It is on the edge of burnt. Could see it in a stout though.
English Ales - What's your favorite recipe?
- Thread starter Puddlethumper
- Start date
-
- Tags
- recipe
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
The you might have hit the small spot that is easy to overdo. As long as it is not bitter, it should be good to use.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
I would think it is up in that range. Hard to say exactly.
I'm tempted to brew a mild and have this invert be the only thing contributing to the color. Probably the best way to judge the flavor and color contribution.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 979
- Reaction score
- 1,238
Do update once you have brewed and tasted the dark mild.
RonP has often stated that US milds may look right, but usually don't taste right because typically use adjunct grains instead of invert. That said, when Ronnie was at Machine House Brewery in Seattle with his two sons, he took a big swig of the house mild (made without invert) and proclaimed "now that's a good mild!"
A link to the machine house mild recipe: Machine House Mild Clong
I've got a mild planned for next week, I think I will experiment with actually inverting the sugar this time.
Gonna add 0.3L water per 100g sugar as usual but what amounts of citric acid and sodium bicarbonate to aim for? Something like 300mg citric per 100g sugar and 150mg sodium bicarbonate per 100g sugar feels like it should get the job done?
Gonna make the invert night before brewing, will heat sugar solution to 80c, add acid and then let reach a simmer for 5 min or so before adding sodium and put aside. A mix of white cane, light muscovado and a little dark muscovado will be used. No long cooks since I am still very convinced in my impression that even though some maillard reactions may have happened, sugar makers took active steps to avoid caramellisation.
Gonna add 0.3L water per 100g sugar as usual but what amounts of citric acid and sodium bicarbonate to aim for? Something like 300mg citric per 100g sugar and 150mg sodium bicarbonate per 100g sugar feels like it should get the job done?
Gonna make the invert night before brewing, will heat sugar solution to 80c, add acid and then let reach a simmer for 5 min or so before adding sodium and put aside. A mix of white cane, light muscovado and a little dark muscovado will be used. No long cooks since I am still very convinced in my impression that even though some maillard reactions may have happened, sugar makers took active steps to avoid caramellisation.
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
I tried this, the colour contribution was really low. Result was a a bit darker golden ale. Good beer though!
Colindo
Well-Known Member
I'm still trying to consolidate @Witherby 's findings with descriptions of invert sugars elsewhere. My previous understanding was that Belgian recipes use high-pH inversion and British use low-pH inversion, so if at all the Maillard reaction would be a feature of the Belgian syrups. We know now that even with low-pH inversion we can get Maillard by early neutralisation. My question then would be to all:
I checked many old patents regarding invert sugar or saccharum, as it was called. The inventions themselves are usually not useful, because they are tiny details of the whole process or might even have remained unused. What is useful however are the description of prior art, describing the way invert sugar is usually made. I found two patents with relevant information regarding standard invert sugar manufacturing for brewing.
The first patent is from 1871 by Garton in Southampton.
The second patent is from 1914 by the brother of Ragus' founder.
Conclusion: Both patents describe only a late neutralisation after heating has taken place. The heavy filtering that is employed also is supposed to take away the colour. Both patents describe similar processes as the 1896 papers I cited earlier, where the process was much more difficult to understand, but also used late neutralisation and heavy filtering.
- Do you think there is any difference in the end product between a Belgian high-pH syrup and a British one with early neutralisation?
- Would anyone consider the flavours that Witherby got to be similar to syrups obtained by mixing golden invert with molasses (referring to earlier discussions and Ragus methods)?
I checked many old patents regarding invert sugar or saccharum, as it was called. The inventions themselves are usually not useful, because they are tiny details of the whole process or might even have remained unused. What is useful however are the description of prior art, describing the way invert sugar is usually made. I found two patents with relevant information regarding standard invert sugar manufacturing for brewing.
The first patent is from 1871 by Garton in Southampton.
In the invention he changes this process to using raw cane juice and applying heavy filtering at the end, arriving at the same product.
