Brewery Success During Prohibition

The fate of American breweries during National Prohibition (1920-1933) is a topic that, by my canvassing, is largely elided in the general brewing histories. It is similar for distilling.

Mention is usually made of “x” number of breweries at the outset of Prohibition (about 1200), the number that remained by repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment (about half), with perhaps mention of various non-alcohol products made by breweries in the Dry Era. Soda pop, near beer of .5% abv, ice cream, ice, and malt extract are all examples, stratagems to survive local or National Prohibition.

But some near beers were well-known in their day, e.g., Anheuser-Busch’s Bevo. The other day I examined Trommer’s near beer from Brooklyn, New York, which had notable success. Bevo did well in the early to mid-1920s but later faltered due, it seems, to the concurrent successes of organized bootlegging and home brewing. In contrast, Trommer’s all-malt near beer sold so well that Trommer invested a large sum to expand production at the end of the 1920s (see sources cited in my post on near beer and Trommer a few days ago).

To the extent that Prohibition-era brewing is examined illicit production tends to be highlighted: bootlegging, Al Capone (“I don’t know what street Canada is on”), speakeasies, and home brewing. Legal breweries are sometimes canvassed that produced real beer contrary to Prohibition laws.

The restricted attention is understandable: beer history is concerned with beer, after all. The dark days are comparatively unimportant compared to the restoration of legal brewing from April 7, 1933.

Yet, the breweries’ lawful activities between 1920 and 1933 are of absorbing interest. Indeed, a book could be written on the subject. In these notes I will refer to two poles, or facets, of that dimension, one economic, the other an excursion in human interest or, in today’s terms, social history.

First, the economic/business side. Carlos Eduardo Hernández holds a UCLA doctorate and is a Professor of Management Studies in Colombia. In 2016 he wrote a paper on how American breweries adapted during National Prohibition and earlier when beer was banned under local option.

The study can be read here, entitled “Adaptation and Survival in the Brewing Industry during Prohibition”. In part reliant on sophisticated maths and econometrics, it concludes that breweries confronted with local prohibition years before National Prohibition took effect adapted better than those whose first experience was under the latter regime.

He argues the case by considering various metrics including inputs used by the breweries, especially equipment purchases. He concludes in part:

… [The] historical context allows me to follow breweries throughout an initial shock of heterogeneous intensity (local prohibition), followed by a common, larger, shock (federal prohibition). By studying survival throughout both shocks, I show that adaptation – the making of irreversible investments in response to the first shock – increases the ability of firms to survive the second shock, even if selection  – the exit of the least productive firms –  also occurs in response to the first shock. My novel dataset on machinery acquisition and product diversification corroborates the testable implications of the adaptation mechanism.

The key components of my mechanism – irreversible investments and multi-product firms –  are present in many industries of today. For example, firms that span multiple industries account for 81 percent of the manufacturing output and 28 percent of the number firms in the US (Bernard et al., 2010).

While many might consider the typical modern brewery a single-purpose business, one need only think of Samuel Adams’ (Boston Brewing Company’s) forays into cider and hard seltzer to see the justice of Hernández’ analysis. Today as well, the advent of kombucha, sake, N/A beer, and marijuana-flavoured beverages shows that breweries can benefit from non-beer beverages and preserve competitiveness in an evolving market.

Considering too the steady numerical decline of American breweries even before National Prohibition – from about 1800 in 1905 to 1200 in 1920 – the decline may have broadened even had National Prohibition never occurred. Local option probably played a small part in the drop before 1920, as in 1915, as I showed earlier, national beer production was at an all-time high. It subsequently fell under war-related materials conservation and finally, the Eighteenth Amendment.

Business efficiency surely played a leading role in the pre-1920 process, as it did for the long-term cull of breweries commencing from 1933. By 1976 there were under 100 breweries in America. Therefore, had National Prohibition never occurred it is quite possible in my view that not more than 600 breweries would have survived to 1933 anyway.

A further notable example of brewery success during Prohibition is Pennsylvania’s Fort Pitt Brewery, which had a 51-year run starting in 1906.

In this December 1932 article in The Pittsburgh Press, the writer profiled the brewery and its Czech immigrant brewer, Joseph Vokral. Vokral had worked for many years in the legal industry before Prohibition, in Chicago, arriving in Pittsburgh relatively late in his career in 1925.

He was taken on due to his brewing skills and ability to make a saleable near beer, its production is described in the article. It sounds like a traditional pilsener except the alcohol was removed in the last stage, similar to Trommer’s product in New York.

Vokral’s college education was a novel element for the journalist. Most brewers in those days received either on-the-job training or perhaps a stint at one of the (fairly new) brewing schools.

Vokral was clearly a partisan of Czech lager brewing, and preferred (understandably) the hops of his native country. His near beer was probably very good, it would be interesting to try it alongside the current crop.

Of course, real beer came back the following year. Fort Pitt Brewery had many ups and downs after Repeal, by some accounts never fully recovering from the death in 1935 of its principal Samuel Grenet, a charismatic politician-businessman.

While many breweries foundered during Prohibition – of that there is no doubt – the twin pole analyses of economic and social history help illuminate a period often thought of as one long disaster for American breweries. It wasn’t.



2 thoughts on “Brewery Success During Prohibition”

  1. Interesting post on other businesses of breweries. Adolph Coors had a technical ceramics company (predating prohibition) that produced a variety of labware for high temperature (at and above 1200C) heat treatments. We used Coors high alumina crucibles in our Materials Science lab through the 1980s and 90s. The company had used the familiar red script Coors mark on packaging, but now is named CoorsTek with updated font. Any more unusual side businesses?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: