American Bock
American bock, you say? Surely, bock is a purely German style . . . right?
Yes, indeed it is, however there was once a style called American bock, which is going to be the focus of this column. But first, we must revisit the history of bock to understand it.
Bock has a long and honorable history, with the original going back at least to the 14th century and perhaps even before that. It was a beer brewed in Einbeck, a town in Lower Saxony just south of Hannover in northern Germany. According to beer author Michael Jackson, Einbeck may well have been “the world’s first great center of commercial brewing.” Intriguingly, Einbeck had a town brewmaster who would supply equipment and help to individual citizens who had bought malt and hops. I do not know if such an arrangement for beer brewing existed elsewhere. However, I do know that as late as the early 20th century there were traveling cidermakers in Wales. These gentleman would bring equipment to a farmer’s premises and press his apples for him and he would presumably oversee the fermentation. But, I digress.
History of German Bock
There are various explanations for the name “bock,” but the most commonly held one is that it is a Bavarian corruption of the shortened form of Einbeck. The beer from that town was exported to Munich at least by the 17th century and became popular there. So popular in fact, that the Hofbräuhaus in Munich in 1617 imported a masterbrewer from Einbeck so that the beer could be brewed in Bavaria. Over time several variations of the style appeared on the scene, such as helles bock, dunkles bock, Maibock, weizenbock, doppelbock, and eisbock, both the latter being stronger versions than regular bock. Others were brewed for religious festivals, such as Easter and Christmas and named accordingly. Oddly, few are simply called bockbier. What I call mainstream bocks, that is traditional bock and dunkles bock, are generally brewed at about 6.5% ABV, lightly hopped, and golden to amber in color, but can be much darker. These beers are predominately malt-flavored, often with some roasted malt character, with barely noticeable hop bitterness and are the antithesis of our modern craft-brewed IPAs.
If we look at the Brewers Association and the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) guidelines there is a slight disparity between the two, since the former gives details for traditional German-style bock, while the latter only does so for dunkles bock. However, the brewing parameters are very similar in both cases and for simplicity I have melded them together:
OG = 1.064–1.074 (15.7–18 °P)
FG = 1.013–1.024 (3.3–6.1 °P)
ABV = 6.3–7.6%
IBU = 20–30
SRM = 14–30
Characteristically, these beers are brewed without adjuncts, as one might expect in Germany. However, the grist contains a proportion of Munich malt and is produced using a decoction mash. The latter is somewhat of a complicated technique as it involves a low temperature start (about 120 °F/ 49 °C), then a removal of part of the mash, which is taken through a higher temperature rest and then to a boil and is added back to the main mash. This step may be repeated once, or even twice, taking the mash through a range of specific target temperatures. It is an approach that apparently came to be used in the days when brewers did not have thermometers and the malt was poorly modified. Nowadays we do have such instruments and the base malts available to us are well-modified and will give good extract yields even with a simple single-temperature infusion mash. So we do not have to bother with the complicated procedure of decoction mashing. Or do we?
Brewers who prefer this approach assert that it results in beers with a more pronounced malt character, which is exactly what is wanted in a bock. At least in part this is due to Maillard reactions during the boiling of the mash, reactions that produce compounds with pronounced malty, caramel, and even savory flavors. In contrast, other brewers go with the view that these sorts of flavors can be obtained without doing a complicated decoction procedure. In this view all that is needed is to select a grist with a proportion of appropriate specialty malts, such as caramel and Munich malts, and allowing sufficient boil time for Maillard reactions to proceed in the boil kettle.
Back to America
Now let me talk about American bock beers, by which I do not mean anything produced by today’s craft brewers. What I shall deal with are the bock beers offered by American brewers during the late 19th and 20th centuries. There were quite a number of these, most noticeably Shiner Bock, which dates back to 1913 and was still going as the 20th century ended. One source states that in 1994 Budweiser introduced a beer called Zeigen Bock into Texas to compete with Shiner Bock and followed this in 1995 with Michelob Amber Bock. Genesee Brewing Company still brews a bock that first appeared in 1951. C. Schmidt of Philadelphia still offered a seasonal bock when I came to the USA in 1978. Other brewers who have offered a bock at some stage include Stroh’s, Yuengling, Leinenkugel, Augsberger, and Cremo Brewing out of Connecticut.
