Brewing in WW II (part eight)

We're finished with raw materials and have got to brewing itself.

Brewers in WW II faced a whole host difficulties, which weren't limited to difficulties in obtaining raw materials. There was plenty else to contend with.

"Reviewing the actual operations carried out in the brewery and considering the innumerable difficulties with which the brewer was faced, with limited supplies; the very variable and often extremely poor quality of his principal materials; reduction of gravities; increased beer duty; regulations of all kinds which necessitated the filling up of countless forms; vexation of the black-out and in many cases endurance of continuous air raids of every kind; shortage of transport; the almost insuperable difficulty of obtaining new plant; with shortage of labour becoming ever more serious, his lot has not been a happy one. There were never any signs, however, that he was defeated, and, formidable as these handicaps were, he was not subjected to quite the same restrictions as he was during the war of 1914-1918, but there was an ever-increasing demand for more and more beer, which created its own difficulties, although it was perhaps not without certain advantages.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, pages  123 - 124.

The war lasted six years and in the normal course events plenty of things would need to be replaced. Not just obvious things like crates, barrels and bottles, but bits of machinery that broke or wore out. I assume that with new equipment impossible to come by that the only alternative was to patch things up.

One of the reasons there were so many mergers in the 1950's and 1960's was that many family-owned breweries were worn out, with decades-old equipment and often whole brewhouses that needed to be replaced. The war was partly to blame for this lack of investment. Though falling beer volumes couldn't have helped either. Both world wars cast a long shadow over British brewing. It wasn't until the 1990's that Britain escaped from the wars' grip.

But remember that, no matter how bad things were for brewers in WW II, it was way better than WW I:

"He was certainly in a more favourable situation than his forbears, and even his predecessors who were brewing during the first world war, as from an art brewing has gradually been developed into a science, and from the intelligent application of results obtained by the old method of trial and error, scientific research has solved some of the mysteries of the early days and has made it possible to diagnose the troubles experienced in brewing to-day and to apply the necessary remedy. Notwithstanding the many alterations in his normal practice that he has been called upon to make or the improvisations he has been forced to carry out which perhaps he would have hesitated to apply in normal times, a more comprehensive knowledge of the fundamentals of brewing has given him confidence in carrying these out with a certain measure of success. From the very beginning not only shortage of labour in the brewery but depletions of the brewing room staff made it impossible to maintain the necessary efficiency which was reflected in the beers produced. This was especially pronounced in those years when the malts were of poor quality and the years succeeding 1940 when the hops were so short in amount. Difficulty in maintaining the brewing plant in a state of cleanliness, and more especially the cask plant, a state of affairs which got worse towards the end of the war when the quality of the labour available reached a very low level, took its toll, with its natural consequence on the quality of the output. After the first two years of the war the high wages earned by munition workers and the gradual concentration of troops caused an increasing demand for beer, and when the American troops arrived the demand far exceeded the supply and there was a shortage of beer throughout the country. Dr. Oliver, in reviewing the 1941 season, stated that the outstanding feature was undoubtedly the poor bacterial stability of the beers, but what might have been something short of disaster was avoided by a demand which exceeded supply and with acceptance of beer which in normal times would have been returned."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 124.

I'm not totally convinced that brewing had become dramatically more scientific between 1918 and 1939.

Interesting to see where the demand for beer came from: well-paid munitions workers and American troops. There were certainly plenty of the latter - 1.5 million by the time of D-Day. That's a lot of extra throats to slate. And most of them would have drunk beer.

The author seems to be saying that of all the wartime problems, it was labour shortages which damaged the beer produced most. I can understand that a skilled brewer - especially in the days before automated brewhouses - couldn't be trained up in an afternoon. but keeping the cask plant clean? That's not rocket science. Labour is something I've not really considered, because it doesn't show up nicely in brewing records or statistics.

I'm not sure I'd call poor bacterial stability an "outstanding feature". In layman's terms, he's saying lots of the beer was off or on the turn. Reminds me of Eisenacher Helles in the DDR days. You had to run back from the shop if you wanted to drink it before it turned bad.

