Growing hops in Egypt (part one)

I was quite surprised to find a report about growing hops in Egypt early in the 20th century.

From what little I know about the growing of hops, they require very specific climatic conditions. One of which is the length of daylight in the summer. Which, in the northern hemisphere, means that there's a limit to how far south hops can be grown. And the limit is much further north than the southern coast of the Mediterranean. Meaning growing hops in Egypt was never going to work.

The Cultivation of Hops in Egypt.
Some years ago we drew attention to the fact that Mr. C. Howard Tripp, managing director to Messrs. Ind, Coope and Co., of Burton-on-Trent and Romford, was endeavouring to start the cultivation of hops in Egypt. The matter was taken well in hand, and, through the kindness of Dr. Mackenzie, the Principal of the School of Agriculture at Ghizeh, near Cairo, three-quarters of an acre of Government land was reserved for making a trial. Mr. Tripp has twice visited Egypt during the last few years, and, on each occasion, thoroughly inspected the hops; they were not sufficiently advanced, nor did there seem to be much prospect of success. The matter has, however, recently been again brought under Mr. Tripp’s notice, and, at his request. Dr. Mackenzie instructed his assistant, Mr. Linton — who is in charge of the hop cultivation at the School of Agriculture above mentioned — to make an exhaustive report on the whole subject.

The Trade has every reason to be grateful for this disinterested enterprise which Mr. Tripp has undertaken, and our readers will be glad to learn that he is nothing daunted by the want of success which has, up to the present, attended the scheme. He has now suggested to Dr. Mackenzie that as the English hop sets, Essex, Worcesters, East Kents, Wealds, have all more or less failed to withstand the trying July heat referred to in the report, Californian hops might, perhaps, prove better adapted to these conditions. Mr. Tripp purposes, therefore, sending Dr. Mackenzie, during this autumn, from California, a quantity of hop sets. It would unquestionably be a great assistance to the trade if it were possible to grow a large quantity of hops, even of the Californian type, in Egypt. No crop is more insidious than the hop, and the shortage of the present season brings this prominently to the minds of brewers. la order that our readers may see for themselves how very thoroughly these interesting experiments have been carried out, we give below in extense the report on the subject already mentioned. If it be found possible to make the necessary arrangements a trial may be made in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, where during the summer the atmosphere is moister and the temperature lower than at Ghizeh.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 644 - 645.

For anyone brewing in Egypt, locally-grown hops would have been dead handy. Plenty of barley was grown in the Middle East and hops would have been the only ingredient which would have needed to be imported.

I'm not surprised that English hop varieties struggled in the heat of the Egyptian summer. Though, given the daylight requirements of hops, American varieties weren't going to fare much better. Making any attempt at growing hops in Egypt futile. I wonder when they realised how much daylight hops required?

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1912 Crowley AK

You’re probably starting to realise just how common the name AK was before WW I. Being brewed by dozens of breweries across England. It was only after the gravity reductions of the two world wars WW I that the style began dying out.

This looks like a pretty typical example, with a gravity in the mid 1040ºs, light body and relatively modest hopping (for the time). A classic Light Bitter.

The recipe is wonderfully simple. Just two types of pale malt along with some No. 3 invert sugar. Oh, and a ting amount of malt extract, which I’ve omitted as the quantity was so small. I assume that it was included to add extra enzymes.

Not much complication with the hopping, either. There are two types of English hops, both from the 1911 harvest.
 

1912 Crowley AK
pale malt	9.50 lb	92.68%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.75 lb	7.32%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.00 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1046
FG	1010
ABV	4.76
Apparent attenuation	78.26%
IBU	36
SRM	8
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

 

Oak used in casks

As you may already be aware, UK brewers used almost exclusively Memel oak from the Eastern Baltic to construct their casks.

The discussion which was initiated by Mr. Babington, at the June meeting of the London Institute of Brewing, opened out a very interesting, and, at the same time, a very puzzling question. The timber used in making brewers’ casks is, and has been for countless years, nothing but oak. It is a curious fact, however, that the only kind of oak practically ever used for making casks in which ale is to be stored is that hailing from the Baltic seaports, in other words, the Memel timber.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

There was, however, one UK brewer bucking this trend.

We believe we are correct in stating that the largest firm of stout brewers in the world use nothing but American timber, and they find it in every way satisfactory. But, from long experience, no brewer of ale will be found who can depend on the Quebec oak as a receptacle for his fine produce. At Guinness’s no cooper ever makes an entire cask. The rough hewn Quebec planks are trimmed by one man, passed on to the next for shaping, and so on, until at length they are pieced together and hooped at the other end of the shop.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

Can you guess who that one brewer might be? Largest Stout brewer in the world? It has to be Guinness.

