Has anyone compared heirloom barley to m o?

[PeeBee]

The Lovibond "X" range were "Ales" that were amongst those replacing "Porters" as the preferred alcoholic malt drink in the 19th century. They were sold "mild" (unaged) and the last examples of "Ale" in Britain. They were hopped ales, but typically had less hops than beers about then (like porter); about a third or quarter the hop quantity. They (and the X-Ales from many other breweries) were the fore-runners of "Mild Ale". The darkening came later (early 20th century), the strength dropped with WW1, and the stronger XXX and XXXX "Ales" dying out before then (good thing too, unaged OG 1.070+ ales don't appeal to me!).

I've come on a long way with Chevallier barley malt since the Usher's 60/- Pale Ale mentioned near the beginning of this old thread (no longer on DPBC's Web site). I've just casked two "Victorian" Bitters two/three days ago made with Chevallier barley (the only "landrace" selected malting barley we have access to, and the dominant malting barley for Victorian times).

I think Chevallier barley malt has to be mashed carefully and fermented with dextrin adverse yeasts to get the best out of it. And it is superb! But many "contemporary" brewers don't see the point; short 66-67C mashes, fermented with aggressive yeasts, etc., it just comes out like any other malt.

[An Ankoù]

So what's the verdict on Chevallier, then?
(I personally think it's amazing and quite unlike any other pale ale malt. Yep, I get the honey- to start with- it ages out. Yep, it eats IBUs)
What about the other Heritage malts from Crisp's? I've done a lager (of all things) with Plumage Archer- very good if I do say so myself.
Did another one with Hanà. Ok, but I really haven't got the best out of this malt yet. I think a protein rest and decoction mash are probably in order.
Just to labour the point: Chevallier is amazing. The OP asks if anyone tried substituting it for, eg, MO, but it's not a substitute,l it's completely different. Try doing Pattinson's Lovibond 1864 with it.

There are two significantly different beers, X and XXX, under Lovibond 1864 on Ron’s site. Which one are you referring to?

Good morning.
Neither of those. I'm referring to 1864 XB, which RP categorises as a pale ale and the equivalent of an ordinary bitter. It has an OG of 1053 and three substantial hop charges at 90, 60 and 30 minutes.
The recipe is in his Vintage Beers book.

Good morning PeeBee
Could you clarify what you mean by dextrin adverse and aggressive yeasts. Is this just about attenuation levels are you referring to some other element. Chevallier's not cheap and I certainly want to get the best out of it.

[f00b4r]

Cheers Ankoù , I will have to dig out the book later and take a look.

[Marshbrewer]

1864 XB is a cracking pint; but it's even better brewed with Chevalier.

[PeeBee]

Ah, the Lovibond 1864 XB in his (RP's) book, not the Web site (no sign of XB there). One of the ones I've just done is Morrell's 1889 Bitter from Edd's now defunct Website ... the Lovibond XB should make a good replacement? Considerably more hops, but the malt should handle that. The Morrell's is just marginally stronger. There's a Lovibond XXB 1864 too about somewhere?

[An Ankoù]

Ah, the Lovibond 1864 XB in his (RP's) book, not the Web site (no sign of XB there). One of the ones I've just done is Morrell's 1889 Bitter from Edd's now defunct Website ... the Lovibond XB should make a good replacement? Considerably more hops, but the malt should handle that. The Morrell's is just marginally stronger. There's a Lovibond XXB 1864 too about somewhere?

I can post you the recipe if you like.

By the way: both the mild recipes X and XXX call for white malt. I suppose that's just something like MO extra pale?

[PeeBee]

... Good morning PeeBee
Could you clarify what you mean by dextrin adverse and aggressive yeasts. Is this just about attenuation levels are you referring to some other element. Chevallier's not cheap and I certainly want to get the best out of it.

Aye, it's me referring to "attenuation" in somewhat woollier terms 'cos I reckon "attenuation" figures are being referenced out-of-context and in misleading ways. I'd stick many "old-English" yeast strains in the "dextrin adverse" category, like Wyeast's "Whitbread" strain (#1099), "West Yorkshire Ale" (#1649), "Ringwood" (#1187) and dried yeasts like S-33 and "Windsor". All have "attenuation" % figures in the high 60s.

Combined with mash temperatures, you can get FGs you choose out of Chevallier barley malt (timing gets more critical for fast converting modern malts).

