Too good to pass up. From an ad in Business Week, Dec. 24, 1949, p. 47.

 

In the early twentieth century, Americans struggled to make sense of and manage their new industrial corporate economy. President Theodore Roosevelt and his "progressive" supporters attempted to dismantle, reorganize, and otherwise tame large corporate conglomerates known as the "trusts." These "trusts" (a catchall word used to identify any big industry whether its member functioned as a legal trust or not) included, among others, Standard Oil, the insurance industry, and meatpacking. Progressives accused the nation's largest meatpackers of monopolizing railroad transport, of price fixing, of unfair labor practices, and of poor sanitation management. The results were often comical, as critics charged meatpackers with everything from collusion to communism to excessive capitalism. But anger also translated into boycotts, legal action, and new ideas. The "prejudice against the products of the trust packers," claimed a reporter for an agricultural magazine, was inspiring a new attitude among consumers in the eastern United States. Fed up with the products for the meatpackers in Chicago, Omaha, and Kansas City,

. . . there is a growing preference in [eastern] markets for locally slaughtered meats.

Farmers living in eastern states --- in the hinterlands of the great urban markets --- should profit from that demand, he argued. Thanks to declining land prices, they could grow corn "as cheaply" as farmers out in the "corn belt," and if they could grow corn, they could raise livestock, too. He urged his eastern neighbors to invest in silos, which would allow them to store "cheap" feed and so double the carrying capacity of their land. As a bonus, the animal manure could supplement the "purchased chemicals" farmers already added to their soil. The implication was clear: Local production and consumption provided the keys to defeating the meat trust. __________________ Source: "Pure Food --- Eastern Beef," Ohio Farmer 108, no. 8 (August 19, 1905): 116.

In 1913, the editors of the brewing trade magazine American Brewer contacted the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Inspection Board in hopes that someone there would clarify the meaning of the (still relatively new) pure food and drug laws. Under what conditions, asked the magazine’s staff, could a brewer use the term “Pilsen” or “Bohemian” on his labels?

The inspection board’s chair responded reported that brewers could avoid paying fines (or worse) for violations of the laws by sticking to beer beers “of the true style after which they are named.” Otherwise, the government would consider them to be “misbranded.”

If, for example, a brewer wanted to use a label or trademark containing the words “Pilsen Style” or Wuerzburger Style,” he must “use the same materials and process of manufacture” as used in the country where those beers originated.

He thought it unlikely that any American brewer would be able to comply. As he pointed out, for decades brewers had added  corn and rice to  their beers because “the people of the United States did not desire a heavy type of beer made from malt.”

“It therefore seems to me. . . that we are not producing in this country beers of the Wuerzburger or Culmbacher types” but rather an American beer with a foreign name.

“I think that the sooner the brewers of this country get away from the use of foreign names on their beers and sell their products on their merits, letting the consumer know that they are an American type of beer different in quality from foreign beers, the better it will be for the whole industry.”

The editors at AB disagreed. There was “no guarantee,” they pointed out, that a German brewer making, say, Bohemian or Wuerzburger beer was not also using adjuncts.

Moreover, brewing processes were not set in stone: A brewer could create a Bohemian type beer using any number of processes and materials. Still, the editors agreed that brewers should stop using foreign names because it was clear that the Department of Agriculture intended to enforce the law: A year earlier, the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Georgia had seized a shipment of bottled beer whose labels read “Special Export Extra Pale Beer. Brewed from the very best malt and hops.”

The attorney claimed that the beer contained “little if any malt” and plenty of “other grains.” (The brewer paid a one hundred dollar fine.)

________________

Source: “The Pure Food Law in Relation to the Brewing Industry,” American Brewer 46, no. 5 (May 1913): 230-231.

In the 1870s, many Americans latched onto the latest fad, imported fresh from France: They’d travel by carriage to their local slaughterhouses -- known as "abattoirs," the word being another French import. There the manager would usher the guests into a room set aside for the purpose, and pour them a glass of hot, steaming blood.

