Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/291551431/the-pattern-of-brewing-research-a-personal-view-of-the-history-of-brewing-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:21:30+00:00

Document:
interests of the practising brewer.
Burns241 in their respective considerations of Irish chemistry.
The example set by these authors will be followed in this paper.
Boyle, the first Earl of Cork, may fairly be claimed by the Irish.
of Brewing on 9th October 1990.
few years ago no man knew the secret of their formation.
both, being founded on empirical observation."
the true nature of fermentation some time prior to Pasteur.
biology, then it is even less justified when it comes to chemistry.
Fig I. George James Allman.
behind the formation of the Chemical Society in March 1841.
method of determining the specific gravity of fluids119.
as members of the Chemical Society in the period up to 185077.
knowledge of chemistry to brewing simply to make a living.
" Chemists who did not actually earn their living as brewers also occasionally reported investigations into the brewing pro cess. He also advises on the virtue of closed over open fermenting vessels. and that not less than 2 bushels of malt per barrel of beer brewed had been employed3.Vol. No doubt some of this increase in establishment by the Excise was due to a change in the law which occurred in 1847 and which also led to employment for brewers' chemists. Furze communicated a paper to the Chemical Society in November 1843125 in which he gave his "Observations on Fermentation". Interestingly he acknowledges the help of his friend Robert Warington in his investigations. He goes on to suggest that this may be a good way of extracting and purifying the substances which cause bitterness. which showed the Frenchman's prior ity in aspects of the study Warington himself had undertaken. Thus we have George Septimus Piesse (1820-1882) an analyst and perfume manufacturer reporting in I84I208. a good source of revenue for these men. It was then considered bad form for a scientist to start work in a field in which another was already engaged.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Robert Warington. Chcvallier had appeared in the April 1845 edition of The Chemist. Further evidence that Warington kept up his connection with the brewers after he left Trumans comes from a paper of his own. owing to an alteration in the method of allowing drawback of Excise on beer exported from the United Kingdom. In most breweries analyses were probably obtained through the in dependent professional chemists. "Observations on the action of animal charcoal given in March 184524S. It was then that it first became necessary to determine the original gravity of a beer. The laboratory was originally used for tobacco testing but was soon extended to other areas including alcoholic drinks. In this he describes attempts to turn ordinary beer (by which we may assume he meant porter) into pale ale. was particularly popular. how he could increase the extract yield during mashing by adding a small amount of diastase (actually freshly ground malt) to the 2nd mash.ibd. The analysis of water177. the period show the carefully recorded work of both Warington and Henry in monitoring brewing parameters. A footnote to the published version of this paper by Warington gives an interesting side-light into the manners of the time. 98. I certainly would not have brought my own experiments forward. with men being sent to University College for intensive training in chemical analysis. Certainly a London vinegar manufacturer had a labora tory specially for monitoring product quality operating in 184226. Precisely when and to what extent laboratories as such were introduced into breweries in Britain is not clear. Warington comments that since giving his own paper to the Chemical Society a translation of a paper by a M. and shall not continue the investi gation until M. by treatment with charcoal. Chevallier has closed his researches. But. 1992] BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 87 Fig 2. analyses were probably carried out on site. Warington stated that: "Had I been aware of the existence of this paper at the time. In the same year the first laboratory' was established for the Customs and Excise1'0. It is also recorded that Henry carried out investigations on hop and malt quality in the early 1840s243. The extent of the operation may be gauged from the fact that seventy seven officers had been trained in this way by I85478.org. He notes that it worked well in removing the colour but also removed most of the flavour and bitterness. Until that time drawback could only be claimed by the brewer "making oath" that the beer had been brewed wholly from duty-paid malt. the government having previously paid for analyses by outside chemists. These mainly concerned his attempts to limit the amount of cthanol lost with the carbon dioxide given off.uk Copyright . This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. in a few breweries.
These new requirements were met with some disgruntled comment by the established This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . is particularly interesting as it relates.88 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES [J. only for the copper acetate to be reduced to copper by the charcoal of the charred float gauge. William Ferguson." Further need for laboratory facilities is displayed in some of the "extramural" work of chemists employed in breweries. Whatever the source of these analyses. but on the original gravity of the worts before fermentation. These were followed by the theoretical and practical contri butions of Justus Liebig (1803-1873) which developed from his studies on organic chemistry and led to much improved analytical techniques and the proposal of the existence of radicals161. Simple elementary analysis was replaced by expressions of the nature of the chemical species present. to his work in the brewery. This new system was based. not on the amount of material used. The minimum gravity on which drawback was allowed was 1054 and it was important to the brewer to be able to check and prove this. obtained from laboratory ana lysis of beers using a method based on evaporation appeared in a report produced by the Excise laboratory in August 1847 and was adopted as the official table. . In 1847. is limited to the determination of the several elements which compose the substances.ibd. Inst. used a microscope housed in the brewery for studying fermentations at Trumans at this time8. but the effect was profound even for the practice of routine analysis as performed for and by the brewers. who published papers on such topics as the "Action of chromic acid on silver" whilst employed by Trumans18. yielding acetic acid. must have had access to a laboratory." The analyst was now required to specify the chemical moieties that made up a substance. which in turn reacted with the copper of the vessel producing copper acetate. Robert Warington. who was appointed in about 1850. The full ramifications of the intellectual revolution thus produced cannot be discussed here. somewhat obliquely. the business of the analytical chemist. William Ferguson must have been able to carry out chemical analyses whilst at Reids in order to present a paper on the reduction of copper acetate by charcoal in 1849120. This paper. Consequently a method of checking the declaration of the brewer at the time of export was required.uk Copyright . Warington was an accomplished microscopist and it is known that his friend the pharmaceutical chemist Jonathan Pereira (1804-1853). was to note some years later171: "We analyse a sample from every brewing of pale ale for export because a drawback is allowed us by the Government officers when certain conditions are complied with. He notes that a float gauge on a brewery vat had been charred by steam. Thus. In addition to being a chemist. brewers were for the first time allowed to use sugar in brewing leading to the introduction of a new system of allow ance for drawback. and the definite proportions they bear to each other. As Bass's chemist John Matthews. This arose initially through the theories of chemical structure239 proposed by Jons Jacob Berzelius (1779 1848) the powerful Swedish chemist. Brew. Thus we have the Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University Charles Daubeny (1795-1877) writing in 1840108 that it was no longer clear that: ". Similarly. one of only two120131 which can be traced to Ferguson whilst he was at Reids. The first "degrees lost" table. Fio 3.org. the time between Warington's first employment at Trumans in 1831 and Ferguson's paper in 1849 saw an upheaval in British chemistry which profoundly affected the nature of the data produced. .
Although a great deal of his description is quite sensible it is obvious that there is much feeling in the dark for answers to questions which were not available. comes in for a lot of attention with examples from Allsopps. Fig. however. Perhaps this was the general mood at the time and could well have been the impetus for moving on from what was primarily a utilitarian analytical approach to the application of chemical knowledge to brewing.98. Muspratt "chemistry is not what it was. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www.org. The son failed to show the business acumen of his father but after a research training (and a PliD) from Gicssen he launched himself on a career as an analyst and teacher. fortunately. and in 1848 established the College of Chemistry in Liverpool which soon earned the appellation Royal after patronage from Prince Albert. alcohol. is a difficult point to deter mine. "saccharine" and The Golden Age If London was where the first brewing chemists were em ployed in Britain in the 1830s then by the 1860s the focus for brewing chemistry had swung away from the metropolis and towards the small Midlands market town of Burton-on-Trent. it is not now as formerly the bare history of the effects of heal and mixture. Numerous examples of analyses are given. James Sheridan Muspratt. Between 1853 and 1860 Muspralt published as a part-work an encyclopaedic treatise on the chemistry of current manufacturing processes. to the more sophisticated attempt to use of this knowledge in trying to increase understanding of the process which was to be a major feature of the next phase of brewing chemistry. is not so difficult to deal with at the present day." In addition to his detailed discussion of analysis Muspratt thoroughly covers the processes of brewing as seen by the chemists of the day. ranging from straight elemental analyses of barley and malt to quite detailed analysis of various com pounds present in grain and hop ash. whether this result is owing to the increased morality of the brewer.ibd. the Irishman James Sheridan Muspratt (1821-1871. as it was about half a century ago. Hop analysis is also attempted including figures for the "bitter principle". A method of determining carbon dioxide is described as is the determination of original gravity.. 4). He was born in Dublin the eldest son of James Muspralt the founder of large-scale Leblanc soda manufacture in Britain135. 1992] 89 Fig 4. professional chemists who served the breweries.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . or to the vigorous measures taken by Government in detecting and punishing sophistications.BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES Vol. Water does note181. which may support the view197 that 1866). Thus we have "glutinous" matter." This change in attitude is reflected in the writings of one of the more progressive younger chemists of the day. that: one of the principal reasons for initially employing qualified chemists in breweries was the need for the larger establishments to deal with and refute accusations of adulteration. Basic organic analyses arc also attempted for barley malt and brewers' grains. Bass and Tetleys analysed by and for the breweries in some detail.uk Copyright . one of the most eminent. that: "This subject. From this we may deduce the input then current from chemistry into brewing. Saccharomelry justifies a section to itself and had by then obviously reached a high degree of sophistication. which included a chapter on beer18" which appeared in 1854.. The detection of adulterants in beer is also the observation in 184847 of William Thomas Brande (1788- covered quite extensively.
