PDA

View Full Version : Shut up about Barclay Perkins - Another look at Scottish hopping



Blog Tracker
07-03-2012, 10:00
Visit the Shut up about Barclay Perkins site (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-look-at-scottish-hopping.html)

I'm always looking for new ways to analyse Scottish hopping rates. This is, I think, one of the best yet. Thank Brewer's Almanack and its many tables.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pmKmphvNrQU/T1S_b6w9JsI/AAAAAAAAIxY/9qLV0H3vw9g/s320/Younger_Holyrood_Ale.JPG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pmKmphvNrQU/T1S_b6w9JsI/AAAAAAAAIxY/9qLV0H3vw9g/s1600/Younger_Holyrood_Ale.JPG)
Because one lists brewing materials used and the number of barrels brewed each year. Which means I can easily work out the average hopping rate of beer brewed in the UK. Pretty handy, eh? Then there's William Younger. Their brewing records have a similar table. Combine the two and what do you get? Numbers fun.

It seems like a pretty fair comparison to me. How did Younger's hop usage stack up against the UK in general? I'll be honest, the results aren't very clear. Then there's a caveat about the numbers themselves. The dry hops are missing for some breweries in the UK figures. While they are included in the Younger's ones. Getting Confused? It gets worse. Younger's records have three different figures for the amount of beer brewed: barrels in the tun, barrels cleansed and excise barrels. Which to use? Because the barrels brewed in the UK figures is, I'm pretty sure, the number of barrels on which duty was charged. Or excise barrels. Whereas the materials are those used to brew the beer before any losses. That is, a larger number of barrels. So the real average quantity of hops per barrel would be lower. Because some of the hops would have been in the barrels lost during production.

On the face of, I should use the number of excise barrels. But, to be on the safe side, I've included the figures for both excise barrels and barrels in tun (i.e. number of barrels actually brewed). Feel free to use which ever set you prefer.




Brewing materials and hopping rates 1914 - 1950



UK
Younger


year
grains (qtrs)
sugar (qtrs)
total (qtrs)
hops (lbs)
barrels
hops lbs/barrel
hops lbs/qtr
hops lbs/barrel (in tuns)
hops lbs/barrel (excise)
hops lbs/qtr


1914
7,099,421
1,639,855
8,739,276
62,655,376
36,162,273
1.73
7.17
1.30
1.40
5.95


1920
5,606,089
1,067,796
6,673,884
56,351,680
34,776,258
1.62
8.44





1922
4,418,298
811,034
5,229,332
44,632,672
27,815,249
1.60
8.54
1.45
1.59
6.60


1924
4,048,132
849,885
4,898,017
39,247,936
25,927,783
1.51
8.01
1.50
1.63
6.83


1926
3,932,891
916,457
4,849,348
39,802,000
25,987,830
1.53
8.21





1928
3,790,826
919,135
4,709,961
37,034,144
24,981,731
1.48
7.86





1930
3,622,839
917,619
4,540,458
34,416,368
24,488,629
1.41
7.58





1931
3,276,937
849,082
4,126,019
31,069,472
22,561,497
1.38
7.53
1.35
1.48
6.46


1932
2,553,740
688,563
3,242,303
24,593,744
18,864,711
1.30
7.59





1933
2,591,074
689,983
3,281,056
24,961,216
18,931,185
1.32
7.61
1.30
1.48
6.75


1934
2,851,752
771,614
3,623,366
26,142,928
20,378,879
1.28
7.22
1.04
1.27
5.49


1935
3,014,416
815,963
3,830,379
27,859,328
21,598,179
1.29
7.27





1936
3,083,263
852,709
3,935,972
28,929,600
22,207,859
1.30
7.35





1937
3,242,085
917,943
4,160,028
30,306,304
23,608,658
1.28
7.29





1938
3,360,389
947,387
4,307,776
31,118,752
24,339,360
1.28
7.22





1939
3,543,161
993,239
4,536,400
32,000,080
25,691,217
1.25
7.05





1940
3,409,779
766,388
4,176,167
29,737,344
24,925,704
1.19
7.12
0.80
0.85
4.93


1941
3,749,022
698,821
4,447,843
28,151,648
28,170,582
1.00
6.33





1942
3,784,318
705,711
4,490,029
24,976,784
29,584,656
0.84
5.56





1943
3,855,366
700,287
4,555,652
25,937,968
29,811,321
0.87
5.69





1944
4,001,824
729,324
4,731,148
27,316,800
31,380,684
0.87
5.77





1945
4,004,332
892,032
4,896,364
27,420,064
31,990,334
0.86
5.60





1946
3,749,165
895,011
4,644,176
25,334,064
31,066,950
0.82
5.46





1947
3,387,187
800,593
4,187,780
24,389,008
30,103,180
0.81
5.82





1948
3,392,205
721,779
4,113,984
25,924,640
28,813,725
0.90
6.30





1949
3,217,710
651,606
3,869,316
26,113,696
26,744,457
0.98
6.75





1950
3,201,590
642,939
3,844,529
26,093,648
25,339,062
1.03
6.79
0.83
1.18
5.12


Sources:


William Younger brewing records documents WY/6/1/2/45, WY/6/1/2/58, WY/6/1/2/63, WY/6/1/2/68, WY/6/1/2/70, WY/6/1/2/76 and WY/6/1/2/88 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive


1953 Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 62




Between 1922 and 1934, Younger's average hopping rate is very close to the national average. In 1914 and 1940, however, it's a fair bit lower. For 1950, it depends on which barrelage figure you pick. One's about 20% less, the other about 15% more.

Despite the problems with the numbers, it would seem difficult to claim that Younger used a much smaller quantity of hops in its beers than the average for the UK. Remember that the averages include the large Burton brewers who between them would have been responsible for several million barrels. I can't imagine they were hopping at the average rate.

Overall, slightly negative evidence. By which I mean, there's nothing in there to back up the assertion that Scottish brewers used significantly smaller quantities of hops than English brewers.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5445569787371915337-189081574068170323?l=barclayperkins.blogspot.com


More... (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-look-at-scottish-hopping.html)