The second patent is from 1914 by the brother of Ragus' founder.
Conclusion: Both patents describe only a late neutralisation after heating has taken place. The heavy filtering that is employed also is supposed to take away the colour. Both patents describe similar processes as the 1896 papers I cited earlier, where the process was much more difficult to understand, but also used late neutralisation and heavy filtering.
I would so love to have a source for that. I never read that anywhere but in your posts.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
Historical recipes use up to 25% invert sugar. I have one from the 90s still doing that (3.5% ABV), but no definition of which colour invert was being used.
I don't really recall the amount I've used. Might very well have been around 20%, but I'm not sure tbh. Could have been 10% as well.
We actually can quickly establish a ballparkish experiment to get an idea of the colour contribution.
In my case, 3kg grain on 18 litres of water is pretty standard. 20% of 3kg is 0,6 kg. Divided by 18 equals 30g of invert per litre.
This means 15g syrup per half a litre or roughly per pint.
Dissolve this amount of syrup in a pint and you get an idea about the colour contribution in the final product.
And please share a day light picture!
Thanks for the digging!
A hint regarding caramel or not, might be that the above cited persons took active steps to get the colour out of the sirup. To me this also sounds like they tried to get the caramelised part out of it, if possible.
And nobody talks about prolonged heating for flavour purposes. I think that this would have been mentioned if used.
@Colindo the user PeeBee over at the British forum linked to earlier in this thread has done a ton of research on the subject, ron himself has also chimed in on that thread.
They both seem to support the notion that color in the different grades of invert came from varying degrees of impurities in the starting sugar and later back adding of molasses, and that caramellisation was considered undesirable.
Looking through the sources provided here and in those threads I also have a hard time finding any evidence for caramellisation providing substantial colour since the whole heating process seems to have been a fairly quick affair.
They both seem to support the notion that color in the different grades of invert came from varying degrees of impurities in the starting sugar and later back adding of molasses, and that caramellisation was considered undesirable.
Looking through the sources provided here and in those threads I also have a hard time finding any evidence for caramellisation providing substantial colour since the whole heating process seems to have been a fairly quick affair.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
The first patent talks of boiling for up to 12 hours as a general guideline. But yeah, the attempt of removing the colours is quite unexpected.
@Erik the Anglophile I'll need more time to dig through the whole thread. I was hoping on a direct reference to ease everyone's experience.
Oh, I've missed that one. He says 1 to 12 hours, depending on amount of acid used and concentration of the sugar.
Interesting.
I think that very thin and almost neutral pH sirup is inverting almost on its own giving heat and enough time. It also won't caramelise much es the temperature wouldn't rise much because of the water content. That could be the worst case 12h boil?
Colindo
Well-Known Member
I read the first page on DeeBee's thread and it is painful to read. He seems to be completely new to the topic and seems to think adding "tasteless glucose" is an issue for invert sugar. He seems not to know that invert sugar is about 50% "tasteless glucose" and that glucose has an enormous impact on fermentation and yeast flavour profile. Jeez!
I also remember now that he is the chap that mixed 15 different malts to try and recreate "historic brown malt". I could not finish that thread either back when I first noticed it.
His sources on the first page are the same I gave, the 1896 papers about sugar. So much for that. What is really great though is that he also referenced one of Ron's pages that I forgot about which always was my main argument against mixing with molasses.
Look at the table, check what are the differences between the three syrups are and then tell me again that DeeBee is right with saying "the difference was purity, not colour". I mean come on guys, think! People would use all kinds of words differently than nowadays, so just saying the invert was of "cheaper quality" would have nothing to do with impurities but only with its colour and therefore its usage in cheaper beers. "The palest invert was reserved for the highest quality pale ales" does not at all hint at any other difference than colour. It is just a statement of usage.
My conclusion: It was always about the colours and they were obtained by extended boil times, nothing else.
I also remember now that he is the chap that mixed 15 different malts to try and recreate "historic brown malt". I could not finish that thread either back when I first noticed it.