Here's the two "Victorian Bitters" I did recently as examples. The first with nothing special, mashed 80 minutes at 67°C, 30 mins at 69°C:

1880 Simond's Bitter VI.JPG (37.49 KiB) Viewed 9027 times

Finished at SG 1.018 (pyknometer, the Tilt gets a bit unreliable for FG). And the second mashed at 62-63°C for 90 mins, then 30 mins at 69°C:

1889 Morrell's Bitter IV.JPG (38.95 KiB) Viewed 9027 times

Finished at SG 1.012 (pyknometer, but this is a more reliable Tilt PRO). Ignore the slightly tardy fermentation and slow "creep" at the end, it was due to a slight error preparing the starters - both #1187, actually both from the same pack.

I can't do that customisation with "modern" malts and yeast.

"Aggressive" yeasts have attenuation figures of about 80%, or more even.

[PeeBee]

Ah, the Lovibond 1864 XB in his (RP's) book, not the Web site (no sign of XB there). One of the ones I've just done is Morrell's 1889 Bitter from Edd's now defunct Website ... the Lovibond XB should make a good replacement? Considerably more hops, but the malt should handle that. The Morrell's is just marginally stronger. There's a Lovibond XXB 1864 too about somewhere?

I can post you the recipe if you like.

By the way: both the mild recipes X and XXX call for white malt. I suppose that's just something like MO extra pale?

What, the XXB? I have Ron's book for the XB. Does Lovibond's large amount of hops need plenty of time before it's drinkable?

Durden Park Beer Circle's booklet has "white malt" replacement down as half/half Pale Malt and Lager Malt (or MO extra pale). Also calls it "East India Malt" 'cos it would have been used for the early IPAs. I've no reason to argue with them on this!

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

Here at the S Cheshire Malt Buying Co-operative we have been told the following from Crisp

"They have had low enzyme activity reports. You need to mash at 63C and for an extra 30 mins. Also using 10% pale malt helps

The enzyme activity is low on the Chevallier but 10% ex pale addition brings it up to modern levels. The mash conversion relies on the enzyme levels (malt DP), enzyme dilution (liquor to grist) and enzyme activity (time, temperature and pH).

When converting the starch, not all of it is fully fermentable. A lower temp/ longer mash increases the activity and time, so you get more fermentable. In reality the mash would be converted after 10 min – so you will hit OG, but it won't be very fermentable."

https://southcheshire.co.uk/store/index ... duct_id=80

[f00b4r]

Here at the S Cheshire Malt Buying Co-operative we have been told the following from Crisp

"They have had low enzyme activity reports. You need to mash at 63C and for an extra 30 mins. Also using 10% pale malt helps

The enzyme activity is low on the Chevallier but 10% ex pale addition brings it up to modern levels. The mash conversion relies on the enzyme levels (malt DP), enzyme dilution (liquor to grist) and enzyme activity (time, temperature and pH).

When converting the starch, not all of it is fully fermentable. A lower temp/ longer mash increases the activity and time, so you get more fermentable. In reality the mash would be converted after 10 min – so you will hit OG, but it won't be very fermentable."

https://southcheshire.co.uk/store/index ... duct_id=80

Really interesting and seems to tie with real world experience of a number of people that have brewed with it over the last few years. A lot of people up the bitterness quite a bit too relative to other pale malt, did Crisp mention anything about that with regard to Chevalier or their other heritage malts?

[PeeBee]

Here at the S Cheshire Malt Buying Co-operative we have been told the following from Crisp ...

OB! So you've wandered across here; good to hear from you.

I think Crisp are being a bit "generalised" with their advice. They've chosen to only focus on the beta-amylase (that breaks things down to highly fermentable maltose) which is weaker compared to modern malt. This is what the 10% pale malt "fixes": If you want to fix it! Personally, I do not!

But mashing low (63°C) and giving it an extra 15 minutes is advisable (30 seems excessive, but I do usually step the mash up to 69°C over 30 minutes). Made a mistake not long ago and mashed for 15 minutes less which resulted in the fermentation finishing at 1.027 which certainly wasn't the plan. Nothing that 1/2 pack of S-04 couldn't fix (that's right; the much maligned S-04, it sank the FG to 1.012, trouble is I was aiming for 1.018).

The alpha-amylase is no worry (breaks down starch and like to shorter chains like dextrin). All the starch gets quickly converted like with modern malt.


Using this "feature" of Chevallier barley malt I'm beginning to get quite good at brewing to a set FG. You can do it with strongly enzymatic modern malt but it's a lot, lot, harder. My Xmas porter is a Ron Pattinson gleaned recipe for an 1804 Barclay Perkin's porter with a FG of 1.018 - and it ain't excessively sweet 'cos the left over dextrin isn't that "sweet" (lends a hell of a "weight" to the finished beer though). "1804"? There is something up with that! I'll come back to it.

