characteristic flavour but also for the production of condition in bottle by means of their ability to ferment higher polysaccharides which the "primary yeast" could not ferment.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 257.

If I tell you that secondary fermentation  was very important at Guinness because they still vatted Stout, particularly their export version. Meaning that information about the process had commercial value. The same was probably true of the brewery in St. Petersburg.

Here’s something about the nature of Brettanomyces.

“Properties of Brettanomyces.—The cells of Brettanomyces are small, oval or round, frequently with a pointed end (ogive).  In some strains elongated cells and branched chains ("trees") are frequently seen.  On suitable media most strains show a tendency to form pseudomycelium.  In malt extract Brettanomyces spp. grow slowly but give a high final attenuation' and a characteristic aroma.

Under aerobic conditions they produce considerable acid; this may be the reason why malt-agar cultures have a short life. In agar-streak cultures they give yellow or brown raised growth. The genus has always been considered anascosporogenous, but van der Walt & van Kirken have recently reported sporulation in a number of species which would necessitate the placing of the genus in another family. The fermentative abilities of the various strains in the species as described by Lodder & Kreger-van Rijn and by van der Walt & van Kirken are given in Table I. One of the most interesting characteristics of the metabolism of Brettanomyces is that young aerobic cultures exhibit a negative Pasteur effect.  That is, they have a very much stronger fermentative ability under aerobic conditions than under anaerobic conditions, in contrast to other yeasts. Another important characteristic of the genus is that secondary products of fermentation accumulate to a much greater extent than is the case with Saccharomyces. Ethyl acetate, glycerol, acetic acid, succinic acid and 2,3-butane-diol have been estimated by Peynaud & Domerce in the completed fermentations with Brettanomyces.  These authors consider that ethyl acetate and acetamide are the two main organoleptic products of Brettanomyces fermentations, but that some strains may also produce a butyric smell.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 258.

Reverse Pasteur effect? That’s a new one to me. Maybe that’s why Brettanomyces scavenges oxygen so well in bottle-conditioned beer.

Here’s an overview of the properties of various types of Brettanomyces isolated from bottle-conditioned beers:

“Group 1. -21 strains fermented glucose, sucrose and maltose only.  These strains agreed with the published descriptions of Brett. bruxellensis Kufferath et van Laer and were similar to authentic strains of this species. Brett. bruxellensis has been isolated from Iambic beer, from Cork porter, from French grape must and from Brazilian wine fermentations."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 259.

Now the second group:

“Group 2. -11 strains fermented glucose and galactose only.  These strains agreed with  Peynaud & Domercq and were similar to an authentic strain of this species. Brett. schanderlii has been found in French and South African wine fermentations. It has not previously been reported as occurring in beer. "
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 259 - 260.

Interesting that this had previously only been found in wine, not beer.

This sounds like a weird one:

“Group 3. -12 strains fermented glucose, galactose, sucrose and lactose. This combination of fermentative abilities does not correspond with any established species. These strains are most like Brett. anomalus but differ from this species in that they ferment sucrose rapidly. A further study is being made of these strains and, if the differences are sufficient to establish the strains in this group as a separate species, this will be reported in a further communication. For the present these strains will be described as Brettanomyces sp. 1. It seems strange that so many strains unable to ferment maltose (Groups 2 and 3) should be found in beer, but Custers isolated Brett. anomalus, which also is unable to ferment maltose, from English beer. It was because of this peculiar circumstance that Custers gave this species the name "anomalus."”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

You wouldn’t want that getting into your Milk Stout. Bottle bombs would be the inevitable result of the Brettanomyces chewing its way through the lactose.

But its odder that so many of the strains were unable to ferment maltose. Though, thinking about it, that’s probably preferable fore brewery use. It means that the Brettanomyces can’t take any part in primary fermentation. Just what you’d want in the case of running beers.

Here’s a table of what the different types of Brettanomyces can ferment:

TABLE I
FERMENTATION REACTIONS OF THE SPECIES IN THE GENUS Brettanomyces
	Fermentation of
Species	Glucose	Galactose	Sucrose	Maltose	Lactose	Raffinose	Trehalose	Melibiose	Melezitose	Cellobiose
1. Brett. Bruxellensis* Kufferath & van Laer  ..	+	—	+	+	—	—	+	—	+	—
2. Brett. Anamalus Custers	+	+	—	—	+	—	+	—	+	+
3. Brett. Claussenii Custers	+	+	+	+	+	1/3	+	—	+	+
4. Brett. Intermedius ** Peynaud and Domercq, van der Walt	+	+	+	+	—	—	+	—	+	+
5. Brett. Schanderlii Paynaud & Domercq	+	+	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	+
* The strains known as Brett. bruxellensis var. not -membranaefaciens Custers, Brett. bruxellensis var. lentis Custers, and Brett. lambicus Kufferath & van Leer, are included in the species Brett. bruxelensis as suggested by van der Walt & van Kirken.
** This strain was named Brett. vini by Paynaud & Domercq. It was found to be identical with Mycotorula intermedia isolated by Krumbholz & Tauschanoff and was re-named Brett. intermedius by van der Walt & van Kirken.
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 259.

I’m a little shocked that they were able to find 11 naturally-conditioned bottled beers in 1961. I though the technique was pretty much dead by then. Or maybe they weren’t 11 different beers.

Many of the bottles from which the yeast was isolated contained multiple strains of Brettanomyces:

“The distribution of the individual strains from the 11 bottles is given in Table II, from which it will be seen that from 5 of the bottles only one species of Brettanomyces was recovered; in all the other bottles two or more species were found. The infection therefore regularly occurs as a mixture of species of Brettanomyces.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

Here’s a summary of the strains of Brettanomyces found per bottle:

TABLE II
OCCURRENCE OF Brettanomyces SPECIES IN NATURALLY-CONDITIONED BEER
Bottle No.	No. of strains studied	No. of strains of Brett. bruxellensis	No. of strains of Brett. schanderlii	No. of strains in Brettanomyces sp. 1 group
1	4	0	4	0
2	4	2	1	1
3	4	1	3	0
4	4	0	1	3
5	4	2	2	0
6	4	4	0	0
7	4	2	0	2
8	4	4	0	0
9	4	4	0	0
10	4	2	0	2
11	4	0	0	4
Total	44	21	11	12
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

I like the fact that they carried out taste tests based on bottle-conditioned beers inoculated deliberately with their strains of Brettanomyces.

