PDA

View Full Version : Shut up about Barclay Perkins - 1880 - 1914 Adjuncts Arrive



Blog Tracker
30-11-2013, 08:14
Visit the Shut up about Barclay Perkins site (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2013/11/1880-1914-adjuncts-arrive.html)



1880-1914 Adjuncts arrive (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Free Mash Tun ActA highly significant piece of legislation was adopted in 1880: the so-called Free Mash Tun Act. It introduced a new method of taxing beer and removed restrictions on ingredients.


The 1830 Beer Act had repealed all excise duty on beer. Instead, the raw materials needed to brew beer were taxed instead. In 1880 the malt and hop tax were replaced with excise duty on beer, based on the original gravity of the wort. This duty was payable at the end of the month.


As soon as the wort had run into the fermenting tun, it was checked by an Excise Officer to determine its volume and gravity. This was the basis on which beer duty was calculated. An allowance of 6% was made by the Excise for losses during fermentation. At the end of each month a calculation was made to convert the total amount of beer brewed into its equivalent in standard barrels. Should the yield have been fewer than 4 standard barrels per quarter, then the duty was levied on the materials used, rather than the number of standard barrels produced. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 528-529.)


For Excise purposes, a quarter of malt was deemed to be 336 pounds. The following amounts of other fermentables were considered by the Excise to be the equivalent of a quarter of malt:


cane sugar 224 lbs
glucose or invert sugar 256 lbs
flaked maize or rice 256 lbs
No. 1 syrup 272 lbs
No. 2 syrup 328 lbs
(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 529.)


Breweries were now able to use a whole range of adjuncts, such as maize, rice and unmalted barley. This was the final nail in the coffin for private brewers, whose last advantage over commercial brewers had been the ability to use whatever ingredients they chose. As duty was paid on the wort, there was a big financial; disincentive to age beer for long periods. The tax already having been paid, it meant huge amounts of capital were tied up in maturing beer. Fashion had already been moving away from the "aged" taste in beer (derived from the action of brettanomyces). The decline in production of vatted Stock Ales and Stouts was further accelerated by this change in the law.


Not all drinkers were so keen on brewers being given a free rein to use what they liked in their beer. In 1886 an organisation called The Pure Beer Movement was Formed in Kent to campaign for restrictions on the ingredients used in brewing. Originally based in the Southeast, the group expanded its activities to cover the whole of the country at the end of the year. "As a general principle, the average Briton believes in malt and hops as a sheet anchor of the Constitution, and a million scientific statements to the contrary would not convince him that good beer can be brewed in any but an orthodox way." (Source: DNW June 10th 1886.)


A Pure Beer Bill was introduced to parliament in 1886. It would have compelled wholesalers and retailers of beer that contained anything other than malted barley and hops to display a prominent sign saying what else was in it. Sounds fair enough to me, and way ahead of its time. Of course, it didn't pass and never became law. (Source: News of the World, May 23rd 1886.)


Beer production fell between 1900 and 1910, partly in response to a tax increase in 1901 to help fund the Boer War. It began to rise again from 1911 until the outbreak of WW I. Average gravity fell by about 2º between 1900 and 1914. That would turn out to be insignificant compared to the massive changes in beer strengths wrought by the two world wars.






British brewing overview 1880 - 1914






Production (barrels)

Production (hl)

Duty per standard barrel

Average OG

Net excise receipts (pounds)



1880



30,742,649



50,312,190



6s 3d









1881



27,352,361



44,763,780



6s 3d






3,482,271



1882









6s 3d






8,530,819



1883









6s 3d






8,400,368



1884









6s 3d






8,488,169



1885



27,986,493



45,801,575



6s 3d






8,544,749



1890



30,808,315



50,419,656



6s 3d






9,410,426



1895



34,404,287



56,304,680



6s 3d






10,494,329



1900



37,105,042



60,724,628



6s 9d



1054.93



12,345,150



1901









7s 9d









1902









7s 9d






13,718,438



1903









7s 9d









1905



35,415,523



57,959,628



7s 9d



1053.23



13,101,459



1910



34,299,914



56,133,867



7s 9d



1053.2



12,531,620



1911



34,923,000



57,153,585



7s 9d



1053






1912



36,476,000



59,695,163



7s 9d



1052.7






1913



36,296,000



59,400,582



7s 9d



1052.6



13,200,343



1914



37,558,767



61,467,176



7s 9d



1052.8



13,622,971



Source:



Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 110












Organisation of the Industry (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Surprisingly, even the largest breweries, such as Whitbread, Barclay Perkins and Truman, operated as partnerships up until almost the end of the 19th century. Starting around 1880, most were transformed into limited companies. The capital generated by share issues was used to buy public houses. Legislation to limit the number of on licences, or even reduce them, prompted breweries to start buying pubs to secure outlets.


The table below shows the decline in public houses between 1880 and 1914:




Number of pubs 1875 - 1914






pub and beerhouse licences





1875



112,978





1880



119,229





1881



106,941





1885



105,100





1890



103,813





1900



101,370





1901



101,940





1905



99,606





1910



93,192





1911



91,247





1913



88,768





1914



87,960



Source:



Brewers' Almanack 1928





Given that during the same period the British population rose from 35 to 46 million, the fall in the number of pubs is even more dramatic.




As a result of breweries frantic buying, the price of pubs in London rocketed. A pub in Hackney that had cost £9,500 in 1892, was sold for £23,000 in 1897. Another that in 1895 cost £20,000 was resold in 1897 for £32,000. When you consider that a pint of beer cost 2d at the time, these are incredible sums.


Small wonder that some breweries, such as Allsopp, ended up in financial difficulties through overpaying for pubs. According to Mr. Reeve, manager of the Truman Brewery, talking in 1897, a pub paid the brewery, on average, £50 for spirits and £100 for beer a month. That's £1,800 a year. At that rate it would take decades to earn back the £20,000 or £30,000 the pub cost to buy.


Pubs became so valuable that some people began to trade in buying and selling them. Not always in a very honest way. One trick was to deliberately order more beer than they could sell and to just pour most of it down the drain. The brewery would be impressed with the amount of beer shifted and when the trickster offered to sell it to them would snatch his hands off.




"During the last 35 years houses have gone up enormously in value. It began by the loan of one million made to the Cannon Brewery by Mr. McCalmont. With this money the brewery set to tie houses. The brewers looked on without minding until they found that their trade was being
touched and affected irrecoverably. Then they set to work to buy also. Prices went up with a run. Then came the Death Duties act and increased difficulties about the subdivision of property held by partners jointly for the purposes of taxation. So that brewers found themselves at the same time wanting more money and a simpler method of recognizing their own personal property.


They turned their businesses into Companies in consequence.


Mr. Bramham gave as an example a public house in the parish of St. John´s Hackney. In 1892 this house with a lease of 49 years at a rental of £105 per annum was bought for £9500.


In 1895 £8,700 was stated to Mr. Bramham as the price that had been paid for it.


This year 1897. It has been resold for £23,000.


