English Ales - What's your favorite recipe?

[Miraculix]

I'm sure it's great. I have a bit of an issue with trusting a light touch - if malty is good, more malty is better. Funny because in many other ways, finesse and a subtle touch in cooking is my thing. Basically, a flaw in that I don't trust the lighter MO will be as rich, malty....therefore as good.

It is just a bit paler. Think of it as MO pilsner.

 

[cire]

It is just a bit paler. Think of it as MO pilsner.

Precisely that. It can be thought of as Pilsner Malt with less protein grown in a less Continental climate.

 

[eshea3]

I have the dual (heating-cooling) Inkbird, and have a seedling germination mat in the fridge so I can bring the temp up, if wanted. It's not the most robust heating element, but it works to raise past room temp a few degrees. I used to use a personal "My Heat" heater, which worked perfectly to keep fermentation temps in frigid ambient temps (brutal wisconsin winters, in the unheated garage), but that's not an option for me now that I open ferment and the heater depends on a fan to distribute the heat. Still, a thought.

Try a reptile lamp as a heater in the fridge.

 

[Shenanigans]

Thanks for the feedback guys.
Sounds like it would be good for one of those new style WC IPAs.
Are there any British style beers (with british hops and yeast) where a pilsner base malt is normally used?

I'm trying to choose between this and an Irish lager malt which has a novelty factor as it was grown and called after a place near where I grew up.
Think I'll just go ahead and get 10kg of each as the postage is the same for 0 to 31Kg from Ireland.

 

[Miraculix]

Thanks for the feedback guys.
Sounds like it would be good for one of those new style WC IPAs.
Are there any British style beers (with british hops and yeast) where a pilsner base malt is normally used?

I'm trying to choose between this and an Irish lager malt which has a novelty factor as it was grown and called after a place near where I grew up.
Think I'll just go ahead and get 10kg of each as the postage is the same for 0 to 31Kg from Ireland.

You can brew pretty much any bitter with pilsner as a base. Did that many times. Historically continental malt has been used when available and/or they were cheaper than the UK malts.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Hmm, could have been Gällivare?

I think you’re correct. We went all that way to look at computer screens. We were looking at control systems for the new Coca Cola factory in Wakefield Yorkshire. Previous trips were better as we went to Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen and Peroni in Rome. Happy days.

 

[HM-2]

Hi guys, I have a malt question.
Anybody have experience with Maris Otter Extra Pale Ale?
I'm looking at ordering some from Muntons but the only difference I see is that it around 4 ECB instead of 4-6 ECB for the normal Maris Otter.

I have seen in the BrewDog recipe book that they use it for about 20 recipes, mostly IPAs.
I guess they use it as it's more accessable for them than 2-Row that is used in the USA.
Probably a little less intense than the normal Maris Otter and lets the hops shine more.

I was just wondering if there is any advantage of using it in a simple English style ale like a bitter.
Sounds like it would be somewhere between normal MO and Lager malt.

Thanks!

I tend to buy the Simpsons extra pale MO as every little helps with keeping the EBC down in NEIPAs due to my using a lot of golden naked oats.

I can discern no real difference in flavour between extra pale and standard pale MO from the same maltster in my experience.


I've just used it alongside Czech Pilsen in a WCIPA at 44% of the grist each.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I was just wondering if there is any advantage of using it in a simple English style ale like a bitter.
Sounds like it would be somewhere between normal MO and Lager malt.

Personally I wouldn't - the whole point of trad English styles is that each component makes a contribution, it's all about balance between those different components and using extra pale rather than pale disrupts that balance. There's a reason why British maltsters tend to kiln darker than pale malts from other countries.

It's a bit different for hoppier styles, and it's quite common for "juicy bitters" to have some or even all pilsner/extra pale - Dark Star Hophead is an example. Personally I think that anything more than about 20-30% pilsner/XP doesn't work as well even for the hoppy stuff (as a cask beer and/or at "normal" cask ABVs) as it noticeably thins out the body to the detriment of the overall balance of the beer. And I'm all about balance.

I'd imagine it would be great for something like an Alt though.