“Tasting experiments were carried out with 36 of the pure cultures of Brettanomyces isolated from beer. In these tests the culture of Brettanomyces was added to beer at bottling at the rate of about 5 cells of Brettanomyces per 100 cells of culture yeast present in the beer. The beers were naturally conditioned at 18° C. and, after 2-5 weeks, they were tasted against a control of the same beer which had been bottled at the same time but which contained no added infection. The results are summarized in Table III for each of the three species. The taste of the infected beers became more objectionable as the beers became older but, for simplicity, the results of the tastings at different periods have been combined. It is clear that Brett. bruxellensis has much the worst effect on flavour of beer, although the other groups have an appreciable deleterious effect. The flavours most complained of in the infected beers were "harsh," "strong after-bitter," "mawkish" and "old beer flavour."”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

Here’s the table of those results:

TABLE III
COMPARISON OF TASTE OF Brettanomyces-INFECTED BEERS WITH UNINFECTED CONTROL BEER AFTER 2-5 WEEKS' STORAGE AT 18° C.
Species	Strains	Times tasted	Better than control	Equal to control	Worse than control	Much worse than control
Brett. Bruxellensis	19	133	0	15	39	46
Brett. schanderlii	8	58	2	53	41	4
Brettanomyces sp. 1	9	46	0	37	61	2
Source:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 260.

It doesn’t look like the Brettanomyces character was much admired by the tasters. The infected samples were almost always judged as no improvement – in some cases much worse – than the non-infected ones.

Of course, it could just be that the tasters weren’t accustomed to Brettanomyces character in beer. It would be fascinating to know what tasters would have thought of the infected beers 100 years earlier. They might actually have liked them.

Brettanomyces and Pale Ale

This is a question that's troubled me for some time: did long-matured Pale Ales contain brettanomyces?

Looking at it logically, it seems quite likely. I know many English pitching yeasts contained brettanomyces. In running beers, they wouldn't have been apparent as the beer would have been consumed long before they could have made their presence felt. But Pale Ales were Stock Ales, matured, as we've learned for up to 12 months in the barrel.Plenty of time to affect the beers flavour.

Then there are the union sets. A perfect place for brettanomyces to hide with all that wood and piping.Even if the pitching yeast contained no brettanomyces, there's a good chance a Pale Ale would have picked it up from the unions.

Then there are the descriptions of Pale Ale picking up its distinctive flavour only after a long maturation. You know what that screams at me? Brettanomyces. What else takes so long to develop?

I've lots of analyses of 19th century Pale Ales. But they aren't much help. Brettanomyces wasn't identified until just after 1900. So no hard evidence, just guesswork and supposition. And you know how keen I am on that as a research method.

Until a few days ago. When my latest book purchase flopped onto the doormat. "Onderzoekingen over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" ("Investigations into the yeast species Brettanomyces".) As far as I know, it's the only book about brettanomyces. Weird that it's in Dutch. Luckily, that isn't a problem for me.

I found out about the book from "The Brewers' Journal" for 1940, which contains a review of it. You can probably guess what followed. I did a search in Abebooks and located a copy. (And there was only one, so bad luck if you'd like your own copy.)

I wondered if it would have anything about Pale Ale. I wasn't disappointed. That's putting it too lightly. I hit the jackpot. Not only was a Pale Ale analysed, but it was the most renowned of them all: Bass Pale Ale.

As already noted, Brettanomyces yeasts also play a role in the fermentation of English beer types "ale" and "Stout". Maturation does not, as with "lambic", take place in bottles but only in barrels. However, these are also bottled unfiltered. I examined samples bottled in this country of "Pale Ale" and "Stout" from Bass & Co., Brewers, Burton on Trent. For isolation of Brettanomyces strains from these samples a portion of the sediment was swabbed on malt agar and chalk plates and yeast-agar-glucose and chalk plates, which were incubated at 30° C.

After two days, several yeast colonies were observed, but which did not appear to form acid. After 7 days between these, very small colonies were visible, which dissolved the chalk around the colony. On the plates from the "Stout" two types of acid-forming colonies were distinguished, hard and soft. The majority were hard, and under the microscopic these were all found to be identical to each other. A hard and a soft colony tubes were scraped off into test tubes and then isolated into a pure culture in the way described for "lambic". The soft culture we will call for the time being St. I and the hard St. II.

On the plates on which were spread the dregs of "Pale Ale". only the hard acid-forming colonies could be isolated. These were apparently identical with St. II. In this context it should be remembered that the beers came from the same brewery.
"Onderzoekingen over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by M.T.J. Custer, 1940, page 27. (My translation.)

Did Bass Pale Ale contain brettanomyces? Yes it did.

But it's more interesting than just that. Did you notice that the Stout contained two different types of brettanomyces, but the Pale Ale just one. That implies that one of the types almost certainly wasn't in the pitching yeast. Unless the Pale Ale and Stout were pitched with different yeasts.

There were differences in the way Bass made their Pale Ale and Stout. Pale Ale was matured in carriage casks, Stout in vats. Had the Stout picked up the soft St. I type from the vats?

There are still lots of unanswered questions. But one thing we know for sure: Pale Ale did sometimes contain brettanomyces.

When was Brettanomyces discovererd?

Trawling through the Journal of the Institute of brewing, I stumbled upon a little article about Brettanomyces by R. B. Gilliland. It was a revelation.