Another house he mentioned as being sold in 1895 for £20,000 and resold this year for £32,000 in addition to which the buyer paid £4,000 in its redecoration and internal alteration. These are only two out of many instances Mr Bramham could give."
*Mr. Bramham, Surveyor and Valuer to the Assessment Committee of the Hackney Union*
5th October (1897)
/Mr. Bramham. Surveyor and Valuer to the Assessment Committee of the Hackney Union. 115 Bow Road on an introduction from Mr. Young a member of the above committee./
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b347/jpg/221.html


"The price of houses has gone up enormously. Only yesterday a man came to him - a speculator who had bought three "untied" Public Houses and had paid £300,000 for them. One of them being a good deal more valuable than either of the others. There is a great deal of speculation. Men buy houses without any intention of keeping them, do them up, then resell them. They have thought for many years that top prices had been reached but they still move upwards. (Noel Buxton said that at present prices they did just pay. The lowest price for a beerhouse in London would be £500 "but anything worth as little as that would not be worth it at all".)"
Interview with Mr. Reeve, manager of Truman, Hanbury and Buxton's
Brewery, Brick Lane, 22 October [1897] (Booth B348, pp62-69)
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b348/jpg/62.html


"The profit on spirit is more than on beer but beer is always the more important item. In not one per cent of their houses is a larger sum paid for spirit than for beer. In a fair house the payment to the brewer per month would be £50 for spirit and £100 for beer."
Interview with Mr. Reeve, manager of Truman, Hanbury and Buxton's
Brewery, Brick Lane, 22 October [1897] (Booth B348, pp62-69)
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b348/jpg/62.html


"The prices that are being paid for public houses now is astounding. Carter knows local men who have taken to dealing them to their own profit. They buy up small licensed places, they buy in a great stock of beer, much more than they can sell, a great deal of it they let drain away into the sewers. Then they come to the brewers and ask them to buy their houses pointing out the immense amount of beer they have disposed of. The brewers are only too glad, they have themselves just turned into limited liability companies, they have an immense capital behind them and they bid amongst themselves with the money of their shareholders for the possession of licensed houses. A new license is very difficult to get so that it is very important to get hold of houses that are already licensed."
Interview with Inspector Carter
B346 pp100-107
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b346/jpg/101.html




"The test of the worth of a house is the amount of beer and spirits sold. lately the prices of houses has been so high that men with local knowledge have made it their business to buy houses "work them up" and then sell them to the Brewers or anyone else who will buy them. There is one "Dyke" who is known for this in the district. He it was who first had the house mentioned above at the corner of Forest Road and Queen´s Road. Then he sold it to a local newsvendor. The newsvendor has just broken and the house has been resold for between £6,000 and £7,000. The bankrupt has returned to his newspapers. There was no reason for the newsvendor failing, he was a local man and knew the neighbourhood. There is some knavery in working up a house, but Flanagan did not know in what it consisted. Carter in Poplar spoke once or twice of men pouring away beer into the drains in order to shew a large consumption. The greater the consumption the greater the capital value of the house."
*Talk with Inspector Flanagan*
Sep 21 1897
/General police questions with regard to the Dalston subdivsion of the J
Division. Talk with Inspector Flanagan at the Dalston police Station,
Dalston Lane./
Booth B347, pp163-185
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b347/jpg/163.html




"Charrington´s is about the best beer in the neighbourhood. But a great deal of filthy stuff is sold. The Brewers put in as managers men to whom they have advanced large sums. These men must make money. To make money they must adulterate. If they don´t, they lose and the brewers foreclose. Some firms are very hard. Perhaps the worst are Brewers at the corner of the Bow Road just before you come to the Stratford Bridge; their name is Smith & Garrett and the beer they sell is bad. Taylor Walker in Limehouse used to be large brewers and do a great Indian trade as well as own the houses in Limehouse. But the India trade has failed them and trade has left Limehouse so they are in a bad way now compared to former years."
Interview with Inspector Carter
B346 pp100-107
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b346/jpg/101.html




Decline in publican brewers (http://www.blogger.com/null)

The overwhelming number of brewers in the 19th century were publican brewers, or, as they would be called today, brewpubs. Though already by the middle of the century the majority of beer was being produced in increasingly large commercial breweries, publican brewers were still a significant factor in British brewing. That was to change after 1870, when their numbers went into steep decline. It was part of a general trend towards a concentration of beer production.




Number of breweries by output (barrels per year)








publican brewers

1,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 20,000

20,000 - 100,000

100,000 - 500,000

>500,000



>10,000

Total



1870



26,506



-



1,809



210



128



23



3



28,315



364



28,679



1875



22,138



-



1,864



260



194



25



4



24,002



483



24,485



1879



17,542



-



1,863



301



217



27



3



19,405



548



19,953



1880



16,770



-



1,768



272



203



23



4



18,538



502



19,040



1881



14,948



14,479



1,677



275



183



24



3



16,625



485



17,110



1885



12,608



-



1,537



270



187



27



4



14,145



488



14,633



1890



9,986



-



1,447



274



255



34



4



11,433



567



12,000



1895



7,213



-



1,162



267



256



34



5



8,375



562



8,937



1900



4,759



-



910



262



308



42



9



5,669



621



6,290



1905



3,787



-



832



232



280



40



9



4,619



561



5,180



1912



2,868



2,663



673



205



266



43



7



3,541



521



4,062



1913



2,700



2,502



615



210



271



42



8



3,315



531



3,846



1914



2,536



2,357



580



197



280



46



8



3,116



531



3,647



Source:



1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 118.






Between 1880 and 1914, the number of breweries producing fewer than 10,000 barrels a year fell from 18,538 to 3,116. Over the same period, the number of those brewing more than 10,000 barrels slightly increased, from 502 to 531. The largest decline was amongst the smallest brewers, those brewing fewer than 1,000 barrels, the overwhelming majority of which were publican brewers. Of the 14,479 publican brewers in 1881, only 2,357 remained in 1914.




Bottled Beer (http://www.blogger.com/null)There was a massive surge in the popularity of bottled beers at the beginning of the 20th century. It was partly fuelled by changes in technology which allowed the production of bright, artificially-carbonated bottled beers.




Whitbread Draught and Bottled sales 1901 – 1919








total draught



Bottling



Burton






Year

barrels

%

barrels

%

barrels

%

Total



1901

538,097

73.63%

188,525

25.80%

4,153

0.57%

730,775



1902

546,043

72.92%

198,812

26.55%

3,975

0.53%

748,830



1903

552,383

71.00%

221,651

28.49%

3,998

0.51%

778,032



1904

546,402

69.40%

237,522

30.17%

3,379

0.43%

787,303



1905

538,584

67.67%

254,373

31.96%

2,983

0.37%

795,940



1906

526,766

64.32%

289,898

35.40%

2,361

0.29%

819,025



1907

513,881

61.49%

320,140

38.30%

1,749

0.21%

835,770



1908

477,470

58.97%

330,767

40.85%

1,459

0.18%

809,696



1909

456,638

56.14%

355,212

43.67%

1,481

0.18%

813,331



1910

446,477

55.72%

353,534

44.12%

1,325

0.17%

801,336



1911

459,908

53.81%

392,899

45.97%

1,564

0.18%

854,371



1912

464,539

49.95%

463,938

49.88%

1,548

0.17%

930,025



1913

436,095

51.17%

414,661

48.66%

1,415

0.17%

852,171



1914

418,402

49.38%

427,455

50.45%

1,415

0.17%

847,272



1915

374,682

51.79%

347,489

48.03%

1,253

0.17%

723,424



1916

359,215

48.44%

381,397

51.43%

980

0.13%

741,592



1917

281,549

50.15%

278,976

49.69%

924

0.16%

561,449



1918

246,665

63.10%

143,902

36.81%

367

0.09%

390,934



1919

369,845

69.08%

165,000

30.82%

527

0.10%

535,372



Source:



Whitbread archive document number LMA/4453/D/02/16



Note:



Year ending July





The proportion of Whitbread sales which were bottled doubled over the years 1901 to 1914, rising from a quarter to a half. The war knocked this back down to close to its 1901 level, but in the 1920's it soon rose back to around 50%.