My brewing colleague, Jeff Browning of Brewport (in Bridgeport, Connecticut) has a complete volume of an Italian-language newspaper published in Meriden, Connecticut in 1939. In this are several advertisements for the beers of Hull Brewing Co., including one splendid full-page ad for its Bock Beer, complete with the image of a goat’s head (pictured to the left). This association with a goat is said to come from “bock” being German for “goat.” Whether that is true or not, many brewers over the years have used a goat’s head symbol on their bottle labels and in their advertisements, presumably because they thought it indicated that bock was a beer suited to the strong and virile consumer!
Now, many of these American bocks did not match the German versions and were often little more than the brewer’s regular lager with added coloring. In other words, they would be only around 5% ABV, would have been brewed with adjuncts like corn grits, and the brewers would not have used decoction mashing (more on that later). Most of those comments are based on anecdotal evidence, but I do have a few concrete numbers to back them up. Shiner Bock comes in at only 4.4% ABV, well below the guidelines given earlier.
I have also had access to a Pabst Brewing Co. laboratory analytical notebook from 1899, which gives data for both a Pabst and a Schlitz bock. There is no indication as to whether either beer was produced with any form of colored or roasted malt, but it seems that the Pabst version was an all-malt brew, whereas Schlitz used some proportion of corn meal in the grist. Pabst Bock had an original gravity (OG) of 1.061 (15 °P) and rang in at 5.5% ABV, whilst that from Schlitz had OG of 1.055 (13.6 °P), was 4.7% ABV, and was quoted as being a colored version of another beer. Curiously, both beers came in at the relatively high final gravity (FG) of 1.019 (4.8 °P), which suggests they tasted quite full-bodied. These beers were a little higher in strength than the same brewers’ regular beers, which ran at 4–5% ABV, but neither beer matched up to the requirements for their German relations.
Some other evidence comes from the 1908 edition of Wahl-Henius (American Handy Book of Brewing and Malting). This useful piece of history lists analyses of a wide range of beers from both the USA and abroad. However, there is only one entry (from 1905) for American bock beers covering average results for ten Milwaukee bock beers. These show an OG of 1.050 (13 °P), FG of 1.019 (4.7 °P), and 4.3% ABV. So, like those from Pabst and Schlitz, the only match to the parameters for German bocks is in FG.
I should add something about malt adjuncts here. While anathema in Germany, this was a topic under investigation elsewhere in the 1880s as brewing science developed. This topic was looked at in England after an 1880 law freed brewers from using only malt, but the most important area of such research was carried out in the United States. That was because much American malt was made from 6-rowed barley, rather than the 2-rowed varieties used in Europe. The former had a higher protein content than the latter, and this could lead to protein hazes in the finished beer. The solution to this problem was to “dilute” the 6-row malt with low nitrogen adjuncts such as corn and rice. These adjuncts contained starch but no enzymes to hydrolyze the starch; fortuitously 6-row malt had an abundance of enzymes and was capable of breaking down this adjunct starch, as well as its own starch content. It didn’t hurt either that these adjuncts were cheaper to use than was malt.
John Siebel and Anton Schwarz were the men most responsible for this development. Both were immigrants — Siebel from Germany and Schwarz from Austria — and both of them founded analytical laboratories — Siebel in 1868 and Schwarz in 1880 — and each of them founded a brewing school in 1882. At first Siebel’s school lagged behind that of Schwarz, but it is still in existence as the Siebel Institute of Technology.
It seems that Siebel was interested in all aspects of science, whereas Schwarz had himself been a brewer. Indeed, Schwarz was Editor and Owner of Der Amerikanische Bierbrauer, later to become the American Brewer, and was apparently very influential in brewing circles. Given this two-pronged scientific approach it is not surprising that the use of non-malt adjuncts became common practice in the American brewing industry.
Hartmann Brewing Co.
Along with this development came a new approach to mashing, sometimes called “American infusion” as well as the “American double mash.” The adjuncts, along with a portion of the malt, would be mashed separately and then added to the main mash with the rest of the malt, and the whole mash would then be taken through various defined temperature stages by direct heating, often through addition (“under-letting”) of very hot water.
