Ageing early IPA

My dipity is really serending this week. More untold joy from the book-writing process.

I was nosing around in an odd set of records. Picking up exciting stuff like mashing temperatures and length of primary fermentation for my Stout book (as I write this, 43,575 words, 163 pages; when you read this, quite a few more, unless I've dropped dead). I say odd set because I don't know for certain which brewery it's from. I won't go into it more here. I explained it all in yesterday's post.

Flicking through the records to see which different vat numbers were used, I noticed this:

 

It's a batch of IPA brewed 30th May 1838. It's the earliest brewing record for an IPA that I have. And there it is, going into vat no. 20. "Started" is an old brewing term for laying down to age. So after almost five days in rounds (fermenters) it was transferred to a vat for ageing.

This is fascinating. Because that's not how they made IPA in Burton. At least not according to descriptions from the 1870s. Bass aged their IPA in hogsheads outside in the yard. The same casks in which it would be shipped either to India or to bottlers. They didn't age it in vats.

All this got me thinking. How do I know that Bass had always aged IPA in trade casks? Maybe they vatted it in the 1830s. Did all Burton brewers age the same way as Bass? What did Allsopp do, for example? More proof that I really know fuck all.

William Younger I'm pretty sure aged their IPA in hogsheads in a cellar. Barnard has a nice illustration of the scene. Had they always done that? What was true in the 1890s, wasn't necessarily so 30 or 40 years earlier.

As the saying goes, there are more answers than questions. Because not every question has a simple answer.

Essex Old Strong Beer

I just stumbled upon this lovely snippit about long ageing of beer. To be specific, a strong, vat-aged Ale.

It's frustrating how few descriptions there are of vat ageing. This gives us at least a glimpse into the process:

"FLAVOURS DUE TO YEAST ACTIVITY
As regards acidity and flavours we knew of an Essex brewery many years ago which was noted for the pine-apple flavour of its old strong beer. This beer, of about 30 lb. O.G., was made in three successive brewings which after primary fermentation were pumped into a 500-barrel vat. These vats were very acid ; getting into them to see if they were properly cleaned (!) made one’s eyes water, and the beer went through a strong bacterial fermentation in from six to nine months after filling. The beer was then full of long rods, often called vibrios in those days but actually a butyricus bacillus, and the taste was offensively acid. But on further storage the acidity mellowed greatly, the titratable acidity dropped at least 30%, a pine-apple flavour developed and the beer was ready for consumption at the end of two years. There were one or two breweries in the East Anglian counties which brewed these old acid beers which incidentally were much favoured by jockeys for keeping their weight down !"
The Brewing Trade Review, September 1943, page 278. 

30 lbs per barrel is 1082.4º. Strong, but not stupidly strong. who knows what bugs there were in that vat, All sorts of stuff, as in a Lambic barrel would be my guess.

Fascinating that a very specific flavour is mentioned: pineapple. And that it took a couple of years for it to develop and the beer to mellow out.

Not sure why this beer would have been so useful for jockeys. I'm baffled.

The Storage of Beer and Ale (part four)

We've now arrived at the section which specifically deals with the storage. What fun. Though I have to admit to not completely understanding some of it.

"Lager beer cannot be kept at too low a temperature, and as it is inadvisable to rack it from the casks where it is once lagered until it is ready for storage, great care should be taken to eliminate, as far as possible before storing it, all elements that are likely to result in its deterioration."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Friday 01 September 1882, page 12.

The first phrase is anmiguous. Does it mean that it's impossible to store Lager at too low a temperature or that you shouldn't store Lager at too low a temperature. I think it's the latter. To be honest, I'm not sure whayt the second phrase means either. Surely the lagering would be the storage. Surely no-one lagered a beer then stored it afterwards?

The next part is more understandable.

"The secondary fermentation must be as nearly as possible concluded and the beer racked into the lager vats with great care, so as to take as little yeast and sediment as possible with it. It must be fined before storing in the usual manner. The use of a bunging apparatus for the control and observation of the development of the carbonic-acid gas, is now recognised as absolutely necessary in a well-appointed lager cellar Even when successfully stored, the brewer's vigilance should not cease and he must be on the look-out for internal changes that will sometimes occur inexplicably. As soon as any abnormal condition is recognised, the beer should be racked off for sale at once and no attempt made to keep it, on the supposition that it will come round, or that it can be fixed afterwards."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Friday 01 September 1882, page 12.

It makes sense that you'd want to leave most of the lees behind in the fermentation vessel. Though obviously not all of the yeast, as some fermentation still needed to occur to condition the beer.

Though the mention of "bunging apparatus" has me wondering this was some sort of artificial carbonation. Or was it simply some kind of regulator to allow control of the CO2 pressure inside the lagering vessel?

Just one more part to go.

The Storage of Beer and Ale (part three)

This article is going to prove dead handy for my next book project. It's full of useful information about beer ageing.