Brewing materials (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Sugar, malt, maize. Non-British barley and hops. Is this when crystal malt appears? I'm sure this is where the first mentions of SA malt and chocolate malt. Oat malt, too. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 sugar.




Yeast (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Pitching yeast was collected from fermenting beer. Worts of medium gravity, 1050 - 1055º, were considered the most suitable source of yeast. In London, yeast from Porter was much used. Yeast that rose to form a head during the early part of the fermentation was discarded, as it contained many impurities such as tannins from the hops and proteins. That skimmed of in the middle of the fermentation was considered best.(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 531.) This is borne out by the Fuller's brewing logs from 1910. They show yeast being collected at approximately half way through the primary fermentation, that is after between 2 or 3 days in a process lasting for or 5 days.


Yeast that had been used several times in strong worts was liable to become sluggish. While yeast from very heavily hopped beers was coated in hop resin and less effective. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 532-533.)


Harvested yeast had most of the wort drained off it and was stored into shallow yeast tanks until it was needed. These were fitted with attemperators to keep the yeast cool. Yeast was never kept more than 7 days, in warm weather not more than 4. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 531.)


Sykes & Ling recommended that brewers regularly look at their yeast under the microscope to check for signs of dead cells the presence of bacteria. Yeast which contained either was unsuitable for pitching. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 531-532.)


If yeast began to degenerate and become ineffectual, it was replaced. Such degeneration was either the result of poor hygiene or lack of vital nutrients for the yeast in the wort. New yeast was acquired from another brewery, preferably one worts brewed from pure malt. It was also imporatant that the source brewery used the same system of fermentation (cleansing, skimming or stone square). While stone square yeasts could, with rousing, be made to work in breweries using other systems, the reverse was not true. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 533.)


Of course, the need to change yeast could be avoided if a yeast propagation system, like Hansen's (of Carlsberg), was employed. This guaranteed a supply of the original yeast. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 534.)
!!!!!! says there were limitations with this system - check pages 386-388 !!!!!!!!






Brettanomyces (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Stock Ale was a strong Beer which was matured for many months or years and then blended with young beers or ales to give them the aged flavour. It was called Stock because a stock of it was kept in the brewery. It was rarely sold just by itself (I've only found a product called Stock Ale or Beer a couple of times in old brewery price lists).


The "aged" taste, as was discoverd when it was isolated in 1903 by the Dane Niels Hjelte Claussen (who worked at the Carlsberg brewery in Copenhagen), came from the action of Brettanomyces. Experiments in Britain the early 1900's showed that when a finished pasteurised beer was innoculated with Brettanomyces it acquired the typical aged taste within 10 to 14 days. The application of this technique would have made the production of Stock Beers much quicker and more reliable. Except that the demand for such beers had all but evaporated by the start of the 20th century.




Pure Yeast Cultures (http://www.blogger.com/null)

In "Brewing Science and Practice: Volume II Brewing Processes" (H. Lloyd Hind, London, 1940, pages 800-802) there's another interesting passage about Hansens work with single-cell yeast strains. It discusses experiments at the Worthington brewery in Burton in the 1880's brewing beer with pure strains. The conclusion was that pure strains did not produce better than mixed strains and in fact had some disadvanatges during secondary fermentation, such as conditioning more slowly in the cask and producing beers which did not age well. It was not recommened for use in beers that were to be kept more than 6 weeks after racking. It says that at the time (1940) only a handful of British brewers used pure strains.




Malt (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Britain had become dependent on the import of foreign grain. Approximately a third of the barley consumed was imported. The price of barley was falling right up until the outbreak of WW I.




Barley production and imports (pounds)

















average price per quarter












year

acreage

UK output

UK %



s.



d.

imports

import %

total



1880



2,695,000



2,163,350,400



62.27%



33



1



1,310,992,480



37.73%



3,474,342,880



1890



2,300,994



4,039,676,000



68.38%



28



8



1,867,934,656



31.62%



5,907,610,656



1900



2,172,129



3,427,294,400



64.03%



24



11



1,925,208,096



35.97%



5,352,502,496



1910



1,899,130



3,152,224,800



60.62%



23



3



2,047,528,000



39.38%



5,199,752,800



1915



1,524,316



2,344,897,600



63.01%



37



2



1,376,668,720



36.99%



3,721,566,320



Source:



1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 119.









Types of malt

These are the different types of malt that were manufactured in Britain around 1900:


White malt. Made from the very best and palest malt and dried at a low temperature. This type of malt was no longer made very often.


Pale malt. Also manufactured from top-quality barley but dried at a higher temperature than white malt.


High-dried malt. Kilned at a much higher temperature than pale malt and sometimes made from lower-quality barley.


Amber malt. Similar to high-dried, but kilned at a higher temperature. Sometimes wood was added to the furnace at the end of the process.


Imperial malt. Was manufactured in a similar way to amber malt, but at the very end of the process oak or beech wood was added to the furnace to raise the temperature from 240 to 270º F.


Crystal malt. Dried in a rotating wire cylinder at a very high temperature.


Brown malt. Not left on the withering floor as long as other malt and spread in the drying kiln no more than 1.5 inches (37.5 mm) thick. Initially the heat was moderate, but when all the moisture in the malt was gone, the heat was suddenly increased by adding oak or beech wood to the fire. The sudden heat caused the grains to swell by 25%. The smoke from the wood gave the finished malt a smoky flavour.


Black malt. Roasted like coffee and often made from inferior quality malt, though use of a better quality malt produced a better end result. The final colour was not black, but a chocolate brown. Because it was readily absorbed water, it didn't store well.


(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 469.)


The deliberate addition of wood to create smoke and to allowing it to come into contact with the malt is very different from 18th century practice, where every attempt was made to prevent this happening. Though with the much reduced proportion of brown malt being used in Porter and Stout - a maximum of 20% - the smoky effect would have been much less than in a beer made from 100% brown malt.


Based on the descriptions of their manufacture imperial and sometimes amber malt would have also had a degree of smokiness.


Either coke or anthracite was used as fuel for the drying kiln. The fumes from the fire passed over the malt, flavouring it. Most brewers believed that this was beneficial and gave the finished malt a better flavour.


(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 465-466.)


The presence of diastase in older forms of brown malt is explained by the way it was produced. Diastase is much more sensitive to heat when moist. By first removing all the moisture from the malt at a low temperature, the diastase was not damaged as much by the finishing high heat.


Other coloured malts were produced in a very different way. To get the desired aroma in the malt, it needed to be heated to 160º F while it still had a moisture content of between 12 and 15%. If the moisture content was below 7 or 8%, the aromas would not be formed and all.


(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 463-464.)


The yield from one quarter of malt was between 75 and 98 pounds of extract.


(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 475.)






Malt analyses






Black.

Brown.

Amber.

Crystal.



