Friday, 6 March 2015

The New Gollem



Things have gone crazy in Amsterdam the last couple of years. New breweries and beer pubs are popping up like mushrooms after rain. I'm struggling to keep up.


Some of the boom is down to existing operations expanding. Like Gollem, who now have four pubs dotted around the city. Saturday I finally got my arse into gear and visited the newest location, on the Amstelstraat between Rembrandtsplein and Waterlooplein. I'm not a huge fan of Rembrandtsplein too much crap music and too many drunks. Amstelstraat used to be a bit rundown, with tourist bars and coffeeshops. It looks like it's on the way up.  It amazes me just how quickly Amsterdam is changing at the moment.

From the outside, it looks a decent size with its double frontage. But inside it seems smaller. And very clean and modern, with some fairly bright colours. Nothing wrong with that. I’m sure that’s what youngsters expect nowadays.

The beer selection is an interesting one and tells us much about the state of beer in the Netherlands. Sure there’s American beer, IPA and beers from new local breweries like Oedipus and Butcher’s Tears. But it isn’t full-on craft, as London Pride and St. Bernardus Abt on draught betray.

On the bottled side, there are some eye-wateringly expensive large format bottles. But most are American so there’s no way I’d buy them over here. One of my rules: I don’t buy American beer in Europe. You’ve no idea what state it’s going to be in. And I get to the US often enough to get my grapefruit fix.

Being honest, I quite like that it hasn’t got both feet in the craft boat. Makes it easier to persuade Dolores to go there. She’s not a huge fan of fruit-bowl Ales, preferring Belgian or British beers.

All in all, a decent addition to Amsterdam’s beer scene.





Café Gollem Amstelstraat
Amstelstraat 34,
1017 DA Amsterdam.

Opening times:
Mon-Thur: 14.00 - 01.00
Fri-Sat: 12.00 - 03.00
Sun 12.00 - 01.00

30 draught, 100 bottled

Thursday, 5 March 2015

Berliner Weissbier breweries in the 1890’s

Not written about Berliner Weisse for ages. And this wasn’t really planned.  I didn’t wake up this morning and think “Let’s look into Berliner Weisse”. (Actually, it was “I must  search for ‘keg beer’ in the newspaper archive.)

Strange, the way I stumble through research. And how I come to look in certain books.

This all started with Twitter. A tweet about a Berlin brewery I recognised. The former Schultheiss Weissbier brewery in Prenzlauer Berg. Which is what I tweeted back. Only to be told only Lager had ever been brewed there.

I was pretty sure I was right, if only because I can remember it being open. Where to look? A web search got me to the German Wiikipedia and one of my own web pages. Luckily I’ve an excellent book on Berliner Weisse, published by the VLB. "Die Berliner Weisse", by Gerolf Annemüller, Hans-J. Manger and Peter Lietz, published in 2008.

I needed to check whether it had been the Weißbierbrauerei E. Willner. One of the handy tables at the back of the book confirmed it was the brewery on Berlinerstrasse. I scanned the page to post on Twitter. Then thought that I may as well scan all the tables. Much easier to find stuff when it’s in an electronic form.

Here’s the first table:

Membership list of Vereins der Berliner Weißbierbrauereien E.V.
Nr Firm Boss Address These breweries still existed
Street 1906 1914 year of closure
1 J. C. A. Richter & Co. Weißbierbrauerei Alfred Richter Hier C. 34 Rosenthalerstr. 51 X X ca. 1920
2 Berliner Weißbier Brauerei Akt. Ges. vorm. Carl Landre Dir. Otto Ullrich Hier. N. 37 Straßburgerstr. 6/8. X X 1927 merged with Breithaupt
3 C. Breithaupt Weißbierbrauerei C. Breithaupt Hier. N.O. 18. Pallisadenstr. 97. X X 1927, s. Nr. 2
4 Berliner Export Weißbierbrauerei C. & 0. Fischer O. Fischer Rixdorf *) Hier. S.O. 26 Prinz Handjerystr. 78/79 Waldemarstr. 74 X 1912
5 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei Jul. Boehm Max Rauch Hier. C. 25 Prenzlauerstr. 16. ca. 1906
6 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei Friedrichstadt Jul. Borsdorf Julius Borsdorf Hier. N.O. 43. Neue Königstr. 32. 1896
7 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei Ed. Gebhardt A. G. Dir. Bernh. Gebhardt Hier. N. 20. Prinzen Allee 79/80. X 1913 merged with Groterjan
8 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei und Malzfabrik Albert Bier Alb. Paegeiow Hier. C. 2. Stralauerstr. 3/6. X ca. 1910
9 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei E. Willner Gust. Pradel Pankow Berlinerstr. 80/82. X X ca. 1990/91
10 Gabriel & Jaeger Weißbierbrauerei F. W. Gabriel Hier. N. 54. Zehdenickerstr. 9 / Choriner Str. X ~ 1913 (an KindlAG)
11 Hartmann's Brauerei Wwe. Hartmann Reinickendorf Scharnweberstr. 101/2. X X ca. 1914
12 Berliner Weißbierbrauerei Carl Richter Carl Richter Hier. N. 39. Dalldorferstr. 23. X X 1964 (an KindlAG)
13 Weißbierbrauerei vorm. H. A. Bolle AG. Dir. Hugo Riedel Hier. N. 24. Friedrichstr. 128. X X 1932
14 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei Fiedler & Billep Otto Billep Schoeneberg Sedanstr. 73/75. X - 1912
15 Bert. Bierbrauerei Act. Ges. vorm. F. W. Hilsebein Dir. Max Wem berger Hier. O. 17. Koppenstr. 61/69. X - 1911, brewing operations to Carl Landré, after that maltster
16 A. Landre Weißbierbrauerei Emil Kaufmann Hier. C. 2. Stralauerstr. 36/37. X X 1917 to Carl landré
17 S. D. Moewes WeJßbierbrauerei R. Materne Hier. C. 2. Hoher Steinweg 6/7. X - 1912
18 Vereinigte Berliner Weißbier-Brauereien G.m.b.H. Dir. Paul Zoeppritz Weißensee Brauhausstr 2/5. X X ca. 1914
19 Rud. Frömchen Weißbierbrauerei Rud. Frömchen Hier. N. 20. Wiesenstr. 43 X - ca. 1910; 1931 reopened; until 1948
20 Christ. Stauch WeJßbierbrauerei Christian Stauch Hier. N. 39. Wildenowstr. 4. X X ca. 1920
21 Berliner Weißbierbrauerei Act. Ges. (vorm. Gericke) Dir. Arno Freyknecht Hier. N. 28. Rheinsbergerstr. 43/45. X - 1911
22 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei Max Füllgrabe Max Füllgrabe Hier. N. 20. Stettinerstr. 20. X X 1920
23 Alb. Laue WeJßbierbrauerei Prok. A. Laue Hier. O. 27. Andreasstr. 8. X X 1923
24 Rud. Braun WeJßbierbrauerei Rudolf Braun Charl. 1. Berlinerstr. 74. (Lützowstr. ???) X X ca. 1920
25 Berl. Weißbierbrauerei W. Bönnhoff W. Bönnhoff Hier. N. 39. Schulzendorferstr. 3/3a. X - ca. 1906
Spelling as in the original
The bosses of the numbers 1 through 3 are marked as Board of Directors.
*) The address Rixdorf, Prince Handjerystr. was obviously added later.
Source:
"Die Berliner Weisse", by Gerolf Annemüller, Hans-J. Manger and Peter Lietz, 2008, page 319.