I'd accepted that it was Claussen, working at the Carlsberg laboratory, who first discovered Brettanomyces in 1903.It turns out that's not the whole truth:

"Occurrence of Brettanomyces.—The earliest reference to Brettanomyces, or secondary yeasts, was in a patent for the use of these organisms for the preparation of English beers which was taken out by Claussen in 1903. In a paper to the Institute of Brewing in 1904, Claussen described the importance of Brettanomyces for secondary fermentation and the production of the characteristic flavour of English stock beers. Claussen did not give a detailed description of these organisms, which he included in the genus Torula. Shortly after this, Seyffert of the Kalinkin Brewery in St. Petersberg announced that he had isolated a "Torula" in 1889 from English beer which produced the typical "English" taste in lager beer, and which was similar in other respects to Claussen's Brettanomyces. In 1899 J. W. Tullo, in the Chemist's Laboratory, Arthur Guinness Son & Co. Ltd., Dublin, had already isolated two types of "secondary yeast" from Irish stout, and in an unpublished report described the characteristics of these yeasts and their importance in secondary fermentation. At this time the "secondary yeasts" were important constituents of the flora of all stock beers, and in particular of those beers, designed for the export trade, which under went long maturation in the brewery. These export beers depended indeed on the "secondary yeasts," not only for their characteristic flavour but also for the production of condition in bottle by means of their ability to ferment higher polysaccharides which the "primary yeast" could not ferment."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 257.

Claussen may have been the first to publish about Brattanomyces, but he wasn't the first to find it.

On the face of it, a brewery in St. Petersberg seems an even more unlikely place to come across Brettanomyces than in Denmark. But, if you think about it, there is some sense to it. In the late 19th century, about the only beer being imported into Russia was strong Stout. Stuff that would have been aged and gained its distinctive flavour from a Brettanomyces secondary conditioning. Someone trying to replicate such a beer might well go looking for the secondary conditioing yeast.

As for Guinness, well, they're exactly the sort of brewery you would expect to have discovered Brattanomyces. In the 1890's Guinness still vatted a decent quantity of beer. Foreign Extra Stout was mostly a vatted beer, but a proportion of aged beer was also blended into Extra Stout and Porter. While in Britain this sort of long maturation was only used for the strongest beers, it was a vital part of all Guinness's products.

Why didn't Seyffert or Tullo publish? In the former case, it was most likely a commercial decision. If you'd cracked the way of turning any old Lager into aged Stout, you'd quite likely want to keep it to yourself. There was potentially lots of money to be earned from that knowledge. Perhaps there was the same consideration at Guinness.

That also might explain why Claussen did publish. Secondary conditioning wasn't really part of Carlsberg's business.

Lambic in the 1930's again

Remember me saying I wished I had more old description of Lambic brewing? It turns out I did. And in a really obvious place.

What could be a more obvious place to look than "Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces"? (Investigation into the yeast type Brettanomyces') The Dutch author, knowing Brettanomyces played a role in Lambic brewing, clearly made a little trip down to Brussels to find out more. He picked a brewery you may have heard of.

"Thanks to the kind cooperation of Mr. A. Vossen, Director of Brasserie "Mort subite" in Brussels, I have been able to acquaint myself with the method of preparing "lambic". Essentially this is done as follows.

The grist for "Gueuze-Lambic" is a mixture of barley malt and unmalted wheat, in which the quantity of the latter raw material makes up 40 to 50% of the total deposit. After this mash has passed the usual temperatures for the protein degradation and saccharification, it is filtered, hops are added and the hopped wort boiled for about 5 hours. The amount of added hop is 800-900 grams per hl of wort.

To demonstrate better the significance of this number, it is important to note that for beer brewed in this country and also for the normal types of beer brewed in Germany, up to 250 grams of hops is added per hl of wort."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 24.

You can see that a large amount of hops is confirmed. Though this is much less - 2.8 to 3.2 lbs per barrel - than the 8 to 12 lbs specified in the 1932 Brewers' Journal article. Which source to trust? Not sure. It could just be different hopping rates at different breweries.

"The product thus obtained, after filtration, is put into flat coolers where it remains ± 24 hours; there is no artificial cooling.

During cooling, the wort takes numerous organisms from the air. After cooling the wort is put into wooden barrels of about 2 hl size and these vessels in a room with a temperature of 15 ° - 18 ° C.. Yeast is not added; A slow fermentation occurs spontaneously. A closing piece is placed on the barrels, in which a small opening is located; this opening closes iself automatically with exudates, which will float up through the action of the fermentation.

The beer remains 2 to 3 years in the casks and then after clearing it is filled into bottles where the fermentation and lagering continue at the same temperature for about 2 years. The product thus obtained is the so-called "Gueuze-lambic "; it has an original gravity of 13-14° Balling.

The resulting product of two to three years fermentation and lagering in the casks is already suitable for consumption itself. It is also sold on draught under the name of "gueuze".

"krieken-lambic" is "lambic", where an appropriate amount of cherries is added in the barrels.

In passing it should be mentioned here that "faro" and "mars" which are also Brussels special beers are prepared in a similar way to "lambic ", but these beers have a lower original gravity than "lambic "."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, pages 24 - 25.

I think we all already knew that Lambic was left in a cooler. 24 hours is a long time to be in a cooler. Longer than you would need to cool the wort. Clearly cooling isn't the only consideration at play here.

I'll admit to not quite understanding the bit about the closing. Oh, the original book is in Dutch, by the way. It's my translation here. Exudates is what Google translate comes up with for the Dutch word "afscheidingsstoffen". If anyone has a better translation, let me know.

A gravity of 13-14° Balling, with the 90% attenuation you would expect from Lambic, leaves a beer of 6 to 6.5% ABV. Which is a bit higher than today. Two or three years in cask on the other hand is much like today. Though it confuses me that Gueuze-lambic is used for the version refermented in bottles and just Gueuze for the younger draught stuff. That's definitely different from current practice, where the names would be Gueuze and Lambic respectively.

Faro and Mars are once again said to be lower-gravity versions. No mention of sweetening, which I though was an essential feature of Faro.