Extract per quarter (336 lbs. )



57.75



57.12



84.33



58.26



„ per cent. .



44.3



44.04



65.02



45.07



Acidity of wort



0.29



0.23



0.19



0.17



Total proteids or albuminoids



6.11



7.13



7.62



8.71



Soluble



3.99



4.81



5.69



5.88



Insoluble ,, ,,



3.99



4.81



5.69



5.88



Mineral matter or ash



0.32



0.29



1.2



0.76



Moisture



5.37



6.23



4.14



2.12



Source:



The Brewers Analyst, by R. Douglas Bailey, 1907, page 234







"Weight-—The weight of pale malt from British barley varies from 38 to 44 lbs. per bushel, and more highly dried and foreign varieties proportionately less. The heavier the malt, provided it possesses the other necessary qualities, the more the extract obtainable. Care should be exercised, however, to see that the malt does not derive this quality from imperfectly vegetated or steely corns, which are naturally heavier than those of a friable nature.


Extract.—The laboratory extract of malt depends largely upon the system of grinding—whether coarse or ground to powder. By means of the Seek mill (fig. 70, p. 196) a standard system may be employed and comparisons the better understood. By grinding in the Seek mill set at 25°, any average pale British malt gives a laboratory extract of from 93 to 96 Ibs. per standard quarter. Mild ale malts should show from 90 to 94 lbs., and foreign grain according to its character. Fine samples of Californian in exceptional cases may show up to 92 lbs., but 86 to 90 is more usual. Smyrnas’ are a little lower; Tripolis', Tunisians' and the like from 83 to 85; and Ouchacks’ from 83 to 91, the former being more usual owing to the difficulty of getting such material thoroughly modified."
"The Brewers Analyst", by R. Douglas Bailey, 1907, p301.






"Colour Malts.


Amber. Crystal. Brown and Black.

Amber malt, like crystal and brown, is employed by brewers chiefly to impart flavour to beers, black malt being used mainly for the purpose of imparting colour.


In the manufacture of amber malt the green malt is taken from the floor at the withering stage, and is loaded on the kilu at a depth of about 4 inches. The fuel used at the early stages of drying is the same as in ordinary malting; but when the malt is hand-dry, the heat is augmented and very dry beech-wood is thrown upon the fire, the products of combustion imparting the desired flavour.


Very high-dried amber malts give a certain viscosity to beers produced by their aid. Thausing states this to be due to the existence of parapeptones in the malt, which give both colour and viscosity.


Crystal, brown, and black malts are manufactured by taking malt at the withering stage, earlier than when manufacturing amber, and roasting in a perforated cylinder enclosed in a cast- iron casing and which can be freely turned.


A low coke fire is employed, and during heating the malt is cautiously and slowly turned.


As the steam passes off, the fire is made up and the heat increased. In 30 minutes a fine rich aroma is evolved from the malt. Having imparted the desired colour and flavour, the malt is then removed from the cylinder and placed on a floor to mellow and cool.


If brown malt is desired, the heating is continued, and in 5 or 10 minutes a good brown or chocolate colour is imparted ; whilst if black malt is wanted, the heating is further continued, and in 40 minutes or so the operation for this class of malt is complete.


Brown and black malts are sometimes finished off with a glaze. This is performed by sprinkling the grain with a sugar solution a few minutes before finishing off: the glaze so imparted darkens the colour of the husk.


In place of sugar solution, glycerine, either alone or with water or steam, is sometimes employed for the same purpose, it being claimed for this mode of treatment that the malt, unlike other varieties, is free from acrid or bitter flavour, and that it possesses a higher colouring power.


Weight.—The weight per bushel of black malt varies a good deal according to the quality ; the average medium-priced material weighs about 31 to 32 lbs. per bushel, but very high qualities are frequently as much as 36 and even 37 Ibs. per bushel. But these must not be confounded with roasted barleys, which also weigh high.


Brown and crystal malts weigh from 31 to 33 lbs., and amber from 38 to 40 lbs. per bushel.


Extract.—The lbs. per quarter extract obtainable from black malts varies from 50 for low quality up to 70 for high-class material. Brown and crystal malts, under usual conditions of grinding, give from 55 to 60 lbs. in each case. But the fineness of the grinding has a marked effect on the extract with respect to crystal malt especially, and if it be ground as fine as possible, the extract will go as high as 75 lbs. or more. There are somewhat different opinions as to what constitutes an amber malt, some brewers expecting much more severe curing than others ; and the extent of the curing affects the extract. As a general average the extract of amber is about 84 to 85 lbs. per standard quarter.


Moisture.—Colour malts are highly hygroscopic or deliquescent, and upon arrival at the brewery will usually be found to contain at least 3 per cent. of moisture, and upon storage for a few weeks the moisture percentage will run up to 5 or even more. It is inadvisable, from this fact alone, to keep any large stock ; in fact the majority of brewers generally purchase only in small quantities as and when required.


Colour.—There is no standard method for ascertaining the colour value or tintorial power of these so-called colour malts, but on strictly commercial lines it is perhaps advisable to express colour results in degrees of tint of a solution of 1 lb. gravity in a 1 inch cell examined by Lovibond°s tintometer, and compare this with the price of 1 lb. of extract. On the other hand, it is of importance to the brewer to know what colour these malts in definite proportion will add to his worts, and in such instances it is best to approximately average brewery conditions in obtaining a solution. Hence it is best to mash such proportions of the colour malts as are used in practice with pale material of known tint, and note the increase in colour due to the colour malts. For purposes of comparison, however, a 0.01 per cent. solution, examined by the tintometer as described in Part VI., is valuable."
"The Brewers Analyst", by R. Douglas Bailey, 1907, p310-311.








Maize (http://www.blogger.com/null)Before 1880, the use of maize had been illegal. It soon became a common ingredient, usually in the form of flaked maize. Not only was it cheaper than malt, the extract, at around 105 lbs per quarter, was 25% better, too. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 511.) Both Barclay Perkins and Truman's started using maize around 1900.




Rice (http://www.blogger.com/null)Flaked rice was sometimes used, presumably because of its price. Barcaly Perkins used rice in their Bitters in the 1890's, but by 1910 had changed over to maize.


This rather odd notice from the British medical Journal in praise of rice appeared in a newspaper in 1886:


"We directed attention some time since to the growing use of Rice Malt in the brewing of Beer. We have since had occasion to examine the whole question with care - from its dietetic as well as its chemical aspects - and the results are of practical interest from both points of view. We entertain no doubts that the use of Rice Malt is a distinct advantage in brewing, and is a really useful application of the art. We have examined a series of samples of Beer brewed by some of the most eminent firms in and out of the metropolis, from Rice Malt. We have found them in every respect of good quality, and, from their analysis, as well as from examination of the whole process, it is clear that the use of Malted Rice is an important element in the production of Beer, and that it produces Beer which contains a smaller proportion of uncompletely changed ferment, and that such Beer would therefore keep sound longer than Beer brewed by other methods." (Source DNW May 29th 1886)






Adjunct analyses








Granulated.



Flaked.












Maize.

Bice.

Maize.

Rice.

Unprepared Raw Maize Grits.

Unprepared Raw Rice.



Oil. ...



0.96



0.76



0.97



0.29



3.25



0.21



Extract per quarter (336 lbs. )



98.44



102.48



98.78



108.2



99.5



106



, , per cent.



