Ales and Beers (17th, 18th and a bit of 19th Century)

[Eric]

... Right! I'm puffed up ("torrified"?) again! So where was I?

The question is, would "blown malt" add anything to beer?

There is, of course, only one way to answer that question, but maybe when treating less than 10 kg. I'll possibly have a go myself.

Untreated barley is what I torrefy and it does smell and taste different after the process. Whether that change still holds good for malted barley I don't know, but believe it must. What difference there might be if making Brown Malt is to difficult to guess.

Obviously it has to be done before the grains are milled, but even if we did, how could one know if we have no real Brown Malt to compare?

[PeeBee]

You will get your 10000 hits PeeBee, don't you worry. I'm convinced you will find much more to add in weeks to come, but if the next milestone was to be 100000, that would be a lot harder of course. ...

Well, this thread did get it't 10,000 hits, as you predicted. Trouble is: Wrong thread! This one has been around 21 months or so, it's the Beers (late 19th Century and 20th Century) one that I had dreamed of getting 10K in less than a year. Only a week left to get 2000 hits on that thread ... not going to happen really!

My own fault. I've not been very active on this forum, or brewing beer! I do need to summarise the stuff on Invert Sugars in that thread having come around to brewing a couple of Edwardian delights (excavated from brewery records by Ron Pattinson) only to find that I can't find my "recipes" for the necessary "Invert Sugars".

On this thread I need to summarise the stuff on 19th C. "brown malt" to get some 19th C. Porter on the go. For next Xmas! About time I started introducing "Brettanomyces" to get an approximation of "vatted" Porter that was so popular mid-19th C. It will also have been blended with 2/3rds "mild" Porter (i.e. not aged/vatted) before delivering to the Pubs. Hopefully, I can side-step that "blown" caper for the brown malt ... not only will it be a PITA to emulate, but apparently it wasn't so good though popular in London breweries because most was made nearby in Bedfordshire (more digging by RP).

I'd really like to repeat the c.1850 Whitbread Porter recipe. So popular for home brew because of Durden Park B.C.'s published recipe which I've said before seems to have got very distorted over time. RP has only in the last few days covered the period in his blog (in connection with his up-coming "Stout!" book): Whitbread Porter grists 1805 - 1940 (note the 1850 recipe ... only 3.3% black malt).



[EDIT: That link to 18th/20th C. Beer starts off with making Invert Sugar by the popular way of caramelising sugar syrup. The thread later ridicules this "method", for being utterly nonsense. I need to summarise the alternative method ... which is much closer to being "historically" correct, and also just happens to follow the Ragus technique.]

[Cobnut]

RE: 1850 Whitbread Porter

Who do we believe? The DPBC or Ron P? Both claim to have reviewed brewery records as the basis for their "recipes".

One of them must be wrong. At least one!

I've made the DPBC recipe twice, both times using Chevallier malt. It is certainly a challenging beer with the % of black malt that their recipe uses (not to mention the hops!), but the Chevallier malt adds a lusciousness which I really enjoy.

It is hardly a session beer, but worth making and hanging onto several bottles to drink over a period of months/years!

[PeeBee]

RE: 1850 Whitbread Porter

Who do we believe? The DPBC or Ron P? ...

I think we did cover that a while back?

The 1970s work by the DPBC is remarkable for still being a valuable resource today. I don't think anyone can doubt the original DPBC work. But the little booklet they produced appears to have introduced rounding errors and the like which pushes some of the figures out of step with what RP is digging up now-days.

Over 5% black malt in the 1850 Porter, when RP isn't seeing that much in their Stout of the same period (not suggesting that Stout had proportionally more). And I don't think 5% black malt appears in anyone's Porter for the period? I imagine RP works out his percentages to ridiculous accuracy (2DP) to avoid such errors? The other explanation might be the amount of 1970s HB-shop (Boots?) supplied pale malt needed to get the extract required would distort the amount of black malt suggested (if it had been added as a proportion of the pale). Note the booklet always quotes amounts, not proportions/percentages.

Conclusion: The recipe in the DPBC's booklet is wrong!

[patto1ro]

RE: 1850 Whitbread Porter

Who do we believe? The DPBC or Ron P? ...

I think we did cover that a while back?

The 1970s work by the DPBC is remarkable for still being a valuable resource today. I don't think anyone can doubt the original DPBC work. But the little booklet they produced appears to have introduced rounding errors and the like which pushes some of the figures out of step with what RP is digging up now-days.

Over 5% black malt in the 1850 Porter, when RP isn't seeing that much in their Stout of the same period (not suggesting that Stout had proportionally more). And I don't think 5% black malt appears in anyone's Porter for the period? I imagine RP works out his percentages to ridiculous accuracy (2DP) to avoid such errors? The other explanation might be the amount of 1970s HB-shop (Boots?) supplied pale malt needed to get the extract required would distort the amount of black malt suggested (if it had been added as a proportion of the pale). Note the booklet always quotes amounts, not proportions/percentages.

Conclusion: The recipe in the DPBC's booklet is wrong!

My explanation for why our recipes differ is probably because of quarters. A volume measurement. Later brewers went over to weight quarters, which were a standard 336 lbs.

In 1850, they were using volume quarters. A quarter of pale malt did weigh around 336 lbs. But quarters of brown and black malt were much lighter, 250-260 lbs. If you count all quarters weighing the same, you'll get a higher black malt percentage.

It doesn't even matter if Durden Park looked a different batch to me, the grist was always the same: 142 quarters of pale malt, 50 of brown malt and 8 of black malt. I work on the basis of a quarter of pale malt being 336 lbs, brown and black, malt 256 lbs. Which gives percentages of 76.27% pale, 20.46% brown and 3.27% black.

Assuming all quarters weigh the same, gives percentages of 71%, 24% and 4%.

