Let's Brew Wednesday - 1954 Whitbread Forest Brown

The next Whitbread Brown Ale is much more typical of the 1950’s. Weak, sweet and spun out of a Mild recipe. Every brewery in the country had a beer along these general lines.

And very popular beers they were, too. Mostly off the back of poor draught beer quality rather than on their own merits. Falling gravities had left many landlords struggling to keep their draught beer in decent condition. Bottled beer was more reliable, but also quite a bit more expensive. The answer? Mix bottled Brown Ale and draught Mild. Not as dodgy as pure draught, but cheaper than a pint of bottled beer.

Forest Brown wasn’t originally a Whitbread brand. It came from the Forest Hill Brewery, which Whitbread bought in the 1920’s. Bottling was the reason of the purchase. Because Whitbread had insisted on sticking with bottle conditioning past WW II, which was quite unusual. Especially as Whitbread had an unusually large trade in bottled beer. When they finally decided to move into artificially carbonated beer, they brought in the expertise by buying the Forest Hill Brewery, which were quite big in that type of beer.

Forest Brown long outlived the brewery that spawned it. It was still Whitbread’s principal Brown Ale when I was drinking in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Not that I ever tried it. Mostly because I rarely drank in Whitbread pubs, as they had pretty much eradicated cask in their pubs in the Midlands and the North. And I didn’t drink Brown Ale.

You’ll see that the grist is quite different from Double Brown. Both beers have a similar amount of No. 3 invert, but the malts are completely different, Forest Brown having a base of mild malt with a fair whack of crystal, while Double Brown is PA malt with just a touch of chocolate. Unsurprisingly, given its far lower gravity, the hopping in Forest Brown is much lighter.



I’ll not detain you any longer having nothing further sensible to say . . . .

1954 Whitbread Forest Brown
mild malt	5.50 lb	80.00%
crystal malt	0.38 lb	5.45%
no. 3 invert sugar	1.00 lb	14.55%
Fuggles 60 min	0.50 oz
Fuggles 40 min	0.50 oz
Goldings 20 min	0.50 oz
OG	1032.4
FG	1009.5
ABV	3.03
Apparent attenuation	70.68%
IBU	18
SRM	25
Mash at	147º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	60 minutes
pitching temp	65º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

Labatt beers in 1893 (part two)

There’s nothing I love better than part two of a post. Unless it’s part forty. I love me them long series. How many have I never quite completed?

I had some tables that would have clogged up the first part a little too much. I never thought I’d say this, but sometimes a piece can include too many tables. I don’t want to all confuse your little brain things. If it’s anything like mine, it’ll struggle to cling onto one thought for two minutes, let alone several.

There is some didactic point to what I’m writing here. We’ll be looking at numbers for the output of our two London breweries, Whitbread and Labatt, to see what they tell us about the difference in the beer market in the UK and Canada. Because the big seller was very different.

First let’s take a look at Labatt’s output by style:

Totals year ending 31st Aug 1894
beer	style	barrels brewed	% of total
Pale	Pale Ale	3,863	16.23%
ES	Stock Ale	160	0.67%
EIP	IPA	17,613	74.00%
total Ale		21,636	90.90%
BS	Stout	2,165.50	9.10%
total		23,802
Source:
Labatt brewing record document number A08-054-1156

Three-quarters of what Labatt brewed was IPA. There isn’t a single brewery in the UK – not even in Burton-on-Trent – where the percentage would have been anything like that high in that period. I doubt there was a brewery where all the Pale Ales together made up 50% of output.

In the 12 months covered by the records, there was only a single brew of ES. It clearly wasn’t a particularly popular type of beer. Labatt’s other two beer, Pale and Brown Stout, were brewed reasonably regularly.

Now let’s look at Whitbread.

Whitbread output in 1893
Beer	barrels brewed	% of total
X	247,285	54.06%
XK	3,230	0.71%
KK	4,632	1.01%
KKK	2,050	0.45%
2KKK	1,593	0.35%
PA	11,629	2.54%
2PA	13,250	2.90%
FA	23,105	5.05%
Total Ale	306,774	67.07%
P	80,067	17.50%
C	39,543	8.64%
SS	17,355	3.79%
SSS	13,679	2.99%
Total Porter	150,644	32.93%
Total Ale & Porter	457,418
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/059 and LMA/4453/D/09/087.