First there's a discussion of the vats used for ageing:

"In the first place, absolute cleanliness on the store vats, &c., must be observed and everything that will aid us in securing this cleanliness must be considered. The use of wood is not commendable for this purpose, unless the pores have all been stopped on the inside by some impermeable substance. Lager beer brewers are compelled to use pitch, or its later substitute varnish, for the interior of their vats, otherwise the pressure of the gas would force the beer into and ultimately through the wood-pores; besides which the gas itself would leak out ; but we are pleased to see that ale brewers are beginning to recognise the value of similar treatment for casks, as a material aid to cleanliness."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Friday 01 September 1882, page 11.

It's fairly obvious that hygiene is pretty important if beer is going to be in a vessel for any length of time. What really intrigues me though is the mention of lining wooden casks. It was common practice on the Continent, but this is one of the first mentions I can recall of some UK brewers adopting the technique.

This is a good summing up of why a large vat was better than a small vat for ageing:

"Then, again, the storage vats should be made as large as convenient. A more equal temperature is thereby secured, a more uniform beer is the result, and the loss from evaporation is always proportionately less. Besides, the gradual amalgamation of the prominent flavours in the beer is better accomplished in a large than in a small vat. All malt liquors darken to a greater or less extent, according to the time they are kept in stock, and where a pale beer is required, the longer it is stored the paler must it be to commence with. This is of course regulated by the temperature at which the malt is finally kilned. Loss of hop flavour always occurs in a beer, owing to the before-mentioned gradual decomposition and amalgamation of the prominent flavours, including the hop-bitter, and a beer for long storage must be more heavily hopped than one intended for immediate consumption. Then, again, beer keeps its good qualities longer in a cellar possessing a certain humidity than where it is perfectly dry. So far, what we have said applies equally well to lager beer or ale, but there are certain points to be observed that apply specially to each."
Holmes' Brewing Trade Gazette - Friday 01 September 1882, pages 11 - 12.

Another factor in favour of a large vat is that a much smaller proportion of the beer is in contact with wood. Porter brewers twigged the advantages of large vats early on and contructed massive ones, the largest containing thousands of barrels. Though by the time this article was written the massive Porter vats had been dismantled as standard-strength Porter was no longer being ages, only some Stout. And that was brewed in much smaller quantities.

Does beer really darken when aged? Not totally sure about that one.

It's obvious from brewing records that beer meant to be aged was much more heavily hopped. For example, Keeping Porter had between 50% and 100% more hops than Running Porter. But I see from this description it wasn't just about the hops protecting the beer, but also about making sure the beer was sufficiently bitter when finally served.

Runners and Keepers

Porter chnaged several times during its history. From a 100% brown malt beer to one brewed from a mix of brown and pale malts. With the introduction of black malt in 1817, it was possible to drop brwwon malt altogether. Though most London brewers stuck with it.

It wasn’t just the recipe that was changing. How Porter was aged evolved, too. Rather than age all their Porter for a medium length of time, brewers started to age just s proportion of it for a relatively long period and then blend this with “Mild“ or young Porter. This entailed brewing two types: Keeping Porter and Running Porter.

In the first seven decades of the 19th century London brewers produced two types of Porter for the domestic market:

- Running Porter which was sold young
- Keeping Porter which was aged 6 to 12 months

The recipes for the two beers were essentially the same, except that the Keeping version was much more heavily hopped as it would need to survive longer. The hopping rate was 50-100% greater than in the Running version. There might also be a higher proportion of roasted malts in the Keeper.

Unlike like Pale Ale which was aged in trade casks – usually hogsheads – Keeping Porter was, as in the 18th century aged in enormous vats, holding thousands of barrels. The larger the volume of beer, the less that is in contact with oxygen.

During the ageing process Brettanomyces, which was either part of the pitching yeast or lurking in the oak staves of the vat, would slowly work away at any remaining fermentable material and produce vinous flavours, which were highly valued by drinkers, along with a certain degree of acidity

Keeping Porter wasn’t usually sold straight, but blended with Running Porter in the brewery before being sent out to customers. The usual recommendation was to use no more than one third of Keeping Porter in the blend. This would add the aged flavour that was valued by customers without being too harsh or tart.

Keeping Porter was brewed in large quantities up until 1860, after which it quickly fell out of favour and by the end of the 1870’s had disappeared entirely. The public seems to have lost its love of the aged flavour. Though Porter remained extremely popular in London, it was all sold “mild”.

Some stronger Stouts were still aged, but as the quantities involved were much smaller, more modestly-sized vats were employed. London Porter brewers ripped out their large vats, vats which had once been a source of great pride.