Bit thin just that, isn’t it?

I know. Another table. Now there’s an outrageous claim by another beer writer about hundreds of Weissbier breweries in Berlin. Here are some real numbers:

Number of Weissbier breweries in Berlin (in brackets limited companies)
1844 12 1872 17 1895 34 (4) 1916 23 (2)
1849 13 1875 17 (3) 1899 49 (4) 1918 11 (2)
1855 12 1877 19 (3) 1905 51 (4) 1920 9 (2)
1860 13 1880 25 (3) 1909 39 (5) 1924 12 (3)
1865 13 1885 35 (4) 1912 38 (4) 1928 14 (2)
1870 16 1890 40 (4) 1914 25 (2) 1933 14 (2)
1940 10 (1)
Source:
"Die Berliner Weisse", by Gerolf Annemüller, Hans-J. Manger and Peter Lietz, 2008, page 319.

Not quite 700, are there?

There will be more from the book, arsing allowing.

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1911 Heineken Bok

You must be amazed. A Let's Brew three weeks in a row. What's happeneing to me.

It's only because I've already written these recipes for another project. What is that project exactly? I'll tell you when it's 100% definite. It's almost there. Almost.

We've another beer from Heineken's Rotterdam brewery. One of the ones they brewerd rather less of than the Gerste we saw last time. Logical enough, as Bok was a seasonal beer, as it still is today in Holland. They're released at an agreed date in October. But it waasn't always like that.

Dutch Bokbier season used to be Lent. But breweries kept releasing their Boks earlier and earlier. By the time the season had effectively moved to Autumn, the brewers' organisation said enough was enough. They set a release date each year which their members agreed to stick to. It's lasted until today, at least among the older breweries.

On with the recipe. The malts are a bit of a guess. The records have a column headed "Kleur mout" or "coloured malt". Which is a bit vague. There are two separate numbers for the Bok, quite a lot of one and not very much of the other. As I know the beer was pretty dark brown, the only way that colour is possible is if the smaller quantity is some form of roasted malt. Feel free to make any substitutions you fancy.

It's pretty lightly hopped, as were all of Heineken's beers at this point. You should see the Pils. Very few hops for the style. Hang on, you probably will see it. I've that one pencilled in for next week.

The mash technique is also a guess. Don't feel obliged to follow it. .

That's me done. Just the recipe itself to go.

1911 Heineken Bok
pilsner malt 2 row 12.25 lb 79.91%
Munich malt 20L 2.75 lb 17.94%
Carafa III  0.33 lb 2.15%
Saaz 60 min 1.75 oz
OG 1067.5
FG 1029.5
ABV 5.03
Apparent attenuation 56.30%
IBU 17
SRM 20
Mash double decoction
Boil time 90 minutes
pitching temp 48º F
Yeast WLP830 German Lager



Tuesday, 3 March 2015

German brewing in the 1970’s – fermentation vessels


Kieninger ends with an overview of the different German fermentation systems in use at the time.

It’s pretty clear where his preferences lie. Again there’s not a single mention of beer flavour in his discussion.

“Finally, I wish to discuss the types of fermentation vessels which may be used in breweries in the future. There are three main combinations of fermentation and maturation vessels in use at present.

(a) The green beer may be fermented in cylindro-conical vessels and then matured in horizontal tanks. This method has the disadvantage that the yeast must be removed from the lager tank manually and is likely to be avoided in future developments.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

Even in the most old-fashioned method he describes the primary fermentation is performed in conicals. He only really traditional bit is lagering in horizontal tanks. His dislike of them seems purely based on having to clean them out by hand.

This sounds even worse:

“(b) A second possibility is to use cylindro-conical vessels for main fermentation and then to pump the beer into vertical outdoor tanks, using a plate cooler to lower the temperature.

The removal of yeast from the outdoor tank is also difficult, especially if the vessel has a diameter greater than 6 m. The vessels are cheap, however, and as a result they are found in many breweries, usually with centrifuges before the plate cooler.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

It’s huge tanks like these that make some modern breweries look like a chemical works. Or some post-modernist building where all the guts are on the outside.