""Lambic" is only be brewed in the cold seasons, viz. from October to April. In the last twenty years it has been attempted, through the use of pure cultures of the yeast and bacteria species generally found in "lambic", to shorten fermentation and lagering to 5 to 6 months and also to brew in the summer. However, this process has not made much progress.

For the fermentation of lambic Brettanomyces yeast is now considered essential; these probably also tend to get into  the wort during cooling. This is not so surprising, since the air and the coolers are undoubtedly sufficiently contaminated with these yeasts."
"Onderzoeking over het Gistgeslacht Brettanomyces" by Mathieu Theodoor Jozef Custers, 1940, page 25.

I wonder if any of the commercial Lambic breweries currently use pure cultures? It wouldn't surprise me. But, unlike the Brewers' Journal text, this does state that Lambic was usually spontaneously fermented, with the infection starting in the cooler.

That was informative, wasn't it? Maybe I should look to see if I have more stuff like this about Lambic.

One night in Manchester

Just back from a flying visit to Manchester. Where I got to do my favourite thing: listen to the sound of my own voice.

Beermoth, a Manchester beer shop, invited me over to natter on aimlessly about Brettanomyces in British beer*. It seemed to go down pretty well. As did the Boddie's Mild, brewed by Jay of Quantum Brewing in Stockport**.

The question-and-answer session after I'd finished my bullshitting was particularly fascinating. Some very good question, not just limited to Brettanomyces. It probably would have lasted even longer idf I hadn't been in urgent need of a wee. I blame all that Mild I'd been slurping down.

It was mentioned that they've begun growing small amounts of Chevalier barley again. Someone got some seeds from a seed bank. It would be great if it made a comeback on a commercial scale.

There was a good showing of brewers and they'd brought along their own bretted beers to try. Very heartening to see that Brettanomyces is returning to British beer. It was such an important component of 19th-century brewing. My thanks to those who brought along very interesting and tasty beers. it was a real pleasure to try them.

Walking back to my hotel through Manchester city centre at 23:00 was an odd experience. A bit like those car-crash TV programmes about binge drinking, but without the vomit and violence. The photo above is the view from my hotel room. I forgot to take any snaps at Beermoth. Too busy yakking.

If you'd like to hear me talk for 60 to 90 minutes (the length depends on what pops into my head along the way) about Brettanomyces in in British beer, get in touch. It's a cracking little lecture, even if I do say so myself. This is what I cover:



Introduction

Ageing Beer:
Primary and Secondary Fermentation
Pure yeast problems
Different ageing period for different styles
British styles using Brettanomyces

Porter:
19th century
Courage Russian Stout
Guinness
Harvey’s Imperial Stout

Old or Stock Ale:
Mild Ale and Stock Ale
19th century
20th century
Greene King Strong Suffolk
Colne Spring Ale

Pale Ale:
Stock Pale Ale
Bass Pale Ale
20th century


Providing me with unlimited Mild is not compulsory, but is appreciated.




* I was paid for giving the talk. And given as much 1987 Boddington's Mild as I could drink. If you've seen me drink Mild when it's hitting the spot, you'll know how much that could be.


** "It's the wrong colour." I said to Jay. "It should be darker, coloured up with caramel" "But the recipe doesn't have any caramel." I just checked, and he's right. Though it is mentioned in the text. Whatever the colour, the beer was lovely.




Beermoth
70 Tib Street,
Manchester,
M4 1LG.
http://beermoth.co.uk/

Quantum Brewing
Unit 4, Victoria Works,
Hempshaw Lane,
Stockport SK1 4LG.
http://www.quantumbrewingcompany.co.uk/

Berliner Weisse and Brettanomyces.

Friday night I was a happy, lucky man. I got to taste some 25+ years old Berliner Weisse. (Courtesy of Barak. Thanks Barak.)

After what I'd learned recently about the role of brettanomyces in the secondary conditioning of Berliner Weisse, there was just one thought on my mind. How much horse blanket would there be?

The two Weisses were Landré and Groterjan. Both, very honestly stated on the label, brewed by Schultheiss. The western one, for you Cold War conspirators. I'd tell you more about the history of those breweries and names. I would. But "Die Berliner Weisse", which I still had on my pile (I can no longer call it a desk), hasn't supplied any quick answers. Except that Groterjan had a rather racy 1920's brewery and started brewing Berliner Weisse in 1932.

Can someone else do the research? Just this once. It's getting in the way of me telling my tale. Feeling obliged to look this stuff up. No later than 1975, would be my guess. The age of the beers, going by the style of the labels.

"What did they taste like?" That was the point of all this. Telling you that. Sort of. I didn't take notes. I never do in Wildeman. These are just my impressions, recorded a day or two later. Ohne Gewähr, as they say on German TV.

The Landré was nicely, but not crazily, sour. Pretty clean tasting. A touch of rotting hay. Bone dry. In incredibly good nick for its age.

Groterjan had a whole barnyard in its aroma. A touch less sour, and with a a spike of infection. Think bière de garde. About double the mouldy wood accent that has. Drinkable despite that. Despite that. What am I saying, despite that. Beers several decades its junior I've spat into the canal. I'm being picky.

This was all about brettanomyces. For me. I'm not the best taster in the world. But some tastes are sledgehammers. Even I notice when they strike. All that rotty, shitty farm stuff. I'd put money on brettanomyces. My own money.

Landré? Possibly. Could have been some brett in there. But if Joris said no, I wouldn't argue with him. Well, yes, I would argue with him. With little real conviction.

I've changed my tune on Berliner Weisse. From "No, no, no brettanomyces" to "Yes, yes, yes brettanomyce" in, what? Three weeks. Fresh.

Berliner Weissbier in the 1970’s (part one)

I’m so glad I started going through “Die Berliner Weisse” methodically. Because I’m learning so much. So of it a bit of a shock.