Runners and Keepers in the 1850s
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	black malt
1856	Whitbread	P	1054.8	1013.0	5.53	76.26%	10.99	2.95	76.64%	19.46%	3.89%
1856	Whitbread	K	1057.1	1014.4	5.64	74.76%	15.42	3.85	75.83%	20.49%	3.69%
1855	Barclay Perkins	TT	1058.2	1018.0	5.31	69.06%	10.71	2.56	85.05%	11.63%	3.32%
1855	Barclay Perkins	Hhd	1057.6	1016.0	5.51	72.23%	15.17	3.70	83.30%	13.36%	3.34%
1855	Truman	Runner	1059.3	1017.2	5.57	71.03%	10.6	2.60	87.02%	9.87%	3.10%
1855	Truman	Keeper	1051.2	1016.1	4.65	68.65%	16.9	3.70	84.00%	12.80%	3.20%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/050.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document numberACC/2305/1/542.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document numberB/THB/C/057.

You'll find more information that you'll ever need to know about Porter in my excellent book on the subject:

St. Anne's Well Brewery in the 1920's

Funny the stuff you comae across when you're not looking for it. In this case, it's random stuff about the St. AAnne's Well brewery in Exeter.

You may remember that this brewery has come up before. Principally because, bizarrely, it was one of the earliest breweries to make Lager in Britain. Still not sure why a small westcountry brewery should have been so quick to get into Lager.

This account of a rate assessment appeal tells us something about the changes in the brewing industry brought about by WW I.

"ASSESSMENT OF BREWERY.
EXETER APPEAL SUCCEEDS.
RECORDER AND COSTS QUESTION.
The appeal of the St. Anne's Well Brewery Co., Limited, against the assessment of their premises in Lower North-street, Exeter, was allowed at the Exeter City Quarter Sessions yesterday, before the Recorder, Mr. Percival Clarke.

Yesterday was the second day of the hearing, and the Recorder decided that the amount offered, £850, should have been accepted, and must be the figure to be placed the rate-book. But he pointed out that, although the Assessment Committee, representing the ratepayers, were technically the losers, they in fact had won, and he would only allow appellants' costs up to June 3 (the date of the offer of £850), the respondents to be allowed the costs after that date.

Mr. E. W. Wingate Saul. K.C., Mr. G. Dodson, and Mr. H. Lhind Pratt (instructed Messrs. Sparkes, Pope, and Thomas) were for appellants, and Mr. J. A. Hawke K.C., and Mr. G. D. Roberts (instructed Mr. F. Thomas) for the Exeter Assessment Committee, the respondents.

Continuing the case for the respondents, Mr. C. G. Eve, valuer, of London, said in valuing the site he consulted with Mr. Body (whom respondents called the previous day) and arrived the conclusion as he did — 2s. per foot. Apart from the site, his valuation was quite independent, his basis being the structural efficiency value. He reckoned the prewar values, and added a percentage for the present-day increase. The pre-war figure came to £13,000 for the whole of the buildings, including £300 for the well. Then he added one-fifth for the increase since the war, as rents had gone up about 20 per cent., and arrived at a total figure of £16,333 capital efficiency value, of the buildings.

AN OBSOLETE CUSTOM.
He had jettisoned part of the buildings, as the old custom of storing beer was obsolete and the storing places had no rateable value. The present efficiency capital value of the plant and machinery placed at £7,439. He took off £128 for the site.

Cross-examined Mr. Saul, witness said the St. Anne's Well Brewery could turn out a little more than the Heavitree Brewery because it had more hot liquor capacity.

Do you know the number of men employed at Heavitree Brewery compared with the men at St. Anne's Well Brewery? —No.

Would not the number of hands had to employ be material factor in the minds of the hypothetical tenant?— Witness replied that it would be difficult to make a comparison between the number of employes at various breweries, because there were many different departments.

I suggest to you that if you thought it material it would be quite easy to obtain information solely in regard to the brewery and the bottling stores?— The task would be greater or less according to the three breweries in Exeter. Some breweries employ too many hands. They have employes who have worked for them for 50 yeans, and they don't like to get rid of them. Thty would keep an old man of 70 when young matn had nothing to do. I place the rateable value of the brewery at £1,160.

This concluded the case for the Assessment Committee.

HEAVY GRAVITY BEER.
Ivanhoe Alan Peiser, London, who had had extensive experience in the valuation of breweries for rating purposes, called by appellants, said in 1901 special buildings were erected at St. Anne's Well Brewery in order to deal with the heavy gravity beer trade. In 1902 the brewery, including these new buildings, was assessed at £650, but after 1902 the heavy gravity trade fell off completely, and the development of the new buildings never came about. Therefore the valuation of £650 was on the high side, they had property which they cou'd not use beneficially. Last year the output of the Heavitree Brewery was larger than that of St. Anne's Well by nearly 3,000 barrels.

The Recorder: Is that because it is capable of gieater output, or because they got more orders?

Witness: More orders would account for it, but Heavitree Brewery is capable of a larger output.

Witness continued that, Heavitree Brewery employed 13 men in the brewing of beer and placing in the carts. St. Anne's Well employed 16 men on the same work.

