(Some) Beers at the Oktoberfest in the 1960s

This is going to be my last Oktoberfest post for a while, I swear! But I got some good stuff: I stumbled upon Schmankerl Time Machine, a project of Digital Humanities Virtual Laboratory at Munich University from a few years ago to digitise historic restaurant menus from Munich, from 1855 until the 1980s, and make them available online. This of course also contains menus of some of the Oktoberfest tents, which also mentioned beer types, and I quickly wanted to list.

Bräu-Rosl lists all the Pschorr beers on their 1965 menu (Edel-Hell, Export-Dunkel, Märzen, Bock, Stern-Weiße, Animator, St. Hubertus, Pschorr-Malz-Bier), but I don’t think all of those were actually sold there. The menu does have two beer names at the very top, though, Bräurosl-Wiesn-Märzen and Pschorr-Edel-Hell, so I assume that’s what was actually served. Hacker-Pschorr (in 1965, Hacker and Pschorr hadn’t merged yet) nowadays still serve an Edel-Hell from wooden cask at some of their beer halls.

The menu the same year at Fischer Vroni contains lots of advertising , including one for Augustiner Brauerei, listing some of the beers: Export-Bier dunkel, Edelstoff hell, heller Augustiner-Bock, St. Augustin-Maximator, and Oktoberfest-Märzenbier. Augustiner was served at the Augustiner Festhalle and Fischer Vroni, but it’s not clear which exact beers. So this did not give us much insight beyond the general Augustiner portfolio at the time.

Hippodrom in turn had two beers on their menu: Spatenbräu helles Wiesenbier, and Spatenbräu Champagner Weißbier. The latter would nowadays be called Kristallweizen, but this was 1965, before PGI and PDO, around the time when French winemakers only started complaining about the misuse of what they thought exclusively described sparkling wine from the Champagne region.

Hofbräuhaus only started participating at Oktoberfest in 1955. Ten years later, they served two beers: helles Festbier and Wies’n Märzen.

Löwenbräu served two beers in 1961: Wies’n Märzen and Export hell. They also have a bold warning text on their menu that if your Maß was under-poured, you’re kindly asked to have it properly filled up to the line. I’m not sure that would have been exactly popular with the waitresses.

Ochsen Braterei in 1965 unfortunately only had the logos of two brands on their menu, Paulaner and Thomasbräu, but in reality both of them were brewed by the same brewery. So maybe they had beers of both brands? I can’t say for sure.

Winzerer Fähndl, also known as the Paulaner-Thomasbräu-Festhalle, made this a bit clearer: they at least mention concrete beers next to both brands’ logos, namely Paulaner Märzen and Thomasbräu Hell-Urtyp.

And that’s it. Far from all the breweries or tents at Oktoberfest at the time, but we still see a general trend: a lot of them served more than just one beer, quite often both a Märzen and a Helles Export or Festbier. In the case of Hippodrom, wheat beer was also served. All very different from Oktoberfest nowadays.

The Scandal of Oktoberfest’s First Giant Tent

As I showed in my previous blog post, Oktoberfest didn’t feature massive tents, only moderate stalls. From the 1888 Bayerische Gastwirths-Zeitung we learn that the maximum measurements that year were 4.4m height, 7.3m width and 10m length. Compared to nowadays, very small in size.

This changed in 1898, when Georg Lang managed to establish the very first Riesenhalle at Oktoberfest, to the displeasure of the other traditional Oktoberfest restaurateurs. Interestingly, the 1898 issues of the Bayerische Gastwirths-Zeitung give a lot of insight into how the whole scandal unfolded in detail, and what the fallout of it was.

Like every year, the Oktoberfest stalls were all auctioned off by the city of Munich, on 10th August 1898 at 3pm at Circus Bavaria (page 256).

On 14th August, the auction winners were published in Gastwirths-Zeitung (page 264). 3 stalls went to Löwenbräu, 1 to Zacherlbräu, 2 to Augustiner, 2 to Pschorrbräu, 2 to Spatenbräu, 1 to Dreher, 2 to Hackerbräu, 1 to Salvatorbrauerei, 1 to Eberlbräu, 1 to Thomasbräu, 1 to Kochelbräu, 2 to Bürgerliches Bräuhaus, 1 to Unionsbräu, and 5 to Münchner Kindl Brauerei.

On 28th August, Gastwirths-Zeitung reported (page 282) that 5 restaurateurs had applied for a permit to combine their stalls into a single large tent, to be able to serve the same beer together, Münchner Kindl. This request was denied.

On 4th September, it was reported (page 288) that the 5 petitioners from the week before had submitted a complaint that they’d have financial damages if they had to run the 5 stalls themselves instead of combining them into a single tent. They claimed that administrative counsellor (Verwaltungsrat) Nagler had promised them that the magistrate would grant a permit for combining their stalls, and that it was the reason why they even took part in the auction in the first place. They were nevertheless willing to compromise by combining their 5 stalls into 2 large stalls that are separated by a wide passageway. Counsellor Nagler denied any kind of promise and said that he had only mentioned that it depended on the magistrate’s decision.

At the same time, Nagler found it strange that the other restaurateurs did not want to bid on the stalls that had gone to Münchner Kindl Brauerei, but now that there were rumours that the 5 restaurateurs were just strawmen of the brewery and that the whole operation should be handed off to someone entirely else, they suddenly started complaining. Counsellor Heindl in the meanwhile pointed out that the change to 2 large stalls on the site of the 5 stalls was against the rules of the auction. Nagler also insisted that if he had known that a “stranger”, Georg Lang from Nuremberg, would get involved, he would have entirely been against it from the beginning, especially since the rules of the auction stated that only someone with a local licence to trade could successfully bid on a stall, and Lang did not have such a licence.

Counsellor Hübler interjected and asked why Dreher then had gotten a stall. Nagler replied that Dreher at least owned a beer hall in Munich, and that it was not the brewery, but rather the tenant restaurateur at Dreher’s beer hall who would operate the Dreher stall at Oktoberfest.

In the end, it was decided that the 5 restaurateurs got the permit for 2 large stalls, with only one vote against it by counsellor Heindl.

In the same issue (page 290), it was announced that Georg Lang, restaurateur of “zum Krokodil” in Nuremberg would “visit” the Oktoberfest together with his house band, and that he would take over managing the stalls that were provided by “a local brewery”.