So, if American bock beers were not made by decoction mashing, were brewed with malt adjuncts, and did not reach the OGs of German bocks, why should we be interested in brewing them? And does it mean we have to have yet another new style?
Well, I’d argue the interest in brewing them is the same as with any historic style. It’s fun! And, no, creating a new style is the last thing we need as far as I am concerned. Indeed, the evidence I have presented so far would suggest that there is no clear understanding of what an American bock should be as we shall see from Hartmann’s efforts later on.
Which brings me to the real reason for my interest. Jeff Browning and I have a series of brewing books covering 1904-1916 from Hartmann Brewing Co., an extinct company that brewed just down the road from us. So it will not surprise you that we have been very interested in reviving
Hartmann beers.
Hartmann brewed two or three versions of a bock, usually aimed at Easter and Christmastime. The beer brewed each year was quite different, although the basis was pale and caramel malts along with flaked corn. The amount of caramel malt changed widely, from 5% of the grist in 1904 through a range of 3% to 21% in the ensuing years to 1916. The adjunct portion stayed fairly constant at 24%, but from 1914 on a part of that was replaced with corn syrup. What was even more confusing was that the OG was 1.060 (14.7 °P) in 1904 and then declined to 1.053 (13.1 °P). That may have had something to do with the fact that this period was leading right up to Prohibition and expenses were being kept in check.
Recreating Historic American Bock
As we attempted to recreate an American bock we decided that our version would be based on Hartmann’s 1904 brews, which, acording to the records had an OG of 1.060 (14.7 °P) and an estimated 31 IBUs. The pages also indicated the grain bill as follows:
Pale malt 72%
Caramel malt 5%
Corn flakes 23%
Procedure: The flakes plus caramel malt and 25% of the pale malt were mashed at about 152 °F (66.7 °C) for 25 minutes in the “converter” vessel. The remainder of the malt was mashed in at this same temperature and the converter contents added. After 40 minutes the mash was underlet with boiling water to give a rest at 162 °F (72 °C) for one hour, before run off and sparging.
The wort was boiled for 21⁄4 hours with two separate hop additions before boiling and a third with 75 minutes remaining in the boil. Salt was added to the boil at a rate to give concentrations of 96 ppm Na+ and 148 ppm Cl–. Note that Bridgeport water is quite soft, with less than 50 ppm total dissolved solids.
The data we have does not include information on the color of the caramel malt, hop varieties, the type of yeast, fermentation temperatures, or FG. Nor does it explain why they made two separate, but identical mashes, with no cooking of the cereal mash. So we had to make some guesses if we were to revive this beer. We opted for a moderately dark 65 °L caramel malt, a lager yeast, and German Huell Melon hops, with the latter being added at the start of the boil (we saw no advantage in first-wort hopping).
Brewport has no cereal cooker and no ability to underlet the mash tun with hot water, so we opted for a straight infusion mash. In addition we opted to use Simpsons Best pale malt as the base because it tends to give a good malty character to the beer. It is also the base malt we carry as our standard and we know well its performance on our equipment. We also decided this meant that this beer would not be a true re-creation of the original, but we did still stick to the same 1.060 OG. We also felt that just 5% caramel malt was not sufficient (Hartmann also seemed to think this, as they went for higher amounts in later brews). In the end we opted to bump up the caramel malt addition to about 11% of the grist. We also added salt on the assumption that our water supply should be close in mineral content to that used by Hartmann.
Below is the actual recipe, which I have scaled down to 5 gallons (19 L) and adjusted for BYO’s standard 65% efficiency, but kept the procedures we used in the brewery. Our Anglo-American-German version of Hartmann’s Bock is clearly not a recreation, a replica, or even a clone. As always with old recipes the biggest drawback in brewing something similar is that we could not taste the original. However, we can say that our version does taste pretty good — it is maltier and more full-bodied than you might expect, with the hop bitterness nicely balancing the malt. It is not as rich as a true German bock but it is still a very satisfying drink.
Now, I know that the temperature control indicated by the recipe might be beyond some the capability of some homebrewers. So you might want to change the procedure a little; for example, if you cannot manage the lagering step at about freezing temperature, then a storage time at 40–45 °F (4–7 °C) should still produce acceptable results.