Mr. Dodson remarked that it was suggested that St. Anne's could run more cheaply than Heavitree because of its greater facilities. But those were the facts. St. Anne's also used more city water than Heavitree.

Witness further rated that the output required to satisfy the trade in the various breweries, and what, in fact, they were actually producing, was: —St. Anne's Well, 20,000 barrels per annum; Heavitree, 22,500; and City, 27,750. The rateable value per barrel on these bases was:- St. Anne's Well, 1s.; Heavitree, 7.5d.; and City, 6d. He valued the site at the same figure which Mr. Body placed upon the Heavitree site — 1s per foot. Hos estimate of the rateable value was £651.

"UNFAIR BURDEN."
Mr. Saul said his clients were not seeking in any way to avoid the fair their share of the poor rate of the city. But they did feel, as did the City and Heavitree Breweries, that the figures that had been imposed upon them Mr. Body when he made the 1923 valuation, was not a fair burden. In the two cases of the City and Heavitree Brewery, Mr. Body's valuation was proved to be far in excess of what was a right and proper figure at which to value the premises.

In 1902 the City Brewery was rated £329. Mr. Body thought it right increase that in 1923 to £1,070. On threat of an appeal to the Sessions, the Assessment Committee reduced that amount to £650. In the same way Mr. Body raised the Heavitree valuation from £400 to £780, ans eventually the Court decided that the figure to be inserted in the rate-book was £595. That was, therefore, the correct valuation of the Heavitree Brewery, and £650 was the correct valuation of the City Brewery.

The Assessment Committee were compelled bu law to see that people were rated fairly and equitably, and it was a ground of appeal by any ratepayer to show that somebody else was not rated fairly and equitably. It did not lie the mouth of Mr. Body to come there and say that in those cases the Assessment Committee lacked courage, and that they should disregard the settlements made by the body of which he was the principal representative because he found a difficulty in his way when it was pointed out to that his enormous figures had been substantially reduced by the Assessment Committee.

NO COMPARISON.
They could not decide the case comparison. They could not do what the Assessment Committee had done in that case, and say that there was a certain percentage increase in the City and Heavitree Breweries, and therefore they must have the same percentage of increase in the St. Anne's Well Brewery. The City assessment, it now stood, was practically double what it was in 1902. But they could not take the 1902 assessment and say that bceause the Heavitree and City Breweries had a substantial increase on their assessments since then they must also make a substantial increase in the St. Anne's Well, because they were not comparing like with like, in view of the additional buildings put up in 1901 and rendered practically useless after 1902.

It did not help the Court to talk about the dividends of the brewery companies being doubled or trebled. The dividends did not represent the profits made from the brewery, but from the sale of the beer after it had been sold in the tied houses. Furthermore, in the St. Anne's Well Brewery there was a wine and spirit business, which also affected the dividends.

Mr. Hawke said Mr. Peiser had omitted in his valuation buildings which, according to Mr. Body's valuation, had a total value of £1,427. This meant addition £71 on Mr. Peiser's estimated rateable value £651. He had also omitted machinery to the value £1,079.

RECORDERS JUDGMENT.
Delivering judgment, the Recorder said that after going over the brewery it seemed to him to be as nearly a model brewery as it was possible to get. He could not draw real comparison between the opposing valuations put forward, because Mr. Peiser's was incomplete. It was within his power to find an assessment which was higher than £850 (the amount finaliy offered appellants by the Assessment Committee), but he was very reluctant to do it. He could not help feeling that the £850 offered should have been accepted, and he decided that that must be the figure to placed in the rate-book.

QUESTION OF COSTS.
The question of which party had won the case arose on the question of costs, for when Mr. Hawke claimed the costs, Mr. Saul submitted that appellants, and not respondents, had won the case. The appeal had been launched because the most the Assessment Committee would reduce the rating to was £1,000. The case had not been fought on the fact that £850 was the proper amount. The figure they had fought about was £1,300 or a little under the valuations of Mr. Body and Mr. Eve. He had never heard of the successful appellant having to pay the costs of his opponents.

The Recorder said thai the Assessment Committee was representing the ratepayers, and the ratepayers should not be saddled with the costs, even their own costs, on a serious issue like that. Although technically they were losers, in fact they had won and he would allow appellants' costs to June (the date the offer of £850), and the respondents would allowed the costs after that date. The costs of the 11 cases withdrawn would be the respondents."
Western Morning News - Saturday 04 October 1924, page 3.

See - the buildings for ageing beer were obsolete because beer was no longer aged. The same was true of the parts of the premises dedicated to making high-gravity beers. Aged and higher-gravity beers had been losing popularity for decades before WW I, but the war was the final nil in their coffin.

Heavitree and the City Brewery were also in Exeter. Interesting that there were three breweries of such a similar size in the city. That must have led to intense competition. In the 1970's Nottingham, where most of the trade was in the hands of the three local breweries, had some of the lowest beer prices in the country.