Two beers sold far more than the others: standard Mild (X Ale) and Porter (P). If you include Country Porter (C) they come to 80% of the total. While Whitbread brewed many more beers than Labatt, most were only in small quantities. The combined output of all three Stock Ales (KK, 2KKK and KKK) was under 2% of the total. The two Stouts couldn’t manage 7% between them. The three Pale Ales (FA, 2PA and PA) did a little better, with over 10%.

In provincial breweries, the proportion of Porter and Stout would have been lower. A third is very high. But it’s easily explained by Whitbread’s history as a Porter brewer and a continued high demand for Black Beer in the capital.

To summarise, Whitbread brewed large quantities of Mild and Porter, a reasonable amount of Bitter, rather less Stout and bugger all Stock Ale. While Labatt brewed loads of Pale Ale, mostly IPA, some Stout and virtually no Stock Ale. You’ll agree that although both were still brewing British-derived styles, the emphasis on particular types was quite different.

One last table to end. Taken from totals in the brewing log. They don’t quite match mine, but have some other interesting information:

Labatt Totals year ending 31st Aug 1894
Bushels pale malt	40,627
Bushels patent malt	400
total malt	41,027
lbs hops used	48,045.5
barrels ale	21,649.8
barrels Brown Stout & Porter	2,165.5
total barrels	23,815.3
Old Ale and Brown Stout mixed	149.5
total Ale, Brown Stout and Porter brewed 1893-1894	23,665.8
Source:
Labatt brewing record document number A08-054-1156

A final point. Note the difference in scale between the two breweries: Whitbread 457,418 barrels, Labatt 23,802 barrels.

FX Matt

Just had the coolest day at FX Matt.

I've visited plenty of US breweries. But never one that dates back to the 19th century. It was a revelation. So much old kit. Stuff about as old as I've ever seen still in operation. The Lincoln tanks - called that because they were installed when Lincoln was president - blew my mind.

Looking back, I realise what it reminds me of: Fullers. Still family owned, a sense of tradition, everyone really into beer. Even got to meet Fred Matt, current head honcho.

I'm such a lucky git. Getting to do all this cool shit.

Maybe I'll wake up and it was all just a dream.

Hops in 1944 (part two)

The term “preservative value” pops up quite often in British brewing literature from the middle of last century. But how was it calculated?

Funny you should ask, because the article handily explains it:

“The preservative value was obtained from the formula (a + B/3) x 10 and it is interesting to note that had it been calculated on the alpha resins alone, the decrease would have been much more apparent as the beta resins in each case show an increase on last year, unlike the alpha. The comparative values of one of the new varieties (Brewers Gold) as ascertained from different sources is given below Using the above method of calculation, the figure is 134, while utilising the formula of alpha X 10, the figure is 92. The whole question seems to depend on whether or not there is any preservative value in the beta resins. Incidentally, the new varieties tested are the only hops to show an increased preservative value on last year, the comparative figures being :—

	1942	1943
P.V. (a + B/3) Brewers Gold	124	134
P.V. (a+B/3) Brewers Favourite	84	107

Among individual types, East Kents again showed the highest preservative value, while Worcesters were relatively much lower. It should be noted that all the above results were borne out by the physical examination. The comparative results for 1944 will be published when ascertained and they may give some indication of influence of weather on hops. So far this year's weather has been very like that of 1943, a mild winter, a long period of drought, the only difference being rains in June instead of May. There was, of course, frost in the latter month of this  year,  but this should not affect the crop.”
Journal of the Incorporated Brewers Guild 1944, page 146.

I wanted to check if beta acid is still reckoned to have some preservative value. So I flipped open Briggs’ “Brewing Science and Practice”. It might say something on that topic. But 20-odd pages of organic chemistry is too much for my poor old, addled brain. If you have the answer, let me know. That’s the problem with modern brewing text books: the science causes me mental meltdown. I’m much more comfortable with the simpler – if far dodgier – science of 19th-century brewers.