Enthusiasts claimed that the beverage cured paralysis, consumption (tuberculosis), and fatigue. Thin people gained weight; fat people lost; and the weak became strong. Blood-drinkers had become so numerous at the Brighton Abattoir just outside Boston that the facility’s management considered building a hotel to accomodate the vistors.

Not everyone was convinced. One doctor said that he and his medical colleagues hesitated to prescribe the "tonic." It was "generally conceded," he explained to a reporter, "that the appetite for blood becomes even stronger than that for liquor, and cases have been known where it has produced mania of the most violent type." (*1)

Miracle cure? Or addictive toxin? You be the judge.  

______________

*1: "The Blood-Cure," Chicago Tribune, November 30, 1877, p. 8A.

In the 1950s and 1960s, August Busch, Jr. --- more commonly known as Gus --- steered Anheuser-Busch into brewing domination, toppling the Uihlein family and Schlitz Brewing from their spot as kings of beer.

Gus Busch gambled on a strategy of spending money to make money, a tactic that paid off but transformed him into a target. "'It’s wonderful to be a winner,'" he mused during an interview, but "'the only one who really loves a winner is the winner himself.'"

Everyone else enjoyed the “delight” of "taking potshots" at him.”

Nor, he added, did the pleasure of being number one provide him or anyone else at Anheuser-Busch “‘with any sense of permanent security.’”

________________________

Source: “Promotional Flair Keeps Busch On Top,” Business Week, April 13, 1963, p. 116.

In the 1990s, as now, beermakers of all sizes scrambled to figure out how to woo an increasingly fragmented consumer audience. Novelty (read: weird) beer styles flowed freely: ice beer, clear beer, flavored beers.

The Frederick Brewing Company of Frederick, Maryland put its own spin on anything-goes: Hempen Ale, which it brewed using seeds of the cannabis plant. The company's brewmaster hastened to assure the concerned that the brewery used sterilized seeds that would not reproduce and so could not be used to grow pot.

The seeds, explained the company's CEO, added protein and produced a beer with "an earthy slightly spicy flavor" and a "frothy meringue-like head." 

Head retention, he added, was "incredible." [High on head?]

The New York Times reporter who visited the brewery agreed. The beer's "creamy froth lasted thirty minutes," she told readers.

As for the beer itself? A "nicely bitter brown ale, clean and crisp with a gentle aroma and hoppy aftertaste." Price? In Manhattan a bottle ranged from 99 cents on the Upper West Side, to $1.75 on the Upper East Side, and $1.59 in chic SoHo. (That's roughly $1.25 to $2.25 in today's dollars.)

__________________

Source: "Cannabis Beer? Not What You Think," New York Times, April 15, 1998, p. F7.

From 1954: Kegmaster, Inc. launched a new device designed to help bar owners prevent waste and earn profits. According to the company, its new Kegmaster dispenser "automatically measures every glassful, down to a fraction of an ounce," and is designed to extract "all the beer in a keg, letting none of it get flat." Bar owners no longer needed to rely "on the skill of the bartender."

Instead, the Kegmaster dispenser "hydraulically draws each portion into a measuring chamber" designed to hold the precise size of a serving. "When the bartender draws a glass, the beer in the chamber flows out" into the glass, and "fills up again automatically." No waste, no fuss, no muss.

Hmmmmm. Question is: Did the Kegmaster "machine" pull an "honest pint"?

_____________________________________

Source: "Beer From the Machine," Business Week, April 3, 1954, p. 102.

Tip o' the mug -- and a wink -- to Jeff Alworth of Beervana and his Honest Pint Project.

