Difference between Porter and Stout?

[patto1ro]

It doesn't matter what label some brewery puts on their beer. Anybody
can label a bitter an ipa if they want. The point is, porter and stout
are two distinct styles, that's why there are two books in the Classic
Beer Styles series, one titled "Porter" by Foster, and the other "Stout"
by Lewis, with completely different recipes in each, rather than one
book titled "Porter and Stout".
Ray

The "Stout" book by Lewis is almost 100% unmitigated bollocks:

http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerbook.htm#stout

I wouldn't recommend anyone to take seriously anything in it.

 

[patto1ro]

All right then lets bring the debate over to chocolate malt.

I'll assert that chocolate malt is more appropriate in a porter than a stout. Color and flavor can both be derived from chocolate malt in a porter, but for most stouts it is an unorthodox means to the black end.

discuss.

You'll have to tell Whitbread that they were brewing their Stout wrong in the years 1920 to 1970, because they used a combination of chocolate malt and brown malt in their Stouts and no roast barley or patent malt.

 

[ndsgr]

Anyone ever entered a competition with one and told it was in the wrong category?

I think the closest anyone has come to distinction is late hop additions. That said, I sampled a late hopped stout at lagunitas' tap room.

 

[rayg]

I can tell by the fact that you are reverting to roast barley vs black malt that you haven't thought very hard about this. There was NEVER such a distinction in the UK. In the US there now exists that distinction, but the early produces of stout and porter didn't recognize it. Are you going to take my challenge and contact Sierra Nevada and tell them their porter and stout are made incorrectly? I am sure that when someone convinces them of that fact, they will change the recipes.

I already said earlier in the thread that there was no difference between
black malt and roast barley, and the head brewer at Guiness said so. If you
substitute black malt for roast barley in the second recipe that's fine, but
the two recipes are different and make completely different beers.

Ray

 

[rayg]

The "Stout" book by Lewis is almost 100% unmitigated bollocks:

http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerbook.htm#stout

I wouldn't recommend anyone to take seriously anything in it.

The book may be too technical for the average idiot homebrewer, but
to say that it's bollocks is...well, that's roflmao material. Lewis was
the head of the brewing program at UC Davis and has worked as a paid
consultant to breweries all over the world.

Ray

 

[EoinMag]

Hmm I think some of you take classification too seriously, the whole BJCP thing is a bit overdone with spurious reasons being taken to put beer in a category for the style nazis to get a hard on to.
Having worked as a barman for years in Ireland, if someone came into a bar and ordered a pint of porter they got Guinness, if they asked for a pint of stout, they got Guinness. Not because it was the only porter/stout that we had but because the nomenclature was correct in both cases.

 

[patto1ro]

The book may be too technical for the average idiot homebrewer, but
to say that it's bollocks is...well, that's roflmao material. Lewis was
the head of the brewing program at UC Davis and has worked as a paid
consultant to breweries all over the world.

Ray

I should have been more specific: the sections of the history of Stout are total bollocks. There is some good technical stuff in the book. Follow the link and read my review.

 

[rayg]

I should have been more specific: the sections of the history of Stout are total bollocks. There is some good technical stuff in the book. Follow the link and read my review.

Your interpretation of history is just as much bollocks as his is, if it is.
The topic of this thread is: "Difference Between Porter and Stout". Not:
What was the historical interpretation of the words "stout" and "porter"?

If you don't want to use Guiness as the base model for a stout like
I do, then don't. But if you do, you come up with at least two distinct
styles of beer, one labeled "porter", which has late hop additions and
a modest amount of dark grains (as a percentage of the grist), while
stout has a large amount of dark grain (as a percentage of the grist)
and no late hop additions. What some modern breweries call their
beers is irrelevant. A name is required for this beer:


6.6 lb lme
4 oz crystal 80
2 oz choc malt
2 oz black malt
1/4 ounce Magnum 60 min
1/2 ounce Northern Brewer 10 min
1/2 ounce English Fuggles dry hop

and a name is required for this beer:


3.3 lbs lme
4 lbs ale malt
1/2 pound flaked barley
6 oz roasted barley (or black malt)
1 oz Bramling Cross 60 min.

If you would prefer to call the first one "Fred" and the second one
"Wilma", that's fine, as long as you provide *some* name so that
I can know what you are talking about.