I’d be interested to know if they were determining hopping rates based on alpha and beta acid content during the war. It would have made sense. No point in wasting hops.

Demand for hops was high:

“BREWERS' requirements of the 1944 crop are given as 272,000  cwts. compared with 267,175 for 1943, a slight increase which is more than accounted for by the continued high rate of demand for beer.  As this demand is likely to continue for at least some time ahead, and having regard to our very limited stocks, it is to be hoped that the authorities, in making plans for the rehabilitation of Europe, not intend to hand over foreign breweries any considerable quantity of the 1944 crop, should the European hop areas prove to be out of cultivation.  It is unlikely that any long term export trade with Europe will develop after the war in English hops—even for  new  varieties. Foreign breweries will probably take our hops during the period when they can get no others, as France did in 1940. Once their own gardens come into cultivation again imports of hops into Britain are more likely than exports from it.”
Journal of the Incorporated Brewers Guild 1944, page 146.

A couple of million US servicemen made sure that there was a good demand for beer. As did the high wages paid during the war.

I love the phrase “the rehabilitation of Europe”. Remember that this article was written late in 1944 when the end of the war was in sight. And at the time they had no idea what had happened in the most important hop growing regions on the continent, Bavaria and Bohemia, both in the heart of Nazi territory. Clearly British brewers were going to hang onto all the hops they needed.

The author shows great prescience there. After the war, UK hop exports did increase initially. You can see that in these figures:

UK home-grown and imported hops 1938 - 1953
Year ended 31st Dec.	Estimated Produce	Imports: Less Re-Exports	Exports: British Hops	Consumption Years ended 30th Sept. following	surplus hops
1938	257,000	45,287	12,580	286,716	2,991
1939	288,000	7,840	16,050	265,512	14,278
1940	270,500	14,675	26,830	251,354	6,991
1941	262,800	31	17,209	223,007	22,615
1942	261,900	2,963	30,673	231,689	2,501
1943	285,200	198	24,941	243,900	16,557
1944	253,900	0	26,525	244,822	-17,447
1945	282,900	574	32,337	226,197	24,940
1946	257,451	29,243	35,056	217,759	33,879
1947	289,908	7,716	31,661	231,470	34,493
1948	273,584	4,561	29,135	233,168	15,842
1949	250,406	900	42,301	232,979	-23,974
1950	368,313	269	84,027	229,106	55,449
1951	321,824	626	107,738	228,512	-13,800
1952	282,349	502	76,620	225,569	-19,338
1953	272,593	1,015	64,762	216,841	-7,995
Sources:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 63.
1971 Brewers'Almanack, page 54

Note also that, with the exception of 1944, home production and a small volume of imports ensured there were always just about enough hops to meet brewers’ demands.

Though the bit about the UK importing continental hops post-war didn’t happen. The UK had made itself self-sufficient in hops and had little need for imports. About the only foreign hops that turn up in brewing records of this period are Saaz.

Next we’ll be looking at hop-growing in the US and new English hop varieties.

Best beer towns

There was a list on the web of the best beer towns. In the US, obviously. Fair enough, as it was an American publication.

It got me thinking: which are my top beer cities? (And also worrying that I'd visited 8 of the 9 cities on the list.) Not just in the US. And not just in the present.

I'm old. 4-D bloke. More of my life lies scorched behind me than greenly beckoning ahead. Why should I limit myself to the now? What could be more nowist? ("Or just modern, dad" "Shut up, head Andrew, I'm trying to bash out some billocky bollocks before I go on holiday that doesn't require me sticking my head up a library's arse for six months." "Just don't bother to post every day." "And disappoint my readers?" "Dad, you don't have readers. Just a few weirdoes with nothing better to do. And home brewers.")

That's why best a best town answer needs to be in 4-D. Talk about pushing the envelope. I'm giving it a whole extra dimension. Eat innovation shit Cranberry Gose.

