HOW BEER IS MADE AND WHAT IT IS.
The production of beer, as of all other malt liquors, bears a striking
similarity to the making of bread; the chief difference being in the
quantity of grain employed, and the amount of water added. The one
intended for a solid food is baked, the other for a liquid refreshment
is boiled.
The process of making beer is as follows: A certain quantity of malted
barley is taken and ground, it is then mashed with hot water, the
sweet liquor or wort extracted, a portion of hops added, and the whole
boiled until the preservative quality as well as the aroma of the hops
is obtained. It is then allowed to cool, and afterwards fermented
with yeast to produce the small quantity of alcohol it contains, and
to give it life. According to analyses made by different chemists,
lager beer contains 91.0 water, 5.4 malt extract, 3.5 alcohol, and the
remainder—making in all 100 parts—carbonic acid. Ale and porter differ
only in having a slight additional percentage of alcohol, and a large
amount of solid extract.
The substantial and useful character of the chief ingredient of beer
may be seen from the nature of an analysis of the malt which forms
its basis. The result is from Dr. Lermer, whose researches in this
direction have been of great value.
DRY BARLEY. DRY MALT. DIFFERENCE.
Starch, 63.43 minus 48.86 14.57
Proteic substances, 16.25 minus 15.99 0.26
Dextrine, 6.63 plus 6.86 0.23
Sugar, — plus 2.03 2.03
Fatty matters, 3.08 minus 2.50 0.58
Cellulose, 7.10 plus 7.31 0.21
Other substances, 1.11 plus 3.16 2.05
Ash, 2.40 minus 2.10 0.30
------- -------
100.00 88.81
In the ordinary process of bread fermentation, a portion of the sugar
contained in the flour is decomposed and converted into alcohol. It
has been supposed that the whole of this alcohol was expelled by heat
during baking; but recent experiments indicate that a perceptible
amount still remains in yeast-raised bread after baking. The result of
six experiments, showed that one-third of one per cent. in weight of
alcohol was obtained from fresh baked bread. From forty loaves of fresh
bread, two pounds each, alcohol equal to one bottle of port wine may be
extracted.
The celebrated Professor Balling of Prague, who has spent much time in
the chemical analysis of different fermented beverages, arrives at the
following result in reference to lager beer: “Lager beer manufactured
of malt and hops according to the noble rules of brewing, properly
fermented, stored for some time and perfectly clear, is a healthy
and agreeable beverage, which when partaken of quenches thirst and
strengthens, and thus combines the qualities of water, wine and food.
The water is the thirst-quenching element, the wine the enlivening, the
malt extract (composed of sugar, gum, etc.) the nourishing, and the
carbonic acid gas the refreshing, while the hop extract strengthens the
stomach, helps digestion, acts on the bladder and is grateful to the
human constitution. There is no doubt that lager beer brewed and stored
strictly as before mentioned is hardly intoxicating.”
An impression has gained ground in some quarters that as a matter of
fact, beer is extensively and injuriously adulterated and certain
persons claiming to be well informed have spread statements that
potato starch, grape sugar, glycerine and molasses are added as
substitutes for malt (barley), that Indian corn and rice are used
instead of barley, that pine bark, quassia, walnut leaf, wormwood,
bitter clover, aloes, picric acid, cocculus indicus and strychnine
are substituted for hops, and that various chemicals are used to
neutralize acidity or conceal dilution. A few of the first named would
not be objectionable, unless in point of flavor, and as a matter of
fact all of the substances named may at some time have been used by
irresponsible brewers. A careful inquiry, however, has satisfied us
that the adulteration of beer is rare, and one who reflects on the
lively competition that exists in the trade must see how speedily
and surely such a practice would be detected and exposed by business
rivals. Touching the use of strychnine in particular, Dr. Ure says that
1st. “Strychnine is exceedingly costly.
2d. “It has a most unpleasant bitter, metallic taste.
3d. “It is a notorious poison whose use would ruin the reputation of
any brewer.
4th. “It cannot be introduced into ordinary beer brewed with hops
because it is entirely precipitated by the infusion of that wholesome,
fragrant herb. * * * * Were the _nux-vomica_ powder from which
strychnia is extracted even stealthily thrown into the mash tun, its
dangerous principle would be all infallibly thrown down with the
grounds in the subsequent boiling with the hops.”
When we remember the immense improvement in the quality of American
beer within the past few years and learn how often expensive machinery
and appliances have been abandoned after a short use in favor of
something better, we can hardly believe that brewers who conduct their
business after such a fashion, will at the same time try to make a
petty profit by using poor material and so deteriorating the product on
whose excellence the success of their business depends. The genuineness
of beer from any established brewery may usually be taken for granted.
In 1872 after an extensive examination of beers in Great Britain only
six samples were found to be adulterated.[18]
[18] Encyclopedia Britannica, Art. Brewing.