Finally, Kieninger’s favourite:

“(c) The problems of handling yeast in large tanks has led to a consideration of fermentation and maturation in a single vessel. One brewery in Italy uses this so-called 'unitank method". This brewery is not using flotation but filters the wort before fermentation by use of a kteselguhr filter. The primary fermentation is completed after 7 days at a temperature of 9°C, 7 days are needed to reduce the content of the a-acetolactate formed and after a further 7 days stabilization at 0°C the beer is filtered and bottled. The average yeast concentration before filtration is 4 million cells per ml compared to a concentration of only 0.5 million cells per ml for the classical procedure of stabilization in horizontal cylindrical vessels. Since one brew occupies a vessel for 3 weeks one must ask if the financial burden which arises from the high costs of cylindro-conical tanks compared to separate fermentation and lagering vessels is justified. The fact that removal of yeast from the cylindro-conical tanks is much easier than from horizontal or vertical lager tanks with a flat bottom is a major reason for the method being adopted.

Extensive trials in our Institute showed that fermentation at temperatures of 15-18°C altered the original character of the lager beer, even after addition of Krausen during secondary fermentation and only at temperatures of 12°C and below was no distinct effect found. We think it advisable, therefore, that the temperature of primary fermentation should not exceed 9°C during the first 3 days but during the last stages of primary fermentation the temperatures may rise to 14-I6°C to reduce the content of diketones and precursors. After this time the yeast is removed and the beer is carbonated and stabilized at 0°C in the same vessel. The procedure described requires 3 weeks production time which can be carried out on a weekly programme. A better foam stability has been found with longer maturation time.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

I believe the unitank system is what industrial Lager breweries use today. And I think the temperature of primary fermentation isn’t kept below 9º C, but is more like the 15-18°C than damages the character of Lager. Oh look, there’s a sort of mention of beer flavour. At just three weeks from mash to bottling, there’s not really any lagering going on.

Kieninger does have reservations about conicals:

“Summarizing these points the question arises whether the cylindro-conical tank can really be the universal vessel for beer production in the future. It is certainly possible to separate the cold break by filling the vessels at such a speed that the sludge sediments before the yeast has overcome its 8 hour lag-phase. This allows sufficient separation of cold sludge for the fermentative activity of the yeast not to be affected. Collection of carbon dioxide and removal of yeast is possible without manual work and there are no problems with stabilization and carbonation. The only disadvantage is the larger volume required for the foam head when using higher temperatures. Our experience has shown that a vessel with a height of 25 m needs 5-6 m for the foam head and this means that a vessel, depending on the temperature of fermentation, may be filled only to two-thirds of its volume. It seems that in the future, therefore, there will be a trend in many continental breweries to ferment and mature the beer in one vessel by a batch procedure.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

Though the ease of removing yeast and collecting CO2 outweigh not being able to fill the conicals to the top when fermenting Lager warmer than was traditional.

His prediction about single-vessel fermentation systems did indeed become true. In fact I think that’s also the way most new small breweries operate in the US.

And that's us done. At least with this article.

Monday, 2 March 2015

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Treatment of beer in cellars of public houses

This is the chapter I’ve been leading up to. A very detailed account of how to – and how not to – handle cask beer in the pub.

It’s one of the most useful, and fascinating, chapters I’ve ever come across. I’m not joking. It’s answered one question that’s been knocking around in my head for several decades. But that bit will come in a later post.

This is the curse of the cask brewer:

“Every brewer should realise that his duties do not end within the walls of the brewery. A brewer should take every opportunity of visiting his firm's licensed houses, in order to be fully acquainted with the conditions under which his beers are managed in the cellars. By so doing, Providing he keeps careful record of the details applying to each place, he will be able to arrange his own cellar temperatures to better advantage. He will have obtained a fair idea of the temperatures to which beers will be subjected after they have left the brewery. It is quite possible, too, with his more expert and intimate knowledge of beer, that he may be able to give the tenant or manager some beneficial advice. At the same time, he can point out any defects in the cellar which require attention. He will undoubtedly find some tenants rather averse from any change in their usual methods of cellar management. The fact that a certain routine has given good results for a long period is no reason for not pointing out the possible ill results of certain actions which entail risks. With the knowledge thus acquired from various cellars, a brewer should be able to deal with any trouble which might develop with his beers in cellar.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 249.

The brewer of bottled or keg beer has far less to worry about when he waves the fruit of his labour goodbye. Broken packaging or roasting in the sun for a few days aside, there’s not a huge amount of harm that can befall such beer. It should survive even sloppy handling in drinkable condition. MNo such luck with cask.

Which means a cask brewer has to take an interest in – and possibly worry about – what goes on in a pub cellar. And in the days when most pubs were tied, breweries did have a say in cellar design. Especially with new pubs.

And cellars and their design are where we start.

Cellars
In chapter 2 we mentioned that it was necessary for architects who designed breweries to have considerable knowledge of brewing. We are now going to express the opinion that it is of equal importance that those who plan out licensed houses should have sufficient knowledge of the management of beer to enable them fully to appreciate the importance of the cellar. The cellar is really the heart of any place where the trade depends upon the sale of beer. It is throwing away money to construct a palatial building in order to attract trade, if the cellar is so ill designed that it is impossible to sell beer in anything approaching a satisfactory condition. The house will inevitably become a ‘white elephant' on account of its bad reputation so far as beer is concerned. Unfortunately, the brewer is too often blamed for trouble with the beers, when all the time it is due to circumstances over which he has little or no control. We do not say that these poor conditions apply so much to cellars in town houses as to those in the country. Nevertheless, possibly owing to space being valuable in towns, we have often found cellars in town houses ridiculously small in proportion to the trade which the house should do. This defect is a serious one, because it entails frequent opening of the cellar doors, with destruction of its normal temperature. These changes in temperature, especially during extreme summer heat or winter cold, are liable to have serious effects upon the beers. Besides, lack of space never gives the beers a chance to settle down. Thick and unpalatable drinks become the rule and not the exception. With good reason, therefore, we demand a cellar which is large enough. If the cellar is found to be too spacious, part of it can always be screened off. But if it is too small, it is difficult to enlarge.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 249 - 250.