Before I annoy you with my random decisions from the past, with a sauce of wilfull obscurantisms, I'll explain my pretend criteria. Or how I define "best" "beer" and "town".

Best: better than better
Beer: alcoholic thing
Town: any settlement with a pub

Beer heaven is subjective. My choices wouldn't be shared by everyone. More likely, by anyone.
 Here are a few hollow phrases to give you give you the impression there's some thought, however small, at the back of this:

quality over variety.
reliability over novelty
general beer quality
maybe today isn't the best
overall quality vs. elite beer
working class vs. middle class (Mild, Porter)

Sorry. They were just the notes I scribbled down after having that Hawkwind session last night. I'm in a rush so they'll have to do. I even quickly ended a call with Lucas, despite Arsenal losing yesterday.

Best beer cities. A carelessly assembled 4-D list by someone who can't remember his best nights out:

1. Prague 1984
By a street. Using one of my main criteria: overall beer quality. Never had a bad beer. And lots of cracking ones. Dirt cheap. Great, down to earth pubs. I can still recall that first Urquell on air pressure.
Best Beers: Pilsner Urquell; Branik 12º Dark and 14ºPale; Fleku 14º Dark.Best pubs: U Rotundy, U Zlateho Tygra, U Dvou Zpevacku.
Today: Remnants remain - U rotundy, I believe, survives - if you want to get a sniff of this particlar past's arse.

2. Leeds 1976
My second year at university. And when they put handpulls back in loads of Tetley's pubs. Including the Cardigan Arms. The landlord, and Irish bloke, knew his stuff. Through electrics it was a damn good pint of Mild. When he changed to handpulls* it was as like moving from a muddy footpath to a motorway.
Best Beers: Tetley's Mild
Best pubs: Cardigan Arms, Black Dog, Rising Sun, Adelphi, Garden Gate, Brassmoulders Arms.
Today: Adelphi is still pretty good, but without Tetley's. Without proper Tetley's, what is Leeds?

This is too much to finish now. If I go to a full nine towns. Or ten, if I'm being more decimalist. Maybe I should go for an octal revival by picking eight.


I've spoilt the tension a bit by starting at the top. Bit late now.


* Obviously with a univac.

Let's Brew Wednesday (Saturday edition) – 1885 Thomas Usher PA 60/-

This is so much fun. Banging out another recipe that’s already in the vaults. And a banging the drum opportunity about styles.

60/- Ale. If you aren’t over 50, Scottish, or weirdly obsessed, you’ve no fucking idea what it is or was. Sorry to be so blunt, but them’s just the facts. That said, this recipe is nothing like the sort of 60 bob I (very occasionally) drank in the blurry days some call my youth. Pre middle age is my preferred term. Or pre gut.

Having started off aggressively asserting this beer has no connection with the more modern 60/-, I’m going to completely turn around and say how it does. Because 60/-, despite its clever masquerade as Mild, was really just a type of Scottish Pale Ale. Eventually a pretty weak one, coloured up with caramel and filling the Mild Ale slot in Scotland.

60/- in those oldie Victorian times, designated a beer a bit over standard strength. 54/- was the baseline beer, the equivalent of an English Light Bitter. 60 bob was one step up. But still a beer for the masses.

Wars, taxes and other bollocks bolloxed up British beer categorisations. Pre-WW I classifications, cemented in an unchanging retail price for beer, became meaningless. Between the wars, shilling classifications were used with a random disregard for consistency. Which has not a grillocks’ grallocks to do with the recipe below.

Usher’s 60/- looks much like the Pale Ales brewed by the likes of Whitbread in London. Though if they really sold the Usher’s for 3 quid a hogshead, it was a bargain compared to London Pale Ales.

The recipe? Note all foreign hops. And the exciting malt bill.



Detail time, I suppose . . . .

1885 Thomas Usher PA 60/-
pale malt	14.00 lb	100.00%
Cluster 90 min	2.25 oz
Spalt 30 min	2.25 oz
OG	1060
FG	1017
ABV	5.69
Apparent attenuation	71.67%
IBU	68
SRM	5
Mash at	155º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

Labatt beers in 1893

Canada – why have I suddenly started writing about it again? Maybe I’m getting bored with the 1950’s. Nah, that couldn’t be true. How could anyone tire of the 1950’s?