On 25th September (pages 314, 316) it was announced both as an ad and in a dedicated article that Georg Lang would officially operate a Riesenhalle, a giant hall with enough space for 6,000 guests, served by a total of 120 personnel, and entertained by his 30 musician house band. A total of 50,000 song books were printed and handed out for free to the guests. The ad even reveals that the giant tent span over the spaces of the stalls 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, exactly the 5 that had been won by strawmen of Münchner Kindl Brauerei.

Half-page ad for Georg Lang's "first Bavarian giant hall" at Oktoberfest 1898, advertising the tent size, free concerts, the free song books, and food and drink: Nuremberg sausages, grilled chicken, traditional cuisine, accompanied by "specially brewed Märzenbier" from Münchner Kindl brewery. The ad also contains the names of two strawmen, Andreas Hub (stall 24) and Franz Kleber (stall 25).
Half-page ad for Georg Lang’s “first Bavarian giant hall” at Oktoberfest 1898, advertising the tent size, free concerts, the free song books, and food and drink: Nuremberg sausages, grilled chicken, traditional cuisine, accompanied by “specially brewed Märzenbier” from Münchner Kindl brewery. The ad also contains the names of two strawmen, Andreas Hub (stall 24) and Franz Kleber (stall 25).

A few weeks after the Oktoberfest, on 23rd October, the Wiesn restaurateurs formed a commission consisting of 3 of their peers, namely Ludwig Blößl (no. 10, Augustiner), Josef Fendt (no. 17, Unionsbräu) and Alois Wohlmuth (no. 19, Pschorrbräu), accompanied by a lawyer, to pursue the case they thought they had against the city (page 346). The plan was to initially try to find a way to settle with the city magistrate of Munich, but if that didn’t bring an acceptable result, they planned to sue for damages of an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Mark (for comparison: the city’s total earnings from auctioning off all stalls were 37,500 Mark in 1898).

This was not very successful: the restaurateurs indeed went to court and sued for damages of 15,690 Mark, which was rejected on 24th April 1899. The Wiesn restaurateurs appealed, but also in appellate court in December that year, their appeal was rejected and they had to bear all court costs.

In the end, the big tents were here to stay, and they changed the Oktoberfest to what it is nowadays. But at the time, the whole thing was a big scandal for the Munich restaurateurs, while the Münchner seemed to have liked it.

By 1900, Lang was fully accepted in Munich: that year, the Oktoberfest restaurateurs founded their own association of Wiesn restaurateurs, and unanimously elected Georg Lang to be their first chairman. Counsellor Nagler was made honorary president, while the illustrious Steyrer Hans became secretary.

Georg Lang died on 4th October 1904, just 38 years old, from bowel cancer.

Steyrer Hans, ca. 1895
Steyrer Hans, ca. 1895 (source; licensed under CC-BY-ND 4.0)
Postcard showing Georg Lang's tent, ca. 1900
A postcard depicting Georg Lang’s Oktoberfest tent, ca. 1900 (source; licensed under CC0)
Cover of the song book handed out for free in his tent in 1898
Cover of the song book handed out for free in his tent in 1898 (source; licensed under CC0)

Beers at Oktoberfest 1895 and 1896

I’ve previously written about beer at Oktoberfest, like which breweries’ beers were served in 1843, or about various breweries and beers between 1882 and 1936 that we know of from Oktoberfest programmes and newspapers.

The whole question interests me for a particular reason: it shows that the current restrictions on beer at Oktoberfest, namely that it can only be from one of the “traditional” breweries from Munich whose beer conforms to the Oktoberfestbier PGI regulations, which requires them to have a well going several hundred metres deep down, are not rooted in the festival’s own history. It is essentially a form of regulatory capture to make it exclusive to Munich’s big 6 beer brands that has been successfully defended in court before. German online magazine Legal Tribune Online has criticised the restrictions of market access as a “cartel” in the past, and how the city of Munich may possibly be violating antitrust laws with the current practice.

The reality is that beer used to be much more diverse in the 19th and early 20th century than it is nowadays. But if you want to experience a traditional Volksfest with 20+ different beers available, you need to go to e.g. Forchheim for Annafest, because Oktoberfest is not that place anymore.

The two years 1895 and 1896 are in my opinion particularly interesting because there were quite a few really unusual und (at least from our modern perspective) unexpected breweries present in Munich:

There was of course the Dreher brewery from Kleinschwechat, the original inventors of Vienna Lager, who were first able to serve their beer at the Wiesn’n in 1895. The same year was also the very first time a dedicated Weißbier stall was allowed, the rights for which were won in an auction by restaurateur Fritz Reiss, who then served wheat beer by G. Schneider & Sohn. And then there were specialities like Thomasbräu serving their Pilsner in addition to the regular Märzenbier.

An ad for the "Waizenbierbude" (wheat beer stall) in 1895.
An ad for the “Waizenbierbude” (wheat beer stall) in 1895. (Source)

As I’m still working on my upcoming book, I got a bit sidetracked today while researching a few details to tie up some loose ends, and came across a lot more detailed list about all the beer stalls at the Oktoberfest 1895 and 1896, and it shows how great the variety in beer and breweries was back then. So here’s the list of all breweries that were served at the beer stalls 1 to 26:

  1. Franziskaner Leistbräu
  2. Zacherlbräu
  3. Gambrinusbrauerei
  4. Löwenbräu
  5. Pschorrbräu
  6. Löwenbräu
  7. Münchner Kindl
  8. Spaten
  9. Dreher, Kleinschwechat near Vienna
  10. Bergbräu (Henninger), Munich-Giesing
  11. Münchner Kindl
  12. Salvator-Brauerei
  13. Kochelbräu
  14. Thomasbräu
  15. Hacker
  16. Bürgerbräu
  17. Augustiner
  18. Thomasbräu
  19. Pschorrbräu
  20. Pschorrbräu
  21. Pschorrbräu
  22. Pschorrbräu
  23. Pschorrbräu
  24. Pschorrbräu
  25. Pschorrbräu
  26. Pschorrbräu

In addition to that, there was also the wheat beer stall that was unnumbered and actually a bit away from the other beer stalls, that served G. Schneider & Sohn.

And yes, that’s a lot of Pschorrbräu stalls! The source with all beers as well as a list of all the restaurateurs and how much they paid at the auction can be found in the Bayerische Gastwirths-Zeitung issue dated 25 August 1895. At the time, the beer of some stalls was not known yet (such as stall no. 3 and 9), and for no. 25 the beer changed later. We know this from ads for these particular stalls that were published in the official Oktoberfest programme.