His sources on the first page are the same I gave, the 1896 papers about sugar. So much for that. What is really great though is that he also referenced one of Ron's pages that I forgot about which always was my main argument against mixing with molasses.
Look at the table, check what are the differences between the three syrups are and then tell me again that DeeBee is right with saying "the difference was purity, not colour". I mean come on guys, think! People would use all kinds of words differently than nowadays, so just saying the invert was of "cheaper quality" would have nothing to do with impurities but only with its colour and therefore its usage in cheaper beers. "The palest invert was reserved for the highest quality pale ales" does not at all hint at any other difference than colour. It is just a statement of usage.
My conclusion: It was always about the colours and they were obtained by extended boil times, nothing else.
Ash and iron content doubles and triples whereas water percentage even increases with colour. This means they must have added something else to increase the non-sugar part. Molasses would be a reasonable possibility. I interpret ash as "Glührückstand" which is everything non-carbon and non-liquid after basically burning the sirup.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
Ash doubles from 1 to 2, but does not quadrupel from 1 to 3, so there is no correlation with colour.
Iron doubles from 1 to 2, but does not quadrupel from 1 to 3, so there is no correlation with colour either.
Water content does not correlate with any of the above. So my conclusion is that these are natural fluctuations and / or measurement inaccuracies. I would find it extremely dangerous to use anything here without a clear correlation.
Iron doubles from 1 to 2, but does not quadrupel from 1 to 3, so there is no correlation with colour either.
Water content does not correlate with any of the above. So my conclusion is that these are natural fluctuations and / or measurement inaccuracies. I would find it extremely dangerous to use anything here without a clear correlation.
If it was just about color they could add caramel coloring.
There is a nice discussion in the Boak and Bailey blog about why brewers used sugars: Why Did Brewers Use Sugar?
Sometimes it was cost. As stock ale went out of favor and quick turnaround running ales took over, sugar could help bring beer into good condition faster. But color and flavor were key especially in dark milds.
If you want color and flavor, start with unrefined raw cane sugar like turbinado or Demerara. These sugars have the molasses in them. If you only have refined sugar and molasses you can get to a close approximation of the color and flavor.
I am done experimenting with really long bakes and will most likely just do a quick invert of one of the darker raw sugars since they are easily available and not too expensive and have great flavor.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
@Witherby Many thanks for the blog text. They provide great references that I will probably go through later. They are missing a key one though that I would like to recommend to anyone, since it is quite a light and entertaining read: https://ia800708.us.archive.org/vie...file=10.1002%2Fj.2050-0416.1896.tb00087.x.pdf
To understand why brewers used sugar, adjuncts and also such large mixtures of malt from all over the world (eight different pale malts in this Scottish recipe from 1894) we need to understand that in the time around 1880 when the Free Mash-Tun Act was passed, glasses started appearing in pubs due to the cheaper mass manufacturing that had started around 1850. Within a few decades British brewers brewed only clear beer, while before it was quite possible to be served intensely cloudy beers, especially mild beers. This was because malt was generally poorly modified and depending on where it was grown contained far too much protein.
Malts from other sources could offset this, so that it became a science for brewers to create bright beer by mixing malts of differing origins. This became significantly easier with adjuncts, since maize and rice are low in protein. Maize was used for this purpose up to the 90s by many British breweries and was only made redundant once maltsters changed the malt such that beer would always come out clear. Irish moss and other finigs probably also helped.
With sugar the protein content was much easier to correct because it has virtually none. Even the worst malt can be used in a low-gravity beer with lots of sugars because all you have to do is reduce the protein content until the beer looks clear. This is also the explanation why brewers kept saying that beers finished fermentation faster: Yeast precipitates faster in clear beer than in hazy beer, so even though fermentation is finished at the same speed in both instances, the beer can be sold earlier if it is less hazy.