I feel like a table coming on. One that summarises the war years:

UK beer production, average OG, imports and exports 1938 - 1948
Year	Production (bulk barrels)	Production (standard barrels)	Consumption (bulk barrels)	Exports (bulk barrels)	Imports (bulk barrels)	Average OG	Net excise receipts (pounds)
1938	24,205,631	18,055,539	25,087,393	281,284	1,163,046	1041.02	61,241,404
1939	24,674,992	18,364,156	25,229,287	283,974	838,269	1040.93	62,370,034
1940	25,366,782	18,738,619	25,922,694	266,766	822,678	1040.62	75,157,022
1941	26,203,803	18,351,113	26,768,038	225,552	789,787	1038.51	133,450,205
1942	29,860,796	19,294,605	30,813,374	94,796	1,047,374	1035.53	157,254,430
1943	29,296,672	18,293,919	30,027,441	107,019	837,788	1034.34	209,584,343
1944	30,478,289	19,193,773	30,973,081	77,597	572,389	1034.63	263,170,703
1945	31,332,852	19,678,449	31,968,011	130,443	765,602	1034.54	278,876,870
1946	32,650,200	20,612,225	33,391,810	187,418	929,028	1034.72	295,305,369
1947	29,261,398	17,343,690	30,011,879	109,680	860,161	1032.59	250,350,829
1948	30,408,634	18,061,390	31,067,391	205,098	863,855	1032.66	264,112,043
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 50 and 57.

You can see how gravity fell 7 points during the war and another 2 after it had finished. But it never got quite as low as in WW I. You might be surprised at the amount of beer being imported in the war years. A single word explain it: Guinness. 99% of that figure will be Guinness Extra Stout from the Irish Republic. Not sure about the exports, but my guess would be that it was for British servicemen abroad. note just how much money beer tax brought in for the government. The figure more than quadrupled between 1939 and 1945.

"That was the year when the supply of hops was so short and so many brewers were forced to reduce their hop rates to far below the safe limit. There is no doubt that quick consumption and the fact that the public was prepared to accept anything in the shape of beer rather than go without saved many brewers from what in normal times might have been disaster. As already stated, the difficulty in maintaining a healthy and vigorous yeast had a deleterious effect on the beer, which suffered from "yeast bite" in varying degrees or possessed an unclean flavour. There is no doubt that there would have been considerable trouble with cask frets if the beer had not been consumed so quickly and the public had been more discriminating, while the under modification and poor quality of many of the malts used, especially in 1942 and during the past year, produced fining difficulties and hazy beers which often went unnoticed. Fortunately there was no hot spell of weather to make things really difficult."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 124.

Let's get this straight, underhopping and weak yeast from crappy malt meant lots of beer wasn't of acceptable quality, but people drank it anyway because there wasn't anything else. It often wasn't clear and would have become over-lively in the cask if it hadn't been drunk immediately Not exactly a ringing endorsement of wartime brewing. Having seen how little beer was properly clear in London in the 1920's - probably half at most - if things got worse during the war pretty much all beer must have been hazy.

Coal, boiling and Isinglass next time.







* http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/history.htm

German brewing in 1966 - malting

Now we've got barley out of the way we can turn to the business of turning it into malt.

First some general stuff:

"Many German breweries, particularly in the south, have their own maltings. The increasing demand is being filled by existing commercial maltings.

The five-day week has forced maltings to adjust to a 7-day germination period, and malting methods must be adjusted accordingly. A germination period of 8-9 days was normal some years ago and for dark malts it was even longer. However, as a day was usually lost after casting the steep before the barley began to grow, we really only had a 7-day germination period in an 8-day malting period."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 15.

Narziss keeps moaning about the trouble the introduction of a 5-day, 40-hour working week. As if it were the work of the devil.

I think it's much rarer now for German breweries to have their own maltings, as in the UK. Come to think of it, about the only place I can think of where this does still happen is the Czech Republic. In the 19th century all the famous Burton and Edinburgh brewers had their own maltings. This was understandable as they specialised in Pale Ales, beers where the quality and colour off the malt was paramount. But gradually they moved over to buying in all their malt during the first half of the 20th century. Presumably because it was of reliable quality.

