|- --~~~
. tº HO9856 D . . . . At nr. Nº Hº-
p TF º
- A R G U M E N T S 57.7
, P 12
NST THE
TURNER ADULTERATION BILL
SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE
UNITED STATES BREWERS ASSOCIATION,

NEW YORK :
N. Y. ECONOMICAL PRINTING COMPANY, 24 VESEY STREET.
1890.
-
--
-
-
-
.e.&
(#)
A R G U M E N T S
NST TELE
SUBMITTED TO TEIE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
REPRESENTATIVES
OF TELE
UNITED STATES BREWERS ASSOCIATION,
NEW YORK :
N. Y. EconoMICAL PRINTING COMPANY, 24 VESEY STREET.
1890.
UNITED STATES BREWERS ASSOCIATION,
OFFICE OF SECRETARY, 83 LIBERTY STREET, .
NEw York, July 16th, 1890.
At the Thirtieth Convention of the United States Brewers'
Association, the Board of Trustees, in their annual report,
submitted an epitome of the measures taken by them and their
predecessors in office in regard to alleged adulterations of malt
liquors and laws actually or ostensibly designed to prevent
unlawful practices in the process of brewing. They also
formulated their opinions concerning a bill offered by Mr.
Turner, of Kansas, the nature and purport of which bill are
clearly set forth in the following pages. The position taken by
the Trustees in regard to this bill, was unanimously approved
by the Thirtieth Convention; and the Trustees, therefore, at
their meeting next succeeding said convention, instructed their
chairman and those members of their Board who reside in New
York to take such proper and legitimate measures as may be
necessary to bring to the notice of every member of Congress
the inconsistency, injustice and impracticability of the pro-
posed law. Previous to the issuance of these instructions the
Trustees had already invited Prof. A. Schwarz and Dr. F.
Wyatt to prepare suitable statements, from a scientific point
of view, as to the legitimacy of the use of cereals other than
barley. +
Having been informed that the proponents and opponents
of the bill would be given an opportunity to lay before the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representa-
tives their views on the question, the Chairman of the Board
renewed the invitation to Messrs. Schwarz and Wyatt; and,
4
in addition, the Advisory Committee, who have already pub-
lished a pamphlet on the subject of adulteration, requested Mr.
Schwarz to act as their special representative on the said
occasion. Both Dr. Wyatt and Prof. Schwarz cheerfully
responded to this invitation, and Mr. William A. Miles, Chair-
man of the Board of Trustees, on the day of the hearing, so
arranged matters as to assign to Dr. Wyatt the opening
argument, to be followed by the statement of Prof. Schwarz.
To himself he reserved the closing address, designed to convey
officially the views of this Association. Unfortunately, when
Dr. Wyatt had finished his argument, the Chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee stated that, owing to a lack of
time, but one more argument could be heard. This being the
case, Mr. Miles requested permission to submit in writing the
views of Prof. Schwarz, so as to enable him to speak for the
Association. This was agreed to.
The great importance of this question and the frequent
recurrence of legislative propositions requiring brief but
concise statements of the brewers' side of the case, ren-
dered it desirable that the arguments, submitted on the
occasion alluded to, be printed and distributed to the members
of this Association.
RICHARD KATZENMAYER,
Secretary.
WEHY MALT SUBSTITUTES ARE NECESS ARY IN
THE BREWING OF PURE AND HEALTHY
MODERN BEERS AND ALES.
ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY FRANCIS WYATT, PH.D.,
Director of the National Brewers' Academy of New York City.
OF all the various branches of chemical research, that re-
lating to the detection of adulteration in foods and drinks
undoubtedly possesses the greatest interest and should command
the greatest public attention. It is because, we ourselves are
so profoundly impressed with this important fact that we
consider it necessary to present our views scientifically, and
from a scientific standpoint, upon the bill already twice read
before the present Congress, and now referred to the Com-
mittee on Finance. It is entitled “A Bill imposing a special
tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale and importa-
tion of adulterated lager beer.”
In Section 1 this bill provides that, for the purposes of the act,
lager beer shall be understood to mean a ſluid made exclusively
from hops, malt and water ; while
In Section 2 it enacts that all beers in which glucose, or grape
sugar, or starch, corn, or rice are used, shall be known and designated
as adulterated lager beer.
Without attempting to take undue advantage of the total
ignorance of practical brewing so eminently characteristic of
this remarkable document, we may at once make the follow-
ing declarations:—
1st. The only rational and comprehensive definition given and ac-
cepted by the most scientific authorities to the best modern beer is “a
fermented Saccharine infusion to which a wholesome bitter has been
added.”
6
2d. No beer of any kind ever was, ever is, or ever can be manufact-
wred ea clusively from hops, malt and water.
3d. Neither starch, nor corn, nor rice, nor any other raw cereal, can
be legally or logically regarded as an adulteration of beer. They must,
on the contrary, and perforce, be considered as the perfectly legiti-
mate and natural and indispensable part of the ingredients from
which the best and most approved modern beer is made.
The process of brewing is purely and simply the art of pre-
paring a more or less alcoholic drink by the fermentation of
starchy grains. It was crudely practiced by the old Egyp-
tians, and was taught by them to the Greeks and Romans, who,
in their turn, imparted it to the Teutonic races.
As known to us to-day the process consists of two distinct
operations:— -
A.—Malting a certain proportion of barley grain in order to cause its
germination, and thereby produce the diastase which shall subse-
quently, under proper conditions, perform its specific functions of
converting the starchy ingredients used into saccharine matter.
B.—Grinding and mashing the malted and unmalted grains with
water at varying temperatures; boiling and cooling the infusion or
wort; fermenting it with yeast ; clearing and racking the finished beer.
In any attempt to appreciate the importance of this subject
we must necessarily bear in mind the fact that, like all other
industries, brewing has been progressive; that it has under-
gone changes and modifications. Modification does not imply
deterioration—it implies improvement. This improvement
in brewing has been brought about by the studious and careful
work of many distinguished chemists, who have raised brewing
from an empirical art into an exact science. If we look back-
ward but a very few years, we shall discover that the almost
universal trouble with brewers—the world over—was their
inability to produce beers of brilliancy and keeping qualities.
Every effort to produce sound and healthy beverages for table
use, or for immediate local consumption, was foiled by two
extremely disagreeable and dangerous obstacles.
In the first place, the beers became cloudy and formed volumi-
nous deposits within a few days of their manufacture. In the
second place, they rapidly became acid, unpalatable and
7
unwholesome. To even partially overcome these defects, there
were but two known remedies: one consisted in the use of
some chemical preservative or antiseptic agent; the other in
arranging, during the first fermentation, for a greatly increased
proportion of alcoholic strength. *
The light was at length thrown by chemistry upon these
various phenomena, their causes and their effects.