In the spirit of the spate of predictions that 2009 will be the "year of beer and food," I can't resist adding some historical perspective. (*1)

________________

In a piece written for a brewing trade journal, Julia Norwood noted the a happy "tendency" that had "gained favor since the return of legal beer," namely the "use of this foamy beverage" as an ingredient in cooking. Bottled beer, she explained, added "savoriness" and a "unique and distinctive flavor" to all kinds of dishes. "This 'new deal' in cooking," she reported, had "gained particular favor among some of the leading hotel chefs" in the United States. (*2)

And if not, the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, intended that it would. Norwood was the director of the Modern Science Institute, an Ohio-based marketing firm. The Institute, and Norwood, had been hired by Owens-Illinois to persuade consumers that bottled beer was best?

Why bottled beer? Because American Can Company had recently announced it had developed a metal container suitable for beer. Canned beer would be easier and less expensive to ship than bottles, so O-I needed to persuade consumers to stick with bottles.

Over the next year, O-I sponsored a series of "beer recipe announcements" for use during radio broadcasts. "The publicity given bottled beer through its frequent mention" during the radio segments, Norwood reported to brewers, "will naturally produce beneficial results for the entire brewing industry." (*3)

Many brewers agreed. It made no difference to them whether people bought beer in bottles or cans, just as long as they bought beer. The owners of Griesedieck Brewing in St. Louis hopped on the cooking-with-beer bandwagon inn the summer of 1935, when it ran a series of ads featuring a recipe for German Beer Soup.

Gluek Brewing, located in Minneapolis, joined the effort with newspaper ads that featured beer-based recipes. "My dear madam!," read one ad. "May I present to you Burgomeister's Apple Fritters, a triumph of the old-time art of cooking with beer!" (*4)

Lager fritters. Yum! For a 2009 version of food-and-beer, head over to the food-and-beer page hosted by the Brewers Association.

_______________

*1: For some predictions see: Jay's, as well as those at The Brew Site, and at Hop Talk.

*2: Julia Norwood, "Now It's Beef Steak Cooked With Beer," Brewery Age 2 (March 1934): 64.

*3: "Beer Recipes Requested By Many Radio Stations," Brewery Age 3 (March 1935): 83.

*4: Edwin O. Welde, "Gluek Presents Old-Time Art of Cooking With Beer," Brewery Age 3 (July 1935): 76.

Advertisement in the Springfield (Mass.) Republican, April 27, 1878, p. 1:

_______________________

Family Supplies BOCK BEER, BOCK BEER Yuengling & Co's famous Bock Beer has arrived at 190 Main Street. All orders for this celebrated Beer promptly filled, and sent in kegs or bottles to any part of the city or state. M. D. SLEEPER & CO., Springfield, Mass.

______________

Note: In this case, Sleeper served as an agency for Yuengling, and probably bottled the beer using a hand-siphon at its shop in Springfield.

"Beer-drinking Americans are being exposed to significant amounts of [nitrosamines,] a cancer-causing agent, and the Government should order brewers to clean up their products, a public interest group said today."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest insisted that Americans were consuming "20 times" more nitrosamines, from "drinking beer than from eating bacon." According to CSPI's Michael Jacobson, "'Americans are clearly consuming a significant amount of nitrosamines in their beer,'" thanks to the "direct fire technique" used to manufacture the malt used in beer. (*1)

Not quite, said the Food and Drug Administration. An FDA study had found "microscopic traces" of the contaminant in a handful of beers, an agency spokesperson told reporters, but "we don't think there is any reason for people to change their beer-consuming habits, or switch to other beers." (*2)

Nitrosamines can be dangerous, the agency explained, but those found in beer "are not added, but occur naturally." More to the point, there was "no" credible data that demonstrated that the amount found in beer was harmful. (*3)

Still, the CSPI's dodgy press release got more attention than the more substantive information reported by the FDA, a fact that was not lost on the nation's beermakers. The CSPI's "attack on brewers' credibility," observed the editor of Modern Brewery Age, a brewing trade journal, had been "fueled" by the dissemination of "partial, misleading information."Moreover, the brewing industry had been aware of the problem, such as it was, for more than a year. (*4)

But serious researchers also knew that tests of nitrosamines content were "so new and so delicate" that any results were hard to replicate. "There is no sense in publicizing data which is likely to be invalidated by subsequent tests." Worse yet, he noted, impartial and substantive information "doesn't get you the kind of media event that you can get from attacks on 'big bad brewers . . . ."