Extract version
It is difficult to match the all-grain recipe with an extract recipe directly because of the quantity of flaked corn required. This requires mashing with pale malt, which means you would have to do a partial mash with flakes, pale malt grain, and the crystal malt to a total of about 7 lbs. (3.2 kg), quite a lot for an extract brew. John Palmer suggests using a high maltose corn syrup for American lagers, which would work well with an amber extract made with a proportion of caramel malt. Unfortunately, although this is available to craft brewers, I have not been able to find it readily available from homebrewing suppliers. You could substitute rice syrup solids for the flakes, as this is fully fermentable, but it is quite expensive — I have seen it offered at as much as $6–8 a pound (~$13–18 per kg). The best and simplest approach I suggest is to use two products from William’s Brewing, the first made from base malt and 30% flaked corn, the second from base malt plus both light and dark crystal malts. See the extract version of the recipe we came up with below more more details on the ingredients.
In conclusion, I will not say that American bock should formally become a new style. What I do say is that what we brewed was an enjoyable drink and simply put it was a good beer and one we shall brew again!
Old Timer’s Bock
(5 gallons/19 L, all-grain)
OG = 1.060 FG = 1.010
IBU = 35 SRM = 13 ABV = 6.6%
This recipe is our attempt of brewing an American bock similar to that of Hartmann Brewing Co.’s 1904 version.
Ingredients
8.2 lbs. (3.7 kg) Simpsons Best Pale Ale malt
1.5 lbs. (0.68 kg) Simpsons medium crystal malt (65 °L)
3 lbs. (1.4 kg) flaked corn
9.2 AAU Huell Melon hops (60 min.) (1.5 oz./43 g at 6.1% alpha acids)
SafLager S-23 or White Labs WLP820 (Oktoberfest/Märzen Lager) or Wyeast 2206 (Bavarian Lager) yeast
2⁄3 cup corn sugar (if priming)
Step by Step
Mix the grains and flaked corn with 5 gallons (19 L) of water to give a mash temperature of 153 °F (67 °C) and hold for one hour. Run off and sparge to collect 5.5–6 gallons (21–23 L) of wort. Add the hops (and any salts, if needed, to give concentrations of 96 ppm Na+ and 148 ppm Cl–) and boil for 60 minutes.
Cool to 52 °F (11 °C) and pitch two packets of the yeast or an adequately-sized starter if using liquid yeast. Keep at 50–52 °F (10–11 °C) for two weeks, by which time the gravity should be down to 1.010. Then raise the temperature to 60–65 °F (16–18 °C) for two days for a diacetyl rest (not something Hartmann would have done). Then allow to cool gradually to
31 °F (-0.6 °C) for 20 days and put into the serving tank. Keg or bottle in the usual manner.
X Marks the Bock
(5 gallons/19 L, extract only)
OG = 1.060 FG = 1.012
IBU = 35 SRM = 9 ABV = 6.3%
When formulating an extract version of the all-grain recipe Old Timer’s Bock, we had to make some sacrifices due to the large percent of flaked corn in that recipe. As such, this recipe will end up different (the reason for it getting a different name), but still very tasty.
Ingredients
6.6 lbs. (3 kg) Briess CBW® Pale Ale liquid malt extract
2 lbs. (0.9 kg) Briess CBW® Sparkling Amber liquid malt extract
9.2 AAU Huell Melon hops (60 min.) (1.5 oz./43 g at 6.1% alpha acids)
SafLager S-23 or White Labs WLP820 (Oktoberfest/Märzen Lager) or Wyeast 2206 (Bavarian Lager) yeast
2⁄3 cup corn sugar (if priming)
Step by Step
Dissolve the malt extracts in warm water to give a final volume of 5.5 gallons (21 L) and then bring to a boil. Once a boil is reached, add the hops (and any salts, if needed, to give concentrations of 96 ppm Na+ and 148 ppm Cl–) and then boil for 1 hour.
Cool to 52 °F (11 °C) and pitch two packets of the yeast or an adequately-sized starter if using liquid yeast. Keep at 50–52 °F (10–11 °C) for two weeks, by which time the gravity should be down to 1.010. Then raise the temperature to 60–65 °F (16–18 °C) for two days for a diacetyl rest (not something Hartmann would have done). Then allow to cool gradually to 31 °F (-0.6 °C) for 20 days and put into the serving tank. Keg or bottle in the usual manner.