A much better question would be "What is the difference between
brown ale and porter", because there the styles blend into each other.
But "Porter" and "stout" are two quite distinct things.

Ray

 

[patto1ro]

If you don't want to use Guiness as the base model for a stout like
I do, then don't. But if you do, you come up with at least two distinct
styles of beer, one labeled "porter", which has late hop additions and
a modest amount of dark grains (as a percentage of the grist), while
stout has a large amount of dark grain (as a percentage of the grist)
and no late hop additions.

What I've been basing my assertions on are:

1. Having looked at the brewing records of three of the original London Porter breweries: Whitbread, Truman and Barclay Perkins. The breweries where mass-scale Porter brewing started in the 18th century.

2. Guinness. I've not seen their brewing records myself. But, David Hughes, the author of "A Bottle of Guinness please" has. Their Extra Stout and Porter had the same grist.

I'm crazy. I've spent the last five years studying historical Porter and Stout grists.

 

[patto1ro]

Here are some Guinness Porter and Stout grists:

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/irish-porter-london-porter.html

BTW, roast malt = black or patent malt.

 

[philrose]

This thread is beginning to take on troll like characteristics. Exit, Stage left.

 

[rockfish42]

Depending on the maltster in question, roast malt is generally slightly less dark than black patent. Hugh Baird's black patent is 560L and their roast is 500L. That's really just splitting hairs as they taste fairly similar, my personal preference is for the roast over the patent.

 

[remilard]

There can be a substantial difference as proteolysis during malting affects maillard reactions down the line. It's just that neither makes something a porter or a stout.

The archetype american stout, Sierra Nevada, is late hopped and there are English stouts late hopped as well. Rogue's stout which has done well in international competitions as a stout has late hopping and tons of chocolate malt.

If you have a beer and want to enter it into a BJCP (or BA) competition, there is usually a best place to put it. That doesn't mean that calling it the other thing is wrong.

 

[shanecb]

I already said earlier in the thread that there was no difference between
black malt and roast barley, and the head brewer at Guiness said so. If you
substitute black malt for roast barley in the second recipe that's fine, but
the two recipes are different and make completely different beers.

Ray

Wait I just need to verify here... are you saying that black malt (you mean black patent I assume?) and roasted barley have no difference? Have you tasted them side by side? There is a marked difference between the two.

 

[rayg]

Wait I just need to verify here... are you saying that black malt (you mean black patent I assume?) and roasted barley have no difference? Have you tasted them side by side? There is a marked difference between the two.

The head brewer at Guiness says there is no difference in taste *in their
recipe*. I imagine if you make a beer with small amounts of either, there
is a difference. But if you use the huge amount typical of stouts, the basic
dark roast flavor overwhelms everything. I assume they use roasted barley
because it's cheaper than black malt (since it didn't go through the malting
process).

Ray

 

[rayg]

There can be a substantial difference as proteolysis during malting affects maillard reactions down the line. It's just that neither makes something a porter or a stout.

The archetype american stout, Sierra Nevada, is late hopped and there are English stouts late hopped as well. Rogue's stout which has done well in international competitions as a stout has late hopping and tons of chocolate malt.

If you have a beer and want to enter it into a BJCP (or BA) competition, there is usually a best place to put it. That doesn't mean that calling it the other thing is wrong.

If Sierra Nevada wants to call their beer a stout, they can, there is
no law regarding beer style names. If Saranac wants to call one of
their beers an IPA, even if it is indistinguishable from their pale ale,
they can do it.

What do you want to do, abolish beer style names altogether? Just
list the ingredients?
"Hey Bob, great beer! What is it?"
"Thanks Ray, why that's just a a 6poundoflightliquidmaltextracthalfpound10Lcrystal2ouncesofchocolatemalt1ozofgoldings60minhalfoznorthernbrewer10min."

Seems a little cumbersome to me.

Ray

 

[porter1974]

Just came across this thread. It’s great. I am more mixed up than ever on the difference.

 

[gunhaus]

How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[grampamark]

Hmm. It appears that my go to Porter recipe (loosely based on Deschute's Black Butte) may be a Stout. Unless it isn't.

Which raises the question: Should I call it "Fred" or "Wilma"?

 

[AkTom]

Oh, I like Wilma...

 

[Turkeyshot]

How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?

That depends. Are they porter fairies or stout fairies? I heard there was a difference in size.

 

[grampamark]

Oh, I like Wilma...

Yabba dabba doo.