Given that Memel oak was expensive, there was an incentive to use the cheaper North American oak. Prompting brewers to attempt various treatments to remove the woody flavour. All to no avail.

The question, however, that interests us, is why we cannot use the American timber for ale casks? Mr. Babington merely expressed the experience of numerous other ale brewers, when he gave that of his own firm. “We fired our Quebec-timber casks; we steamed them; we boiled them ; we boiled with salt water; we stood them for days; we filled them with sour beer; we bi-sulphited them. They went into the trade, and came back with ‘neat’ beer labelled ‘casky.’ Many experiments have been made with a view to elucidate this mystery of the Quebec timber — all to no purpose, we regret to state. One of Mr. Babington’s friends in the coopering trade tried very drastic treatment. He tried common soda with hot water for varying numbers of hours; soda with alum or salts of tartar; salts of tartar with copperas and boiling water; common salt in varying quantities; lime; solution of pearl ash — all, as we have said, to no purpose." Even coating with paraffin did not eliminate the woody flavour. It is true that this now well-known process will render casks less porous, and should thus tend to remedy the evils attendant upon the use of American oak, or any other variety; but, as it happens, the Quebec timber is by no means of a very porous nature; and, except for this curious property of communicating casky flavours to ale, it appears to be an ideal substance for making brewers’ vessels.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

Not even lining the casks the casks with paraffin helped.

There was scientific research being undertaken into the various types of oak. Though, up unto that point, without any definitive result.

We must confess that some of the methods of treating casks detailed by Mr. Babington do not recommend themselves to us, and, indeed, seem more likely to injure than to cure. For instance, we have never advocated the custom of “pickling” barrels in brine. It is our experience that casks treated with common salt are most difficult to get dry; indeed, they never appear to become thoroughly ary after such treatment, and no doubt the use of pungent chemicals must take some of the “nature” out of the timber, however hard it may be originally. It is very interesting to note that Mr. Matthew J. Cannon is making some experiments on the chemical nature of the various types of oak used in breweries. The tests he has already applied do not afford us any definite information, but his work is, as yet, in its infancy, and he may ere long have some more definite announcement to make. When the nature of these various woods has been established by research, Mr. Cannon will be in a better position to treat his subject scientifically. It is obvious that we must not rob the timber of its valuable resinous constituents, nor of its tannin, for these substances act as powerful preservative agents. We await with deep interest the elucidation of this important problem, as the timber imported from the Baltic is very dear, and it seems rather an odd thing that the good, sound Quebec wood cannot be used in our breweries, on account of practical reasons that, at present, admit of no satisfactory explanation.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

What was the ultimate resolution? Moving from wooden to metal casks.

Berliner Weisse yeast

This was a fun little article to come across. And not just because it references Schonfeld, the VLB's top-fermentation specialist. But also on account of a feeling of smugness that comes over me knowing that I have a slightly deeper understanding of the topic than the author. Purely because of the advances that have occurred in brewing science in the last 100 year.

The Pitching Yeast of Berlin White Beer.
According to Schonfeld (Wochenschrift für Brauerei), the pitching yeast of Berlin white beer (Weissbier), occupies a unique position among yeasts, inasmuch as, instead of being carefully protected from bacterial infection, it owes its value precisely to its high content of a special kind of bacteria, namely, the rod-like lactic acid bacterium. The usual proportion of yeast cells to bacteria is 4 to 7 to 1. The yeast itself is also characterised by unusually high fermenting power, the attenuation at the close of primary fermentation averaging 70 to 75 per cent., as compared with the 35 to 40 per cent, of ordinary beers.

At one time the brewers did not prepare the pitching yeast themselves, but obtained it from the retailers; but, as this yeast is very liable to degenerate, another source had to be drawn upon, namely, the yeast used in the production of Kottbus bitter beer. At present, however, it has become the custom to prepare the pitching yeast in the brewery, and it has now attained such fixity of type as to be capable of continued use without losing its character.

