Durden Park recipes

Get advice on making beer from raw ingredients (malt, hops, water and yeast)
David Edge

Post by David Edge » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:05 pm

Is that not because we know have malt that is well modified, very high is diastatic power and of generally constant quality, compared to what was available when the recipes where developed
My sentiments entirely. I still think you need to compensate for the thicker mash when brewing at home; but perhaps only up to 90 minutes, but that's quite independent of what the old brewers did - I think their mashes were less thick and they boiled longer, and of course made a second and third brew.
One thing to note is that when the old guys spoke of mashing for an hour they meant stirring the damn thing with paddles - that was then followed by a two hour rest!

SteveD

Post by SteveD » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:15 pm

David Edge wrote: My sentiments entirely. I still think you need to compensate for the thicker mash when brewing at home; but perhaps only up to 90 minutes, but that's quite independent of what the old brewers did - I think their mashes were less thick and they boiled longer, and of course made a second and third brew.
One thing to note is that when the old guys spoke of mashing for an hour they meant stirring the damn thing with paddles - that was then followed by a two hour rest!
Hence the 3hr Durden park mash, and my assertion that the recipe book advocates 3 hr mashes for historical reasons. But, at the end of the day, as even the Durden Park blokes don't mash for 3 hrs, more like 60-90 mins - there's no need for us to do so in order to sucessfully brew their recipes.
Last edited by SteveD on Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seveneer

Post by Seveneer » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:17 pm

SteveD wrote:Hence the 3hr Durden park mash. At the end of the day as even the Durden Park blokes don't mash for 3 hrs, there's no need for us to in order to sucessfully brew their recipes.
Now that I do agree with. :D

User avatar
Andy
Virtually comatose but still standing
Posts: 8716
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:00 pm
Location: Ash, Surrey
Contact:

Post by Andy » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:35 pm

Well you guys should know :lol: :wink: :whistle:
Dan!

SteveD

Post by SteveD » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:46 pm

Andy wrote:Well you guys should know :lol: :wink: :whistle:
Phil! Do something! :lol:

User avatar
TC2642
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2161
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Somewhere between cabbaged and heavily cabbaged

Post by TC2642 » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:53 pm

SteveD wrote:
David Edge wrote: My sentiments entirely. I still think you need to compensate for the thicker mash when brewing at home; but perhaps only up to 90 minutes, but that's quite independent of what the old brewers did - I think their mashes were less thick and they boiled longer, and of course made a second and third brew.
One thing to note is that when the old guys spoke of mashing for an hour they meant stirring the damn thing with paddles - that was then followed by a two hour rest!
Hence the 3hr Durden park mash, and my assertion that the recipe book advocates 3 hr mashes for historical reasons. But, at the end of the day, as even the Durden Park blokes don't mash for 3 hrs, more like 60-90 mins - there's no need for us to do so in order to sucessfully brew their recipes.
Totally agree, I tend to use 1:2 - 1:2.2 ratio of grain to water, and mash for 90mins. I collect less wort but then I do batch sparge until I get to 25ltrs. We also have very good 2 row malt in this country which is excellent for brewing with.
Fermenting -!
Maturing - Lenin's Revenge RIS
Drinking - !
Next brew - PA
Brew after next brew - IPA

Seveneer

Post by Seveneer » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:12 am

SteveD wrote:
Andy wrote:Well you guys should know :lol: :wink: :whistle:
Phil! Do something! :lol:
Don't know what he's on about. :-#

Alton_Bee

Post by Alton_Bee » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:08 am

Seveneer wrote:
SteveD wrote:
Andy wrote:Well you guys should know :lol: :wink: :whistle:
Phil! Do something! :lol:
Don't know what he's on about. :-#
LOL -nor do I :lol:

User avatar
spearmint-wino
CBA prizewinner 2007
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Nunhead, Sarf Lahndun

Post by spearmint-wino » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 pm

I've been putting a few of the recipes I like the look of into BeerToolsPro and scaled up to various brewlengths from the stated 1 imp. gallon.

