“Casks are a great source of spoiling well-brewed beer…” That’s the judgement of J.A. Pryor, Chairman of the London brewery Truman, Hanbury & Buxton, writing in The Black Eagle in July 1930.
It’s interesting to see casks presented, first and foremost, as a problem to be solved.
At the same time, the brewery went to a lot of trouble to make sure its casks were as good as could be.
First, there’s the matter of material:
[No] expense or care is spared by T. H. B. & Co., to ensure first of all the purchase of the very best timber, which it may surprise some of you to know comes entirely from the Baltic. This is the only suitable wood in the world for making our casks. English oak is, alas, unsuitable, and only during the War years, when it was impossible to get Russian oak, did we have to use American and a small proportion of Austrian oak. Very unsuitable materials both, and I am glad to say we have none in use to-day.
Ron Pattinson has written about the use of Russian vs. American oak in British and Irish brewing as has Gary Gillman: “The disliked American taste was, evidently, the bright vanillin and coconut flavours familiar to anyone who knows bourbon whiskey or Chardonnay wine.”
Next, Mr Pryor talks about the cleaning of casks – going into some surprisingly squicky detail:
The cleaning of casks is vastly important, and each one as it comes into our London Cooperage is first of all “run in,” i.e., filled with boiling water, and allowed to stand for as long as possible. This is to soften any yeasty deposit there may be, and makes the subsequent washing easier.
Then he introduces an interesting bit of technology:
[The casks] are then taken to the “Goliath” machines, where they are subjected to eight separate processes of either raw steam or boiling liquor under pressure, and the outsides also scrubbed in water and brushed… By the way, it is well worth your while, if you can find time, to go and look at these machines in operation as they are uncannily human. We have a fine battery of them in London, and also at Burton.
It’s easy to think of the past – even ten years ago – as a kind of barbarous dark age. This article is a helpful reminder that even in the 1930s Truman’s was brewing scientifically:
After the casks leave the machine they are each placed on drying and cooling nozzles, and pure filtered air is driven into them under pressure. Great care is exercised over the Pure Air Filter, and the two plates following show air before and after filtration.
Except at the end of the process, of course, things suddenly get very ‘craft’, with the human nose coming into play:
Each cask is then “smelt” and “pricked,” i.e., any remaining pieces of broken shive, etc., are removed from the interior, before they are passed as fit to go into the cellar.
“Cask smeller” was a real, very skilled job and we can actually see cask smellers in action at another London brewery, Whitbread, in this film from 1959:
Pryor concludes with what might be read as a shot across the bows, or as encouragement to do the right thing, depending on your point of view:
This last work is of very real importance, and is entrusted to some of you, who make it a pride not to pass a suspicious cask. If you should by chance miss one you are pretty certain to hear of it, as each cask is again examined in the cellar before filling.
2 replies on “Cask ale in the 1930s: bugs, smellers and Baltic oak”
Excellent, as just noted on Twitter.
But also, I think possibly, by a side wind, you have hit on the origins of the terms “running” and runner when used for porter in the 1800s.
These terms, for a mild porter, go back at least to the 1830s. Ron Pattinson has documented this. Edd Mather did too recently on his site for a Scottish porter in that decade.
It seems a cask filled with liquid, evidently water but I’d infer also beer, was referred to as “run in” .
Freshly brewed porter run into trade casks for pubs might have been dubbed running, finally, on this logic.
In contrast, porter meant for long keeping may not have been referred to this way, in part perhaps due to the size of aging containers – cister, vat, etc. – used in early days.
At a minimum there must be, I think, some connection between “run in”, in the sense used in the quoted passage, and the terms running porter and runner.
And modern “barrel aging” is an utter farce.
“I know. Let’s remove pristine finished beer from a stainless steel vessel and put it into a used wooden barrel and then let it sit, warm, for 3 to 6 months. Then we’ll tell people that the beer is, in fact, magically BETTER than it was before.”
It’s gaslighting.