Ale vs Lager

During the 1500s and onwards, Sweden "imported" hops from Finland from what was then the eastern half of the kingdom. Hops were also grown domestically. In 1880 domestic hop production was estimated at 43 metric tons, with imported hops making up about 280 metric tons. If hops could be grown in Finland I don't see why they couldn't grow in Scotland, at least not due to the northernly latitude.

 

Thank you all who are contributing to this thread. So much great discussion and history. One of the best threads in a long time.

 

I appreciate your response. Perhaps I was making an edit to my post and that caused the blip.

I believe I've read this very passage, or references to it, in my online searches. I do believe it reads "Early English Porters used brown malt entirely..." I presume it's important to distinguish English porters from Irish and anywhere else? And I am not sure what the invention of the hydrometer has to do with any use of roasted unmalted barley prior to the hydrometer's invention. I may be missing a key point there.

The Malt Act (Ireland) was 1806 +/- a year or two, if my research is correct. I'll have to read this Act, and see if it expressly prohibits the use of unmalted barley in Ireland, nevertheless it doesn't account for the late 1700's during which time Guinness was brewing porter. Martyn C. in a reply to me on his blog references the English Malt Tax of 1697, but if this made it illegal to use anything but malted grain, then why would another law be passed in 1816 expressly making use of unmalted grains illegal? I'd love to read the 1697 Act or Law (haven't found it yet) to see if it simply taxed malt, or if it actually also made it illegal to use anything other than malted grains. Again, it will be interesting to reconcile why such a law would be passed in 1816 if there was already one in place and being enforced under that law.

Regarding what Guinness did between 1816 and 1929 was largely their business decision (presumably within the laws), and I believe they have never made available their brewing records for the period of the late 1700s to either prove or disprove their use of unmalted barley at that time. If they had been breaking a law, perhaps they didn't want to advertise or gloat about that, even 100 years later? Also, just because the ban on unmalted grains was lifted in the 1880s doesn't mean they'd immediately set about changing the grist bill of their successful malted grain products of that era.

Ron's blog post, to which you provide the URL, as with many of his posts providing ingredients records, references the time period of the 1800s (the 1850s in this case), not the 1700s let alone earler. Certainly, beer and Old World brewing history and "style" origins begin well before the 1800s. Ron's post focuses on one beer in time, among many, and this one's in the 1850s. Can we conclude that Scottish beers were historically hoppy based on this? Certainly, by then, it stands to reason that hops were more readily making their way to Edinburgh, but how about before that? And, again, why was Scotland -- at some point in history -- brewing gruit beers using bittering herbs other than hops?

I've met Ron. I really like Ron. I met Ron on March 15th, in fact. I've read Ron's book, Porter!, which to my dismay does not discuss porter brewing in Ireland before 1800. I intend to remain in touch with him with specific questions, as I'd like to get to the bottom of some of these "myths that keep being perpetuated." I'd like to not perpetuate them, however the holes in the references I've seen thus far still give me pause to make wholesale changes to what's been written over decades in published books authored by other beer history authors.

This period -- the 1700's and prior -- seems to be one of the large gaps/holes in beer history that I speak of, and it seems to be too important a time period in Old World brewing to be glossed over, only referencing the 1800s and beer grist/hop bills from that period as "proof" that makes these perpetuating "myths" false.

 

Thanks for the link Jack, it was an interesting read. Concerning adjunct usage for porter brewing I could mention that the Swedish Carnegie porter brewery asked for, and recieved a royal permission to use sugar in the brewing of porter at some point in the latter half of the 19th century. I can't recall the exact year but I think it was in the 1860s (Carnegie took over the porter brewery in 1836). Included in the purchase of the brewery was a sugar refinery so they had ready access to sugar as an ingredient. This royal permission lasted at least into the 1920s when Carnegie was still the only taxated brewery that used sugar in their brewing (as per a 1922 governmental report on beer legislation). Brewers who only brewed beers of a maximum 2.2% abv were exempt from tax since 1903 and were allowed to use sugar, syrups, corn and other ingredients in brewing but not those producing taxable beer above this abv (including lager beer breweries and porter breweries).

Swedish porter had an average original gravity of 20 degrees plato, with an average abv of 7.2% until 1923 when beer stronger than 4% abv, and with wort strenghts over 10.5 degrees plato were banned for sale (other than for export and medicinal purposes). These restrictions lasted until 1955. Porter had become a marginal product already by 1900 compared to lager beer and 2.2% top fermented tax-free beer however, with the latter two groups making up about 2.4 million barrels and porter making up just 42000 barrels in the years 1904-1905. A few years prior to the ban against strong beer in 1923 (restrictions on abv and wort strenght had been introduced already in 1917 as a grain rationing measure due to the war) lower abv porters were introduced, but sales of this porter amounted to less than half of previous sales (lager beer was more successful in transitioning from full strenght to reduced strenght with sales of the latter exceeding pre-war full strenght beer in sales). Once restrictions were lifted in 1955 an abv cap of 5.6% abv was introduced instead, which of course prevented the return of the strong porters of the 19th and early 20th century, a cap which was in place until 1995.