The lactic ferment is probably of the same origin as those present in sour milk and the acid distillery mash, modified into the present variety by long exposure to the particular environment, and so fixed in type as to be no longer reconvertible. Although the final mashing temperature of this beer is too high to permit the reproduction of similar bacteria, it is probable that, before the employment of the thermometer, the final temperature was appreciably lower; and, as it has always been the custom to work with an open mash-tun during the filtration of the wort, it seems feasible to assume that the lactic bacteria first found their way into the pitching yeast in this manner, and that they have since become acclimatized to the conditions prevailing in the brewing process.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, July 15th 1902, page 436.

This is the bit that struck me: "The yeast itself is also characterised by unusually high fermenting power". Why? Because the very high attenuation in Berliner Weisse isn't as a result of the primary pitching yeast. But of the Brettanomyces that kicks off during secondary fermentation. As this was before Clausen revealed the secondary yeast's existence, you can't really blame the article's author. Especially as, even after everyone knew about Brettanomyces, no-one niticed it in Berliner Weisse until the 1980s.

Did the Lactobacillus really originally get picked from the environment? Sounds feasible to me.

LICENSING (IRELAND) ACT, 1902

Ireland seems yo have had even stricter rules on the issuance of new pub licences than in the rest of the UK. A situation which persists today. It being virtually impossible to create a new licence.

This act from 1902, in principle, forbade the issuing of any new licences for both on and off sales. Pretty damn drastic. There were limited exceptions. Though one of those, replacing a surrendered licence, wasn't really issuing a new licence. The population growth exception, given the then demographics of Ireland, was never likely to come into effect. Between 1900 and 1914 the population declined a little, by around 80,000.

It's interesting how often special rules applied for railway refreshment rooms.

LICENSING (IRELAND) ACT, 1902.
1. This Act shall extend to Ireland only, and may be cited as the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902.

2. From and after the passing of this Act no licence shall be granted for tho sale of intoxicating liquor, whether for consumption on or off the premises, except—

(1) For premises which are now licensed or which were licensed at any time since the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and two; or
(2) For an hotel, which expression shall refer to a house containing at least ten apartments set apart and used exclusively for the sleeping accommodation of travellers, and having no public bar for the sale of intoxicating liquors ; or
(3) For a railway refreshment room.

3. Where, by reason of the expiration of a lease, a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises comprised in the lease is extinguished or surrendered, the licensing authority may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, grant a licence for suitable premises in the immediate vicinity of the premises to which the licence so extinguished or surrendered was attached.

4. Where, owing to the increase in population, there is a growth or extension of any city or town, and the licensing authority are satisfied that the restrictions in this Act on the granting of licences may be relaxed, they may grant a licence to any applicant, notwithstanding that the same would be otherwise forbidden by this Act, provided that such licence shall be granted only for premises situate in the parish in which such increase in population has taken place, and in substitution for an existing licence or licences held in respect of premises situate within the city or town, as the case may be, comprising the whole or any part of the parish.

5. In the case of applications under section two, subsection two, and sections three and four, the premises shall be valued under the Irish Valuation Acts at not less than—

Thirty pounds in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District and the city of Belfast;
Twenty pounds in the cities of Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Londonderry;
Fifteen pounds in the city of Kilkenny and the town of Galway;
Twelve pounds in any other town of over ten thousand inhabitants at the census ascertained next preceding the application; and
Ten pounds in all other places.

6. Nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent the granting of new licences, where the licensing authority thinks fit, to premises attached to or adjoining premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors at the date of the passing of this Act; provided always, that such new licence as last hereinbefore mentioned shall only be granted in order to render the said licensed premises more suitable for the business carried on therein.

7. Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the law as to the transfer or assignment of licences from one person to another or as to the renewal of licences.

8 In this Act—

The expression “increase in population” shall be taken to mean an increase of not less than twenty-five per cent, of the population according to the last census;
The expression "licence” means any licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor granted by an officer of excise other than a wholesale beer dealer’s licence, or a licence required for a military or constabulary canteen, or a licence which can be granted without the production of a certificate of a recorder or justice; and

Other expressions shall have respectively the same meaning as in the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, and for this purpose this Act shall be construed with the said Acts.

9. This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and seven, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, August 15th 1902, page 474.

Even though is specifically states that the Act is only in force until the end of 1907, I suspect that it really remained in force much, much longer.

 

Let's Brew - 1904 Tetley K

I’m pretty convinced now that this is a type of Pale Ale. Specifically, a Light Bitter. It does, after all, have the classic 1045º

There have been a couple of changes to K since 1888. For a start, it’s lost 4º of gravity. Which is sort of what you would expect. There was a general downward trend in gravities in this period.

The grist has also changed, moving away all malt by including some No. 2 invert sugar. Though the malts remain a combination of pale and mild malt.