We even have a plan that shows the layout how all the stalls were laid out on Theresienwiese:

Map with the locations of all the stalls at Oktoberfest 1895, including all beer stalls, cheese stands, sausage stands, toilets and urinals.
Map with the locations of all the stalls at Oktoberfest 1895, including all beer stalls, cheese stands, sausage stands, toilets and urinals. (Source)

These stalls at the time were nothing like the modern massive beer tents. You can get a good idea what these beer stalls were like from this 1897 postcard of the Dreher beer stall:

1897 postcard showing the Dreher beer stall at Oktoberfest. It shows a waitress in black and yellow uniform carrying beers, a dray with beer casks, the beer stall itself with a beer geraden behind it, Oktoberfest visitors, and other tents in the background. The beers advertised were Märzenbier and Wiener Kaiserbock
1897 postcard showing the Dreher beer stall at Oktoberfest. It shows a waitress in black and yellow uniform carrying beers, a dray with beer casks, the beer stall itself with a beer geraden behind it, Oktoberfest visitors, and other tents in the background. The beers advertised were Märzenbier and Wiener Kaiserbock (Source)

In 1896, the choice in beers slightly changed compared to the previous year:

3. Kochelbräu
4. Bürgerliches Bräuhaus Budweis (yes, Bohemian beer at Oktoberfest!)
10. Augustiner
11. Hackerbräu
16. Pschorrbräu
17. Spatenbräu
19. Kulmbacher Export
20. Augustiner
21. Hackerbräu
22. Unionsbräu
24. Klosterbräu
25. Hackerbräu
26. Bürgerbräu
27. Pschorrbräu

(Source)

Interestingly, the wheat beer stall is not listed or mentioned anywhere, but still appears on the map of stalls in 1896 opposite the Schützenwirth, next to the shooting range.

1896 ad for Bürgerliches Brauhaus Budweis at stall no. 4 (Source)

At least in the years 1895 and 1896, it was not unusual to have “foreign” beer from outside Munich served at Oktoberfest, like Vienna Lager/Märzen from Dreher, pale lager beer from Budweis, or Franconian lager from Kulmbacher Export brewery.

Lautering a 100% Wheat Malt Mash

I’m currently in the process of writing my next book (which is the main reason why I haven’t posted anything in the last few months), and as part of that, I was brewing a few trial batches. Most recently, I was brewing a historic recipe that involved 100% pale wheat malt.

The problem with such a mash is that wheat has no husks, unlike barley. These husks help loosen up the mash during lautering and sparging, when the liquid portion, the wort, is separated from the solid portion of the mash. In some way, barley malt is “self-filtering”, but alas, wheat malt isn’t.

And yet historic brewing literature mentions some beers that were brewed from 100% wheat malt. The most prominent one that is still around is Piwo Grodziskie, brewed from 100% oak-smoked wheat malt. So how did brewers do it back in the day?

One way was to use a special lauter tun that allowed brewers from lauter “from the top”. The lauter tun basically had a vertical row of taps installed on the side, so depending how much of the liquid had been drained, the topmost tap could be opened, then the one underneath, etc., so that all wort could be drained without the mash compacting to prevent the drainage of the remaining wort.

Another way was to use a lautering aid that loosens up the mash enough to prevent a “stuck sparge”. Nowadays, some brewers use rice hulls (I’ve seen this in a commercial brewery where rice hulls were added to the lauter tun for a wheat beer recipe with 80% wheat malt), and that works quite well. But historically, another popular aid was straw and you find the occasional references to it in historic literature. So that’s what I tried.

I followed the mash protocol as described in the historic recipe. On the side, I took wheat straw (you can buy fairly clean straw in pet stores, just don’t buy hay) and soaked it in hot water. I then drained the water, and soaked it again. I repeated these steps a few times and then rinsed off the straw until the water ran off completely clear.

In my lauter tun (really just a bucket with a false bottom) I added some straw on top of the false bottom. When it came to moving the mash from the mash tun to the lauter tun, I layered mash and more straw repeatedly, and then started lautering. And… it worked without any problems whatsoever. I was able to lauter at my regular run-off speed, it didn’t get stuck once, and I had no efficiency issues. On the contrary, I even ended up 0.2°P higher than expected on my wort’s OG at the very end of the process.

Straw in the lauter tun (a plastic bucket with a tap) on top of the false bottom, before any mash was added.
Straw in the lauter tun, before any mash was added.

While I wouldn’t do this with every mash, it’s certainly worth a try for a historic 100% wheat malt mash. Just make sure to soak and rinse the straw really well, as you don’t want any straw flavour in your beer (unless that’s what you’re specifically going for).

Also, if you want to guess what my next book will be about, leave a comment with what you think the topic will be, and I will give the correct guesses an honourable mention once I reveal/pre-announce the book in the next few weeks or months.

An Analysis of Bamberg Schenkbier from January 1843

Sometimes, the best historic finds are the ones that happen by pure coincidence. While researching a different topic (related to my next book that I’m currently working on), I came across a very basic analysis of various Bamberg Schenkbiere from January 1843. The same article also lists beers from other places (Würzburg, Kitzing, Schweinfurt on the next page), but I’m focusing on Bamberg in this post.

Schenkbier was a type of beer in Bavaria that was brewed during the brewing season which went from Michaelmas (29 September) until St. George’s Day (23 April). During this time, two main beer types were brewed, one was Sommerbier or Lagerbier, which was fermented and then stored underground in a cool environment to be served from next May, and Schenkbier or Winterbier, which was usually weaker (less malt, less hops) and only matured briefly as it was meant to be consumed during the brewing season after last season’s Lagerbier had run out and before the next season’s Lagerbier became available.

The analysis only contains 3 data points for each brewery: alcohol content by weight, real residual extract by weight, and carbon dioxide content by weight. But this is sufficient to infer more:

BreweryABW [%]Real residual extract [%]CO2 [%]
Großkopf3.94.4450.300
Eichhorn3.85.2500.300
Blümlein3.73.7780.320
Weißes Roß3.65.4120.300
Weißes Bräuhaus3.05.5560.360
Fäßchen2.84.5720.300
Heller2.37.0650.300
Mohrenpeter2.14.7790.230
Polobär1.14.5320.262
Average2.925.0430.298

Let’s first talk about carbonation: 0.3% CO2 are equivalent to 3 g/l or 1.5 volumes. This is absolutely within the expected carbonation level of beer at the time, and very much in line with “unbunged” beer (i.e. the beer is only carbonated through CO2 that naturally goes into solution at normal pressure and cool cellar temperature, with no extra pressure, e.g. through a bung in the maturation cask, applied). See also my blog post about German sparklers where I talk a bit more about historic analyses of the carbonation levels of bunged and unbunged beers.