Bottling in 1901: maturation after bottling

What a week it's been. I've stubbed my toe twice on important discoveries. I think I might have cracked my big toe, they were so weighty

The first I didn't notice when I first read the article. It's just an innocuous little entry in a table. But it's confirmed a suspicion I've held for a while, but haven't been able to find any evidence to back up. What is it I've discovered? That SA malt stands for "Strong Ale" malt.

Having seen how SA malt was used - almost exclusively in Strong Ales - had made guessing the meaning a bit of a no-brainer. But it's still nice to have confirmation. What's really got me excited, it is finding some detail about the characteristics of SA malt. You can see it in this table:

Table I.
A. Malts.
	Pale ale.	Mild ale.	Strong ale.
Easily fermentable matter.	60.5	64	57
Difficultly „ „ .	16.5	16	17
Unfermentable „ .	23	20	26
B. Bottled Pale Ales.
	At bottling.	6 weeks old.	12 months old.
Fermented solids	60 = 77% of F.S.	65.0 = 80% of F.S.	69 = 87% of F.S.
Fermentable residue	18 = 45% of R.	13.5 = 39% of R.	10 = 32% of R.
Unfermentable „	22 = 55% of R.	21.5 = 61% of R.	21 = 68% of R.
C. Bottled Strong Ales.
	At bottling.	6 months old.	2 years old.
Fermented solids	55 = 73% of F.S.	60 = 79% of F.S.	62 = 80% of F.S.
Fermentable residue	20 = 44% of R.	16 = 40% of R.	15 = 40% of R.
Unfermentable „	25 = 56% of R.	24 = 60% of R.	23 = 60% of R.

F.S. = Fermentable solids. R. = Unfermented residue.
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, page 194.

OK, the information is pretty limited. But it does tell us that SA malt contained more unfermentable material than mild ale malt or pale ale malt. That explains the high finishing gravities of KK and KKK then. K Ales often used SA malt as their base malt. What would be the modern equivalent, I wonder?

I was very surprised to see that mild ale malt contained more fermentable material than pale ale malt. I would have expected it to be the other way around.

The rest of the table is also damn interesting, because it highlights the different maturation periods of Pale Ale and Strong Ale.

"Table I places side by side analyses of pale and strong ales made at different periods: the gradual alteration in composition is very marked.

The time required to produce first-class bottled strong ale is in all cases very much more than for pale ales, and beers vary very much in this respect, but in the first place a strong ale should remain in the brewery cellar for not less than six months, and after removing to the bottling store will probably take a month or six weeks to get into fit condition for bottling. After bottling it may take fully six months more to properly condition, and care must be taken that the corks do not get dry.

It is, I am sorry to say, quite a rare thing to see a bottle of strong ale in perfect condition, and I think if more care were taken in this respect there would be a much greater demand for this, the finest product of the brewery.

As the best bottling stout is usually vatted and it is not required to be brilliant, the conditions of bottling are somewhat different, but I do not propose discussing this question."
Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing, Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 1901, page 195.

I've explained before the lengthy process of producing a Stock Pale Ale, one which could take more than 12 months. It seems that it took even longer to make a properly-matured Strong Ale. The article seems to say that 12 months is the minimum time required to produce such a beer. Something which it sounds like most breweries couldn't be bothered or couldn't afford to do.

The analyses after different periods of ageing are fascinating. You can see that a considerable amount of fermentation went on after bottling and continued for a very long time. We can see just how much by doing a few calculations.

Assuming that the first number for fermented solids is the real attenuation, it's easy enough to work out how the gravity fell after bottling. For Pale Ale, I've assumed the classic 1065º gravity. For the Strong Ale I've been more specific, taking the OG from Whitbread and Barclay Perkins KKK of the period, both of which had an OG of 1087º. The first FG, 1027º, is very close to the racking gravity of Barclay Perkins KKK, which was 1026.3º.

Here are the results in a nice compact table:

	OG	FG	ABV	Apparent attenuation	real attenuation
Pale Ale at bottling	1065	1016.5	6.32	74.62%	60.14%
Pale Ale 6 weeks after bottling	1065	1013	6.79	80.00%	64.70%
Pale Ale 6 months after bottling	1065	1010	7.21	84.62%	68.63%
Strong Ale at Bottling	1087	1027	7.81	68.97%	55.07%
Strong Ale 6 months after bottling	1087	1022	8.50	74.71%	59.93%
Strong Ale 2 years after bottling	1087	1020	8.78	77.01%	61.89%

You can see that after bottling, the ABV of both beers rose by almost 1%.

This helps me understand much better the analyses of 19th century Pale Ale where the apparent attenuation is well over 80%. At racking time, it might well have been no more than 75%. It's a new insight into the long process of producing truly bottle-conditioned beers.