 

[user 246304]

Yes, I open ferment all my English ales, usually in a Yorkshire square set-up, recirculating the fermenting wort to rouse the yeast into action.

View attachment 765483
View attachment 765484

Standard practice for a decent top-cropping Yorkshire yeast.

From a discussion last night, had no idea a member actually did it - came up with a home-version of a true Yorkshire square. I'd love to learn more. Someone brought up the key point that it isn't just about recirc'ing the wort up and over the top of the barm - which is basically what I do, with a ladle or spoon - but because of the "manhole" in the upper chamber (here, the top pot), the yeast more or less stays in the upper vessel, making later skimming more effective, while the fermenting wort drains out to the bottom chamber.

I realized later last night that I'd never really thought about this - given that this isn't merely recirculating one vessel, but this setup - how does the wort actually ferment well, when you have a highly flocculant yeast that is more or less partitioned between the two vessels? Am I being clear in what I'm asking?

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

I think the gist of it is that the barm drops down in to the beer from the upper trough,
and is then pumped up from the bottom at set intervals to repeat the cycle.
Mixed with krausen forming this also serves to aereate the yeast as Yorkshire type yeasts require loads of oxygen.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

You can brew pretty much any bitter with pilsner as a base. Did that many times. Historically continental malt has been used when available and/or they were cheaper than the UK malts.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

I don't think that the methods used to make Watney Red Barrel are particularly helpful to modern brewers looking to make the best possible beer. I'd suggest this stat from a mere 7 years ago is perhaps more helpful, bearing in mind that Otter is barely 5% of UK malting barley :

https://beertoday.co.uk/2016/09/05/maris-otter-champion-beer-0916/
I've not seen a more recent update so I suspect the ratio isn't quite as favourable as it was then, there's only been 4 CBOBs since 2016 and two were dark beers where there's less benefit, the only "classic" bitter CBOB since then has been Shere Drop - which uses Otter.

 

[user 246304]

I'd suggest this stat from a mere 7 years ago is perhaps more helpful, bearing in mind that Otter is barely 5% of UK malting barley :

https://beertoday.co.uk/2016/09/05/maris-otter-champion-beer-0916/
I've not seen a more recent update so I suspect the ratio isn't quite as favourable as it was then, there's only been 4 CBOBs since 2016 and two were dark beers where there's less benefit, the only "classic" bitter CBOB since then has been Shere Drop - which uses Otter.

I'm a bit loathe to use either Warminster or Fawcett MO in my stouts and porters, though one of them is a Taddy Porter clone and it calls for MO - and I suspect, Sam Smith does actually use MO here? At any rate, have several planned - the Taddy, the 1890 Truman RIS from Ron Pattinson, and, coming, an entire from Graham Wheeler's first book. Likely also the 1915 Courage and 1924 RIS's as well, also from Ron Pattinson's book. Guinness draft. An impression of Hook Norton's Twelve Days.

Have loved Golden Promise in some beers I've now made with it (it was wholly new to me prior to coming back recently).

All this said - looking for pale malt suggestions precisely for these darker ales. Hate to "waste" the Warminster or Fawcett under the dark and heavy cloak of the other ingredients. We do carry Munton MO at our store.

 

[user 246304]

I think the gist of it is that the barm drops down in to the beer from the upper trough,
and is then pumped up from the bottom at set intervals to repeat the cycle.
Mixed with krausen forming this also serves to aereate the yeast as Yorkshire type yeasts require loads of oxygen.

Thanks Erik, I'm probably overthinking it because obviously, er, it works. I do know of the critical need for O2 which this helps provide, but was overthinking in terms of how much yeast is left suspended in the recirc'ed wort as it drains from the top chamber.

I just rouse the whole thing, dipping a ladle down just into the wort then pouring it from 6-10" above the fermenter; or using the ladle to sort of "drown" the barm, pushing it down forcefully and really mixing it up. All this for a few minutes. So far that's for about the first 72-80 hours and I'm guided by the thickness and quality of the barm (as well as gravity reading(s) ) to tell me when fermentation is starting to slow, which is when I both harvest and stop rousing.