“Thick and unpalatable drinks” – sounds like Craft Keg or that unfined nonsense. Then again, isn’t the whole point of these things that they look different? So fashion victims can easily spot them. Who would be interested in unfined beer if it looked just as clear in the glass as fined beer?

I’d never thought about the bad effects of too small a cellar. I guess for deliveries cellar doors are open a fair time. But does it really have such an impact on the temperature inside?

It seems out in the countryside cellars were even worse than the town:

“As regards cellars in country houses, the less said about some of them the better. We have come across many which are quite unfit for the storage of beer. In some instances, they are simply a draughty passage between two compartments in the house; in others, a lean-to shed on one side of the building—even on the south side of it, so that at midday during the summer it resembles an oven. In many cases no attempt has been made to sink the cellar below ordinary floor level. Such sinking is essential if any degree of uniformity in temperature is to be obtained. Very often, when the licensed house is some distance from the brewery, deliveries of beer are only made fortnightly. In such cases, part only of the consignment can be cellared. The remainder finds its way into any vacant shed or stable, where it is left to take its chance, and is lost sight of until required. It is then transferred to the cellar, almost at the last moment before it has to be drawn on. During the winter, the beer becomes thoroughly chilled and takes a considerable time to recover. On the other hand, the authors have been urgently summoned during the heat of summer for assistance, to find the cask standing on end in some terribly hot outhouse, the heads bulging and straining under heavy internal pressure of gases, and threatening at any moment to burst. With room available for a larger cellar, as is generally the case in the country, there can be no excuse for such conditions. If the cellar is too small and cannot be enlarged, however, more frequent delivery of beer should be insisted upon.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 250.

They all sound like pretty dreadful places to store beer. Let alone cask beer. 19h-century Bass, of course, could handle being exposed to the elements. Lesser beers, I guess not. That paragraph certainly makes me look at the quaint country pubs of old in a slightly different light. The beer must have often been dreadful, especially in the summer. Sounds like a recipe for vinegar.

This all much more complicated than you might imagine. You had to use the right materials when building a cellar.

“Apart from the position and the size of a cellar, planning and construction are of the utmost importance. Adequate ventilation is essential, but it must not involve draughts. Draughts are very detrimental to the condition and often the fining of beers. On that account, we do not favour open cellar flaps made of iron grating, but prefer wooden ones, even if it means curtailment of a certain amount of light. But as underground cellars generally need artificial light in any case, the defect is a minor one. For cleanliness, we strongly advise a floor covered with asphalt, with adequate fall to a drain or sump. The fall ensures that any beer which may be spilled runs away immediately, thus obviating an accumulation of beer which rapidly turns acid.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

What’s the difference between ventilation but not draught? Whether you’re sitting in its direct path, would be my personal definition. Why was a draught bad for fining?

Café Belgique in Amsterdam has an earth floor, I seem to recall. Probably the worst possible option for cask.

Oh right, I see Jeffery agrees with me:

“Where a sump is necessary in the absence of a drain, it should be cleaned out every day without fail. From the point of view of an even temperature an earth floor seems more suitable for beers than any type of more up-to-date construction, but has the disadvantage of getting foul and acid, especially during the summer, and on that account is undesirable.

Walls and roof faced with white glazed tiles form the ideal so far as cleanliness is concerned. If tiles are found too expensive, bricks may be substituted provided they have a hard smooth surface which will not form a receptacle for mould spores. The bricks can be limewashed periodically, and the cellar so kept sweet and clean.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

Tiles are always the best option, hygiene-wise. I’d have our whole house tiled, walls, floors, ceilings, if Dolores would let me. We’d never have to decorate again. Not that I do much. Usually it’s Dolores who gets out the paintbrush when I’ve gadded off somewhere.

One final word of warning:

“A great mistake is sometimes made in providing a roof which is too low. Every man needs sufficient height in which to move if he is to do his work properly. A manager or tenant will not be encouraged to visit his cellar more often than he is absolutely obliged to, if he finds he has limited space in any direction.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

The author should see the one in Café Belgique. The deepest parts aren’t tall enough to stand up in. And the shallow bits aren’t much more than a metre. And it’s only about 15 square metres in area.

Temperatures and stillage next. You’ll have to wait a while for the really fun bits.

Sunday, 1 March 2015

German brewing in the 1970’s – fermentation (part two)

What’s the best fermentation system? Who hasn’t asked themselves that while soaking in the bath or bobbing along to work on the bus, some grey winters day?

You’re in luck, because Kieninger is going to tell us. Or at least give us his opinion. He worked at Weihenstephan, so he must be right, musn’t he?

“Table XII also shows the most simple and effective method for the fermentation and maturation of lager beers of high quality in the light of modern knowledge. Primary fermentation is carried out in closed vessels, so that it is possible to collect the carbon dioxide and any required temperature may be applied. After reduction of diacetyl the green beer is cooled by plate coolers to a temperature of 0°C and after remaining at this temperature for 2-3 weeks for stabilization it is carbonated and filtered. The only analytical controls required are diacetyl and carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide content may be controlled by in-line instrumentation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Lager in just 28 days. I’m not sure he’s convinced me about that. I’m sure it’s a cost-efficient way of brewing. But what about the flavour of the beer? That doesn’t get a look in. Notice that it’s not even taken into consideration.

The best Lagers I’ve had I mostly knew were open-fermented, lagered for months rather than weeks and were naturally carbonated.