like Watneys. it must have appeared as only reasonable and common sense that the rate of reaction must depend upon the concentration of the rcactant. Brew. 5) a native of Bandon. It did not obey Harcourt's kinetics but was. it is worth noting that brewers' chemists of the day were amongst the first to confirm the new interpret ation5764110. O'Sullivan must also have been an interesting man lo be around.org. His son H. Not that the output from the London breweries did not grow. Henri having pointed this out. Many of the London brewers. D. they suggested the formation of what we now call enzyme-substrate and enzymeproduct complexes. As Wilson notes251 "Only one of the great porter breweries (Trumans) managed to double output between 1830 1880". He made his mark with his first paper published in 1872185 on the transformation products of starch. that the rate of reaction depended on the concentration of sugar present83. most interesting paper191 on the action of invertase on sucrose entitled—"Invertase: a contribution to the history of an en zyme or unorganised ferment". most probably compounded by drinking. Inst. Thomas Henry and George Gow—in the period to the 1860s) should be the established porter brewer to adapt best lo the changes that were required. In fact. O'Sullivan. Thus. Always a true Irishman. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. that the velocity of inversion of sucrose by invertasc was in fact nearly independent of sucrose concentration at high concen trations141142143. In fact of course the reality is rather more subtle and it is to the immense credit of O'Sullivan and Tompson that. It should be noted. in their paper. to the pale ales of the Burton breweries of whom Bass and Allsopp were Ihe leaders201. In 1882 he isolated what he called189 alpha. for it did from 2. who had been taught by O'Sullivan at the Royal College of Chemistry and kept in touch with him ever since. County Cork and a man whom a contem porary Burton chemist Charles George Matthews (1856-1946) was later170 to term "the Father of Scientific Brewing". with strong opinions on the Irish Question and anti-English sentiments. and Mann.and beta-amylan. remaining with the firm until his death 40 years later14-19. O'Sullivan extended his studies on starch. This in time was lo lead to the true description of the mechanism of enzyme action. produced a biographical sketch192 of his father in the 1930s in which he writes of him as a fiery man. alkalinity and acidity influenced it.90 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES This swing mirrored the movement in public taste away from the porter of the great London breweries—principally Barclay Perkins. but also greater risks and consequences of error. the fit is far from perfect. Burton slightly shaded the London breweries despite the much greater local catchment area of the latter—something which would of course have been impossible without the railway network. as potentially troublesome agents in mashing. with particular reference to O'Sullivan's anti-Englishncss: "This begun pretty health may have been. in a series of papers published in 1901 and 1902 showed. even in terms of total volume increases. Whitbreads and Reids169—through mild. this rate of growth was slow compared to the Burton breweries where in the same period output increased from 50. Their conclusion was accepted for over ten years until Victor Henri. a zero order reaction. In this paper he des cribes how he "rediscovered" maltose—confirming and extend ing Augslin Pierre Debrunfaut's 1847"2 neglected identification of maltose. however. as the authors noted at the time. after all. concentrating on the appearance of dextrins in a series of papers given to the Chemical Society in the 1870slii61s718(!. (hat they were both what we would now call first order reactions. In 1890 he contributed a massive and [J. but they discounted the differences as being experimental error. from their observation that a solution of invertase will withstand a higher temperature in the presence of sugar than in its absence. It is likely83 that O'Sullivan and Tompson's wrong interpret ation of the data was accepted for so long because it was the answer chemists expected and wanted. Ralcliffand Gretton in Burton on Trent. Thus. But even Trumans were left far behind by the Burton giants. But. Courage. This was Cornelius O'Sullivan (1841-1907. what we would now call. O'Sullivan had been given a scholarship to the Royal School of Mines in London. in part using O'Sullivan and Tompson's own data.0 million standard barrels in I880250. It conveniently disposed of any last vestiges of a belief in the participation of a vital force in enzymic reactions and. As we have noted Bass had employed a chemist. who had the best background in chemistry (they had at least three Fellows of the Chemical Society on their staff— Robert Warington. The authors concluded this from the observed similarity between the time curve they obtained experimentally for the progress of inversion and that obtained theoretically by apply ing A. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Trumans. In 1886 he identi fied raffinose in barley190.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Fig. In order to minimise these the Burton brewers strove to obtain a better understanding of the chemical processes involved in brewing. On the basis of his scholastic achievements in Ireland. and this may have influenced his behaviour and/or the son's perception of his father. Charringtons. This paper has been described as a classic or benchmark paper in the history of biochemistry178. he had a good time among us and as long as I knew him in bore no malice". This picture is however disputed by Henry Edward Armstrong (1848-1937). O'Sullivan went on to study other carbohydrates in cereals. cell-wall polysaccharides which over a century later are still a fruitful area of investigation. Such growth in output brought with it the benefits of economics of scale. it was concluded that the action of invertase on cane sugar showed the same kinetics as simple inorganic reactions i. When Hofman went to Berlin in 1865 to lake up the Professorship in Chemistry. Trumans. Vernon Harcourt's work on inorganic reactions"4. that one of the major conclusions of the paper is in fact erroneous. sometime "Doyen of British Chemistry""8 and a frequent visitor to Burton in his younger days160. In both cases the source of the growth was ale. O'Sullivan went with him. In this paper O'Sullivan and his co-author Frederick William Tompson investigated the rate at which inversion takes place and how various factors. as the major product of the action of diastase on starch.e. O'Sullivan returned to England in 1866 to take up an appointment as brewer and chemist to Bass. they make an inspired suggestion which in time came to be recog nised as central to this subtlety.2 million standard barrels in 1831 to 5. John Matthews in about 1850. temperature. such as amounts of enzyme and substrate. being the first reported investigation of the action of an enzyme by really quantitative means.000 stand ard barrels to 3. rather than the universally assumed glucose. not averse to physical violence. At the end of the three year course he became demonstrator under August Wilhelm Hofmann (1818-1892). who became a general practitioner in Burton234. Certainly in his later years O'Sullivan had health and domestic problems. The previously dominant porter breweries were slow in adapting to change both in business practice and in technical development and paid the price.0 million standard barrels200. but only after his health curve had to run down steeply. and in the mid 1860s they employed another who was to become arguably the dominant figure in what was to be a golden age in brewing chemistry.uk Copyright . which he entered in September 1862. where output by Bass alone topped % million barrels in the 1860s and approached 1 million standard barrels in the late 1870s when they became what has been termed128 "a wonder of the Victorian world" and the largest brewing company in the world at the time19*. Crossman and Paulin copied the Burton style—principally either by "Burtonisation" of the soft London water or by setting up new breweries in Burton and elsewhere—and were rewarded with substantial growth251. In O'Sullivan's work I think we can clearly see something which was a feature of work in Burton at this time—the utility of brewing related problems in supplying insight into basic science. under the name beta-glucans.ibd. Armstrong had this to say29 of the son's observations. Thus.
org. brewing was still a seasonal trade and was only carried out in Burton between October and late April61. George Henry Unwin Harrow (1857-1926) who became his successor at Allsopps48.000/annum by the turn of the century. But. In contrast O'Sullivan with his heavy production responsi bilities managed. 98. but the relative strengths of production management should also not be ignored. O'Sullivan was a successful man. Indeed he seemed to resent rather than. in contrast to their great rivals Allsopps. with the help of assistants such as Arthur Landauer Stern (1867-1956). and the extent of indebtedness incurred in the scramble for pubs (in both of which Allsopps suffered) were not the prime factors in survival127. Allsopps also had a star chemist at the time in Peter Griess (1829-1888). almost unbelievably high salary of £5. Thus Griess wrote92 to a friend in Germany: "What would you say if you were in my place? To live in a foreign country in little sympathy with its aims and aspir ations. as the trade changed with the introduction of "running" beers instead of the old "stock" beers. surviving so well the economic difficulties which hit the Burton breweries from the mid 1880s138.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Griess was to get an assistant in the 1880s.Vol. Harrow in turn contributed virtually nothing to the development of brewing science and confined himself in the main to routine analysis7. to maintain and apply his research work to providing understanding of the brewing process. for my research work and have no assistant". He saw many changes in his 40 years at Bass.ibd. so O'Sullivan seems to have changed with it. He became intimately involved in the operation of the brewery until he was in overall charge of production19. Cornelius O'Sullivan. rising to head brewer of Bass with his own personal laboratory and a reported206.uk Copyright .1992] BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 91 Fig 5. always preoccupied with beer in a town which has little to offer. You must remember that I have almost to steal time. This is not to claim that other factors such as the relative strengths of commercial management and direction. By this I do not mean that Bass were more innovative than Allsopps—probably the contrary is true with the latter com pounding their inept management by launching into poorly This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. and all the year round brewing became possible because of better microbiological understanding and the introduction of attemperators and refrigeration plant. who was eventually to succeed him as Head Brewer231. When he joined in the 1860s. exploit the intrusions of all the year brewing when it came. as was the case with O'Sullivan. That he did this successfully must have contributed in no small measure to Bass. This allowed him plenty of time to pursue his chemical interests. Whatever the truth of the matter. But Griess was loath to leave his laboratory and although by the 1880s he operated an analytical service in the brewery39 his real interests remained in synthetic organic chemistry246.
but he was far from alone on the stage in Burton. Like his brother. These three. Peter Griess has already been mentioned and the careers of two other Burton chemists Horace Tabberer Brown (1848-1925) at Worthingtons—who we will meet later in his Dublin period—and his half-brother Adrian John Brown (1852-1919) at Salts. all became Fellows of the Royal Society and were the undoubted stars of the period. Amongst these were two Irishmen. have been well documented in this lytical study on barley germination in his first paper published Journal6-28-30-*1. Inst. O'Sullivan. we find A. but in this case using intact yeast and. He became Head Chemist on his brother's death in 1907 and held this position until his retire ment in I92227-229.5 million barrels12* whilst Allsopps had slipped from near parity with Bass at almost 1 million barrels in the late 1870s and early study under Edward Frankland (1825 1899) at the Royal College of Chemistry. One was James O'Sullivan (1856 1938." Stern further expresses his "surprise" that James: "still found such low numbers for the cupric reducing power of dextrose as Mr C. After two years James O'Sullivan returned to Burton and was appointed assistant to his brother in the Bass Laboratory. the knowledge gained in the laboratory was incorporated into the practice of brewing in small.uk Copyright . 6) a younger brother of Cornelius who arrived in Burton in 1874 to be trained by his brother. before proceeding in the same year to his 46 years with Bass214. Fig 6.org. Cornelius O'Sullivan may have been the most successful chemist to grace the scene.ibd. together with Cornelius O'Sullivan. James O'Sullivan. These papers ranged from an ana in 1890''"' to an investigation of the fermentation of adjunct worts in his last published in 19211W. In addition to assisting Cornelius in his 1880s to around half a million barrels in the 1890s"K. Cornelius O'Sullivan's assistant remarking that. or in extreme cases went into receivership. were also at work in the town. But to return to the start of this golden age rather than its end. in a paper written in 1892IM\ reached the same erroneous con clusion that enzymic inversion of sucrose followed 1st order kinetics. Not that Bass were immune to the recession which came after 1900. Rather that. He was also like his brother an ardent "home ruler". Like work. in calculating the purity of his maltose. James also studied invertasc. Fig. in the recorded discussion of a paper on maltose given by James O'Sullivan to the Nottingham Section of the Society of Chemical Industry in January 1897195. As we have already noted Cornelius O'Sullivan had a private laboratory attached to Bass's by the late 1880s and it would appear that there may have been some rivalry between this establishment and the "official" Bass laboratory in which James O'Sullivan worked. But even in relative decline they were sound compared to some other breweries who failed to pay a dividend and either merged to try and minimise their over-capitalisation and unit costs. unspectacular ways. James had: "adopted a method which was bound to give apparently good results whether his original specimen of maltose was pure or not. perhaps less honoured but nonetheless significant characters in the development of brewing chemistry. James published some 20 papers under his own name in most other Burton and London brewers—and many country' brewers—they lost volume and suffered declining profitability in the first decade of the century. But they were not alone. L. with O'Sullivan in charge at Bass. Brew. Thus.92 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES [J. Stern. Other.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . In 1900 Bass produced about 1. FRS and himself had recently published a paper in the Journal of the Chemical This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. market researched ventures into lager brewing129.
making the mash up to 515 ml.org. hops'*. it was too high—as was pointed out by a number of olher analysts al the lime4"53-123-33. Heron. that first described by Heron in 1888I4H I895I4\ The method involves mashing 50 g of malt under carefully standardised conditions. He created a prosperous practice"0 which continued until his death in 1913 and which was. in turn. Heron was a leading light in both the Institute of Brewing and the Society of Chemical Industry. This comprised. was a native of Bandon. He com pleted two years with Frankland. Somerset. In fact it was not until 1948 that an equation was formulated which would allow the "correct" figure to be obtained4"" using the 515 ml flasks. before joining Horace Brown as assistant chemist at Worthington's early in 1877. his determination of the volume of spent grain was in fact wrong. never accepted this and vehemently defended his figurespecifically in a paper published in I9O2I4\ However. Diaries of James would certainly suggest etc. what amounted to exporting home brew kits to India—a venture from which his partner embezzled all the money and left Heron broke in pocket and broken in spirit. John Heron surrounded by his pupils. and which was confirmed by other workers. County Cork:4:. In 1885 he moved to Battersea as chemist to the invert sugar factory of Messrs Garton Hill who also owned the brewery in Shepton Mallet.ibd. He was primarily an analyst publishing widely on analytical techniques for malt and wort14'. It is possible that Stern was giving voice to the animosity which existed between the O'Sullivan brothers. after making up to 515 ml. at the age of 45.KS Vol. continued by a son (one of John's eleven children) and a grandson. l"ig. each 100 ml of filtrate would contain the extract from 10 g of mall. He stayed in this job until 1895 when. Heron. Why then do brewers' chemists still use this inappropriately calibrated glassware? The most probable answer is that everyone having bought a set of flasks. he set up in London as a brewers' analyst and consultant. However. Heron spent six years with Brown working mainly on starch before going as chemist to the Anglo-Bavarian Brewery in Shcpton Mallet. filtering and measuring the specific gravity of the filtrate. but then developed an interest in chemistry and came to England to study under Frankland alongside James O'Sullivan. on average. and published in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing in The other Irish chemist to come to Burton in the 1870s was John Heron (1850 1913. in that the two men had their arguments'". beer and caramels'44. A contributory factor in John Heron's compara tively early death at the age of 63 may well have been his involvement in a disastrous business venture. the actual figure for spent grains should be around 9 ml44. which had led them to the conclusion that the old value was materially low." In happier times. Hardly the kind of remark one hopes to have directed at you by a colleague after a public lecture. all important respects.uk Copyright . they were loath to replace them even though the absolute answer obtained by using them was in error. So far in considering this golden age we have not looked outside Burton and in fact one of the most perplexing questions This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. there is no doubt thai.MISTRY IN THE BKITISM ISI. however. 1992] 93 1-k: 7. To this day. Society describing a large number of experiments. according to his grandson Dick15". He graduated with a degree in engineering from Queen's College Cork in 1871. 7). In order to facilitate this procedure brewers' chemists use specially produced flasks calibrated to 515 ml. however. like the O"Sullivans.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . This parti cular volume conies from Heron's experimental determination that the spent grain or residue from the mashing of 50 g of mall occupied 15 ml and that therefore. the method used for this determination in British and Irish breweries is.98.HRIAVING CIIP. His most lasting memorial is the method he devised for determination of the extract of malt.