But now I see how different this is from the real thing. Curious how the 2-chamber possibility like @McMullan built (I'd love to build that - didn't see a build thread?) results, vis-a-vis the simple rousing thing I and others do.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

On a homebrew level manually rousing with a ladle is probably enough.
But unnecessary unless you actually have a true Yorkshire square evolved yeast...

 

[kmarkstevens]

For an even simpler Yorkshire Square cheat, could you simply aerate the wort of a few minutes a set number of times per day for the first 48-72 hours? Would this give something like the Yorkshire Square yeast enough oxygen?

I'm not looking for perfection, but an easy way to get part way down the rabbit hole before deciding to go whole hog. My half dozen experiments with Yorkshire Square when it was release from the vault strain was all over the place, and ranged from not very good to POF positive that the brew club crew thought it was not great a saison yeast.

 

[McMullan]

A Yorkshire square, even at home-brew scale, is the most effective way to rouse yeast back into the fermenting wort and knock out quite a lot of the dissolved CO2 potentially reducing stress on the yeast cells. I don’t recognise the logic of actually aerating fermenting wort once fermentation peaks. It makes no biological sense, to me. I think it was just a reasonable (but wrong) assumption some brewers made back in the day. A standard (single vessel) square fermenter is the next best open system for English ales, it fails to capture yeast automatically and isn’t designed for such vigorous rousing.

 

[McMullan]

I realized later last night that I'd never really thought about this - given that this isn't merely recirculating one vessel, but this setup - how does the wort actually ferment well, when you have a highly flocculant yeast that is more or less partitioned between the two vessels?

It ferments better because recirculating rouses the yeast back into the fermenting wort in the FV. When they blow out into the yeast trough and flocculate in sufficient quantity, a few hours or so later, they get roused back in again. And so on. It gets them off the bottom of the FV too.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

A Yorkshire square, even at home-brew scale, is the most effective way to rouse yeast back into the fermenting wort and knock out quite a lot of the dissolved CO2 potentially reducing stress on the yeast cells. I don’t recognise the logic of actually aerating fermenting wort once fermentation peaks. It makes no biological sense, to me. I think it was just a reasonable (but wrong) assumption some brewers made back in the day. A standard (single vessel) square fermenter is the next best open system for English ales, it fails to capture yeast automatically and isn’t designed for such vigorous rousing.

But getting some aeration during that process is without doubt.
And isn't the point of a Yorkshire square or manually rousing such yeasts that you need to do it because those types of yeasts otherwise floccs before they're done wich results in under-attenuation and possibly some weird flavours?

 

[McMullan]

But getting some aeration during that process is without doubt.

Maybe a little, but not as much as assumed. The yeast don’t need it. The wort is recirculated occasionally and only for a minute or so during peak fermentation, when most CO2 is evolving at a high rate and being knocked out of the wort too - shielding the fermenting beer from air/O2.

And isn't the point of a Yorkshire square or manually rousing such yeasts that you need to do it because those types of yeasts otherwise floccs before they're done wich results in under-attenuation and possibly some weird flavours?

Yes, they flocculate so readily one strain can behave like two, sitting either underneath the wort or floating on top of it (which provides another barrier against air). Without rousing, things can get quite sluggish and under attenuate with a less balanced beer. The biggest ‘off flavour’ for me is a yeast profile accentuated out of balance due to under pitching. Under pitching English yeast is a weird home brew thing that makes ‘home brew’ stand out like a sore thumb, imo. Nothing like commercial traditional English ales at all. They pitch at a much, much higher rate. With more delicate, lower gravity ales, a sluggish fermentation delaying things risks partial infections introducing potential off flavours knocking things out of balance too. But that goes for any sluggish fermentation, including those due to under-pitching practices. Regardless, we want to get the fermentation started and done as soon as. And a Yorkshire square is how it’s done with traditional Yorkshire yeast.