I’m going to repeat that table, because it’s a while since the last post in this series:

TABLE XII. Comparison of Fermentation and Maturation Systems.
Method Primary fermentation Transfer Lagering
Classical 7 days at 9°C Beer with 3-5% residual extract cooled to 4°C 35-50 days with temperature reducing from 3° to 0°C
Using Kräusen 7 days at 9º-10°C Beer with 2% residual extract cooled to 4°C. 10-12% Krausen with 8% residual extract added 14-28 days with temperature reducing from 4° to 0°C
Under pressure at high temperature (Champagne Wheat Beer) 3 days at 16°C or 4 days at 14°C under pressure Beer with 2% residual extract 2.0 bar pressure cooled to 0°C 7-14 days stabilization at 0°C 
Modern development 7 days at 12-14°C with CO2 collection Attenuated beer carbonated and cooled to 0°C 14-21 days stabilisation at 0°C and final carbonation

This next bit is interesting, even though it slightly baffles me:

“Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the time necessary to reduce diacetyl content to a value of 0.1 mg/litre and maturation temperature. At a temperature of 30°C, 48 hours are sufficient to reduce the diacetyl content to <0.1 mg/litre without addition of Kräusen but, at 8.5°C, eighteen days are necessary to reduce the diacetyl content to the same value. The addition of Kräusen also allows a reduction of diacetyl at higher temperatures, but additional 2-acetolactate is formed during secondary fermentation, so that a new time-consuming reduction phase is necessary.”



Fig. 2. Behaviour of 2-acetolactate (as diacetyl) during different maturation conditions following primary fermentation at 8.5°C. Curve A = maturation at 8.5°C with kräusen, B = 85°C without kräusen, C = 15°C with kräusen, D = 20°C with kräusen, E = 30°C with kräusen, F = 30°C without kräusen.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Oh, I get it. You can break down diacetyl at a higher temperature if you kräusen, the fermentation of the kräusen creates more diacetyl. And that also needs to be broken down. Sounds like you need to add more kräusen then. Only joking. But what is he recommending ? I’m confused.

“The development of isoamyl alcohol during primary fermentation at different temperatures with and without pressure is shown in Fig. 3. Isoamyl alcohol content increases



Fig. 3. Iso-amyl alcohol content during primary fermentation in relation to temperature and pressure. Curve A = fermentation at 20ºC, B = 20°C with pressure, C = 16°C, D= 16°C with pressure, E = 12°C. F = 12°C with pressure, G = classical fermentation at 8-S°C.

with increasing temperature but the use of pressure results in a decrease of about 5 % at any given temperature.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

This one has totally lost me. Be glad for an explanation by any brewing technicians out there.

Just looked up isoamyl alcohol on this wonderful new thing they have called the internet. A higher alcohol . . . . that tastes like banana. I get why Kieninger is so interested in it, being a brewer of Weissbier.

Still one more bit to go. Where fermentation systems are compared.

Saturday, 28 February 2015

Cask beer in the 1950’s – finings

This is such fun. And just wait until we get to the next chapter which deals with handling cask beer in the pub. That’s a real eye-opener.

Let’s get started.

Fining
The composition of finings has already been described, also reason why they are used. Their aim is to effect as rapidly as possible the condition of clarity which, provided the beer has been properly brewed, would doubtless have resulted spontaneously in the long run. It remains now to deal with the quantity of finings which should be used, and the best time at which to use it.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

So they are a shortcut to clarity, really. Stock Pale Ales in the 19th century weren’t usually fined but expected to drop crystal clear during the long maturation process. I wish some modern brewers would take note that unfined doesn’t mean that the beer has to look like mud in the glass.

This is an interesting point:

“It is hardly necessary to point out that the addition of finings, besides increasing the sludge and bottoms, takes something out of the beer and decreases the palate-fullness. Wherever possible, especially in the case of stock ales and beers for bottling, the use of finings should be dispensed with. Where necessary, as is always the case with running ales, the least possible quantity should be used which is compatible with satisfactory results. One pint of well-made finings per barrel should be the maximum quantity used for running beers, one and a half pints for pale ales, where the finings are called upon to do more work on account of the large amount of hops present in the cask. Even these quantities may be reduced where the finings are made from the best Saigon leaf. This leaf undoubtedly has very strong fining powers. Curiously enough, these finings are rather deceptive in appearance. They seem to be weak and unduly thin. The appearance is deceptive, however, and a proof that apparent strength as revealed by viscosity is not always reliable.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 247.

So maybe the anti-finings brigade do have a point. Finings thin a beer out. Still doesn’t mean I want to drink a pint of sludge, though.

The large amount of hops in Pale Ales would be the dry hops. Though surely a running Bitter would also be dry hopped. He seems to be assuming that running beers were always Mild, which wasn’t usually dry hopped.

Now the tricky question or when to add finings:

“The question of when most suitably to add finings is a debatable one. At one time opinion was in favour of fining in the houses, but with the quicker deliveries that are now possible with modern transport, the major objection to fining in the brewery is removed. If finings are added just prior to despatch from the brewery, the beer will fine satisfactorily within a few hours of its receipt at the cellar of the house. When fining in the houses was the rule, it was sometimes found that better fining was achieved when both beers and finings had been delivered together and stored in the same cellar not less than 24 hours previous to the beer being fined down. Both beers and finings had become acclimatized to the surrounding temperatures, and the action of the finings was more regular and efficient than was the case when the beers were fined down at the brewery. Few breweries now fine in the houses, however.

The advantage of fining at the brewery lies in the knowledge that the job has been done properly. Also, a certain quantity of beer is saved per cask, which in some breweries means quite a large barrelage per annum. Against this might be placed the poor results which could be obtained due to exposure of the fined beer to many variations in temperature in the course of delivery.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 247.

So fining had first mostly been done in pubs, but had shifted to the brewery. I’m surprised at fining only taking a few hours after delivery. I’d have thought 24 hours was more like it. Though I know that the Nottingham breweries’ beer used to drop bright pretty quickly.

I can understand why brewers wanted to do the fining themselves. They had more control over what went on and removed a possibility of the landlord cocking it up. You’ll have noticed that the author clearly doesn’t trust publicans to handle beer properly.