The yeast needs carefully selecting so it doesn't touch the fermentable dextrin (even S-04 is too aggressive as illustrated above, something like US-05 probably ferments Chevallier barley malt worts like it was made from modern malt).

"1804"? Chevallier didn't come on the scene until 1820s. But we have no examples of other "landrace" barley strains so using "Chevallier" is better than using a hybrid like Maris Otter, etc. And "Chevallier barley malt makes much better tasting beers too (not that we might notice using the "wrong" yeasts). DP also focuses mainly on beta amylase activity; a figure derived from "reducing sugars" (e.g. maltose) not dextrin which is what alpha-amylase is responsible for.


You've mentioned "DP" ("Diastatic Power"). I tried to use that to determine fermentability. Be warned! The information available to home brewers is often complete pants! I fell foul of bo11ocks entered into to Beersmith's ingredient database. Took me ages to figure out why it was making no sense.

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

[quote=f00b4r post_id=860897 time=1639654798 user_id=14394]
[quote="Obadiah Boondoggle"]Here at the S Cheshire Malt Buying Co-operative we have been told the following from Crisp

"They have had low enzyme activity reports. You need to mash at 63C and for an extra 30 mins. Also using 10% pale malt helps

The enzyme activity is low on the Chevallier but 10% ex pale addition brings it up to modern levels. The mash conversion relies on the enzyme levels (malt DP), enzyme dilution (liquor to grist) and enzyme activity (time, temperature and pH).

When converting the starch, not all of it is fully fermentable. A lower temp/ longer mash increases the activity and time, so you get more fermentable. In reality the mash would be converted after 10 min – so you will hit OG, but it won't be very fermentable."

https://southcheshire.co.uk/store/index ... duct_id=80[/quote]
Really interesting and seems to tie with real world experience of a number of people that have brewed with it over the last few years. A lot of people up the bitterness quite a bit too relative to other pale malt, did Crisp mention anything about that with regard to Chevalier or their other heritage malts?
[/quote]

I can ask Crisp their views on upping the IBU - will let you know

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

Hi PeeBee

Yes, I find other potential meeting places a bit tiresome

Your point about SO4 is interesting - Crisp said it should be fine, but I have struggled with attenuation using it

A couple of brewing buddies have used 05 and not had the same issue

OB

[MashBag]

I do like the sound of chevalier, has anyone just replaced say 75% of the MO is a modern recipe?

To my mind this would highlight the real difference?

[PeeBee]

Hi PeeBee

Yes, I find other potential meeting places a bit tiresome

Your point about SO4 is interesting - Crisp said it should be fine, but I have struggled with attenuation using it

A couple of brewing buddies have used 05 and not had the same issue

OB

The following is the beer that "stuck" at 1.027 (a bit of rousing budged it down two points). But you can see when the S-04 engaged. Took about a week to get going, but then fermented down to 1.009 (according to Tilt hydrometer, but I've recorder FG as 1.012 ... I don't trust the Tilt for "milestone" measurements and use something else). The image is clipped from Beersmith as I lost the original TiltPi created graphs.


US-05 has a documented attenuation of about 80% and would probably fermented it even further (which is why I'd never use it). In this case the original yeast was S-33 picked because it struggles to ferment any sugars bigger than maltose (other yeasts attack the remaining dextrin, starting with maltotriose) .

The remaining dextrin isn't responsible for the honey, creamy, etc. flavour of Chevallier barley malt (dextrin doesn't taste much), but certainly enhances those flavours. It's certainly feasible to attenuate Chevallier barley malt worts by 80%, but why? It is then not much different to modern malts, which just happens to be a lot cheaper to buy.

I was using a "dextrin adverse" liquid yeast (Wyeast "Ringwood" #1187) for those Bitters I illustrated earlier in this thread. Look for attenuation figures lower than 70% for other "dextrin adverse" yeasts..

I do like the sound of chevalier, has anyone just replaced say 75% of the MO is a modern recipe?

To my mind this would highlight the real difference?

I've not tried it in one of my "modern" recipes, because I'd assume I'd be wasting my time because I wouldn't want the "qualities" and flavours it brings, and probably wouldn't get them either. But I would still be paying the premium to use Chevallier barley malt to not get the qualities it can bring - that wouldn't make sense to me. But what does make sense; the more people that buy it whether they need it or not, the more the growers grow it thus securing a continued supply for me!

So use it! I've used as little as 33% in "old" recipes because it does make a real difference. Tell us how you get on!