One question that is not directly answered by the data is, what were the original gravities of these beers? How strong were they, besides the alcohol content? Fortunately, we can use an equation known as the “great Balling formula” that puts the original gravity (in °P), the final gravity (expressed in real residual extract as % of the beer’s total weight) and the alcohol content (in % alcohol by weight) into relationship:

OG [°P] = 100 * (2.0665 * ABW [%] + FG [%]) / (1.0665 * ABW [%] + 100)

Using this equation, and assuming the analytical results were precise enough to be usable, we can calculate the respective original gravities for each of the beers. I also converted the alcohol content to alcohol by volume, the more common unit of alcohol content these days:

BreweryABV [%]OG [%]
Großkopf4.9012.00
Eichhorn4.7812.59
Blümlein4.6510.99
Weißes Roß4.5212.37
Weißes Bräuhaus3.7711.39
Fäßchen3.5210.05
Heller2.8911.53
Mohrenpeter2.648.91
Polobär1.386.72

What’s surprising is how different the beers were in terms of original gravity and attenuation. OGs between 11 and 12.6 °P are absolutely solid, and while some of these beers didn’t have nearly as much alcohol as modern lager beers, they’d still be alright to drink, although probably on sweeter side for modern tastes. Especially the beer from Heller stands out, with a respectable 11.5 °P but only 2.9% ABV and a very high residual extract. Doing the calculation, the real attenuation was less than 40%, so this beer must have been a sweet mess. Compare this with modern lager beer, with real attenuation around 65%.

The two breweries that stand out (and not in a good way) are Mohrenpeter and Polobär, both lower in alcohol and OG. Especially Polobär is really bad, with just 1.38% ABV and real attenuation of less than 33%. Not enough alcohol to even get tipsy, while the beer was probably quite sweet, too.

If you want to know where any of these breweries were located, take a look at my map of historic Bamberg breweries. I previously blogged about my effort of reconstructing the locations of Bamberg breweries based on historic sources and maps.

Of all the breweries listed in the analysis, only two are still around: Fäßchen, better known as Fässla these days, and Heller, best known for its Schlenkerla brand and brewery restaurant in the centre of the Bamberg old town.

Sign hewn into stone outside Fässla brewery, saying "inn and brewery zum Fäßchen, owner Seb[astian] Kalb"
Sign hewn into stone outside Fässla brewery, saying “inn and brewery zum Fäßchen, owner Seb[astian] Kalb”

The historic brewery sign of Großkopf still exists, and is very easy to spot if you’re outside Fässla or Spezial, as it was only a few doors down the road.

The former Großkopf brewery building, with the brewery sign (a big head, which is what "Großkopf" literally means), in Bamberg on Obere Königstraße
The former Großkopf brewery building, with the brewery sign (a big head, which is what “Großkopf” literally means), in Bamberg on Obere Königstraße

Polobär, or Polarbär as it was more commonly spelled, was what I like to call the fourth Bamberg smoked beer brewery. When the brewery ended production around WW2, only 3 others were left: Greifenklau (which gave up making their own smoked malt in the 1970s), Spezial and Schlenkerla. The Polarbär entrance is still around, while the building itself is now used by a Spanish restaurant.

Weißes Bräuhaus (also called “zum Weißbierbrauer”) and Blümlein were neighbours of Polarbär. Weißes Roß probably refers to Zum Rößlein, just a few doors down from Großkopf. I’m also not sure about Eichhorn, as none of my records list a brewery of that name in Bamberg. It may be a spelling mistake and refer to either Einhorn im Sand (on Sandgasse, recently revived as Ahörnla, the pronunciation of Einhorn [unicorn] in the local dialect) or Einhorn im Steinweg, located opposite of Großkopf.

Edit: I’m apparently too stupid to properly read. Zum Eichhorn was located on Lange Straße.

Mohrenpeter was historically the eastern-most brewery on Steinweg (modern-day Obere Königstraße), quite a bit away from Spezial, Fässla and Großkopf.

The historic brewery sign of Einhorn im Sand, a white unicorn.
The historic brewery sign of Einhorn im Sand, a white unicorn.

Oktoberfest Beer at Oktoberfest: Does the Difference Even Matter?

Working for a Munich-based startup (though in my case, remotely from Berlin) comes with a few perks. One, travelling to Munich a few times a year for work, two, going to Oktoberfest with my work colleagues because that’s apparently what any respectable Munich company is meant to do.

2025 has been my third Oktoberfest in a row now, each year in a different tent serving a different beer brand, in particular Marstall Zelt (Spaten), Augustiner Festhalle (Augustiner) and Schützen-Festzelt (Löwenbräu). While I don’t have a comprehensive overview over all the beer brands, 3 different beers are still half of them.

A Maß of Spaten Oktoberfestbier at Marstall Festzelt, 2023
A Maß of Spaten Oktoberfestbier at Marstall Festzelt, 2023

Last year, in the weeks before Oktoberfest, I actually attended a guided Oktoberfest beer tasting, where I was able to try out all six beers (Augustiner, Spaten, Löwenbräu, Paulaner, Hacker-Pschorr, Hofbräuhaus) side by side. In previous years, I did similar taste tests together with my wife Louise and my friend Ben. In these tastings, there were always stark differences, and they weren’t always identical. Two years ago for example, I thought Löwenbräu was fairly good, and ranked it third on my list, while last year, it tasted really bad and I ranked it last. So let’s just say, I have opinions.

Every time I went to Oktoberfest, I had certain expectations about the beer quality, not just connected to my personal prejudice (let’s face it, everyone is somewhat prejudiced about major beer brands) and brand perception, but also informed by previous tastings. But every time, these expectations were shattered.

Spaten at Marstall? Excellent. Cool, fresh, not underpoured, and tasting great.

Augustiner at Augustiner Festhalle? Exactly as I expected and knew it.

Most recently, Löwenbräu at Schützen-Festzelt? Whoa. Fresh, dry, crisp, entirely unlike what I had experienced in previous years.