There were times when fining needed to be done earlier, even before racking:

“Sometimes one hears of fining taking place in the racking back. It is a practice of which we  are not in favour unless the fermentation has been very sluggish, and the emission of yeast unsatisfactory. Of course, if the beer is yeast-bitten, and it is essential to avoid the introduction to the cask of a large amount of undesirable sludge and sediment, part fining in the racking square is not only advisable, but necessary.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 247 - 248.

Only to be done when the fermentation hadn’t gone well and the beer still contained large amounts of yeast.

Next time it gets really exciting when we learn what went on in the pub.

Friday, 27 February 2015

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975

You know what to expect by now. Numbers. Lots and lots of numbers and bugger all words. I’m saving up the words for people who pay me for them.

Let’s start with the raw numbers before I waste too many words on you.

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975 (lbs)
Year Production (barrels) Malt Corn and corn products Rice Wheat Barley Sorghum grains and sorghum products Soybeans and soybean prods. sugar and syrups
1955 89,791,154 2,627,010,323 913,693,701 375,111,692 5,423,575 357,920 1,601,610 108,604,325
1956 90,697,911 2,650,652,911 871,955,351 424,954,817 3,679,525 10,000 38,700 1,181,776 109,404,864
1957 89,881,935 2,617,645,452 944,065,897 354,691,869 2,220,600 1,300 1,056,631 101,768,983
1958 89,010,812 2,577,543,842 954,414,553 336,354,124 1,971,900 495,000 649,000 1,143,739 97,209,348
1959 90,973,768 2,613,176,446 1,012,356,240 330,960,223 1,414,500 173,700 1,309,782 93,312,135
1960 94,547,867 2,697,409,939 1,058,989,007 351,812,764 1,426,000 45,000 1,419,098 98,684,775
1961 93,496,452 2,657,456,124 1,038,015,118 345,488,387 1,297,800 739 15,200 1,402,881 102,447,112
1962 96,417,543 2,715,251,671 1,075,306,335 337,923,616 1,206,000 60,340 1,526,045 121,331,649
1963 97,961,421 2,745,427,657 1,159,394,969 295,876,926 605,800 9,600 5,300 1,545,061 115,964,649
1964 103,017,915 2,885,121,764 1,265,020,486 273,811,073 575,600 3,218,132 1,618,204 106,371,666
1965 108,015,217 3,015,521,588 1,325,891,671 311,082,178 514,500 3,321,415 1,639,433 97,422,892
1966 109,736,341 3,071,600,745 1,316,086,216 334,865,023 481,365 1,618,239 98,792,117
1967 116,564,350 3,270,980,966 1,375,625,956 379,100,298 403,850 12,169,766 1,656,090 101,579,961
1968 117,523,511 3,309,955,668 1,302,371,115 394,510,574 332,600 1,600 41,452,889 1,761,403 120,504,135
1969 122,657,497 3,432,352,177 1,334,548,982 413,854,584 278,800 65,800 43,538,850 1,732,345 142,879,875
1970 134,653,881 3,721,405,457 1,448,830,267 506,065,825 229,200 2,055,860 15,027,460 1,736,287 202,416,492
1971 134,091,661 3,678,737,262 1,463,110,324 501,336,677 189,375 93,580 999,050 2,211,808 208,959,625
1972 140,326,680 3,853,687,171 1,518,935,036 536,974,228 158,800 79,560 778,270 1,839,278 199,423,919
1973 143,013,573 3,898,435,622 1,467,331,844 558,777,431 124,165 87,830 1,844,900 267,265,264
1974 153,053,027 4,172,512,952 1,518,206,361 593,190,144 52,944 1,578,736 310,933,052
1975 157,870,017 4,224,756,179 1,618,954,486 379,381,639 1,791,400 1,522,377 393,453,003
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"


Obviously they’re much easier to understand expressed as percentages:

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975 (%)
Year Malt Corn and corn products Rice Wheat Barley Sorghum grains and sorghum products Soybeans and soybean prods. sugar and syrups
1955 65.16% 22.66% 9.30% 0.13% 0.01% 0.04% 2.69%
1956 65.26% 21.47% 10.46% 0.09% 0.00025% 0.00095% 0.03% 2.69%
1957 65.09% 23.48% 8.82% 0.06% 0.00003% 0.03% 2.53%
1958 64.93% 24.04% 8.47% 0.05% 0.01% 0.02% 0.03% 2.45%
1959 64.48% 24.98% 8.17% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 2.30%
1960 64.07% 25.16% 8.36% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 2.34%
1961 64.09% 25.04% 8.33% 0.03% 0.00002% 0.00% 0.03% 2.47%
1962 63.85% 25.29% 7.95% 0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 2.85%
1963 63.57% 26.85% 6.85% 0.01% 0.00022% 0.00% 0.04% 2.69%
1964 63.61% 27.89% 6.04% 0.01% 0.07% 0.04% 2.35%
1965 63.41% 27.88% 6.54% 0.01% 0.07% 0.03% 2.05%
1966 63.68% 27.29% 6.94% 0.01% 0.03% 2.05%
1967 63.62% 26.76% 7.37% 0.01% 0.24% 0.03% 1.98%
1968 64.01% 25.19% 7.63% 0.01% 0.00003% 0.80% 0.03% 2.33%
1969 63.93% 24.86% 7.71% 0.01% 0.00123% 0.81% 0.03% 2.66%
1970 63.10% 24.57% 8.58% 0.004% 0.03% 0.25% 0.03% 3.43%
1971 62.82% 24.99% 8.56% 0.003% 0.00160% 0.02% 0.04% 3.57%
1972 63.05% 24.85% 8.79% 0.003% 0.00130% 0.01% 0.03% 3.26%
1973 62.94% 23.69% 9.02% 0.002% 0.00142% 0.03% 4.31%
1974 63.25% 23.02% 8.99% 0.00080% 0.02% 4.71%
1975 63.82% 24.46% 5.73% 0.03% 0.02% 5.94%
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"


Malt usage has bottomed out at around 63%. While corn rose to almost 28%, before falling back to 24%, just a little higher than in 1955. Rice is all over the place and shows no real trend. Sorghum, soya and unmalted wheat and barley are only used in tiny amounts. Sugar hovered around 2% then shot up to almost 6% in 1975.