 

[user 246304]

A Yorkshire square, even at home-brew scale, is the most effective way to rouse yeast back into the fermenting wort and knock out quite a lot of the dissolved CO2 potentially reducing stress on the yeast cells. I don’t recognise the logic of actually aerating fermenting wort once fermentation peaks. It makes no biological sense, to me. I think it was just a reasonable (but wrong) assumption some brewers made back in the day. A standard (single vessel) square fermenter is the next best open system for English ales, it fails to capture yeast automatically and isn’t designed for such vigorous rousing.

Thanks for all this and I'm truly impressed with your build (and coming to know more of your experience and knowledge - here and mentioned on British site(s)). Do you have a build thread somewhere?

A Yorkshire square, even at home-brew scale, is the most effective way to rouse yeast back into the fermenting wort and knock out quite a lot of the dissolved CO2 potentially reducing stress on the yeast cells.

You mean, as you've done, right - literally, a true Yorkshire square, but on the home-scale?

I don’t recognise the logic of actually aerating fermenting wort once fermentation peaks. It makes no biological sense, to me. I think it was just a reasonable (but wrong) assumption some brewers made back in the day.

So far, I rouse 3X daily for a few minutes each time, watching the barm; and stopping once it shows sign of ebbing. In other words, I don't stop at peak fermentation, but after, very soon after, when the first sign of slowing down takes place. So far, that has been at about 72-80 hours post-pitching. I should also mention I'm kind of amazed how quickly these beers have fermented out, and equally pleased how they're tasting - esters and fruitiness, but balanced and pleasurable. But always up for learning and improving - and also, this isn't inconsequential - tapping as best as possible time-honored traditional practice. That's really important to me.

A standard (single vessel) square fermenter is the next best open system for English ales, it fails to capture yeast automatically and isn’t designed for such vigorous rousing.

Are you saying that an open square, by it's geometry, sort of helps constrain a "too-radical" hand-rousing, that can happen with a typical round, open fermenter? And can you please explain a bit what you mean by "fails to capture yeast automatically...."?

Someone somewhere, can't recall if it was on here or another site, built himself a nice little square fermenter, wood-insulated, if I recall correctly. Be nice to find the thread again, if anyone remembers.

Many thanks.

 

[McMullan]

The shape isn’t that important. You see Yorkshire rounds in some modern traditional breweries. And mines round rather than square too. I suspect it was just easier to make square Yorkshire squares, especially in stone, at some point in history, to occupy square brewery buildings. Equally, there’s no reason why we can’t use a single round FV as a standard square. Especially at home-brew scale.

The more vigorous rousing achieved using a Yorkshire square/round is more to do with breaking up the considerable volume of flocculant yeast on the bottom of the yeast trough (around the man or yeast hole, which projects up a little from the base) and washing it back into the FV below. The spraying wort merely channels a cavity through a small area of the yeast head foaming on top. Not all standard squares have ‘fishtails’ for spraying wort either. Some won’t recirculate wort at all. It depends on the yeast strain. Some top-cropping English strains don’t respond well, with the yeast head collapsing when sprayed. Ideally, it should grow and stabilise when sprayed. That’s what true Yorkshire strains do. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with how the yeast cell wall interacts with evolving CO2, clinging on to it long enough to hitch a ride out of the wort and escaping into the yeast trough.

 

[balrog]

 

[user 246304]

The shape isn’t that important. You see Yorkshire rounds in some modern traditional breweries. And mines round rather than square too. I suspect it was just easier to make square Yorkshire squares, especially in stone, at some point in history, to occupy square brewery buildings. Equally, there’s no reason why we can’t use a single round FV as a standard square. Especially at home-brew scale.

The more vigorous rousing achieved using a Yorkshire square/round is more to do with breaking up the considerable volume of flocculant yeast on the bottom of the yeast trough (around the man or yeast hole, which projects up a little from the base) and washing it back into the FV below. The spraying wort merely channels a cavity through a small area of the yeast head foaming on top. Not all standard squares have ‘fishtails’ for spraying wort either. Some won’t recirculate wort at all. It depends on the yeast strain. Some top-cropping English strains don’t respond well, with the yeast head collapsing when sprayed. Ideally, it should grow and stabilise when sprayed. That’s what true Yorkshire strains do. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with how the yeast cell wall interacts with evolving CO2, clinging on to it long enough to hitch a ride out of the wort and escaping into the yeast trough.