Now steeping:

"Steeping.—As a result of a fundamental change in the concept of steeping, we have achieved a position whereby a well-modified, completely satisfactory malt can be produced in a 7-day germination period. A shorter steeping period is now possible by making use of methods such as warm-water steeping (14-18° C), frequent dry steeping, periodic removal of CO2 by suction, sprinkling of the steeped barley, and re-circulation of the barley two or three times during the steeping period. By means of these methods less damage is done to the barley and the steep is cast with the barley visibly germinating and even at times showing two or three rootlets. This results in increased utilization of the germination plant. With warm-water steeping, it is essential to main tain an even temperature throughout; the steep room has to be controlled accordingly and, when using higher temperatures, a punctual CO2 removal must be carried out, preferably controlled by a clock. If cold air is sucked into the steep this will result in delayed water absorption and uneven germination."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, page 15.

Steeping was a huge deal in Britain when malt was taxed. Because it was taxed on the volume when it came out of steeping. As this could be manipulated through the moisture content, there were strict rules about what, and for how long, maltsters were allowed to do.

I haven't the foggiest idea of steeping temperatures, so I looked it up in a modern British brewing manual. Here's what it says:

"The steep-water temperature should be controlled. At elevated temperatures water uptake is faster but microbial growth is accelerated and the grain may be damaged or killed. The best temperature for steeping immature (partly dormant) grain is low (about 12 ºC, 53.6 ºF). For less dormant grain a value of 16-18 ºC (60.8-64.4 ºF) is often used."
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, pages 14 - 15.

That seems pretty much in line with what Narziss derscribes. Briggs also describes CO2 extraction:

"Air rests are used between steeps. After a steep has been drained air, which should be humid and at the correct temperature, is sucked down through the grain. Such downward ventilation, or `CO2 extraction', assists drainage, provides the grain with oxygen, removes the growth-inhibiting carbon dioxide and removes some of the heat generated by the metabolizing grain. In consequence, and in contrast to traditional practice, barley leaving the steep has usually started to germinate."
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 15.

Now something about moisture content:

"A number of investigations have shown that a sufficient moisture content of the barley is absolutely essential. It is possible to reduce germination time even when a very high degree of steeping is used, provided steps are taken to avoid subsequent drying out of the barley. Formerly moisture contents of 45-46% were used only when steeping dark malts but now this level of moisture is not unusual even for pale malts. By improving the degree of steeping on the 1964 season barleys (which were of low extract and enzymically poor) results shown in Table I could be obtained."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 72, Issue 1, January-February 1966, pages 15 - 16.

Why would you have a greater moisture content in dark malts?

Here's that table.

TABLE I
Effect of Steeping on Analysis
	Degree of steeping
	43%	46%
Moisture content	4.60%	4.80%
Extract (dry)	80.10%	80.80%
Coarse/fine grind difference	2.70%	1.70%
Protein content	11.90%	11.70%
Degree of protein modification	33.80%	35.40%
Colour (E.B.C.)	2.2	2
Conversion (min.)	10.15	10.15
Malting loss	9.50%	12.70%
Germination loss	4.70%	4.10%
Steeping time (hr.)	62	74

Want to know how British malt compares? Briggs reckons the dry extract of pale malt is 77-83%*. The German malt is smack in the middle of that range. For darker British malts the extract was lower, 75-78%**. Briggs states that malting losses account to 6.5% - 14%, but breaks them down differently to Narziss:

"Malting losses can be defined in several ways. If they are defined in terms of the losses in dry weight, which occur when cleaned barley entering the steep is recovered as kilned malt and has been de-culmed (dressed), then the losses sustained in making conventional malts are usually in the ranges: steeping losses, 0.5 - 1.5%; germination losses, 3.5 - 7.5%; rootlets, 2.5 - 5.0%. These divisions are artificial, since some respiration and growth occur in the steeping phase and in the initial stages of kilning."
"Brewing: science and practice", by Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes and Roger Stevens, 2004, page 17.

That leaves the German losses right at the top end, or a little beyond, of the British range.

More about malting and malts next time.

Brewing in WW II (part seven)

We're back in the middle of a WW II hop field.

And in the middle of the war. I wonder how thins are going?

"The 1942 crop was of uniform good quality and was considered to be the best for 10 years. The quantity picked, however, was still short of brewers' requirements, and they were only able to obtain 80 per cent, of what they had asked for. A new disease of the hop plant, which had made its appearance a few years previously in the Kent hop gardens, had become virulent that year. It was the virus disease, Verticillium Wilt, which attacked the plant, causing it to wither away, and was having an adverse influence on the yield in some gardens. Although investigations were then extensively being carried out at East Mailing into its cause, the only method of combating it was by grubbing. The hop crop in 1943 was of fair average quality, although it tailed off towards the end of the picking. The yield was higher than in the previous two years, although it was barely sufficient to supply the brewers' requirements. The yield: of the 1944 crop was again short, and brewers had to be content with a 20 per cent, reduction in their allocations, while the quality was rather below the average."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 123.