75.9



79.01



76.16



79.53









Total proteids or albuminoids



9.2



8.74



9.5



8.53



9



7.73



Soluble ,, „



0.62



0.41



0.34



0.28



0.5



0.33



Insoluble „ ,,



8.58



7.33



9.2



8.25



8.5



7.4



Mineral matter or ash



0.3



0.26



0.44



0.32



2.2



1.54



Moisture ....



10.72



7.83



6.3



7.43



8.7



10.92



Source:



The Brewers Analyst, by R. Douglas Bailey, 1907, pages 233-234










Sugar (http://www.blogger.com/null)It was not unusual for brewers to use 10-15% sugar. Unlike raw grain, it was seen as a perfectly acceptable malt substitute without any disadvantages. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 519.)


Looking at Whitbread's beers from 1910, it appears that sugar was being used to lighten the body of their Bitters:





Beer

OG

FG

sugar



X

1052.6

1011

10%



PA

1060.9

1017

20.24%



IPA

1051.3

1013

21.26%






How else would you explain an expensive beer like PA having twice as much sugar in the grist as the bog-standard, and cheap, X Ale?




Malting techniques (http://www.blogger.com/null)After centuries of being consrtucted in essentially the same way, malt houses were beginning to change. The traditional method was to spread malt thinly upon the floor and to pass cool air over it to start germination. The barley needed to be regularly turned, a very labour intensive process.


Around 1880 a new mechanical method called drum pneumatic malting was developed. Instead of being spread on the floor, barley was placed in a slowly rotating drum through which cold, moist air circulated. The new method had the advantages of taking up far less space, being less labour-intensive and allowing the maltster to more accurately control the temperature of the germinating barley.


As usual with new developments, not everyone was convinced it produced as good results. Many brewers and maltsters were convinced of the superiority of floor-malted grain. Come to think of it, many still are, more than a century later.


(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 456-461.)






Hops (http://www.blogger.com/null)The acreage given over to growing hops was in decline, dropping around 50% between 1880 and 1914. Considerable quantities of hops were imported, amounting to between 30 and 40% of the total used. Harvests were still very variable, as was the price.




Hop production and imports (cwt)



year

Acreage

UK production

yield per acre



Average price of English hops

net imports of foreign hops

exports of British hops















£

s

d









1880



66,698



440,000



6.6



4



6



0



195,987



7,218



1890



53,961



283,629



5.26



10



9



4



181,698



6,164



1900



51,308



347,894



6.78



5



18



8



198,494



14,999



1910



32,886



302,675



9.2



5



6



6



172,032



8.927



1915



34,744



254,101



7.31



6



7



0



199,347



8,288



Source:



1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 119







The USA became a major supplier of hops to the UK in the 1890's. They were grown mostly either on the West Coast or New York State.




US hop crop by state (in bales of approx 200 pounds)



State



1900



1901






bales

pounds

bales

pounds



New York



79,000



15,800,000



76,500



15,300,000



Oregon



80,000



16,000,000



60,000



12,000,000



California



35,000



7,000,000



50,000



10,000,000



Washington



30,000



6,000,000



26,000



5,200,000



Wisconsin & Idaho



2,500



500,000



2,500



500,000



Total



226,500



45,300,000



215,000



43,000,000



Source:



“100 Years of Brewing”, 1903, page 613






Britain imported a considerable proportion of the of the US hop crop in the late 19th century, as the table below shows:




American hop exports to the UK (in pounds)



Year

US Exports

net UK imports

% from USA



1890



7,011,423



20,350,176



34.45%



1891



8,449,377



20,778,912



40.66%



1892



12,319,556



19,805,408



62.20%



1893



11,008,378



20,800,192



52.92%



1894



16,602,918



18,851,392



88.07%



1895



16,693,742



22,857,744



73.03%



1896



15,702,064



21,698,656



72.36%



1897



9,913,152



16,649,920



59.54%



1898



15,809,457



25,059,664



63.09%



1899



18,964,836



18,830,560



100.71%



1900



11,111,598



22,231,328



49.98%



1901



13,670,725



15,826,384



86.38%



Sources:



“1928 Brewers' Almanck” page 119



“100 Years of Brewing”, 1903, pages 613 and 656







In 1901, about 30% of the total US production of hops was exported to the UK. The USA was the source of the majority of hop imports to the UK between 1890 and 1901.






Chemicals (http://www.blogger.com/null)A variety of chemicals were sometimes added in the mash tun or to the beer itself at the time of racking. Their purpose was usually to cover up some fault in the brewing process, such as an infection. As they also had an adverse effect on yeast, secondary conditioning was poor and the beer treated with them often flat. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 541.)


Some of the chemicals used were: calcium sulphate, sodium sulphate, salicylic acid, potassium metabisulphate and formalin (a solution of fomaldahyde). All were anitseptics which were, rather more appropriately, used to disinfect brewing equipment. Fluorides were also used for this purpose, as were sodium hypochloride and caustic soda. Equipment which had been treated with them was thoroughly rinsed with cold water. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 542.)






Brewing techniques (http://www.blogger.com/null)

Layout of a tower brewery (http://www.blogger.com/null)This was the period of the tower brewery, a design which had developed during the course of the 19th century. The concept was to organise the layout in such a way so that the raw materials started at the top of the building and moved downwards in each successive stage in the brewing process by gravity rather than mechanical means. It also gave the brewery the smallest possible footprint, important in restricted city centre sites. The main disadvantage was that it was difficult to expand without major rebuilding. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 480-481.)


Increasingly, breweries were purpose-built rather than being converted from buildings erected for other uses. There were architects that specialised in the design of breweries. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 482.) Many of these sturdy and sometimes elegant structures still survive, though not all are still in use as breweries. My home town, Newark-on-Trent, has two such tower breweries from the late 19th century. One is now flats, the other shops.


Cold-liquor tank. A rectangular tank, made from cast-iron plates or sometimes wood, which was placed at the very top of the building. It supplied water for brewing and sometimes also for the attemperators, though it was better to use water directly from the well for the latter as it was generally cooler. When just used for brewing water, it needed to have a capacity of 2.5 barrels per quarter of malt used in a brew. When used for attemperator water too, it needed to be double that size. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 482.)




Hot-liquor tank. A covered, cast-iron tank which was either rectangular or circular in shape. It was placed above the mash tun, for which it provided hot water. It was encased in wood or some other insulating material to prevent heat loss. The capacity was large enough to hold all the water for a brew, or about 6 barrels per quarter of malt used. Heating was effected by a variety of methods: injecting steam directly into the water through perforated pipes, by passing steam through a copper coil or by means of a high-pressure heater. The latter was a closed cylinder though which two inch diameter tubes passed. The space between the tubes and the cylinder was filled with high-pressure steam. A thermometer was fitted to the tank ith its bulb in the water and the scale protruding outside so it could be easily read. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 482-483.)




Malt-mill. This consisted of a pair of smooth iron or steel rollers which rotated in the opposite direction. The distance between the rollers could be very precisely controlled by means of screws. The idea was to crack the malt but not crush it into dust. The rollers were sometimes grooved. They were powered by a steam engine, via pullies and belts. The rollers were fed by a hopper in the shape of an inverted pyramid suspended above them. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 483-484.)