For a Pale ale, the hopping rate was relatively light, at 7.75 lbs per quarter (336 lbs). Which was slightly less than the strongest Mild Ales, X3 and XX.

As for the hops, they were all English. Worcester from the 1902 harvest and Kent from 1902 and 1903. 

1904 Tetley K
pale malt	5.25 lb	55.26%
mild malt	3.00 lb	31.58%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.25 lb	13.16%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1045
FG	1008
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	82.22%
IBU	38
SRM	7
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

UK hop acreage 1900 - 1902

In the four decades running uop to WW I there was a steep decline in the area devoted to growing hops. Falling from 60,594 acres in 1870 to 38,661 acres in 1914. Which is one of the reasons the UK was so dependent on imported hops.

At the start of the 20th century, hops were only grown in nine counties in the UK. Though in three of those - Gloucester, Salop and Suffolk - the area dedicated to hops was tiny. Just as today, most hops were grown in Kent. The county accounted for over 60% of the acreage. Far behind in second place was Herefordshire with just 14%. Followed, rather surprisingly, by Sussex with a tad under 10%. With Worcester in fourth place on almost 8%.

I'm surprised at how many hops were being grown Hampshire. Are there any still grown there today? I'm also shocked by how few were grown in Worcester. As they turn up regularly in brewing records. Yet you never see Hereford hops. I think what was happening was that the two were lumped together and called Worcester. 

UK hop acreage 1900 - 1902
Counties	1900		1901		1902
	Acres	%	Acres	%	Acres	%
Gloucester	47	0.09%	46	0.09%	46	0.10%
Hants	2,231	4.35%	2,133	4.17%	2,003	4.17%
Hereford	7,287	14.20%	7,497	14.66%	6,908	14.38%
Kent	31,514	61.42%	31,242	61.11%	29,649	61.74%
Salop	138	0.27%	144	0.28%	125	0.26%
Suffolk	4	0.01%	4	0.01%	4	0.01%
Surrey	1,300	2.53%	1,232	2.41%	969	2.02%
Sussex	4,823	9.40%	4,800	9.39%	4,541	9.46%
Worcester	3,964	7.73%	4,029	7.88%	3,779	7.87%
Total	51,308	100.00%	51,127	100.00%	48,024	100.00%
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, September 15th 1902, page 519.

UK beer imports in 1902

Well, for the first half of 1902. Long enough to give some idea of the source and quantity of beer imports.

The quantity of beer being imported compared to the quantities of beer being brewed and consumed in the UK. Imports accounted for only about 1.5% of UK beer consumption. And, when we look at the sources of imports, that imported beer seems to have been almost exclusively Lager. Which makes sense. The UK waas perfectly capable of brewing its own Pale Ale and Stout.

I was quite surprised at the biggest source of imports: The Netherlands. It was the origin of more than 50% of the beer coming into the UK. That's not what I would have expected. Which would have been Germany and Austria. Germany does come second, but Austria is nowhere to be seen. Which implies that no Pilsner Urquell was being imported into the UK. The first Lager imported into the UK in the 1860s mostly came from Austria. Which makes it even odder none was coming from there in 1902.

Though beer was coming from some weird places. Such as the USA and Japan. It seems really weird to ship beer all the way from Japan to Europe. No wonder that was some of the most expensive at 60 shillings per barrel. Sweden, Denmark and Norway make more sense, as all were locations for early Lager brewing.

To put the prices into context, standard Mild Ale cost 36 shillings per barrel. There's a large variation in average price, from 38 shillings to 133 shillings. Only the beer from the Channel Islands is around the same price as UK domestically-brewed beer.

UK beer imports in 1902
Country	Quantity				Value
	Jan. to June		July		Jan. to June.	July
	Barrels	average price	Barrels	average price	£	£
Sweden	96	57.08	15	69.33	274	52
Norway	198	88.38	45	91.11	875	205
Denmark	1,976	69.17	510	71.18	6,834	1,815
Germany	8,566	55.78	2,406	57.56	23,892	6,924
Holland	13,456	53.21	4,666	47.28	35,798	11,030
Belgium	865	43.21	462	47.10	1,869	1,088
Channel Islands	54	38.52	2	40.00	104	4
United States	31	133.55	4	50.00	207	10
Canada	-		10	96.00	-	48
Japan	4	60.00	-		12	-
France	-		2	20.00	-	2
Total	25,256	55.36	8,112	52.10	69,913	21,130
			33,368			91,043
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, August 15th 1902, page 496.