It was, in fact, proved, beyond discussion, that a large
proportion of the nitrogenous or albuminous matters of malt
was soluble, and that it went into solution in the wort
during the mashing process. Under the influence of certain
microscopic germs, which constantly swarm in the air, and
infest all liquids which are exposed to them, these albuminous
matters underwent decomposition or secondary fermentation,
in all cases where an abnormal quantity of hops had not been
used, and where a sufficiently large proportion of alcohol to
act as a preservative had not been produced.
Even after the cause of the defect had thus been ascertained
the true remedy remained undiscovered. In order to get
brilliant, sound and comparatively healthy beers, it was still
considered necessary to brew them of an exceedingly heavy,
and consequently intoxicating, nature; and it is, doubtless,
to the progress of education anong the masses of the people,
and the higher development of their moral sense, that the
change from this unfortunate state of affairs must be primarily
attributed | The public taste for malt liquors has been entirely
revolutionized The people of to-day demand a beverage that
will both nourish and stimulate, and that, when taken in
moderation, shall be practically devoid of intoxicating effects.
To legitimately and thoroughly comply with this change of
sentiment, and to meet this new and yet so rational demand,
the brewer has been forced to study the technology of his
trade, and the Chief outcome of his studies has been the Sub-
stitution for a portion of his malt of a certain percentage either
of ready-made Saccharine material, such as glucose, or of raw
cereal grains, such as corn, or rice, etc. All these are prac-
tically devoid of soluble albuminous matter, and therefore
act as diluents of the soluble albuminoids of malt, and thus
8
decrease their proportion in the beer by distributing them
throughout a much larger volume of liquid.
It may be truly and unhesitatingly affirmed at the present
time, of the best and most approved breweries in the world,
that it is no longer customary to brew either beer or ale from
all malt. .
It is equally true that it has become universal to make use
either of Sugar, or of corn or rice, or some other raw cereal,
mixed in with malt in some convenient proportion.
Irrespective of the methods of brewing, the essential con-
stituents of all beers and ales are derived from the chemical
transformation of starch : they are alcohol, extract and carbonic
acid gas. Their most precious qualities are chiefly commu-
nicated to them by good and pure fermentation—flavor, odor,
life, brilliancy, stability and healthfulness.
The following is the average composition, as determined by
ourselves, of the various cereals used in the production of
modern beers and ales:—
MALT. CORN. FICE. BARLEY.
Moisture................ 4.00 10.75 10.80 4.00
Starch, sugar, and gum. .. 68.00 '73.00 80.00 68.00
Fat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25 0.40 0.10 2.50
Nitrogenous matters (sol-
ubič) ... **{4.00 000 000 000
Nitrogenous matters (in- rºy
soluble). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 8.00 12.00 7.20 12.00
Mineral matters.......... 2.25 0.35 0.90 2.50
Cellulose, or husk. . . . . . . 11.50 4.00 0.20 11.00
At the first glance it would seem that the difference between
the composition of the raw grain and the malt, as exhibited by
these figures, is so extremely small as scarcely to demonstrate
the utility of so, costly and tedious an operation as malting.
There are numberless phenomena constantly occurring in
nature, productive of very familiar effects, which it would be
impossible to explain on the basis of an analytical tabulation,
and the transformations of malt belong to this category. The
substances classed in the analysis of raw barley as nitrogenous
are almost entirely insoluble in water, but, like all bodies
which contain nitrogen in their elementary constitution, these
9
substances are extremely unstable; in other words, are, as we
have already said, readily subject to decomposition when
exposed to the influence of oxygen and humidity. In the
analysis of malt, on the other hand, we perceive that one-
third of these nitrogenous bodies are soluble, and hence we
conclude that they have undergone oxidation and hydration
during the germination, and have been thus degraded to a
lower and more assimilable state. It is these soluble nitroge-
noids, of which diastase is one, that form the basis of the mash-
ing process, and hence malt is so absolutely indispensable to
the brewer. The manufacture of beers, therefore, may be
said to entail a series of chemical decompositions and recon-
stitutions resulting from the bringing together of certain
bodies under certain conditions of heat and water, and allow-
ing them to act upon each other; thus, for example:—
Starch, under the influence of diastase, is transformed into the
Saccharine matter known as maltose and dextrine; and,
Maltose, under the influence of the micro-organism known as brewers’
yeast, is subjected to decomposition and becomes transformed into
alcohol and carbonic acid gas.
As to the more or less complex chemical composition of
diastase, it is unnecessary to go into details. We are able to
show that, under suitable conditions of temperature and moist-
ure, it will convert no less than 2,000 times its own weight
of starch into maltose.
This, consequently, is the composition of the wort or in-
fusion resulting from the mashing process when properly
conducted:—
Maltose, dextrines, nitrogenoids, and mineral salts,
in variable proportions.
As to the actual chemistry of the starch transformation, it
will suffice to say, that the molecule, or smallest conceivable
particle of starch, is made up of a very large number of atoms
of carbon, combined with hydrogen and oxygen in the pro-
portion in which these two latter elements form water. These
atoms are bound together in groups. Starch is, therefore,
called a carbo-hydrate, and is a very complex body, which is
1()
not easily entirely disintegrated or broken up. When called
upon to effect a conversion, diastase attacks these groups of
atoms, with the assistance of water, singly, or one after the
other, reducing them successively, as follows:—
The starch is reduced by the addition of water to amylo-deactrine and
7maltose.
The amylo-deſctrine is reduced by the addition of water to erythro-
deactrine and maltose.
The erythro-deactrine is reduced by the addition of water to achroo-
deactrine and maltose.
Since we have shown that in all malts of good quality, and
especially in such of them as have not been subjected to too
high a heat during the germination of the barley, there is
much more diastase than is useful to transform their own
starchy materials into the elements required in a beer wort,
it will only require a moment’s reflection to enable practical
scientists to agree with the following proposition:-
(a.) The starch of the grain is the substance from which worts de-
rive their chief constituents.
(b.) The starch of malted barley is in all essential respects identical
in composition with the starch of raw barley and all other cereals.
(c.) The diastase of malt is capable of converting much more than
the quantity of starch with which it is associated.
(d.) The chief troubles in brewing operations are occasioned by the
excessive quantity of nitrogenoids that pass into permanent solution
in all malt worts.
Therefore, it is proper, and indeed essential, to combine with
the malt a sufficient proportion of starch, in the shape of raw
cereals, to more completely utilize the diastase, and, at the
same time, by creating a greater mass of material, to diminish
the proportion of alterable albuminoids.
Perhaps we may more fully illustrate and clearly expose the
facts already brought out in this argument by quoting typical
results obtained in actual daily practice in the brewery.
One thousand pounds of average commercial malt will give,
under proper treatment, and in round figures, 580 pounds of
11
extractive matters. This quantity will be composed, roughly
speaking, of -
Maltose and dextrines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 pounds.
Soluble nitrogenoids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 “
and will produce 415 gallons of wort from the kettle of 14%
Balling. Neglecting the hop extractives, every 100 parts by
weight of this wort will generally contain —
Maltose and dextrines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.65 per cent.