The fall in the unfermentable residue of the Strong Ale I can only attribute to one cause: the action of something other than Saccharomyces, probably Brettanomyces. Not really a surprise in a beer that had been left a long time maturing in wood.

I don't know whether you'll be delighted or driven to despair when I tell you that I've barely scratched the surface of this article yet.

Ageing 18th-century London Porter

I'd always thought Porter was aged in the huge vats London brewers were so proud of.  The big innovation of Porter was the bulk ageing of beer in the brewery. I'd never really thought much about what happened to it after it was packaged for sale.

Yet here's evidence of Porter being aged in the bottle:

"At the Wine Vault in the West Wing within the Exchange, WINES and SPIRITS of different kinds, are to be sold, in wholesale, and at the following prices in retail, for ready money, viz.

Claret wine, upwards of eighteen months in Bottles, at 2s. 6d. and 3s. per chopin bottle, and in pint bottles at 5s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. per bottle.

Red port,        }
Zerry,             }
Malaga, and   } at 1s. 6d. per bottle.
Lisbon wines, }
Shrub, at 2s. per bottle;
Full proof Jamaica rum, at 2s. 6d. per bottle.
Full proof French brandy, at 2s. 4d. and 3s. per bottle, bottles included in the above prices.
Aquavitae, at 1s. per bottle, or 4s. 4d. per gallon.
Geneva, at 1s. 2d. per bottle, or 4s. 8 d. per gallon.
London porter, Upwards of nine months in bottles, at 3.5d. per bottle, or 3s. 6d. per dozen.
If clean bottles are not sent, when the aquavitae, geneva, or porter is ordered, 1s. 6d. will be added to the price.
Allowance given to such as take quantities.
What is sold of the above articles in bottles, is sealed with the impression A. L.
Commissions from persons exempted from paying impost, will be punctually executed from cellars in Leith, and the impost discounted."
Caledonian Mercury - Saturday 20 June 1772, page 3.

I'd always considered Porter, at least the standard-strength stuff, an almost exclusively draught product. Admittedly, this is an advert from a Scottish newspaper. Bottled beer was much more common, much sooner, North of the border.

Drinkers must have liked bottle-aged Porter or the seller wouldn't have bothered mentioning it. Nine months is a pretty long ageing period, especially if the beer had already been vatted in the brewery. In the 18th century, 6 to 12 months in vats is what you'd expect for Porter. Which means this bottled Porter could have been getting on for two years old. That's a similar length of maturation to a bottled Stock Pale Ale in its 19th-century heyday.

Vatting (ca. 1860)

I'm still wandering through the forest of old books, ever so slightly lost, but not panicking.

Some beers were still vatted for long periods, but the practice, like the aged taste, was going out of fashion. It's a process that can be difficult to track down in archive records. Especially what happened at the end of the maturation process.

"The best and most proper mode of storing and keeping beer is well worthy of the greatest attention. There are, however, many contradictory opinions upon this subject. Some think that all beer, but particularly ale, should be flattened, as it is called, before being stored in vats or casks. For this purpose, where slow fermentation and skimming are practised, large open vessels or tanks are provided, into which the beer is run, after having been a sufficient time, as it is considered, in the gyle or fermenting tun. The ale or beer is allowed to remain in these vessels for a longer or shorter time, according to the fancy of the brewer or storehouseman. It is during this period imbibing oxygen from the atmosphere, and sometimes is allowed to remain there until acidification has distinctly commenced, as indicated by white spots appearing on the surface, and by an increase of temperature. The brewer who adopts this practice, thinks the beer is so much flattened as to prevent its fretting in the vat. It will be found, however, that although the beer, from some little decrease in temperature by its removal, may be quiet enough for a time, yet the least increase of heat or exposure to the atmosphere, will again set it in motion; when, by getting on the fret, acidity may be produced. It never can be thoroughly sound, and will very soon become flat in drawing. It will also be found that when beer has been too long flattened in this way, before being stowed in casks, it will very soon get flat and forward when in draught in the publicans' cellars.

This, therefore, must be a very erroneous mode of treating beer. Some brewers, who have no tanks for the purpose, pump their beer from the cleansing casks again into a fermenting-tun, where it is often allowed to remain until the same indications of acidity, as above mentioned, may have taken place, when the same bad consequences may be dreaded. One great complaint is, that though ale tastes very well when first tapped, yet it very soon gets flat and forward, and will not stand the draught. How can it, we may ask, when acidification has previously commenced by long exposure to the atmosphere ?

We think enough has been said to prove that long exposure of beer to the atmosphere is the worst mode of treating it. The laws of chemical science, not less than the facts, establish this conclusion.

When beer of any kind has gone through a regular and sound process of fermentation, and has had full time to throw off its yeast and get quiet, which will always happen in a few days, any further exposure to the atmosphere is not only useless, but injurious.