Have I already written anything about the Labatt’s brewing records I have? I can’t remember, to be honest. And I can’t be arsed to look it up. If I did, it can’t have been that memorable. Otherwise I’d remember it, wouldn’t I? Then again, I often can’t recall what I’ve had for breakfast. Quite an achievement, seeing I eat the same every day.

Rambling again. I think I remember now why I’ve not done much with the Labatt’s stuff: it’s a bit dull. Just four different beers with nothing particularly exciting about them: a Pale, an IPA, a Stock Ale and a Brown Stout. Hard to get too worked up about those. Other than the fact it demonstrates IPA was a common style in North America in the 19th century. If you didn’t already know that.

That seems slightly thin fare, given the rich, thick broth I usually serve. So I guess I’ll beef it up with some other stuff. But what? Tables. You can never go wrong with tables. Or comparing a brewery’s beers with those of another. Two London breweries, that makes sense. One from London, Ontario and the other from London, England.

Let’s kick off with the rather small Labatt table:

Labatt beers in 1893
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)
5th Sep	EIP	IPA	1056.8	1012.5	5.86	78.05%	2.16	2	2.58
8th Sep	Pale	Pale Ale	1049.9	1012.5	4.95	75.00%	1.90	2	2.67
22nd Sep	BS	Stout	1067.9	1015.2	6.96	77.55%	2.25	2	2.75
6th Feb	ES	Stock Ale	1063.7	1009.7	7.15	84.78%	2.93	2	2.67
Source:
Labatt brewing record document number A08-054-1156

Labatt’s Pale Ale would probably have been classed as a Light Bitter in Britain. While their IPA could have been either a Pale Ale or an IPA in the UK.

You’ll probably notice something when we look at Whitbread’s rather more expansive beer range. Here you go:

Whitbread beers in 1893
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)
20th Jul	X	Mild	1058.7	1015.0	5.78	74.46%	1.81	1.75	2
20th Jul	XK	Mild	1067.3	1020.0	6.26	70.29%	2.08	1.75	2
14th Oct	FA	Pale Ale	1051.2	1014.0	4.93	72.68%	2.42	1.5	1.75
22nd Sep	2PA	Pale Ale	1052.6	1014.0	5.11	73.40%	2.41	1.33	2
20th Oct	PA	Pale Ale	1058.7	1017.0	5.52	71.05%	2.96	1.33	1.92
11th Oct	KK	Stock Ale	1074.5	1025.0	6.55	66.45%	4.38	2	2
8th Dec	2KKK	Stock Ale	1082.5	1035.0	6.29	57.60%	5.38	2	2
13th Dec	KKK	Stock Ale	1087.0	1036.0	6.74	58.61%	5.51	2	2
10th Jan	P	Porter	1055.4	1014.0	5.48	74.73%	1.74	1.5	2
10th Jan	C	Porter	1057.9	1016.0	5.54	72.36%	1.82	1.5	2
15th Feb	SS	Stout	1086.4	1031.0	7.33	64.13%	4.21	2	2
15th Feb	SSS	Stout	1095.0	1034.0	8.07	64.21%	4.63	2	2
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/059 and LMA/4453/D/09/087.

What’s that something? That Labatt mostly only have the base level beer. Their Brown Stout is the equivalent of an English Single Stout, their Pale Ale like Whitbread’s weakest Bitter, Family Ale, while their Stock Ale is barely strong enough to be a KK. And, of course, Mild is missing completely, s is a simple Porter.

The hopping of Labatt’s Pale Ales looks on the low side. The Pale has a round the same quantity of hops as Whitbread’s X Mild. While their IPA has fewer hops than Whitbread’s FA. And don’t get me started on Labatt’s Stock Ale – it’s way off the UK standard for that type of beer. Only the Brown Stout looks to have a similar rate to a UK equivalent.

I went a bit table crazy. Too crazy for a single post. I’m saving the spare ones for next time.