They employ a con siderable number of chemists in their breweries. His remarks should also be taken in context for they were part of his argument in demonstrating the usefulness of the college and the need for more space to be provided for students1*". Frankland may therefore have somewhat exaggerated his "constant stream"." However. An analysis of the distribution of a sample of industrially employed chemistry students across different sectors for the years 1880 and 1900 shows brewing and distilling to be second only to the textile industry and ahead of the mainstream chemical industry in this respect. that both Brown and Lord Iveagh were writing 50 years after the events they describe and distance fogs and romanticises recollection. Inst. Graham should. have had a fair idea of the true position for he had a large consulting practice which specialised in the fermentation industries88. It should be remembered. could well have hindered widespread introduction of laboratories. Certainly. when he arrived in Burton in the 1860s. Nonetheless. chemical laboratories. we should take his words in context for Graham was in the middle of an argument with the Professor of Chemistry at the college at the time over the role of pure chemistry in relation to industry"1... however. but scarcely a laboratory anywhere else in England except at Burton. Edward Frankland when Professor of Chemistry at the Royal College of Chemistry. Similarly. Professor of Chemical Technology at University College. if common. some of them have two in the same brewery and they pay them large salaries. This still.org. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. the 2nd Earl of Iveagh noted15" that the first Guinness laboratory was established far from the brewery to avoid public suspicions of "chemical beer". was able to tell219 the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction: "Out of 30." Here again. as Sigsworth points out227 the actual evidence produced by Frankland to the Commission showed that from a sample of 366 of a total of 1008 students trained at the college since its foundation in 1845 only twenty were pursuing careers in the brewing industry and of these eleven were known to be connected with three of the Burton breweries. however. Thomas Bennett Case. at least up until the early 1880s. I think there are only a few where there are .Journal of the Institute of Brewing . however. brewers' chemists were rare outside Burton. I know Dr Philip (sic) Griess is at Allsopps and Mr O'Sullivan at Bass's and there is a labora tory at Worthingtons. the laboratory he introduced was hidden away so as not to offend potential customers. about the late Victorian period is what was the scale of penetration of chemists into the brewing industry at other places? The evidence is conflicting. only amounted to 7% of the total number of students in the sample and would have given a very thin spread across the many breweries in existence at the time. told the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction2111 in 1871 that: "brewers especially keep almost a constant stream of students passing through the College. Such reactions.ibd.94 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES [J. Even in Burton it was not always plain sailing. Fio 8. more objective recently assembled evidence113 would suggest that the brewing industry in fact did rather well in comparison with other industries in recruiting chemists. He may thus again have adapted the facts to suit his own purposes in a plea for the direct teaching of technology rather than science as a way of influencing industry.000 licensed common brewers (in England and Wales). Even ten years later in 1882 Charles Graham (1835 1909). Brew.uk Copyright . Alfred Barnard in his tour of the breweries of Great Britain and Ireland—the description of which was published in I889-9039—mentions few laboratories except at the Burton breweries. Horace Brown claimed in his reminiscences62 that. however. It may well be then that.
ibd. Arthur Jackson in 1897. William Scaly Gosset and E. federation in 1895 and merger in I904:06. the first chemistry graduate they employed in Dublin in 1893 held a first class honours degree in chemistry from Oxford. Certainly the laboratory at William Younger's was not founded until 1889"'* and Watney's Stag brewery had no laboratory until I9O3S<). to be followed by the three provincial Institutes in the early 1890s. following the influence of Christopher Diggles La Touche the then Managing Director55. A rather different appointment was that of Alexander Forbes Watson (1872 1909) as chemist in 1896"5. Watson. of whom there was no shortage. They dominated ihe pages of the Journal in the early years and were responsible for much of the work in developing analytical chemistry in brewing during this period. where he apparently had considerably more impact than Case had managed69. the problem being resolved with Case's appoint ment as brewer in charge of the "Brewers' Laboratory" a separate entity from the "Chemist's Laboratory"6'' (Fig.org. All from Oxbridge. who obtained their first microscope in 1881l58 and were producing over 1. the forerunner of the Institute of Brewing was set up in London. G. GeolTrey Phillpotls in 1900. 98. These men were themselves prominent in the Institute of Brewing. all Englishmen and all originally employed as brewers or apprentice brewers6'. He arrived in Dublin at a time when Case was away and took over Case's duties. His name was Thomas Bennett Case"1 (1871 1941. after studying at Heriot-Watt College in Edinburgh. 8). An original member of the Chemist's Laboratory was James Wilson Tullo (1872 1954) who joined in 1899 and was This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. These men lived together at the Guinness house for unmarried brewers at St James's Gate and ate and took their recreation together55. undated («•. Case was the son of the president of Corpus Christi CoIIeae. In 1886 of course the Laboratory Club. He was followed in 1895 by another graduate with first class honours in chemistry from Oxford—Alan McMulIcn < 1872 1940) of Rugby and I)allioli:i. But when they started.5 million bulk barrels a year by the end of the century"'. On Case's return there was some difficulty in defining the duties of the "scientific brewers" and the "chemists". did not appoint a qualified chemist until the 1890s. they went for the most highly qualified people they could find. it is clear that the consultants jealously guarded their vested interests and would attempt to oppose any proliferation of laboratories. 9). I'JIW). a Winchester and Magdalen man"1' and a cricket bluel?". Fig. 1992] BREWING CHI-MISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLKS 95 Fig 9.Vol. Thus.uk Copyright . From the disputes there were over the possibility of setting up a "central labora tory" under the auspices of the Institute in the 1890s. It must have been rather like a continuation of their college life. the balance between practical and "scientific" men in the early Institute is not clear and a detailed survey of brewery records is really required to obtain a full assessment of the penetration ofchemisls into the industry. however. This would suggest a spread of chemists around the country.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Even Guinness. Pcake in 1899. had become a lecturer in fermentation following a period in Alfred Jorgenson's laboratory in Copenhagen174. Guinness Chemist's Laboratory. Most breweries probably relied upon Ihe services of consulting chemists. The appointment of other chemislry graduates followed regularly.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Horace Tabbcrcr Brown. for it was at this stage that Guinness called a halt to Brown's work. His research was discontinued and he left the company. 10) as its Director. who had risen to the position of joint Managing Director at Worthingtons had left that company in 1894 after a dispute with a fellow director31 and had been carrying out research in a private capacity in London at various laboratories176. Andrews retired four years later at the age of 69. A particularly significant development at Guinness occurred in 1901 with the establishment of the Research Laboratory with Horace Brown (1848-1925. for there were other reasons. because he was such a good scientist. He retired on 31st December 1948 aged 76. suggests that there was some dissent within Guinness over Brown's theories. However. Armed with this knowledge. He brought with him to Guinness a chemist. and even the identification of the amino acids leucinc. A somewhat frosty exchange249 between Brown and Alexander Forbes Watson following a 1909 paper by Brown on the Nitrogen Question at which Watson asked "what experimental evidence Dr Brown possessed that assimilable nitrogen left in the beer was really a matter of practical importance". Fig. in reference to the detailed composition of nitrogenous materials59: "a vast amount of patient and continuous work is required before we can get a clear insight into these questions.96 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES [J. as no matter how many assistants he may have it is considered that here is only one chemist. tryptophan. We can now appreciate that Brown's objective of an infection-resistant beer was misguided but. and a botanist. It is also the case that Guinness retreated into secrecy at this time and would not have welcomed an obligation to This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. Miller. Much effort had gone into method development in the work and there had been a clear demonstration of the gross properties of soluble and insoluble nitrogenous materials in wort and beer. The swansong of the golden age had ended. Brown. Escombe.ibd. Brew." "Partly" indeed. ■■■■/-■ Flo 10. The attempt to transplant the Burton spirit in Dublin had failed. and the gist of the material was presented by Brown in a 63-page paper in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing in 19O760. Brown was to remain with Guinness until 1906. it was believed that adjustments could be made to brewery materials or brewing practice such as to make the beer less hospitable to these organisms and hence more stable*"'176.org. F. The aim of this investigation was to gain a fundamental understanding of the composition and function of the nitrogenous materials in malt. wort and beer.uk Copyright . appointed Chief Chemist in 1937. Note that at Guinness the apostrophe in Chemist's Laboratory comes before the s. J. H. The Barren Period According to Horace Brown63 his departure from Guinness was "partly through the mistaken idea that it [the work] had reached finality." But this was not to be. tyrosine and aspartic acid in malt. as Brown himself stated in his introduction to the 1906 volume of Transactions. during which lime the efforts of the Research Laboratory were concentrated on what was known as the "Nitrogen Question". These three constituted the Research Laboratory staff with Case and McMullen as Administrators. The results of the work were published as 350 pages of Transactions. Inst. his methodical approach still paid dividends. the Chief Chemist205. Another early member was John Andrews (1884-1961) who joined the laboratory in 1900 and became Chief Chemist on Tullo's retirement. privately printed by Guinness. The ultimate objective of the work was the definition of those components of beer which encouraged the growth of beer spoilage organisms.
comparing on the one hand American and English hops and on the other Fuggles and Goldings. In this they were assisted by an experimental mailings first used in 1902 and 12-barrel experimental brewery which put through its first brew in 1903**. became a commission maltster for the company and in 1919 was made Guinness's buyer of all imported barley." What was this work? Well it is very difficult to tell. either directly through his work as Experimental Brewer. He had no statistical assistant until 1922 and whilst later a statistical department was set up. It would appear that much of the scientific work carried out by Guinness at this time was rather slow in finding direct practical application in the brewery." An obvious reference to Guinness. This was apparently much to the disappointment of Alan McMullen who had also risen in the company but not so far as Case. 1992] BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES continue publishing Brown's researches. but was frustrated in much by his senior colleague until he became Head Brewer in 1931 and was at last in a stronger position to put into practice some of the things he would like to have done for at least 20 years. who was a maltster in 97 Warminstcr. 98. Thus. In 1904. Not that the Guinness Research Laboratory in fact dis appeared with Brown. the relative merits of different varieties and the effect of conditions of drying and storing on the malting value of barley and the brewing value of hops. McMullen and Jackson toured the experimental plots on numerous occasions56. came to write a paper on significance testing. varieties of hops and barley. The character of the work changed somewhat to meet the special requirements of the Guinness products and their manu facture. personalities and changed company policy. In all "Student" published 22 papers54. when berating the breweries over the decline of the scientific spirit within the brewing industry since the great Burton days. In 1935 he went as Head Brewer to the new Guinness brewery at Park Royal but died at the age of 61 in 1937171. "The Probable Error of a Mean". this time a Cambridge man and an England international rugby forward who joined to the company in 1904 and became Managing Director in 1941230. The young Oxford and Cambridge graduates taken on at the turn of the century spent two years as a junior under the instruction of a senior brewer and were then put in charge of a section of the brewery and research work55. E. Bcavan. when Guinness became interested in barley breeding. A long series of trials were carried out in the experi mental brewery from 190772. when in 1908 William Sealy Gosset (1876-1937). Initially concerned with methods of analysis the two men moved on to consider sources of supply. The company were to go on to become one of the largest hop growers in England56. I would contend that the reasons for Horace Brown's departure from Guinness in 1906 were really quite complex. a statistician at Guinness from 1947 to 1970 noted105 about the company when she first joined that they: "never stopped experimenting to try to produce the product as a constant one. from varying raw materials." This does not tell us much about what actually went on but does tell us quite a lot about the ethos of the company. wrote: "The worst case is that of a leading firm which is known to have a highly organised scientific department—but this is closed to the world. This resistance to change has been attributed to the influence of T. 90% of the barley grown in Ireland was Spratt-Archer as was most of that grown in England139. With hops the main pre occupation was in their preservative properties. Similarly. Barley grown in these plots was followed through malting and brewing to the final beer using the experimental facilities at Guinness to give a comprehensive set of data172. the first of which was entitled "On the error of counting with a Haemocytometer" and appeared in I907235 and his last "Comparison between balanced and random arrangements of field plots" in 1938237. much of the calculation was still done by him—much of it apparently on the "backs of envelopes"173. Case himself7". The work on hops is a good example of this. whilst in charge of the Experimental Brewery at Guinness. In 1909 McMullen was put in charge of the Chemist's Laboratory and became Second Brewer in 1923. involving scientific differ ences. varying because of weather. Case had risen through the company becoming an Assistant Managing Director in 1919 and Managing Director in 1927. despite extensive Experimental Brewery work it was not until 1923 that any hop variety trials reached the main brewery. which seem to have been regarded as even more important then bittering power. We can however obtain some idea of the general research interests at Guinness from more general reports which appeared before and after the ban. Herbert Hunter (1882-1959) was appointed by the ministry to take charge of these experiments151 and Guinness brewers including Case. He also had the ear of Edward Guinness the first Earl of Iveagh. This is referred to by H. or through statis tical design and analysis of the results of the agronomical work. Armstrong. It was Hunter who created Spratl-Archer barley by a cross made in 1908. In line with observations made elsewhere that hop resins were responsible for both the bittering and preservative properties of hops. B. another of Guinness's early chemists.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Miss This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. who in 192133. F. According to J. soil. It was in coming to terms with problems that arose in brewing work that he developed much of his statistical research. as the Guinness ban on the publication of papers by its staff under their own name was not lifted until just before the second world war"". Brown in his book Guinness and Hops published in I980*5: "McMullen was technologically far more able and progres sive than Case. But Case was very much the conservative when it came to matters technical. Guinness also collaborated with the Irish Department of Agri culture in studies on the improvement in quality and yield of malting barley. after both cooled and uncooled storage. It has even been suggested2*1 that a textbook Gosset wrote on experimental sampling was not published because "the rather secretive Board of Directors of Guinness did not allow such publication.uk Copyright .Vol. as economically as possible." But it was not until 1925 that the company started to buy hops on the basis of soft resin content73. S. How greatly this might have contributed to knowledge is obvious from the publications which were issued while the Laboratory was under the direction of Horace Brown.org." Certainly the scientific work which continued at Guinness after Brown's departure was kept under wraps. Gosset was involved in all of this hop and barley work. he had to publish it under the pseudonym Student216—hence Student's t test—because of the Guinness Board's aversion to publicity. Stella Cunliffc. By 1909 Gosset was able to state that "soft-resin was closely correlated with the life of the resulting beer and promises to be of very considerable use. Charles Joseph Newbold (1881-1946). In the 1920s and 30s. analysis of soft resins was carried out by Guinness from the end of 1897 onwards71." Nonetheless if Guinness were conservative in their attitude to change it would seem that they held maintenance of quality in proper respect. Another famous name to become associated with Guinness at this time was Edwin Sloper Beavan (1857-1941) the breeder of Plumage-Archer barley163. W. Case and McMullen were involved in barley and hops and the study of these materials seems to have been one of the major interests at Guinness over a long period65. which effectively put the block on innovation at Guinness. had this to say in a reminiscence"13: "After the initial work had been completed the Guinness Research Laboratory was removed to other quarters. Thus.ibd. Guinness showed particular interest in varieties and cultivation of hops and enjoyed a long relationship with Wye Agricultural College most notably at this time with Ernest Stanley Salmon (1870 1959) famous for his work on hop diseases and hop breeding5.