Nitrogenoids in Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 “
Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.00 “
100.00
Assuming that, in order to excite a suitable alcoholic fer-
mentation, there are added to the wort four gallons, or about
one per cent. of yeast, and further assuming that this yeast
contains 75 per cent. of water, we shall find that about ten
pounds of the dry yeast plant have been employed.
The ordinary brewers' yeast (saccharomyces cerevisiae) is a
living plant, which requires certain kinds 6f nutriment in
order that its vitality and vigor may be sustained. -
The foods administered must be capable, by assimilation,
of producing heat and of forming tissue, and are divided into
carbo-hydrates, albuminoids and minerals,
A well-made brewers’ wort, therefore, must contain all these
elements in suitable proportion, and in a truly soluble and
readily assimilable form. The carbo-hydrates are the sugars
and dextrines produced by the transformation of starch ; the
albuminoids are the peptones and the amides (or soluble ni-
trogenoids); the minerals are potassium, phosphorus and
Sulphur.
Bearing these elementary principles in mind, we cannot fail
to institute the well-worn comparison between good and bad
worts and fertile and sterile soils.
Let the worts contain the necessary constituents, in suitable
proportions, and the yeast plant sown in them will be vigor-
ous and healthy; but let there be either a lack or an abnormal
excess of either of the essential components, and the plant will
12
deteriorate with great rapidity, and soon be completely unable
to perform any of its normal functions. All this is in accord-
ance with a perfectly natural and general law, which applies
equally as well to animals as to plants.
The fermentation of the wort under consideration will yield
a fourfold crop of yeast, and consequently some 30 pounds of
new yeast (on the dry basis) will have been born and matured
during the process. The ultimate analysis of dry yeast has
shown that it contains about 10 per cent. of nitrogen; it hence
follows that our crop of 30 pounds must have entailed the ab-
sorption or assimilation of 3 pounds of that element, combined
in the form of soluble nitrogenoids (peptones and amides) from
the fermenting liquid. If, in order to make a fair estimation,
we assume that these peptones and amides exist in the wort in
the proportion of 1:3, and if we calculate their total nitrogen
on the basis of 18 per cent., we shall see that our 3 pounds of
nitrogen represent only 16% pounds of soluble nitrogenoids,
and that, having started with 55 pounds, there must still
remain 384 pounds in our racked-off beer. This is altogether
too much ; for neglecting the extract from the hops, and basing
our calculations in round figures upon the averages from actual
work, this beer will contain—
Alcohol, say. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00
Maltose and dextrines, say. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00
Nitrogenoids in Solution, say. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00
and is unfit for storage purposes or for transit or export under
ordinary conditions.
It is only by adopting the use of raw grain, or some form or
modification of starchy material other than malt, that this serious
difficulty may be completely overcome and that we may obtain
at one and the same time a high percentage of dextrine in the
worts and in the beer, and a sufficient decrease in the sum of
nitrogenoids to insure immunity from liability to alteration or
secondary fermentation. -
In general practice it is customary to make use of 3 parts of
malt to 1 part of raw grain, the latter being introduced into
the malt mash after previous gelatinization or conversion in a
13
separate vessel. The mash-tub, therefore, contains a mixture
of which we may take the following figures to represent the
composition:-
1,000 pounds malt will yield. .525 pounds maltose and dextrines.
333 “ clean germless
corn-meal will yield. . . . .233 & { { { & [. & C
Making a total of . . . . . . . . . . . 758 “ & 4 & 8 * *
1,000 pounds malt will yield...55 pounds soluble nitrogenoids.
333 “ meal ‘‘ “ . . . 2 “ ( & { {
Total extract from 1,333 pounds. .815 “
Reckoning on the basis of 14 per cent. Balling—or say, 20%
pounds Long—this quantity will produce 582 gallons of wort,
which will contain in every 100 parts— º
Maltose and dextrines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.00 per cent.
Nitrogenoids in Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 “ “
Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.00 ‘‘ ‘‘
100.00
and we may induce in it a very satisfactory fermentation by
the addition of 58 pounds of normal yeast, which, on the dry
basis, is equal to 15 pounds. ‘.
The multiplication of this quantity of yeast four times will
give a crop of 60 pounds, or a net gain of, say, 45 pounds, and
this is equal to 4+ pounds of nitrogen, or—using the same fac-
tors as before—to 25 pounds of the total nitrogenoids with
which we started. -
Continuing our practical example, we may quote an average
of 15 analyses of beer, produced exactly under these conditions
and proportions, which gave the following results:—
Alcohol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3.50 per cent.
Maltose and dextrines. . . . . . . . . . . . * * * e º 'º e g º e 5.45 ‘‘ ‘‘
Nitrogenoids . . . . . . . • e s e e s s & s e º s e e e s & © tº º e & 0.55 “
Ratio of maltose to dextrine in extract. . . . . . . . . . . 1 : 2,250.
The pre-eminent superiority of this beer over that produced
from the use of all malt, need barely be pointed out. We have
less alcohol and more ea tract; the ea tract is mainly composed
of deatrine; and the objectionable, because so alterable, nitro-
14
genous bodies have been reduced to manageable proportions.
The beer will be little liable to secondary fermentation un-
der ordinary conditions, and from its viscosity it will be en-
abled to retain the major part of its carbonic acid gas, and
will hence always preserve a full, creamy head and possess a
full, luscious flavor.
If our labors in opposition to this unreasonable and ill-
considered bill have not been thrown away, we have now shown,
with sufficient clearness and accuracy, by the preceding figures,
that the mixture of such excellent foods or feeding stuffs as
starch, corn, rice, or other raw cereal, or product of raw cereal,
with malt in the process of brewing beer, does not, in any way,
constitute an adulteration, but decidedly constitutes an ameli-
oration. To adulterate is to corrupt, or to debase, or to make
impure by the addition of baser material. Can the addition
of a certain proportion of those cereals, which daily appear on
our breakfast-tables, to the malted barley in the mash-tub be
classified, after our explanation, under this broad and sweeping
interpretation ? Have we not proved—is it not admitted by
every scientist with a knowledge of the subject—that such an
addition is the inevitable outcome of modern scientific educa-
tion ? Can it be longer doubted that raw grain must naturally
be henceforth regarded as an essential and integral part of the
materials necessary, to produce good and healthy beers? Is it
the province of our Legislature to interfere with the discov-
eries of science, and to impede rather than to encourage its
beneficent march 3
We perfectly understand and are the first to appreciate that
the “adulteration of beer,” in the proper sense of that term,
must be repressed and punished by every means within the
power of the law. But how much of such adulteration has
been really shown to exist? And if shown to exist, how much
can be traced directly to the brewer? We are aware that the
subject appeals to the most vital interests of the community,
since it involves the question of the public health. It engen-
ders a feeling of uneasiness and alarm which can only be dis-
pelled by the acquisition of trustworthy information gathered
from reliable and impartial sources.