North America calling

For some reason Canada has attracted my attention again. Don’t ask me why. Maybe it was that email asking about an historic Canadian recipe.

You won’t believe how much half-digested information is hanging around in both my head and computer. So many things I’d like to write about, if only I could be fully arsed. Like that article on brewing in London from the 1874 edition of Der Bayerische Bierbrauer. A long and fascinating article with just one little drawback: it’s in German and I’d need to translate it.

Then there are the bound editions of brewing periodicals. I’ve loads of them, mostly unexcavated. I’ve done no more than dip into a couple from periods I have a particular interest in. Maybe when I’ve retired and get bored watching daytime TV I’ll get around to looking through them thoroughly.

But some stuff I’ve neglected because I’m trying to keep focus. It’s not easy and requires iron discipline on my part. And discipline, well, that’s never been my thing. I’ve accumulated various bits and pieces about North American brewing over the years. Not consciously, for the most part. Though that may change. Will change.

This month I’ll start actively harvesting American brewing records. Something I’d hoped someone would do for me. But, you know, people are lazy gits, in general. Even lazier than me. So I’ll be doing it myself.

Why, you might ask. I have my reasons.

There was a point during the writing of The Homebrewer’s Guide to Vintage Beer that the manuscript included several North American beers. But I removed them after I decided which book I wanted to write next: The Homebrewer’s Guide to American Vintage Beer.

Now that’s decided I just need to do the research. And write it. Oh, and find a publisher.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1954 Whitbread Double Brown

I thought for a minute that I’d finished with Whitbread’s beers of the 1950’s. Then remembered that I hadn’t done the Brown Ales. Or the ordinary Mild. Without them, how would you recreate a 1950’s Whitbread pub?

I’ll admit to having a bit of a thing about Double Brown. It is a fascinating beer. A type of Brown Ale which has been forgotten. Sadly, in my opinion as it looks like a cracking beer. Dark, but quite hoppy and a good bit stronger than most post-WW II Brown Ales.

It was introduced in 1932, when it had a very respectable gravity of 1058º. And a grist very different from Whitbread’s Mild Ales. A more expensive grist, using pale ale malt as its base, as did their, er, Pale Ales. At 10 lbs of hops per quarter of malt, it was one of their most heavily hopped beers, ranking above PA (6lbs per quarter) and just behind IPA (11 lbs per quarter). Two things are clear: it wasn’t a cheap drink and it wasn’t based on Mild.

DB managed to survive WW II, though its OG did drop to the low-1040’s. By 1950, it was almost back to its pre-war strength, at 1055º. But it wasn’t to last long. DB was discontinued either in late 1955 or early 1956. And Whitbread concentrated on their other Brown Ale, Forest Brown. A watery beer based on Best Ale, Whitbread’s standard Mild.

You can’t accuse the recipe of being over-complicated. There’s just the base malt, a smidgin of chocolate malt and some No.3 invert sugar. There was a small amount of a proprietary sugar which I’ve replaced by more No. 3. The hops were a combination of Kent, Mid Kent and Sussex. I’ve assumed they were all Fuggles, but feel free to swap some for Goldings.

Whitbread went in for very short boils after WW II and this beer is no exception, being boiled for just 60 minutes.



No time to piss around, just to give you the recipe . . .

1954 Whitbread Double Brown
pale malt	9.00 lb	82.76%
chocolate malt	0.125 lb	1.15%
no. 3 invert sugar	1.75 lb	16.09%
Fuggles 60 min	1.25 oz
Fuggles 40 min	1.25 oz
Fuggles 20 min	1.50 oz
OG	1053
FG	1014.5
ABV	5.09
Apparent attenuation	72.64%
IBU	42
SRM	30
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	60 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

This Friday in NYC

I land in Newark around midday. And have a train from Penn Station to Albany at 16:40. I plan filling the time between with some beers.

If you'd like to say: "You're Ron Pattinson and I claim my right to buy you a pint." drop by. If you're a stingy git, drop by, too. Just bring some pork scratchings.