A partially drunk Maß of beer at the Augustiner-Festzelt, 2024
A partially drunk Maß of beer at the Augustiner-Festzelt, 2024

When I came home after Oktoberfest, I actually went back into our beer fridge and tried a can of Löwenbräu Oktoberfestbier. And… it was not the same. It was solid, but nowhere near as good as just a few days before. And it tasted quite different from the Paulaner Oktoberfestbier (also from can) that I had afterwards, and also quite different from the bottled Oktoberfestbier I had had just a few days before.

But thinking back about all the Oktoberfestbier at Oktoberfest over the years, I don’t think I have would been able to distinguish them at all, unlike the ones at the beer tastings. The difference being of course that in all the taste tests, the beers under test were always from bottle or can, while at Oktoberfest, it’s always poured from tap, either as tank beer (for most brands) or from large 200 litre wooden casks (Augustiner only), the taps barely ever close, and the beer is properly cold (which probably doesn’t exactly help with tasting finer details in the beer).

So does the difference in beer at Oktoberfest even matter? To me, it doesn’t seem to, because I honestly don’t think I could taste the difference between Spaten, Löwenbräu and Augustiner. Is the preference of draught Oktoberfest beer at the festival itself just brand loyalty, and has nothing to do with the actual taste? To me, it seems like that at the moment, and it’s not just because people (including me) just get hammered and then nothing else matters. In fact, I never actually got drunk at any of my Oktoberfest visits because I like to pace myself by also drinking Radler and/or alcohol-free beer.

A Maß of Löwenbräu Oktoberfestbier at Schützen-Festzelt, 2025
A Maß of Löwenbräu Oktoberfestbier at Schützen-Festzelt, 2025

And the latter is what actually matters in brand differentiation: at Marstall in 2023, they only had Radler as low-alcohol beery option, at Augustiner last year, they had their then new alcohol-free Helles on draught (which is otherwise only available in bottles, even in Augustiner restaurants and beer halls in Munich, so they must have been really sure about shifting a lot without developing microbiological issues in the draught system) which was excellent, and this year, the Schützen-Festzelt only had Löwenbräu’s alcohol-free beer which was a sugary, worty mess that I couldn’t even finish.

So at least for me, while the Oktoberfestbier brand doesn’t seem to matter, it does matter if you want to drink something other than the regular Festbier and explore some of the other options, like the non-alcoholic beers for pacing purposes.

The crowd at Schützen-Festzelt, 2025
The crowd at Schützen-Festzelt, 2025

J.C. Jacobsen’s letter about pure yeast to Gabriel Sedlmayr

There is another letter from 1884 I came across in the J.C. Jacobsen archive of the Carlsberg Foundation, in which J.C. Jacobsen proudly tells Gabriel Sedlmayr of Spaten about his new pure yeast. I found it fantastic from a historic point of view because it gives insight into the circumstances, the background and what they thought was important about this new method of generating pure yeast. If you can read German, please directly read the original source, otherwise this is what J.C. Jacobsen had to say about this yeast:

J.C. Jacobsen called Gabriel Sedlmayr his “old master teacher” and thus should be the first one to learn about his new experiences in the deterioration of yeast.

Jacobsen brought his first bottom-fermenting yeast from Sedlmayr’s brewery (i.e. Spaten) to Denmark in 1845 and had used it since then without ever having to change it, all while producing excellent lager beer for the domestic market as well as export beer for export to India.

Only in last two years (i.e. since 1882) the brewery started having quality problems and their pitching yeast started getting contaminated by “wild cells”. So of course Jacobsen asked the question why he could keep the same yeast from 1845 until 1882, only for it to deteriorate since then? Nothing has changed in the brewhouse and the cellars, they are cleaner than ever, wort is always chilled rapidly and even the air is cleaned with a spray of ice cold salt water that filters it the point where it’s analytically clean. Even the malt is of fine quality.

The only change was that due to an unexpectedly high demand and insufficient capacity, he had to resort to brewing during more months of the week: until 1874, Carlsberg only brewed in 7 to 8 months “the old Bavarian fashion”, and until 1882, brewing was still limited to at most 9 months, from early October until late June. But from 1882 onwards, this had to be expanded to 12 months as the lagering cellars that were to be built weren’t finished yet.

And exactly these 3 more brewing months were the problem: in the gardens and fields in the wide vicinity of Carlsberg, lots of fruits were ripening during that time, in particular cherries, plums, pears and grapes, which came with a higher amount of fermenting microorganisms, some of them bacteria, others wild yeasts like Saccharomyces Pastorianius (sic!). These led to increased infections on the coolships, in particular since wild yeasts like S. pastorianus kept growing together with the other yeast.

The last few sentences are particularly interesting, as Jacobsen seems to use the “Saccharomyces Pastorianus” name to describe wild yeasts, not bottom-fermenting yeasts which would be the modern use of the name. Later in the letter, he uses “Saccharomyces cerevisiae” to describe the regular yeast at his brewery. This is something I’ve not came across, but seems to indicate how little the specific nature of bottom-fermenting yeast was understood at the time before single yeast cells were isolated and analysed.

Jacobsen then continues by explaining Hansen’s method of isolating single cells in Pasteur flasks (swan-necked flasks), and how Hansen had isolated one pure Saccharomyces cerevisiae as well as two wild yeasts, which, when propagated and used for fermentation, all produced very different-tasting beers.

The pure S. cerevisiae was then used as pitching yeast in the brewery and effected a “nice fermentation” that quickly clarified, with a suitable attenuation from 13.5% to 6-7% Balling and quickly clarification and the maturation casks. Jacobsen then proudly proclaimed that “from now on all the fermentation in my whole brewery will be done with this pure yeast, created from a single cell! Truly a triumph of scientific research!”

He also pointed out that because of these observations, he thought that the yeast in all breweries is somewhat infected with “more or less wild” yeasts, as at the time most breweries were brewing during the summer months, and even regular yeast changing brings no improvement to that.

Jacobsen also notes that “in the old days”, when no brewery in Bavaria would brew during the summer, changing yeast was also a rare occurrence. If breweries wanted to continue brewing during the summer, then at least a few breweries or research stations like Weihenstephan or Dr. Aubry in Munich should occasionally isolate Saccharomyces cerevisiae to create pure yeast.

He also announced to to Sedlmayr that he’d send him a sample of enough yeast for one fermenter as express freight so that he could get acquainted with it. Jacobsen hoped it would arrive in Munich in a good state, though he admitted he had no experience sending yeast on such a long journey, and would be happy to send him more of his surplus yeast in the future.