Grist case. Crushed malt was held in the grist case. This was usually directly below the mill and above the mash tun. When located away from the mill, the crushed malt was moved either by means of a Jacob's ladder or a screw. The upper part was sqaure and the lower part in the form of an inverted pyramid. It was made from either smooth, well-seasoned wood or painted iron. A slide at the apex of the pyramid was opened to allow the grist to fall into the mash tun below. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 484-486.)




Mash tun. Cylindrical in shape, these were made from a variety of materials such as wood, iron, copper, or wood lined with copper. Wooden tuns were tapered slightly at the top so the hoops could be hammered down to tighten the staves. Iron tuns were cylindrical and lagged with wood for insulation. Thick wooden covers were fitted to keep in the heat during mashing. A false bottom, made of copper, iron or gun-metal, was placed between 1.5 and 2 inches above the real bottom. For ease of removal, it was made in pie-shaped sections called "plates". The plates were either perforated or slotted. The holes were between an eighth and a sixteenth of an inch in diameter, spaced an inch apart. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 486-487.)




Underback. A large open tank situated below the mash tun. The wort was run from the mash tun into the underback, from where it was pumped to the copper. It was important to prevent the wort from cooling so the underback was fitted with a steam coil. The wort was kept for as short a period as possible as, until it had been heated to 190º F in the copper, diastatic activity continued. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 521-522.)




Mashing machines. There were two types of mashing machine: internal and external. Their purpose was to mix grain and water in the mash tun without the need for manual intervention. The rake mashing machine, an internal type, was invented by Matterface in 1807. A series of iron rakes rotated around a central axis, stirring the grain. It was quite a complicated piece of machinery with lots of moving parts. The first external mashing machine was invented by Steel in 1853 and devices of this type are still called Steel's mashers. It consisted of a screw encased in a closed metal cylinder. Water and grain pass through the cylinder on their way into the mash tun and are mixed together by the turning action of the screw. The cylinder was between 3 and 6 feet in length and 9 and 22 inches in diameter. The flow of grain and water could be regulated to get the perfect mix. It was powered by a steam engine via belts and a pulley. The great of this type of machine was speed - 200 quarters of malt could be mashed in just 20 minutes. There were various other patented mashing machines, but Steel's and the rake masher were by far the most common. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 487-488.)




Underlet. This was a pipe leading from the hot-liquor tank to the bottom of the mash tun. Through it, hot water could be introduced to the mash tun from beneath the false bottom. Such hot water was called "piece liquor". (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 489.) It could be used either to adjust the temperature in the mash tun or to perform a simple step mash.




Steam coil. Another method of heating the mash was a copper coil placed beneath the false bottom through which steam was passed. Sometimes the coil was perforated so that stem could be introduced directly to the mash. Its use was similar to the underlet. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 489.)




Steam plough. Fitted to the bottom of the rake shaft, this consisted of pair of hollow, plough-shaped vessels through which either hot or cold water could be added to the mash. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 489.)




Sparger. This consisted of two or three perforated tubes called "Sparge arms" which rotated around a central axis. A cylindrical, copper reservoir placed at its centre which was connected via a pipe to the hot-liquor tank. Through the sparger, hot water could be sprinkled over the goods. The holes were all placed along one side of the arms so the the water escaping through them would cause the arms to rotate. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 489-490.)




Copper. There were two types of copper: fire copper and steam copper. A fire-copper was heated directly by a furnace placed beneath it. A steam copper was, as the name suggests, heated by steam. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 496.)


Fire-copper. I'll quote from Sykes and Ling here, as they describe the two main varieties of this type of copper so succinctly. The most common type was a "bench copper". "The lower portion is in the shape of an ordinary pan; at about half-way up it suddenly widens out a few inches, to form what is termed "the bench". From this the copper is continued up with parallel sides. The flues which surround the copper are only carried as far as the bench; consequently the portion above the bench, not being heated, has, to some extent, a cooling action on the wort, which tends to prevent boiling over." (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 497.) "The dome-copper is, as its name implies, covered in with a dome, round which there is a sort of tray, which has an outlet into the body of the copper. At the summit of the dome is a large opening, to which is attached a wide tube 1.5 to 2 feet in length. When the copper is boiling, the communication is left open between the tray and the copper, and through this the wort, as it boils out at the wide tube, after pouring over the sides of the dome and falling into the tray, finds its way back into the interior of the copper. When the wort has finished boiling and the heat is slackened, the plug fixed in its place, and a second batch of wort may be placed in the tray, which will be heated to some extent before being allowed to pass into the copper." (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 497.)


Steam-copper. These were cylindrical in shape with a domed bottom. Another cast-iron dome was fitted around the bottom, leaving a gap of about 3 or 4 inches into which high-pressure steam was pumped. It had several advantages over a fire copper. The heat could more easily be raised or lowered and it was more economical on fuel. Not being in direct contact with the furnace, it could be heated before the wort was added which consequently could be more quickly brought to the boil. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 498.)




Hop-back. This was a wooden or iron container, through which the wort passed on its way from the copper to the cooler, provided with a perforated false bottom to hold back the hops. Some were circular in shape and fitted with a device similar to a sparger through which hot water passed to wash out any wort retained by the hops. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 499.)




Cooler. This was a large but shallow vessel made of wood, iron or copper into which the wort passed after leaving the hop-back. It was located in a room with louvred window to allow air from the outside to pass over it. The initial cooling of the wort took place here. By this time most breweries also had refrigerators which finished off the cooling process. The wort was not usually allowed to cool below 140ºF in the cooler for fear of infection. In addition to cooling, it also served to remove impurities from the wort, which settled to the bottom as a sludge. The cooler also served the purpose of hot aeration, that is the exposure of the hot wort to air. This helped the later clarity of the wort. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 499-500.)




Refrigerator. This was a type of metal heat exchanger which finished the cooling of the wort down to pitching temperature. Cold water was passed through a series of horizontal copper tubes over which the wort flowed in a thin layer and was collected in a trough at the bottom. From the trough the wort was fed through a pipe directly into the fermenting vessel. There were several variations on this basic design, though all worked on the same principle. In breweries with an ice machine, refrigerated brine was used in place of water. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 500-501.)




Fermenting vessels. There was much variation, both in materials used and method of construction, in the vessels used for fermenting wort. The most commonly used materials were wood, stone and slate. The vessels needed to have smooth surfaces which could be easily cleaned and which would not be damaged by the boiling water used in the cleaning process. The two basic types were "rounds" and "squares", named after their shape. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 501.)


Rounds, much like barrels, were made of oak staves held together with iron hoops. Squares were made of wooden planks held together with iron bolts. The wood used was oak, American cedar or, most commonly, fir. Both were open-topped. Wort was filled to within two or three feet of the top, the rest being left for the head of yeast. A hole 30 inches square was cut just above the level of the wort to allow access to the inside. This was closed with boards when the tun was in use. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 501-502.)


Yorkshire stone squares. These were traditionally constructed of slabs of hard stone, but increasingly slate was being used. The slabs were held together with iron bolts and cement was used to make the joints watertight. They had double walls and the space between was filled with water which acted as an attemperator. Slate versions usually had single walls and were fitted with a standard attemperator. Above the main chamber was a second stone vessel, called the "yeast trough", which was 24 to 30 inches deep. In the centre of its bottom a circular "manhole" 18 inches in diameter was cut. Around the hole was a collar of stone 5 inches high onto which a lid, also of stone, fitted. In one corner, a pipe (called the "organ-pipe) ran from the yeast trough down to just a few inches above the bottom of the lower vessel. In another corner was a shorter pipe, which did not extend into the lower chamber, used to remove yeast from the upper trough at the end of fermentation. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 502-503.)


