364
BREWING
foreign matters (for instance the unfermentable residue of potato glucose) have been held by authorities to be deleterious to health ; but in any case, by giving an unlimited choice of materials to the brewer, the latter may—no doubt unintentionally—introduce into beer substances which are harmful (see Adulteration). (4) That long experience both in the United Kingdom and abroad has shown that beer brewed from malt alone has important dietetic properties, and that this experience is lacking in the case of substitute beers. That even if it be correct to estimate food value by direct analysis, ‘ ‘ substitute ” beers contain less food and more alcohol than ‘ ‘ all-malt ” beers. (5) That the use of substitutes is not necessary, as many of the most important brewers (including the largest firms in the United Kingdom) use practically none, and that, if it be a fact that, in order to meet the modern demand for light sparkling beers, it is necessary to use a corrective for the excess of nitrogenous matter in much of the English barley, there is no reason why foreign barley should not be used. (6) That although it is (with certain exceptions) admitted to be an impossibility to detect the use of substitutes by analysis, there is no doubt that science would find the means to overcome this difficulty. In answer to these arguments it was urged by those defending the use of substitutes :— (1) That it is possible by modifying the curing, mashing, and fermenting processes to bring about greater changes in the character and composition of a beer than by the moderate and rational use of substitutes. It is denied that the consumer expects to obtain an “all-malt” article when he asks for “beer,” nor does he * care provided that his palate is suited. That since the repeal of the Malt Acts it has been legal for the brewer to use whatever material he desires, but sugar was used, and in considerable quantities, for many years prior to 1880. That the consumer is not forced to drink any particular brew. That if two beers be brewed from the same malt, and on identical lines, but replacing, say, 25 per cent, of the latter by sugar in the one instance, the difference in food value will be infinitesimal—roughly a quarter of an ounce to the pint—and that even if this system of estimating food value be incorrect, there is nothing to prove that the beer brewed with a well-prepared substitute is not, from a dietetic point of view, of equal value to the “all-malt” article. (2) That the small quantities of so-called foreign substances or impurities contained in properly prepared substitutes are in no way harmful, and, with regard to the questionable nature of potato glucose, there is much experimental evidence tending to prove that it is harmless. That practically none of this glucose is used for brewing in England, and that the use of any harmful ingredient is punishable by the existing laws, and the fact of its being employed could not fail to come to the notice of the Revenue officials. (3) That the great and increasing demand of modern times for a light and sparkling beer renders the use either of substitutes or of foreign barley a necessity. t (4) That it would be impracticable to enforce a declaration of the use of substitutes, as it is impossible to discover by analysis whether a beer is “all-malt ” or not. (5) That it is not the fact that substitutes are used because they are cheaper than malt; the better class of substitutes are relatively expensive. The majority of the Committee reported in favour of the existing laws, substantially declaring that there is no reason either for prohibiting the use or for enforcing the declaration of substitutes. A minority report, signed by one of the six members, advocated declaration and closer control of materials, and held that the majority of the points advanced by the “pure beer” party had been proved. Germany.—In Bavaria the use of all substitutes is absolutely prohibited, the only substances which may be used in brewing being malt, hops, yeast, and water. In the German Brewing Tariff Union (comprising the whole of the German Empire with the exception of Bavaria, Baden, and Wiirtemberg) brewers are not restricted with regard to materials, except by the general laws relating to the composition of food stuffs injurious to health. It is a curious fact, however, that the North German Brewers’ Union has frequently petitioned Government for restrictive legislation directed against the use of all substitutes, on the ground that the general consumer has more faith in Bavarian beer, knowing it to be made from malt and hops alone, and that such legislation would tend to improve the position of the brewers in the Brewing Tariff Union with regard to Bavarian competition. The quantity of substitutes used within the Tariff Union is small, both actually and in relation to the malt employed, when compared with the figures for the United Kingdom (see above, p. 326). The following table gives the statistics concerning the materials used in the Tariff Union for the financial year 1898-99.
Malt and grain
Materials.
Quantities (100 Kilos.).
Barley malt Wheat malt Other grain
7, 444,983 194,719 4,664
Percentage . on Total Material. 95-4 2-4 o-i
7,644,366
97-9
Total grain Rice . Substitutes Sugar. Syrup proper Other substances
102,254 36,709 1,584 17,009
Total substitutes
157,556
) [ )
1-3 0-8 2-1
The gross percentage of substitutes (including grain other than barley malt) is therefore less than 5 per cent., and of substitutes proper-—rice, sugar, &c.—barely 2 per cent. Taking the whole of Germany the gross quantity of all barley malt substitutes used amounts roughly to 1J per cent. United States.—No restriction is placed by law upon the kind, quantity, or quality of the materials employed. The materials commonly used are malt and hops, but a variety of substitutes for malt is in use to a greater or less extent, and usually in combination with malt. The substitutes chiefly employed are rice, corn (maize), cerealine, glucose, and maltose. The American official returns do not lend themselves to an exact calculation of the percentage of malt substitutes employed at an English equivalent, but the figures show that the ratio of barley malt to substitutes is approximately as two to one. Of the substance chiefly used, rice and other grain constitute about one-half, sugar one-seventh, the remainder consisting of materials which are not separately specified. In Austria there is no restriction as to materials, but substitutes are very little employed, probably because they are more expensive in that country than the natural products which they are designed to replace. In Belgium the grain substitutes form roughly 9 per cent, of the total material; sugar may be used, but the nature and weight, &c., must be specified. In Holland there are no restrictions, but substitutes are little used, probably four-fifths of the beer being brewed from grain alone. Preservatives.—These are very generally, in fact almost universally, employed nowadays for light draught ales ; to a lesser extent for stock ales. The light beers in. vogue to-day are less alcoholic, more lightly hopped, and more quickly brewed than the beers of the last generation, and in this respect are somewhat less stable and more likely to deteriorate than the latter were. The preservative in part replaces the alcohol and the hop extract, and shortens the brewing time. The preservatives mostly used are the bisulphites of lime and potash, and these, when employed in small quantities, are generally held to be harmless. Hops.—The acreage under hops in the United Kingdom has varied considerably since 1875, but on the whole is decreasing. At the date mentioned hops were grown on 69,171 acres; in 1885 this area had risen to the maximum figure noted during the last fifty years—71,327 acres— but since then the average has been considerably lower, amounting between 1896 and 1900 roughly to 50,000 acres a year. Very considerable quantities of foreign hops are now used in the United Kingdom, and according to Messrs Briant and Meacham, the explanation of the preference for American and Continental hops by many brewers is that they improve the keeping properties of the beer. This is due to the fact that foreign hops contain rather more of the soft hop resins—to which the main preservative effect of the hop is due—than many of the English samples. The authorities mentioned above (Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 1897) point out that English methods of growing, drying, and packing are in many cases faulty, and that by improving these methods the quantity and quality of the soft hop resin can be appreciably improved. Hop substitutes are very little used. They mostly consist of quassia, gentian, and camomile, and these substances