Peake. But if Guinness were secretive about their researches (in which trait they were probably joined by Heineken20) and conservative in their application. E. Fig 11. A. rather than the pursuit of understanding through science. John Heron's son. but should lower her eyes until he had passed. B. S. L. but what of research activity actually in the laboratory? J. Gilliland presented a paper on "The flocculation charac teristics of brewing yeast during fermentation" at the 1951 EBC Congress at Brighton126—a paper which was to lead to the adoption of the "Gilliland types I—IV flocculation types". Newbold that research continued183. S. 12) shows sixteen at a time when even the largest breweries elsewhere in the British Isles would be unlikely to approach half that number. Hn. H. Not that they hadn't much to be arrogant about. Brew. W. S. devoted itself to the study of ad hoc problems. a photograph taken in 1935 (Fig. Immediately practicable technology. Phillips. G. . Tullo at Guinness but had remained unpublished. The rest of the industry in the British Isles would seem to have adopted a very narrow approach in the period between Brown's departure from Guinness in 1906 until after the Second World War. Preece (19071964) of Heriot-Walt noted in an essay written in I9632": ".org.ibd. 11) would have outclassed their contemporaries elsewhere. for example. M. This is exemplified in the original published papers of a Dublin born man who was Chief Chemist at Truman Hanbury and Buxton in London between the wars. as Professor I.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . S. W. K. in consulting This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. It must un doubtedly be the case that their team of chemists turned brewers (Fig. With such treatment it is hardly surprising that a certain arrogance showed itself in the attitude of the company105. . was the prime interest of even the more progressive British breweries in the 20s and 30s. Gosset. J. J. Only occasionally has the curtain been lifted. Wix. on no account was she to recognise him. H. As. Phillpotls. Heycock. Buttanshaw. but we don't know what it involved. Mill. G. on arrival at St James Gate as a newly-hired statistician. Cunliffe also gives us a picture of the awe the brewers were held in when she recalls how. By this time many breweries had basic QC laboratories of some sort but few went further than routine analyses and were not very well equipped212. In fact. middle row: G. though interesting and often of the greatest value in a particular set of circumstances. This was Arthur James Curtin Cosbie (1884-1951) who studied at Trinity College Dublin and Birmingham University. Miller. A. when R. If we have only an imperfect idea of what the "chemist brewers" got up to then the activities of the practising chemists in the Guinness laboratories arc even harder to get at. they were ahead of the other brewers. H. . back row: C. Those mentioned in the text are underlined. F. A. the bulk of brewing scientific work over a period of 40-50 years up to 1950 . F. to the study in fact of the gross behaviour of the materials. R. she was told that if she were lucky enough to meet a brewer in the corridor. Instead. C. J. Barker. McMullen. Newbold. Storey. so that—with innumerable variables in volved—the results. The techniques developed by Horace Brown during his time there were utilised and comprehensive quality control schemes introduced. A." In other words the work had no fundamental or lasting value. Guinness Brewers 1923. Jackson. stayed on after Brown left and we have it on the authority of C. the classification had been devised some thirty years previously by J. Shildrick. C. . lacked ultimate definition. Crawford. Paul L. before joining Trumans in 1924 and going on to link up with Harold Heron. W. R. Gone were the days when brewing would make a contribution to main-stream science as in the work of Cornelius O'Sullivan. as Gilliland reveals in his paper. Brown's assistant. Inst. They also assembled a large team of practising chemists. Peel. E.uk Copyright . G. Left to Right: front row: E.98 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES [J.
There was an Institute of Brewing Research Scheme from 1920 onwards. "The effect of temperature of drying on the value of hops"'7 and "Sterilising filters"99. Those mentioned in the text arc underlined. He was chosen to give the Royal Society of Arts Cantor Lectures on Brewing"" in 1942—the first time brewing had formed the subject for this event for nearly 30 years—and contributed erudite general articles to the Journal of the Institute of Brewing on matters of current scientific interest in the 20s and 30s*1"1. as an editorial in this Journal noted". hack row: W.uk Copyright . Then he moved to the Crown Brewery in Barry and went in 1931 to Beamish and Crawford. K. They are very much descriptions of technology rather than contributions to science. Andrews. as has been noted. While." But this only amounted to a few initially scattered workers around the country. Stringer. But Shimwcll. H. Millar. he did not suffer fools gladly*6. M. J. J. lecturer in brewing techno logy at Sir John Cass College. In 1939 he left Ireland and joined Whitbreads (who had started a yeast research laboratory in 1937)-""' as a research chemist. practice in 1941"14'. He was also very much his own man. returning to Mitchell and Butlers until 1927. with such titles as "Bottling technique and plant"100. much of the practical work whilst at Beamish and Crawford being carried out by his assistants1". He was a prolific writer of technical articles with a distinctive lucid style. at the forefront of brewing science. Brunty. middle row: (five) W. Taplcy. "established order out of chaos. Reilly. W. as Cyril Rainbow wrote313 in his obituary of Shimwell. W. ODonncll. Shimwell had joined Mitchell and Butler's brewery in 19191-"7. Tullo. so that even in 1934 the editor could again note34: "We are only on the threshold of exact knowledge concern ing the many processes involved in brewing. but they have very little of a research element in them. From there he was sent to Birmingham University where he obtained his degree in biochemistry. R.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . There were. J. one or two exceptions to this prosaic approach and here I would make special mention of John Lester Shimwcll (1901-1964) Head Brewer at the Beamish and Crawford brewery in Cork between 1932 and 1939. J. "not one with which a great and important industry can be satisfied. Walker in the 1940s after leaving Trumans1"2"" but his original communi cations whilst at the brewery were of a more severely practical kind. 1992] BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 99 Fig 12. McDonnell. J. His talents may have been more on the interpretative than the practical side. Nonetheless it is doubtful if the contributions of this essentially introspective man were fully realised at his sad death in 1964"6. J.org. In 1950 he was offered a post as head of a department at the new Brewing Industry Research Foundation but turned it down because of a disagreement over the conditions under which he would be working12." Shimwell was awarded a DSc by Birmingham in 1937. I. council member and examiner for the Institute of Brewing. often the centre of acrimonious scientific exchanges. Coleman. J.Vol. W. he published a whole series of papers"""'•2""'"4-225 which put brewing bacterio logy on a firm basis and. W. Left to Right: I ront row: R. Marshull. No doubt these papers met with interest at the time and in Preece's words "were of value in particular set of circumstances". becoming Head Brewer in 1932. For 30 years onwards. In 1943 he left Whitbreads and worked from home as a consultant before joining British Vinegars in 1950 to take charge of their Research Department. Webb. it having been recognised that the record of research activities at the time in brewing was.98. Toner. Wright. was an exception with very little work contemporaneous to his studies in Ireland going on anywhere else in the British Isles. the advance is This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. D. Cosbie did some basic work in microbiology in conjunction with T.ibd. Guinness SlafTof Chcmisl's Laboratory 1935. McCluskey. however. T. H. Cosbie was a significant figure at the time.
On 1st July 1955 Sir Ian Heilbron officially opened the new Guinness laboratories at Park Royal Brewery"5. with his great experience of the industry. a general idea that the brewing of Guinness was a deep and strongly guarded secret.ibd. or comparable with.. had bicycled around the Kent hop fields with Case and McMullen." These sentiments must have had a bearing on the decision to centralise the effort at Birmingham University in that same That the "fundamentalists" won is evident from the eventual appointment of Sir Ian Heilbron (1886-1959) as director of the embryo Brewing Industry Research Foundation later in year. . but one which through its funda mental studies. a public recantation of the doctrine of secrecy." From this we may deduce that discussions were going on as to the form research into brewing should take. New techniques undreamt of by previous generations became available to the burgeoning number of chemists and other scientists taken on by the industry both in quality control and research. . Baker. with major brewers such as Bass and what was to become Allied Breweries opening new research laboratories in the late 50s and early 60s. then aged 81 and newly created a Knight of the Garter who. There had been a laboratory at Park Royal since the brewery opened in 1936 but this was now found to be inadequate. 2nd Earl of Iveagh.uk Copyright . . But without adequate funding9*7 only so much could be achieved even by a man of Bishop's abilities. This went some way towards achieving critical mass in bringing together a number of scientists207." Quite a change in philosophy. and it will be many decades before operations in the brewhouse will be carried out." Thus Sir Ian's approach was much in keeping with the aspirations of leading scientists in the industry. In referring to the research scheme launched by the Brewers' Society on 1st October 1947 he says": "With so many of what may be regarded as minor problems connected with brewing which in the opinion of some require immediate investigation. more than 50 years after parting company with Horace Brown. as a youth. it should be made available to the industry and to the world. since the turn of the century and was well placed to review the scene1". Inst. A proper appreciation of Bishop's work which spanned all aspects of brewing is not possible within the context of this paper and requires separate treat ment". But. there never was a time in our history when the public were more conscious of the important part being played by the scientist in industry.. were to return to the "nitrogen question" and publish some notable work on the pattern of amino acid excretion by yeast161. Baker was unable to cite anything of significance emanating directly from breweries. not only to create an organisation useful to the Brewing Industry. The pace also quickened in research activities at the University of Birmingham and at Heriot-Watt College—even though these institutions continued to receive little direct fund ing from the industry compared with the amount spent on BIRF." He goes on to say that now: "Whenever we find the answer to some particular problem we should not keep the information to ourselves. published in this Journal in 1948". The mood of the times is demonstrated by Julian Levett Baker (1873-1958) in his Horace Brown Medal lecture "British Brewing in Retrospect and Prospect". there is a possibility that efforts to solve them may claim more time and attention than ought to be allowed compared with what should be regarded as the main work of the Research Scheme. partly because we might well be proud as an industrial body of scientific knowledge. Direct support for the long term view comes from another leading brewing scientist of the time Bernard Meredith Brown (1889-1976) head chemist at Whitbreads45 who." He goes on to say'11: "Doubtless able directorship of our Research Scheme will establish an appropriate balance between the two policies of 'long-' and 'short-' term research. had been Chemist at Watney Combe Reid & Co. within two months of Baker's lecture. It was in these laboratories that Guinness. His aim in accepting the post as director was expressed some years later when he stated"6 that he hoped that he: "Would be able. made up nearly half of the total number of papers published in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing203.org. The new laboratory suite included research laboratories. the exactitude of those of some other industries. Heilbron was at the time Professor of Organic Chemistry at Imperial College and had just been nominated as President of the Chemical Society. in addition to their own efforts. improved resources may have come sooner but in all events it was not until the late 1940s that we begin to leave the tunnel of the barren period. Had it not been for the war. as indeed workers in the industry have done in the past. These men and women. Baker.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Suffice it to say that Bishop has a strong claim to being regarded as the premier brewing scientist of this century— regardless of nationality. for long enough. The first amongst equals of this group of quality research workers was Laurence Robert Bishop (1903-1988). The opening address by Rupert Edward Guinness. The work of Beaven and Hunter in producing the barley varieties Plumage-Archer and Spratt- Archer drew appreciative mention. Original research papers poured out from 1955 onwards such that by the late 50s output from the Foundation. The span of research work carried out prevents any attempt This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. would possibly take its place upon a broader stage and become the British equivalent of the Carlsberg Laboratories in Copenhagen. This second flowering of brewing research continued to spread. There was. makes interesting reading. He notes that"7: ". partly because our knowledge should exceed our immediate needs. The new enthusiasm spread to the breweries. brought with them the ability to appreciate and utilise academic work which impinged on the industry such as that on yeast in the Zymology Laboratory at Bath University and elsewhere217. He goes so far as to imply criticism of the Institute Research Scheme when he talks of the "modest sum at its disposal"'7. Despite putting a brave face on things he was unable to point to much in the way of scientific or technical progress in British brewing during his time in the industry. editor of the Journal from 1920 1949 and hence responsible for the critical editorials already cited. He even admitted that his own researches on starch were slight and "assist to only a limited extent in the fundamental problem of the make up of the starch molecule"1*.100 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES [J. Research at last came to brewing in Britain on a sizeable scale and BIRF soon came up with the goods." organisms appertaining to our industry even if no appli cation can be foreseen. gave a paper entitled "Research and the Brewer" in which he noted that in the activities of an industrial research organisation5": "Some liberty I think should be allowed to the workers to carry out fundamental researches upon the materials and 1948"4. people wanted change and to throw off the perceived failures and disappointments of the 20s and 30s. The Second Golden Age As the war drew to a close there was a new spirit in the air. Until comparatively recent times brewers had seemed somewhat scared to allow other brewers to know what they were doing inside their own breweries. as did the work of Professor Salmon on hops and the work of the Institute Research Scheme. A belief in the utility of science in bringing about improvement was widespread. Brew. clearly saw the way forward as investment in long term research. as it soon became known. painfully slow owing to the few workers who are doing anything in this country on brewing research.