 

UK beer imports 1903 - 1914
year	barrels	year	barrels
1903	55,560	1909	54,374
1904	52,059	1910	50,927
1905	51,944	1911	53,541
1906	54,664	1912	64,706
1907	57,574	1913	64,346
1908	53,395	1914	74,205
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 154.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 115.
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 51.

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1904 Tetley X

At this point, Tetley had two parallel sets of Mild Ales. The standard ones and ones with the suffix “Pale”. This is one of the former.

You might have expected this to be similar to the pale version, just with more caramel. But it isn’t. The grist is, in reality, rather different. For a start, around a third of it consists of grits. Something totally absent from the pale version. It seems to substitute for a good chunk of the mild malt.

The sugar is different, too. “M. Brazilian” rather than the “RC(3)” in the pale. I’ve interpreted it as being a type of raw cane sugar. There’s also rather more caramel in this version.

There’s just a single type of Kent hops. I’ve guessed Fuggles. Which seems fair enough for a Mild. At a lower hopping rate than for Pale: 4.25 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt compared to 5.75 lbs.

1904 Tetley X
pale malt	2.50 lb	31.33%
mild malt	1.50 lb	18.80%
grits	2.67 lb	33.46%
brown sugar	1.25 lb	15.66%
Caramel 1000 SRM	0.06 lb	0.75%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1039
FG	1009
ABV	3.97
Apparent attenuation	76.92%
IBU	19
SRM	12
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

 

Reminding you of my books

 Just a reminder of some of the excellent books I have for sale.

First, there's my latest on UK brewing in the 1970s, which includes over 100 recipes, including such classic keg beers as Watney's Red, Whitbread Trophy, Whitbread Tankard and Drybrough Heavy.

 

Then there's my wonderful monograph tracing the history of London Stout from its 18th-century origins through to the 1970s. It includes 277 historic London Stout recipes.

   

My book "Blitzkrieg!" on brewing in WW II is so detailed that it spreads to two volumes. The second volume containing 553 wartime recipes, including some from Heineken.

 

Then there are two volumes of travel reports. Books so popular they have single-digit sales. 

 

My little book on Berlinet Weisse is easily the best work on the topic in English. And includes 19 historic recipes. 

 

Another of my many beery obsessions is covered in "AK!", a detailed look at the classic style of Light Bitter. As you would expect, it comes with a couple of dozen historic recipes

   

"Strong!" is part of my series on UK beer styles. Volume 2 contains the recipes, of which there are 135. Volumes 1 and 2 contains both the general history text and recipes.

 

And finally, another little monograph about IPA during WW II. Includes 31 historic recipes.

Non-Alcoholic Beer

One of the topics I love banging on about is how rarely anything genuinely new appears in the world of beer. So you can imagine how delighted I was to come across an old reference to alcohol-free beer.

The process being used was to brew an alcoholic beer and then remove most of the alcohol through evaporation.

Non-Alcoholic Beer.
The process of reducing the percentage of alcohol in beer, to the limit of one per cent, of proof spirit, followed by cold storage, filtration and carbonation of beer, is very interesting, the ordinary vacuum pan being of very little service. Alcohol no doubt is sufficiently volatile, but to ensure expulsion the fluid undergoing ebullition in the vacuum pan must be constantly circulated and sprayed at a temperature of 125 deg. F., for under normal circumstances “bready” flavour comes into existence, the period of treatment being altogether excessive. We have found it absolutely necessary to complete evaporation in one hour, and this is alone possible so long as the contents of vacuum pan exist in sheet form, a neat engineering achievement. With this proviso, the process can be carried to a very successful issue, the carbonated beverage being brilliant, sparkling, and non-alcoholic. The opening for genuine, non-alcoholic beer of the kind does not exist in England, but in Mass., U.S.A., the price secured for the article is a gratifying recompense for the trouble taken.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, July 15th 1902, page 434.

Though note that this technique was being used in the USA, not in the UK. From the last sentence it sounds like back then, just as today, non-alcoholic beer was being sold for a similar price to the full-strength version.

Brewery Profits

Look, it's Sunday, I'm a bit drowsy from a big roast dinner and there's footy on the telly. A short post today. Mostly just a quote, too. Just like the glory days of this blog.

The figures below cover 1907 to 1913. A time when increased taxation - in particular pub licences - had put many brewers into financial difficulties. But that isn't reflected in these figures.