The yeast also came with information how it was used at Carlsberg: the yeast was pitched at 5°R (6.25°C). The temperature increased to 6.5 to 6.75°R (8.12-8.43°C), and then slowly subsided back to 4 to 5R° (5-6.25°C). A 13.5% Balling wort fermented down to an attenuation of 6-7% Balling within 10 to 11 days. Jacobsen also pointed out that Sedlmayr’s wort contained less maltose than his own, so Sedlmayr had to expect lower attenuation.

And finally, Jacobsen announced his travel plans (which he expected to be his last big journey): first he wanted to visit Johann Götz in “Oswiecim near Krakow” (he probably meant Okocim) and then travel from there to Vienna and Munich, and further on to West Germany and hopefully to Lyon and Marseille. He hoped to meet Sedlmayr in Munich, but if he didn’t meet him there, he’d try to catch him in his summer apartment to meet his “friend and master” once more.

I find this letter particularly fascinating for a few reason. First of all, it shows the great admiration Jacobsen had for Sedlmayr who considered to be his teacher from whom he learned about lager brewing and in particular about bottom-fermenting yeast, and how much he thought he owed Sedlmayr for his own success.

Second, it shows how durable repitching the same lager yeast was: as Jacobsen himself said, he never needed to change his brewery’s yeast, which he had gotten from Sedlmayr himself, in 37 years of brewery operation. He also knew that changing yeast, even though it was done, indeed used to be a relatively rare thing. That way, this new pure yeast was exactly the innovation the brewing industry needed, as more and more breweries were brewing beer all year long, and sooner or later other breweries also would have run into the problem of wild yeast contamination in their own pitching yeast. In retrospect, we now know how incredibly successful Hansen’s method of isolating single cells and growing pure pitching yeast really was, as the method was widely adopted by the brewing industry within just a few years.

Nowadays, only very few breweries repitch their house yeast without having purified it. Among lager breweries, all pitching yeast is grown from pure yeast strains, and having a choice in pure strains has become a commodity not just in the industry, but even for home-brewers.

And finally, we learn about the fermentation properties of the yeast itself, which is pretty close to what you’d expect from a bottom-fermenting yeast during the 19th century: relatively quick fermentation (just 10 days) at temperatures of at most 8°C, with a relatively poor apparent attenuation of 50-55%. At least in other beers of that time period, the attenuation only slowly improved during the lager period where the specific gravity dropped to 4 to 5°P and helped carbonate the beer. In my book about Vienna Lager, I put up the hypothesis that becuase of these properties, the lager yeasts at the time were most likely type 1 (“Saaz-type”) bottom-fermenting yeast strains, as they were better suited to the lower fermentation temperatures in fermentation and lagering cellars that could not be finely controlled yet.

J.C. Jacobsen’s letter to Gabriel Sedlmayr dated 7th May 1884 is a great example of what was new, innovative and exciting to brewers at the time that we now consider to be a given. It also shows how closely connected the European lager brewers were back then: Jacobsen and Sedlmayr communicating by mail, Jacobsen visiting Johann Götz and various people in Vienna, Munich and France, the recognition of Weihenstephan as an important beer research lab in Bavaria, etc. They were more than practitioners, but also innovators who were not afraid to share their findings with each other, all with the purpose of bringing the whole industry forward and lifting the overall quality of beer, but also improving efficiency within the industry.

The Jacobsens about the Dreher breweries

Just recently, I came across the J.C. Jacobsen archive of the Carlsberg Foundation. In there, a number of letters written by or address to J.C. Jacobsen are publicly accessible and transcribed.

Going through the archive, I noticed how well-connected J.C. Jacobsen, the founder of Carlsberg brewery, was in the Central European brewing industry: he considered Gabriel Sedlmayr of Spaten his “master teacher”, he visited the breweries of Munich, Vienna and Plzeň, conferred with Franz Fasbender, the editor of a Vienna-based brewing journal, and even visited Johann Götz in Okocim.

As someone with an interest in the history of Vienna Lager, I was of course curious about what he had to say (if anything) about the Dreher breweries. And I found plenty, with details that I had never read anywhere before.

In these notes from the 1860s, we learn this about the brewery in Kleinschwechat:

The malting floors were tiled with “Kelheimer Platte”, limestone tiles from Kelheim in Bavaria, something that was very common in Bavarian brewing and basically considered to be the industry standard. The mash tuns and vats were all made of wood. Jacobsen noted that the “mash machine” (presumably the stirring apparatus) was the same as in the Carlsberg brewery. All kettles were made from copper, while the coolships were made of tinned copper. The cooling apparatus in use was a 10 tube cooler by [Vinzenz] Prick, presumably one similar to this one:

A technical drawing of a wort chiller built by Vinzenz Prick. It was constructed from 10 tubes as a sort of counter-flow chiller through which ice-cold water was pumped in one direction, and wort was flowing through in the other direction.

With the cooling system, wort could be chilled down to 4°R, at most 7°R (5 resp. 8.75°C).

About the Dreher brewery in Steinbruch/Kőbánya we learn which beers they brewed:

  • Kronenbier, “very bitter, like Pilsener”, with an OG of 12.5° Balling
  • Lagerbier at 13° Balling
  • Märzen at 14° Balling
  • Double Märzen at 15° Balling, which he compared to one of his beers in colour, but “finer in taste”, aged for 4 months, and hopped with a mix of Saaz, Auscha and Styrian hops.

For the paler beers, only the finest hops were used, as the malt flavour was not predominant.

Apparently different malts were produced for the beers: for Kronenbier and Lagerbier, the malt was kilned at 45°C (measured between the kilning floors), while for the other beer types, it was kilned at 85 to 90°C.

The cooling apparatus used in Steinbruch was apparently the same as in Kleinschwechat, built by Prick, and the coolships were made of iron.

In 1868, Carl Jacobsen, J.C. Jacobsen’s son, noticed differences in the construction of fermenters: at Sedlmayr’s Spaten brewery, oak was generally used, while Dreher was in the process of switching to fermenters to larch wood. There were apparently two schools of thought: oak was preferred by some because it did not chip and was thus easier to clean, while those who preferred larch said that it was smoother compared to oak and thus easier to clean. Carl had not formed an opinion on it at that point.