and an increase in ridiculous23. To single out individuals in these areas necessarily runs the risk of being invidious. the chemical structure of hop components was to a large extent unravelled and their significance appreciated.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . however. pathways of flavour compound synthesis were extensively studied and their production at all stages of the process made were amenable to control. Thus the BRF Annual Report published in I9804* stales in relation to the review of the analysis. following the lead given by successive directors Sir Ian Heilbron and Arthur Herbert Cook (1911 1988). one in the late 50s and the other in the early 60s. They are Anna Macgillivray MacLeod (1917 ) and Cyril Rainbow (1913 1980). the physiology and biochemistry of barley germination and thus the pattern and nature of mall modification were pieced together (and vigorously debated). but also a consideration of the socio-economic context and changing market and industry structure in which the work was done. It must be admitted that the writer is ill-equipped to do full justice to such a task even if space were available. including its research laboratory. who has already been mentioned. remains the same for ever. in extending their pilot brewing facilities'". adopted the basic philosophy "knowledge first" in the conviction that this would necessarily lead to benefits*'. As we have seen." By 1982. Attempts to define these further would necessarily be fruitless and in Cook's philosophy were basically was evidenl. with Delia Biotechnology in particular widening horizons232. after a sharp rise in the early 1950s. Such a study should encompass not only a proper appreciation of the multifarious lines of research that were followed. 13 shows the number of papers published in EBC Congress Proceedings and in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing from 1950 1990 by BRF and British/Irish breweries. Allied Breweries reduced stalling levels in its cenlral technical department. Education and training in the industry were reviewed and measures put in hand to "educate for practice". The results of the survey were published by A. 98. but there was a widespread belief that the time was ripe to place the emphasis on work of a more applied nature capable of direct commercial application. no matter how apparently firmly based. with a new training initiative in the "Brewster" courses154. foam. yeast nutrition and growth and hence fermentation became belter understood. Whilst I have intimated the importance of the Brewing Industry Research Foundation in the prosecution of research in this period—an importance which transcended national boundaries—universities and individual brewing companies in Britain also had a considerable impact.ibd.uk Copyright . The foregoing modus operandi clearly indicates a targetting approach to the researches at Lyttcl Hall while not neglecting the res ponsibilities of the Foundation to develop the fundamentals of brewing science. Not that the trend was necessarily one of reduction in facilities. the microbiology of beer spoilage was clearly described. from an emphasis on research to an emphasis on development was inevitable. its utility was demonstrated in an evaluation of the cost/benefit of 25 years of brewing research carried out in 1980. It is seen that. also spent money. There are only two exceptions.154 After 88 years. With this reasoning becoming the new orthodoxy. with their new technical centre at Luton"* and Guinness. a swing from science to technology. This change in emphasis was not immediately obvious at the beginning of the decade. The activities of the renamed Brewing Research Foundation were more tightly regulated and brought under the influence of industry research panels49. the chemistry of haze development became more clearly defined. However in addition to Laurence Bishop. To do this period justice really requires a separate study.Vol. It is also evident that the men and women who attacked the many areas that required investigation did so with a vigour that well merited the successes they achieved. The figures showed the considerable savings that had been made because of the findings of research scientists in that period. Literally no area in which science could be applied to brewing was left untouched by the work carried out from the early 1950s on. Whitbread. applicable and highly cost effective". new priorities had been formulated with less stress on fundamental work. This may be taken as a reasonable guide to the original research output from the industry. In the late 1970s the industry was swept up in the international enthusiasm for the "new" biotechnology and there was a questioning of the relevance of the fundamentalist approach to research in achieving the advantages that beckoned from its exploitation. gushing. support was with drawn from the Brewing School at Birmingham156 and activi ties concentrated on Heriol-Watt. and Allied Breweries. went for a decentralised structure and redistributed responsibilities. assuming success. Analytical methods were improved beyond recognition. the 1976 Horace Brown Medallists. This was to grow into a perceived need for greater accountability and monitoring of research which mirrored the national mood in other industries and in government. But a trend towards obtaining more immediately quantifiable pay-back was of its nature bound to lead to greater understanding and hence improvements. the level of publication by the British industry stabilise at between 50 and 60 papers in each two year period for the years between 1954 and 1986. Whether or not one accepts the validity of Cook's Journal210. The old Institute laissez-faire Research Board was replaced by a leaner committee"'"5. were all grist to the mill—the list is practically endless. Such a sea change soon showed its effects. The changed approach necessarily led to the requirement to show more immediate pay-off from investment and was coupled to an increasing sensitivity regarding the commercial advantage to be gained from research. the weight of the latter becoming increasingly felt as the decades passed. and in highlighting the role of the Foundation noted: "BRF's research is relevant. the probable level of achievement in the prescribed lime and. Nonetheless a few observations may be permitted. with their new laboratories in Dublin157 invested heavily. hop and barley breeding. two names stand out from the many as much for their all round scholarship as for their considerable Foundation's activities over Ihc past year: the more fundamental work to accord with the original concept of the establishment.org. Fig. the possibilities for industrial implementation. Bass. D. There can be little doubt that the technically and scientifically moribund stale of the British brewing industry in the early post-war years made it ripe for improvement. The lion's share for most of the period came from the Brewing Industry Research Foundation which. the complex biochemistry of the mash tun was delineated. The scale of activities dwarfed all that had gone before it." The report goes on to describe steps taken to extend develop ment facilities by setting up biochemical engineering and This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. Portno in this "A main feature of internal change has been a reduction in the effort devoted to development work. the benefits that had accrued to the industry from its investment in research over the preceding 25 years were recognised210. Even as these awards were being made a change in mood was becoming discernible in the brewing industry's attitude to research. But nothing. Research needed no justification because it 101 achievements in research. Heriot-Watl benefited with the establishment of the "International Centre for Brewing and Distilling" at the Riccarton Campus154. 1992] BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES at a detailed description of activities in the period within the confines of this paper. Guinness closed their Park Royal research laboratory and concentrated development activity in London with research housed in Dublin. The unprecedented level of research activity this represents reflected the explosion of science generally and led to a transformation in the understanding of brewing chemistry. Thus in the Annual Report published in that year51 we have: "BRF researchers have the responsibility for clearly estab lishing the aims of their projects.
total in both publications from UK/Irish breweries and BRF. •. Most of the latter comes from the introduction of posters at the EBC Congress in 1981 thus expanding the available outlets for publication.[J. BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 102 chemical engineering facilities and restructuring the existing sections. Even this is. The dramatic swing away from publication in this Journal is partly offset by an increase in publication in the EBC Proceedings. however. The academic estab lishment periodically gives out dire warnings of the imminent collapse of basic research in this country209. but by the criterion of open publication203. This trend continued to gather momentum during the 1980s50167. Both the absolute (Fig. Inst.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . These periods follow a cyclical pattern. total in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing from UK/Irish breweries and BRF. Future historians must be left to judge. Ferment carried an editorial in its April 1991 issue expressing concern at the lack of fundamental research being carried out in the brewing industry at present. total in EBC Proceedings from UK/Irish breweries and BRF. so that today what its adherents would call the new realism and what its opponents would call short-tcrmism is the norm.uk Copyright . Certainly there are signs that the funda mentalists arc making a comeback. Whether it will lie down quietly is another matter. 1950-1990. total in both publications from all other sources. The Early Phase from the 1830s to the 1860s when practical chemists first found employment in the brewing industry. 14) numbers of papers published in the primary research outlets for the British industry by UK/Irish breweries and BRF is at a lower point over the period 1989/90 than at any time since 1951/52. ( ). Development rather than research was now taking over. Brew. Such concern receives support from an examination of the level of research publications currently issuing from the indus try. O.ibd.org. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. These men were not particularly concerned with the advancement of chemistry but were more interested in making a living by applying their chemical knowledge to immediate production necessities. For how long it will remain the norm can only be a matter of conjecture. Closer to home. (——). Discussion There have been a number of fairly distinct periods in the history of brewing chemistry. On the national stage the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has recently berated both the Department of Trade and Industry and industrial companies for their short-termism and lack of investment in research and development25. unable to counteract the decline. 13) and relative (Fig. I. Number of papers published in EBC Congress Proceedings and in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing. It is also questionable whether publication in a conference proceedings which receives no peer review is an adequate substitute for publication in a refereed journal. the Second Golden Age of brewing chemistry died in the 1980s. not just in brewing but across the spectrum of British industry. 140 1 120 100 80 NUMBER OF PAPERS 60 40 20 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR Fig 13.
but these men resumed a role not unlike that of their mid-19th century predecessors. In the belief that this approach would lead to improve ments which may not be easily quantifiable or even predictable.uk Copyright .ibd. 2. apart from a few individual elTorls. Why do these cycles occur? There can be no easy answer for this question touches many facets of national. when again. 3. as a proportion of the total number of papers published in those journals. must have been factors in promoting the two "golden ages". but this time on a much larger scale (led by the Brewing Industry Research Foundation with help from the universities and follow-up in the breweries). Another factor which may well be expected to influence both the type and the level of research activity is the financial health of an industry. The First Golden Age centred on Burton running from the 1870s to the 1890s. brewing chemistry reached its most productive phase. Thus Victorian confidence in industrial science and the rekindled enthusiasm for science amongst the "new Elizabethans" after the Second World War. When. but a case could be made for this being a mechanism which has operated in the brewing industry.org. The Second Golden Age stretching from the early 1950s into the 1970s. Shifts of activity and areas of interest are governed far more by socio-economic factors. Many breweries ran laboratories and employed chemists. Certainly Ihis would appear to be true with regard to the fortunes of the brewers' chemist. BREW. Just as is the case with mainstream science. Reference to Fig. -O EBC CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS 80 60 RELATIVE NUMBER OF PAPERS 40 20 I 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR Fig 14. 19SO-1990. Guinness launched its campaign of recruiting scientists just at the time it was becoming the biggest brewery in the world133. bul would surely be there. 98. Here the great names from the past and their numerous acolytes put much store by the need to get at the underlying science of a problem. poli tical and scientific policy and attitude. The Barren Phase stretching from the early 20th Century to about 1950. 5. and with the possible exception of what went on behind the closed doors of Guinness in Dublin. 15 will demonstrate the point. 4. The Barren Period on the other hand coincided to This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. Such a general connection has been disputed79. industrial.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . Thus the First Golden Age of brewing chemistry grew up when beer sales were booming. Number of papers published in EBC Congress Proceedings and in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing by UK/Irish breweries and BRF. with Horace Brown's sojourn at Guinness as something of a swansong in the early years of this century. little attempt was made at advancing knowledge. The last decade with its closely targeted objectives and a swing towards technology and development leaving reduced scope for fundamental research or serendipity. One could also argue that swings between an emphasis on science and research on the one hand and technology and development on the other are bound to occur as results from the former spur on activity in the latter. the emphasis was on scientific understanding. Production in Burton where it was all happening increased 10-fold between 1850 and I89O200. 1992) BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 103 100 -• J. the history of brewing science is not the history of the rational accumulation of objective knowledge. INST.Vol.