It should, if sufficiently cool (say about 52° F., which all stock beer must be on the third day after cleansing, when brewed in proper season), be pumped into the vat; the bottoms which are pumped over along with it will soon fall down, proving rather a preservative than otherwise.

The vats, when full, should be covered, and sand thrown on the cover, more effectually to exclude the atmosphere. A loaded self-acting vent-peg fixed in the top, would, however, be very desirable, so as to permit any elastic gas which may be produced to escape.

If the storehouse can now be kept at a regular temperature, no other precaution is necessary; but when liable to be affected by summer heats, the sand on the top of the vats should be sprinkled with common salt, which retains the moisture, and also be kept damp with water. This by evaporation will tend to keep the beer cool. When the beer, instead of being vatted, has to be stowed in casks proper for sending out, they should be conveyed to the storehouse, and placed upon wooden bearers; then, instead of the bung-holes being left open, which is the common practice, bungs should be inserted slightly, so as to be easily thrown out if necessary. Holes should also be bored into every cask, either through or near the bung, and spiles or pegs inserted, so as at any time to give vent, should that be required. After having given vent, however, the bungs or pegs should be immediately replaced. By this treatment the beer, if properly brewed, will very soon become quiet, and if not exposed to higher temperatures, will require no further attention until it is sent out."
"A practical treatise on brewing" by William Black, 1866, pages 141-144.

It does seem odd that all the sediment was put into the vat with the beer.Surely the whole point of cleansing was to remove all that crap?

That's probably enough from William Black. Some of his ideas are so crazy that it makes you doubt everything in his book. The stuff about electricity spoiling beer is a bout as whacky as it gets.

Blending in the 1860's

You must be getting an idea of how anarchically I go about my research. What I post here truly reflects my current studies. You don't want to know what the inside of my head looks like.

Though traditionally used as a way of imparting young beer with an aged flavour, there were other reasons for blending. Principally, as a way of disposing of otherwise unsaleable beer. From the description below, it sounds like this was a tricky process:

"The process of mixing beers is technically denominated 'marrying' them. This process is seldom attempted with mild ales, but with the more hardy beer called porter, it is very generally practised. Mild beer is now become the order of the day; and old beer, excepting when mixed with new, is seldom drunk. The uncertainty of brewing, the reasons of which we have attempted to explain, occasions a great deal of beer to be returned by the publicans to the brewer, principally in summer. These returns are stowed in vats, where they are allowed to remain until they are thought to be in a fit condition to be mixed with mild new beers, the only way by which they can be got rid of. This is occasionally done by breaking the old beers into the gyle-tuns with the worts, while in a state of fermentation, which is a very dangerous mode of working: for if the fermentation should be in the least degree languid, the addition will make it more so, and the whole gyle, or brewing, will be unfit to be sent out. This injudicious plan has sometimes been followed to such an extent, as to block up the brewer; that is to say, he at last accumulates such a quantity of unsaleable beer, as not to leave room for brewing any more, until, perhaps, he has been obliged to turn some of his stock down the kennel. Others break their old beer into the breaking batch (or vessel into which the porter is run before being pumped into the vats) with the mild beer. This mode of working may also be unsafe; for unless the fermentation has been vigorous and healthy, and the old beer brought into a fit state for mixing, no combination will take place; the beer will retain a double flavour, and be occasionally unfit to be sent out, unless by being brought into proper condition, and again mixed off with mild beer. From the above remarks, it will be seen that marrying or mixing beers is a very dangerous process, unless when thoroughly understood by the operator.

Old beer can never be in a proper state for mixing off, unless when brought round (as it is called) for that purpose. This can only be done by again bringing it into a state of fermentation in the vat: after which, if properly treated, it will generally become bright and sparkling; that is to say, if it has not got so bad as to be totally irrecoverable, or unfit for use in any way excepting in making blacking. It will then at once combine with any sound mild beer, and instead of injuring, will improve the flavour. Judiciously to bring on the above-mentioned fermentation in the vat, and at the same time so as not to carry it too far, requires a good deal of skill, and can only be accomplished by those who have been accustomed to such management. Where the process of fermentation is properly and scientifically conducted, these artifices, rendered necessary generally, by neglect or ignorance, will seldom be required."
"A practical treatise on brewing" by William Black, 1866, pages 139-141.

Least you think such practices belong to the dim and distant past, such recycling of returned beer was still common as recently as the 1970's and 1980's. The old system of taxation - basically on the wort before it was fermented - encouraged brewers to recover as much waste beer as possible. Brewers were allowed 6% wastage from the brewing process. If a brewery could get the actually wastage figure below this, they could effectively get some beer free of tax. The returns were usually recycled in a beer like sweet Stout, where a lorryload of caramel and sugar could hide any nastiness.

Brewery piping and beer ageing ca 1885

Someone asked the other day about the pipes in breweries. What were they made from? I've just found the answer.