Translation: The CSPI ought to shut its mouth until and unless it had facts to report.

_______________

Sources:

*1: "Group Seeks to Rid Beers of Cancer-Causing Agent," New York Times, September 20, 1979, p. 16.

*2: "Nitrosamines Detected in 28 Beers," New York Times, September 23, 1979, p. 37. [See below for the beers.]

*3: "Bad News Beers," New West 4 (December 3, 1979): SC-40

*4: This and remaining quotes are from "Cancer, Credibility, and Beer," Modern Brewery Age 30 (October 1, 1979), p. 2. In a list that reads like a Memorial to Fallen Warriors, the FDA found traces of nitrosamines in: Domestic beers: Schaefer, Budweiser, Miller, Colt 45, Schlitz, Lowenbrau (Miller Brewing's brand), Colt-45 Silver, Blitz-Weinhard, Carling Black Label, National Bohemian, Old Milwaukee, Pabst, Tuborg, and Ballantine. Imports: Kaiser Export, Paulander Munchen, Stauder Spezial, Diekirch, Dortmunder Union Special, Theakston Old Peculiar, Gosser Golden Rock, Heineken, San Miguel, Molson beer, and Molson Ale.

Beer, a reporter for Ladies' Home Journal told readers in 1966, "has recently burst forth into new bloom."

One of the "most startling" developments in all-things-beer was malt liquor," sold in "joyful pull-open cans." "They look like the palest of ales," gushed the magazine's writer, with a "golden" "sparkle," and possessing "a sophisticated undertone of bitterness." "Their most defiant characteristic is that they are often -- and correctly -- served on the rocks as a cocktail, with or without a lemon twist, or as wine, with your meal, never in a stein or big beer mug, but in your frailest, finest crystal goblets or brandy snifters."

Recommended brands for the magazine's readers? Colt 45, Country Club, and Schlitz Malt Liquor, sold in 7-ounce cans, "a genteel and satisfying portion."

Perfect, presumably, for the genteel readers of Ladies' Home Journal.

______________________

Source: "Wine, Women & So On," Ladies' Home Journal 83 (September 1966): 116.

It's rare that the presence or absence of one person makes a historical difference (I said "rare," not impossible). But I think that the death of Fred C. Miller in 1954 altered the course of American brewing. Miller was aggressive, ambitious, smart -- all on a grand scale. He was the first beermaker to come along in decades who showed the potential to go head-to-head with the Busch family, particularly Gus Busch, who ran A-B from the late 1940s until the mid-1970s.

Miller became company president in 1947, and over the next few years, he shoved, pushed, prodded, and otherwise steered his family's brewing company not-much-of-anything into the ranks of the top ten. But in late 1954, he died (in a plane crash) -- and Miller Brewing lost its way.

As Miller faltered, A-B solidified its position as the dominant player in American brewing. Had Fred Miller not died, I believe the course of American brewing would have turned out differently: Fred Miller would have transformed his family's company into a formidable powerhouse. He would have challenged A-B's dominance. He would have been able to command-and-direct in a way that, for example, Bob Uihlein was not able to do at Schlitz during the same period.

Put another way, in the 1950s, Gus Busch met his match in Fred C. Miller. Things might have turned out differently had Miller lived

. I can't prove that, of course, but hey -- what's all that research good for if I can't express an informed opinion.