15
It is undoubtedly to the lack of such information, and to
the generally prevailing ignorance of all that pertains to the
art of brewing, that we may ascribe the framing and presenta-
tion of the bill we are discussing. *
It is an established fact that the generally accessible literature
on the subject of beer and its constituents is almost entirely
limited to sensational newspaper articles, conceived in pre
judice and written up with a sublime indifference to, or
complete ignorance of, fundamental facts. We read of start-
ling instances of beer-poisoning, which, when investigated,
turn out, in the vast majority of cases, to be entirely unauthen-
ticated. This does not prevent the creation of occasional
panics, resulting in some such ill-advised measure as the one
now proposed ; but in the majority of cases an intelligent
understanding of actual fact is finally arrived at, the panic-
mongers are defeated, and the needlessly alarmed community
relapses into its customary feeling of security. The only
reliable results of food investigation are generally confined to
purely scientific journals, and are not brought to public notice.
This accounts for the prevailing popular impression that any
substance, however wholesome in itself, must be, when substi-
tuted for or mixed with something else, regarded as an adul-
terant ' To the enlightened mind, this is, of course, sheer
nonsense, for it is perfectly evident that some of the best and "
happiest combinations are now effected in our food supplies
by wholly or partially substituting one substance in them for
another.
SUMMARY OF REASONS WHY THE TURNER AND
WOLCOTT BILLS SHOULD NOT
BECOME LAWS.
PRESENTED BY MIR. W. A. MILES.
GENTLEMEN:—
On behalf of the United States Brewers’ Association, whose
six hundred members represent from 75 to 80 per cent. of
the entire production of malt liquors in the United States,
I am here to protest against the passage or enactment of the bill
introduced by Mr. Turner of Kansas, which defines lager beer
and imposes a special tax upon and regulates the manufacture,
Sale and importation of adulterated lager beer.
At the outset, I declare that any legitimate and truly
honest effort to frame a general law to prevent and punish the
adulteration of any article of food or any beverage whatever
will command the hearty support of every member of the
Association which I have the honor to represent, as it should
that of every good citizen.
In the year 1877, at the Seventeenth Convention of our
Association, held at Milwaukee, in response to similar unsub-
stantiated and absolutely false representations regarding the
purity of malt liquors produced in the United States, the
following resolution was adopted, viz.:-
“It is hereby resolved to request the President and Secretary of
the United States Brewers' Association to issue a public declaration,
setting forth that this Association countenances the use of legitimate
materials only in the brewing of malt liquors, and denounces as inad-
missible and reprehensible the substitution of any others ; avowing,
further, that if proof is brought against any member of this Associa-
tion of adding noxious drugs of any kind to his brewings, such culpable
practice shall be deemed sufficient cause for the expulsion of such mem-
ber; declaring, further, as frivolous and false any and all accusations
charging upon brewers the admixture of deleterious or unwholesome
substances, unless such charge is made in explicit terms and is
substantiated by naming the offending party; and demanding, as a
18
matter of simple justice, the retraction of all public accusations of
this nature, not corroborated by facts distinctly stated and capable of
proof.” -
Such was the position of the United States Brewers’ Associ-
ation in 1877, and to prove that such is their position upon
this question to-day, permit me to read an extract from the
report of the Board of Trustees, presented at the recent annual
convention of the Association held in this city on the 22d and
23d of last month :—
“BILLS DEFINING LAGER BEER AND ADULTERATION.
“The alleged evils sought to be remedied by the bills recently intro-
duced in Congress by the Hon. E. J. Turner of Kansas, and others, have
frequently been the subject of discussion in your meetings, and in more
than one instance have your Trustees, as well as the local associations,
appealed directly to the sanitary authorities of different States for a re-
futation of the many wholly unfounded charges of adulteration. This
is the proper time and opportunity to repeat that, individually and as
the representatives of this Association, we condemn adulteration and
fully approve and support any law designed to suppress and punish it.
That the brewers of this country do not adulterate their product, is a
fact which has been demonstrated by official analysis, like the one, for
example, made a few years ago by the Health Board of the State of
New York, which included samples of beer from nearly every brewery
in that State. Not a single instance of the use of injurious substances
was discovered in this case, and the same is true of every impartial and
competent analysis ever made anywhere in our country. Now, while
we do not propose to discuss, in detail, the provisions of the Turner
Bill, we cannot refrain from directing attention to the undeniable fact
that this measure was evidently drafted under an erroneous conception
of the term adulteration, as applied to the manufacture of lager beer.
If adulteration means the act of “debasing, corrupting or making im-
pure by an admixture of baser material’—and there can be no doubt that
it means that and nothing else, then the use of any grain other
than barley cannot be styled an adulteration, the Turner Bill to the con-
trary notwithstanding. In the case of rice, which the said bill classes
among the adulterants, the misconception alluded to is still more glaring,
because as between that material and barley the latter is certainly the
‘baser,' because cheaper; and it is pretty generally known that some of
the most popular brands of imported beers are made of rice. Whatever
may be thought of the proposition to tax brewers using material other
than barley, but equally as good and certainly quite as wholesome as
that grain, and whatever might be thought of the wisdom of compelling
brewers to brand upon their casks the names of the ingredients of which
the beer is made, there cannot be any doubt that it would be extremely
19
unjust to force them by law to apply the term ‘adulterated beer’ to a
product which, although not made exclusively of barley malt, yet does
not contain any “baser material' by which the beer could be ‘corrupted,
debased or made impure.” Such a law would virtually compel any
brewer to testify to a falsehood. It is idle to say that the brewer
would have the remedy in his own hands; that he could easily escape the
odium of offering for sale an adulterated article by using barley only.
An illustration will show the fallacy of such an argument. We have
already said that the celebrated Pilsener Beer, made of rice, is very
popular. Suppose that the customers of a brewer demand this excellent
and very popular brand—as, in fact, many retailers do, -will not such
a brewer feel that he ought to furnish what is wanted ? But would it
be just to compel him to denounce his own perfectly wholesome product
as an adulteration, and would not the effect of such a declaration upon
the retailer and his customers be injurious to the manufacturer ? If the
law provided that the casks containing such beer should be branded with
the words ‘Rice Beer,” etc., the object of the Turner Bill would be fully
realized, without imposing upon the brewer the odious and unjust duty
of telling an absolute falsehood against his own interests. Aside from
these and other similar objections, we believe that, viewed from an
ethical standpoint, the salient principle of the bill is extremely perni-
cious. If the adulteration of food and drink is a wrong—and no sane
man disputes that it is—it should be forbidden, but not licensed and
extra taxed, as the author of the bill proposes. If the law-makers be-
lieve that the use of rice, or wheat, or corn has the effect of ‘cor-
rupting and debasing' lager beer and making it injurious to the health
of the drinker—in short, if they believe the use of these cereals to be
an adulteration in the generally accepted sense of the term—they should
prohibit it, but not license it. Looking at the matter from this point
of view, we at once discover the fallacy of the premises upon which
the whole structure of this bill is erected. It is our opinion that the
proper course to pursue would be to have a competent authority—say,
for instance, the Revenue Department, in conjunction with the Ag-
ricultural, the Medical Department and the Board of Health—determine
whether the use of rice, wheat, corn, or the starch derived from these
materials, is wholesome or not; whether beer made of either of these
is or is not less healthy and nutritive than barley beer; and, lastly,
whether the use of cereals other than barley, in the brewing of beer, is
justly and properly to be considered an adulteration. If it is, forbid it;
if it is not, do not require the brewer to brand a falsehood upon his casks,
to the detriment of his own interests and the injury of his customers.”