Excellent. Thanks again.

 

[kmarkstevens]

@McMullan so the key is the rouse the yorkshire yeast multiple times per 24 hour period. It's not about aeration, although the rousing aerates to a small degree. Do I have this correct?

So, does this mean in theory on the homebrew scale, one can just gently stir the yeast say 3-4x/day to rouse it, and that should get at least part of the way to a Yorkie brew?

 

[McMullan]

so the key is the rouse the yorkshire yeast multiple times per 24 hour period. It's not about aeration, although the rousing aerates to a small degree. Do I have this correct?

Yes, but there is no to insignificant aeration, none detectable in terms of effect. If the procedure is performed correctly, the wort gets sprayed through a blanket of CO2, not air. I have tested it in a closed system (under an airlock) and observed a comparable fermentation and comparable beer. Aeration serves no purpose here. It’s a myth, imo.

So, does this mean in theory on the homebrew scale, one can just gently stir the yeast say 3-4x/day to rouse it, and that should get at least part of the way to a Yorkie brew?

In theory, that’s all some English top-cropping yeast strains need, but if using a genuine Yorkshire square strain, it won’t be enough to produce a comparable beer, ime. You’ll likely get a perfectly fine beer, if all other factors of good brewing practice are covered, but it won’t be the same. There’s a common saying that “there’s more than one way to skin a cat”, but it really depends how you prefer your skinned cats. There are lots of ways to make beer, but not when we drill down to specific regional styles.

 

[user 246304]

Yes, but there is no to insignificant aeration, none detectable in terms of effect. If the procedure is performed correctly, the wort gets sprayed through a blanket of CO2, not air. I have tested it in a closed system (under an airlock) and observed a comparable fermentation and comparable beer. Aeration serves no purpose here. It’s a myth, imo.

Then I've been doing it wrong. I will lift the barm up and drop it from about 10" or so high, over and over for a few minutes; but more, I will agitate the hell out of it all with pretty vigorous stirring designed to drive the barm back down into the wort, but also, I'm sure, to get air into the yeast all the way through peak fermentation. Think scrambling eggs with a fork, before cooking them - you kind of maintain a constant ribbon of egg, while foaming it to some extent with air whipped into them (well, the latter not really, but that's another story. Most people "froth.").

but if using a genuine Yorkshire square strain, it won’t be enough to produce a comparable beer, ime.

Hmm...given this info, unclear now exactly what the hand technique should be.

 

[Miraculix]

Then I've been doing it wrong. I will lift the barm up and drop it from about 10" or so high, over and over for a few minutes; but more, I will agitate the hell out of it all with pretty vigorous stirring designed to drive the barm back down into the wort, but also, I'm sure, to get air into the yeast all the way through peak fermentation. Think scrambling eggs with a fork, before cooking them - you kind of maintain a constant ribbon of egg, while foaming it to some extent with air whipped into them (well, the latter not really, but that's another story. Most people "froth.").



Hmm...given this info, unclear now exactly what the hand technique should be.

Wouldn't a magnetic stirrer be a possibility if it's all about the agitation and not about the aeration?

 

[McMullan]

Wouldn't a magnetic stirrer be a possibility

The thought crossed my mind at one time, but no, it’s so wrong. Think I just wanted to play with one of these:

 

[Shenanigans]

I need to read through the last few posts again.
Maybe I should just relax and have a have a home brew but I didn't realize what I was getting myself into by buying a pack of 1469 to try a Landlord clone.

I'll be fermenting in a normal 33l plastic bucket.
I do have a big SS spoon and a huge industrial sized whisk.
So I should be fine
Don't want to oxidize the hell out my beer by overdoing it though.
So need to know exactly at what stage to stop.

 

[Miraculix]

The thought crossed my mind at one time, but no, it’s so wrong. Think I just wanted to play with one of these:

Mate, honestly, there should be metallic stars in everyone's beer. It's a stir bar staple.