 

Kölsch and Altbier: Ales or Lagers?
Oh boy. Perhaps another topic of discussion? The German Beer Institute, whose website and contents are maintained by Horst Dornbusch, himself a German and respected German beer historian, labels Kölsch and Altbier as ales, not lagers.

Kölsch: http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/K%F6lsch.html
Altbier: http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/altbier.html

 

Going back beyond a certain point we get to a time where most brewing wasn't commercial , in which each brewer or farm etc simply used what was to hand. Of course a lot of brewing took place over a very long time in a lot of places and no doubt many things went on which contradict our perceived wisdom.It's when we get to organised large scale production and the consequential legislation that a picture emerges.
You can't differentiate between English and Irish Porter as far as early Guinness was concerned; when Arthur Guinness moved from Ale to Porter brewing he employed London brewers ; the expertise rested in London and he brought it over. There's little doubt that they brewed pretty much in the same vein as at home.
It's also worth remembering that beers and brewing evolved with the years.They also evolved at different paces depending on where they were.The names stayed the same (say Porter) but the drinks didn't.

 

As a fiction writer of course.
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/horst-dornbuschs-ultimate-almanac.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/horst-dornbusch-on-pilsner-urquell.html
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/classic-horst.html

 

Er, Horst is many things, but I wouldn't call him a respected beer historian.

 

What is gained by lumping them all together when 95% of lagers can be identified as lagers throught the sole use of the mouth and nose (though folks like Jack's Abby are making this more difficult, admittingly)

 

The American homebrewer in me says, "Because my cellar is only cold enough to brew a Baltic Porter or Bud Lite in the winter, whereas I can brew an Imperial Russian Stout and IPA any time because there is almost always some part of my house that is in the low 60s F." And for that reason it does make sense. Of course, this winter I brewed my Baltic Porter with a top-fermenting years (WLP001) at bottom-fermenting temperatures (the low 50s F) and then I lagered it. Is it a lager? Is it an ale? Is it a lagered ale? Maybe a lagered porter?

That being said, when I am speaking with historically knowledgeable brewers, I say "top-fermented" and "bottom-fermented." Lager is a German word, so I think the Germans should have some say over how the word is used. There is a very telling passage on the website of the German Brewers Federation (Deutscher Brauer-Bund):
http://www.brauer-bund.de/bier-ist-genuss/biersorten-im-portraet/helles-lagerexport.html

"In the 19th Century "lager beer" was the name for all bottom-fermented beers that were brewed with an original gravity of eleven to 14 percent. In England, this name has survived to this day. The alcohol content moves after the brewing process from 4.6 to 5.6 percent. In Germany, the term "lager" is now more limited, however. It is now mostly only for bottom-fermented beers that have under twelve percent wort and don't belong to the more strongly hopped "Pilsener"." (Google Translation--slightly edited--please improve if your German is better than my long rusty German)

(Noch im 19. Jahrhundert war „Lagerbier” die Bezeichnung für alle untergärigen Vollbiere, die mit einem Stammwürzegehalt von elf bis 14 Prozent eingebraut wurden. In England hat sich dieser Name bis heute so erhalten. Der Alkoholgehalt bewegt sich nach dem Brauprozess zwischen 4,6 und 5,6 Prozent. In Deutschland hat sich der Begriff „Lagerbier” dagegen eingeschränkt. Er gilt heute meist nur noch für untergärige Biere, die unter zwölf Prozent Stammwürze haben und zum anderen nicht der stark gehopften Richtung „Pilsener” angehören.)

I'm not saying that they are the experts any more than CAMRA or the Brewers Association are, but it seems that the current German understanding somewhat ignores the "lagering/storing" part of lager, but focuses on a narrow slice of bottom-fermented beers, but acknowledges that the English-speaking world uses the broader 19th century German understanding.

 

Lagerbier is a strength band rather than a style. It's a typically German way of classifying beer.

 

100 Years of Brewing says only that Yuengling brewed "about 600 barrels of ale and common beer" in its first year. Their Porter is mentioned in the same entry as being brewed by the 1870s - I'd guess it was added to their porfolio long before that.

Through from Pennsylvania, by coincidence most of those were top-fermented.

Esslinger's Porter label read "Produced in Plant No. 2 where Ale, Porter and Stout are brewed". Nueweiler also had different facilities for ale brewing - "Here is a brewery that actually amounts to two breweries in one - one of the few doing business that has separate Ale and Beer breweries. All of its Ales are STRAIGHT Ales, not a blend." (1960s promotional booklet).

A 1970s book from The Lion also claimed their version of Stegmaier Porter was top fermented - which was contrary to most other contemporary reports (and I kinda doubt - maybe whoever wrote the book was just writing from a general brewing reference book).

Adam Scheidt also brewed a number of ales, so it's possible Valley Forge Porter began life as a top-fermented beer - not sure what happened when Schmidt bought them and ran the Norristown brewery (or how long VF Porter even lasted) but Schmidt's brewery in Philadelphia was one of the last pre-craft breweries that still had a separate open ale fermenters and their own house ale yeast. Supposedly Tiger Head Ale had remained top fermented product and so it's possible the Tiger Head Porter also was until its demise (whenever that was).