As the producers of a beverage which is generally recognized
as a liquid food, occupying a position in the domestic economy
similar to, and of equal if not greater value than tea or coffee,
we recognize the responsibility resting upon us to spare no
20
effort to make our product acceptable to the taste of the public,
and ever and above all, to carefully guard and maintain the
purity of our materials and product. We claim the right to
avail ourselves of the laws of chemistry in studying the nature
of the materials we employ, and of using such combinations
of the cereals or their constituents as shall be shown by such
investigation to produce the best beer. As a result of the
progress of this scientific study of our business, we are to-day
producing beers which are healthful and nutritious, containing
but 4 to 5 per cent. of alcohol, while if confined to the use of
malt alone, as was the practice 30 or 40 years ago, the ale or
beer in daily use would not keep unless made so strong as to
contain from 7 to 9 per cent. of alcohol. -
It is as absurd to ask for a law declaring that beer made in
part from glucose, grape sugar, corn, rice or starch, should be
declared to be adulterated beer as it would be to ask for a law
declaring that bread made by the admixture of wheat, corn,
rye or rice should be denominated adulterated bread, and that
wheat flour should be recognized as the only substance from
which pure bread should be made; and, further, that bakers
who used an admixture of other cereals should be declared to
be bakers of adulterated bread, and compelled so to label it,
and to pay an exorbitant license for the privilege. We claim
that this bill did not spring from any sincere desire to pro-
tect the public health. It is capable of abundant proof, and, I
think, has been thoroughly established here by the very able
essay of Dr. Wyatt, that a light-bodied (hence less alcoholic),
better-keeping, and more nutritious beer can be made by a care-
ful admixture of the different grains than by the use of malt
alone. The insincerity of this bill is shown in the attempt
to mislead the public as to its true intent, by parading a heavy
tax upon an industry which already bears its fair proportion
of the public burdens in the way of taxation. The bill insults
the intelligence of every member of Congress by attaching a
false meaning to the word adulteration, and asking him to
legalize and license the defilement and pollution of an article of
food of almost universal consumption.
While declaring that we will heartily indorse any sincere
21
movement designed to secure the use of healthful and legiti-
mate materials in the manufacture of beer, we protest against
the enactment of this bill, because it is untruthful and dishon-
est in its purpose in so far as it stigmatizes as adulterants those
substances which are known to every intelligent man to be
pure, healthful and innoxious articles of food. We protest
against it because it compels us to certify to that which
is false. We protest against it because it is not conceived in
any sincerity of purpose, nor for the public good. If the
public welfare be the object of this move, why are you called
upon to pass a law aimed especially and exclusively at lager
beer, and at no other intoxicant—neither at wine and cider,
nor at the various kinds of ardent spirits, nor at porter or ale?
Have any documents been submitted to you, gentlemen, show-
ing that, of all intoxicating beverages, lager beer is most fre-
quently adulterated, and that, therefore, a special bill, singling
out this beverage from among innumerable others, must be
passed ? We venture to assert that no such evidence exists
anywhere, but that the very reverse has been demonstrated
quite often by official investigation.
Why, then, may I be permitted to ask, this exceptional
measure against lager beer? I believe I can answer this
question, and in doing so permit me to call your attention to
the fact that large sums of money are being expended in
furtherance of this bill. Petitions are being circulated through-
out the country; a vast amount of money is used for postage
alone, not to speak of large fees, salaries and other compensa-
tions paid to lawyers, clerks, canvassers, etc. Is all this money
expended by public-spirited men for the philanthropic purpose
of securing to the public a beer of a standard of purity entirely
imaginary and absolutely unscientific; and are these philanthro-
pists so preoccupied by their efforts to secure a normal lager
beer, that they cannot bestow a thought, upon the vinous and
distilled beverages? Well, gentlemen, Mr. H. W. Brelsford,
of this city, is the attorney for the advocates of this bill, and
from letters which I hold in my hand, and shall, with your
permission, leave with your Committee, it appears that the
generosity of those business men who would profit pecuniarily by
22
the passage of the bill, is depended upon for the means where-
with to defray all these expenses. In a letter dated April 24,
1890, Mr. Brelsford states literally that financial aid is essen-
tial, and that it is proper, and necessary that those whose
material interests will be promoted by the passage of the bill
should give their aid and assistance. He promises able counsel
and expert testimony, and proposes to circulate statistics show-
ing the extent of adulteration practiced by brewers, and all
this in the face of such irrefutable official evidence as I have
the honor to submit to you. Is it not manifest that public
weal is only a cloak for the furtherance of the “material
interests” spoken of in Mr. Brelsford’s letter? If there be any
doubt about this, permit me to state that Mr. Brelsford’s
circular-letter was addressed to maltsters and hop-dealers, and
that the very tenor of this circular reveals the animus and
object of the whole move. Mr. Brelsford openly states that his
clients (then he is retained /) desire this bill to become a law, but
their business interests will not permit them to appear or allow
their names to be used. Permit me, however, to read the full
text of the letter.
H. W. BRELSFORD, (Copy.)
Attorney and Counselor-at-Law,
529 7th Street, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C., April 12th, 1890.
Chas. Ehlerman Hop d? Malt Co.
GENTLEMEN:—I am retained by those interested in procuring the
enactment of a law designed to prevent the use of substitutes or adul-
terants in the manufacture of lager beer. -
A copy of a bill now before Congress (introduced in both houses) in-
tended to accomplish that purpose is bere with mailed to you. It is
modeled upon the Oleomargarine law. Instead of prohibiting the use
of substitutes—which it is considered would be unconstitutional,—it
imposes upon their use conditions that are, in effect, prohibitory.
This bill is advocated by the medical authorities of the District of
Columbia in the interest of public health and upon the general ground
of opposition to all adulteration of food or drink. In this they will
have the co-operation of eminent medical gentlemen and Societies else-
where. They are in earnest and will do all in their power, but it is
proper and necessary that they should have the assistance of those
whose material interests will be promoted by a law to prevent the use
of substitutes. -
23
The bill can be passed if properly pushed. The prejudice in the pub-
lic mind against the adulteration of food or drink is so strong, and the
belief that beer is adulterated is so firmly fixed, that there will be but
little difficulty in arousing a popular sentiment in support of this
Inlea.SUl I’e. †
My clients desire this bill to become a law, but their business interests will
not permit them to appear in its support or to allow their names to be used.