Anyway -- consider the shifting brewery rankings and brewery outputs from the mid-1940s on:

1945:

  # 1 brewer: Anheuser-Busch (3.7 million bbl.)

# 16: Miller (729,000 bbl)

 

1946:

1: Pabst (3.3 million bbl)

17: Miller (644,000 bbl)

 

1947:

  1: Schlitz (3.9 million bbl)

20: Miller (806,000 bbl; Fred C. becomes company president)

 

1948:

1: Schlitz (4.2 million bbl)

19: Miller (911,000 bbl)

 

1949:

1: Schlitz (4.6 million)

11: Miller (1.3 million)

 

1950:

  1: Schlitz (5 million)

8: Miller (2.1 million)

 

1951:

1: Schlitz (5.7 million)

6: Miller (2.1 million)

 

1952:

: Anheuser-Busch (6 million)

5: Miller (3 million)

 

1953: 1

: A-B (6.7 million; A-B would hold onto number one rank into next century)

8: Miller (2.1 million; Fred's one mistake: A strike during this year shut down his only plant; his major competitors all had multiple plants and could keep brewing.)

 

1957:

1: A-B (6.1 million)

10: Miller (2.3 million)

 

1958:

  1: A-B (6.9 million)

10: Miller (2.3 million)

 

1961:

1: A-B (8.5 million)

10: Miller (2.7 million)

 

1962:

1: A-B (9 million)

10: Miller (2.8 million)

 

1971:

  1. A-B (24.3 million)

6: Miller (5.2 million; Miller now wholly owned by Philip Morris, which dumped billions into the company

 

. 1972:

1: A-B: (26.5 million)

8: Miller: (5.4 million)

 

1975:

1. A-B (35.2 million)

4: Miller (12.9 million; in February, Miller introduced Miller Lite)

 

1978:

1: A-B (41.6 million; about what Miller made in 2007!)

2. Miller (31.2 million)

 

1980:

1: A-B (50.2 million)

2. Miller (37.3 million)

The rest, as they say, is history. By c. 2000, A-B was nearing 100 million barrels a year; Miller hovered around 40 million. In late 2007, Miller's new parent company, SABMiller, and MolsonCoors, the parent of Coors Brewing, announced they would merge their North American operations in a joint venture called MillerCoors.

November 10, 1944: The Federal Trade Commission ruled that beer and bread are not the same thing.

This breathtaking announcement was aimed at the members of the Minnesota Brewers Association.(*1) They'd been running ads claiming that the "nutritional value" of beer was "comparable" or "equivalent" to that of bread.

The FTC ordered them to cease and desist. Why? Because the two weren't equivalent. Consumers would have to down 3.5 bottles of "ordinary" beer in order to gain the same carbohydrates found in four slices of "enriched white bread" (like Wonder bread). They'd have drink 4.5 bottles to obtain as much protein and B1 -- although they'd only have to drink one and a half bottles to get the same number of calories.

"Accordingly," explained the FTC announcement, a "working man" would have to "ingest relatively large amounts of beer to obtain the [same] nutrients and calories" contained in "a relatively small amount of white bread."

Moreover, the FTC added in case the brewers still didn't get it, beer and bread were fundamentally different: Bread contained fiber and fat; beer did not. Beer contained alcohol; bread did not.

American tax dollars at work, 1944.

_________________________________

Source: "FTC Rules Bread Tops Beer As Food," New York Times, November 11, 1944, p. 16.

*1: The Minnesota Brewers Association included Duluth Brewing and Malting; Fitger Brewing; People's Brewing; Ernest Fleckenstein Brewing; Schutz & Hilgers Jordan Brewing; Kiewel Brewing; Mankato Brewing; Gluek Brewing; Minneapolis Brewing; John Hauenstein Company; August Schell Brewing; Theo. Hamm Brewing; and Jacob Schmidt Brewing.

In 1952, the members of the Small Brewers Association, the trade and lobbying group for the nation's smallest beermakers, decided that the word "small" did not accurately reflect the prestige of the association or its 150-odd members. (At the time, there were some 300 breweries in the U.S.)

Time for a new name. Henceforth, the SBA, which began life in 1942 as the Small Brewers Committee, would be known as the Brewers' Association of America. The BAA survived until 2005, when it merged with the Boulder-based Association of Brewers to become the Brewers Association.