Perhaps Wilson. With a gentle decrease in volume in Edwardian limes giving way to the plumetting falls of the recession between the wars. From 1923 onwards data from what is now the Republic of Ireland are not included: production from this source in 1922 was <\ 2. if the brewing companies of Ihe time had At the end of the Second World War. he refers to the attitude in the brewing industry in the 25 years before 1914 as "an indifference lo science in a conservative industry" but notes the readiness of brewers to accept limited technological from technocrats such as Ludwig Mond2. Such a proposition is. a large extent with a difficult period for the industry. B.6 million standard barrels. Nonetheless it is not inevitable. If we conclude that the response of the British brewing industry to extending its scientific and technological base has been cautious.ibd. Brew. the Brewer to M. techno- This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. This is in contrast to the Japanese brewing industry where the separate research divisions set up in the early 1980s"—on a scale reminiscent of the German dye industry of a previous age179—continue to be heavily supported1516. Thus. Comparisons between the chemical industry and the brewing industry are hardly valid. Although new opportunities in bio technology were greeted with some enthusiasm by the British brewing industry and this led to interesting work. The Second Golden Age follows a period of good profitability for brewers during the Second World War53 and includes a period of 20 years sustained increase year on year in volume from 1960 to 1979.104 [J. They may have been able to exploit the new field of antibiotics245. This time the response was better. Perhaps. UK Statistical Handbook (1990). financial backing has been lukewarm. BARREN PERIOD I 1 2000 1950 1900 ? YEAR FtG IS. With these roots and with very different markets. if still muted. Pasteur". In the chemical industry for example both Du Pont in the USA and ICI in the UK invested heavily in research during the depression years of the 1920s and 30s*4. however.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . A superficially similar situation to that of anti biotics in the 1940s arose in the late 1970s and 1980s with the advent of the "new biotechnology".2ND GOLDEN AGE. Wilson. Data are plotted as annual averages on a 5-yearly basis. Sykcs concluded that Pasteur's researches had actually had very little effect on brewing practice. when assessing the impact of the scientists of the Victorian period. The 1980s on the other hand have seen a down-turn in production. Both industries have necessarily relied upon institu tional investment. in a book published in 1990. at least as far as Burton- improvements252. then they may have been in a position to use discoveries close to their own fermentation interests which were to come within a few years of the synthesis of these polymers. Beer production in the British Isles 1830-1990 and the pattern of brewing research. Both industries ultimately depended upon entrepreneurial skills for their success. They employed the best chemists they could find and set up teams to do fundamental research. gets nearest to the truth in reconciling these conflicting views when. This description would suggest that even in what I have called the "golden age" of the Victorians. whilst in the brewing pointed out162 has been the philosophy of the city since it began to involve itself in financing British industry in the 1890s. To what extent has research influenced brewing practice? An answer was first sought by W. but at crucial phases in its history the brewing industry seems to have been particularly influenced by an emphasis on short-term profits138. which as Kennedy has on-Trent was concerned. This correlation of economic conditions with research activity is neither unexpected nor uncommon in industry. it is worthwhile asking what influence scientific and technological advances have had on the core business of brewing. This was to lead directly to the modern plastics industry with the synthesis of nylon by Du Pont in 1935 and of polythene by ICI in the same year137. Their long term aim was lo use science to find them new markets. also a business historian. but in the chemical industry these were derived journal as long ago as I895238 entitled "The indebtedness of industry the skills were firmly based in commerce. Sources: G. J. but disputed by Owenlw. brewing companies thus had neither the culture nor depth of expertise nor the will to achieve the quantum leap necessary lo exploit antibiotic production. 1 1ST GOLDEN AGE 1850 . Sykes in a paper in this taken a similarly wide view of their business. BREWING CHRMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 40 30 UK BEER PRODUCTION (millions of standard barrels) 20 10 EARLY PHASE .org.uk Copyright . Alcohol and the Nation (1940) and the Brewers' Society. This conclusion was reiterated and extended by the economic historian Sigsworth228 when considering the period 1850-1900. even those companies which have been to various degrees active in the field13-232 have undergone retrenchment or abandoned their ventures altogether9. in reality unlikely. it is perhaps inevitable that power structures within the two industries evolved very differently. Inst.
11-12. H.. 249.. 24. 299-300. London: Frederick Muller Limited. 8. op. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.. Armstrong. 92.. Armstrong. Baker. 3rd Edition. 1991. 27.645. cit. Journal of the Chemical Society. 40. 384.. Abbot.uk Copyright . 314. in brewing. p. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 3. Baker. 1964. 197-260. This is the secret of good research. T. A. 1938.cit. All three were technological successes. were subtle and affected the approach to brewing rather than prompting easily demon strable innovations. L." 21. 27. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Anderson.. Hydrostalical Observations and Experiments in the Brewery. This is an obituary of Dr H. 40. E. Dictionary of National Biography.. Even if the ultimate target is never reached. Harrow published nothing in his 25 years at Allsopps. 45. cit... G. 98. 19. 14. Anon. L. 1989. E.. 30. 25. Practical Observations on the Prejudices Against the Brewery.. The measure to which this has been achieved is the measure to which we must be grateful for fundamental research. p. 139-141..54. despite the vagaries of changing raw materials.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . 1991. 1934. chemistry and micro biology. 10. 36. Apart from one paper with Griess. 1). 1842. Nonetheless. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. London and Country Brewer. Even when there has been failure. the development of con tinuous fermentation in the 1950s and 60s may ultimately have failed. H. (35). 1921. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 73. 16. 41.. [Editorial]. it does not necessarily do so by what might appear to be the most direct route. quite the opposite. Examples include.. R. 11. but it gave new insights into fermentation which allowed improvements in batch techniques. Anon.12. Baker. cap 51. 334.. L. 1989. whilst they went to the core of the business. It follows. 5.9. recognition of this conservatism should not obscure our appreciation of the very real impact science has had on brewing since the Second World War. 82. Acknowledgements: For permission to reproduce the photo graphs used to illuminate the text I should like to thank the following: National Portrait Gallery (Fig. 1976. Anderson. G. for it is (at least in the opinion of this writer) the "hidden" benefits of research which have in fact been the most important in brewing. p. 1937. Forty five years ago the industry in this country was a pretty parlous state. Baker.. IV and I Wm. Anon. easily visible. R. (30). E. Nature. 12.54. 31. London: Sir Joseph Causton & Sons. Bio technology.. 47-51. which notes that "much of Dr Elion's research work could not be published. 33. 40. 1988. 1984. 5. suffering from years of under investment and neglect with worn out plant and only a patchy knowledge of the science underlying the business. The Allsopp's Minutes Books record only his reporting on the analysis of malt. 258-261.. L. improvements to malting efficiency. 13 & 14 and for her cheerful assistance in tracking down original source material. These benefits. but underpinned by fundamental interdisciplinary work in plant physiology. Anon. op. 223-225. R. 350. Anon. Royal Society of Chemistry (Fig. op. 39. 42. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1901-1911. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1989. 1960.1.636. increased hop utilisation and the intro duction of high gravity brewing. the brewing industry in this century has remained essentially conservative when compared with some other industries. Baker. not from seeking drastic change. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Reality is capable of sustain ing more than one view given of it. 46. 5. 26. Brewers'Journal. 20. if research is carried out at the right level then the spin-offs in terms of understanding will make it worthwhile.. By these benefits I mean the ability to run the business as smoothly and efficiently as possible.. 50. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. unpublished research. This does not mean stagnation. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES Vol.\902. Chemistry and Industry. 542-600.. 6. 2. R. J. 59. p. 1948. 1914. 95. Beavan. J. 29. volume I. Information Services Manager. J. Japanese Technology and Industry Report Series. 44. quoted by Brown. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 36. V. Anon. W. L. 38. but it does mean adopting a challenging strategy in which immediate tangible benefits arc difficult to quantify.. op. 18.92. Anon. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.97. Baker. 11. 1944. Japanese Biotechnology and Medical News. the best work has been carried out with sufficient regard to the fundamentals to give long term benefits. cil. history would suggest that. (28).66. Elion. [Editorial].ibd. by which time he was working for a London Brewery. 1738. 20. 20-21. S. Referrncils and Notes 1. p.4..88-99. Anon. 1983. J. 23. no. 719. Thus. 1930. H. Indeed. Biotechnology Insight.319. 1907. 1989. 99. H. Bishop. As we have demonstrated. diversi fication of products and having to deal with the uncertainties of living organisms. op. 415. One consequence of this neofundamentalist philosophy. And here we come to the heart of the matter. xxxi-xxxiv.95.. op. 9.. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.66. 8. Sometimes the changes that came about were quite dramatic.. Bishop. Anon. & Hickson. p. 1921. 7-8. 1951. IV. Proceedings of the Chemical Society.. 32. 13. His total recorded contribution in the pages of the Institute Journal is one question at a meeting held in 1910. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. 28. Penny Magazine. 375-379. 34. 4. Anon. p.. Anon. is that to be most effective the research needs to be carried out actually in breweries. Allmun. J. 1868. Abbol. biochemistry. 20. 98. 15. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. If Wilson's description is correct then it is not sur prising that historians have been unable to find evidence of science driven innovations at this time. The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland. no.102-104. p. 17. p. 340. financially quantifiable. that while of course research can lead to real benefits. for that leap in imagination the genius of Pasteur was required.. 97. Anon. Brewer. All this was to change over the coming years. A. E. (I). with a large clement of control. 22. Armstrong. Marjorie Pass. 2 & 3). 43. 21. 337-345.. 35. Japanscan Bioscience and Biotechnology. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 37.. 1989. otherwise the influence of science—Irish or otherwise—will not be become fixed within the fabric of the industry. 150-151. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. cit. 43.50. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. L. See also Whilear.. Anon. G. Amos.87.org. Whilst Allmun undoubtedly observed the bacteria he did not recognise their significance. Anon. But this should not obscure the very real benefits gained by those few companies who employed practitioners of science. 1940. p. Anderson. op. Anon. cit. (35). 1853. and. H. The interpretations placed upon the facts presented I OS arc those of the author alone and should not be taken to reflect those of his employing company.. Armstrong. 1948. Anon. Baverstock. March 1983. Anon. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. cit. The commanding position of Guinness during the "barren period" was another. Anon. 7-8.%. J. Allied Breweries is thanked for coUating the data presented in Fig. as we have seen. L. 1811. Bishop. Baverstock. 11. Acls 11 Geo. R. 1980.. 1785. 375-386. 95. The triumph and resilience of Bass whilst under the influence of the O'Sullivan brothers was a prime example of this. 7. The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists: Chemists. (6). in Journal of the Institute of Brewing. D. Armstrong. 189-200.. Technical Adviser to Heineken in Rotterdam from 1886 to 1921. 11 & 12)... 27.424-425. but from having understanding through science per meate the culture of the brewery and hence necessarily bring with it improvements and innovations. A. (35). Journal of the Institute of Brewing. as John Hudson frequently reminds the Institute AME course. 1889-1890. (Snr). 1934. 487-489.1. 1992] logy and not science was the preoccupation of most practising brewers. Guinness Brewery Museum Dublin through the good offices of Dr Bob Letters (Fig. the most rewarding philosophy is that which regards the benefits of research as coming. Brewers'Journal. Anon. Barnard.425-432.