The book has stuff nailed together from different sources. A bit like mine, really. This particular bit comes from a thesis written by Dietz in 1978/1979. He investigated the production methods and characteristics of the beer of the three Weissbier breweries in West Berlin. From another table in the book, I know that these were Schultheiss, Kindl and Hochschulbrauerei.

What’s interesting is that two of the breweries employed the classic method of a mixed culture, while the other used a totally different technique.

Here’s the description from the book:

"While in brewery I and brewery II a variation on the classical method (open vats and storage tanks) and bottle-conditioning was performed, in brewery III a modified two-piece fermentation process in modern cylindroconical fermenters was applied, in accordance with Barrach [54].

The lactic acid concentration can be adjusted fairly consistently to the optimum level here, fluctuations in concentration as in the beers of the breweries I and II can be avoided. Due to the closed, low-infection fermentation and maturation in the cylindroconical fermentation tanks and the lack of secondary yeast Brettanomyces bruxellensis in brewery III, the acetic acid content is very low. The higher residual extract values for brewery III correlate with the amount of harmful carbohydrates and show that in this beer fermentation did not progress until full attenuation. The lack of CO2 content is here compensated by post-carbonisation. In the beers of the breweries I and II secondary conditioning yeast Brettanomyces bruxellensis will certainly have been present in the mixed culture and have thereby ensured a higher degree of attenuation in the bottle. All the other values fluctuate within the normal range.

The lactic acid content in brewery III is produced from fresh, unhopped lauter wort in closed cylindroconical tanks, thereby always ensuring a constant level of acidity in the finished product.

However, a pure sour taste alone does not replace the full bouquet of a bottle-matured Berlin Weisse, made with a mixed culture of optimal composition."
"Die Berliner Weisse", by Gerolf Annemüller, Hans-J. Manger and Peter Lietz, 2008, pages 98 - 100. (My translation.)

[If you don’t trust my translation, you can find the original German text at the end of this post.]

This is the accompanying table:

Tabelle 11   Weissbier brewing methods at three West Berlin Breweries in 1978/79
Characteristic	Brewery I	Brewery II	Brewery III
Grist	barley malt and wheat malt	100 % barley malt	100 % barley malt
Mashing method	infusion	single decoction	Infusion
Bittering	75 g leaf hops per 10 hl wort, hops added in the mash	63 g hop extract (25 % a-acid) per 10 hl wort, hops added to the Lauter wort	50 % of the wort is boiled with hops, cooled and pitched with top-fermenting yeast 50 % of the wort is pitched with lactobacillus without the addition of hops and without boiling.
Wort boiling and wort cooling	No boiling of the wort. The wort goes from the lauter tun, through the cooler to the fermenter.	Bolied 5 minutes with the Lauter wort
micro organisms	VLB - mixed culture of top-fermenting yeast and lactobacillus (multiple strains)	VLB - mixed culture of top-fermenting yeast and lactobacillus (multiple strains)	Top-fermenting yeast and a lactobacillus strain, separated and pitched as pure cultures.
Pitching	Whole wort, 0.1 l yeast/hl	Whole wort, 0.5 l yeast/hl	Fermentation: 50% of the wort at 20º C in a conical; Souring: 50 % of the wort at 45 - 47°C in a conical
pitching temperature	Ca. 18 °C	Ca. 20 °C
primary fermentation	At 18 °C in an open fermenter	Without cooling at 20 - 25 °C 2 - 4 days in an open fermenter	Fermentation at 20 - 22 °C; Souring at 45 - 47 °C  ca. 2 days until pH 2.9 - 3.1, acid = 6 - 6.5%
Maturation	First stage transfer to lager tank for acid development, second stage in the bottle with the addition of fresh beer with 2% fermentable extract	Transfer to the lager tank with 2 - 4% remaining extract for acid development. Before bottling mixed with fresh beer, bottled with 33% Kräusen and remaining extract 1.8 - 2%.	Depending on the amount of lactic acid produced, the yeast fermented and bacteria fermented wort are mixed 50 : 50 or 60 : 40. One week lagering under pressure at 15º C to ferment extract.
Bottle conditioning	4 - 6 weeks at 15 - 20 °C	4 - 6 weeks at 20 °C
Requirements for bottle aging	0.6 - 0.7 % C02		No bottle conditioning, since after fermentation of the remaining extract it is roughly filtered (almost clear) and carbonated. No development in the bottle through the lack of micro-organisms.
Source:
Die Berliner Weisse, by Gerolf Annemüller, Hans-J. Manger and Peter Lietz, 2008, pages 98 - 99. (My translation.)

There’s so much meat in that sandwich. Lots of fascinating stuff. Before we go any further, I know who Brewery III was: Kindl. Because their Berliner Weisse wasn’t bottle conditioned.

Funnily enough I fished a bottle of Kindl Weisse from my beer cupboard a couple of weeks ago. It’s the last of half a dozen I bought several years ago. I tried a couple fresh and they were shit. I let the others sit for a few years before trying one again. I was amazed that it had acquired some of the character of a proper Berliner Weisse. Don’t know how that worked if the beer was truly sterile.

Let’s work our way through that table. And it starts with a pretty big surprise: two of the three contain no wheat. Though, as I never tire of repeating, Weissbier doesn’t necessarily contain wheat. The term originally described beers made with air-dried malt, which could be from either wheat or barley. I must check what they did in the DDR at this time. There must be something in Kunze.

Only brewery II decocted and just a single decoction at that. Though infusion mashes had long been used by some for Berliner Weisse. The mashing schema varied from brewery to brewery.

The boil – or lack of it – and hop additions were different at all three breweries. No boil at Brewery I, with the hops added to the mash and the wort going straight from the lauter tun to the cooler. Brewery II did boil, but only for 5 minutes. I’m slightly surprised that they used hop extract at this date, as the brewing method seems pretty old fashioned. While at Brewery III, let’s call it Kindl, there was a standard boil for the half of the wort that was fermented with yeast. The other half never got a glimpse of a hop.