____________________

Source: Modern Brewery Age 48 (September 1952): 79.

In late May, 1985, a reporter for the Boulder Daily Camera interviewed Daniel Bradford, director of the Great American Beer Festival, a two-day event scheduled to begin later that week in Denver.(*1)

Bradford predicted that three or four thousand people would attend the GABF, whose 1985 theme was "Oktoberfest of the West." Festival-goers would sample beers from thirty-four "microbreweries" (up from 20 who submitted beer in 1984).

The GABF coincided that year with the National Homebrew Competition, where judges would taste more than six hundred entries. The first 2,000 people through the door would receive "commemorative mugs," as well as a "60-page almanac" containing essays on beer history and beer styles as well as information about homebrewing.

Tickets were $10 in advance, $12.50 at the door.(*2)

_______________________

Source: "Great American Beer Festival Offers 100 Brews for Tasting," Boulder Daily Camera, May 29, 1985, p. 2e.

*1: In the early 1990s, Bradford became publisher of All About Beer magazine and also served as director of the Brewers Association of America, the trade group for small American brewers. In 2005, the BAA merged with the Association of Brewers, the sponsor of the GABF, to become the Brewers Association. Bradford is still publisher of All About Beer, which also sponsors the World Beer Festival.

*2: $10.00 in 1985 is equal to about $19.00 in 2006 dollars. Tickets for the 2008 GABF? $50.00 ($20.00 for designated drivers.)

In the 1880s and 1890s, British investors enjoyed what can only be described as an excess of cash. No surprise, they hunted for places to invest it: Africa, Asia (especially China), South America. And, of course, the United States, where they poured money into railroads, mines, cattle ranching -- and brewing. Dozens of American brewing companies passed into British hands, including Blatz Brewing (for $3 million in stock, or $60 million in today's dollars). Many brewers applauded this trend, including the editor of the nation's most important brewing trade journal, Western Brewer

:

"Though it may conflict with the American idea of patriotism that the breweries of this country should pass to . . . the control of foreign capitalists," he wrote, the British invasion should be seen as evidence that "the brewing business is in good substantial condition, that beer is becoming the popular beverage of Americans and that intelligent . . . foreigners with money to invest believe that the fanatics" who favored prohibition were "fast losing ground."

Indeed, he added, rising sales indicated that beer was on its way to becoming "the national beverage." Moreover, the fact that Americans preferred beer to "hard liquors" indicated "steady progress" toward "rational temperance." This, the editor concluded, was likely the "leading factor in the calculation of the [British] investors."

______________________

Source: "The Lesson of the Syndicates," Western Brewer 14 (June 1889): 1294.

Temperance and prohibition were hot issues in the 1850s and early 1860s. The "drys" tended to hog the floor because then as now, it was politically difficult to express public affection for the pleasures and benefits of drink.

The editors of the La Crosse, Wisconsin Union were having none of it. As far as they were concerned, the problem with Americans, especially women, was that they didn't drink enough beer.

"Queen Victoria," the newspaper pointed out, "has raised eight or ten babies, and drinks beer. German women drink beer and are as robust as any women in the world."

There is no denying the fact . . . that our total abstinence American women are sadly degenerating, and that the present race of Young America are dwindling, compared with generations past. The most ridiculous thing of our time is to hear little, sallow, 'dried up' men and women making an immense blow about the vices and indulgences of the community, when one good, rollicking fast-liver could clean out a regiment of them in ten minutes.

_______________________

Source: The La Crosse, Wisconsin Union, as quoted in the Milwaukee Sentinel, March 3, 1860, p. 2.