Brown. History of Industrial Research and Development in 50. 86. 388-400. H. 1938. D. Cosbie.. Introduction. 251. J. St Clair. A. "Research on behalf of industry falls into two main parts. J. 6 (4). Chapter 12. 1939. 96. op. J. 22. 98. Science versus Practice: Chemistry Professor of Chemistry at University College Nottingham. 26. & Walker. A. Bud. Classical papers on enzvmex and pll. p. R. 1991. Polymers. Ferguson. Seligman was on the side of the fundamentalists. p. (74). 1981. cit. Mitchell. H. Clark. M. p. J. p. Brewers Journal. 83. p. 92. 1964. (Park Royal) Limited 1980. 54. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. p. Tosic. Box. R. S. 100. 394-457. 1840. 204. H. 75. 65. University of Pennsylvania. cit.. op. 288-297). p. A. W. T. 1958. cit. 288-311.45-52. S. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Section B. C. Brown. 328-335. Briant. Brown. London: C. Editorial notes.21. Cosbie. V. p. op. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. New Method of Chemistry. Manchester: 51. Journal of the Incorporated Brewers' Guild. J. 70. T. Comrie. til. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.77. J. op. (65). Annales de Chemie et de Physique (Ser 3). H.. 91. op. 183. cit. 59. Box. 79. 1905. Journal of the /nxlilule of Brewing.86. 114. 69. Brown. 166. no date. quoted by Bud. K. Wilton: privately printed. A. 3 & 9.ibd. Carr. (74). 3. 17-18. A History of Brewing: Newton Abbot: David and Charles. ¥. 20. Cosbie. C. 56. 204. file American Statistician. BRF Annual Report. Brown.Candlin. 5 (15). Unpublished PhD thesis. 1902.11-14. cit. I list. L. cit. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. p. Dictionary of National Biography. Brewers Guild Journal.. J. cit. 57. 35. 92. 1955. T. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Cholmondeley. 1976. cit. 85. C. 378-418. W. Bud. p. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 138. p. cit. Parker. F. 6lh revised edition. Cardwell. op. Brande was a well known consultant as well as being a professor of the Royal Institution. 95. op. 49.. held the post for less than 4 weeks before he was killed in a railway accident on 26th October 1947. personal communication. cit. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 89.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . 123.org. 2 volumes. Co.Editorial notes. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. (74). op. 45. 504-505. (65). 20. Chambers Biographical Encyclopaedia ofScientists. T. Tosic. cit.... V. 1942. BRF Annual Report 1984. J. Analyst. p. S. T. Brown. 1989. K. Bud. Statistical Science. cit. As Helge Kragh has pointed out (see Kragh. English Edition. H. Brewers' Journal Centenary Number. 271). 14-15. 128. 82-86. (65). Brown may be guilty of this to some extent. Griess is quoted on page 285 in a letter to Professor R.. Appendix 2. 1958. 117.. (65). 81. S. 118. 93. Cosbie. 2... 179-183. 60. Me rather over eggs the pudding in describing the ignorance of the brewers of the 1860s (Brown. cit. 1980.112. c. Transactions of the Guinness Research Laboratory. 94. Brown. H. 76. T. 77.. British Journal for the History of Science. op. James Joule. (79). op.2-8.. Foundation Stones of Biochemistry. 373-388. Editorial notes.. Seligman had been calling for the setting up of a "semi-technical laboratory" since as early as 1930 (Seligman. it is essential for advancement that such fundamental work should occupy much. R. 87.87. R. 99. Certainly his dimissive comments on Muspralt's Chemistry as Applied to the Arts and Manufacturers (Brown. 42. Bud. 108. 1910. P. 284. P. op. 1937. 54.. op. 278-285. F. D. 107. 1847. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. (61).. p. p. Bninde. The Red Hand. T. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Brown.. J. XXI. J. 586-587. 1980. 106. 101. Manchester University Press.%. fundamental and applied .. US. 249-257. 1987. 7.41. Chibnall. Henry Edward Armstrong.. H. J. cit. Boerhaave. 62. p. p. 1906. 3-20. Included in those making this error is the author of this paper who is grateful to Mr Tom Halpin for first alerting him to the true origins of the Carlow born scientist. Brown's reminiscences make enthralling reading but should not necessarily be taken as totally reliable. 399-408.. quoted by Bud. 80. from Bud. J. 22-23. 102.. J. 1848. The sentiments expressed by Baker and Brown were shared by Richard Seligman who as Chairman of the Research Fund Committee was a driving force behind the establishment of the Brewing Industry Research Foundation. F.. C. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 43. A Supplement to the Introduction to the Atomic Theory. Brown. Journal of the Chemical no. J. &4. Brown. A. 1902.. p. C. L. microfilm order number 8028844. C. p. 8. 43. Journal ofthe Institute ofBrewing. 85-114. 72.. (74). 267-354. 1965. II. Brown. 4-5. & Glendinning. 109. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Darington. Journal of lite Society ofDyers and Colourists. C. p. W. p. 175-182. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. S.88. J. E. Brew. Tyndall is another Irishman who like Boyle has been mistakenly described as English. A.. Boland. There is a tendency for scien tists on looking back on their careers to belittle the achievements of their predecessors and dwell on their own difficulties for purposes of self aggrandizement. 1984. op. BRF Annual Report 1979. 1971. 1949. Cunlifle. 1942. & Tottill. p. 58. Essays on Brewing. Corran. 156-158. 67. op. even the major part of the time of the research stafT'. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. J. Manual of Chemistry. G. 16. M. 115—141. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1977. W. A. 145. (104). Davis. 36. 82. p. cit. cit. A. W. Dublin Journal of Medical and Chirurgical Science.. (55). (74). 2. London: Arthur Guinness Son & '"• Dawson. (J. P. p. op. Caine-Boyde. Hong Kong: Voile et Aviron. cit. Carr. 1 '2. T. In a 1941 paper he notes (Seligman. D. 4-11. (79). 1980. A. (61). 1952. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. A. p. Schmitt of Dresden. & Sadler. (65). Guinness & Hops. It is possible that it was Ferguson's knowledge of specific gravity measurement which brought him to Reids. 71.. Cosbie. (65). Manchester: Manchester University Press.. 1935 quoted by Bud. Daintith.. 1916. op. cit. 104. Brown. 105.48. p. cit.309-316. Cosbie. 37. (65). 63. 1984.. 1901. Eyre. J. in Vkloriaix Britain. Donnelly. 1937. cit. J.91. Vargas. 137. Bud. op. op. J. 408.. Part I. (61). 13. p. Society.106 BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE RRITISII ISI IS 46. op. Journal of the Chemical Society. His This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. 1948. 68. cit. 3. He was also the author of 'Pie Town and Country Brewery Book first published in London in 1829. J. 53. 1900.38. 9-16.uk Copyright . E.. Brown. 64. A Biography. A. 1975. 169. 1727. 1987). 116. 1990. Wallerstein Laboratories Communications.71. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 47. 97.637. p. 1: vii. (74). A. The Discipline of Chemistry: The Origins and Early Years of the Chemical Society of London. 103. 1907. 279. Combrane. Chapman. 14. Cosbie.178-180.. Part II. "3. T. G.472. & Walker.. C. Cunlifle. G. T. p. 64. 1982. London: Butterworths. cit. Bud & Roberts. 1758. Brown. A. 52. (115). Brewers Guardian Centenary Issue. 47. BRF Annual Report 1988/89. C. 156. 73. 324-338. A. A.. op. 90. p.. Although primarily an engineer and initially motivated by the desire to see new technology receive proper evaluation in breweries. Bud & Roberts. London: John Murray. 1930. op. J. Burtchacli. 335. Daubeny. (65). 1942. 61. p. (61). op. cit. cit. op. 1936. 274) are not supported by a modern reading of this work. M. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Heilbron was not in fact the first director of research to be appointed. Brown. 81. C. 55. (74). 44. 1-19. 66.Editorial notes. 75.. H.200. 16. op. op.. 235). G.. T. p. 70. 404. (74). K. g8. 166-171. 1833. A. 1941. Cliffe. J. & Roberts. B. 1985.2. 48. II. op. 119. Fry. W.48. Brown. T. Alumni Dubliniensis. p. 1990.. Transactions. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Debrunfaut. p. Dublin: Alex Thorn & Co. p. Bremmer. 78. cit. 465-467. 233-236. 1964. Brown.. R. John Masson Gulland (1898-1947) who had been 74.. The Government Laboratory. 47. (115). Transactions.81. 139.. 1959. A. London: J. Cosbie. 46. p. C. 270-271. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.. p. Bud.Dawson. An Introduction to the Historiography of Science.96.
598-611. 1992] I1REWINCKIIKMISTRY IN THE IIKITISII ISI. & Pass. 1937. Brewing & Distilling linked this to the changed funding arrangements for BRF in the 1990s. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. op. Hardie & Pratt. W.94. Capital Markets and the Origins of British Economic Decline. cit. London: Heinemann. H. R. 136. Marchbanks. 1955. 135.. The existence of tied estate. J. In Michael Donovan. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. J. 65.. p. 20(1). 891-894. M. 132. M. Trends in Biochemical Science.48. Journal of the Chemical Society. Miller.30. J.. Journal of the Institute ofBrewing. Applied and Relating to the Arts and Manufactures. 241-246.97-117. R. J..1.. M. 142. & Pass. 1971. J. In 1830 Donovan wrote a volume on brewing. 43. A. Hacking. Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing. The Wisden Book of Obituaries. (127). I am grateful to Mr P. A recent newspaper report (Morning Advertiser. p. The Earl's real interests were. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthews. Professor of Chemistry to the Company of addition to the brewery microscope. J. The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830. 116-123. Endeavour. 1966. 1985. W. 1982. 35-58. p. Heron. p.. Memoirs of the Chemical Society. cit. Journal of the Chemical Society. 159. Mathius. Dublin: Arthur Guinness Son & Co. 29-33.. 1986. 150. Jones. however.. preci pitating a spate of amalgamations. op. cit. wine making.Vol. J. D. cit. (136). Ford. 1957.org. 133. 164. Burton Weekly Sews. 120. The chemist appointed to William Younger's in 1889 was John Simpson Ford (1866-1944). Furze.. B. J.. Heron.BS 107 interest in brewing may also have been stimulated by contact with 158.31-33. 70. Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society. 551-552.412-413. G.255. Hardie & Pratt. W. 1987. London: Insti tute of Brewing.. 1888.. Moy. Zeitschrift fur Physikalische Chemie.7.. London: Queen Anne Press.. 1987. London: Pergamon Press. 165. V.92. 173. Martin for drawing my attention to this work. Hawkins. 1895. London: Brewing Publications Limited. the 2nd Lord Iveagh (1874— 1967) is recorded as having cajoled his father into giving him a microscope at the age of 7 for use in the playroom—see Mullally. Institute of Brewing Annual Report 1981. 128. Gourvish & Wilson.r Gazetteer of the Breweries of the British lales including Eire.. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. 1988. M. Hector.. Lancaster. 157. Brown and Green.74. 1901-2. p. 92. 152. 151.. H. entry 2936.307-315. C. 1830). 135. & Pierce. 194-216. 1849. 127.. Martin. 124. N. 39. 281. R. A History of the Modern British Chemical Indus try. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Comptes Rendus. p. of Brewing. op. 1868. V. personal communication. 1895. Halpin. p. I960.uk Copyright . Transactions of the laboratory Club. Home.. was an early customer of the practice. Brewing & Distilling International. V. 155. T. 26. op. Orme. The Brewing Industry.. Institute of Brewing Annual Report 1986. R. Without a tied estate it can be argued that the brewing industry in the UK may have become less firmly a part of the leisure industry and more an integral part of manu facturing industry.. S.11.93. 143. 129. 20-21. F. 404. St Albans: Grenada Publishing Limited. 1979. Ambix. 152. 122-124. (Mullally. Henri. 41. 729-730. 1964. 123.6. I. A. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. p.43-52.. J. In the particular case of the brewing industry it is a moot point as to what extent the existence of the tied-trade has on the one hand encouraged short-termism. Iveagh. Practical <$ Analytical as of Brewing. Reference should be made to Professor MacLeod s erudite paper for a balancing account of Scottish contributions. p. 139. Gourvish. Mathias.8. The Story of the Guinness Family. J. K. 1908.ibd. 1988. MacLeod. p.. R.. 41. A Study in Industrial Organisation and Public Policv. cit. 1982. Business History.. 22-26. J. 195. op. in agriculture and the contributions he made to experimental farming were to lead to the award of a gold medal by the Royal Agricultural Society in 1957 and his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society eight years later at the age of 91. p. Domestic Economy. 291. 1959. 1902. 1865. J. International. The future Sir Sydney Nevile (1873-1969) sometime Managing Director of Whitbreads. 1990.. 174. This may make Case the only brewer/ brewer's chemist to have an obituary in Wisden. 15. p. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press. The cost of acquiring and maintaining the tied estate certainly accounted for the majority of capital employed in most brewing companies from the 1880s. A.. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. London: Faber and Faber. (127). 162-185. 125.133. 1985.. attracting outside predators to the industry in the 1960s. etc. B. 1987. J. Ford-Kirkpatrick. 27.. L. 36-65. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.. H. 156.205-210. Chapter 2. 130.21 (12). The Silver Salver. McMullen. Journal ofthe Institute of Brewing. 149. 460-492. 144. 1910. Henri.. Heron. vol.. & Gutherie. 19. who made extensive contributions to brewing chemistry. quoted in Brewers Guild Journal. A History of Ok Department of Agriculture. Liebig.58. p. 1-4..1. Heron. Heron. Ford. '81. 64.. 31. 170. 1896. Jones.. 110-116. L. I. 166.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . cit. H. 149. Journal of the Chemical Society. 1978. Biometrika. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. G. S. ' Re Muspratt. Iveagh. 147.).326-345. It will be interesting to see whether the loosening of the tie in the 1990s has any effect on production companies with regard to manufacturing diversification.. J. personal communication. Heron. p. in the Cabinet Cyclopaedia series conducted by the Reverend Dionysius Lardner (Donovan. 227-228. 19 (7). may well have curtailed both the enthusiasm and the will to support other activities. Miller. Lord. p.684-685. It is also well documented (Hawkins Apothecaries in Ireland. 134. II.666-688. 1989. Development of Brewing Analysis. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. H.. Green.. Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society. Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing. Kennedy. 146-165. Brighton. 1958. Chemistry. p. Annalen der Pharmacie. Gilliland. (138)). M.36. Gourvish & Wilson. He records how as a busy young brewer This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www.93.. '79. 54). The Department's story. Proceedings of the Chemical Society. Ltd. 1942. 1902.. 267-278. A. & Wilson. Matthews. Morgan. p. Hudson. 1923. 49.. Irons. Proceedings of the European Brewery Convention Congress. 122. O. (55).. 1888. (Ed. V. Rees. P. 126. 177. quoted in Box op.. 1854-1860. 3. 32. Henri. Institute of Brewing Annuul Report 1984. 361-363. 147. 161. Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry. 1843-45. Ferguson.. 1988. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Brewr. 1851. 148.88. Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing. that the poor return on capital which this investment came to represent was one of the major factors in 131. Theoretical. Neville. and on the other acted as a disincentive to technical diversification.196. Heron. Green. A. 121. 168. 1854. F. Industrial Structure. Brewing <$ Distilling International. 599. C. 163. 1838. Comples Rendus. (180). S. K. C. N. Friedrich. B. 138. 7. McMullen.916-919.. J. C. 1925. cit. p. 167. See also Anon. London: Longmead.. Journal of the Institute 175. H. 153. Barley Cultivation in Ireland. A History of Bass Charrington. 145. 21-25. His interest in microbiology continued into manhood and led to endowments to the Lister Institute and the financing of the Wright-Fleming Institute of Microbiology (Mullally. See also Hawkins. cit. 164.1. 160. T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1939. 1989. H. p.14. H. President of the Institute of Brewing and Chairman of the Brewers' Society. op. 1955. 31.. op. J. p. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. (168). W. 146. 1990... J. 12. 98. 162-167. D. 12th April 1991) quoted statements to the affect that the ICBD is to do work of direct commercial application and 178. Hardje. Journal of the Institute '77.113-189. 182. 50. Muspratt. 403. T. Institute of Brewing Annual Report 1987. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 140. f>i«/rifft'. 236-285. 171.. 1981.. W. 1952. J. op. 154. 1905. baking.. 187-225. 172. cit. 1. 4. 20. 169. 60). 109-120. 1909.. Miller. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Ferguson. 229-233. 1983. P. S. G. 1951. D. 137. 37-64. op. 29. (158). S. distilling. G. on the one hand acting as a cushion and on the other as a drain. J. 1959. 10 March.. F. would un doubtedly have found a larger place in this history had not Irishmen been chosen to exemplify its theme. p. Mitchell. Harcourt. 1901. 141. Heron. Glasgow: William Mackenzie. Seventy Rolling Years. R. 162. 2. cit. 176. 476-477.