Some records list the weight of the quarter (Truman and Reid, for example). In those cases I use the weight given in my calculations.

[Cobnut]

Thanks Ron, that makes sense.

Looking at what I brewed, it was 79.3% Chevallier malt, 15.2% (modern) brown malt and 5.5% black malt. I’m sure I base this on the DPBC recipe (albeit that is written in Imperial units).

Hopping on both occasions was a calculated 80 IBU using Goldings on one occasion and a Fuggles type hop the other time.

So quite a bit more black malt than your version(s); very dark and a lot of roasty bitterness, albeit it does mellow a bit with time and the lusciousness from the Chevallier malt works well.

I do plan to rebrew, so will try altering the proportions to somewhere closer to your figures.

I also plan to brew another recipe which is an Amber ale from 1814 which is 70/30 pale and Amber at OG 1041. It does seem rather a lot of Amber malt…should be interesting!

[PeeBee]

Thanks from me too, Ron ... a somewhat more elegant explanation than I could make, and not one I'd dare to make 'cos it would have hinted at me making personal criticisms (okay, I'm lying, 'cos if I did know it, I wouldn't think twice about making personal criticisms, 'cos I'm an insufferable git ... and proud of it!).


Trouble is, all these explanations (mine too!) ain't covering "brown malt" which is quietly doin' its own thing and not playing ball with these numbers (the flippin' brown quantities seem to be moving the opposite way to the black malt?). I.e. Black Malt increases in the DPBC figures compared to RP's figures, brown gets less.

And Cobnut ... if you think I rant on and on about wrongly using "modern" brown malt in these early recipes, wait to you try amber malt (if you're thinking of using "modern"). The modern stuff in the proportions suggested by 19th C. recipes will draw your ar** up to your mouth (astringent x10). (I know, 'cos I've done it!).

[Cobnut]

And Cobnut ... if you think I rant on and on about wrongly using "modern" brown malt in these early recipes, wait to you try amber malt (if you're thinking of using "modern"). The modern stuff in the proportions suggested by 19th C. recipes will draw your ar** up to your mouth (astringent x10). (I know, 'cos I've done it!).

I have to say that particular recipe does worry me a touch...30% amber malt is rather a lot!

I am wondering whether the DPBC suggested method of making my own from pale malt in my over might make it a bit less intense...anyone tried it?

[PeeBee]

Drag yourself off to THBF and search for "amber small beer" posted by me or "Cwrw666". "Cwrw666" swears by the DPBC "make-your-own" stuff.

Last time I made DPBC's "Cobb & Co's Amber Small Beer" (guessing that's the recipe you have?) (I made in Nov 2020) I used Simpson's Imperial Malt: Diastatic and EBC 45, but probably not very "authentic" and I used 40% not 30%. Since I developed my fabrication methods to cover Amber Malt, but not tried on that "Cobb's" recipe.

[Cobnut]

It’s the Edward Winch and sons amber ale from 1814.

Current plan is to use Crisp No. 19 MO and Crisp Amber malts OG 1041 with a Fuggle type hop to 39 IBU (calculated).

[PeeBee]

It’s the Edward Winch and sons amber ale from 1814.

Current plan is to use Crisp No. 19 MO and Crisp Amber malts OG 1041 with a Fuggle type hop to 39 IBU (calculated).

Here's one from RP, bit off-subject (1867) but in line with the discussion on Amber Malt:

Reid Export Treble Stout - Shut up about Barclay Perkins

57% Amber Malt! I pity the poor loon who attempts to make that with modern-day Amber Malt!

But, does look an interesting beer. Malt Miller now supply this Simpson's "Cornish Gold" stuff (EBC 24 and diastatic) ... might work to substitute most of the Amber? Along with a scrap of Simpson's Imperial (45 EBC and yet also diastatic, but it can have a distinctive flavour about it). Crisp's Amber Malt is about 65 EBC and not diastatic, but they do mention a difference between "kilning" and "roasting" and even that their amber was known as "white malt" ... that needs some delving in to.


Also, he's recently posted concerning his up-and-coming book "Stout!" (Shut up about Barclay Perkins). In which he writes "All the history - except for the vague early 18th century - polished off.".

He forgets, it's only "vague" to him 'cos he reads loads on the subject and there's often a lack of consensus between different reports. Whereas if you only read one article you know exactly what's going on!

[f00b4r]

Doesn’t white malt just mean air dried?

[f00b4r]

Hmm it’s looks like it might be used in different ways depending on the country:

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2008 ... 0.html?m=1

But Weißbier does refer to be with
containing air dried malt, hence why some “wheat” beers like Berliner Weiß never contained wheat.

[PeeBee]

Doesn’t white malt just mean air dried?

That's how I viewed it. But the rot started just a few years ago when reading something about drying malt in the Sun. Didn't cover cold, damp, places ... like the UK! 'Cos the malt went mouldy.

Since then, White Malt crops up in all sorts of unexpected places ... like Crisp's description of Amber Malt! And although I've had a bit of a look this afternoon, I'm no wiser as to what Crisp are rabbiting on about with malt being kilned or roasted?

And you seem to be hitting the same conundrum? I have, only this afternoon, wrestles with "wit" (white) and "wheat" getting muddled (using Google!). Works the other way, like the famous one of a small bird in the UK called a "wheatear", the name derived from "White Ars...". (Apparently!).

[PeeBee]

Ahhh! I may be reading Crisp's description wrong. See what you think:

This is the palest malt made using a roasting technique. After conventional kilning, the malt is dry and pale in colour hence it is known as “white malt”. It is transferred to our Speciality Malt Plant and passes through the roasting column where the flavour is transformed through the application of heat. The temperatures used through the column determine the colour and flavour of the roasted malt.