The two breweries using the classic method both got their mixed culture from the VLB. Interesting that it contained multiple lactobacillus strains. But why don’t they mention Brettanomyces in the  table when they do in the text? Had it got into the mixed culture by accident? Kindl seem to have used just a single strain of lactobacillus and kept yeast and bacteria separate.

The big difference in pitching rates between Brewery I and II strikes me.  0.1l per hl looks very little to me.  Done a quick check at Barclay Perkins. In 1937 their 4d Ale - at 1031º a beer with a very similar gravity to Berliner Weisse – was pitched with 0.43 kg of yeast per hl*. That’s surely way more than 100 ml.

The fermentation temperatures are very much as they were at the start of the 20th century – in the low twenties centigrade. Except, obviously at Kindl. Where the lactobacillus fermentation was at crazy temperature over 40º C. Lactobacillus can be pretty heat tolerant. I’ve heard of some strains that can even survive boiling. Not what you’d want running loose in your brewery.

Almost teatime. The rest will have to wait until tomorrow. Maturation and bottle-conditioning. And more Brettanomyces.





* Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/622.


“Während Brauerei I und Brauerei II ein variiertes klassisches Verfahren mit klassischer Technik (offene Bottiche und Lagertanks) sowie Flaschenreifung durchführen, wird in Brauerei III mit modernen zylindrokonischen Gärtanks ein angepasstes zweiteiliges Fermentationsverfahren in Anlehnung an Barrach [54] angewendet.

Die Milchsäurekonzentration kann hier recht konstant in der optimalen Konzentration eingestellt werden, Schwankungen in der Konzentration wie bei den Bieren der Brauereien I und II werden vermieden. Auf Grund der geschlossenen, infektionsarmen Gärung und Reifung in den zylindrokonischen Gärtanks und der fehlenden Nachgärhefe Brettanomyces bruxellensis in Brauerei III ist der Gehalt an Essigsäure sehr niedrig. Die höheren Restextraktwerte bei Brauerei III korrelieren mit dem Gehalt an belastenden Kohlenhydraten und zeigen, dass bei diesem Bier die Vergärung nicht bis zur Endvergärung geführt wurde. Der fehlende CO2-Gehalt wird hier durch Nach-carbonisierung ausgeglichen. Bei den Bieren der Brauereien I und II wird die in der Mischkultur sicher auch vorhandene  Nachgärhefe  Brettanomyces bruxellensis vorhanden gewesen sein und dadurch in der Flaschenreifung für eine höhere Vergärung gesorgt haben. Alle anderen Werte schwanken im üblichen Bereich.

Die Milchsäurecharge in Brauerei III wird durch Drauflassen frischer, ungehopfter Läuterwürze im geschlossenen zylindrokonischen Gärtank weitergeführt und man gewährleistet damit immer eine konstante Säuerung der Fertigprodukte.

Allerdings ein reiner saurer Geschmack allein ersetzt nicht das volle Bukett einer flaschengereiften Berliner Weißen, hergestellt mit einer optimal zusammengesetzten Mischkultur.”

Porter in the DDR

See, I promised you the tale of DDR Porter and here it is. A coupling of two of my favourite obsessions.

How was it brewed
Let's start with "Leitfaden Für den Brauer und Mälzer" by Rudolf Dickscheit (Leipzig, 1953, pages 163-164).

"Porter
What in Germany is designated Porter, would be called Stout in England. For export, Stout is brewed with a graity of up to 21% [21º Plato]. Porter is a beer of similar character, but has amn original gravity of just 12%. To avoid confusion, in the following I will stick with the term Porter which is normally used in Germany.

The basis for a good Porter is a very well-modified malt. To obtain this, the usual method is a 14 day cold process.

The malt is heated in piles on the upper level and dried in the same way as Munich malt.

Porter is made by the infusion mash method which is standard in England. It can, for example, be brewed as follows:

Mash 69º C for 3 hours
Pump the whole mash into the heated Läufer tun
Rest 69º C for 30 minute
First sparge let stand for 30 minutes
Draw off first sparge
Second sparge let stand for 30 minutes
Draw off second sparge, add the hops and boli for 3 hours

Add caramel [Kulör] to obtain the desired colour, and add sugar in the kettle to obtain a gravity of 18 to 20% [Plato].

The grist generally contains caramel malt and Farbmalz. Farbmalz makes up 7 to 10% of the grist. The hopping rate is 600 to 700 grams per hectolitre. After the wort has been boiled for three hours it's transferred to the cool ship and with cooling apparutus brought down to 18º to 24º C. To the cooled wort a top-fermenting yeast is added. Since the fermentation temperature lies between 18º and 24º C, a violent fermentation soon begins. During the primary fermentation, the wort is only carefully cooled so that a temperature of 18º to 24º C is maintained.

The room temperature should be about the same as the wort temperature.

The aim is an unbroken fermentation of all the fermentable extract.

When the primary fermentation is over, the young beer is transferred to small lagering barrels. There it is infected with Brettanomyces and a sugar solution added. After a relatively short time a lively secondary fermentation starts. The lagering barrels are not bunged but allowed to froth over.

Brettanomyces produces substances which lend the beer particular vinous flavour. As soon as this appears to a sufficient extent, the Porter is filtered: afterwards, more sugar is added at a rate of 50 grams per hectolitre. It's inoculated with Brettanomyces a second time and filled into bottles.

Bottle-conditioning takes place at 15º C in a warm cellar, so that the Brattanomyces can produce a strong fermentation and the bottles gain a sediment. As soon as there is sufficient conditioning, the cellar is cooled to 0º C.

The Porter is now ready for consumption. However it can be matured for longer to develop and round off its flavour.

In general, pasteurisation is not necessary; if it does occur, the pasteurised taste is not so unpleasantly discernible as in pale beers.

A Porter brewed by the aforementioned method would not be identical to the beer produced in the DDR with the name 'Porter', but would be more similar to the English beer than is currently the case."