1983. op. J. 536 Minutes of Evidence. 1948. Slator.64. volume l. 19. S. 1964. G. Burton upon Trent: The Charter Trustees. Transactions. C. Royal Commission on Technical Instruction III.42^13. 230. 1964.uk Copyright . 1886. when we retired to a chop house for an evening meal". Martin for bringing this passage to his attention. 212-213. 190. Owen. 18th April 1988. Pearson. This paper contains a discussion of the origin of the quotation often used to describe Boyle "the Son of the Earl of Cork and the Father of Modern Chemistry". O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan. Appendix 34. Shimwell. p. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Thome came together in Birmingham in April 1934. G. 550. Volume 3. 1936. (197). L. London: Macmillan...926-943. A Guide to Historical Records.. Brew. M. Journal of the Chemical Society.. p. Sykes. This proviso is even more valid today with such complex company structures and it would be foolish to ignore the dominant influence of financial investments.. G. Thorburn Burns.. 49. p. 1. 220. 216. Owen cites 1876 as the year of Bass's supremacy. p. Sigsworth. 1876. 1908. 205. 1890. W.). & Barnard. then President of the Royal Society. 1884. The Institute of Brewing Centenary. Chichester: Phillimore. Sir George (now Lord) Porter. Wallerstein Laboratories Communications. 54. I would work with two or three other enthusiasts until nine. learning all I could about the new methods of scientific control. J. J. The Brewers Journal. Owen.. 101-110. 229.. London: Pergamon Press.. St Johnston. Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing. O'Sullivan. 323-326. C. J. 94. 22. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 102119. (197). he compared annual turnover and expenditure on these research associations using data collected just before the outbreak of the war. 194.009% for the printing industry . industry (Halpin. C. unpublished results. p. 6. 41. 221. A History of Chemistry. A. From a lecture given at Aldermanbury.. 164) would suggest that Owen's contention is the correct one and that Guinness did not overtake Bass in terms of volume until some 222. \. Oxford: Clarendon answers to Q 1523/4. 183. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 207. J. I. 369. C. Guinness (22%) and Allied (20%) with the rest someway behind. O'Sullivan. p. O'Sullivan. Rainbow.. County Borough. 215. I used to arrive at Heron's laboratory about twice a week in the early afternoon. 1895. 145. 7-8. Inst. M. [J. op.10. D. As was pointed out in discussing Cornelius O'Sullivan's influence on Bass in Victorian times. Sigsworth. 1895. 14 (45). 210. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. & Anderson. However reference to the data presented by Halpin in his history of the Irish brewing 219. 25. Biometrika. at that time the brewing industry was spending 0. W. C. 330-331. etc. 19. cit. (Eds). C. 1963. 227. England on 28th September 1963 and reproduced in Wallerstein Laboratory Communications. 231. 1-5. Student. p. 1943. 363-379. 202. Porter. 226. 1990. 234. 1882. 1876.. J. 225. 184.. Richmond. D. p. With regard 243. c. London: Academic Press. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. p.. p. 89. to funding. cit. Transactions.770-785. Vol. History of Analytical Chemistry. 5834. & Harrison. 212. Biometrika. cit. 196.448-450. Journal of the Federated Institutes of Brewing. Seligman gives an insight into how far the brewing industry was lagging behind (Seligman. R. & Tompson. cit. The Development of Industry in Burton upon Trent. cit. Piesse. 125-139. 195. p. Szabadvary. J. Thompson. Transactions. Sigsworth.. 1964-1965. 30.. Financial Weekly. op. 25. J. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. O'Sullivan. A survey of the publications by UK and Irish Breweries covering all major journal and conference sources of original research work. 322. 20-24. p.112. BBC TV. 70-75. Student. O'Sullivan. 193. L. op. Rose.. 130-140). Appendix 30.. Clerk's Post Book 1840-1854. Truman. 16. 27. 1987. Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction. L. 834-931. Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry. 1939. 228. 1951. Journal of the Chemical Society.. 192. 74. J..57. A. J. Dimbleby Lecture. Journal of the Chemical Society.. 1892. p. 1947. Brewers' Guild Journal. cit. Journal of the Chemical Society. 2 October 1986. 92. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.. J. L. Biometrika.. 213.org. 206. op.137-145. J. the History of Burton upon Trent 1901-1974. Analytical Proceedings. F. Stern. He notes "The figures gave percentages varying from 0.. J. 1940. R. But.p. N. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1841-42. R. Journal of the Chemical Society. 3981. The author is grateful to Mr P.61.. 1938. p. 214. 218. L. The Brewing Industry.498-525. 29. (197). J. Pierce. 890. 93. S. the underlying attitude exemplificd by a strong publication record should also not be ignored... 42. A Statistical Biography of William Seal)' Cosset. G. H. 1986. Journal of the Insti tute of Brewing. Wallerstein Laboratories Communications. 1897. 1987.. cit. 478483. (197). Pass. L.003% of its turnover on collaborative research". 17. Portno.. 223. (206). 209.. p. 378-381. marketing. Shimwell. 1907. 238. 208. 53. 102-108. Journal of the Chemical Society. L. E. From a list of industries which maintained research associations.50(591). 1784. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 83. G. 62. p. 1962. 188. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 191. 242. p. 1948. Pierce. p. E. Student. Newbold. 11) states that in 1876 the Guinness brewery in Dublin was in fact bigger than Bass's. S. 54. Owen. Is it just a co-incidence that the major brewing company which has had the most market growth and the largest volume sales in 4. 233. & Turton. Owen..1-25.. M. F. Stuart..35. (133)) reference 133. E. L. R. Plackett. Student.. C. 201. R. C. A. 1872. 240. 522. the last decade should be the one which continues to publish the most original work? 204. 41-48. H. 1872. p. 49. Shimwell. 171-177. 199. took this opportunity (amongst others) to present his views on the importance of serendipity in science and the dangers of neglecting fundamental research. A. & Kirkpatrick. A. C. 2nd Edition. 236. 217. D. O'Sullivan. Three Centuries of Irish Chemists. F. 24-33. Shimwell. 235.477-484. Shimwell. Proceedings of the Chemical Society of London. 4. Journal of the Chemical Society. 241. (Ed..BREWING CHEMISTRY IN THE BRITISH ISLES 108 at around the turn of the century "I still found time to spend a few hours weekly at John Heron's laboratory in the City. 200. Owen.. op. A. J. The Yeasts. 197. 224. Bishop. Laboratory Sews. J. 1956. 3. Economic History Review. 1934. 203. They were later to be joined by others including Cyril Rainbow. Cork: Cork University Press. 53. 538. Transactions of the Laboratory Club. B. W. S. 1921. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 5-40.45. D. English Edition 1966. 125145. O'Sullivan. Partington.. 211. The survey shows that 68% of the output came from only three companies Bass (26%). The same ranking order is obtained whether or not patients are included in the sample. 1941. Smiley. 119-126. 14. 186. 27. 1978. O'Sullivan. 229. Hawkins in his history of Bass Charrington (see reference 138. H. F. 1975. L. 187. L. 11-17. time in the 1880s. (226). 189. c. O'Raghallaigh. Pyke. 19. S. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. L. Institute of Biology Journal. O'Sullivan. C. I. 29.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . 1942. L. 1938. Preece.. 93-101.ibd. Statistical Estimates with the Saccharometer. 579592. Reilly. & Carr. Journal of the Chemical Society. it would be unwise to lay too much stress on the part played by scientific and technical expertise in the success of a brewing company. 146-148. 1964. Journal of the Institute of Brewing.48. 1990.. O'Sullivan. 239. A. Hanbury and Buxton. p. acquisitions. C. 234.. 1941. Richardson. Pierce.083% in the case of the linen trade down to 0. Shimwell. The Life and Work of Cornelius O'Sullivan FRS. 536550. 185. D. (Eds). (11). in which it is traced to the chemist James Price in a publication of 1782. J. 7-8. 1879. 46.. Transactions.637.. Guernsey: Privately printed. 1958. J. 1913. Stansell. cil. J. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Press. Transactions. 1. D. for the years 1985-1990 is suggestive of the wider significance of this criterion. 232. 89. 1977. p. 198. 2.. 207-210. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. op. J. S. C. Day and R. 100-105. T.. (226). 2 volumes. W. S. 237. Thorne. op. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www.
458-463. Wilson. A discourse delivered before the Glasgow Science Lecturers Association. 138. and Development of the Society 1841-91. R. A. F'.Vol. L. and its Bearings on Surgery ami Medicine. 1843-45. op. cit. p.Journal of the Institute of Brewing . 1990. Wuksmun. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. R. in Richmond. op. 1909. to Putrefaction ami Infection. p. in Essays on the Floating-Matter of the Air in Relation 248. (250). p. quoted in Bud. 19th October. cit.ibd. R. Watson. (Jnr). 1881. op. 246. p. E. cit. Memoirs of the Chemical Society. The Brewing Industry A Guide to llistorial Records. Tyndall. 247.. (250). Warington. A.98. 253..82.. 252. (74). Mkrohiat Antagonisms and Antibiotic Sub stances. London. 1876. 1945.. 13.294. London: Chemical 244. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. p. 1992] DKGWING CHEMISTRY IN THE DRITISII ISLES 109 MS B/THB. Waringlon. 251. II. 245. op. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 250. 17. Wilson.. 15. 249.uk Copyright . Ward. Wilson. 117. 383-389. in Jubilee of the Chemical Society of London: Record of the Proceedings together with an Account of the History Society. 1981. Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry. (Eds). R. Greater London Record Office. 4. Wilson. This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling www. 326-329. 5. J. p. cit. Fermentation. & Turion.org. (250). 1958. A. S.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.