They realize, also, that it should be urged before Congress as a public
measure, and that it will be a disadvantage to have it openly advocated in
behalf of a special trade interest. I am, therefore, instructed to act as
counsel for the medical authorities, and to aid them in every possible way.
They have accepted my offer of services and recognize me as their legal
representative.
It is our purpose to employ the ablest counsel obtainable to appear
before the Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and
present the arguments in favor of the bill. Eminent scientific men will,
also, prepare statements for publication in relation to the use of sub-
stitutes and adulterants in brewing, and circulate them in pamphlet
form, for the use of editors and legislators.
The cost of doing this, as well as defraying other necessary expenses,
must be met by voluntary contributions from those who will be bene-
fited by the operation of this law. Maltsters know of its importance—
especially if the duty on malt is raised, thereby increasing the in-
centive to use substitutes—and are ready to assist, if they can do so
privately. Your name has been given me as one of those who will be
interested in this and willing to help. I am directed to write you thus
confidentially and to ask your co-operation and aid. Money is necessary
to defray expenses, as above stated, but it is by no means the most im-
portant requisite. You are urged to immediately exert your influence
in every possible way with such Members of Congress as you are able
to reach, to secure the speedy progress and ultimate passage of this bill,
and to take every means in your power to promote the agitation, in the
press and elsewhere, of the demand for a law to prevent adulteration
of beer. -
The advantage is with us, because the opponents of the bill cannot
argue against it without admitting and attempting to justify the
use of substitutes and adulterants, which they will be very unwilling
to do, knowing that public opinion will be against them.
It is not intended, or thought necessary, to raise a large sum of
money. In order to keep the matter entirely confidential, only a few
leading maltsters, like your house, have been communicated with. If
you will give $250, and the others in the same proportion, it will,
together with what is already subscribed, give us a fund which, it is
thought, will be sufficient. It will certainly be enough to enable us
to put the matter before Congress and in the press in such a manner
as to enable you to judge as to the wisdom of further expenditure if
more is needed. The agitation in the press is already commenced, and
24
we think public opinion will force it to a successful issue, and that,
beyond the necessary counsel fees, expert testimony, printers’ ink, etc.,
very little money will be required. -
You will appreciate the business reasons which make it inadvisable
for the maltsters interested in this bill to meet and confer together, and
which cause some of them to prefer that their connection with the
matter should be known only to their counsel. That need not, however,
deter you from advising with me as freely as you are willing to do. I
am specially anxious to receive advice, suggestion or information from
those interested, and you may be assured that any suggestions you may
make for the furtherance of our purpose will be gladly received and
promptly acted upon. I shall be, pleased to obtain from you the names
of any persons known to you who can be relied upon to aid me in any
way whatever. Your letters will be treated always as confidential. I
shall be glad to see you, or any one representing you, in Washington,
or, if you desire it, one of my associates will be sent to confer with you
personally. - -
In remitting your contribution to the expense fund you may send
check, draft, or money by express, as you prefer, or to me direct. All
amounts received will be acknowledged and a receipt sent.
In order that you may inform yourself as to my professional stand-
ing and personal responsibility, as well as my authority, I submit the
following references to well-known men as to my responsibility and
integrity:—
Hon. M. G. Emery, President Second National Bank of Washington,
D. C. .
John A. Prescott, Esq., President Lincoln National Bank of Wash-
ington, D. C. *
E. Kurtz Johnson, Esq., President Citizens' National Bank of Wash-
ington, D. C.
Myron M. Parker, Esq., President Board of Trade, Washington, D.C.
Smith Townshend, M. D., Health Officer, Washington, D. C.
As it is important that no time should be wasted, a prompt response
is requested. * -
Very respectfully, -
- EI. W. BRELSFORD.
Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, when
Mr. Brelsford states that this bill should be urged as a public
'measure, and that it would be a disadvantage to have it openly
advocated in behalf of a special trade interest, and that HE
Żs, therefore, instructed to act as counsel for the medical
authorities and to aid them in every possible way, when he
says these things, I claim that he admits:—
1. That the medical authorities have had nothing to do in
25
originating this bill, but that he (Mr. Brelsford) has been
instructed to act as their counsel, and they have accepted his
offer of services.
2. That the public weal is to serve as a cloak for sordid
motives and in furtherance of a special trade interest.
3. That he is retained and paid by the representatives of
this very special trade interest.
4. That he must seek by all means to conceal the names of
his clients; the real character of his cause and object.
5. That he must sail under false colors by appearing as
counsel for medical authorities, when, in fact, he serves, for
money, a special trade interest, too cowardly to appear openly
and in public.
|His testimony (whatever it may be), the statistics he prom-
ised to produce, his medical statements, and whatever else he
may submit to you, gentlemen, should not, in my humble
opinion, be permitted to influence your action, when it is
known, as it is, that the whole is conceived in the spirit which
his circular characterizes, and pushed on by means and methods
as manifestly improper as are those which he “gives away” in
his correspondence. -
He asserts that the advantage is with him, because we can-
not argue against the bill without admitting and attempting
to justify the use of substitutes and adulterants. The gentle-
man reckoned without his host. The brewers of the United
States will defend the use of any and all materials which are
known, or can by scientific and medical testimony be shown
to be, healthful and innoxious. They denounce the use of
poisonous or noxious drugs; they deny that such are used, and
will heartily approve of a law punishing the use of such ma-
terials. . #
We claim that the proponents of this bill and the bill itself
are not worthy of any consideration at your hands because
we have shown it to be untruthful and dishonest, not only in
its letter but in its spirit. For while it proposes to emanate
from a source inspired by a desire to promote the public wel-
26
fare, its true intent, by proponents’ own confession, is to pro-
mote the selfish business interests of the cowards who hide
themselves behind their hired counsel.
It is due to myself and others that I should state that I do
not believe that any considerable number of intelligent or
reputable maltsters have identified themselves with this move-
ment. I do not know that it originated with any member of
that trade, but certain it is that the promoters of this bill were
foolish enough to imagine that the entire trade were as selfish
and blind as themselves. That they were mistaken, at least in
some instances, is evidenced by the fact that the honorable
gentlemen to whom they addressed their persuasive appeal for
help, placed the interesting documents at our disposal.
On behalf of those whom I represent, I thank you for the
opportunity to be heard, and desire to say that I have a num-
ber of pamphlets upon this subject which I will be glad to
have distributed among the members of this committee. They
are, 1st, the report of the State Board of Health of New
York, giving the result of their examination of 476 samples
of malt liquors, which were found to be perfectly pure and
wholesome; 2d, a pamphlet entitled “Alleged Adulterations
of Malt Liquors; the Whole Truth about Them,” by G.