I like the bit about pasteurisation. Reading between the lines in brewing manuals, it's clear many professional brewers thought pasteurisation was detrimental to a beer's flavour. Dickscheit's differentiation between Porter and Stout is pretty spot on. As is his description of how Stout was brewed in England circa 1914 (by the time he wrote the book, probably only Barclay Perkins Russian Stout was made that way). I wonder how the hell he knew all of this?

But most important is the last paragraph. The method laid out wasn't how DDR breweries actually brewed, but something to which they should aspire in order to make an authentic English-style Porter. You can find this in a Michael Jackson article about Porter:

"Even after or War II, at least one German brewer continued to make a "British-style" Porter with a Brettanomyces yeast culture."

It's my fault. I sent him a translation of part of Dickscheit's instructions which omitted the final paragraph.

Where was it brewed
These are the breweries in the East that I know for certain (I've seen a label) brewed Porter:

Brauerei Eibau, Eibau
Schultheiss, Berlin
Brauerei Th. Krepper, Burg bei Magdeburg
Brauerei Sternburg, Leipzig
Brauerei Schmiedefeld, Schmiedefeld
Brauerei Meiningen, Meiningen
Brauerei Krampf, Eibau
Brauerei Braugold, Erfurt
Riebeck Brauerei, Erfurt
Rose-Brauerei, Grabow
Brauhaus Halle, Halle
Freyberg's Brauerei, Halle
Brauerei Lübz, Lübz
Brauerei Erich Weltz, Sülze (Extra Stout XXX)

Some of these probably date to before WW II, but I'm sure there are many others missing.

What it was like
I'm in a generous mood again. Here are the technical details of beers brewed in the DDR during the 1970's:


"Technologie Brauer und Mälzer" by Wolfgang Kunze (Leipzig, 1975) is a wonderful book. It tells you everything you need to know about running a brewery in the DDR. Right down to the how the labels should look:

- name and location of the producer
- bottling date
- size: 90 mm X 60 mm for 33 cl bottles, 100 mm X 70 mm for 50 cl bottles
- retail price in at least 12 point letters
- colour: for Porter, carmine red

When I open my brewery, I intend sticking to the rules. Except for the retail price, of course.

A day with Carlsberg (part two)

Lunched, we’re bused over to the Carlsberg Laboratory. Where we’re split into groups for the “breakout sessions” whatever they might be.

Maybe it’s a sign of how nerdy I am, but I get a real thrill being in the building where so much important research was done. Carlsberg basically invented serious brewing science. When William Younger wanted to start their own lab in the 1880’s, they sent their chemist out to Carlsberg for three months to see how things were done.

There’s a lovely motto over the staircase:

“No result of the institute's work which is of theoretical or practical importance can be kept secret”

A very noble sentiment

I’m thrilled at the chance to meet and talk to real scienticians. As we’re walking to the auditorium, Dolores speaks to Birgitte Skadhauge, one of Carlsberg’s top scientists and an expert on barley:

“Can you tell me where the toilets are?” All that beer at lunch is having an effect.

We’re given some short – and very interesting – talks about the barley research that Carlsberg is doing. They’ve developed a type of barley that doesn’t contain the precursors for DMS and staling compounds. Meaning that beer will have a longer shelf-life without being pumped full of chemicals

Slightly weirder, they’ve also bred a red barley. And have been experimenting with brewing from unripe, green barley.  We head down to Hansen’s lab to try three beers.

The beers are presented by Zoran Gojkovic, director of research strategy at the lab and Erik Lund, head brewer at the lab’s pilot brewery. The first beer is from their non-staling barley.

We’ve positioned ourselves right next to the taps. Handy for getting beer quickly. Sadly, my bastard cold stops me from really tasting any of the beers. Which is a bit annoying. So instead I chat a little to the young female Danish journalist who’s standing next to us. Very pleasant and friendly, as most Danish people seem to be.

(For a more detailed account of the science bits, read Martyn Cornell’s post.
 http://zythophile.co.uk/2017/08/30/red-beer-green-lager-immature-barley-beer-the-innovations-i-drank-on-a-jolly-to-carlsberg/)

Once we’re done we have two options: take a look around the brewery or take the bus back to the hotel. We opt for the latter. I’ve seen the brewery before and we need to get ready for the posh dinner this evening.

I have one set of clothes for such occasions. How often they come around is demonstrated by the fact that my jacket still had stuff in its pockets from the beer writers’ guild dinner last December.

Another slow bus ride takes us back to the Carlsberg complex. This time to the former villa of Carl Jacobsen, now a museum and business centre.

The evening kicks off with a couple of speeches from Carlsberg people and one from a Danish government minister. Luckily they don’t last too long and we can soon take our places for dinner.

I’m pleased to discover that Zoran Gojkovic is one of our table companions. Great. My chance for a chat with an expert.

I warned Dolores not to expect huge portions. At least the food is served on plates. White plates. Starting with oysters.

There’s a story behind the meal. Everything used could appear in beer. Or something like that. Meaning the oysters are the closest thing to meat we can expect. To go with it we’re given a blend of Carl’s Classic and Porter. The reasoning being that Porter goes with oysters, but it was too strong straight for the start of the meal. Luckily a couple of bottles of Porter are left on the table and I can drink some straight.

They’ve got really good sourdough bread to accompany the courses. Which pleases Dolores no end. She’s a big fan of sourdough. Well, she would be, being German.

Zoran, I discover, did his PhD on yeast. We get chatting about Brettanomyces, which is one of his specialties. He has a collection of 250 or so strains.

“Real Brettanomyces strains. Lots of strains of Saccharomyces have been misidentified as Brettanomyces.” He informs me. Only by looking at the DNA can we be certain which strains are really Brettanomyces.”

It’s great – but also slightly intimidating – to chat with someone who know his subject so well.

The courses come and go, along with the beer. Carlsberg 1883 is the next beer. It’s a commercial version of the rebrew beer of last year. Then Saaz Blonde, a spicily hoppy Jacobsen beer. Finally, it’s the oddest of the lot: India Dark Ale, a zero alcohol beer fermented with lactobacillus. Weird, but not bad.