A new hop disease is the last thing anyone needed. Especially if the only cure was grubbing up the bines.


Why don't we take a look at hop usage during the war?

Hop usage in WW II
year	hops	prep-arations of hops	hop substitutes	bulk barrels	qtrs. malt	lbs hops per qtr	lbs hops per barrel
1938	277,846	145	29	24,339,360	4,307,776	7.22	1.28
1939	285,715	113	13	25,691,217	4,536,400	7.05	1.25
1940	265,512	132	108	24,925,704	4,176,167	7.12	1.19
1941	251,354	186	166	28,170,582	4,447,843	6.33	1.00
1942	223,007	246	71	29,584,656	4,490,029	5.56	0.84
1943	231,589	250	96	29,811,321	4,555,652	5.69	0.87
1944	243,900	277	137	31,380,684	4,731,148	5.77	0.87
1945	244,822	714	139	31,990,334	4,896,364	5.60	0.86
1946	226,197	1,414	168	31,066,950	4,644,176	5.46	0.82
1947	217,759	1,423	191	30,103,180	4,187,780	5.82	0.81
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 62.

Hopping rates did indeed fall. By 1945, the average amount of hops per barrel was 33% lower than in the last full year of peace, 1938. In terms of hops per quarter of malt, it was 22.5% lower. The latter figure is important as it takes beer gravity out of the equation.

"Before the war most brewers endeavoured to hold about 6 months' stock of hops above their year's requirements, but the disaster of 1940 practically wiped this out, and the principal difficulty ever since has been to maintain a sufficiently high hop rate with the reduced quantity of hops available, especially in those years when the quantity and quality was low. The agreed average price for the hops of the 1944 crop was £20 per cwt, a little more than double the price at the beginning of the war."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 123.

Here are the production and prices of hops during the war:

Hop production, imports and exports 1938 - 1947
Year ended 31st Dec.	Acreage	Estimated Produce	Yield per acre	Average Price of English Hops per Season, Sept. to Dec.	Imports: Less Re-Exports	Exports: British Hops	Consumption Years ended 30th Sept. following	shortfall / surplus
		Cwts.	Cwts.	£ s. d.	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.
1938	18,460	257,000	13.9	9 0 0	45,287	12,580	286,716	2,991
1939	18,812	288,000	15.3	9 10 0	7,840	16,050	265,512	14,278
1940	18,592	270,500	14.5	12 0 0	14,675	26,830	251,354	6,991
1941	18,158	262,800	14.5	15 0 0	31	17,209	223,007	22,615
1942	18,420	261,900	14.2	17 10 0	2,963	30,673	231,689	2,501
1943	19,131	285,200	14.9	18 0 0	198	24,941	243,900	16,557
1944	19,603	253,900	13	20 0 0	0	26,525	244,822	-17,447
1945	19,957	282,900	14.1	21 0 0	574	32,337	226,197	24,940
1946	21,163	257,451	13.4	22 10 0	29,243	35,056	217,759	33,879
1947	22,142	289,908	13.2	23 10 0	7,716	31,661	231,470	34,493
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 63.

The price was indeed £20 per cwt. in 1944. You can see that the price of hops, in contrast to that of malt, rose every year of the war and continued to rise after its end. And you can see from the shortfall/surplus figure (production plus imports minus exports and usage) that there was no room to build stocks, with only tiny surplus or even, as in 1944, a deficit. It did indeed look serious in 1944. The shortfall wiped out the surplus of the previous two years.

Brewers must have been the only people disappointed by the USA's entry into the war:

"Naturally attempts were made to remedy the very serious position in 1941, but the entry of America into the war cut short any prospect of importing from that source, and Continental hops were out of the question. Lupulin, which was little more than kiln dust, was offered from America, but the quantity which reached this country was small, later quite a useful hop concentrate was imported from the United States, but the quantity available was limited. It had a preservative value equal to from five to seven times that of hops and was a slight help in improving the situation. It has a strong American flavour, however, and the proportion that could be used had in consequence to be limited."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 123.