To understand why brewers used sugar, adjuncts and also such large mixtures of malt from all over the world (eight different pale malts in this Scottish recipe from 1894) we need to understand that in the time around 1880 when the Free Mash-Tun Act was passed, glasses started appearing in pubs due to the cheaper mass manufacturing that had started around 1850. Within a few decades British brewers brewed only clear beer, while before it was quite possible to be served intensely cloudy beers, especially mild beers. This was because malt was generally poorly modified and depending on where it was grown contained far too much protein.
Malts from other sources could offset this, so that it became a science for brewers to create bright beer by mixing malts of differing origins. This became significantly easier with adjuncts, since maize and rice are low in protein. Maize was used for this purpose up to the 90s by many British breweries and was only made redundant once maltsters changed the malt such that beer would always come out clear. Irish moss and other finigs probably also helped.
With sugar the protein content was much easier to correct because it has virtually none. Even the worst malt can be used in a low-gravity beer with lots of sugars because all you have to do is reduce the protein content until the beer looks clear. This is also the explanation why brewers kept saying that beers finished fermentation faster: Yeast precipitates faster in clear beer than in hazy beer, so even though fermentation is finished at the same speed in both instances, the beer can be sold earlier if it is less hazy.
Nah, I reject this idea now. Might be the right approach for nowadays Ragus copies, but anything up to at least 1914 has to be done without molasses. I'm still unsure if it should also be done without the neutralisation, as my posted sources indicate, but maybe that is a question on whether one wants modern or traditional flavour. Or British flavour vs Belgian flavour.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
Sorry, forgot to answer to that. I meant colour was the differentiating attribute of the sugar. Not that that is what brewer's wanted in their beer. I'm pretty certain they wanted the flavour of exactly the sugar they chose, together with having the simple sugars as a yeast flavour booster. Expecially in light beers, where flavour from malt would be reduced.
Many of the breweries were using proprietary sugars. Do you think they all made them the same way or were both methods used?
Colindo
Well-Known Member
British or belgian flavor IMO is really not about the process (chemistry is chemistry, so the processes should be very similar) but rather the starting sugars. The Belgian sugars (modern ones anyway) are beet sugar and not cane sugar at all. So The "british flavor" is really just the impurities in the cane sugar used as a base i.e. molasses
Combine that difference with british yeast vs belgian yeast and you end up with two incredibly distinct brewing traditions. I bet if you took a belgian dark strong recipe and fermented it with a british yeast you would get a quite passable Old Ale or Barleywine. And if you ferment a bitter recipe with a belgian yeast and overcarbonated it, you would get a pleasant belgian pale ale
All of these details matter little if we are unable to perceive the difference in a finished beer after all
Invert sugar made using acid is usually neutralized to only pH 5, for two reasons.
1. For protection from bacterial infection during storage.
2. To match that of wort pH when added to the kettle towards the end of the boil.
This is unlikely to invoke a Maillard reaction.
1. For protection from bacterial infection during storage.
2. To match that of wort pH when added to the kettle towards the end of the boil.
This is unlikely to invoke a Maillard reaction.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
For what I remember, there's a strong difference between the making of Belgian Candi syrup and British invert. The Belgian one is done without acid and with the addition of nitrogen in various forms to promote maillard reactions and the British is made with acid to invert the sugar.
But I might remember it wrong.
Colindo
Well-Known Member
Ironically there is much less difference between Belgian and British yeasts, especially those from Yorkshire.
I guess that depends on how you attempt to quantify differences. Belgian yeasts are commonly POF+ (not always) which is universally a flaw in a British beer.
The ester characteristics are very different to the palate, as are the residual malt profiles.
In my experience they are very different from an end result perspective. They may be very close from a genetic perspective though
Colindo
Well-Known Member
Okay, I was thinking something was off with your reasoning in the earlier post, but dear lord!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Pilsner Malt Comparison: Rahr vs. Weyermann vs. Great Western vs. North Star- Latest: FranklinsBeerTower
-
-
Side quest! Hobby talk including beekeeping- Latest: Brockness Monster
-
-
-
-