The 1850s was a decade of intense conflict in the United States, as Americans argued over slavery, western expansion, prohibition, and immigration. Lager beer, which was new to Americans, became a touchstone for the debate over immigration and the drive for prohibition. Xenophobes railed against lager and the German emigres who had introduced the stuff. Prohibitionists denounced the ocean of lager that threatened (or so they believed) to engulf the nation. (*1) Here's the view of one anonymous anti-lagerite (and witty punster), writing in 1860: "Lager," he lamented,

is one of our most modern institutions. Ten years ago it was only a vulgar German word of unknown import; then it was looked upon as an insipid Dutch beer; but finally, a majority, perhaps will vote that it is 'the people's nectar.'

Thanks to lager,

thousands of people . . . seem[ed] to have quite forgotten the use of plain water as a beverage." At beer gardens on Saturday night, the "flow of lager is incessant -- the voices which call for lager are never still -- lager is king!

Worse yet, many Americans believed the stuff was good for them, an idea this anonymous critic dismissed as "ridiculous." "Lager bier," he explained,

. . . contains less nutritive natter and more alcohol than other beer or ale." Even assuming "malt extract" contained a modicum of food value, a person would have to "drink two or three gallons in order to get from this villainous food" the same nutrition as grain provided when consumed in a "civilized way.

Moreover, "a pint of lager contains as much alcohol as an ordinary glass of brandy." People who claimed otherwise were probably "indulging in lager" to the detriment of their "sober judgment." "Finally, it is claimed that lager is a pleasant bitter tonic . . . ." Not so, wrote the anti-lager man. In his opinion, 'twas more the case that lager bier was "'too-tonic.'"

_________________________

*1. For more on that debate, see Chapter One of my book. Source: "What Is Lager Bier?," Scientific American n.s. 3, no. 2 (July 7, 1860), p. 21.

Arguably the worst beer poem ever written. It's long, so I deleted a couple of stanzas that contain particularly obscure references to local politics.

From the Milwaukee Sentinel, December 21, 1855, p. 2. ODE TO LAGER BEER

* * * II Awake then, muse!

Descend -- or, what is quite The same -- arise, and help me to indite The blushing virtues of the Panacea

Our patient German cousins -- "Vat a peeples!" Have lately found and christened "LAGER BEER!" For blood of grapes, and sparkling juice of apples -- From Gallic brandies, down to ginger-pops --

All drinks succumb to this extract of hops. III (*1)

Oh! uninspired, for me 'twere vain to tell, What joys unnumbered, ever gurgling, well Up from the darksom, deep, and silent vaults That underlie old Kilbourntown--

Those catacombs, not of the dead but malt's Most fragrant essence salted down!

The disemboweled earth hath fountains there, That use, or waste, or drought cannot impair.

IV Most potent LAGER! Thou canst cure the ills Of all thy votaries.

Not one who swills With swaggering air, from out thy frothy cup, His quart or gallon by the hour well scored, But feels more light his burthens at each sup, Till they, and he, at last are fairly floored.

John Bunyan's "Pilgrim" felt his burthen fall, But LAGER lets down burthen, pilgrim, all.

V (*2)

Is one in debt without wherewith to pay? Go up to Market-Place and spend the day.

Hath sharp misfortune struck thee with his dart? Of all physicians thou employest the Best; With kindly LAGER emulate his art, And drown the thought that rankles in your breast

What if the morn produce again the pain?

The same sweet physic physics it again.

VI

Ancient philosopers for ages sought

For wisdom in a stone: but found it not.

No wonder wherefore, in themselves the fault And misdirected were their efforts vain.

They should have sought it in a sack of malt; For keenest wit is inborn -- in the grain.

"When wine is in the wit is out," they say; With barley-juice 'tis just the other way.

VII (*3)

Come up to K**G's some pleasant Sunday night, Where tables, ranged beneath a brilliant light

Of gas, are garnished with quart cups o'erflowing,

And crowded round with portly corporations;

And hear the Babel crash of tongues agoing, Discussing cabbage and the fate of nations,

Those scintillations keen would please thee much,

Albeit with gutturals muttered in High Dutch.

