Blog Tracker
06-04-2016, 07:10
Visit the Shut up about Barclay Perkins site (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2016/04/real-kulmbacher.html)
As promised, a look at a real Kulmbacher. Not just a concoction of pale beer and colouring. Or maybe it isn’t quite that simple.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mmvo9Hs811A/Vv0X8-rHJ8I/AAAAAAAAZfk/7u64plxAOPcM55k_jqUbPvZDsq2TcJZXg/s400/Kulmbacher_Kapuzinerbr%25C3%25A4u_Export.jpg (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mmvo9Hs811A/Vv0X8-rHJ8I/AAAAAAAAZfk/7u64plxAOPcM55k_jqUbPvZDsq2TcJZXg/s1600/Kulmbacher_Kapuzinerbr%25C3%25A4u_Export.jpg)
“A sample of Kulmbacher beer delivered to an Institution was, because of its pale colour, which significantly differed from the beer as previously served, suspected of being watered. The analysis showed:
Specific gravity
1.0262
Alcohol
4.76%
Extract
7.35%
Minerals
0.27%
Nitrogen substance
0.62%
Lactic acid
0.27%
Maltose
2.19%
OG
16.36%
Degree of fermentation
55.07%
It was, therefore, a normally composed, content rich Kulmbacher beer whose pale colour was merely due to the fact that the Kulmbacher breweries no longer colour their beer with sugar colouring since the famous verdict of the Criminal Court in Bayreuth.”
"Übersicht über die Jahresberichte der öffentlichen Anstalten zur technischen Untersuchung von Nahrung und Genussmitteln im Deutschen Reich für das Jahr 1902" by Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt, 1905, page 105. (My translation.)
Now isn’t that interesting? Kulmbacher, as we saw last time, was dark. Very dark. Now we know why: they were darkening it with caramel. I’m just trying to work out how that could ever have been OK in Bavaria, where I thought they were pretty strict about the Reinheitsgebot. Evidently not that strict.
I’m just guessing here, but that Bayreuth court decision looks like it was responsible for the rise of Sinamar, the beer-derived, Reinheitsgebot-compliant caramel substitute.
Looking at the specs, that beer would count as a Bock today, with an OG over 16º Balling and around 6% ABV. Though it was pretty typical for a Kulmbacher of the day. As this table demonstrates (our lad is the last one in the table):
Kulmbacher Export 1884 - 1902
Year
Brewer
Beer
Style
Acidity
OG
FG
ABV
App. Atten-uation
1884
Aktien-Export-Brauhaus
dunkeles Export
Export Dunkles
0.18
1067.6
1025.9
5.39
61.69%
1884
Export-Brauhaus
Export
Export
0.13
1063.5
1023.0
5.24
63.78%
1884
Unknown
dunkeles Export
Export Dunkles
0.153
1061.9
1024.0
4.90
61.23%
1891
Unknown
dunkeles Exportbier
Export Dunkles
0.137
1065.7
1027.9
4.88
57.53%
1891
Unknown
dunkeles Exportbier
Export Dunkles
0.142
1067.6
1023.0
5.78
65.98%
1893
Aktien-Export-Brauerei
dunkeles Exportbier
Export Dunkles
1076.9
1025.8
6.63
66.45%
1893
Aktien-Export-Brauerei
Monopol-Kulmbacher
Export
0.203
1059.2
1013.1
6.01
77.87%
1902
Unknown
Export
Export Dunkles
0.27
1066.8
1020.2
5.95
69.78%
Average
0.174
1066.2
1022.9
5.60
65.54%
Sources:
Chemie der menschlichen Nahrungs- und Genussmittel by Joseph König, 1903, pages 1102 - 1156
"Übersicht über die Jahresberichte der öffentlichen Anstalten zur technischen Untersuchung von Nahrung und Genussmitteln im Deutschen Reich für das Jahr 1902" by Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt, 1905, page 105.
As you can see, the suspicious sample is very close to the average for Kulmbacher Export.
More Kulmbacher or Porter next? It’s so hard to decide.