During fermentation, the manhole was left open to allow yeast to rise up and be trapped in the upper chamber. The organ pipe was used to let wort in the upper chamber back into the lower chamber. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 537.)


Loose pieces. These were casks used for cleansing. Usually puncheons holding around four barrels, they were placed on troughs called stillions in which the yeast escaping from the bunghole was caught. To stop the yeast just running down the side of the cask, a conical tin pipe was fitted into the bunghole. Another tin pipe stuck out from this at a right angle which was long enough the extend past the side of the cask. The yeast was expelled through the horizontal pipe, while the cask could be refilled through the vertical pipe. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 504-505.)




Pontos. These were used in some London breweries for cleansing. After a short initial fermentation in rounds or squares, the wort was tranferred in pontos, barrels holding between four and six barrels. Here fermentation continued, with yeast forcing its way out through an opening in the head and into a slate gutter. This was going out of fashion and being replaced by the dropping system. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 505.)




Burton Unions. This was a more sophisticated version of the loose pieces system of cleansing. Casks with a capacity of about four barrels were permanently fixed onto a wooden stand. A curved pipe called a "swan's neck" was fitted into the bung hole. Yeast was forced up through the pipe and into a long wooden trough (called the "yeast trough") which ran between two parallel rows of casks. At one end of the yeast trough was another vessel called the "feed trough". This was connected via pipes to a hole in the head of each cask and was used to keep them filled with beer. A tap at the bottom of the cask, opposite the bunghole, was used to remove the finished beer. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 505.) This system was still being used by Bass until the 1980's. Marston's is the only remaining British brewery that ferments in unions.




Racking square. Beer wasn't usually racked into trade casks directly from the fermenters but first transferred to another tank called a racking square. Often they were very large in size, containing the equivalent of two complete brews. They were constructed of either slate or wood. Taps were placed a few inches above the bottom of the tank. Rubber hoses, with a metal nozzle at one end, were connected to the taps and used to fill casks. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 508.)




Attemperator. The temperature of wort in fermenting vessels was controlled by an apparatus called an attemperator. It was a a series of tubes through which cold water was passed. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 506.)




Rouser. Yeast was mixed into the wort by a simple device called a rouser. This was a flat piece of wood with a hole in the middle attached to a handle. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 508.)




Aerator. These were used to aerate wort in the fermenting vessel. The simplest type of aerator was a weighted wooden cask with the heads removed and several holes in its sides. It was lowered into the wort on a rope and then quickly pulled out again. Powered devices included a pump which could draw wort from the bottom of the tun and spray it out above the surface. Operated in reverse, it could pump air directly into the wort. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 508.)




Other vessels. Wort or syrup used for priming casks and caramel used for for colouring had to be kept in a special vessels, where the volume and gravity could be checked by excise officers. This was a legal requirement. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 501.)




Casks. Trade casks were made of oak staves held together with iron hoops. The wood mostly came from the Baltic. Unlike on the continent, they were not lined with pitch so beer came into direct contact with the wood. Sometimes the wood become so badly infected with bacteria that they had to be discarded. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 508-509.) That wood wasn't the perfect material for the storage of beer was already apparent: "Probably in the future some material which does not take up impurities so readily as wood will be employed in the construction of brewery cask, such as steel lined with tin, or wood with a lining of some indifferent metal." (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 509.)






Mashing (http://www.blogger.com/null)In well-equipped breweries, water for mashing was heated in the hot-liquor back. Usual practice was to boil the water the evening before before brewing for 15 minutes. It cooled overnight and needed to be reheated to get to the correct mashing temperature. Boiling ensured that the water was sterile. Most water contained chalk, which precipitated out when boiled, taking with it any organic matter in the water to the bottom of the back. To stop this getting into the mash, the opening through which the water was drawn off was always a few inches above the bottom. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 512.)


If the water was hardened with gypsum or other salts, it was added while the water was being boiled. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 512.)


The mash tun was warmed with hot water or steam before mashing started. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 515.)


The initial temperature, that is the temperature of the mash after the grain had been mixed together, varied depending on the variety of malt being used and the type of beer required. Initial heats varied between 145º F and 145º F. The striking heat, that is the temperature of the water before it was mixed with the malt, was determined by taking into account a number of factors, such as the temperature of the malt and the volume of water per quarter of malt. Brewing manuals contained tables to allow brewers to easily calculate the necessary striking heat. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 513.)


"Beers intended for storage are, as a rule, brewed from pale malts. These are mashed at a somewhat higher degree of temperature than high-dried malts, for we require, in this class of beers, a fairly large quantity of those dextrins which ferment very slowly, and which, since they provide for a long, slow, continued fermentation, keep the ale (through the period of its storage) charged with gas. High-dried malts are mashed at a somewhat lower temperature, since the beers produced from them are quickly consumed, and here we require a wort which contains large quantities and of those maltodextrins which give fulness and sweetness to the beer. Between these two types of beer, which may be seen as extremes, there are many other intermediate ones that are brewed to suit the particular wants of different neighbourhoods." (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 513.)


As most malt contained more than enough diastase, a temperature high enough to destroy some of it was used. If all the diastase remained active, too much maltose would be produced, resulting in a thin-bodied beer. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 513.)


Despite all the theory, experience still played a big part. "A delicate appreciation of the right initial heat to be employed with different malts to produce different beers of the required character is only to be obtained by actual experience and is one of those things for which hard and fast rules cannot be laid down." (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 513.)


If the mash tun was fitted with a Steel's masher, hot water, at the correct striking heat, was run through it into the mash tun until it just covered the false bottom. Then grist and water were put through the masher which mixed them together and pushed them into the tun. Brewers learnt to be able judge if the proportions were right by observing consistency of the stream as it tumbled into the tun. If it were not quite right, the flow of grain and water could be adjusted accordingly. The Steel's masher was very efficient as it heated the grain uniformly. Which is doubtless one of the reasons it is still in use today. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 515.)


If the tun had an internal rake masher, the procedure was somewhat different. First a little more water than actually required for the mash, at a slightly higher temperature than the striking heat, was run into the mash tun. When the tun had warmed up, the taps were opened to flush the spend pipes. If the water were still too hot, the masher was switched on and after a few revolutions it would have cooled to the right temperature. The tun was closed and the grain dropped quickly into the water. The rakes were kept turning as the malt waas being added at a little less than on revolution per minute. After all the malt had been added, the rakes were kept turning for a further 15 minutes until the grain and water had mixed to an even constituency. The disadvantage of this method was that not all the grain was heated to the same temperature, as it was with an external masher. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 515.)


The total amount of water needed to brew a beer of a certain gravity was calculated taking into account the water that would be absorbed by the malt (28 to 30 gallons per quarter) and the hops (53 gallons per 100 pounds) and would be lost through evaporation during the boil, cooling and fermentation (around 30%). (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 513.) The amount of water used in the mash was between 1.5 and 2.5 barrels per quarter of malt. As the total amount of water was constant, the thicker the mash, the more water could be used when sparging. A thick mash and generous sparge was the best way of getting the greatest extract from the grain. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 515.)