He also reported about breweries that struggled with beer turning sour: the previous summer, Sedlmayr’s Spaten brewey had to dump 20,000 Eimer of sour beer, and Dreher in Vienna had also lost enormous amounts of beer that way.

He also made an interesting observation about the Munich beer: he described it as slightly darker than Vienna Märzen (the export beer that was also available in Copenhagen at the time, to provide his father with a reference), and that it must have been darker previously, but always brewed without any roasted malt. Since we know the colour of Vienna Märzen from six years later, we can deduce that Munich beer (or at least some of them) were probably more on the amber side (rather than straight up brown) in terms of colour at the time.

In yet another letter from January 1868, Carl also mentions a glass fermenter at Kleinschwechat, which was in use at the brewery for a few years by then. The bottom was slightly cracked, but overall it was still usable. The yeast settled more firmly than in wooden fermenters. The brewery was happy with the fermenter and working on building two more.

He also had an opportunity to compare malt samples: the malt from the Hütteldorf brewery was very similar to the one from Kleinschwechat, while their beer was somewhere between a Munich and a Vienna lager. In a previous visit, he found their malt to be more strongly malted, but that may have been coincidental. The malt from Liesing brewery on the other hand was poorer in quality, with more hard kernels, which Carl blamed on the construction used mill used at Liesing.

Carl Jacobsen also visited the Dreher brewery in Micholup (Michelob) near Saaz in 1868, and wrote a letter to his father about it. Carl thought the Micholup brewery was a “beautiful and good” brewery, but that the absolute highlight were the fermentation cellars, completely underground, 7 metres high and enclosed in enormous ice containers. The fermentation cellar contained 84 fermenters of 40 Eimer each, so not a large volume compared to the other Dreher breweries. They were all raised so that work could be done underneath them, but at the same time also reachable from the top via a wooden floor.

The fermenters were filled with wort at a temperature of 4°C which rose to 6°C, sometimes 7°C during fermentation. Due to the good cooling capabilities of the cellar, ice floats were never needed, and in fact, none existed within the brewery.

J.C. and Carl sent each other letters about many other lager-brewing-related topics, but even just what I was able to find about Dreher breweries was very enlightening and contained details I had not come across in my research for my book about Vienna Lager (which I highly recommend if you’re further interested in the topic).

1980s Altbier and Kölsch

I like going to the library, in particular the GGB library at the VLB in Berlin. Less than 15 minutes on the bus, a few minutes of walking, and I’m there. Earlier this week, I spent two days researching for my new book. When you go through a lot of historic material, there’s inevitably some bycatch, random articles in journals or paragraphs or sections of books that you didn’t intend to look up, but stumbled upon, that turn out to be super interesting.

One of these articles is one about top-fermented beers in West Germany in 1980, written by Dr. Karl-Ullrich Heyse and published in Brauwelt (issue 45, 6 Nov 1980), a Germany-based journal for the brewing industry. At the time, 14.3% of the total beer production in the Federal Republic was top-fermented beer, partially driven by Bavarian wheat beer which had a 12.1% share in the Bavarian production output, while other top-fermented styles, in particular Altbier, Kölsch and Malzbier (a barely-fermented malt-based beverage that is very sweet) were quite dominant in North Rhine-Westphalia.

The descriptions of Altbier and Kölschbier (sic!) are particularly interesting because they are essentially a style guideline (before there were any comprehensive style guidelines) and a short guide how to brew both styles.

Altbier was described with an original gravity of 11.2-12%, a colour between 25 and 38 EBC, a pH of 4.15 and 4.4 and a bitterness of 28 to 40 “EBC units” (which I assume are equivalent to IBU). The grist was described as “arbitrary”, while a common suggestion of grist composition was also provided: 70% Vienna malt, 20% Munich malt, and 10% wheat malt for rounding off the flavour. An optional 1% or less of roasted malt (from barley or wheat) could also be used for colour correction. The common mashing methods were ranging from infusion mashing to double decoction mashing. Hops were given in 3 to 5 additions, usually high-quality aroma hops.

Fermentation and maturation are described in greater detail: top-fermenting yeast is pitched at a rate of 0.5 l/hl wort and a temperature of 12°C. The maximum fermentation temperature should be 16°C. When fermented in tanks, fermentation is done under pressure of 0.5 to 0.8 bar. Under these conditions, the yeast can be pitched at 18-20°C and that temperature can be held until fermentation is finished. After chilling the green beer to 14-16°C, some of the yeast is taken off. Reduction of diacetyl should take 2 to 4 days. Only then the beer is cooled down to 0°C. Under more conventional conditions, maturation can also happen at cellar temperatures of 4-5°C. The maturation phase takes about 1 to 2 weeks. If Kräusen (freshly fermenting beer) with bottom-fermenting yeast are available, they can be used for improving secondary fermentation (this is actually permitted under specific circumstances in German beer law).

The characteristics of Kölsch (which the article calls Kölschbier) are a bit different: an OG of 11.2 to 11.8%, a colour of 7.5 to 14 EBC, a pH of 4.15 to 4.4, and a bitterness of 16 to 34 EBC units. The article states that most breweries use 100% Vienna malt (an unusual choice from today’s perspective), while some use up to 20% wheat malt to improve the body and round off the flavour of the beer. As typical mashing methods, infusion mashing and single decoction mashing are named.

Fermentation could be either done in a tank like with the Altbier, or in open fermentation at temperatures of 14 to 18°C, which should take 3 to 4 days, followed by chilling it down to 8 to 10°C and then moving it to maturation tanks. Cold maturation times and temperatures vary, where some breweries mature for 40 to 60 days at 4 to 5°C, while others with cellar temperatures of 0-1°C reduce that time to 14 to 40 days.

Oktoberfest-Märzen in the 1950s

Earlier this week, I did a bit of research in the VLB/GGB library, and by chance came across analyses of Oktoberfest-Märzen in the 1950s, in particular the beers served at Oktoberfest in 1953, 1954 and 1956.