Some of the recipes look to have a very high number of IBUs, and in some cases the BU:GU ratio is 1:1 (or greater), even for beers which are marked as quick-drinkers in 2-3 months. Surely this wouldn't give enough time for 80ish IBUs to smooth out so I was wondering if I've gone wrong somewhere or the recipes really are this bitter? (and I should just be more bl**dy patient ;) )

drinking: ~ | conditioning: ~ | primary: ~ | Looks like I need to get brewing then...
Visit London Amateur Brewers online

steve_flack

Post by steve_flack » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:38 pm

Yes, they really are that bitter.

User avatar
spearmint-wino
CBA prizewinner 2007
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Nunhead, Sarf Lahndun

Post by spearmint-wino » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:47 pm

Wow :shock:, people must have been way hard back then!

drinking: ~ | conditioning: ~ | primary: ~ | Looks like I need to get brewing then...
Visit London Amateur Brewers online

David Edge

Post by David Edge » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:09 pm

and in some cases the BU:GU ratio is 1:1 (or greater)
Don't be fooled by the myth of brewing by numbers. BU:GU is flawed because it fails to take account of residual sweetness which helps make high bitterness a lot more acceptable. Corran cites Richardson's work published in 1804 which gives a final gravity of 1052 for an 1110 strong ale. Even common ale only came down from 1075 to 1025.

User avatar
spearmint-wino
CBA prizewinner 2007
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Nunhead, Sarf Lahndun

Post by spearmint-wino » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:33 pm

I did have the 'don't brew by numbers' mantra running through my mind when questioning the results of the the scaled-up recipes. As I've not got a huge amount of brewing experience behind me I can only go on what I've heard/read when coming up against something like this, and these types of formulas can be helpful for newbies like me in the absence of experience.

Which brings me round to another thought. I would have thought with such a high gravity wort I would need to up my pitching rate to at least 2 sachets of of S-04/Nottingham/whatever. Would it be worth only pitching one sachet and preserve some of this residual sweetness? Or pitch two, so it attenuates right down and have a belter of a christmas brew? :twisted:

drinking: ~ | conditioning: ~ | primary: ~ | Looks like I need to get brewing then...
Visit London Amateur Brewers online

David Edge

Post by David Edge » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:52 pm

BU:GU is a reasonable approximation for contemporary beers, but have you had your hop utilisation measured? If not, you're only working off taste anyway.

To preserve sweetness you want to mash hotter and use a lower attenuating yeast. However, thick mashes with lots of amber malt won't ferment out very dry anyway, so to switch to Windsor might be over-egging it. If you're fermenting 25 litres of 1080 use a second sachet to get a good ferment going quickly to avoid off flavours resulting from unhealthy yeast and bacteria getting going first. Some yeast-Vit might not go amiss. You won't be able to control final gravity by under-pitching, but you may bring on other faults. That said I used to ferment forty litres up to 1068 with a single sachet of Safale before I had Jamil to tell me (and the people who awarded me prizes) we were wrong!

The risk you run with under pitching on strong ales is that the yeast will be knackered at the end, may fail to condition and will autolyze during long maturation. Do you like Marmite? (maybe) In your beer? (almost certainly not).

There's an old BC article that gives a lot of good advice on brewing strong ales by Matthew Jolly. Matthew's one of the leading lights in the North Cotswold Brewers.

http://www.craftbrewing.org.uk/bcpdf/BC2-5_oct2002.pdf

The stated 1 imperial gallon is just a convention, by the way, to allow you to adjust to your own brewlength. I think most people brewed two or three gallons of strong ales.

User avatar
spearmint-wino
CBA prizewinner 2007
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Nunhead, Sarf Lahndun

Post by spearmint-wino » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:10 pm

Thankyou, very helpful 8)

drinking: ~ | conditioning: ~ | primary: ~ | Looks like I need to get brewing then...
Visit London Amateur Brewers online

Post Reply