VIII (*4)

'Tis really wonderful what great wiseacres Beer makes of hodmen, carpenters, and bakers

Each tipsy cobbler is a Roger Sherman;

Weazen-Faced scheniders emulate a Clay;

And now the soul of great Teutonic Hermann Animates the butcher over the way.

The host's a German Prince, and every waiter Swells with the wisdom of the legislator.

IX (*5)

But not in Beer Saloon, at midnight hour, Alone the place to witness LAGER's power.

In wider fields he acts fantastic tricks, And bowls down men as players bowl down wickets,

The very devil plays with politics, And has his voters on the winning tickets.

The late election was a case in point: -- All other issues were quite out of joint.

XII

Some, uninformed, may wonder at the cause,

Why beer elects the men who make our laws.

Perhaps to them the reason seems abstruse,

Though very plain to us residing here:

For we, where every second neighbor brews, Preserve our liberties in LAGER BEER.

With confidence we see our welfare hang On the good faith of trusty Cooper Dang.

 

Far spreading LAGER! To what world wide fame Hast thou devoted our Milwaukee name?

In every hamlet of the growing West --

That West whose boundaries are the western skies! --

In which the traveller may chance to rest, A score of shingles greets his wondering eyes,

Where, traced, or daubed, in hieroglyphics rare,

He spells the sign, "MILWAUKEE LAGER BEER!"

XIV

Not further now thy merits I'll disclose,

The public voice has sanctioned all thy woes, Triumphant LAGER! 'Tis Vox Populi!

And prudent men are heedful of the cry.

Why should the pigmy breast an avalanche, Whose head cannot resist a glass of punch?

Buried be all our opposition here!

As evidence, this ODE TO LAGER BEER.

_________________________________

NOTES:

*1. "Kilbourntown" was the German section of Milwaukee. The "catacombs" are the immense lager caves below the ground.

*2. "Market-place" = Market Street in downtown Milwaukee. It was lined with saloons. "Best" = Philip and Jacob Best, owners of Empire Brewing. Frederick Pabst married Phillip's daughter.

*3. "K**g's" probably refers to Krug's restaurant and small brewery. August Krug died in the same month this poem appeared (which may account for the asterisks). Krug's bookkeeper, Joseph Schlitz, bought married Krug's widow and took over the brewery.

*4. In this stanza, Roger Sherman and Henry Clay were 19th century politicians known for their oratorical skills. "Hermann" is the legendary German warrior.

*5. This stanza refers to (and the entire poem was likely inspired by) the recent political uproar in Wisconsin: Some state legislators, including a representative from Milwaukee, tried to pass a state prohibition law. Much to the delight of Milwaukee's Germans, the governor vetoed the bill.

*6. "Shingles" refers to swinging signs hanging above the doorways of shops and saloons.

The more things change. . .

In 1971, several small and regional brewing companies introduced new beers aimed at "young adults" who were willing to experiment with "all sorts of beverages of an alcoholic nature."

From Pittsburgh Brewing Company came "Hop'n Gator," described as "a distant cousin of Gatorade" but with 25% more alcohol than beer. (No word on how or why Hop'n qualified as a beer ...)

National Brewing introduced Malt Duck. Hamm Brewing launched "Right Time" two colors, red and gold. The red version, with a fruity sweet flavor was for "girls." The "tart" gold version was for "boys."

Hamm executives believed they had a hit on their hands: Early sales figures indicated that "Right Time" appealed to young drinkers, "blacks, Mexican-Americans, and to some people in the 50-to-60 set."

And then there was "Lime Lager" brewed by Lone Star Brewing Company of Texas. Lone Star aimed the new brew at the beer drinker who "doesn't like the taste of beer but likes lime."

As far as these small regional brewers were concerned, drinks like these were the key to survival. "We have to bring out new products or we'll be buried by the giants," explained one brewery representative.

And hey, apparently that Lime Lager was a good idea!

_____________________

Source: "Advertising: Something Sweet Is Brewing," New York Times, March 31, 1971, p. 73.