I. Bartek of Wissenschaftliche Station in Munich conducted these analyses and published them in Brauwelt. They analysed 8 different Märzen beers from the Oktoberfest for colour, specific gravity, alcohol content and unfermented sugars, and derived residual extract, attenuation and potential terminal gravity from it. None of the actual breweries are revealed, they are only numbers 1 to 8. When you look at the raw data, the numbers 1-8 of 1953 and 1954 match up (i.e. it’s the same brewery), but it’s not clear whether the same order was kept up for 1956. Interestingly, the 1954 article says that the beers were from 8 Munich breweries. I was wondering which breweries these were, and could only come up with 7 (Augustiner, Paulaner-Thomasbräu, Hacker, Hofbräuhaus, Pschorr, Löwenbräu, Spaten-Franziskaner-Leistbräu). A report about 1954 Oktoberfest only talks about 7 large tents of the big breweries without naming any specific ones. Did one of them serve more than one beers? Augustiner maybe? Their Wiesn-Edelstoff, the archetypal pale Festbier as we know it nowadays, was only released in 1953, but it’s not clear whether Augustiner continued selling the old-school Märzen beside it. I don’t know.

When looking at the data, a few things stand out: in 1953, two of the beers had an OG of only 13.3 resp 13.5%. While technically a Märzen, it would nowadays not be allowed as Oktoberfestbier, as those need to have an OG between 13.6 and 14.0%. The attenuation was lower than what we’re used to, and this also shows in the alcohol content, which is between 4.6% ABV (converted from ABW) and 5.6%.

In particular beer #1 combines a fairly high OG (13.8%) with a relatively poor apparent attenuation of 63.9% and lots of unfermented but fermentable sugars. That beer was probably very sweet.

Similarly, 1954’s beer #5 has an even higher amount of unfermented sugars with an OG of 13.5% and 5% ABV. Probably also rather sweet. There is also another outlier in the same year, beer #6, with over 75% apparent attenuation. With 5.5% ABV, it was probably still quite malty, but otherwise quite highly attenuated and thus not nearly as sweet-tasting as any of the others.

The same beer was also by far the darkest, with a colour (according to the Brand scale) of 3.0 to 3.5. As a very rough approximation, this would be similar to about 50 to 58 EBC, while most other beers are recorded as 1.2-1.4 °Brand (=20-23 EBC), 1.4-1.6 °Brand (23-27 EBC), 1.6-2.0 °Brand (23-33 EBC) or 2.0-2.5 °Brand (33-42 EBC). Compare this with the BJCP guideline for Märzen, which sets the colour at 8-17 SRM (15.8-33.5 EBC), or the Brewers Association’s style guidelines at 8 to 30 EBC.

Please note that these colours are only rough approximations, as the Brand scale and similar systems were problematic and unreliable. This article explains it all in detail (shoutout to Thomas Ascher for the pointer!).

By 1956, the beers seem to have changed a bit: the OG is now generally at 13.6% or over (all but one are actually in the 13.8-14.0% range), while attenuation is higher: just one beer with 69% apparent attenuation, the rest all 70+%, one even at 78.8%. This also shows in the alcohol content: one beer (the poorly attenuated one) has 5.0% ABV, while the others are all between 5.4 and 5.8% ABV.

For 1956, we also got measurements of pH and carbonation. All but two beers actually had a pH over 4.5, which means microbiologically less stability than the recommended pH of less than 4.5. This is not ideal, but for a beer festival with a large throughput, it was probably not that big of an issue.

The carbonation of the Oktoberfest-Märzen beers is also interesting, between 3.5 g/l and 4 g/l. Compared to modern lager beers, this is pretty low, and closer to the expected carbonation of cask ale or rustic “ungespundet” (unbunged) lager beers in Franconia.

Finally, one observation: as late as 1954, you could drink Oktoberfest-Märzen in Munich which, at least when looking at original gravity and final gravity, and thus alcohol content, was very similar to the Märzen that was served in Vienna in 1876. Only the colour was darker. In that sense, these old-school Oktoberfest beers seem like the remnants of 19th century lager brewing, a proper look into the past. And by 1956, they seem to have been slightly cleaned up to reduce some of the sweetness and further increase the alcohol content.

If you’re interested in all the details, here’s the raw data for 1953 (Brauwelt No. 84, 19 Oct 1954, p.1266):

12345678
Colour (Brand)1.6-2.01.6-2.01.6-2.01.2-1.41.4-1.61.6-2.02.0-2.51.6-2.0
SG1.019681.016601.014531.015171.013621.013471.017471.01541
Apparnet extract [%]5.04.23.73.83.53.44.53.9
Real extract [%]6.76.15.65.85.55.36.25.8
Alcohol by weight [%]3.74.14.14.14.54.13.84.1
OG [%]13.813.913.613.514.013.313.613.6
Apparent attenuation [%]63.969.672.471.475.274.167.371.1
Real attenuation [%]51.356.058.357.560.759.654.257.3
Final apparent attenuation [%]70.773.575.075.082.675.980.874.2
Still fermentable extract [%]6.83.92.63.67.41.813.53.1

Raw data for 1954 (Brauwelt, 19 Oct 1954, p.1266):

12345678
Colour (Brand)1.6-2.01.4-1.61.6-2.01.6-2.01.4-1.63.0-3.52.0-2.51.4-1.6
SG1.016221.017191.016031.016031.016171.0113241.015811.01646
Apparnet extract [%]4.14.44.14.14.23.44.04.2
Real extract [%]6.06.26.06.06.05.45.96.0
Alcohol by weight [%]4.04.14.24.14.04.44.14.1
OG [%]13.614.013.913.813.513.813.813.8
Apparent attenuation [%]69.668.670.770.269.175.570.769.7
Real attenuation [%]56.155.757.356.656.161.157.356.5
Final apparent attenuation [%]73.475.772.573.081.078.478.278.1
Still fermentable extract [%]3.87.11.82.811.92.97.58.4

Raw data for 1956 (Brauwelt, 5 Oct 1956, p.1428):

12345678
Colour (Brand)0.9-1.02.0-2.52.0-2.52.0-2.52.0-2.52.5-3.0ß2.5-3.02.0-2.5
SG1.012781.014901.014761.013901.011501.012871.014301.01661
Apparent extract [%]3.33.83.83.63.93.33.74.2
Real extract [%]5.35.75.85.55.05.35.66.1
Alcohol by weight [%]4.54.34.34.24.64.54.34.0
OG [%]13.813.914.013.613.914.013.813.8
Apparent ttenuation [%]76.572.673.173.878.876.573.569.4
Real attenuation [%]61.758.758.859.863.761.959.356.1
Final apparent attenuation [%]80.675.678.076.979.578.376.977.0
Still fermentable extract [%]4.13.04.93.10.71.83.47.6
pH4.524.564.664.524.634.154.444.57
CO2 [mg/kg]3880410040903650361035404030