Because it ended hopes of getting American hops. You can see from the first table that the quantity of preparations of hops - which is where I think Lupulin belongs - was indeed tiny.

Picking hops wea still causing problems, too:

"The difficulties the growers had experienced in getting their whole crop picked and the delay that often occurred before it could all be obtained before it was over ripe and turned brown, again brought the question of picking machines into prominence. Some of the growers have been experimenting with these machines and necessary improvements have been made so that with the prospective increased costs of labour in the future it is likely that picking machines will be used in larger numbers."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 123.

There was also something I skipped about the introduction of combine harvesters during the war because of labour shortages. Their use was one reason much of the wartime crops were damaged after harvesting. It seems the war gave the mechanisatoin of agriculture a big push.

It seems supply problems continued after thge war:

"The present position with regard to the supply of hops at the end of 6 years is causing considerable anxiety as stocks held at the outbreak of war disappeared after the destruction of so large a proportion of the 1940 crop, and although hop rates have been reduced to the lowest possible limit, not sufficient hops are now being grown to meet brewers' requirements, and the amount available this year represents a shortage of from 6 to 8 weeks in a full year, which will become more serious next year. Although the Ministry of Agriculture has given permission to plant up a further 2,500 acres of hops it has been impossible to convince the Hops Marketing Board of the seriousness of the position and of the certainty that a much larger quantity than is at present being grown would be readily absorbed, even should there be a drop in the output of beer in the near future. Unless something can be done to obtain alternative supplies, therefore, the serious prospect of restricting the output of beer may become a reality."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 52, Issue 3, May-June, 1946, page 123.

If you look at the table above you can see that it isn't true that insufficient hops were being grown to meet demand. Even after exporting 30,000 cwt there was still a surplus. Not a huge one, but it was there. Beer output did indeed fall after war's end. It didn't start increasing until 1959 and didn't get back to the 1945 level until the end of the 1960's*.

Next time we'll be looking at brewing itself.




* 1971 Brewers'Almanack, page 54

German Helles in 2014

Right, time to start making some use of all this information I've been wasting my evenings collecting. My only accompaniment the quiet sobbing of my negected wife and kids.

I suppose I should make this clear at the start. What I mean by Helles, isn't any old sort of pale Lager that isn't Pils. I should really use the full name of the style I'm discussing today: Helles Lagerbier or Lagerbier Hell. I'm using the shorthand of Helles because I can't be arsed to go and change the style on hundreds of table entries.

It's a very popular style amongst the breweries I'm looking at. No surprise, as most are from Bavaria. Where Helles is the most popular style. There were only more examples in my set of two styles: Pils and Hefeweizen. Those are, unsurprisingly, the three most popular styles in Germany.

Oh, I suppose I should tell you how I split apart Helles Lagerbier and Helles Export. Some of the latter were identified by the brewery as Export. With others it wasn't clear what, if anything, the brewery considered their style. So I used something mentioned in the Deutscher Brauer-Bund website style descriptions: that Export has a minimum gravity of 12 Platoº.

It seems like a good enough dividing line, so that's what I've used. Though it is pretty arbitrary. I'll classify a beer of 11.9º Helles and one of 12º Export. You have to draw the line somewhere, but I'm not claiming my classification is perfect.

I suppose I should show you the beers now:

German Helles in 2014
Brewer	Town	Beer	OG	FG	OG Plato	ABV	App. Atten-uation	bitterness (EBU)
Paulaner	Munich	Münchner Hell Leicht	1030.4	1005.8	7.7	3.20	80.93%
Göller	Zeil am Main	Hausbrauerbier	1044.9	1011.7	11.2	4.30	73.92%
Püls-bräu	Stadtsteinach	Weismainer Urhell	1046.1	1010.8	11.5	4.60	76.69%
Bürgerbräu Hersbruck	Hersbruck	Lagerbier	1045.3	1009.9	11.3	4.60	78.13%
Ammerndorfer Bier Dorn Bräu	Ammerndorf	Hell	1045.7	1010.3	11.4	4.60	77.46%
Privatbrauerei Kesselring	Marktsteft	Hell	1046.1	1010.0	11.5	4.70	78.31%
Zum Löwenbräu Flair Hotel	Adelsdorf	Vollbier Hell	1047.4	1011.2	11.8	4.70	76.36%
Brauerei Windsheimer	Gutenstetten	Vollbier	1047.8	1011.6	11.9	4.70	75.73%
Forschungsbrauerei	Munich	Münchener Vollbier Hell	1044.0	1007.9	11	4.70	82.05%
Arnsteiner Brauerei	Seinsheim	Ernte Hell	1044.4	1007.6	11.1	4.80	82.90%
Brauerei Gasthof Wiethaler	Lauf an der Pegnitz	Lagerbier Hell				4.80
Brauereigasthof Winkler	Berching	Lagerbier Hell	1045.7	1008.8	11.4	4.80	80.74%
Klosterbrauerei Andechs	Andechs	Vollbier Hell	1046.1	1009.2	11.5	4.80	80.05%
Braugold	Erfurt	Braugold Hell	1046.1	1009.2	11.5	4.80	80.05%
Holsten	Hamburg Altona	Edel	1044.9	1007.3	11.2	4.90	83.73%	23
Kulmbacher Brauerei	Kulmbach	Kulmbacher Feinmild	1045.3	1007.7	11.3	4.90	82.99%
Kulmbacher Brauerei	Kulmbach	Mönchshof Bayerisch Hell	1045.3	1007.7	11.3	4.90	82.99%
Kulmbacher Brauerei	Kulmbach	EKU Hell	1045.7	1008.1	11.4	4.90	82.27%
Brauhaus Leikeim	Altenkunstadt	Hell	1045.7	1008.1	11.4	4.90	82.27%
Paulaner	Munich	Münchner Hell	1046.1	1008.5	11.5	4.90	81.57%
Kulmbacher Brauerei	Kulmbach	Kulmbacher Lager Hell	1046.1	1008.5	11.5	4.90	81.57%
Kulmbacher Brauerei	Kulmbach	Mönchshof Lager	1046.1	1008.5	11.5	4.90	81.57%
Gasthof Gundel	Kammerstein	Urhell	1046.1	1008.5	11.5	4.90	81.57%
Brauerei Weller	Erlangen	3x11	1044.0	1006.5	11	4.90	85.35%
Kitzmann-Bräu	Erlangen	Helles	1046.5	1008.9	11.6	4.90	80.87%
Kitzmann-Bräu	Erlangen	Kitzzz	1046.5	1008.9	11.6	4.90	80.87%
Brauerei Hermann Sigwart	Weißenburg	Hell	1046.5	1008.9	11.6	4.90	80.87%
Schübel Bräu	Stadtsteinach	a fränkisch	1047.4	1009.7	11.8	4.90	79.52%
Strauß Karl Brauerei	Treuchtlingen	Wettelsheimer Helles	1047.4	1009.7	11.8	4.90	79.52%
Göller	Zeil am Main	Hell	1047.4	1009.0	11.8	5.00	81.00%
Hacker-Pschorr	Munich	Münchner Hell	1046.1	1007.8	11.5	5.00	83.19%
Schwechater	Vienna	Schwechater Bier	1046.1	1007.8	11.5	5.00	83.19%
Kulmbacher Brauerei	Kulmbach	Original	1046.5	1007.5	11.6	5.10	83.99%	21
Weihenstephan	Freising	Original	1046.5	1007.4	11.6	5.10	84.10%	21
Spaten	Munich	Münchner Hell	1047.0	1007.1	11.7	5.20	84.88%
Löwenbräu	Munich	Original	1047.4	1007.5	11.8	5.20	84.17%
Average			1045.6	1008.7	11.4	4.8	81.01%	21.7
Sources:
Brewery websites.

As you can see, there's not a huge amount of variation. And the average does look like the spec of a tyopical Helles: 11.5º Plato, 4.8% ABV, 80% apparent attenuation. The biggest varition is in the degree of attenuation, which ranges from 74% to 85%.

Though by limiting the gravity to 11.9 º Plato, I did, of course, dictate that the beers would be generally similar.

Pils next time.

Saturday 1st November

Or coming Saturday.

Just discovered that there is a rail service of some sort out in the sticks of New Jersey where I'll be this week. Which means I'll be able to get to NYC on Saturday.

If anyone fancies meeeting up for a beer, I'll be in Blind Tiger about 13:00. I'll probably wander off later to DBA, Jimmy's No. 43 and Hop Devil.