An effort has been made by many so-called temperance papers to
disseminate an opposite view in this matter and the statements made can
only be excused on the ground of ignorance—which in the circumstances
is inexcusable. No doubt beer has been often adulterated, but to
represent the practice as common or as prevailing in breweries that
expect to live and that have a character to maintain is to speak in
contradiction to the facts and to common sense. Lately at Newark, New
Jersey, charges of this general nature were made by a total abstinence
speaker and the matter was for once taken up by the brewers of the
city, in whose behalf a well known member of the trade addressed the
following letter to the orator of the day:
The REV. W. F. BOOLE, Brooklyn:
SIR—In a lecture delivered by you at Park Hall, Newark, N. J., on
Sunday afternoon, July 13, 1879, you are reported in the _Newark
Morning Register_ to have said: “The traffic is a traffic of compound
poisons, and not even the finest imported liquors are free from
them. Strychnine and stramonium, two deadly poisons, are used in the
manufacture of beer, and a little potash is added to prevent the
taste. Belladonna, one of the most virulent of poisons, is also used,
and not less than 10,000 tons of the deadly cocculus are consumed.
Cocculus is never given as a medicine, but it is drank daily by the
masses in their beer and ale.”
You, as a teacher of religion, should be a lover of truth. On behalf
of the brewers of the United States, I denounce this statement as a
deliberate falsehood, and I challenge you to prove any part of it;
and in the event of your not doing so, or withdrawing your assertion,
I shall not only take steps to publish the fact that you are a
willful perverter of the truth, but also to prosecute you for slander.
Yours truly,
(Signed) C. FEIGENSPAN.
Thereupon the lecturer made answer that the papers had not reported
him correctly. Here the matter might have dropped, and there was
in fact an end of this particular phase of the question. The case,
however, had made a stir and presently a representative of the teetotal
party called at the office of the United States Brewing Association
to collect information which was given him as a matter of course.
Then came a proposition from the same party for a public discussion
on the following extraordinary terms. Twelve propositions were to be
advanced and supported by a practiced speaker on the teetotal side.
The representative of the Newark Brewers was to have an opportunity to
reply to each, and the other speaker was then to sum up and conclude
the discussion. The brewers’ representative had only three days notice
and naturally declined any such arrangement in which all the advantage
was evidently assumed by the other side. The discussion also was to
be confined to one evening, and a collection was to be taken up “to
defray expenses.” The Newark Brewers’ Association, however, expressed
their willingness to debate on fair terms and with one evening for each
proposition, but this arrangement was declined. We have taken pains
to procure the twelve propositions of the total abstinence club, and
append them here chiefly in order to call attention to the fact that
the greater part are especially treated in this book, while the others
are touched incidentally or by direct inference. The propositions are
as follows:
No. 1.—The use of malt liquors is a direct cause of intemperance.
No. 2.—The use of malt liquors tends to the use of stronger liquors.
No. 3.—Malt liquors, if habitually used to any considerable extent,
tend to cause ill-health.
No. 4.—The claim that malt liquors are valuable as food is without
foundation.
No. 5.—As a medicine, malt liquors are of use only to those who do
not ordinarily use them, and are dangerous because of their tendency
to create habit.
No. 6.—The theory that malt liquors can be substituted by consumers
of alcoholic beverages for distilled liquors, to any important
extent, is false.
No. 7.—Beer in this country is far more evil in its effects than in
Germany; but even there its bad effects, as used by the people, are
obvious to every traveler who has no theory to maintain.
No. 8.—The use of beer by the working classes has a direct relation
to poverty.
No. 9.—The use of malt liquors by the masses has a relation to crime,
which, though differing in some respects from that of distilled
liquors, is marked and alarming.
No. 10.—Beer saloons and gardens, as a whole, are demoralizing in
their effects on individuals, families, and especially on children.
No. 11.—The great increase in the use of malt liquors and the
increase in intemperance for the past fifteen years have been
parallel, and are intimately connected.
No. 12.—That beer saloons should be subjected to the same
restrictions under which ordinary grog shops are placed.
Further comment would be superfluous, especially as this whole matter
is, strictly speaking, a digression from the purpose of the chapter,
although one that is so natural as to be almost inevitable.
There has also been much misrepresentation of the views of prominent
men. For instance, the _Religious Herald_ of Hartford, Conn., recently
reprinted an article in which it is asserted that Professor Liebig “has
proved to a certainty that as much flour as can lie on the point of
a table knife is more nutritious than eight quarts of Bavarian beer,
counted the best made. Also that the man who drinks two gallons of
Bavarian beer a day for a year, gets only as much nutriment from his
seven hundred and thirty gallons as he would from one five-pound loaf
of bread or three pounds of flesh!” The article has been extensively
copied all over the country and is calculated to do much harm by
throwing the influence of an important name on a side where it was
never intended to go.
Now it is barely possible that Professor Liebig made such a statement
as to nutriment of a special form, though we are not aware of any
passage that can give the least color to the assertion. On the other
hand his real view appears in such passages as the following: “Pure
lager beer, when taken with lean flesh and little bread yields a diet
approaching to milk; with fat meat, approaching to rice or potatoes.”
And again, “In beer-drinking countries it is the universal medicine
for the healthy as well as for the sick, and it is milk to the aged.”
These views are shared by almost all the eminent men who have made
a scientific study of beer, and the opinions and results reached
by a large number of chemists of high authority will be found in a
subsequent chapter. “We have anticipated thus much here because in
describing beer as it is, it seemed necessary to indicate to some
degree what it is not, at least so far as to explain that it is not
generally adulterated, and is not wholly useless, as a large party
constantly asserts it to be.”