"The Statist" and Brewery Profits.
The Statist (Sept. 26, Oct. 3, 10, 1914) deals with the results for 1913 and the prospects of brewery companies, in continuation of previous years' statements. The prospects are put in a somewhat rosy light, but they were looked at before the beer duty was trebled in November. The Statist shows that for 1913 the average dividend earned by the companies it enumerates, on their ordinary shares, amounting to a nominal value of £29,518,000, was 9.10 per cent., while the average rate of dividend paid was 6.68 per cent. Putting these figures side by side with similar calculations made in previous years the following comparison is reached:

Brewery company dividends 1907 - 1913
	1907	1908	1911	1912	1913
Average dividend earned-per cent.	11.9	9.81	8.72	8.65	9.1
paid	6.71	6.25	-	6.17	6.68

The averages for 1913 are still well below those for 1907, although the aggregate consumption of beer in 1913 was considerably more. The reason of course  is not far to seek; it is to be found in the large increase of taxation since 1907 and latterly the higher cost of all brewing materials.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 215.

I wouldn't say that the 1913 averages were much lower than those of 1907. The percentage paid after tax is only smaller by a tiny amount.

A comparison of brewing adjuncts

I'm having so much fun researching the book I'm currently working on, "Free!". I'm at the happy phase where some sections are pretty much complete and I'm filling in blanks. Currently, it's the part on adjuncts that I'm polishing off. Hence this post.

Though I'm not going to post the book text. As I've said a few times recently I'm returning this blog to its roots. Of serving up bits of raw data before I cook them into finished book text.

We're going to compare three popular adjuncts: maize, rice and oats. And see which makes the most useful adjunct.

Of greatest importance is the starch content. Because that's what is converted into extract. You can see that is considerably higher in rice. Which is probably why, initially after 1880, rice was the most popular adjunct. Though, by 1900, most brewers had switched to cheaper maize.

Though maize also had a problem: the high oil content. Because of its horrible flavour, it needed to be removed before brewing.

"By the removal of the germ and husk the oil is almost taken away from the com. This oil is of a yellow colour, and on exposure to the atmosphere is liable to turn rancid; it has an unpleasant flavour, gives off a disagreeable odour, and is removed by special degenerating machines by means of revolving knives acting upon the germs and husks."
Thatcher, Frank, A Treatise of Practical Brewing and Malting (The Country Brewers' Gazette, London, 1907), page 257.

I'm surprised at how high the starch content of oats. Even higher than that of maize. Though the yield in extract was rather poor. Oats could be used to boost body due to their high content of albuminous matter. Around 10% oats in the grist filled out the body of Stouts nicely. 

A comparison of brewing adjuncts
	rice	maize	oats
Starch	79	55.1	56.1
Water	10.6	12.0	13.6
Oil	0.1	5.5	4.0
Cellulose..	0.2	13.2	1.0
Albuminoids	7.5	8.0	16.5
Carbohydrates ..	1.4	3.0	6.0
Ash	1.0	1.8	2.4
Loss	0.2	1.4	0.4
total	100	100	100
Source:
Thatcher, Frank, A Treatise of Practical Brewing and Malting (The Country Brewers' Gazette, London, 1907), pages 256 - 259.

Let's Brew - 1887 Truman (Burton) Light Bitter

Sometime between 1883 and 1887, Truman introduced a new type of Pale Ale, called LB. One which was quite different from their existing beers. I’m assuming it stood for Light Bitter. What else could it be?

What makes it different? Once again, it’s the hopping. Which is far lower than in the other Pale Ales. Just 5.25 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt. Compared to between 14.5 lbs and 20 lbs. Quite a big difference, then. Though its gravity is a little higher than that of P2.

The grist isn’t the same, either. As there’s some sugar as well as the pale malt. Not sure exactly what sort of sugar, as there’s no description in the brewing record. I’ve guessed No. 1 invert. Not exactly a daring guess.

Three types of hops: Californian and Kent from the 1885 harvest and Worcester from 1886. Just not all that many of them. Though it still comes out 42 (Calculated) IBU.

As a Light Bitter, this would have had no ageing. It would have been drunk within a couple of weeks of racking.

1887 Truman (Burton) Light Bitter
pale malt	12.75 lb	91.07%
No. 1 invert sugar	1.25 lb	8.93%
Cluster 180 mins	1.00 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1064
FG	1019
ABV	5.95
Apparent attenuation	70.31%
IBU	42
SRM	6.5
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	180 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	WLP013 London Ale (Worthington White Shield)