Returning from a toilet visit, Dolores tells me that she spotted a famous Danish actor. “He was in that 1864 thing. He played the father.”

The dinner is running late. We’re supposed to be back at our hotel by 10:30 for an “open bar”. But it’s almost midnight when we get there. And there’s no sign of an open bar. Some of the others discuss a nightcap somewhere. I’m too knacked. We head instead for our room and the sweet embrace of sleep.



Disclaimer: Carlsberg paid for two return flights, two nights in the Strand Hotel, a lunch, a dinner and various beers.



Carlsberg Research Laboratory
4, 1799, J. C. Jacobsens Gade,
1778 København V.


Carlsberg Museum & Business Centre
Valby Langgade 1,
2500 Valby.

Washington DC

The day kicks off the way I prefer: with fried stuff.

I can’t be arsed to bugger around looking for a diner so breakfast in my hotel. I go for the classic breakfast (two eggs, hash browns and toast) with a side order of bacon. Breakfast isn’t really breakfast without bacon. With orange juice, it comes to $18.05. Not cheap, but nicely cooked. And just what I need to set me up for the day. It’s soothingly quiet, too.

Proximity to Richmond railway station is one of the reasons I chose this particular hotel. No point making life more difficult than it needs to be. My train is fairly early: 10:16. And I want to be there a while before it leaves. Gentle stroll rather than thrombie-inducing dash is my aim.

The station is a really attractive building, from around 1900. Sweet how they've partially obscured it with a motorway viaduct. The upstairs waiting room is pretty full. Mostly with students from one of Richmond’s universities, if their sweatshirts are anything to go by.

I grab a seat and get on with reading. Why to these benches have a padded back, but not a padded seat? That makes no sense. Other way around, surely?

10:16 comes and goes without much happening. A freight train about 3 miles long screeches interminably through the station. At 11 there’s still no sign of the train. At 11:15 an Amtrak train does appear, but it’s the wrong one, going in the opposite direction.

90 minutes late, my train finally rolls in. As is usual with long distance trains over here, you can only enter by a couple of specific doors. I head for the further one. Bound to be less of a crowd down there.

There is. I immediately find a seat and plug in my laptop.  It’s a typical Amtrak carriage. They must have built thousands of these in the 1970s. Starting to show their age. But there’s loads of legroom, a socket by every seat and reasonable wifi.

The latter is important. Because I need to warn Jamie, who’ll be picking me up at Union Station in Washington, that the train is running late. Don’t want her hanging around for no reason. I fire off a quick email. She replies almost immediately. I caught her just before she was about to leave home.

Warning given, I settle back to watch some Taskmaster. Seems a good way of passing three hours or so. That long wait at the station has got me all out of arsedness for reading.


The train stops rather more often than I’d anticipated. In some pretty small looking towns. It trundles along in the not really very fast way that Amtrak trains do. But does appear to be making up some time. We’re only about an hour late when we pull into Union Station.

As always, I’m dazzled by the sun when I pop outside the front of the station. Not quite as bad as in the summer, but I’m still squinting like crazy. The combination of sun and white building really doesn’t work well with my eyes. When my vision returns, I realise Jamie isn’t there.

It’s a while before Jamie drives up. The traffic has been really bad, she explains. That’s OK. I’ve learned to be patient. Much less stressful than fretting.

The traffic is still bad and it takes quite a long time to get out of town. Everywhere I go now in the US the traffic seems bad. Fairly irrespective of the time of day.

It’s about 4 PM by the time we get to Jamie’s. The delay means we haven’t long before we need to head off for Maryland Homebrew, where I’m giving a talk this evening.

We quickly dine at the local kebab shop, flash bastards that we are. I don’t splash out on a kebab – or kebob as they call them here – limiting myself to a chicken Caesar wrap. And a Goose Island IPA, which I notice in the fridge. This craft beer stuff is everywhere. Eating done, we head for Columbia.

I’ve spoken at Maryland Homebrew before, back in the spring of 2014 when I was touring the US plugging my proper book. This time I’m giving my Brettanomyces in British Brewing talk. The one I would have given in Colonial Williamsburg, had the conference not been cancelled.

There’s a slight computer problem. My laptop won’t talk to the projector. It’s soon solved by using one of the shop’s laptops. I have the presentation on a memory stick so it’s no problem. I always come well-prepared, with various backup solutions. Call me paranoid. But better paranoid than fucked.

Paul and Jamie have brought beer: a Saison and a Porter, both of which have been finished with Brettanomyces. In the case of the Porter, because Paul mashed at too high a temperature and the gravity was too high at the end of primary. He threw in some Brettanomyces and let it slowly bubble away for months. Which finally got the FG to a reasonable level. I has some earlier. Very pleasant.

The talk goes OK. Though I realise that I need to update some of the slides. Especially about Harvey’s Imperial Stout. Since I wrote the talk, I’ve learnt that it’s Debaromyces, not Brettanomyces, that is responsible for the secondary conditioning. Some pretty decent questions from the audience round things off.

Yapping done, I can get on with the serious business of flogging books. And chat with people, of course. I’m the sociable type. Especially if beer is involved. Being a BURP meeting, there are quite a few people I’ve met before.

I don’t get chance to drink much of Paul and Jamie’s beer. Too busy with other stuff. We don’t stay too late. After loading the boot with the debris of the beer and books, we’re on the road back to Paul and Jamie’s.

We try a couple of beers when we get back. But we don’t leave it late. We all need to be up quite early. And I’ve a busy day, brewing collaboration beers at two different breweries.

I soon slip into sleep. Even without a whisky to speed me along.




BURP homebrew club
https://www.burp.org


Kensington Pizza & Kabob House
3701 University Blvd W,
Kensington, MD 20895.
http://www.kensingtonkabob.com/
Tel: +1 301-933-2600


Maryland Homebrew
6770 Oak Hall Lane, Suite 108
Columbia,
MD 21045.
https://www.mdhb.com/