More... (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2016/04/real-kulmbacher.html)
As promised, a look at a real Kulmbacher. Not just a concoction of pale beer and colouring. Or maybe it isn’t quite that simple.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mmvo9Hs811A/Vv0X8-rHJ8I/AAAAAAAAZfk/7u64plxAOPcM55k_jqUbPvZDsq2TcJZXg/s400/Kulmbacher_Kapuzinerbr%25C3%25A4u_Export.jpg (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mmvo9Hs811A/Vv0X8-rHJ8I/AAAAAAAAZfk/7u64plxAOPcM55k_jqUbPvZDsq2TcJZXg/s1600/Kulmbacher_Kapuzinerbr%25C3%25A4u_Export.jpg)
“A sample of Kulmbacher beer delivered to an Institution was, because of its pale colour, which significantly differed from the beer as previously served, suspected of being watered. The analysis showed:
Specific gravity
1.0262
Alcohol
4.76%
Extract
7.35%
Minerals
0.27%
Nitrogen substance
0.62%
Lactic acid
0.27%
Maltose
2.19%
OG
16.36%
Degree of fermentation
55.07%
It was, therefore, a normally composed, content rich Kulmbacher beer whose pale colour was merely due to the fact that the Kulmbacher breweries no longer colour their beer with sugar colouring since the famous verdict of the Criminal Court in Bayreuth.”
"Übersicht über die Jahresberichte der öffentlichen Anstalten zur technischen Untersuchung von Nahrung und Genussmitteln im Deutschen Reich für das Jahr 1902" by Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt, 1905, page 105. (My translation.)
Now isn’t that interesting? Kulmbacher, as we saw last time, was dark. Very dark. Now we know why: they were darkening it with caramel. I’m just trying to work out how that could ever have been OK in Bavaria, where I thought they were pretty strict about the Reinheitsgebot. Evidently not that strict.
I’m just guessing here, but that Bayreuth court decision looks like it was responsible for the rise of Sinamar, the beer-derived, Reinheitsgebot-compliant caramel substitute.
Looking at the specs, that beer would count as a Bock today, with an OG over 16º Balling and around 6% ABV. Though it was pretty typical for a Kulmbacher of the day. As this table demonstrates (our lad is the last one in the table):
Kulmbacher Export 1884 - 1902
Year
Brewer
Beer
Style
Acidity
OG
FG
ABV
App. Atten-uation
1884
Aktien-Export-Brauhaus
dunkeles Export
Export Dunkles
0.18
1067.6
1025.9
5.39
61.69%
1884
Export-Brauhaus
Export
Export
0.13
1063.5
1023.0
5.24
63.78%
1884
Unknown
dunkeles Export
Export Dunkles
0.153
1061.9
1024.0
4.90
61.23%
1891
Unknown
dunkeles Exportbier
Export Dunkles
0.137
1065.7
1027.9
4.88
57.53%
1891
Unknown
dunkeles Exportbier
Export Dunkles
0.142
1067.6
1023.0
5.78
65.98%
1893
Aktien-Export-Brauerei
dunkeles Exportbier
Export Dunkles
1076.9
1025.8
6.63
66.45%
1893
Aktien-Export-Brauerei
Monopol-Kulmbacher
Export
0.203
1059.2
1013.1
6.01
77.87%
1902
Unknown
Export
Export Dunkles
0.27
1066.8
1020.2
5.95
69.78%
Average
0.174
1066.2
1022.9
5.60
65.54%
Sources:
Chemie der menschlichen Nahrungs- und Genussmittel by Joseph König, 1903, pages 1102 - 1156
"Übersicht über die Jahresberichte der öffentlichen Anstalten zur technischen Untersuchung von Nahrung und Genussmitteln im Deutschen Reich für das Jahr 1902" by Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt, 1905, page 105.
As you can see, the suspicious sample is very close to the average for Kulmbacher Export.
More Kulmbacher or Porter next? It’s so hard to decide.
More... (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2016/04/real-kulmbacher.html)