Thomann; 3d, a copy of the very able paper read to you to-day
by Dr. Francis Wyatt, eititled “Why Malt Substitutes are
Necessary in the Brewing of Pure and Healthy Modern Beers
and Ales;” and 4th, a masterly array of technical statements
as to the mode and manner of brewing, by Prof. A. Schwarz.
BEER AND ITs INGREDIENTS.
BY A. SCHWARZ,
Director United States Brewers' Academy.
I.
What 7s beer? What does it contain & How is it made 3
Beer, lager beer, ale and porter are beverages containing
alcohol (3 to 6 per cent), sugar, dextrine, albuminoids, mineral
substances, extract of hops, lactic and acetic acids, also some
other products of fermentation, which, together, are known
as the unfermented extract of beer, and technically called
“extract.” Lager beer contains from 4 to 7 per cent. of this
extract. Besides these substances, there are from 87 to 92 per
cent of water and from one-fourth to one-third per cent."of
carbonic acid gas, the latter being, like the alcohol, formed by
the fermentation of the beer.
What is fermentation ?
|Permentation is the decomposition of malt-sugar and grape-
sugar. The decomposing agent is the yeast (a vegetable which
is added purposely), and the products of this decomposition are
mainly alcohol and carbonic acid gas. In order to start fermen-
tation, the unfermented liquor must naturally contain some
sugar, which is liable to undergo fermentation.
How is this liquor prepared which has to be fermented 3
The malt (which may be either barley-malt or malt prepared
by the germinating process of any other cereal, such as wheat,
corn, rice, etc.) is mixed with water at certain temperatures.
By this process, generally known as the mashing process, the
substance of the malt is dissolved. Those substances which
are insoluble under ordinary circumstances (for instance,
the 60 to 70 per cent. of starch contained in the malt) are
changed into soluble malt-sugar and dextrine. This change is
28
accomplished by the action of the diastase, a substance formed
previously during the malting process of the grain. Directly
soluble are some of the albuminoids or nitrogenous substances,
mineral substances, acids, etc., all contained in the malt. The
liquor obtained by the mashing process, as described, is boiled
with hops, whereby the latter is extracted. Subsequently, this
boiled liquid, technically called the “wort,” is cooled down to
a certain temperature; the yeast is then added and fermentation
is started. The main fermentation of lager beer lasts from 10
to 20 days. After fermentation the beer is racked and stored
till it is matured or ripe for consumption. No important
change takes place during the storage process, etc., except a
very slow so-called after-fermentation, a clarifying of the beer
by the settling of the yeast at the bottom of the storage casks.
II.
What is adulteration ? What does it mean in regard to
beer & The use of corn, corn-products, rice and wheat, is not
an adulteration.
Webster defines the word “adulterate” as follows: “To
corrupt, debase, or make impure by an admixture of baser
materials.” “Adulteration” means, according to the opinion
of the same author, “corruption or debasement by foreign
admixture.” It is to be shown whether or not the use of corn-
products, etc., in the manufacture of beer is an act of using
baser materials for corrupting the beer, debasing it, or making
it impure. We claim that this is not the case. Corn, corn-
products, wheat, rice, etc., contain exactly the same substances
as barley does—namely, starch, nitrogenous substances, mineral
substances, husk, fat, etc. The proportion of these substances
contained in the average materials vary, in so far as the barley
contains a little more nitrogenous and mineral substances than
corn and rice, but less starch than the latter. -
Now, the question is, Could the use of corn, wheat and
rice be called a corruption or debasement, seeing that those
grains contain chemically the same substances contained in
maltº We have admitted that corn, corn-products, wheat, rice,
29
etc., contain a trifle less albuminoids and mineral matter than
the barley. This might, perhaps, give rise to the opinion that
the use of corn is an admixture of baser material. But even
this is not the case, as may be judged by the following: Beer
contains, on an average, about one-half per cent. of nitrogenous
substances and about two-tenths per cent. of mineral substances.
By using corn as a part substitute for barley (or malted barley)
in brewing, the amount of the substances mentioned would,
perhaps, be reduced to a few one-hundredths per cent., and this
cannot, under any circumstances, be called a corruption or a
debasement.
III.
The next question is:—
Is it possible to establish by any means the fact that beer has
been brewed from corn, corn-products, rice, wheat, etc., if such
Žs the case ?
The answer must be negative. Considered from a practical
standpoint, we may find some beer-drinkers who claim that
their palate is sensitive enough to distinguish between corn
and malt beer and such as has been prepared from malt only.
There is nothing in this claim. Opinions about beer were, are,
and will be governed, not by the quality of the beer alone,
but also by prejudice. The beer-drinker usually suspects that
there is something wrong with the beer, and generally finds
Some cause for complaint; if he finds no other, the saying,
“This is corn-beer, sugar-beer, or glucose-beer,” etc., will
answer his purpose. It is a true proverb which says that there
should be no dispute about tastes (De gustibus non est dispu-
tandum). One drinker may prefer what the other dislikes,
and vice versa. - .
The expert, however, cannot judge the beer by the ingredi-
ents used in its production. In using different qualities of
malt the taste of the beer may be different, also in using the
same materials the taste of the product may differ, if other
brewing methods are used. Knowing these facts, the honest
expert will decline to undertake the task of judging of the
quality of brewing materials which may have been used, and
30
it is therefore natural that the chemist’s art should be invoked
in the matter. We have already explained that corn, corn-
products, wheat, rice, etc., contain the same elements as barley.
As both of these materials give the same products by the
mashing and the fermenting process, it would be an impossi-
bility for a chemist to say of any fermented or unfermented
beer from what materials it had been produced. There is no
doubt about the following facts:—
1. The starch of corn, etc., is the same as that of barley
(malt).
2. The Sugar and dextrine produced by mashing corn and
malt are identical. .
3. The alcohol and carbonic acid produced by fermentation
are the same in either case.
Some chemists try to argue the question whether or not it
would be possible to ascertain the quality of the materials which
have been used by reasoning as follows: Taking into consider-
ation that barley contains more nitrogenous and mineral sub-
stances than corn or corn-products, sugar, glucose, etc., it would
be natural to suppose that the beer brewed from malt only
will contain more of those substances than beer brewed from
malt and corn, malt and sugar, or malt and glucose.
This argument may be logical, but it loses force on account
of the different grades and qualities of the same materials.
The quality of barley depends, as everybody knows, upon the
quality of the seed, condition of the soil, method of cultiva-
tion, fertilizer used, the state of the weather at the time of
harvesting, ete. According to this, as shown by the annexed
analysis, it may happen occasionally that the brewer has to
use different qualities of barley, and by accident gets some
which contains even less mineral and nitrogenous substances
than the corn which is used in breweries. Besides this, it
is also possible that other materials, such as water and hops,
which are necessary for the production of beer, may increase
or diminish the quantity of said substances. Consequently,
we come to the conclusion that it is impossible for the
31.
chemist to decide by analysis of beer whether or not corn,
corn-products, wheat, rice, or sugar has been used in combina-
tion with malt. It will be remembered that the Board of
Health of the State of New York, in conformity with Chapter
176 of the Laws of 1885, ordered an analysis of different kinds
of beer, samples of which were collected from all parts of the
State. The results of these analyses were contained in the
sixth annual report of said Board, a copy of which is attached.