 

Again, I appreciate your reply.
Your point is certainly true, but there'd need to be an agreed consensus on the reasonable time frame to "go back". It seems the 1700s saw enough commercial brewing to make the practices of that period quite pertinent to history and style development. With porter coming about in roughly 1720, we cannot reasonably skip the first 80 to 100 years of porter production and start the historical clock at 1816, can we?

We can't reasonably make a LOT of inferences and assumptions and drawn conclusions and call that definitive history with a period on the end.

Perhaps the challenge is, more simply, that sufficient records don't exist for that period. If not, historians should simply come out and declare that. Regarding organized production and consequential legistlation, I think that relates exactly to my point, wherein I am presently interested in the time period before the 1816 British law that expressly made illegal the use of unmalted grain in beer. Were there some breweries using unmalted grains prior to then, thus instigating the law's passage? That's really the key here. So what if malt was TAXED before 1816, was unmalted grain illegal before 1816?

Again, this is full of enough assumptions and presumtions; enough to where it cannot be considered absolutely definitive and historical fact. Just because Guinness hired London brewers doesn't automatically mean he didn't look for ways to differentiate his product from the masses and look for ways to brew more efficiently and inexpensively. He was, if not at first a skilled porter brewer, a business man.

My goal here, really, is to get to the bottom of this supposed myth that "Guinness originally used roasted unmalted barley." All I seek are definitive references, but I guess they do not exist. We seem to have history dating to 1816, and a bit earlier for London brewing, from which presumptions are made that are applied to Guinness brewing in the 1770s.

 

I am enjoying this discussion of Yuengling and Pennsylvania Porter.

It strikes me that in one's quest to get to the bottom of some nagging "myths" and "fictions" relating to beer history, the point does not escape me that even with living and breathing Yuengling's still operating the brewery today, the history of Porter brewing at Yuengling Brewery has holes in it and isn't definitive.

That makes the prospects appear awfully dim of ever truly knowing, as fact, many facets of Old World brewing history. And it points to how beer "history" can and has evolved over time.

Has anyone ever asked Dick Yuengling about the history of Yuengling Porter? Genuine question here, because I don't know. If so, I do wonder how much of that history Dick had to guess on, or make assumptions/presumtions or "draw conclusions" on, because he simply does not know for absolute sure. And if the stories were passed down verbally from generation to generation, I wonder how those stories -- those 'facts' -- changed over time.

 

I have a very simple recipe I use Nottingham (ale)for in the spring, and then in the winter I brew it with White Labs 800 pilsner yeast. Both yeasts are fairly clean fermenters, but I think the pilsner yeast produces a drier, less flavorful(in terms of esters)beer. There is a slight difference in results, but because I ferment them at the low end of their temp ranges they turn out pretty similar.

 

Porter was brewed using brown malt and pale malt was only used by ale brewers until the end of the 18th century.Brown malt was cheaper than pale malt but when the hydrometer came into use it slowly dawned on brewers that it also gave a lower extract when mashed.The more expensive pale malt turned out slightly cheaper per gravity point , and after Patent Malt was invented Porter gradually started to be brewed from pale malt plus the roast malt.This wasn't universal,some brown malt was still used in the mid 20th century.
It's doubtful in the extreme if Guinness were brewing Porter using pale malt before 1819 , it was a small brewery at the time situated in something of a backwater. If the hydrometer wasn't being used in Ireland by 1812 as had been reported the Malt Act would have been in force when it was introduced.
The penalties for using unmalted grain were so dire, and the financial margins so slight that it would make no sense to break the law.Even to store unmalted grain on the premises could result in the brewery being shut down.



.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that they are the experts any more than CAMRA or the Brewers Association are, [/QUOTE]
Embarrassing as it is to me (as a CAMRA member) but CAMRA is by no means an expert on beer styles;
http://zythophile.wordpress.com/201...ill-getting-beer-history-so-very-badly-wrong/

 

It's generally understood that Kölsch is an ale in the USA as well. For a long time I've described them to people unfamiliar with the style as an ale that is similar in many ways to a pilsner. In fact, no other ale comes as close.

Thanks for your in depth info. You've helped clarify several aspects of the discussion.

 

Kolsch-style offerings are routinely described as "Pilsener-style beer" by bartenders and waitresses across the great state of Minnesota.

 

"An historian" runs off the tongue better though.More so if you drop your aitches!
Beer history is basically about generalities. You have brewers all over the place doing different things over a period of time and the historian can only look for and see patterns and trends.There is a lot of primary documentation in the form of brewery records; these have been accurately compiled and much of the detail checked at the time by the Customs and Excise tax collectors.There are the laws passed and reports to Parliamentary Commissions.Every word ever spoken in Parliament is on record.It's not all complete but there's enough to give a pretty accurate picture.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...#v=onepage&q=malt act ( Ireland) 1813&f=false