After the mash had stood for about 15 minutes, more water, at a temperature 10º to 12º F higher than the striking heat, was added via the underlet. If the tun had a rake masher, this was given 4 revolutions to mix the new water evenly through the mash. In tuns with an external masher, the water was added very slowly so that it could gradually spread through the mash. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 516.)


There were two reasons for raising the temperature of the mash: to produce a greater proportion of higher maltodextrins; to compensate for poor quality malt. When doing the former, the temperature of the mash was raised to 158º F or more in order to check diastatic activity. The time standing was also usually reduced to just an hour. When compensating for poor malt, the initial heat was very low - 140º to 145º F. After half an hour, the temperature of the mash was gradually raised to 155º F and then left to stand until all the starch had been converted. The mash could be heated either by adding extra water through the underlet or by the use of a heating device within the mash tune, such as a steam coil. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 517.)


The mash was left to stand until all the starch had been converted. Samples of wort were taken at regular intervals and tested with iodine. As soon as no starch was detected, the taps were opened and the wort run off. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 516.)


Some breweries still performed a second mash. Around half the brew length was drawn from the first mash and sparge, then a further 1.5 barrels of water per quarter were added to the grains in the mash tun. It was left to stand for 1.5 hours, after which the wort was drawn off and a second sparge performed. While some brewers though this method gave a better yield, many considered it a waste of time. In rare cases, even a third mash was performed. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 516.)


Whitbread, Barclay Perkins, Truman and Fullers were all performing underlet mashes by the 1890's. They continued to mash in much the same way until after WW II.




There's a good example in the Fuller's 1910 brewing log of a mash heated by means of the underlet.


March 14th 1910 Fuller's AK
Ingredients: 27 qtrs pale malt, 2 qtrs flaked maize, 7 qtrs sugar
65 barrels water @ 164º F; initial heat 150º F; mashed 1 hour, stood 25 minutes
15 barrels via underlet @ 175º F; raised temperature of mash to 155º F; stood 80 minutes
sparged with 114 barrels of water at 168º F and 165º F




Using 2.25 barrels of water per quarter of grain, this was a relatively thin mash.




The mashing scheme was quite different for their darker beers:




August 10th 1910 Fuller's Brown Stout and Porter
Ingredients: 35.5 qtrs pale malt, 7 qtrs brown malt, 3.5 qtrs black malt, 2 qtrs flaked maize, 24 qtrs sugar
103 barrels water @ 155º F; initial heat 146º F; mashed 1 hour, stood 20 minutes
15 barrels via underlet @ 175º F; raised temperature of mash to 150º F; stood 100 minutes
sparged with 199 barrels of water at 170º F and 180º F




The initial heat was 4º F lower than for the AK and the mash was left to stand for 20 minutes longer. The temperature of the sparging water was, however, a good it higher.




Hot grist mashing (http://www.blogger.com/null)This was a method patented by Charles Clinch. Hot air raised the temperature of the grain to just below the initial heat. It was mixed with water at the same heat which, due to the chemical reaction of the starch with water, raised the temperature to the correct level. The mash was left to stand for no longer than one hour. This method supposedly produced very clear dextrinous worts. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 517-518.)






Limited decoction mashing (http://www.blogger.com/null)This was a combination of an infusion mash and a decoction mash. The mash started much as a standard infusion, using two barrels of water to a quarter of malt and with an inital heat of 155º F. After standing for an hour, half a barrel of wort per quarter was run off into another vessel (I would guess the underback). The remainder of the mash was heated with steam to around 212º F and kept at this temperature for 15 minutes. The rakes were switched on and the goods sparged with cold water until the temperature had dropped to 160º F. The wort drawn off earlier was put back in the mash tun and, if necessary, heated to get the temperature back to 160º F. The mash was stood for another 20 to 30 minutes and the wort then drawn off. This method gave a slightly better extract, especially with poorly-modified malt. It was also possible to use up to 25% raw grain with problems. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 518.)




Mashing with raw grain (http://www.blogger.com/null)Before 1880, the use of raw grain had been illegal in commercial breweries, though some authors had advocated its use amongst domestic brewers.


One method of using raw grain originated in the USA, where grists could consist of 50% raw maize. Maize grits were gelatinised in a "converter" by heating them with a small amount of ground malt to 200º F and keeping them at that temperature for 30 minutes. They were then allowed to cool. The malt was mashed in the standard way and after standing for 60 to 90 minutes the gelatinised maize was added to it. It stood only a very short time before the wort was drawn off, as the gelatinised maize was converted very quickly. Malt made from coarse-skinned barley was used to help filtration in the tun. The malt was dried at a very low temperature to boost its diastatic power. Some British breweries made limited use of this technique. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 518.)


In Britain it was more common to use raw grains which had already been gelatinised, such as flaked maize, flaked rice or flaked barley. Torrefied maize and torrefied barley were also employed. None of these necessitated a change in the mashing scheme. Between 10 and 20% of the grist could be made up of such material. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 518-519.)


In 1900, Barclay Perkins Bitters - PA and XLK - both contained about 10% rice, the darker beers none. By 1910, they had switched to maize, though still only for their pale beers. In 1910 Fuller's grists had between 3 and 6% "flake". Which type of flake isn't specified, though it is clearly some form of unmalted grain, either rice, maize or barley. Whitbread, on the other hand, used no raw grains.


The reason for using raw grain was economy. "From practical experience one of the authors (A.R. Ling) is unable to recommend unqualifyingly the use of any form of raw grain, prepared or otherwise, as these invariably contain, besides starch, a greater or smaller amount of substances which tend to impair the flavour and stability of the beer. Among these may be mentioned albuminoid bodies which cause turbidity and instability, pentosans which may give rise to thinness and bad flavour, and oil, which, besides imparting an objectionable flavour, exercises a prejudicial effect on the head-retaining properties of the beer. Raw grain cannot be regarded as a malt substitute in the same sense as sugar, the service of which is generally admitted. In the case of the very best beers, any form of raw grain is best omitted altogether, and the authors are inclined to place a limit at which these materials may be used for any description of beer without prejudicing its quality at 10 per cent. of the total grist calculated on the extract yielded." (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 519.) That's pretty clear: don't use raw grain if you want your beer to be any good.






Sparging (http://www.blogger.com/null)After the taps had been opened to run off the first wort, sparging began. To get the greatest possible extract, it was important to distribute the sparging water evenly over the surface of the grain. The temperature was kept low enough that the diastase was not totally disabled. A temperature of 170 to 175º F was recommended for the first half to three quarter barrels of water per quarter of malt. The water was gradually reduced in temperature until at the end of the process it was a maximum of 160º F. Sparging was best conducted slowly, taking around 4 hours to complete. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 520.)


There were two approaches to sparging. In the first, the sparge water was added at the same rate as the wort was drawn off, keeping the level of liquid in the tun constant throughout the process. This was recommended for low-gravity beers. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 520.)


In the second, sparging was interrupted a number of times to allow all of the wort to run off. Sometimes as much wort as possible would be drawn off, replaced by water via both the sparger and the underlet and the rakes turned a couple of revolution. This method was often necessary for strong beers, where a large quantity of concentrated wort was required. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 520-521.)


The wort collected at the end of sparging, if it had been performed correctly, had a gravity of between 1004º and 1006º.









More... (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2013/11/1880-1914-adjuncts-arrive.html)