The number of samples analyzed was 476. It was the duty
of the chemist to report any adulteration he might discover.
In regard to this the report says, page 23:—
“It will be seen that no substitute for hops had been found,
and that as regards substitutes for malt, the chemist speaks
with great caution. He suspects the addition of glucose in
Several ºnstances, but cannot pronounce on this point with any
degree of certainty. Wo harmful ingredient has, however,
been found or detected.” -
This remark substantiates the foregoing statement, that it is
not possible for the chemist to decide by analysis whether
or not corn or any other cereal has been used with malt in
making beer. This is, beyond any doubt, the case in the
State of New York, as everybody knows that in said State a
comparatively large quantity of corn is used as a substitute for
malt. In reference to the same matter, we annex a copy of a
report of the First Scientific Station for the Art of Brewing
in the United States, in regard to analyses of beers which were
known positively to have been brewed from malt and corn.
IV.
Why do brewers use barley-malt, and why are corn, corn-
products, etc., used as part substitutes for barley-malt 3
It is traditional with the brewing trade and the public that
barley-malt is to be used for the brewing of beer. There is
no reason why barley-malt should be used exclusively, and, in
fact, there is sufficient historical proof that, at certain times,
such cereals as oats and wheat have been substituted for barley-
32
malt. This was not done voluntarily by the brewers, but some-
times ordered by the State authorities. (See G. Thomann's
“Alleged Adulterations of Malt Liquors; the Whole Truth
about Them,” page 10, et seq.). *
It is admitted that barley is mostly preferred as a brewing
material. This is done because barley has a very favorable
chemical composition and anatomical structure. It contains
neither too much husk nor gluten, as many other cereals;
neither does it contain too little nourishment for the yeast, the
husk, especially, being valuable as a filtering material, when
the clear liquor is to be drawn off from the mash. Corn and
corn-products, which are used in the manufacture of beer in the
United States, were necessarily introduced for the purpose,
because the public demanded at one time (and continue to do
So now) a beer of an extremely pale color, which could not
have been produced from malt alone. &
The keeping qualities of beer are very essential; but every
beer is liable to be spoiled by an after-fermentation, no matter
how carefully the beer has been brewed. Practical experience,
supported by theory, has taught that the use of corn and corn-
products, rice, etc., as a part substitute for malt, has increased
the keeping qualities of beer, and thereby improved the quality
of the product in general.
V.
Statistics.
The statistics of the year 1888 show that in that year
24,718,326 barrels of domestic beer were sold in the United
States. The barley crop in the same year amounted to
60,000,000 bushels (of which hardly one-half was fit and avail-
able for malting and brewing purposes), and an importation of
9,535,533 bushels of barley and 160,865 bushels of malt were
necessary to supply the brewers. It is estimated that during
the same period from twenty to twenty-five million bushels of
corn had to be used for brewing purposes, in addition to the
brewing of barley-malt, which were raised in the United States
and imported. This shows that the United States could not,
by far, supply the brewing trade with a sufficient quantity of
33
barley, if barley-malt alone should be used for brewing pur-
poses, as is proposed by the Turner and Wolcott bills. The aver-
age quantity of malt required for the production of one barrel
of beer is 2+ bushels. This would have amounted to about fifty-
seven million bushels of barley-malt in the year 1888. A
natural consequence would be that the brewers would have
to import from foreign countries from twenty to twenty-five
million bushels of barley annually, which would be a great
hardship to both the brewers and the consumers of beer.
Furthermore, the corn planters would also suffer greatly by
such a measure. Reports show that the farmers have an
excess of corn on hand, and if their market facilities should be
further curtailed by the restrictions intended to be placed on
the brewing trade, they would suffer considerably more than
they do now.
VI.
Proceedings of other Governments.
At the head of all beer-drinking nations we find the English
and German. In those countries the selection of materials
for beer-brewing is left to the discretion of the brewers, and
restrictions are placed only on the use of those materials which
are evidently deleterious. One of the strictest Governments
is that of Germany. There the National Board of Health has
recently prepared a bill treating the beer-question. It proposes
that the brewers should have full liberty to select any good
cereal as a substitute for malt, as the Board sees the necessity
for the brewers’ regulating the quality of beer by the use
of substitutes; and further, that the Board, as a medical
authority, would not and could not have any objection to the
use of substitutes, such as corn, corn-products, wheat, rice, etc.
34
Analysis of Barley.
Water. * §: starch. Fat. Cellulose. Ashes. | *º º
Canada, 1886. ... 10.55 8.20 | 71.71 2.32 4.53 2.69 21.14
Canada, 1886. . . 12.65 9.42 68.50 | 1.92 5.33 2.18 33.24
Canada, 1887. . . 11.40 || 7.87 70.00 1.90 6.31 2.52 || 36.70
Wisconsin, 1887 13.10 11.03 66.31 | 1.98 5.23 2.35 | 40.05
Wisconsin, 1889. 12.31 9.45 67.96 || 2.55 5.03 2.70 || 33.64
Minnesota, 1887 | 11.60 9.80 69.87 2.02 4.83 2.38 40.00
Minnesota, 1889 12.66 9 80 68.14 || 2.23 4.62 2.55 33.86
Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 10.30 69.62. | 1.85 4.83 2.40 || 32.41
Iowa, 1886. . . . . 11.73 8.93 69.69 || 2.07 5.26 2.32 43.00
California. . . . . . 11.86 8.51 70.89 | 1.95 4.30 2.49 35.91
California. . . . . . 12.86 7.80 68.83 | 1.90 6.22 2.39 28.64
California. . . . . . 9.82 8.05 71.20 | 1.95 6.57 2.41 32.36
Analysis of Beers.
ONE HUNDRED PARTs of BEER CONTAIN :
A 1 A 2 B 1 B 2
(Pure Malt). (Malt & Corn). (Malt). (Malt & Corn).
Alcohol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.00. 3.94 3.S0 3.70
Extract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.64 6.61. 6.44 6.60
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.36 89.45 89.76 89.70
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
THE EXTRACT CONSISTS OF :
Sugar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14 1.74 1.90 1.98
Dextrine . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.45 2.90 2.77 2.97
Albuminoids . . . . . . . . 0.61 0.54 0.50 0.42
Mineral substances. . . 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.19
Lactic acid. . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.21
, Extract of hops. . . . . . . 1.00 1.01 0.86 0.83
, ---------
|||
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
§"
3 9015 07322 1189
ſ
|
i
| l
i