Now let’s look at those figures in pounds per barrel:

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975 (lbs/brl.)
Year Malt Corn and corn products Rice Wheat Barley Sorghum grains and sorghum products Soybeans and soybean prods. sugar and syrups other materials total
1955 29.3 10.2 4.2 0.06 0.004 0.02 1.2 44.98
1956 29.2 9.6 4.7 0.04 0.0001 0.0004 0.01 1.2 44.75
1957 29.1 10.5 3.9 0.02 0.01 1.1 44.63
1958 29 10.7 3.8 0.02 0.006 0.007 0.01 1.1 44.64
1959 28.7 11.1 3.6 0.02 0.002 0.01 1 44.43
1960 28.5 11.2 3.7 0.02 0.0005 0.02 1 44.44
1961 28.4 11.1 3.7 0.01 0.0002 0.02 1.1 44.33
1962 28.2 11.2 3.5 0.01 0.0006 0.02 1.3 44.23
1963 28 11.8 3 0.006 0.0001 0.00005 0.02 1.2 0.0002 44.03
1964 28 12.3 2.7 0.006 0.03 0.02 1 0.005 44.06
1965 27.9 12.3 2.9 0.005 0.03 0.02 0.9 0.001 44.06
1966 27.5 12 3.1 0.004 0.01 0.9 0.0000 43.51
1967 28.1 11.8 3.3 0.003 0.1 0.01 0.9 44.21
1968 28.2 11.1 3.4 0.003 0.00001 0.35 0.01 1 44.06
1969 28 10.9 3.4 0.002 0.00005 0.35 0.01 1.2 0.05 43.91
1970 27.6 10.8 3.8 0.002 0.02 0.11 0.01 1.5 0.05 43.89
1971 27.4 10.9 3.7 0.001 0.0007 0.007 0.02 1.6 43.63
1972 27.5 10.8 3.8 0.001 0.0006 0.006 0.01 1.4 43.52
1973 27.3 10.3 3.9 0.0008 0.0006 0.01 1.9 43.41
1974 27.2 9.9 3.9 0.0003 0.01 2 43.01
1975 26.8 10.3 3.7 0.01 0.01 2.5 43.32
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"


There’s a small decline in the amount of fermentable materials per barrel, presumably reflecting a small decline in average gravity. Something like this:

Year estimated average OG
1955 1046.20
1956 1045.96
1957 1045.83
1958 1045.85
1959 1045.63
1960 1045.64
1961 1045.53
1962 1045.42
1963 1045.21
1964 1045.25
1965 1045.24
1966 1044.69
1967 1045.41
1968 1045.25
1969 1045.10
1970 1045.08
1971 1044.81
1972 1044.69
1973 1044.58
1974 1044.17
1975 1044.49


Hops next:

Hop usage in the USA 1955 - 1975
Year hops lbs hops lbs./ bbl.
1955 33,736,717 0.38
1956 32,938,442 0.36
1957 31,732,968 0.35
1958 30,419,008 0.34
1959 29,642,566 0.33
1960 30,825,243 0.33
1961 29,473,204 0.32
1962 29,896,445 0.31
1963 30,343,524 0.31
1964 30,446,822 0.30
1965 31,562,258 0.29
1966 31,054,401 0.28
1967 30,744,728 0.26
1968 29,231,847 0.25
1969 28,719,722 0.23
1970 38,195,191 0.23
1971 32,135,040 0.24
1972 33,467,886 0.24
1973 34,523,123 0.24
1974 36,777,733 0.24
1975 35,532,533 0.21
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"


Despite beer output almost doubling in this period, the quantity of hops only slightly increased. Which translates to an almost halving of the pounds per barrel. 0.21 pounds is, er, eff all.

Let’s continue with a comparison with the UK. Raw numbers first:

Brewing materials in the UK 1955 - 1975 (lbs)
year malt unmalted corn rice, maize, etc sugar total malt & adjuncts bulk barrels
1955 967,178,464 5,214,272 53,552,800 171,276,672 1,197,222,208 24,324,623
1956 966,576,240 4,484,256 54,525,856 172,956,896 1,198,543,248 24,187,096
1957 993,716,416 1,549,408 59,607,968 175,243,376 1,230,117,168 24,839,755
1958 967,960,000 1,200,304 60,868,304 171,135,664 1,201,164,272 24,129,462
1959 995,160,768 896,784 66,080,672 175,728,224 1,237,866,448 25,023,044
1960 1,053,568,320 1,007,328 64,204,224 184,894,416 1,303,674,288 26,313,796
1961 1,108,484,944 945,840 65,499,392 195,594,448 1,370,524,624 27,600,860
1962 1,116,088,176 1,197,280 68,180,560 196,868,672 1,382,334,688 27,736,049
1963 1,122,290,288 1,557,472 72,167,088 196,114,128 1,392,128,976 27,942,561
1964 1,186,297,056 2,896,432 79,713,648 205,509,472 1,474,416,608 29,485,128
1965 1,189,365,072 6,875,904 82,308,576 203,116,592 1,481,666,144 29,579,855
1966 1,196,996,640 14,854,672 86,181,872 207,517,632 1,505,550,816 30,178,056
1967 1,211,628,992 16,429,504 86,881,200 213,954,160 1,528,893,856 30,751,420
1968 1,194,570,496 13,599,488 83,823,376 212,535,120 1,504,528,480 30,763,106
1969 1,272,590,480 19,633,488 86,823,968 238,948,304 1,617,996,240 32,211,837
1970 1,284,913,504 26,237,232 86,399,152 247,252,880 1,644,802,768 32,940,567
1971 1,334,859,232 30,776,480 84,139,440 271,794,656 1,721,569,920 34,360,000
1972 1,355,179,280 71,114,512 50,622,544 286,563,424 1,763,479,760 34,969,310
1973 1,378,987,008 69,291,264 45,776,752 282,339,344 1,776,394,480 35,338,345
1974 1,491,601,328 69,873,328 57,895,600 309,028,608 1,928,398,752 37,893,753
1975 1,513,065,568 83,982,864 72,000,768 297,172,064 1,966,221,264 38,238,657
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.
1970 - 1975 bulk barrelsStatistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2005, p. 7



