I bet you've all be waiting for this. I know I have. Finally getting to the bottom of the story that the Scots brewers used fewer hops than their English counterparts.
It's always sounded a dodgy theory to me. Because its origin appears to be a logical construction (hops didn't grow in Scotland, so must have been expensive, so they must have used fewer) rather than a conclusion reached after examining evidence.
These are only preliminary results. I reserve the right to change my opinion when I've had a more thorough look at the facts. But that will take some time.
I've compared beers brewed in 1850 - 1851 by William Younger in Edinburgh with beers brewed in London by Whitbread and Truman. To ensure I'm comparing like with like, I've stuck to X Ales and Stock Ales. I've also tried to get beers of roughly similar gravities.
Let's kick off with X Ales. These are pretty easy to deal with as they all have identical names in the logs and are of pretty much the same gravity:
Despite being slightly lower in gravity than Truman's and Whitbread's, Younger's X Ale is the most heavily-hopped, both in pounds per barrel and pounds per quarter. Younger's XX has the fewest hops in terms of pound per quarter, but edges out Truman in pounds per barrel. Younger's XXX comes in the middle with regards to pounds per quarter and is only just behind Truman's XXX in pounds per barrel.
My conclusion? That Younger's X Ales were hopped at pretty much the same rate as London-brewed X Ales.
Now let's turn to Stock Ales:
I'm not going to bore you by explaining that lot in words. It's pretty clear that, once again, the Younger's beers have been hopped in a very similar way to their London counterparts.
That was simple, wasn't it? tomorrow we'll take a look at Porter and Pale Ale.
A few days in beertown - I left you last time in Moeder Lambic Fontainas, Brussels's ticker heaven. The other beer I had there before moving on to the cask Cantillon lambic, was *L...
4 hours ago