Not sure how long immigration and all that stuff will take. So being a bit conservative, Friday, 11th March, 2016 about 2 PM, I'll be here:

District Tap House  
246 W 38th St,
New York,
NY 10018
http://www.districttaphouse.com

With an avenue-length thirst and just enough luggage to be a nuisance. That'll be me. And happy to chat with anyone not openly bearing arms. Or grudges.

20% off my Lulu print books.

until the end of today (8th March).

All you need to do is to use this code when you buy:

CLEAR20

Get the whole Mega Book Series  -   Porter!, Mild! plus, Bitter! and Strong! - for a a whole fifth off! For the whole set, that's the equivalent of one free book.


Barclay Perkins Bookstore

Guinness’s Park Royal Brewery in 1949 – the brew house (part seven)

The wort is finally getting the chance to turn itself into beer as we enter the fermenting tuns at Park Royal. Dead exciting, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Somewhat surprisingly for the date, Guinness had wooden fermenters:

“The tuns are of the totally-enclosed type and are constructed in Kauri pine, selected for its very well-known properties of hardness and smooth grain and low coefficient of heat conduction, the large ones being of 1,260 barrel capacity and are 28 ft. long x 26 ft. wide x 20 ft. deep. The small tuns are of 630 barrel capacity; they are 28 ft. long x 13 ft. wide x 20 ft. deep, the liquor dip in each case being 14 ft. 6 in. The ceiling of these vessels is formed by the reinforced concrete floor above, the underside of which is panelled in white glazed tiles.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 284.

The Kauri pine is native to Queensland in Australia and Papua New Guinea. From the description given of the wood’s characteristics, you can see why it might be chosen for making fermenters. A smooth grain means less opportunity for anything nasty to hide in it. And its insulating would have come in handy in a brewery, too.

Looking at those dimensions, the fermenters were quite deep at 20 feet. Deeper than they were wide, in the case of the smaller capacity ones. While the large ones weren’t far off from being cubes. Oh, and pretty large. Even large breweries like Bass had surprisingly small fermenters in the late 19th century. Rarely more than 100 barrels in size. Ones as large as 1,200 barrels I’ve never come across elsewhere.

As I mentioned earlier, Guinness were very unusual in having fermenters with a capacity equal to, or larger than, that of their mash tuns. Usually one brew went into several fermenters rather than the other way around as is common in modern breweries. At least the small to medium size ones.

“No provision is made for the collection of CO2 gas, but the gas flows over and through ports below the door sill to a gas trunking system connecting the fans which discharge the gas to atmosphere over the fermenting house roof. For removal of gas after tunnage, portable reinforced rubber pipes of 6 in. diameter and long enough to reach the bottom of the tun are connected up to the gas trunking system with quick bayonet fastenings. A tun can be freed of gas within half an hour to enable men to enter for washing down. No detergents are used in washing.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 284.

Unlike in German breweries where CO2 collection was required for force carbonation, British breweries often didn’t bother. Their open fermenters weren’t very suited to collection and, when much beer was in cask form, little CO2 was needed. Guinness still bottle-conditioned at this point so didn’t even require CO2 for bottling.

It seems the wooden fermenters weren’t without their problems:

“It may be mentioned that difficulty has been experienced in recent years in these days of low gravities and their attendant troubles, in keeping the surface of the timber bacteriologically clean, and to overcome this it has been decided to line them with sheet metal. The first choice was stainless steel, but owing to the prolonged delivery dates and last, but not least, the very heavy cost involved, aluminium has been adopted. The lining will be of 6 gauge thick aluminium sheet 99-5 per cent, purity to B.S.S. A3 of welded construction with felt and bitumen backing, and the necessary inlet and outlet connections will all be "cleaned up" to remove, as far as possible, all corners where infection could possibly find a lodging.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 284.

Keeping out bugs is, of course, the biggest problem with using wooden vessels in a brewery. Reduced gravities caused British brewers all sorts of trouble in the 20th century. It makes you realise how the old high gravities had allowed brewers to be less careful and still get away with it. When most beers were under 1040º a whole new set of skills were required.