But the percentages are more use:

Brewing materials in the UK 1955 - 1975 (%)
year malt unmalted corn rice, maize, etc sugar lbs per Imp. barrel lbs per US barrel
1955 80.79% 0.44% 4.47% 14.31% 49.2 35.3
1956 80.65% 0.37% 4.55% 14.43% 49.6 35.5
1957 80.78% 0.13% 4.85% 14.25% 49.5 35.5
1958 80.59% 0.10% 5.07% 14.25% 49.8 35.7
1959 80.39% 0.07% 5.34% 14.20% 49.5 35.5
1960 80.82% 0.08% 4.92% 14.18% 49.5 35.5
1961 80.88% 0.07% 4.78% 14.27% 49.7 35.6
1962 80.74% 0.09% 4.93% 14.24% 49.8 35.7
1963 80.62% 0.11% 5.18% 14.09% 49.8 35.7
1964 80.46% 0.20% 5.41% 13.94% 50.0 35.9
1965 80.27% 0.46% 5.56% 13.71% 50.1 35.9
1966 79.51% 0.99% 5.72% 13.78% 49.9 35.8
1967 79.25% 1.07% 5.68% 13.99% 49.7 35.6
1968 79.40% 0.90% 5.57% 14.13% 48.9 35.1
1969 78.65% 1.21% 5.37% 14.77% 50.2 36.0
1970 78.12% 1.60% 5.25% 15.03% 49.9 35.8
1971 77.54% 1.79% 4.89% 15.79% 50.1 35.9
1972 76.85% 4.03% 2.87% 16.25% 50.4 36.2
1973 77.63% 3.90% 2.58% 15.89% 50.3 36.0
1974 77.35% 3.62% 3.00% 16.03% 50.9 36.5
1975 76.95% 4.27% 3.66% 15.11% 51.4 36.9
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.



Malt use has declined by 4 percentage points, while unmalted corn use has increased by the same amount. Rice and maize use is down a bit, while sugar is pretty much unchanged.

Hop usage came as a bit of a surprise:

Hop usage in the UK 1955 - 1975
year bulk barrels hops( lbs) hops lbs/  Imperial barrel hops lbs/  US barrel
1955 24,324,623 24,384,192 1.00 0.72
1956 24,187,096 24,507,840 1.01 0.73
1957 24,839,755 24,092,768 0.97 0.70
1958 24,129,462 23,393,440 0.97 0.70
1959 25,023,044 24,196,144 0.97 0.69
1960 26,313,796 25,353,552 0.96 0.69
1961 27,600,860 26,276,432 0.95 0.68
1962 27,736,049 25,360,944 0.91 0.66
1963 27,942,561 25,375,280 0.91 0.65
1964 29,485,128 26,583,872 0.90 0.65
1965 29,579,855 26,479,488 0.90 0.64
1966 30,178,056 25,997,328 0.86 0.62
1967 30,751,420 24,840,816 0.81 0.58
1968 30,763,106 22,428,448 0.73 0.52
1969 32,211,837 23,674,672 0.73 0.53
1970 32,940,567 24,050,208 0.73 0.52
1971 34,360,000 22,041,824 0.64 0.46
1972 34,969,310 21,118,048 0.60 0.43
1973 35,338,345 20,558,160 0.58 0.42
1974 37,893,753 19,012,672 0.50 0.36
1975 38,238,657 16,686,768 0.44 0.31
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.



The percentage decline in the hopping rate is even than in the US. It seemed a bit strange to me. This table including hop products might explain it:

Hop and hop products usage in the UK 1955 - 1975
year hops preparations of hops hop substitutes
1955 217,716 92 27
1956 218,820 110 42
1957 215,114 91 28
1958 208,870 102 24
1959 216,037 107 29
1960 226,371 111 24
1961 234,611 112 10
1962 226,437 180 17
1963 226,565 246 25
1964 237,356 474 37
1965 236,424 599 57
1966 232,119 623 165
1967 221,793 672 104
1968 200,254 732 113
1969 211,381 hop powder
1970 214,734 1,614 -
1971 196,802 5,098 945
1972 188,554 3,937 3,917
1973 183,555 4,744 5,610
1974 169,756 9,173 10,413
1975 148,989 13,799 14,527
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.


There’s a big increase in the use of hop products. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to convert that into the equivalent quantity of hops.

I’ll finish with average OG in the UK:

Average OG in the UK 1955 - 1975
year OG
1955 1037.13
1956 1037.22
1957 1037.42
1958 1037.48
1959 1037.52
1960 1037.25
1961 1037.41
1962 1037.70
1963 1037.70
1964 1037.66
1965 1037.67
1966 1037.63
1967 1037.46
1968 1037.36
1969 1037.14
1970 1036.90
1971 1036.90
1972 1036.90
1973 1037.00
1974 1037.10
1975 1037.30
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1962, p. 48
Statistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2005, p. 7
Brewers' Almanack 1971, p. 45


Pretty dull, eh? The variation is tiny, with a low of 1036.9 and a high of 1037.7. In fact these two decades show the least change of any in the 20th century.

I would promise a third set of these numbers, but I’ll need to harvest the British ones. I’ve only got them up to 1978 at the moment.