"Mains for beer and wort should be always made of tinned copper pipe, with gun metal flanges and caps, and all T pieces should be formed of tinned sheet copper, with smooth surfaces and easy throats. Water pipes may be made of cast or wrought iron, but lead pipes are not adapted for brewery use, and should be entirely excluded from breweries."
Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 24.

 I also found this about ageing and storing beer:

"The methods of storing beer in different parts of the United Kingdom vary considerably. In Burton the beer is run into the trade casks, and these are often stacked in the open during the winter months, and only placed under cover as the season advances. In other localities the trade casks full of stock beer are stored in underground cellars, where a very uniform temperature is maintained. Of these two plans, the former answers well if the beer is sound and good enough to stand it, but if there is any doubt on this point the latter plan must of course be adopted. Then again, black beers and old ales are frequently stored in vats, and vatting greatly improves the quality of these varieties of malt liquor." (Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 143.)

That's it for today. Though there's more to come from Southby. If you can stay awake.

New kitchen: the upside

Our house is still chaotic after the installation of a new kitchen. The chaos doesn't just affect the pots and pans. It's had an impact on my beer stuff, too.

I had to empty and move one of my bookcases. One of the ones dedicated to beer. To be honest, a couple of the shelves were a mess, piled with folders of old notes, labels, maps and god knows what else. I really should sort it all out before putting the bookcase back. But it's me we're talking about. I'll probably have some more pressing task - like watching "American Dad" with Lexie - that will distract me.

The kitchen cupboards, I had believed, were free of any beer-related items. Not quite true. The ones we couldn't really get at (long story as to why, so I won't bother trying to explain) held a surprise. Three bottles of beer that must have been there since we moved in twelve years ago. I say bottles, but they're really cork-stoppered earthenware flasks. I'd forgotten all about them.

The sell by dates are all 1991. So they weren't exactly fresh when put in the cupboard back in 1996. And the beers themselves? Hertog Jan Dubbel, Tripel and Grand Prestige. They've been in a cool, dark place. And at a steady temperature. Ideal conditions for ageing. I wonder what they taste like?

I would show you a photo of the new kitchen. But my camera is on the blink. Maybe tomorrow.

Archeological Evidence of Long Term Beer Aging Pre-1850

Another milestone reached today: the last post from my Earl list. I'd avoided this topic until now because it required some research. I'm a lazy git. And my research time is very limited. Yesterday I did none at all. Cask-conditioned Fuller's London Porter in Wildeman saw to that.

I'll take long term as meaning more than 12 months. That is what you meant, isn't it, Alan?

The following is a quote from "A Treatise on Adulterations of Food" by Fredrick Accum, published in 1820:

"OLD, OR ENTIRE; AND NEW, OR MILD BEER.
IT is necessary to state, that every publican has two sorts of beer sent to him from the brewer; the one is called mild, which is beer sent out fresh as it is brewed; the other is called old; that is, such as is brewed on purpose for keeping, and which has been kept in store a twelve-month or eighteen months."

He's talking specifically about Porter, in case you were wondering. As Accum went round the large London Porter breweries (and took samples of beer for analysis) I think he knew what he was talking about.


This next quote is from "The London and Country Brewer" of 1736:

"A particular way of Brewing strong October Beer.
There was a Man in this Country that brewed for a Gentleman constantly after a Very precise Method, and that was, as soon as he had put over all his first Copper of
water and mash'd it some time, he would directly let the Cock run a small stream
and presently put some fresh Malt on the former, and mash on the while the Cock
was spending, which he would put again over the Malt, as often as his Pail or Hand-bowl was full, and this for an Hour or two together; then he would let it run off intirely, and put it over at once, to run off again as small as a Straw. This was for his _October_ Beer: Then he would put scalding water over the Goods at once, but not mash, and Cap them with more fresh Malt that stood an Hour undisturbed before he would draw it off for Ale; the rest was hot water put over the Goods and mash'd at twice for small Beer: And it was observed that his _October_ Beer was the most famous in the Country, but his Grains good for little, for that he had by this method wash'd out all or most of their goodness; this Man was a long while in Brewing, and once his Beer did not work in the Barrel for a Month in a very hard Frost, yet when the weather broke it recovered and fermented well, and afterwards proved very good Drink, but he seldom work'd, his Beer less than a Week in the Vat, and was never tapp'd under three Years."

It's discussing the private brewing October Beer, a strong beer meant to be aged that many reckon to be the forerunner of Barley Wine. Three years before tapping - sounds like long-term ageing to me.

At Guinness, the Export Foreign Extra Stout (FES) had a long ageing:

"FES at this time was only brewed in the 3 winter months January to March when DS and SS sales were lowest. It was due for sale in the 12 months of the following year (January-December), on average 15 months old. . . . . Due to the prolonged storage of up to 2 years in vat before sale, FES brewing had to be limited due to the available vathouse capacity and the volume brewed well ahead of sales."
"A Bottle of Guinness, Please" by David Hughes, pages 71-72.