And here are typical problems of the immediate post-war period: shortage of materials. And expensive materials. Brewers often didn’t have the luxury of using exactly what they would have liked. It must have been a frustrating time.

Not quite done with the fermenting kit yet. Rousers and skimmers next.

Canadian Ale in 1909

Numbers – I can never get enough of them. If only I had more time to harvest them. But for some reason a day only has 24 hours rather than the 60 I’d need to get through everything.

This particular set come from a handy little pamphlet published by the Canadian Department of Inland Revenue’s Laboratory. Who says the taxman is no use for anything?

I‘ve billed this as Canadian Ales, but there are a couple of exceptions. Namely the Pilsener that for some inexplicable reason is included with the Ales. And McEwan and Bass, which are British imports. It’s handy having the latter two, as it gives some sort of context for the Canadian beers.

You’ll note that the Canadian examples are generally weaker than the British ones. Though the imports were both top-class beers. Overall, the average of 1050º for Canadian Pale Ales looks low compared to British beers of the period, which you would expect to be around 1055º.

What does surprise me is the high degree of attenuation amongst the Canadian samples. Though this could be because these are finished, bottled beers. Whereas I usually taken the FG of British beers form brewing records, which gives the racking gravity rather than the true final gravity. As many British Pale Ales were still genuine Stock Ales with a long secondary fermentation, the final gravity would have been a good few points lower.

I was also interested to see just how alcoholic the Ginger Beer and Root Beer is. As strong as a lot of 1920’s British Mild Ale.

No long dissertation this time. I’ll just leave you with the table.

Canadian Ale in 1909
Brewer	Town	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
Dolan Bros.	St. Johns, NB	Stone Ginger Beer	Ginger Beer		1028.7	1.34
S.H. McKee & Sons	St. Johns, NB	Stone Ginger Beer	Ginger Beer		1010.7	2.93
Simeon Jones	St. Johns, NB	Red Ball India Pale Ale	IPA	1050.6	1007	6.02	86.17%
McEwan	Edinburgh	India Pale Ale	IPA	1060.1	1004.7	7.61	92.18%
Bass	Burton	Pale Ale	IPA	1065.7	1008.7	7.74	86.76%
average IPA				1058.8	1006.8	7.12	88.37%
T.B. Renaud & Co.	Quebec	Ale	Pale Ale	1010.6	1000.3	1.65	97.17%
John Labatt	London, Ont.	Ale	Pale Ale	1037	1014.1	3.42	61.89%
G.E. Amiot	Quebec	Ale	Pale Ale	1047.1	1009.4	5.24	80.04%
G.E. Amiot	Quebec	Ale	Pale Ale	1047.3	1009.8	5.24	79.28%
John Labatt	London, Ont.	Ale	Pale Ale	1049.4	1010.3	5.31	79.15%
Protean & Carignan	Quebec	Ale	Pale Ale	1050.3	1012.2	5.32	75.75%
Boswell	Quebec	Ale	Pale Ale	1052.2	1004.8	6.48	90.80%
Oland & Son	Halifax, NS	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	1053.4	1008.8	6.24	83.52%
Keith	Halifax, NS	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	1055.5	1006.5	6.71	88.29%
James Ready	St. Johns, NB	Ready's Pale Ale	Pale Ale	1059.8	1005.1	7.40	91.47%
James Ready	Fairville, NS	Ale	Pale Ale	1061.5	1007.1	7.48	88.46%
Halifax Breweries	Halifax, NS	Howard's Ale	Pale Ale	1061.7	1006.7	7.57	89.14%
Halifax Brewing Co.	Halifax, NS	Ale	Pale Ale	1065.6	1014.1	7.01	78.51%
average Pale Ale				1050.1	1008.4	5.77	83.34%
Crystal Spring Mineral Waters Co.	Halifax, NS	Ramey's Pilsener Beer	Pilsner	1024.9	1001.4	3.48	94.38%
W.B. Daley	St. Johns, NB	Root Beer	Root Beer		997.7	2.72
Source:
"Ale and lager beer" by McGill, A. (Anthony), 1910, pages 4 - 19.